Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

COURT VACATES ARBITRATION AWARD DUE TO EVIDENT PARTIALITY OF PANEL, BUT PARTIES MUST RE-ARBITRATE MATTER BEFORE SAME ARBITRAL FORUM

by

In a dispute between the Washington Nationals, the Baltimore Orioles, and affiliated parties regarding the value of broadcasting rights for Nationals games, an appellate court has affirmed a trial court order vacating an arbitration award on the basis of evident partiality by the arbitration panel, while also denying a motion to compel the parties to re-arbitrate the matter in a different arbitral forum.

In 2005, the Montreal Expos moved to Washington, DC, and became the Nationals. This led to an agreement under which the Orioles Television Network, which the Orioles had established with TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, LLP, became MASN, a regional sports network with rights to broadcast both Orioles and Nationals games. The agreement set the broadcast fees from 2005-2011, after which the parties were to negotiate those fees. The parties further agreed to arbitrate disputes before the Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (“RSDC”), a MLB-created body comprised of representatives of other MLB clubs.

A fee dispute arose between the parties regarding the broadcasting of Nationals games, and the matter proceeded to arbitration. The Nationals were represented by Proskauer Rose, which the Orioles and MASN objected to based on Proskauer’s past representations of the Nationals, MLB, and each of the three teams with members participating on the RSDC. Despite this objection, the arbitration proceeded and resulted in an order setting the amount MASN would pay the Nationals from 2012-2016.

MASN moved to vacate the award on numerous grounds, but the district court rejected all but one; the court found that that Proskauer’s representation of the Nationals led to “evident partiality,” making the proceedings fundamentally unfair. However, the district court rejected MASN’s motion to order the parties to re-arbitrate the matter in an arbitral forum unaffiliated with MLB.

The appellate court upheld the finding of evident partiality, noting that, under the FAA, a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award on this basis “bears the burden of showing that a reasonable person, considering all the circumstances, would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration”. The court found that MASN and the Orioles had met this burden based on the sheer volume of Proskauer’s representation of the RSDC panel members and MLB and the failure of the panel members to investigate the issue sufficiently or to fully disclose their own relationships to Proskauer. The appellate court also upheld the trial court’s refusal to order the parties to re-arbitrate the matter in a different forum. Emphasizing the FAA’s strong bias in favor of enforcing agreements to arbitrate as written, the court held that parties are free agree to “insider” arbitral forums that, like the RSDC, may be inherently prone to certain conflicts. The court also noted that the problem that led the original award to be vacated – Proskauer’s conflicts – had been remedied by the National’s hiring of new counsel. Thus, the court found that the parties could not be ordered to arbitrate the matter in a forum other than the RSDC.

TCR Sports Broad. Holding, LLP v. WN Partner, LLC, 3595, Index 652044/14 (N.Y. App. Div. July 13, 2017)

SIXTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS ARBITRATOR’S DECISION IN ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION MATTER

by

The Sixth Circuit has affirmed an order confirming an arbitration award regarding indemnification obligations for environmental cleanup owed by William Farley toward the Eaton Corporation arising out of the 1986 sale of an industrial property. Farley argued that the remediation in question was not covered by the relevant indemnification provision and that the arbitrator improperly ignored that provision’s unambiguous language. Applying the extreme deference given to arbitrator’s decisions, the Sixth Circuit disagreed.

Eaton purchased the property from Condec Corporation in 1986, and Condec agreed to indemnify Eaton for expenses “resulting from non-compliance prior to August 8, 1986 by [Condec], with any applicable laws, regulations, orders, or other requirements of any governmental authorities existing on or before August 8, 1986.” While a state environmental regulator had issued a Letter of Deficiency in 1982 and a Notice of Violation in 1984, both related to the environmental contamination that later needed to be remediated, and Condec was not ordered to clean it up until after the sale. After Condec’s successor entity went bankrupt, Farley assumed Condec’s indemnification obligations under a new agreement with materially identical terms.

After numerous indemnification payments were made to Eaton, Farley filed a claim against it contesting the validity of some of these payments, and Eaton counterclaimed for additional remediation costs. Farley argued that Eaton’s remediation costs were not covered by the indemnification provisions in the operative agreements, because Eaton was not ordered to clean up the site until after August 8, 1986. The arbitrator disagreed, finding that the intent of the agreement was to indemnify Eaton for the cleanup of contamination existing prior to the 1986 sale, and the arbitrator awarded Eaton over $175,000 in damages and over $1 million in attorneys’ fees and costs.

Challenging this award, Farley argued that the arbitrator had disregarded the explicit language of the indemnification provision and read an intent into that provision that was not supported by its language. The Sixth Circuit, noting that it could not overturn the decision of the arbitrator “[s]o long as the arbitrator is arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority,” even if the court were “convinced that he committed serious errors,” found that Farley’s arguments were insufficient, and it upheld the arbitrator’s decision.

Farley v. Eaton Corp., Case No. 16-3893 (6th Cir. July 20, 2017)

This post written by Jason Brost.

See our disclaimer.

IN DECIDING WHETHER TO VACATE CONFIRMATION OF ARBITRAL AWARD SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED BY PRIMARY JURISDICTION, SECOND CIRCUIT CONSIDERS NORMAL RULE 60(B)(5) FACTORS PLUS INTERNATIONAL COMITY

by

The Second Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s decision to vacate its earlier judgment enforcing a Malaysian-based arbitration award against the government of Laos where a Malaysian court subsequently set aside the award. After a dispute between a Thai company and its Laotian subsidiary (“TLL”) against the Laotian government over mining contracts, an arbitration panel in Malaysia found Laos in breach and awarded TLL $57 million. Once the period for challenging the award under Malaysian law passed, TLL pursued enforcement actions against Laos in the U.S., U.K., and France. In late 2010, nine months after the operative deadline, Laos moved for an extension of time to challenge the award, which the Malaysian court granted. While a U.S. district court issued relief enforcing the award in 2011, the Malaysian court then set aside the award in 2012. The present appeal arose from the district court’s 2014 decision granting Laos’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion to vacate its previous confirmation order to give effect to the Malaysian court’s set-aside judgment and two subsequent orders.

