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-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
13 Aug 2026

Restructurings Frustrating Creditors And The Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards: The English High Court's Decision In State Oil Company Of Azerbaijan v Mansimov

The English High Court has issued a significant judgment on the enforcement of arbitral awards, the reach of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the limits of the Marex tort, with potential relevance to the Cayman Islands' Fraudulent Dispositions Act.

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.