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
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).