Reinsurance Focus

On August 6, 2009, the SEC filed a Complaint in the Southern District of New York against former AIG Chairman and CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg and former Vice Chairman and CFO Howard Smith in connection with multiple accounting transaction allegedly inflating AIG’s financial statements between 2000 and 2005. The complaint charges Greenberg and Smith as control persons for AIG with numerous violations of securities laws including sham reinsurance transactions making it appear that AIG had legitimately increased its general loss reserves.

The complaint charges that Greenberg and Smith were aware of and responsible for AIG’s misleading financial statements over the last several years. According to an SEC Release, both Greenberg and Smith, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, consented to a judgment enjoining them from violating several securities laws under penalty of fine. Smith also consented to the entry of an SEC order that will suspend him from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Greenberg, Case No. 09-6939 (USDC S.D. N.Y. Aug. 6, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

On August 6, 2009, the SEC filed a Complaint in the Southern District of New York against former AIG Chairman and CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg and former Vice Chairman and CFO Howard Smith in connection with multiple accounting transaction allegedly inflating AIG’s financial statements between 2000 and 2005. The complaint charges Greenberg and Smith as control persons for AIG with numerous violations of securities laws including sham reinsurance transactions making it appear that AIG had legitimately increased its general loss reserves.

The Complaint charges that Greenberg and Smith were aware of and responsible for AIG’s misleading financial statements over the last several years. According to an SEC Release, both Greenberg and Smith, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, consented to a judgment enjoining them from violating several securities laws under penalty of fine. Smith also consented to the entry of an SEC order that will suspend him from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. Both Greenberg and Smith entered into Consent Judgments to settle the charges, with Greenberg paying a file of $15 million and Smith a fine of $1.5 million. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Greenberg, Case No. 09-6939 (USDC S.D. N.Y. Aug. 6, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

The AIG Consolidated Derivative Litigation continues – this time the court grants a motion to dismiss claims against alleged co-conspirator defendants. We covered a prior ruling on a motion to dismiss in our April 29, 2009 post, where the court found that the plaintiffs had stated well-pled breach of fiduciary duty claims against certain high-ranking AIG officers who were allegedly involved in two conspiracies, viz., a “bid-rigging” conspiracy and a “fake reinsurance writing” conspiracy, as well as other illegal activities. The question raised in the most recent ruling was: “may AIG sue its co-conspirators for the harm that AIG suffered as a result of two alleged, illegal conspiracies involving AIG and those third-party conspirators?” The court answered the question in the negative, holding that the in pari delicto doctrine bars this type of suit. A primary purpose of the doctrine is to prevent courts from having to engage in “inefficient” and “socially unproductive” accountings between conspirators. Rather than assessing the conspiracy and shifting responsibility, the court held that it would leave the conspirators as they are, potentially jointly and severally liable for the harms caused by their alleged conspiratorial acts. American International Group, Inc. Consolidated Derivative Litigation, Case No. 769-VCS (Del. Ct. Chanc. June 17, 2009).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

The NAIC held its Summer 2009 meetings in Minneapolis last week, and there was only very modest progress on reinsurance-related issues. The Reinsurance Task Force meeting summary relates the following items:

• Guidance Memorandum regarding reinsurance collateral: The exposure draft of this Guidance Memorandum (see our April 13, 2009 post) was adopted, for distribution to all state insurance commissioners.
• Reinsurance Regulatory Modernization Framework: There was further discussion of the implementation of this initiative. The exposed draft Congressional bill is on hold pending the receipt of a legal opinion from Sidley Austin, LLP on constitutional issues that have been raised about this initiative.
• Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act: An update was received on the status of this Congressional session’s version of this bill (HR 2571) (see our June 9, 2009 legislative update post). This bill was referred to committee upon its filing, without any progress since that time.
• Credit for Reinsurance Model Act: Comments were received on a proposed amendment to this Act, which would provide a commissioner the authority to lower the minimum trusted surplus requirement applicable to a multiple-beneficiary trust maintained by an assuming insurer in run-off. Staff was directed to initiate the process for consideration of this amendment, and an additional amendment related to the implementation of the Reinsurance Regulatory Modernization Framework.
• International Association of Insurance Supervisors’ Reinsurance Subcommittee and Reinsurance Transparency Subgroup: An update on recent activity of this group was received.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

Observant readers will have noticed a new addition to the right sidebar of Reinsurance Focus titled Reinsurance Market. In discussions with our clients, many have mentioned the higher reinsurance rates this season, and the particular difficulty in obtaining acceptably priced reinsurance for cat risks. Although the cat bond market basically dried up during the second half of 2008, early 2009 has seen a number of cat bonds successfully issued and sold, using a somewhat different model and cost structure than before. Since our tracking of how many readers view each of our posts reveals that a large number of our readers are interested in such topics, we have added this new area to provide links to publicly available studies and analysis of the reinsurance market and cat risk bond market. It is not our intention to provide “newsy” items in this area, but rather to bring to the attention of our readers particularly thoughtful reports and studies which might provide a basis for creative thinking to help get your company or clients through difficult times. Let us know what additional types of information might be useful to you.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

On April 13, 2009 we posted about the actions of the NAIC, at its recent meetings, to move forward on the regulation of reinsurance, collateral for reinsurance agreements and the modification of credit for reinsurance rules. Our partner Tony Cicchetti has posted a more detailed analysis of the regulatory and collateral proposals on several occasions, and he has updated that analysis to provide a comprehensive view of these issues.

