Cayman Islands: Revisiting Segregated Portfolio Companies And The Segregation Principle

Last Updated: 29 March 2017
Article by Oliver Payne and Edwin Gomez

With the passing of more than 18 years since Segregated Portfolio Companies (SPCs) were introduced into Cayman Islands law, the Cayman SPC is now regarded as an established option for international financial structures.  Having started out as vehicles for certain licensed insurers, their uses have expanded to encompass investment funds, property development companies, multiple tranche debt-issuing vehicles, asset holding vehicles, and securities and derivative transactions. 


Segregation of Portfolio Assets and Liabilities

A key advantage of an SPC is that the assets of each segregated portfolio (Portfolio) are, as a matter of Cayman Islands statute, segregated from every other Portfolio's assets and from the SPC's general assets.  This means that shareholders and creditors have recourse only to the assets of the particular portfolio to which their shares are allocated.  By contrast, a multi-class fund (an umbrella fund) offers segregation between investors and shareholders but not against external creditors of the fund. Such creditors would deal with and have recourse to the available assets of the fund as a whole.

Stability: Receivership

Although SPCs can be wound up voluntarily or by order of the Cayman Court just like any other Cayman Islands company, the Companies Law (2016 Revision) (the Companies Law) does not make provision for the liquidation of an individual Portfolio, only for the liquidation of the SPC as a whole.   Instead, if the assets attributable to a Portfolio are, or are likely to be, insufficient to meet the liabilities to the creditors of that Portfolio, the Cayman Court may make a receivership order in respect of that Portfolio alone.  In this respect, an SPC is superior to a multi-class fund or an umbrella fund as it provides a mechanism for an investor or creditor in respect of a specific Portfolio, to apply to the Grand Court to assess that Portfolio's assets without de-stabilising the whole structure.

Ease of Portfolio Termination and Reinstatement

The Companies Law provides that an SPC may by resolution of its directors (or such other authority as may be provided for in, and subject to the provisions of, its articles of association), terminate a specific Portfolio that has no Portfolio assets or liabilities attributable to it.  Similarly, a Portfolio that has been terminated may be reinstated by the same means. 


Section 224 of the Law provides that receivers can be appointed if "...the Court is satisfied that the segregated portfolio assets attributable to a particular segregated portfolio of the company ... are or are likely to be insufficient to discharge the claims of creditors in respect of that segregated portfolio...".

Consequently, the test for the appointment of a receiver over a Portfolio is, in effect, a balance sheet test for insolvency.  This contrasts with the cash flow insolvency test applied to winding up applications of Cayman Islands companies, and means that a receiver could be appointed over a Portfolio which would otherwise be considered solvent under Cayman law were it an individual company.

ABC Company (SPC) v J & Co. Ltd

In the matter of ABC Company (SPC) v J & Co. Ltd, the Court of Appeal reversed the Grand Court's decision not to strike out a petition to wind up ABC brought on the just and equitable grounds.  The SPC had suspended the calculation of net asset value for several years and the payment of redemptions in a number of its portfolios.   The investment manager was winding down the suspended portfolios so as to make distributions over time. The remaining portfolios (at least two thirds) were still trading normally, were accepting subscriptions and were paying redemptions in the usual way.  Nevertheless , a petition was filed by a shareholder in one of the suspended portfolios on the grounds that the SPC had lost its substratum and that it was just and equitable that the SPC be wound up.  

On appeal, the petitioner accepted that (a) the Court had no jurisdiction under the Companies Law to wind up an individual portfolio; (b) the appointment of a receiver over a portfolio was only available if the assets attributable to that portfolio are or are unlikely to be insufficient to meet the liabilities of creditors to that portfolio but not on a just and equitable basis; and (c) the only remedy was to seek to wind up the entire fund on the just and equitable grounds.  Upon a review of the SPC's articles and offering documents, the Court of Appeal held that the petitioner had no realistic prospect of establishing that, as a result of the failure of certain segregated portfolios, the SPC had ceased to carry on business in accordance with the reasonable expectation of its shareholders nor was there any other basis upon which it was or could be said that the SPC as a whole had lost its substratum.  This decision was the first case to affirm the proposition that the statutory segregation of an SPC's Portfolios will be upheld by the Cayman Courts.

