Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

COURT CONFIRMS REINSURANCE ARBITRATION AWARD WITHOUT OBJECTION

by

A federal district court has entered judgment confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of Employers Insurance Company of Wausau against Continental Casualty. The dispute arose out of a certificate of casualty facultative reinsurance between the parties. At issue was Continental’s obligation under the certificate with respect to one claim submitted by Wausau. Wausau demanded arbitration with Continental under the certificate and the panel, without hearing oral argument on the parties’ motions for summary adjudication, issued its award. Continental did not object to Wausau’s prejudgment interest calculation on the award nor did it answer Wausau’s petition to confirm the award. By Order dated January 26, 2015, the court confirmed the award and directed the clerk of court to enter judgment thereon. The judgment was entered on February 20, 2015. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 1:14-CV-09192 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2015).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

ALABAMA SUPREME COURT REVERSES ARBITRATION AWARD WHERE ARBITER FAILED TO MAKE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

by

In a case involving a dispute between a not-for-profit corporation administering a self-insured group workers’ compensation fund and their investment advisor and broker-dealer, the Supreme Court of Alabama granted the fund’s motion to vacate an arbitration award in the advisors’ favor. The arbitration was conducted pursuant to FINRA’s rules for arbitration proceedings, which call for the selection of a three-arbitrator panel. However, because the court found that one of the arbiters failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest prior to his selection, it reversed the panel’s award. The arbiter was a vice president and partner in a financial-services firm that had served as a co-underwriter with the advisors on 36 equity and debt issuances, had been codefendants with the advisors in a number of lawsuits, was represented by the same counsel as the advisors, and had involvement with the investment product alleged in this lawsuit. This was enough to constitute a “reasonable impression of partiality” even though the arbiter claimed that he did not know about this relationship on behalf of his firm. Applying the constructive knowledge doctrine, the court found that there was “evident partiality” on the part of the arbiter and reversed the arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act. The lower court had refused to disturb the award, necessitating the lower court’s reversal as well. Municipal Workers Compensation Fund, Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co., No. 1120532 (Ala. Apr. 3, 2015).

This post written by Zach Ludens.

See our disclaimer.

DISCOVERY IN AID OF FOREIGN LITIGATION DENIED IN ARBITRATION INVOLVING EXPANSION OF THE PANAMA CANAL

by

In a dispute involving the expansion of the Panama Canal, a federal district court has denied an application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery in aid of foreign litigation. The controversy concerned Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A.’s (GUPC’s) ex parte application to obtain discovery from an entity with whom the Autoridad del Canal de Panama (ACP) contracted to provide program management services in connection with the Panama Canal project. The contract between GUPC and ACP contains an arbitration clause which provides that any dispute arising from the Canal project be arbitrated in Miami, Florida, under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce.

GUPC, along with several co-claimants, commenced the arbitration proceeding against ACP. The Miami-based proceeding is alleged to be the “international tribunal” supporting GUPC’s Section 1782 request for documents. Several objections were made to that request, including (1) the Miami arbitration is a private commercial arbitration and not a “tribunal” within the ambit of Section 1782, (2) the Miami arbitration is not a “foreign or international” tribunal within the meaning of Section 1782 because the seat of the arbitration is in the United States, and (3) the proposed subpoena is unduly burdensome, intrusive, and an attempt to circumvent the contractual procedural and discovery limitations in the arbitration. The court found the proceeding was not a “tribunal” for purposes of Section 1782 and, therefore, found it unnecessary to consider whether the private, Miami-based arbitration was “international.” The court also found that even if the statutory requirements were met, Grupo would not be allowed discovery of 165 million documents that were physically located in Panama, noting that such discovery would be overly burdensome. Grupo’s ex parte application was denied. In re Grupo Unidos Por El Canal, S.A., No. 1:14-mc-00226 (USDC D. Colo. Apr. 17, 2015).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

D.C. CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT WHOLLY FOREIGN RETROCESSIONS NOT SUBJECT TO U.S. EXCISE TAX

by

In late May, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment to a reinsurer in a dispute with the IRS regarding the imposition of U.S. excise taxes on a wholly foreign retrocession arrangement. The case involved Validus Reinsurance, Ltd., which is organized under the laws of and with a principal place of business in Bermuda. The court found that the relevant provision of the Internal Revenue Code did not apply extraterritorially and ordered the return of the taxes paid by Validus. Validus is a foreign reinsurance company with no operations in the United States. However, Validus does sell reinsurance to insurance companies selling policies covering risks, liabilities, and hazards within the United States. Validus also purchases retrocessions for its own reinsurance, often from other non-U.S.-based retrocessionaires. The transactions at bar involved a U.S.-based risk with reinsurance issued by Validus and a retrocession issued by a foreign retrocessionaire.

Congress had expanded the excise tax applicable to foreign insurance in order to “eliminate an unwarranted competitive advantage now favoring foreign insurers,” which were not subject to U.S. income tax laws. After another amendment, the particular provision of the Code section at issue, § 4371, requires an excise tax of one cent per dollar of premium paid on foreign-issued “reinsurance covering any of contracts taxable” as casualty insurance or life insurance. Because the retrocession is covering reinsurance that covers the taxable underlying contract, the court had to resolve an ambiguity in the statute. Looking to the fact that the government’s proposed reading would lead to a “cascading tax theory” with no limit as to the number of times that the government could collect tax on retrocessions with some underlying U.S.-based risks, the court determined that Congress had not shown an intent for the law to apply this extraterritorially. Under the canon of statutory interpretation against implying a reading of extraterritoriality absent a showing of intent by Congress, this transaction was an overbroad reading of the statute. Validus Reinsurance, Ltd. v. United States, No. 13-109 (D.C. Cir. May 26, 2015).

This post written by Zach Ludens.

See our disclaimer.