Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

UBS AG STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ARGUMENT FAILS IN MOTION TO DISMISS

by

For nearly five-and-a-half years, various banking and insurance corporations (“movants”) have engaged in extensive discovery to attempt to prove that Michel and Ramy Lakah, acting as an alter ego for bond guarantor Lakah Funding Limited, are bound by arbitration agreements that they had not signed in a personal capacity. When the Lakahs sought to stay the arbitration, the movants filed a motion to dismiss that claim as being untimely filed. The movants allege that the petition was filed more than twenty days after notice was given, failing to comply with section 7503(c) of the N.Y. Code.

The court held that the movants had waived their right to argue that the stay petition was time-barred. The court explained that “[f]or almost five-and-a-half years . . .the movants did not inform this court or their opponents of their belief that the extensive rounds of discovery and related litigation . . . were completely unnecessary because the Lakahs were time-barred from seeking to stay arbitration on any ground.” In their answer, the movants failed to assert their statute of limitations claim as an affirmative defense, therefore waiving that right. Additionally, the court did not allow movants to amend their answer to include this affirmative defense principally because of their own “inordinate delay.” Lakah v. UBS AG, Case No. 07-cv-02799 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2013).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.

UK HIGH COURT REFUSES TO STAY PROCEEDINGS DESPITE CONCURRENT ACTION IN TEXAS

by

MacDermid Offshore Solutions LLC (“MacDermid”) sued Niche Products Limited (“Niche”) in Texas for misleading advertising. Soon thereafter, Niche sued MacDermid in the Patents County Court (“PCC”) in England under the British cause of action for malicious falsehood. Both intellectual property proceedings turned on whether a particular type of oil product was different. MacDermid filed an application with the PCC, requesting that the proceedings be heard in Texas. The PCC dismissed the application, and MacDermid appealed.

The High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the judge had applied the correct test in holding that the claim should be heard in the English jurisdiction, despite a concurrent action in Texas. The High Court noted that the test remains whether the foreign jurisdiction is clearly more appropriate. The existence of prior foreign proceedings is not decisive, though it may be a factor to be taken into account, and the weight to be attached to such proceedings is a matter of judgment. MacDermid Offshore Solutions LLC v. Niche Products Ltd, [2013] EWHC 1493 (Ch) (May 6, 2013).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.

COURT HOLDS THAT PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF PRIOR ARBITRATION SHOULD BE DECIDED BY ARBITRATOR

by

National Casualty, Wausau and Swiss Re reinsured OneBeacon under a multiple line excess cover program. When disputes arose OneBeacon arbitrated with Swiss Re, and lost. OneBeacon then demanded arbitration with National Casualty and Wausau with respect to the same reinsurance program, but that proceeding broke down over disputes concerning the selection of an umpire to complete a three arbitrator panel. National Casualty and Wausau then filed a lawsuit against OneBeacon, seeking a declaration that the prior arbitration award and the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred OneBeacon’s second arbitration, and seeking the court’s assistance in the appointment of the umpire. The court granted OneBeacon’s motion to dismiss the preclusion claim on the basis that the preclusive effect of a prior arbitration in a subsequent arbitration should be decided by the arbitrator and not by the court.

The reinsurers had put forth a senior official of Swiss Re as their umpire candidate, to which OneBeacon objected, on the basis that the candidate was not impartial and was not qualified to serve. The court found OneBeacon’s challenge to the as yet unselected umpire candidate premature under the terms of the Federal Arbitration Act, which provides that challenges to arbitrators should be entertained by courts only after the issuance of an arbitration award. National Cas. Co. v. OneBeacon American Ins. Co., Case No. 12-11874 (USDC D. Mass. July 1, 2013).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.

FIFTH CIRCUIT RULES JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL BARS CHEVRON’S CHALLENGE TO ECUADOR’S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

by

Chevron Corporation and the Republic of Ecuador have been engaged in contentious litigation for nearly two decades in various courts over alleged environmental contamination of oil fields in Ecuador. An Ecuadorian court finally issued a multi-billion dollar judgment against Chevron, prompting Chevron to file for arbitration under the rules of the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”). For use in the BIT arbitration, Ecuador applied for ancillary discovery from an individual, John Connor, and his company, GSI Environmental, in the Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1782. Section 1782 authorizes district courts to assist discovery efforts of litigants before foreign and international tribunals, and includes private international arbitration.

The Fifth Circuit has previously held, in Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann Int’l, 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999), that an international arbitration tribunal is not a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782. The district court, compelled by this precedent, denied the discovery request. Ecuador appealed, arguing that Chevron was judicially estopped to contend that the BIT arbitration was not an “international tribunal.” The Fifth Circuit agreed after finding that Chevron had deliberately taken inconsistent positions on the availability of § 1782 discovery” and that “if Chevron is permitted to shield itself under Biedermann against Ecuador’s current discovery request, it will have gained an unfair advantage over its adversary.” The Court thus concluded that Chevron was judicially estopped from asserting its legally contrary position and stated, “we need not and do not opine on whether the BIT arbitration is in an ‘international tribunal.’” Republic of Ecuador v. Connor, Nos. 12-20122, 12-20123, 2013 WL 539011 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2013).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.

MOTIONS TO DISMISS CAPTIVE REINSURANCE LAWSUIT DENIED

by

A federal district court granted in part and denied in part various motions to dismiss filed by defendants HSBC and private insurers Genworth, Republic, and Mortgage Guaranty. Plaintiffs alleged that HSBC Mortgage, through HSBC Reinsurance, conspired with various private mortgage insurers to create a captive reinsurance scheme. The scheme, which involved private insurers paying HSBC reinsurance premiums for little, if any, assumption of risk allegedly circumvented the kickback prohibitions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Plaintiffs further alleged that the premium payments were made by the private insurers for business referrals. Though the RESPA allegations would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations, the court declined to dismiss those claims, citing the doctrine of equitable tolling. The court also declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ additional claim for unjust enrichment. Only United Guaranty’s motion to dismiss was granted, as plaintiffs failed to show that United Guaranty actually insured the mortgages in question. Moriba BA v. HSBC USA, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-00072-PD (USDC E.D. Pa. June 27, 2013).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.