The Utility of the Share Premium Account in Cayman Islands Exempted Companies

Published: 20 Feb 2025

Cayman Islands exempted companies are valued for their flexibility and ease of operation. A key component of their appeal lies in the nuanced treatment of share capital and, particularly, the strategic uses of the share premium account.

Primary Contact

Simon Raftopoulos

Partner: Cayman Islands

T +1 345 814 2748
E [email protected]

Darryl Jago

Senior Associate: Cayman Islands

T +1345 814 2074
E [email protected]

Simon Raftopoulos, Darryl Jago

“Share capital” refers to the nominal (or par) value of a company’s issued shares. If a company issues shares which do not have a nominal value, then “share capital” refers to the total consideration received by the company for those shares.

If a company issues shares for a premium, the “share premium” is the amount by which the consideration received by the company exceeds the nominal value of the shares. This premium is credited to the “share premium account”. Notably, if shares are issued without a nominal value, the entire consideration received constitutes paid-up share capital and is not treated as share premium.

Share premium is not simply an accounting entry – it is a practical tool deployed by companies. Subject to the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the share premium account may be used to:

pay distributions or dividends;
pay up unissued shares as fully paid bonus shares to existing shareholders;
repurchase or redeem shares;
write off preliminary expenses of the company; or
write off expenses, discounts, or commissions on any issue of shares or debentures.

The Companies Act (as revised) (the Act) grants exempted companies discretion regarding the creation of a share premium account in certain “arrangements” (such as mergers, consolidations, acquisitions, and reconstructions) where the allotting company gains control over a company whose shares it acquires or cancels. This discretion, if exercised, allows a company to disregard the share premium when valuing the issued shares on its balance sheet – providing greater flexibility in how they present their financial position following the transaction.

A defining advantage of an exempted company is the permissive framework for making distributions from the share premium account. Unlike some jurisdictions with stricter “profits-only” distribution rules, the Act expressly allows distributions (or dividends) to be made from the share premium account, provided the so-called “statutory solvency test” is adhered to. Under this test, no distribution or dividend may be paid out of the share premium account unless the company, immediately after payment, can pay its debts as they fall due in the ordinary course of business. This test acts as a critical safeguard, ensuring that distributions from the share premium account do not prejudice the company’s ability to meet its obligations to creditors. Knowingly or wilfully authorising or permitting a distribution or dividend in contravention of the statutory solvency test is an offence, carrying the risk of a fine or imprisonment for the company/directors in question.

The share premium account also provides a flexible funding source for repurchasing or redeeming shares. The principal amount and any premium payable on a repurchase or redemption may be funded from the share premium account with or without a combination of other funding sources, such as profits. When shares are redeemed or repurchased using the share premium account (or profits), those shares will be cancelled and their nominal value must be transferred to a “capital redemption reserve”, with a corresponding reduction in the share premium account (or profits). This process ensures the maintenance of the company’s stated capital and provides a degree of protection for creditors by preventing the erosion of the capital base.

Overall, the share premium account offers Cayman Islands exempted companies a strategic advantage. Its flexibility in distributions, redemption and restructuring provides powerful tools for optimising a company’s capital structure and maximising shareholder value within the robust legal framework created by the Act.

More publications

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.

Martin Byers, Simon Raftopoulos, Peter Colegate, Maree Martin, Menelik Miller

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.

David Lee, Will Porter

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice

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.

David Lee, Zuhair Farouki

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.

Andrew Jackson, Charlotte Walker

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.

Matt Mulry, Martin Byers, Peter Colegate, Maree Martin

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.

Martin Byers, Simon Raftopoulos, Sailaja Alla, Matt Mulry, Maree Martin

16 Jan 2026

Compulsory ADR in Cayman: Court Confirms It Has Teeth But Declines to Bite

David Lee, Zuhair Farouki

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.