This post written by Tony Cicchetti.

The New York Insurance Department has proposed Regulation 189 – Mandatory Catastrophe Reserves for Property/Casualty Insurance Companies. The rule proposal would require every authorized property/casualty insurer issuing a policy of insurance or contract of reinsurance covering losses resulting form a catastrophe to property located in New York, and receiving New York subject premiums, to establish a New York mandatory contingent catastrophe reserve, which shall only be used toward the payment of claims from qualifying losses. In developing this rule proposal, the Department reviewed the research of the NAIC – Catastrophe Insurance Working Group, Casualty Actuarial Society, and performed outreach to property/casualty insurers, consumer groups, and other interested parties. The Department has published the text of the proposed regulation, and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking notes that comments will be accepted until 45 days after the publication of the Notice. The comment period closes May 26, 2009.

This post written by Karen Benson.

We have been following requests for relief by life insurance companies with respect to capital and reserve requirements in the current difficult economic situation. Following the NAIC’s rejection of proposals by the ACLI, individual insurers began to apply for relief to their domiciliary regulators, and two more state departments have published positions with respect to such issues. The Delaware Insurance Department has adopted two regulations (1212 and 1215) by Emergency Orders, which address the valuation of life insurance policies and the recognition of preferred mortality tables for use in determining minimum reserve liabilities. The Illinois Division of Insurance has promulgated Company Bulletin 2009-02, which rejects blanket relief, but which states that the Division would consider relief on a company-by-company basis. Posted to the Division’s web site are letters to eight companies relating to such requests. The first such letter, approving a request from Allstate Life Insurance Company relating to the accounting and valuation methodology for market value adjusted annuities, may be viewed here.

Of more industry-wide interest, the NAIC has posted a detailed chart which purports to summarize various permitted and prescribed practices, taken from annual statements submitted by various companies.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

American National Life Insurance Company of Texas (“American National”) sells stop-loss insurance policies in Missouri, and a dispute developed as to whether premiums for such coverage were subject to the state’s direct premium tax. American National paid the tax under protest and filed a claim for refund, which was denied by the Department of Revenue, which was affirmed in an administrative hearing. The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the decision because the case involved the construction of state revenue laws. American National argued that the stop-loss policies are reinsurance and not subject to the direct premium tax. The court looked to Black’s Law Dictionary and other sources and concluded that a tax on “direct premiums received” is a tax imposed upon consideration paid by an insured to an insurer for a contract of insurance. The court rejected American National’s reinsurance argument, affirming the decisions below. American National Life Insurance Co. of Texas v. Director of Revenue, Case No. SC89064 (Mo. Nov. 4, 2008).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

Two reinsurance companies have prevailed on motions to dismiss in shareholder securities law putative class actions over the restatements of loss levels from cat events, illustrating that the process of estimating cat losses accurately may be challenging, and that companies are not guarantors of the completeness and accuracy of that process. PXRE prevailed in a lawsuit alleging a scheme to understate losses arising out of a series of hurricanes that devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005, restating the amount of losses several times. Judge Sullivan granted PXRE’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs “failed to plead that defendants were reckless in not knowing about the flaws in PXRE’s calculation of its loss estimates.” In re PXRE Group, Ltd., Securities Litigation, No. 06 CIV 3410 (S.D.N.Y. March 5, 2009). Judge Sullivan issued an order in a similar individual case filed against PXRE implying that he will follow the same course in that action. Anegada Master Fund Ltd v. PXRE Group Ltd., No. 08 Civ 10584 (S.D.N.Y. March 5, 2009).

Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. (“Quanta”) issued several estimated loss projections relating to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that ranged from $42-$68.5 million, resulting in multiple rating downgrades, forcing Quanta to cease writing new insurance and reinsurance business and to sell its remaining insurance and reinsurance portfolios. Noting the conjectural nature of insurance reserves established for losses that have been incurred but not yet reported, the court ruled that the Complaint did not put forth sufficient factual allegations such that the court could plausibly find that the loss estimate included in the offering documents was a material untruth at the time it was made, especially since the adjusted estimate was based on a single business interruption claim. The district court also held that the Complaint did not meet applicable heightened pleading requirements, and that some of the claims failed because the $68.5 million preliminary loss estimate was protected by the “bespeaks caution” doctrine. Zirkin v. Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd., Case No. 07-851 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2009).

This post written by Rollie Goss.