The evolution of the law relating to corporations, and in particular the doctrine of the company as a separate legal person, presented a risk from the earliest times that minority investors might be left without a remedy if those in control of the company breached their trusts or duties and destroyed the value of that investment through mismanagement, self-dealing or other misconduct.  The risk of losing one’s investment in circumstances where there has been corporate wrongdoing has not abated, and in today’s hedge fund universe, the likelihood is that the shareholder will have invested a very substantial amount of capital for a minority position in a fund, the majority of whose directors and whose investment manager and other service providers are based in another country.  There are over 10,000 registered Mutual Funds in the Cayman Islands alone, many of which are directed and managed out of New York or Delaware.  In response to the concern that there is no remedy for the shareholder for such wrongs, many jurisdictions have sought to implement the procedural device of the derivative action as a means of affording substantive relief to investors.  Wherever they are brought, derivative actions have a common theme and a universal aim: the theme is that shareholders are not being heard and cannot take action themselves; the aim is to restore value to the company in which they have invested.  The mechanics for providing this substantive relief vary across the different jurisdictions.  In a guest article, Christopher Russell, David Butler, Michael Swartz and Daniel Cohen compare the mechanics of how hedge fund investors may pursue derivative actions in three different jurisdictions: the Cayman Islands, Delaware and New York.  Russell is a Partner in the Litigation and Insolvency Department of Appleby Cayman, and Butler is a senior Associate in the Department; Swartz is a Partner and Cohen is an Associate at Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.