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

Published: 20 Feb 2025
Type: Insight

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.


“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.

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.