Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Reinsurance Transactions

Reinsurance Transactions

LLOYD’S PERMITTED TO OPERATE IN FLORIDA WITH REDUCED COLLATERAL AS “ELIGIBLE REINSURER”

by

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London was approved by Consent Order of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation to become the seventeenth reinsurer admitted under Florida’s law allowing foreign reinsurers to post reduced collateral, upon demonstration that it is financially sound and highly rated by eligible ratings institutions. As set forth in the Consent Order, Lloyd’s reported capital and surplus of $29.9 billion, well-exceeding Florida’s $250 million requirement. In re Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (Fla. O.I.R. Oct. 6, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

U.K. COURT AFFIRMS 21-MONTH SENTENCE FOR REINSURANCE BROKER CONVICTED OF GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION

by

Julian Jeffrey Messent, a reinsurance broker who was head of the Property Division (Americas) of PWS International Limited, a London-based reinsurance broker, was convicted in London in late 2010 of corruption offenses, stemming from his supervision of payments made to various Costa Rican governmental officials. The payments were found to be bribes meant to steer reinsurance placement for Costa Rican government-owned utility organizations to PWS. For his placement of the contracts, Messent received large incentive bonuses between 1999 and 2002 from PWS. After a new President of Costa Rica was elected in 2002, newly appointed Costa Rican officials discovered the improper payments, and both the Costa Rican and U.K. governments undertook criminal investigations which led to Messent’s arrest in 2007. Messent appealed his sentencing of 21 months each on two counts of corruption (to run concurrently), as well as a fine of £100,000. The convictions were affirmed on appeal, the court noting “there can be no doubt that corruption of foreign government officials . . . is at the top end of serious corporate offending both in terms of culpability and harm.” Regina v. Messent, [2011] EWCA Crim 644 (Eng. Ct. App.).

This post written by John Pitblado.

NEW YORK CLARIFIES NEWLY EFFECTIVE DODD-FRANK REINSURANCE PROVISIONS

by

The New York Insurance Department issued Circular Letter No. 9 on July 22, 2011, which provides “guidance and clarification” on the impact of the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 (“NRRA”) (passed as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) on surplus line placements in the state. The letter cites to and discusses the various New York state insurance and tax laws which were amended to conform to the NRRA. New York is one of the states which has declined to enter into a surplus insurance premium tax compact, keeping 100% of the tax it collects. The letter clarifies eligibility requirements for non-admitted insurers under NAIC’s Nonadmitted Insurance Model Act, which was codified under New York law; it clarifies exemptions for “exempt commercial purchasers” from satisfying due diligence requirements concerning placement with admitted insurers; and it discusses the “home state” law governing the exclusive regulation of non-admitted insurers by the insurer’s “home state” only. The letter also addresses licensing and taxation issues. Certain of the New York laws, and the NRRA, became effective on July 21, 2011.

This post written by John Pitblado.

CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS RELATING TO GEN RE-AIG FINITE REINSURANCE TRANSACTION VACATED BY COURT OF APPEAL

by

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has vacated the criminal convictions of Gen Re and AIG executives stemming from a finite reinsurance transaction with undisclosed payments, which allegedly was intended to improve AIG’s financial statements without transferring any significant risk. A jury had convicted all of the defendants on all charges. The matter was remanded for a new trial. After hundreds of pages of briefing and numerous arguments of prosecutorial misconduct, erroneous evidentiary rulings and improper jury charges, the Court of Appeals found only two bases for vacating the convictions: (1) the admission of three bar charts which linked the decline in AIG’s stock price to the transaction at issue; and (2) a jury charge “that allowed the jury to convict without finding causation.”

The stock price evidence was interesting because the court found that “the charged offenses here do not require a showing of loss causation ….” Nevertheless, the prosecution sought to use causation evidence “to humanize its prosecution” and show that the transaction harmed AIG stockholders who had purchased AIG stock for their retirement accounts or the college funds of their children. The evidence presented the defendants with a dilemma: to allow the jury to attribute the full stock price decline to the transaction or introduce prejudicial evidence “of other besetting scandals, wrongdoing, and potentially illegal actions at AIG.” The defendants sought to sidestep the problem by stipulating to materiality, but the government refused. The court found that the district court’s admission of the charts was inconsistent with other rulings on the stock price issue, and was prejudicial to the defendants.

With respect to the jury charge issue, the court noted that the defendants did not specifically object to the causation instruction, which was the product of competing suggestions by counsel, but that the instruction nevertheless warranted reversal under the plain error rule, as it “is improbable, let alone ‘absolute[ly] certain[],’ that the jury based its verdict on a properly instructed ground.”

This opinion contains an extensive but relatively concise discussion of the finite reinsurance transaction at issue, and of the fact that low risk finite reinsurance transactions are acceptable, “and have their uses,” unless they violate FAS 113, the so-called 10-10 rule, entail no risk, and amount to fraud. The court described how this particular transaction was deliberately structured to conceal certain credits and repayments from the companies’ outside auditors. The court rejected all but two of the defendants’ numerous challenges, including allegations that one key prosecution witness had committed perjury, although it suggested that the government be circumspect about how his testimony is presented in a new trial. A major “take away” from this opinion is the clear holding that finite reinsurance transactions can be the basis for criminal convictions of the executives involved in such transactions. United States v. Ferguson, et al., No. 08-6211-CR (2d Cir. August 1, 2011).

This post written by Rollie Goss.