Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Brendan Gooley

Brendan Gooley

London Court of Appeal Vacates and Remands Decision Blocking Transfer of Approximately 370K Annuity Policies

by

A London Court of Appeal recently vacated and remanded a High Court’s decision precluding the approval of a deal to transfer approximately 370,000 annuities after concluding that the High Court made several errors in its analysis of the relevant factors in play.

Prudential Assurance Co. (PAC) and Rothesay Life PLC entered into a reinsurance agreement “to transfer the majority of the economic risk and reward of the annuity business covered by the agreement from PAC to Rothesay.” The “assets backing the annuity policies were transferred by PAC to Rothesay as part of the premium for the reinsurance.”

A separate business transfer agreement “contemplated that the parties would cooperate to achieve the actual transfer of th[e] business through” regulatory and court approval.

As part of the approval process, the parties asked the High Court of Justice of the Business and Property Courts in London “to sanction a scheme … providing for the transfer from PAC to Rothesay of some 370,000 annuity policies written by PAC” under the United Kingdom’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which permits discretionary court approval of such schemes if “in all the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to sanction the scheme.”

The High Court declined to approve the scheme. In short, the court did so because, among other things, (1) “Rothesay did not have the same capital management policies or the backing of a large well-resourced group” (in other words, PAC, which was part of the Prudential family, had much more support from its parent in the event of a financial crisis) and (2) “it had been reasonable, in the light of PAC’s sales materials, age and reputation, for policyholders to have chosen PAC on the basis of an assumption that it would not seek to transfer their policies” (in other words, policyholders selected PAC for its financial strength and reputation and reasonably believed that they would be dealing with PAC for the life of their annuities, which could be decades).

PAC and Rothesay appealed, and the Court of Appeal vacated and remanded.

In sum, the Court of Appeal held, among other things, that the High Court “ought not to have concluded that there was a material disparity between the non-contractual external support potentially available for each of PAC and Rothesay” (put differently, the court wrongly believed Rothesay had less support from its parent than PAC had from its parent) because the High Court “disregarded the opinion of [an independent] expert and the [Prudential Regulation Authority] as to [PAC’s and Rothesay’s] future financial resilience on the false basis that those opinions were themselves founded upon only a snapshot of the current year” when they were not.

Even putting that aside, the Court of Appeal explained that the theoretical availability of “non-contractual parental support” that the High Court felt would be provided by PAC’s parent (Prudential) to protect its reputation in the event of a financial crisis at PAC was irrelevant because it was not proper to “assume that any non-contractual parental support will be available in the future” because, among other things, “[p]arents can never be required to support their subsidiaries” and “parents of insurers are always at liberty to sell their regulated subsidiaries.” The independent expert had, in any event, concluded that the risk of either “PAC or Rothesay needing external support in the future was remote,” and the High Court failed to give that opinion proper weight.

Turning to the High Court’s analysis concerning the policyholders’ decisions and expectations, the Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court “ought not to have accorded any weight to the fact that the objecting policyholders chose PAC on the basis of its age, venerability and established reputation, and reasonably assumed that PAC would always provide their annuities” because such subjective considerations were irrelevant and the “only correct question was whether the transfer would have a material adverse effect on the security of their benefits.”

In re Prudential Assurance Co., No. [2020] EWCA Civ 1626 (Feb. 12, 2020).

Court Compels Arbitration Because Non-Signatory “Knowingly Exploited” and Obtained Benefits of Agreement

by

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently compelled arbitration involving a claim by a plaintiff who had not signed a Comcast subscriber agreement on the ground that the plaintiff had used benefits under the agreement and exercised control over the Comcast account. The court held that the plaintiff was therefore equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration.

James Shelton’s father signed up for Comcast and agreed to Comcast’s subscriber agreement, which provided, among other things, that Mr. Shelton’s father was accepting the agreement “on behalf of all persons who use [Comcast’s] Equipment and/or Service(s) at the Premises” (i.e., the Shelton household) and that Mr. Shelton’s father had “sole responsibility for ensuring that all other users understand and comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any applicable policies.” The agreement also contained an arbitration clause.

Mr. Shelton, who lived in the Shelton household, subsequently placed a service call to Comcast in which he acknowledged using Comcast’s services and setting up his account online. Mr. Shelton also “associated his own personal cell phone with the Shelton Household Account.”

Mr. Shelton later filed suit alleging that Comcast and other defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by “check[ing] his credit report without a permissible purpose.”

Comcast moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the subscriber agreement.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Comcast’s motion. Applying Pennsylvania law, the court held that Mr. Shelton was “equitably estopped from avoiding the Arbitration Provision” in the subscriber agreement because, even though “other members of [Mr. Shelton’s] household … originally contracted for Comcast’s services,” Mr. Shelton had “sought and obtained benefits under the agreement by … not only using the Comcast services provided under the agreement at the Shelton Household, but also by exercising control over the account.” Mr. Shelton “‘did more than just passively benefit from the services.’”

Shelton v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:20-cv-01763 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2021).

