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

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

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

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).