Reinsurance Focus

The NAIC’s Reinsurance Task Force has advanced a proposal “to comprehensively modernize reinsurance regulation in the United States.” The proposal is outlined in a press release issued in conjunction with the recent meeting of the Annual Conference of the International Association of Insurance Supervisors. The proposal is in two parts: (1) NAIC Reinsurance Supervision Review Department; draft proposal to grant recognition of regulatory equivalence to non-U.S. insurance supervisors; and (2) Port of Entry State Criteria for Reinsures [sic] Supervised in Jurisdictions Approved by the NAIC Reinsurance Supervision Review Department and U.S. Licensed Reinsurers. Generally, the proposals provide for the regulation of US domiciled reinsurers through a single state, and the agreement to allow non-US domiciled reinsurers to be regulated in the United States through a single state “port of entry” if the foreign regulatory authorities provide a regulatory regime for the company that is functionally equivalent” to that in the United States The proposals also partially change the collateral requirements to a credit-based system, but do not by any means completely eliminate the collateral requirements. The NAIC has also posted on its website a PowerPoint presentation titled NAIC Reinsurance Collateral Update. The next step in this process is a meeting on November 7-8 in Atlanta in conjunction with the NAIC Financial Summit. Comments on the proposal are posted on the NAIC Reinsurance Task Force’s web site.

Last year, a federal grand jury in New Haven indicted four former senior executives of General Re Corporation and one former senior executive of AIG for their participation in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate AIG’s financial statements. Recently, three of the defendants issued multiple subpoenas to several insurance companies and their attorneys pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). The subpoenas were contested by both the government and the third party subpoena recipients.

Applying the legal standard set forth by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon, the district court concluded that the subpoenas were unenforceable because they sought materials outside the proper scope of Rule 17(c). Specifically, the materials sought by several of the subpoenas would only be useful as impeachment materials, and therefore failed Nixon’s admissibility requirement. Other subpoenas were to be found unenforceable because they failed Nixon’s relevancy requirement. United States of America v. Ferguson, Case No. 3:06cr137, (USDC D. Ct. Sept. 26, 2007).

Renaissance Re has reached a proposed settlement of a shareholder class action lawsuit arising out of alleged finite reinsurance transactions. The proposed settlement would result in a cash fund of $13.5 million against which claimants could submit claims. Class counsel filed a memorandum in support of preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and a supplemental memorandum. The court then entered a preliminary approval order, setting a fairness hearing for consideration of final approval of the proposed settlement on January 11, 2008. This proposed settlement is in addition to Ren Re's $15 million settlement with the SEC reported on in a February 16, 2007 post to this blog.

In October 2004, New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer announced the filing of a civil Complaint against Marsh & McLennan Companies, alleging fraud and antitrust violations and implicating major insurance companies. The next day, an analyst reported that the St. Paul Travelers Companies (“Travelers”) could expect to be involved in the investigation and be subject to a subpoena. Travelers' stock price dropped $2.06 per share. About one month later, Travelers disclosed the receipt of a second subpoena, relating to finite reinsuracne issue. A class action securities fraud suit was filed against Travelers. The Complaint did not allege a drop in stock price following the disclosure of the finite reinsurance subpoena. Travelers moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to claims relating to finite reinsurance issues, contending that the Complaint filed to adequately allege loss causation with respect to those issues. The court agreed, and granted the motion, but provided the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended Complaint. In re St.Paul Travelers Secutieis Litigation II, Case No. 04-4697 (USDC D Minn. June 1, 2007).

This case involves claims by Lloyds names against Lloyds, alleging that they had been misled by misrepresentations by Lloyds of its syndicate auditing and operational controls into becoming members of Lloyds syndicates. The names later suffered serious financial losses with respect to asbestos claims. The names lost the case, but then discovered additional evidence which they contended demonstrated that the judge had been misled by Lloyds. The issue before the court was whether the England and Wales Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to reopen a case upon an allegation that the Court had been misled by a party’s evidence and by fraud. The applicants, who were names at the Society of Lloyds, asserted that under the jurisprudence of Taylor v. Lawrence, 2003 QB 528, the Court had authority to reopen the case.

The Court disagreed, noting that, unlike the present case, Taylor v. Lawrence concerned misconduct by a court in that the judge was said to have been biased. Taylor v. Lawrence did not contain authority for extending the recognition of jurisdiction to reopen an appeal on the grounds of bias to a case where the allegation was not that the court had misbehaved, but that the court had been misled by one of the parties. The court cited authority directly denying the existence of jurisdiction in the latter case, providing that the proper remedy was to bring a collateral action to set aside the judgment allegedly obtained by fraud. Jaffray v. The Society of Lloyds, [2007] EWCA Civ 586 (June 20, 2007).

Three articles were recently published in law reviews and journals relating to reinsurance:

• Health care reform – In The Present and Future of Government-Funded Reinsurance, 51 St. Louis U. L. J. 369 (Winter 2007), John Jacobi, a professor at Seton Hall Law School, contends that government-funded reinsurance could play a valuable role in incremental health care reform.
• Reinsurance intermediaries – In Reinsurance Intermediaries: law and litigation, 29 U. Haw. L. Rev. 59 (Winter 2006), Douglas Richmond, a Senior Vice President with Aon Risk Services, analyzes the duties and potential liabilities of reinsurance intermediaries using fairly traditional agency concepts.
• Hedge funds – In The Utility of Hedge Funds: an alternative to traditional reinsurance, 49 For The Defense 32 (April 2007), practitioners James Somers and Katie Lewis Bordeau offer a general description of the participation of hedge funds in the reinsurance market. Although the title of the article describes hedge funds as an “alternative” to reinsurance, the text really describes hedge funds as a source of capital for vehicles such as side cars.

PriceWaterhouse Coopers has published an interesting report on a survey that it conducted relating to US run-off operations. The report covers various aspects of run-off operations and strategies. Especially combined with the recent Lloyd’s report on capitalization and operation of Lloyd’s run-off syndicates, which was the subject of a post on this blog on May 28, this makes interesting reading.

Lloyds has issued a report providing minimum standards and guidance for the individual capital adequacy of syndicates in run-off. This report provides extensive guidance for the management of such syndicates, in order to assist them in achieving the capital standards.

The UK's Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) has adopted regulations to implement portions of the European Union's Reinsurance Directive that are designed in part to facilitate the expedited formation and management of special-purpose vehicles, which may be used for securitizations or other forms of alternative risk transfer arrangements. The proposals were described in a Consultation Paper, CP06/12, Implementing the Reinsurance Directive, which was published in June 2006 with a summary and a description of the Consultation Paper in a newsletter publication. A comment period followed. Rules were adopted by the FSA effective December 31, 2006. Special-purpose vehicle Rules and Guidelines may be found in the FSA's Handbook.

Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty has issued a $150 million cat bond to transfer the risks of severe river floods in Great Britain and earthquakes in Canada and the United States (excluding California). See various descriptions of this bond. This is believed to be the first cat bond covering flood risks, and was written on a parametric basis, using a model prepared by Risk Management Solutions. This is the first bond issued using Blue Wings Ltd., a Cayman Islands-based special purpose vehicle, and is intended to be the first part of a $1 billion program.