Mealey's has posted information about two reinsurance-related conferences:
- Solvent Schemes of Arrangement Conference, March 12-13, New York; and
- Fundamentals of Reinsurance Litigation and Arbitration Conference, March 15-16, New Orleans.
Mealey’s seminars on schemes of arrangement and reinsurance dispute resolution
Mealey's has posted information about two reinsurance-related conferences:
- Solvent Schemes of Arrangement Conference, March 12-13, New York; and
- Fundamentals of Reinsurance Litigation and Arbitration Conference, March 15-16, New Orleans.
Court partially dismisses claims arising out of reserve dispute
Converium Holding, a Swiss reinsurance company, issued an IPO in December 2001. Converium's North American unit collapsed in September 2004 after four increases in reserves in a single year. Class action lawsuits followed, alleging that management had grossly misrepresented necessary reserves and failed to disclose reserve disputes with the company's outside auditor. The District Court dismissed claims against the IPO's underwriter and broker and claims against the company and individual defendants relating to the IPO, denying dismissal of certain other claims. In re Converium Holding AG Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-7897 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2006). This opinion illustrates the strategic problem of finding a solvent deep pocket in this type of situation, and discusses the “storm warning” doctrine, pursuant to which the Court found that the frequent increases to reserves, in increasing amounts, in a short period of time, put investors on notice of problems despite comfort statements by management.
Article on reinsurance issues relating to hurricane losses
The Fall 2006 issue of the Environmental Claims Journal contains an article by Carol Ann O'Dea and Vincent J. Vitkowsky titled Reinsurance Issues Arising from the 2005 Hurricane Season. Information about the Environmental Claims Journal may be found on the Internet.
Court confirms arbitration award over disclosure issue
A District Court in the Sixth Circuit has confirmed an arbitration award in a products liability injury matter, rejecting a contention that the award should be vacated due to the failure of one of three arbitrators to disclose that he had been counsel of record in several cases years ago in which counsel for one of the parties to the arbitration was either co-counsel or counsel for another party. The Court found that the Sixth Circuit had stated that the review of an arbitral award is governed by “one of the narrowest standards of judicial review in all of Ameican jurisprudence.” The Court found that no reasonable person would find that the presence of the two attorneys in the same lawsuits constituted a conflict of interest or resulted in bias, fraud or corruption. Uhl v. Komatsu Forklift Co., Case no. 04-10148 (USDC E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2006).