Cayman’s latest wealth-structuring vehicle – the foundation company

Published: 26 Apr 2018
Type: Insight

First published in LexisNexis in April 2018

Private Client analysis: Carlos de Serpa Pimentel, partner and group head of private client and trusts, and Esmond Brown, associate, at Appleby take a look at the main features and statutory requirements of foundation companies (FCs) after the Cayman Islands’ Foundation Companies Law 2017 (FCL 2017) came into force.


What are the key features of foundation companies?

FCL 2017 establishes a company with separate legal personality and limited liability to function like a civil-law foundation or common-law trust. FCL 2017 is not a standalone law but is an addition to the Cayman Islands Companies Law and therefore FCs will be able to benefit from substantial Cayman jurisprudence applicable to Cayman companies.

There are some key differentiators of FCs from Cayman companies and these are:

an FC’s constitution must prohibit the FC from paying dividends to its members

an FC may entrench the company’s objects or other provisions of the constitution or impose conditions for amending them, for example to prevent the officer holders from making changes following the founder’s death

an FC may permit dispensing with members entirely provided that there is at least one supervisor in office at that time

How are these companies created?

An existing Cayman exempted company can apply to be an FC by registering with the Registrar of Companies or an entirely new FC can be established by registering (FCL 2017, Pt 2). When the application is successfully completed, the registrar will insert an endorsement on the certificate of incorporation declaring the company to be an FC.

The documents needed to form an FC are a memorandum and articles of association (a model constitution is given at FCL 2017, Sch 2). Additionally, founders may prepare optional bylaws that do not need to be filed and are not public documents . The bylaws are likely to act like letters of wishes for trusts, they are a series of rules set out by a founder to guide the exercise of discretion by directors, supervisors and other office holders.

The statutory requirements are set out in FCL 2017, s 4(1) for a company to be an FC:

it must be limited by shares or by guarantee, with or without share capital it must have a memorandum that:

states that the company is an FC

generally, or specifically describes its objects

provides, generally or by reference to its articles, for the disposal of any surplus assets the company may have on winding-up

prohibits dividends or other distributions of profits or assets to its members or

proposed members

it must have adopted articles

its secretary must be a ‘qualified person’ (licensed or permitted by the Companies Management Law (2003 Revision) and must approve all contributions to the FC for anti­ money-laundering purposes)

For what are clients using foundation companies?

Anything that clients currently use trusts or companies (for commercial, charitable, non-charitable philanthropic and wealth-structuring purposes) because FCs serve a similar purpose to a foundation, ie an alternative to a trust or company structure. However, the Cayman legislation has the advantage of establishing a company which has legal certainty and worldwide recognition that trusts do not possess.

Possible uses include:

to conduct a business for the benefit of a family

to fund a philanthropic project or carry out a founder’s wishes whose goal is not simply to make money for members

to hold high-risk, less diversified assets

to be part of blockchain structures-these act in the same way that Cayman companies are used for structuring initial coin offerings

FCs may also be useful to hold shares of a private trust company or for use in Cayman trust structures introduced by the Special Trusts (Alternative Regime) Law 1997. The ability to have beneficiaries with different entitlements will also be useful for asset protection purposes.

Are foundation companies popular with a particular type of client? Why?

We expect that clients in the Middle East will favour Cayman FCs because of their willingness to use foundations in other offshore financial centres and their tendency to be unfamiliar with the way trusts work. The fact that an FC is a corporate body, there is no trustee and there is no risk of invalidity or sham once the registrar’s certificate has been issued are likely to be the most attractive factors.

Encouragingly, there has already been a positive take-up of FCs with a good number on the register already.

Have there been any cases involving foundation companies yet?

There are none that we are aware of, yet, and it is still very early since the legislation was brought into force.

Any other thoughts?

A number of provisions contained in Cayman’s Trusts Law (2018 Revision) (TL 2018) are incorporated into FCL 2017. They include the foreign element or ‘firewall’ provisions which operate to deny heirship rights to the property of living persons and equally apply to property contributed to an FC (FCL 2017, s 3(4)), and TL 2018, s 48 also applies to FCs, enabling the FC to apply to the Grand Court for advice, opinion or directions.

The ability to establish an FC in the Cayman Islands has added a long-awaited and extremely useful vehicle to the Cayman Islands’ toolkit of wealth-structuri ng vehicles.

Interviewed by Robert Matthews.