First, the court held that Rule 60(b)(5) applies to motions to vacate judgments confirming arbitral awards that are subsequently set aside by the primary jurisdiction. Reviewing the New York Convention and FAA texts, it found the Convention’s requirement of enforcing arbitral awards in accordance with the secondary jurisdiction’s procedural rules includes post-judgment procedures like Rule 60(b). Further, the FAA provision subjecting judgments to the “provisions of law relating to” judgments in an action extends to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Next, the court discussed what a district court’s Rule 60(b)(5) analysis should entail in this context. It found that a district court should take into consideration the Convention’s concern for international comity as well as the “full range of Rule 60(b) considerations.” In the present case, the Second Circuit concluded that the lower court did not exceed its discretion in applying Rule 60(b)(5). The lower court did not explicitly lay out its Rule 60(b) analysis, but the appellate court reviewed the record and found all the circumstances potentially influencing the Rule 60(b) motion did not bar the district court from vacating its prior judgment. The Second Circuit observed that throughout the proceedings the lower court explicitly considered the interests of justice, appropriately declined to find Laos acted inequitably, and the interests of finality did not weigh against the lower court’s decision. The court concluded that had the lower court expressly reviewed the relevant conduct in context of Laos’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion, it would not have enforced the annulled award.

Finally, the Second Circuit found no abuse of discretion in two other district court decisions rejecting TLL’s request for a security bond and refusing to enforce the English judgment. It noted the English judgment’s strong connection (and reliance upon) the district court’s original confirmation award which had since been vacated and rejected TLL’s other arguments on that order.

Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Gov’t of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nos. 14-597, 14-1052, 14-1497 (2d Cir. July 20, 2017).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

GEORGIA REVAMPS LAW GOVERNING CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES

by

Significant changes to Georgia law governing captive insurance companies took effect on July 1, 2017. The changes relate to the permitted corporate structure of captive insurance companies, new restrictions on risks that may be reinsured by certain captives, procedures for forming, converting and dissolving a captive, and streamlining the issuance of certificates of authority to newly formed captives, among other changes.

Specifically, the new law authorizes captive insurance companies to be formed as manager-managed limited liability companies, in addition to continuing to permit them to be organized as stock or mutual insurers. The Act streamlines the default process to obtain a certificate of authority by directing the Insurance Commissioner to “promptly issue” a certificate of authority to a captive upon satisfaction that the documents filed by the captive comply with the requirements for captive formation. The prior procedure, which the Act authorizes the Commissioner to follow if he chooses, required a captive to provide additional documentation regarding the company’s capital or surplus and a certified financial statement. Under the new default procedure, the captive is required to provide this same documentation “as soon as practicable” after issuance of the certificate of authority, rather than before.

In addition, the law restricts “agency captive insurance companies” to reinsuring (1) risks of insurance or annuity contracts placed by the entity owning the agency captive, or (2) contractual liabilities arising out of service contracts or warranties sold by an entity owning the agency captive. Captives are exempted from the provisions of the insurance code relating to domestic stock and mutual insurers except as otherwise provided by certain specified provisions of the insurance code or by the Commissioner through regulation. The law also requires a captive to obtain prior written approval from the Commissioner before reinsuring certain risks, restricts taxes that apply to risk retention group captives to those on direct premiums for coverages in Georgia, and substantially amends several definitions. Georgia SB 173 (eff. 7/1/2017).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.

COURT FINDS THAT REINSURANCE TRANSACTION DID NOT BREACH INVESTMENT CONTRACT UNDERLYING AN ERISA PLAN

by

MetLife acquired the rights to a fixed investment option contract with Midco, a trust established to administer a retirement plan for the employees of Midco International, Inc. Midco plan participants received interest each year pursuant to a “declared rate” which would be determined at MetLife’s discretion “from time to time.” Several years later, MetLife sold its 401(k) administration business to Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company in the form of a 100% indemnity reinsurance transaction, whereby the Midco assets backing the Midco contract were transferred to Great-West, and MetLife delegated responsibility for setting the declared rate to Great-West. MetLife informed Midco that its business had been transferred to Great-West and that Great-West would provide “recordkeeping and administrative services” going forward, but did not disclose that Midco’s assets would be transferred to Great-West and that Great-West would be delegated the responsibility to set the declared rate. The declared rate selected by Great-West in the subsequent years continually decreased, falling from 6.7% in 2007 to 1.2% in 2016. Later, upon learning that Midco’s assets were no longer with MetLife, Midco filed suit, alleging that Great-West’s control over the declared rate amounted to a breach of MetLife’s obligation to set the rate in good faith.

MetLife moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The Court found significant that Midco provided no evidence that the parties expected that MetLife would not transfer assets or rate-setting responsibility to a third party. The court rejected Midco’s claim that MetLife’s lack of full disclosure about Great-West’s role in investment decisions violated the contract, stating, “as long as MetLife exercised its discretion in good faith, its failure to disclose how it exercised its discretion is not a breach of the implied covenant.” The Court also noted that Midco failed to provide evidence of industry custom to “show that delegating assets and responsibility to a third party without policyholder consent was an unusual act for an insurance company….” Midco Int’l, Inc. Employees Profit Sharing Trust v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., Case No. 14-9470 (USDC N.D. Ill. July 5, 2017).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.