Diving deep into the world of offshore transactions

Published: 4 Apr 2016
Type: Insight

The offshore transactions landscape in 2015 saw 2,969 deals announced — almost identical to the number of deals in 2014 but accounting for a 56 percent increase in deal value.1


This article examines in detail the nature of the deals seen in 2015, the possible factors driving up the overall value of these deals and finally, what 2016 may hold.

The nature of deals in 2016

In 2015 (perhaps unsurprisingly), insurance and financial services sectors continued to dominate the offshore transactions landscape. However, there has also been an emergence of deals in the information and communications sector, which continues to grow. In fact, three of the top five deals in the last quarter of 2015 were in this sector.

In addition, management and institutional buyouts saw some popularity with sums certainly worthy of mention.

There are essentially three core types of acquirer deals in the offshore world:

  • Minority Stake: There has been a big surge in popularity in these deals, up 15 percent from 2014. These transactions involve an initial stake in a company being acquired by a private equity firm, or an addition to an existing stake being bought for strategic purposes. With an offshore company involved, timing is not a significant hurdle, regulatory consent (where required) is relatively painless and efficient, and the certainty of law and structural precedence ensures smooth stakeholder acquisition.
  • Capital Increases: These involve companies selling more shares to their own shareholders, rather than third parties, as part of a fundraising. This is the most frequently seen deal type. Familiarity of investor base, aggressive timelines and a cash-rich environment all encourage and facilitate capital increase as a preferred method of funding.
  • Acquisitions: The majority of large deals fall within this pillar, with over $250 billion spent on offshore acquisitions alone in 2015. The value of the offshore region as a neutral venue for international deals is highlighted by the fact that just three of the top 10 involved acquisition companies that are based onshore.

With increasing activity, it seems that offshore legislation is striking the right balance between being sufficiently robust, but also able to be understood and applied as well.

In particular, Cayman Islands legislation as to mergers and acquisitions is now widely familiar and accepted. Investors understand the thresholds and a Cayman acquisition is a market standard. Take for instance the well developed area of dissenting shareholders and accompanying case law. Investors take comfort in this area.

VALUE OF DEALS SOARING

The average deal size in 2015 was $149 million, which is the highest yet recorded, seconded only by the previous high of $99 million set in 2007. The timing of the previous high might be a concerning coincidence for some given the current predictions for the markets. This deal size far surpassed the closest competitor region, North America, with its average of $97 million.

It is no secret that U.S. deal activity was driven by the impact of regulatory changes coupled with the competitive pursuit of size and scale. We saw a return to pre-crisis figures with deals of more than $1 billion accounting for two-thirds of total value.

The public market appetite has created strong competition for assets and an environment of top valuations has grown, putting pressure on valuations and causing leverage levels to rise, with purchase multiples following suit.

PE ACTIVITY AND DRY POWDER LEVELS

Private equity activity has long been a significant feature of the offshore M&A landscape. With a limited availability of asset classes in which to invest and gain exposure and successive years of high levels of distributions to limited partners (LPs), general partners (GPs) are looking for new ways to spend.

At the mid-year mark, there were projections of a liquidity rush as GPs cashed in on investments as a result of maturing funds with exit requirements to meet.

According to the latest data from Preqin2, total dry powder levels are at a record high, currently over $1.3 trillion, as the pace of investment has lagged fund-raising activity.

Bain’s Global PE Report 20163 reports that private equity deal-making in 2015 was “an eclectic mix, reflecting the whims of opportunity and timing” with investor appetite best described as robust.

As mentioned above, the availability of funds has stirred up heavy competition among general partners and corporate acquirers in the market, creating bidding battles that ultimately pushed up deal prices. As there is more competition (and shorter time frames provided by banks), investors risked overbidding. However, as optimistic as these figures appear, this volatile environment and attitude have many speculating that the climate is actually more frothy than it appears and this drive in values might not appear in near-future figures.

Corporate acquirers have been equally active. The benefit of their investment-grade credit ratings assisting their financing opportunities with lower-cost debt created financial strength and allowed them to bid higher (and accept lower rates of return than PE funds) on the assets they so eagerly wish to acquire.

With GPs and corporations out shopping in the same markets, each with their own unique set of favorable factors, the competitive pressure on topping asset valuations mentioned earlier seemed to grow. GPs are keen to find ways to put dry powder to work and looked for different ways to get around the increased competition. Bearing in mind the factor of high multiples and concerned and increasingly conservative lenders, it seems that traditional approaches to investing still excel.

According to Preqin, while the industrials sector dominated private equity-backed buyout deals in 2015, it was the IT sector where the most significant sums were spent — representing 34 percent of the total aggregate value of PE deals during the year4.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR 2016

While 2015 was undoubtedly a successful and record-breaking year, thanks largely to healthy market conditions, cash-liquid investors and managers, and confident investors, 2016 has started out cautious with much “watch and see” commentary. It is very difficult to identify exactly what factors will come into play, especially in the context of macroeconomics, and we are in an uncertain place in terms of outlook.

With respect to sectors, there is much speculation that the low cost of energy in the U.S. has many looking for opportunities in manufacturing, while technology and health care are expected to see an increase in valuations.

There is certainly no shortage of factors to consider and significant challenges face the market, including this year’s unpredictable U.S. presidential elections, continued discussion surrounding China’s apparent economic slowdown, economic and social instability in the Eurozone and the EU generally, including the U.K. referendum on EU membership, and the plunge of oil prices. Much remains to be seen on whether some or any of these factors will sedate the market or cause market players to apply any brakes to their more aggressive investment or acquisition tactics.

There seems to be a lowering of expectations among private equity fund managers, especially in the North American market when compared to their European counterparts. Ironically, what seemed to drive up deals in 2015 (pricing pressure and expectations) might be what causes the slower pace in 2016. Investors are concerned with the misalignment between buyers and sellers regarding price expectations. This is coupled with a growing deterioration in credit conditions potentially causing banks to scale back in stock and debt underwriting.

As suggested in Bain’s report, “facing sky-high acquisition prices, increased market volatility and stiffening economic headwinds, GPs know that the prudent course is to wait for deal multiples to ease.” Whether such advice is heeded, with the challenge of intense competition and the search for emerging deals and market, remains to be seen.

With the end of the first quarter of 2016 on us, latest reports indicate as much as a 25 percent fall in global merger activity from the previous year’s first quarter, and global initial public offerings dropping to their lowest level in years. However, after this choppy start particularly in M&A we have started what is hopefully a progressively steady upturn and we remain optimistic that it will at least remain stable. The offshore markets continue to see large deal activity and hopefully there will be equally exciting results to report next year.

Article first published by Law360, April 2016

1 Appleby Offshore-I Report, 2015 Annual Review
2 Preqin Private Equity Online platform, accessed March 2016
3 Bain & Co. Global Private Equity Report, 2016
4 Preqin, 2015 Private Equity-Backed Buyout Deals and Exits
Share
More publications
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.

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.