In the Matter of Primary Development Fund (Cayman) SPC

September 2016 saw further welcome clarification of the circumstances in which the directors of an SPC can terminate a Portfolio.  In In the Matter of Primary Development Fund (Cayman) SPC, the receivers of Helvetia Trading Fund SP (in receivership) (Helvetia Portfolio), a segregated portfolio of Primary Development Fund (Cayman) SPC, applied for the discharge of a receivership order as well as consequential relief, including an order under section 227(3) of the Law directing that the Helvetia Portfolio's liabilities to all creditors with claims against the Helvetia Portfolio were fully satisfied (a so-called 'full satisfaction direction').  The Grand Court noted that the receivers had collected the only asset of the Helvetia Portfolio (a balance of US$34,382) which was used to discharge the receivers' remuneration and expenses.  Consequently, there were no remaining assets of the Helvetia Portfolio available to discharge its liabilities estimated by the receivers to amount to US$18,636,406.  Whilst the Grand Court was prepared to discharge the receivership order on the ground that the purpose of the receivership had been achieved (given that the only asset of the Helvetia Portfolio had been realised), it refused to make a full satisfaction order as no sums had been distributed to the creditors of the Helvetia Portfolio. The Grand Court also noted that the power to give a full satisfaction direction applied to each creditor separately and could only direct that liabilities owed to a particular creditor should be fully satisfied where the creditor has received payment. 

The receivers renewed their application for a full satisfaction direction on the basis that they had made arrangements for a small and part payment of US$1 to be offered to creditors of the Helvetia Portfolio. No creditors responded to the offer, however, nor were any payments made to them.  Rejecting the receivers' arguments of(i) tender (on the basis that a tender did not discharge the underlying debt and was therefore not a payment for the purposes of section 227(3)) and (ii) accord and satisfaction, (on the basis that the creditors had taken no action and failed to accept the offer) the Grand Court once again refused to make a full satisfaction direction but  noted that a full satisfaction direction was not required in order to permit the SPC's directors to terminate the Helvetia Portfolio.  The Court held that directors of an SPC can terminate a Portfolio under section 228A(1) of the Companies Law in one of two circumstances: (a) where a Portfolio has no assets or (b) where a Portfolio has no liabilities.  This decision clarifies that it is not necessary for both conditions to be satisfied and demonstrates that the Grand Court is prepared to terminate an insolvent Portfolio in the same way that a company can be dissolved even if no distributions have been made to creditors and liabilities remain outstanding. 


The segregation principle is now well developed and recognised in a number of jurisdictions including Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Delaware, Guernsey and Jersey.  The treatment of the SPC concept in an onshore bankruptcy court, however, remains untested.  Ultimately, the application of statutory segregation will turn on the foreign court's willingness to apply Cayman Islands law, issues of local law and public policy.

In In the Matter of JP SPC 1 and JP SPC 4 (2013), on an application to the Grand Court by two joint receivers of two Portfolios seeking clarification of their status, duties and powers to support their (ultimately successful) application for their recognition in England under the English Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, the Court held that the receivers, in practice, may need " the same or similar powers, subject to appropriate modification, in relation to the segregated portfolio of which he is a receiver as a liquidator would have under Part V of the Law".  Although the SPC as a concept is unknown under English law, the English Courts' willingness to recognise and assist Cayman Islands Court appointed receivers over Portfolios is a positive step towards the recognition of the SPC structure in a common law jurisdiction.  Cayman SPCs have since 2009 been party to litigation before the Hong Kong Courts without judicial comment on the effectiveness of the principles of segregation in the Law.  Further, to mitigate this foreign-law risk and to reinforce the statutory segregation principle, it is recommended (and now common place) for contractual limited-recourse wording to be included in agreements entered into by an SPC.


SPCs are well established corporate vehicles and continue to be popular options for international financial structures.  The decisions discussed above provide confirmation that the SPC structure will be respected by the Cayman Courts and welcome guidance on the powers that receivers of insolvent portfolios can expect to receive.  The cases have also clarified the ease with which insolvent Portfolios can be terminated, and where necessary, reinstated.  Whilst the principle of segregation remains untested in foreign courts, the good news is that segregated portfolio structures seem to be more and more widely recognised. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions