• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Reinsurance Transactions / Accounting for Reinsurance / COMPLAINT FAILS TO OVERCOME HEIGHTENED PLEADING STANDARD FOR FRAUD RELATING TO REPORTING OF REINSURER’S LOSSES

COMPLAINT FAILS TO OVERCOME HEIGHTENED PLEADING STANDARD FOR FRAUD RELATING TO REPORTING OF REINSURER’S LOSSES

October 15, 2015 by Carlton Fields

The Southern District of New York granted Amtrust Financial Services’ motion to dismiss after finding that the plaintiff failed to specifically allege misstatements or omissions necessary to prove scienter in claims related to purported misrepresentations of defendant’s consolidated financial statements. Plaintiff claimed that Amtrust’s financial statements fraudulently misrepresented losses associated with insurance policies, the premiums for which had been ceded to a foreign subsidiary. Amtrust’s foreign subsidiary, located in Luxemburg, operated using an equalization reserve, allowing the reinsurer to offset losses by drawing on the fund. Such reserves are not a feature of U.S. reinsurance companies, and the generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) does not address how such withdrawals should be accounted. The court held that the alleged misstatements failed to specifically allege any facts relating to fraud or scienter. The complaint did not contain sufficient facts to support a material violation of the GAAP or the required intent to defraud. The court reiterated the notion that GAAP principles are subject to the discretion of management. Absent specific facts relating to an intent to conceal or defraud, the determination relating to accounting principles alone was held to not be sufficient to maintain an action alleging securities fraud. Harris v. Amtrust Financial Services Inc., Case No. 14-CV-736 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2015).

This post written by Joshua S. Wirth, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Accounting for Reinsurance

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.