(Re)insurance – The ABCs of SPCs

Published: 26 Apr 2023
Type: Insight

Segregated portfolio companies (SPCs) are frequently used in Cayman Islands (re)insurance structures.  The defining feature of an SPC is that it offers statutory segregation of assets and liabilities obviating the need for contractual segregation.

This insight provides a high- level overview of the legal characteristics of an SPC and considers why these structures continue to be popular in the Cayman Islands (re)insurance space in particular.


What is an SPC?

An SPC is a single legal entity, with one board of directors, that can establish internal segregated portfolios.  Each segregated portfolio’s assets and liabilities are legally separated from the assets and liabilities of the company’s ordinary account (called its “general assets”) and are also separate from any assets and liabilities attributed to the SPCs other segregated portfolios (if any).

A creditor entering into contractual dealings with a particular segregated portfolio will have restricted recourse; meaning it will only be entitled to make its recovery against assets attributed and credited to the specific segregated portfolio to which the contract is also attributed. That creditor will not be legally entitled to make recovery against assets attributed and credited to other segregated portfolios of the SPC, or (save to the extent otherwise provided in any relevant contract or the memorandum of association and articles of association of the SPC) against the general assets of the SPC.

Entry into contracts and PICs

Cayman Islands law provides that any act, matter, deed, agreement, contract, instrument under seal or other instrument or arrangement which is to be binding on an SPC must be executed by the SPC for and on behalf of the relevant segregated portfolio.

Given an SPC is a single legal entity, irrespective of the number of portfolios that it establishes, segregated portfolios are unable to contract with each other. In light of this, Cayman Islands law provides that a licensed (re)insurance company established as an SPC can establish, for the account of a particular segregated portfolio, a “portfolio insurance company” being a subsidiary in the form of an exempted company limited by shares (PIC).  That PIC is then permitted to undertake (re)insurance business without its own insurance licence, effectively piggy backing off the insurance licence of the SPC.  Furthermore, a PIC, which has its own board of directors and its own legal personality, can enter into contracts with any person including (a) the SPC acting on its own account, (b) the SPC acting on behalf of any of its segregated portfolios or (c) another PIC.

SPCs in the (re)insurance space

SPCs can be used for a variety of purposes including reinsurance vehicles, life and annuity companies, transformer vehicles, securitisation and derivatives structures, as well as special purpose vehicles.

SPCs are also frequently used to set up rent-a-captive structures. Rent-a-captives that take the form of SPCs allow a company that does not wish to establish its own captive to “rent” a portfolio from an established captive. The benefits of this approach (in comparison to a company establishing its own captive) include that (a) the operator of the existing captive is likely to have greater experience in managing the captive and (b) the costs of administering the existing captive are likely to be significantly less than those of a new captive due to economies of scale.

Conclusion

SPCs represent a major opportunity for international businesses, particularly in (re)insurance industry, to avail themselves of a structure that allows for cost effective and efficient segregation of assets and liabilities within a single legal entity. In the third quarter of 2022 the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority reported a total of 149 licensed international insurance companies that were registered as SPCs. These SPCs had total premiums of circa US$2.7bn with total assets valued at just under circa US$ 11bn. The success of the Cayman Islands in the (re)insurance space can be attributed to a number of factors, not least a flexible, modern and sensible regulatory regime for (re)insurance companies generally and captives in particular.

For more specific advice on establishing a (re)insurance structure in the Cayman Islands, we invite you to contact one of the members of our market leading (re)insurance team.

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).