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 .

Share
More publications
Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).

IWD website preview
9 Mar 2026

International Women’s Day 2026 Roundtable: Rights. Justice. Action. For all women and girls.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a vision – it’s a call to action.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
3 Mar 2026

Cayman Islands Regulatory Round Up - Winter 2025/26

The round-up provides a concise yet thorough summary of regulatory developments relevant to financial service providers (FSPs) and other stakeholders in the Cayman Islands. It highlights key legislative changes, publications by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), updates on financial sanctions, and anticipates upcoming changes through "horizon scanning”. Links to the underlying CIMA publications, as well as related Appleby published briefings and e-alerts are available throughout this document. The information provided is “as of” 28 May 2025.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
16 Feb 2026

Preparing for and Managing a CIMA Onsite Inspection

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) is empowered, under the Monetary Authority Act and certain other regulatory laws, to inspect regulated financial service providers (FSP) in the Cayman Islands such as banks, trust companies, administrators, investment managers and virtual asset service providers for compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks. CIMA routinely conducts onsite inspections of such regulated entities – which can be full-scope (involving a review of all areas of a regulated entity's business operations) or thematically focused on specific areas such as corporate governance and/or internal controls, policies and procedures pertaining to AML/CFT/CPF. With the breadth and number of onsite inspections carried out by CIMA having increased through 2024 and 2025 we consider, in this briefing: (i) the CIMA onsite inspection process; (ii) the latest feedback available from CIMA in respect of inspections conducted to date; and (iii) some frequently asked questions in relation to CIMA onsite inspections.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
16 Feb 2026

Injunctive Relief in Another Form? Cayman Court's Jurisdiction to Appoint JPLs Despite Ongoing Arbitration

In Peakwave Investment Management Ltd v Energy Evolution GP Ltd [link],[1] the Grand Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to appoint provisional liquidators notwithstanding the fact that the company’s shareholders are engaged in an arbitration over its affairs, as mandated by a binding arbitration agreement. This article considers the decision and its implications.