Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions

Arbitration / Court Decisions

UK COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES JUDGMENT ORDERING THE POSTING OF SECURITY IN ARBITRATION-RELATED ACTION

by

The UK Court of Appeals has allowed an appeal and reversed an Order for security for costs in favor of a party seeking to set aside the enforcement of an arbitration award rendered at the International Commercial Arbitration Court in Moscow, Russia. The analysis may be of interest to those involved in international arbitrations involving the New York Convention. The lower court’s decision was reported on in this blog on June 14, 2007. Gater Assets Ltd. v. Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy [2007] EWHC 725 (CA Oct. 17, 2007).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

CLASS ACTION SHAREHOLDER LAWSUIT AGAINST SCOTTISH RE STAYS ALIVE, THOUGH NOT INTACT

by

A New York federal district judge recently ruled on motions to dismiss filed by all defendants in a putative class action shareholder lawsuit against reinsurance company Scottish Re and others. The Complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with Scottish Re’s accounting for deferred tax assets in its financial statements and its certifications of the adequacy of the Company’s internal controls. The judge dismissed claims alleged against the accounting firm Ernst & Young (for failing to adequately establish scienter), but denied the remainder of the motions to dismiss. In re Scottish Re Group Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-5853 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2007).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

COURT HOLDS THAT FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT IS NOT A SOURCE OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

by

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently dismissed an appeal of an Order which addressed venue and transfer issues in a matter filed seeking to vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The Court held that since the FAA can not itself be a basis for federal question jurisdiction, and there were insufficient jurisdictional allegations to establish diversity jurisdiction, the federal courts lacked jurisdiction of the matter, and remanded the case with instructions that it be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Other courts have also held that the FAA does not itself confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a federal court. Oteeva, LP v. X-Concepts LLC, No. 06-11181 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2007).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

COURT DENIES INSOLVENT INSURER’S MOTION TO DISMISS; ACTION TO BAR ARBITRATION WILL PROCEED

by

Plaintiff, Midwest Employers Casualty Company (“MECC”) filed an action to bar Legion Insurance Company (“Legion”) from arbitrating forty-three reinsurance contracts, which MECC claimed did not contain arbitration provisions. MECC also sought a declaration of its liability under those contracts. Legion filed a motion to dismiss on four separate grounds. The court denied the motion to dismiss.

First, Legion, which is in liquidation, argued that because the Pennsylvania court had in rem jurisdiction over its assets, the Missouri federal court could not exercise jurisdiction. The court disagreed, finding that while the liquidation action was in rem, the present action was in personam. Second, Legion argued that the case was “reverse preempted” by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The court disagreed on the basis that the ultimate issue in the case was a standard contract dispute, and did not involve the state’s regulation of insurance. Third, Legion argued that the court should abstain from deciding the case under Burford v. Sun Oil Company. In Burford, the Supreme Court held that abstention is appropriate where “exercise of federal review of the question in a case and in similar cases would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern.” The district court concluded that abstention under Burford was not appropriate because this case did not affect complex state administrative processes and would not impair the liquidation process. Finally, Legion argued that full faith and credit and the principle of comity required the court to defer to the liquidation proceedings. The court disagreed, finding that those principles did not prevent its exercise of jurisdiction. Midwest Employers Casualty Co. v. Legion Ins. Co., Case No. 4:07-cv-00870, (USDC E.D. Mo. Nov. 11, 2007).

UK COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS DECISION REGARDING NORTH KOREAN REINSURANCE CLAIMS

by

In a September 6, 2007 post to this blog, we reported on the decision of the UK Commercial Court striking a defense of settlement to reinsurance claims arising out of claims by North Korean insurers. The UK Court of appeals has affirmed that ruling. Korea National Ins. Corp. v. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG [2007] EWCA Civ. 1066 (Court of Appeals Oct. 30, 2007).