E-signatures – Who needs ink anyway?

Published: 7 May 2020
Type: Insight

The global spread of COVID-19 and the sustained containment protocols in place including social distancing and quarantine, together with the anticipated prolonged remote working arrangements and travel restrictions, have brought some challenges to the way business must be done. This all means that many of our clients are now, more than ever, requiring the use of e-signatures to ensure corporate transactions can close where possible including the execution of transaction documents, corporate authorities and related documentation.

Fortunately, for Cayman this is simple and achievable.  The Electronic Transactions Law (2003 Revision) (ETL) puts electronic signatures on an equal footing with “wet ink” signatures in the Cayman Islands.


Technologically neutral, the ETL was established to promote public confidence in the validity, integrity and reliability of conducting transactions electronically and recognises electronic records as records created, stored, generated, received or communicated by electronic means.

The definition of an “electronic signature” under the ETL is deliberately broad:
“An electronic sound, symbol or process attached to or logically associated with the intent to sign the electronic record”.

Electronic signing typically involves either affixing an electronic signature to a document or using a digital signature application like DocuSign or eSign.

COMMON LAW

The common law adopts a pragmatic approach to what will satisfy a signature requirement. In determining whether the method of signature adopted demonstrates an authenticating intention the courts adopt an objective approach, considering all of the surrounding circumstances.

The ETL is not prescriptive as to the method of authentication protocol used. An electronic signature will be considered to be reliable where:

  • the means of creating the electronic signature is linked to the signatory and to no other person;
  • the means of creating the electronic signature was, at the time of signing, under the control of the signatory and of no other person; and
  • any alteration to the electronic signature, made after the time of signing, is detectable.


Statutory and Other Exceptions to Electronic Signatures of Any Kind

There are important notable exceptions.  Documents which cannot be signed electronically are:

  • Wills and other testamentary instruments.
  • Instruments which are required to be registered at the Cayman Islands Land Registry (including transfers of land, leases and charge instruments).

Electronic signatures should also not be used in Cayman where the requirements of a specific law, contract or an entity’s constitutional documents expressly provide (or may be interpreted to mean) that a hard copy document and wet ink signature are required.  Certain governmental, judicial or regulatory authorities may also require a wet ink original.  These exceptions should be considered on a case by case basis.

SPECIFIC Considerations

Different types of documents have different execution formalities.  Before an electronic signature is used, care must always be taken to ensure that any particular document is validly executed in accordance with the relevant statute and the requirements specific to the entity in question (for example, a company’s constitutional documents may require that deeds be executed under seal, or be signed by two directors).  Parties should also continue with the established practice of ensuring that the relevant signatory is duly authorised to sign and clear execution instructions are provided to signatories, as would be the case with ‘wet ink’ signing.

For further information please contact Caroline Barton or your usual Appleby contact.

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.