Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Michael Wolgin

Michael Wolgin

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Restructuring Plan Involving Scottish Re

by

A Chapter 11 restructuring plan involving various affiliates of Scottish Re, each of which separately declared bankruptcy in different jurisdictions, was recently approved by a bankruptcy court in Delaware. The finalization of the plan depended on coordination among: (1) Scottish Holdings Inc. (“SHI”), (2) Scottish Re: Group, LTD., SHI’s parent company, (3) Scottish Annuity & Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (“SALIC”), an indirect debtor subsidiary, and (4) Scottish Financial Luxembourg (“SFL”), a financing entity. Prior to the approval of the plan, the receiver for SFL, which asserted an unsecured, nonpriority claim against SALIC in the amount of $63,536,041.32 for a debenture assigned from Scottish Re, stipulated with SHI that any potential claims against certain current or former members of the board of managers for SFL would be preserved. The stipulation and the restructuring plan was then approved. In re Scottish Holdings Inc. et al., Case No. 18- 10160 (U.S. Bankr. Ct. Del. Aug. 22, 2018).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.

Eleventh Circuit Reverses Sanction Imposed Against Party That Defaulted in Arbitration to Determine Whether Party Acted in Bad Faith

by

The Eleventh Circuit reversed a lower court’s entry of a default judgment against Acosta Tractors, Inc., that was based solely on Acosta’s default in the underlying arbitration. Julio Hernandez had filed a claim for unpaid wages against Acosta under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Acosta compelled arbitration. However, the arbitration did not “proceed as planned,” as the arbitrator refused to consolidate Mr. Hernandez’s case with two similar actions and allowed “extensive discovery,” including 29 depositions, across the three separate arbitrations. Arbitration fees quickly added up to over $100,000, far exceeding the amount of the plaintiffs’ claims. Acosta refused to pay the arbitration fees and sought to return to the trial court. Instead, the trial court entered a default judgment against Acosta, based on its admission that it had refused to pay the costs of the arbitration and the lack of evidence establishing its inability to do so.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the trial court’s ruling. The Eleventh Circuit noted that it was within the lower court’s inherent power to enter a default judgment against Acosta, but held that it was error to do so “solely because a party defaulted in the underlying arbitration.” In order to impose a sanction against a party pursuant to its inherent power, the court “must make a finding that the sanctioned party acted with subjective bad faith.” The case was remanded to the District Court to determine whether the requisite bad faith existed. Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., Case Nos. 17-13057; 17-13673 (11th Cir. August 8, 2018).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.

National Flood Insurance Program Extended to November 30, 2018

by

On July 31, 2018, President Trump signed the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2018. The act extends the duration of the National Flood Insurance Act to November 30, 2018, updating both the “Financing” (42 U.S.C. § 4016(a)) and “Program Expiration” (42 U.S.C. § 4026) provisions of the Act. The program was set to expire on the day the law was passed. Calls for reform of the program remain outstanding. S. 1182, 115th Cong. (2018).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.

Court Construes Reinsurance Participation Agreement, Rejects Venue Objection, and Confirms Arbitration Award

by

O’Connell Landscape Maintenance, Inc. (O’Connell) and Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. (AUCRA) entered into a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA). After a dispute arose related to the agreement, the parties entered arbitration in California, which resulted in an award to AUCRA of $38,960 in attorney fees and $43,170.44 in costs. AUCRA petitioned a California federal district court to confirm the award, but O’Connell opposed the petition, arguing that the RPA selected Nebraska as the exclusive jurisdiction for enforcing the award. The court disagreed, finding that the RPA obligated only O’Connell to submit to the jurisdiction of Nebraska. The RPA did not designate Nebraska as the exclusive jurisdiction for AUCRA to seek enforcement of the award. The court rejected an additional argument by O’Connell regarding the service of the petition, and confirmed the award. O’Connell noticed its appeal on July 6, 2018. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc. v. O’Connell Landscape Maintenance, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-00683 (USDC C.D. Cal. June 25, 2018) (order) & (USDC C.D. Cal. July 6, 2018) (notice of appeal).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.

Minority Shareholders Utilize 28 USC § 1782 to Issue Subpoenas in Aid of Criminal Action They Plan to File Against Company Director in Luxembourg

by

A group of minority shareholders of Acheron Portfolio Corporation Luxembourg S.A. have convinced a federal district court in New York to permit them to subpoena several large banks for documents in aid of the shareholders’ plan to file a criminal action in Luxembourg against the director of Acheron, Jean-Michel Paul. The shareholders allege that Paul improperly failed to disclose his ownership interest in Litai, a company that Acheron hired to administer life insurance policies in which Acheron had invested. The petitioners assert Paul’s ownership interest in Litai created a conflict of interest with his position at Acheron.

The petitioners applied to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for permission to issue the subpoenas. Section 1782 serves two purposes: “providing efficient means of assistance to participants in international litigation in our federal courts and encouraging foreign countries by example to provide similar means of assistance to our courts.” There are three statutory prerequisites to obtaining relief under section 1782. “First, the person from whom discovery is sought must reside or be found in the district of the district court where the application is made; second, the discovery must be for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal; and third, the application must be made by the foreign tribunal or “any interested person.”

Once the statutory requirements are met, the district court has “wide discretion” whether to issue the discovery orders. Generally, the court should consider four discretionary factors: (1) whether the documents are within the foreign tribunal’s jurisdictional reach, (2) the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or court abroad to U.S. federal court assistance, (3) whether the section 1782 request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States, and (4) whether the subpoena contains “unduly intrusive or burdensome requests.”

Here, the shareholders overcame the fact that no action was pending by submitting a sworn statement that they “intend to file a criminal complaint against Paul in the Luxembourg Criminal Court and have articulated a specific legal theory on which they intend to rely.” Paul and Litai argued that it was “clear” that the shareholders had no “basis for bringing a criminal complaint in a Luxembourg court and therefore this application is simply a fishing expedition.” The court, however, determined that it was not tasked with considering the merits of the foreign proceeding when presented with an application under section 1782. Although it acknowledged that Paul and Litai “may be right” that the shareholders would ultimately fail, it nevertheless granted their request to issue the subpoenas to the banks. In re Application of Furstenberg Finance SAS, No. 18-mc-44 (USDC S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018) (Memorandum Opinion & Order) & (Final Order)

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.