The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor .

locations

Cayman Islands

services

Corporate

types

Insight

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Appleby-Website-Fraud-and-Asset-Tracing
8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Jul 2026

CIMA’s 2026 Reinsurance Thematic Review: Focus Points for Boards

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published its 2026 Thematic Review of Reinsurance Companies (Thematic Review). This reflects fieldwork conducted by CIMA between mid-2025 and Q1 2026 at selected Class B(iii) and Class D licensed reinsurers. The focus being on compliance with the Insurance Act (as revised) and other applicable legislation, regulations, rules and statements of guidance as issued by CIMA centering around stress-testing, cash flow testing frameworks, capital and collateral adequacy management, and corporate governance. Corporate governance weaknesses account for 68% of all findings with the remaining 32% spread across stress-testing, cash flow testing capital and collateral adequacy. Notwithstanding these findings, CIMA has noted several good practices across all areas including, importantly, comprehensive risk management frameworks covering key risk areas and strong capital and collateral adequacy monitoring processes. With Cayman’s reinsurance sector having grown to an institutional scale, and over 110 licensed reinsurers writing in the order of US$30 billion in annual premiums against over US$100 billion in assets, this latest Thematic Review demonstrates development in CIMA’s supervisory expectations of Cayman’s licensed reinsurers. It represents a reflection of the jurisdiction’s increasingly sophisticated and maturing reinsurance market and reinforces that CIMA’s expectations align closely with the standards that onshore counterparty cedants, rating agencies and US state regulators already expect. We take this opportunity to review certain of the key findings alongside CIMA’s cross-sectoral 2026 Thematic Review on Outsourcing, note some of the good practices highlighted by CIMA and make some associated recommendations for Cayman reinsurers.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
25 Jun 2026

CIMA Enforcement Action in Focus: Reminders and Recommendations

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has recently published a number of Enforcement Notices that provide helpful context for regulated entities, including Licensees and Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA), seeking to understand and meet their ongoing regulatory obligations in the Cayman Islands. In early June 2026, CIMA exercised its enforcement powers under SIBA Section 17 to cancel the registrations of several SIBA Registered Persons on the basis that it had reasonable grounds to believe that such Registered Persons had failed to meet certain key regulatory obligations. The Appleby Team takes this opportunity to review the relevant findings and CIMA enforcement action; and to highlight certain key obligations that attach to regulated entities in the Cayman Islands.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
23 Jun 2026

Important Cayman Islands Industry Advisory: Common Reporting Standard 2.0 and Economic Substance Updates

Further to the introduction of the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (the CRS Amendment Regulations or CRS 2.0), the Cayman Islands Department for International Tax Cooperation (DITC) has issued an Industry Advisory flagging certain key updates in respect of Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and Economic Substance (ES) reporting in the Cayman Islands. Cayman Financial Institutions will be required file 2025 CRS Returns and Declarations by 31 July 2026, ahead of the online DITC Portal’s closure to facilitate its transition to XML Schema v3.0. ES courtesy reminders (which have historically been sent by email to designated Responsible Persons in advance of annual ES reporting deadlines) will no longer be issued such that Relevant Entities will need to independently track such deadlines themselves. Updated Individual and Entity CRS Self-Certification forms, aligned with CRS 2.0, are now available online via the DITC website.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
18 Jun 2026

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers

In Peakwave Investment Management Ltd v Energy Evolution GP Ltd [2026] CIGC (FSD) 22, the Grand Court clarified the scope of joint provisional liquidators' powers following their appointment. In particular, the Court confirmed that the appointment of provisional liquidators does not automatically displace existing directors.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
17 Jun 2026

Property, Fairness and the Constitution: The Grand Court Marks the Boundaries of Freedom of Information

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has overturned a decision of the Ombudsman in a successful judicial review brought by Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd. (CUC), represented by Appleby.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
28 Apr 2026

The Interplay Between Supervision Applications and Winding Up on the Just and Equitable Ground: Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC

In its recent judgment in Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC [2026] CIGC (FSD) 19, the Grand Court considered itself bound to make a supervision order pursuant to s.131(b) of the Companies Act, notwithstanding that the company was the subject of a pending just and equitable winding up (J&E) petition when its voluntary liquidation was commenced; and rejected an attack on the joint voluntary liquidators’ (JVLs) independence, which was principally based on a misreading of the JVLs’ evidence and lacked any objective foundation. The authors, who successfully represented the JVLs in obtaining the supervision order, discuss this important judgment further below – which is believed to be the first decision on the interplay between supervision applications and J&E proceedings under the Companies Act – and offer their views on the guidance that shareholders petitioning on the just and equitable ground may derive from it in future cases.  The challenge to the JVLs’ independence was rejected on the well-established principles which Doyle J discussed in Re Global Fidelity Bank [2021] 2 CILR 361, and is not discussed in further detail below.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
23 Apr 2026

ReConnect 2026: Practical takeaways for Reinsurers, Cedants and Investors doing business in the Cayman Islands

The Cayman International Reinsurance Commercial Association (CIRCA) held its annual conference, [Re]Connect, last week at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman. This year’s [Re]Connect has once again demonstrated Cayman’s growing influence in global reinsurance and the strength of the jurisdiction’s regulatory, professional and commercial ecosystem. The event brought together 675 registered delegates, including reinsurers, cedants, major US law firms, audit firms, tax practices, asset managers, overseas regulators, industry leaders and rating agencies – as well as Appleby Cayman’s [Re]Insurance Team, with Miriam Smyth, Regulatory Counsel, speaking on a panel of experts on structuring, licensing and operating a Cayman insurer.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.