Incorporating in Cayman - Special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs)

Published: 7 Aug 2024
Type: Insight

In a recent webcast ‘SPAC Notebook: Incorporating in Cayman‘, Woodruff Sawyer Partner and series editor Yelena Dunaevsky interviewed Appleby Senior Associate Alexandra Low to discuss the Cayman incorporation process and the reasons why SPAC teams are considering moving away from Delaware to incorporate in the Cayman Islands.


What are the advantages of incorporating in Cayman?

Alexandra Low: With our firm, there is a rapid turnaround time for incorporation once we get the compliance requirements to set up either the sponsor entity or the SPAC entity.

There is also the ability to tailor constitutional documents to suit applicable listing rules and regulations, and the ability to use different types of shares or warrants as required for particular SPACs. Flexible capital maintenance rules permit distributions and redemption and the repurchase of shares from a wide range of sources if the company needs to meet applicable solvency requirements.

Straightforward statutory merger regimes enable the SPAC to merge with its target. There is robust creditor protection, including in relation to the enforcement of security and facilitating the borrowing of additional funds.

Another advantage is the ability to redomicile to another jurisdiction on the de-SPAC side if required later.

The listing process for a SPAC is generally streamlined. Cayman gives immense flexibility to structure incentives in whatever manner investors demand.

Cayman also offers SPACs incorporating outside of the US a more efficient post-acquisition structure and removes additional US tax, legal, or regulatory implications that can arise with a US-domiciled SPAC as opposed to a Cayman-domiciled SPAC.

What about redomiciling?

Alexandra Low: Over 80% of the transactions I have worked on have been successful in redomiciling. In some of the transactions where the choice is to remain a publicly listed Cayman-domiciled company on a US exchange, there’s no issue from our perspective. It’s more (of an issue) how it will be structured, and it’s usually led by tax decisions. We’re not usually involved in that process; we just assist.

The only thing I tell clients is you don’t ever want to be—even if it’s for a few hours—not registered in either jurisdiction.

Yelena Dunaevsky: The details are always so important, and you definitely need good guidance because good, experienced advisors have seen all the pitfalls and how things can go wrong, and they can steer their clients from repeating those mistakes.

What is the current litigation environment in the Cayman Islands?

Yelena Dunaevsky: On the US side, securities class actions have been holding fairly steady. What we are seeing is an increase in the number of fiduciary duty cases in Delaware that has been driven by MultiPlan and its progeny. There’s a very recent decision out of Delaware in the Hennessy/Canoo case where the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss—a 180-degree turnaround from what it had done previously in similar cases. What are you seeing on the Cayman side?

Alexandra Low: Failure to consummate the intended business combination transaction can result in several disputes. In some cases, it has led to litigation in the Cayman Islands.

However, the courts of the Cayman Islands are unlikely to recognize or enforce against a Cayman SPAC judgment of courts of the United States predicated upon the civil liability provisions of US federal or state securities laws. We always put in the registration statement disclosure that this is a challenge. Shareholders may have more difficulty protecting their interests, but for SPAC management teams, entities, and directors and officers, Cayman Islands typically offer a more favorable environment.

However, when you look at some of the recent cases, you can assess that Cayman is a favorable jurisdiction.

Yelena Dunaevsky: Litigation concerns are central to the questions I get from clients about incorporating in Cayman. I would say that while it’s probably a good bet to incorporate in Cayman, if we’re trying to avoid litigation, it’s not 100% bulletproof to do so.

What about the insurance side?

Yelena Dunaevsky: Litigation leads us to insurance coverage. On the D&O insurance side, we’re looking at risk from litigation and risk from enforcement actions. That’s how you calculate what terms and pricing the insurance carrier can offer.

The underwriters are asking where you are incorporated because they’ve seen all the Delaware litigation, and some of them have been caught in that Delaware litigation.

Some of the carriers that can write robust policies that are designed to protect against securities litigation and other kinds of litigation in the US are restricted from writing policies for companies that are not in the US. They may be restricted by the jurisdiction of the entity that’s being insured. However, there are still mature, established carriers that are able to write policies with the Cayman insured.

