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-Corporate-Practice
26 Aug 2026

Comparative Analysis of Cayman and BVI Companies as Listing Vehicles

This article provides an in-depth company-law comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Cayman Islands and BVI companies as listing vehicles, with a view to assisting businesses in selecting the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for their listing vehicle.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
13 Aug 2026

Restructurings Frustrating Creditors And The Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards: The English High Court's Decision In State Oil Company Of Azerbaijan v Mansimov

The English High Court has issued a significant judgment on the enforcement of arbitral awards, the reach of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the limits of the Marex tort, with potential relevance to the Cayman Islands' Fraudulent Dispositions Act.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

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

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

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

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

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

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial.   The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance
13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.