First Circuit Affirms That Assignee May Compel Arbitration

by

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed that a debt collection company defendant could compel arbitration where it was assigned rights from a credit card company.

Jackeline Barbosa opened a credit card with Barclays Bank Delaware. She later had an overdue, unpaid balance. Barclays bundled Barbosa’s unpaid balance with other such balances and sold it to Midland Funding LLC, a shell entity that assigned its rights to Midland Credit Management Inc. (MCM), which retained the law firm of Schreiber/Cohen LLC “to assist in MCM’s debt collection efforts.” Midland Funding filed a claim for the debt in Boston Municipal Court, but that court held that “Midland Funding had not proved it owned the subject debt” and ruled in favor of Barbosa. Barbosa and two other plaintiffs then brought a federal putative class action against MCM and Schreiber/Cohen alleging, among other things, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. MCM and Schreiber/Cohen moved to compel arbitration. A magistrate judge recommended the court compel arbitration and the district court agreed. Barbosa appealed.

The First Circuit affirmed. It rejected Barbosa’s claim that MCM and Schreiber/Cohen did not have the contractual authority to compel arbitration. The court explained that Barclays had expressly assigned its rights to Midland Funding and that MCM “is the servicer and agent of Midland Funding” and “Schreiber/Cohen is Midland Funding’s agent.” The cardmember agreement Barbosa had signed “included an assignment provision giving Barclays permission to ‘at any time assign or sell [Barbosa’s] Account’” and that “‘the person(s) to whom [Barclays] make[s] any such assignment or sale shall be entitled to all of our rights under [the] Agreement.’”

Barbosa v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 19-1896 (1st Cir. Nov. 25, 2020).

Third Circuit Affirms Order Unsealing Arbitration Award

by

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order unsealing an arbitration award because the award had been filed with the district court as part of confirmation proceedings and the recipient of the award had not demonstrated a specific harm sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access to documents filed with the courts.

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. arbitrated whether it “was entitled to proceeds based on insurance claims it made to [two of its] reinsurers.”

The arbitration panel issued an award in Penn National’s favor, and Penn National petitioned the district court to confirm that award. As part of the confirmation process, Penn National filed the award with the court, which granted Penn National’s motion to seal the award.

The parties settled before the court confirmed the award.

After the settlement, Everest Reinsurance Co. moved to intervene and unseal the award. The district court originally denied that motion, but the Third Circuit remanded the case after concluding that the court had applied the wrong standard.

On remand, the district court granted Everest’s motion.

The Third Circuit affirmed. It rejected Penn National’s argument “that the arbitration award [was] not a judicial record to which the common-law right of access applies,” explaining that “Penn National filed the arbitration award on the docket with the District Court as part of its motion to confirm the award. Thus, according to [the Third Circuit’s] precedents, the award became a judicial record subject to the common-law right of access.” The court also held that the district court did not err by “holding that [Penn National] did not demonstrate a specific harm sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access.” The Third Circuit explained that an affidavit submitted by one of Penn National’s officers that “other reinsurers might choose to forego paying Penn National and contest their contractual obligation to pay if they learned of the contents in the arbitration award” was insufficient because the court “could not ‘determine how many possible relationships could be impacted, the amount of money that could be at stake, the types of actions other parties may pursue, or the likelihood that any such actions would be successful.’”

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. New England Reinsurance Corp., Nos. 20-1635 & 20-1872 (3d Cir. Dec. 24, 2020).

Federal Court Refuses To Compel Arbitration or Appoint Arbitrators Where No Party Had Refused To Arbitrate and Both Parties Were Working on Selecting Arbitrators

by

A federal court recently refused to compel arbitration after it concluded that there had been no refusal to arbitrate. The court also refused to appoint arbitrators for the parties.

Linda L. Allen claimed Horter Investment Management, LLC’s “representatives sold fraudulent and unregistered investments.” She claimed those claims were subject to arbitration pursuant to a clause in a client agreement that provided that “[c]lient and [a]dvisor both agree that all controversies which may arise between them concerning any transaction or construction, performance or breach of this agreement that cannot be settled, be submitted to binding arbitration.”

Allen and her fellow plaintiffs moved to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, for the appointment of arbitrators. Horter responded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because it had not refused to arbitrate and was participating in the selection of arbitrators.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division) agreed with Horter. Although the plaintiffs “initiated arbitration with the AAA, but the AAA declined to administer the clams because of [Horter’s] past actions,” the court did “not find that [Horter’s] acts amount to an unequivocal refusal to arbitrate. Instead, Defendant has expressly acknowledged the agreement to arbitrate. The parties have been working together in the Bruns case and this case to reach an agreement regarding the selection of arbitrators. The Court notes that some of the delay in this process is attributable to Plaintiffs’ change in position regarding consolidated arbitration.” The court also declined to appoint arbitrators because “[b]oth parties are amenable to private arbitration and the names of specific arbitrators have been exchanged.”

Linda L. Allen, et al. v. Horter Investment Management, LLC (S.D. Oh. Sept. 30 2020).