Alexandra Low: The SPAC will negotiate a certain D&O coverage and if there’s a rush to close, the directors may need a little bit more assistance in terms of understanding their coverage. I don’t think they always think that through.

And there are times they’re in a tricky situation where they need to know what is covered under their insurance. Although you’re covered up to the extent that Cayman Islands law provides, it’s always important to privately negotiate your coverage too.

Yelena Dunaevsky: Even if the SPAC team that is doing the IPO is working with a knowledgeable SPAC-focused insurance broker to set up their coverage, the target company’s management team may be coming from the private company world. They may be unfamiliar with the public company D&O world, which is very, very different.

If they insist on using a broker that they’ve been using for their private company coverage and who has no public company and SPAC experience, they’re making a huge mistake. That broker is typically not familiar with US public company issues, litigation, costs, and how the coverage needs to be structured. That’s when you run into issues with individual directors who realize they need to start paying out of pocket for something they thought was covered.

What does the near future hold for SPACs?

Alexandra Low: I’m quite positive in terms of the SPAC IPO side.  I think the management teams and their US counsel are highly prepared. I think we will see a continued uptick in new SPAC IPOs and a lot of de-SPAC transactions close this year as the market remains favorable.

Yelena Dunaevsky: That’s what I’m anticipating as well. It’s a cautious green light ahead for the SPAC market.

 

This article and webcast was first published by Woodruff Sawyer on July 30 2024. You can read and watch here.

Share
More publications
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.

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

When the Court intervenes… and when it does not: Grand Court Reaffirms Limited Curial Intervention in Support of Foreign Arbitrations

The Financial Services Division of the Grand Court’s judgment in In the matter of A v B & C (FSD 270 of 2025) provides a timely reminder of the proper boundaries between national courts and international arbitration tribunals in respect of the grant of interim relief. The decision underscores the Cayman Islands' commitment to the principle of limited curial intervention and confirms that the Court’s powers under section 54 of the Arbitration Act 2012 are ancillary to the arbitral process and are only to be exercised when the tribunal cannot provide effective relief itself. The judgment helpfully sets out clear parameters for those seeking ancillary relief and highlights that the Cayman courts will support arbitration proceedings without supplanting them.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
5 Feb 2026

Recusal For Apparent Bias Is Not A New Frontier

In Re New Frontier Health Corporation,[1] Justice Doyle decided to recuse himself, such that he would not hear the trial listed to commence weeks later, on the basis that he made findings in his recent Re 51job Inc judgment, as to the reliability and credibility of the same two experts who would give evidence at the New Frontier trial. The New Frontier judgment represents a further endorsement by the Cayman courts of the fundamental maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
4 Feb 2026

The New Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework – Relevance for Cayman Investment Funds

The Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework) Regulations, 2025 (CARF Regulations) came into effect on 1 January 2026 and provide for the collection, reporting and automatic exchange of information on transactions in crypto-assets.  The CARF Regulations will operate in a similar fashion to the existing Cayman Common Reporting Standard (CRS) regime which facilitates the automatic exchange of financial account information.  For information on recent changes to the CRS, please see our December advisory here.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
27 Jan 2026

CIMA Launches Prudential Information Survey for SIBA Registered Persons

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published a General Industry Notice launching a new Prudential Information Survey for Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (SIBA) of the Cayman Islands.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
15 Dec 2025

Aquapoint LP v Fan: Privy Council Confirms Equitable Constraints Can Override Strict Contractual Rights in Cayman ELP Winding Up

In its recent judgment in Aquapoint LP (in Official Liquidation) v Fan,[1] the Privy Council upheld the judgments of the Grand Court and Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA). The ruling confirms that the exercise of strict legal rights under a limited partnership agreement – even one containing detailed contractual terms and “entire agreement” clauses – can nevertheless be subject to equitable considerations in certain circumstances. Where those equitable considerations arise, they may justify the winding up of an exempted limited partnership on the “just and equitable” basis. Appleby acts for the joint official liquidators of Aquapoint; for further details on the background of this case, see Appleby’s previous article here.