Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

SPECIAL FOCUS: solvent schemes of arrangement

by

Solvent schemes of arrangement are processes through which solvent companies may commute all policies within the purview of the scheme, effecting a voluntary dissolution or clean reorganization with a relatively short tail. Found predominantly in the UK, they have been subject to some recent court decisions, which have included jurisdictional questions, such as whether such schemes can be imposed where some creditors or policy holders are domiciled in the US or other countries. They are controversial with US companies since they effect a reorganization outside bankruptcy laws or “traditional” US insurance rehabilitation/liquidation proceedings:

  • This process is described by PriceWaterhouse Coopers and Marsh Risk Consulting in special papers found on their web sites.
  • PWC has compiled a guide to specific schemes of arrangement, which describes actual schemes of arrangement administered in the UK.
  • Rhode Island is the first US jurisdiction to adopt a statutory structure providing for such a process, which can be utilized only by companies domiciled under Rhode Island law. Since its adoption in 2002, there have not been any reported court opinions relating to the Rhode Island statutes.  There has been some speculation as to whether the availability of this “abbreviated” form of reorganization might prompt run-off companies, or those preparing to enter a run-off mode, to re-domicile in Rhode Island. 

Court of Appeal explains "manifest disregard of the law" standard

by

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a securities case, affirmed the refusal of a District Court to vacate an arbitration award. Appellant conceded that none of the four bases for vacating an award articulated by the Federal Arbitration Act were present, but contended that the award should be vacated nevertheless because the award was “in manifest disregard of the law.” The Court described this standard as requiring that a panel ignore well defined, explicit law that was clearly applicable to the case, and that decisions based upon debatable points of law and disputed issues of fact did not satisfy this standard. Kurke v. Oscar Gruss and Son, Inc., Case No. 05-7018 (D.C. Cir. July 18, 2006).

Motion to vacate arbitration award rejected as untimely

by

In an unreported opinion (not available on PACER) not involving reinsurance, the Second Circuit affirmed the rejection of a motion to vacate an arbitration award, where the motion was served within the three month period required by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) for service of such a motion, but was filed one day after the 90 day period expired for filing such a motion under applicable New York law. The Court found that since the FAA contained a service deadline, but not a filing deadline, it was appropriate to apply the filing deadline contained in New York state law, illustrating the importance of being cognizant of both service and filing deadlines. Hakala v. J. P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Case No. 05-3140 (2d Cir. June 21, 2006).

Summary judgment for reinsurer affirmed in collateral assignment case

by

A Florida Court of Appeal has affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a reinsurer arising out of the partial assignment of the underlying insurance policy as security for a loan, where the reinsurer paid the insured $8 million for a fire loss, ignoring the recorded assignment. Banco Ficohsa v. Aseguradora Hondurena, S.A., – So.2d -, 2006 WL 1999368 (Fla. 3rd DCA July 19, 2006) (slip opinion). Carlton Fields represented Banco Ficohsa in the appeal of this case.