Reserves

NAIC PUBLISHES EXPOSURE DRAFT OF CAPTIVES WHITE PAPER

November 5, 2012 by Carlton Fields

We previously reported on the NAIC’s inquiry into the potentially abusive use of captives to avoid certain accounting rules. As part of that inquiry, the NAIC’s Financial Condition (E) Committee’s Captives and Special Purpose Vehicle Use Subgroup has called for comments on its white paper titled Captives and Special Purpose Vehicles. Comments are due by the close of business on November 16, 2012. The white paper describes some disagreement among different states on issues relating to captives. The end of the comment period is shortly before the NAIC’s scheduled fall meeting.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

FACT QUESTIONS PREVENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN INDEMNITY ACTION BY ACQUIRER OF REINSURER OF AIRPLANES INVOLVED IN 9/11 ATTACK

September 24, 2012 by Carlton Fields

An acquirer of a reinsurance company sued the former parent company of the reinsurer under the relevant stock purchase agreement (SPA) for indemnification of $13.1 million in “losses” allegedly owed in connection with reinsurance contracts that covered the airplanes that were involved in the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11. The acquirer contended that the reinsurer misrepresented the extent of its 9/11 liabilities by setting its reserves based on one “terrorism” event under the governing contracts, rather than a higher liability for two “hijacking” attacks. The acquirer argued that the reinsurer was required to reserve for two attacks because the cedents had done so, and because the reinsurer had received broker advices for two losses. The court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, holding that factual questions existed as to whether the reinsurer’s alleged fraud constitutes a “loss” under the SPA, and if it does, whether the “loss” was caused by the falsity of the reinsurer’s misrepresentations. The court’s findings included: (1) that the SPA’s provisions providing indemnity for “loss” were ambiguous, such that the court could not determine whether indemnity was limited to only amounts paid in excess of the reinsurer’s reserves; and (2) that conflicting testimony of the parties’ experts as to whether the reinsurer misrepresented that its reserving practices complied with “U.S. generally accepted actuarial standards” created disputed issues of fact. The court also held that benefit of the bargain damages were not available under the SPA, which contained broad waivers of “all causes of action related to the transactions contemplated” by the agreement, and of consequential, indirect, and incidental damages. WT Holdings, Inc. v. Argonaut Group, Inc., Case No. 600925/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 10, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSES DENIAL OF SETTLEMENT CLASS CERTIFICATION IN AIG/GEN RE FINITE REINSURANCE SECURITIES LITIGATION

August 22, 2012 by Carlton Fields

In a case we have reported on previously, AIG purported to settle class action securities law claims arising from alleged finite reinsurance transactions between it and Gen Re. The district court, however, denied the parties’ joint motion for approval of the settlement, finding that it could not certify a settlement class because the “fraud-on-the-market” theory used to prove reliance was not viable under the facts of the case, resulting in a failure to satisfy the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Second Circuit reversed, however, finding that the failure of the fraud-on-the-market theory was relevant only to a manageability analysis, and not to a predominance analysis. Since a court need not engage in a manageability analysis to certify a settlement class under the Supreme Court’s Amchem case, a settlement class could be certified. In re American International Group Securities Litigation, No. 10-4401-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2012)

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

NAIC GROUP MEETS TO DISCUSS POTENTIALLY ABUSIVE USE OF CAPTIVES

August 21, 2012 by Carlton Fields

The NAIC Captive and Special Purpose Vehicle Use Subgroup held a meeting on August 11, 2012 to discuss the Subgroup’s Captives and Special Purpose Vehicles draft White Paper. The Subgroup was formed earlier this year, the draft White Paper explains, to address the broadened use of captives and the potential concern that a “shadow insurance industry is emerging.” The draft White Paper addresses, in some detail, state authority over captives and SPVs, transparency and confidentiality requirements, the types of business and risks ceded to captives and SPVs, capitalization standards, accounting and reporting requirements, credit for reinsurance, and holding company analysis considerations.

A primary concern of the Subgroup is that some captives and SPVs may be being used as a means to avoid statutory accounting rules. The White Paper concludes that, in the transactions the Subgroup reviewed, regulators properly required that transactions made with captives to support economic reserves be backed with investment grade, liquid assets, such that the “net result” of the transactions be that “collectively the ceding insurer and captive have liquid assets supporting GAAP equivalent reserves.” The White Paper also makes recommendations regarding the accounting treatment for XXX and AXXX reserve redundancies, and encourages states with active captive and SPV markets to adopt the NAIC’s Special Purposes Reinsurance Vehicles Model Act, and further suggests that changes might be made to this model act to encourage states to adopt it. Minutes of the August 11 meeting and minutes of prior meetings of the subgroup held by conference call are available for review.

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

PROSECUTORS TO DISMISS INDICTMENT AGAINST GEN RE AND AIG EXECUTIVES

July 2, 2012 by Carlton Fields

On August 2, 2011, we reported on a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to vacate the criminal convictions of Gen Re and AIG executives stemming from an allegedly fraudulent finite reinsurance transaction designed to improve AIG’s financial statements. On June 22, 2012, the defendants entered into agreements with prosecutors to defer prosecution and dismiss the indictments after passage of one year, subject to the defendants’ respective payment of fines ranging from $250,000 to $100,000, and compliance with other conditions. The agreements identified “relevant considerations” to their execution, namely, (a) the Second Circuit’s vacatur decision, (b) the 12 months time that has now elapsed since the defendants’ conduct, (c) the significant resources required to conduct a retrial, (d) the defendants’ payment of fines, (e) SEC penalties, and (f) defendants’ admission that certain “aspects” of the reinsurance transaction were fraudulent. United States v. Ferguson, Case No. 3:06CR137 (USDC D. Conn. June 22, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.