By Nigel K Meeson and Erik Bodden


In Maso Capital Investments Ltd & ors, v. Shanda Games Ltd [2020] UKPC 2 the Privy Council upheld the decision of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal that the fair value of the shares of a shareholder who has dissented to a statutory merger and who has exercised its appraisal rights in accordance with section 238 of the Cayman Islands Companies Law (Companies Law) must be determined according to the value of the shares which it actually has, including any applicable minority discount. The statutory interpretation of “fair value” in section 238 of the Companies Law is different from the statutory interpretation of “fair value” in section 262 of the Delaware Corporations Code.


Lady Arden, who delivered the judgment of the Board, considered that the question was purely one of statutory interpretation: the meaning of the words “fair value” in section 238 was to be ascertained by determining the intention of the legislature from the words used in their context. The incorporation of a minority discount into the “fair value” was justified by three reasons:

  1. Comparable provisions in the Companies Law do not provide for pro rata valuation.
    The comparable provisions referred to are those dealing with schemes of arrangement and “squeeze outs”. Neither allows for apro rata valuation and the shareholder will only receive his discounted value based upon what he actually has.
  2. The general principle of valuation of shares on sale is that what has to be valued is what the shareholder has to sell.It is a general principle of share valuation that the court should value the actual shareholding which the shareholder has to sell and not some hypothetical share. The offeror does not acquire control from any individual minority shareholder and they should therefore be valued as a minority shareholding.
  3. The similarities between the remedy in Delaware and section 238 do not justify a departure from that principle.It cannot have been intended by the Cayman Islands legislature that the new concept of “fair value” which was being introduced for the first time into the Cayman Islands Companies legislation should simply mean what the Delaware courts had held that it means either at that time or from time to time. The legislature, when introducing this new and undefined phrase, must be presumed to have intended the courts to interpret the expression consistently with the principles of statutory interpretation, but otherwise free from the constraints of jurisprudence on different valuation standards or of valuation exercises done in different circumstances. The value of Delaware jurisprudence is outweighed by points (1) and (2).

Minority Discount

The amount of the minority discount which will be applied in any particular case will depend upon the facts of the case. In Shanda Games the experts had agreed that the applicable minority discount would be 23%. By contrast in the more recent case of Qunar Cayman islands Limited (Parker J 13 May 2019) the judge held, after hearing evidence from the experts, that the applicable rate of minority discount in that case was nil.

Fair Rate of Interest

The Privy Council dismissed the Company’s appeal in respect of the manner in which the fair rate of interest to be awarded on the fair value was to be calculated. It held that the judge was correct to hold that the fair rate was to be determined by taking the mid-point of interest that the company would have had to pay to borrow the equivalent sum. To this extent the position in the Cayman Islands and Delaware is the same.


The decision of the Privy Council has firmly concluded that appraisal litigation in the Cayman Islands does not simply follow Delaware jurisprudence and fair value is to be determined by the Cayman Courts based upon principles consistent with the overall scheme of the Companies Law, which includes a minority discount. It is clear that the concession made by counsel for the Company in the first reported case of In the Matter of Integra Group [2016] 1 CILR 192 was wrongly made.


Nigel K. Meeson QC
Partner, Head of Asia Disputes & Restructuring
+852 2842 9553

Erik Bodden
+1 345 814 7754

This article is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice or a legal opinion. It deals in broad terms only and is intended to merely provide a brief overview and give general information.

For further information please contact:

Related Articles by Firm
Electronic signatures and virtual meetings — the Bermuda, British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands legal framework
The introduction globally of travel restrictions and containment measures arising from Covid-19 has significantly disrupted business, including creating logistical issues in closing corporate or financing transactions or holding board and shareholders’ meetings ...
There’s no place to wind-up like home
When entertaining a jurisdictional challenge to wind-up a foreign company with no place of business in Hong Kong, is it a material concern that alternative remedies for unfair prejudice are available at the company’s place of incorporation but not ...
Offshore Separate Portfolio Companies in the Family Office and Private Client World
SPCs and SACs are offshore limited liability companies with an added twist ... Could a SPC/SAC ever take the place of a trust?
Scheme away
Given current financial conditions in the equity markets, opportunities for privatisations abound and schemes of arrangement are all the rage again.
Shareholder rights to requisition a general meeting
Most articles of association of offshore companies listed in Hong Kong have provisions that empower shareholders to requisition a general meeting.
Offshore 2020 — themes and trends
With the first quarter of 2020 behind us, Richard Hall of Conyers Dill & Pearman’s Hong Kong office looks at the themes that are emerging for Bermuda, Cayman and British Virgin Islands entities, both in Hong Kong and globally ...
BVI court issues key decision on recoverability of costs
The decision is welcome guidance and clarification on the recoverability of costs incurred by non-qualified persons employed in BVI firms.
General meetings in the time of Covid-19
How the Hong Kong government’s regulations on group gatherings affect offshore incorporated companies.
The first red-chip listing on the SSE Star Market
On February 27, 2020, China Resources Microelectronics officially launched its initial public offering (IPO) on the SSE Star Market, becoming the first Cayman incorporated company to be listed in Mainland China ...
Registering private funds with CIMA
All Cayman entities which fall within the definition of “private fund” in the Private Funds Law, 2020 and which are carrying on business on or after February 7, 2020 have until August 7, 2020 ...
Private wealth and estate planning for People’s Republic of China citizens and residents
Driven by an exceptional period of Chinese entrepreneurship in the last decade, high-tech manufacturing, IT and fintech are now key components of the Chinese economy ...
What are the recent developments in offshore trusts?
Offshore trusts are used for a variety of different purposes relating to both private wealth and commercial transactions. They depend largely upon the existence of professional trustees able and willing to take on the business of being a trustee ...
Related Articles
Related Articles by Jurisdiction
Further transparency in respect of Cayman Islands companies
The Cayman Islands has often been referred to pejoratively as a “secrecy jurisdiction”. The two main supports for the secrecy allegation were on the one hand the existence of “secrecy” legislation, The Confidential Relationship Preservation Law (CRPL) dating back to ...
Spotlight on eDiscovery
Many people are still confused about what electronic discovery encompasses ...
The five stages of the board management maturity model
The tools boards use to communicate should be simple to use, meet their needs (and no more) and be secure ...
Latest Articles