Search Results

1-12 of 12 results for subject:Equitas

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Whether they will publish in the Official Report the two letters sent to the Lord Jenkin of Roding by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury dated 31 October and 9 October 2005 about the application of the provisions of the Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) (Lloyd’s) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1998) to Names and...

Asked by

Lord Jenkin of Roding (Conservative)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Answered on

10 November 2005

I have asked the Editor to publish in the Official Report the letters which the Economic Secretary sent to the noble Lord on 31 October and 9 November. The letters have also been placed in the Library of the House.Letter from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, dated 31 October 2005:Thank you for coming to meet Lord McKenzie and me on 19 October. I thought it was a very constructive and helpful meeting and I trust you feel likewise. I agreed to set out in writing to you several points that we discussed about the moratorium to try and clear up some of the misunderstandings that remain around the legislation.Ability of a Name to challenge insurance claimsYou explained that there is significant concern that the process of applying for a Lloyd’s Market Reorganisation Order (LMRO) and in particular the moratorium in regulation 8 may prevent Names challenging the validity of insurance claims against them.I am happy to confirm that this is not the case. First, recognising that there are potential claims which call into question the ability of the Lloyd’s market to continue to meet its regulatory solvency requirements, so that an application for an LMRO should be made, does not imply that the legal validity of those claims has been accepted. That would remain a matter for the members, their agents and other advisers in respect of each insurance contract.Second, the moratorium means that no proceeding can be brought against a Name without the permission of the court. This is designed to protect the Names against opportunistic litigation by policyholders or others. It is also important to ensure order is maintained in dealing with multiple insolvencies or potential insolvencies within the market. It should be noted that the moratorium is worded in terms of ““proceedings or other legal process””. It is not in terms of the ability of a member to do particular things in litigation. Once the proceedings are allowed to go forward, that implies the whole proceedings, including the ability of the member to make the best case he can. It is not designed to and does not remove or fetter a Name’s right or ability to defend an action against him that is allowed to proceed. Take for example the case where a policyholder alleges a Name owes him monies under an insurance policy and the policyholder seeks the permission of the court to commence proceedings against that Name to recover those monies. In the event that the court gives permission to the policyholder to commence litigation against a Name, it is the whole legal process of instituting and pursuing a claim in the court against an identified defendant that is allowed to go ahead—and that necessarily includes the rights of the defendant to defend himself. Any proceeding would then be conducted as if the LMRO did not apply to the litigant. This example extends to any litigation launched against a Name. It is worth reiterating that any moratorium only comes into effect on the making by a court of a Lloyd’s Market Reorganisation Order and that any moratorium is not permanent.The moratorium allows for a ““breathing space”” in which the reorganisation controller can put together a plan for achievement of the objectives of the LMRO without the assets within the market being further depleted by litigation. That process does not involve the reorganisation controller making commitments to third parties which bind members as to their liability under a particular insurance contract.I should add, for clarity, the existence of a LMRO does not prevent a Name commencing or continuing proceedings against others (except those market participants and others specified in regulation 8(1) who would be covered by the moratorium).You mentioned in the meeting that we should consider setting up a process whereby Names are consulted about the need for an LMRO. It appears that this suggestion, at least in part, stemmed from a misunderstanding of the term ‘approved debt’ which I deal with below and thus I hope it is clear that the need for an additional stage to the process in unnecessary. I should, however, make a few more general comments about the suggestion.In the circumstances in which the FSA or the Society would be thinking of applying for a LMRO there would be considerable uncertainty and market turmoil. The moratorium could be expected to facilitate examination of the provenance of particular claims and that examination would continue to be carried out by Managing Agents in the normal way. If questions arise as to whether a LMRO should be applied for, then it would be difficult for FSA in particular to carry out a formal consultation given the urgency of the issue. The moment that any sort of consultation of this sort was begun, one could expect a flurry of opportunistic litigation would begin because the existence of potential problems would be immediately apparent. The FSA would consider the Lloyd’s returns and information similar to the Lloyd’s returns as part of its ongoing supervision of the market to assess whether or not there was an issue with the solvency of Lloyd’s. This would not involve an assessment of each individual’s solvency and individual claims. The assessment of the resources in the market for solvency purposes would be judged by the funds in the market. The decision to make an application for an LMRO would not hang on the validity of one claim subject to proper reserving procedures.Ability of a Name to commence or continue legal proceedingsYou also expressed concern that the legislation would prevent Names from continuing to pursue an action against HM Treasury for its alleged failure to implement European Community obligations for the regulation of the Lloyd’s market (in particular the current ongoing NACDE litigation, Frederick Thomas Poole and others v HM Treasury (““the Poole litigation””)).It is, of course, not the intention of the Treasury to legislate to prevent NACDE or any other Names pursuing a claim against it. I can confirm that this legislation does not, of itself, prevent the Poole litigation, or any other litigation against us continuing. That is because regulation 8(1) applies in respect of actions against Members as opposed to actions by them. Indeed, I can confirm that as part of the early stages of this litigation, there is a court hearing for the Poole litigation on 4 November.On a general note, if, for whatever reason, a Name were unable to meet his liabilities, it may be that the appointment of a receiver or trustee in bankruptcy for that Name would be sought. If appointed, they would need to decide whether or not that Name should continue to pursue any litigation. This is the position regardless of whether or not an LMRO is made, in line with general insolvency law.Approved debtI understand that you are happy that a recent official letter on this subject addressed the concern, but I think it is worth answering the point again.There has been concern that regulation 8(4) (which talks about an ““approved debt””) means that Lloyd’s can unilaterally determine whether or not a Name is liable to a policyholder and that any Name would have no opportunity to challenge such a decision.I can reassure you that this is not the case. Regulation 8(4) needs to be read in conjunction with regulation 8(12) that defines the terms used in regulation 8(4). Regulation 8(4), when so read, says a security granted over some of the assets of a Name held at Lloyd’s for the purposes of complying with the regulatory requirements of overseas regulators can be enforced. This regulation is therefore only relevant to Names currently writing business in the market and does not include any Names that are not currently underwriting. It is necessary to ensure that overseas regulators are satisfied with the robustness of the situs arrangements they have established as part of the requirement for Lloyd’s Names to have permission to write insurance in their jurisdiction.Nothing in these regulations prevents an individual seeking to be excluded from the LMRO by application to the Court. An affected market participant could seek to have the order set aside, but to be successful would have to convince the court that the objectives identified in regulation 5 would be met better by stopping the process, rather than by allowing the process of examination and planning that the Regulations provide for to proceed. Other market participants may have different views on the desirability of halting the process and ending the moratorium.Duration of LMROYou noted that the duration of any LMRO is not specified in the legislation.This is correct. We considered whether we should specify the duration of any LMRO in the legislation and decided not to for a number of reasons including:It is not possible to predict with any degree of confidence the precise events that may give rise to the need for an LMRO and thus the precise situation in which it needs to operate. We therefore cannot be clear whether any LMRO would need to be in place for 12 months or longer (or conceivably a shorter period). Given this, we did not want to put an arbitrary figure in the legislation, which may fetter the court’s handling of the matter and mislead as to the likely duration of the matter.We could be comfortable to have a provision without specific duration because the reorganisation controller is an officer of the court and the whole process would be overseen by the courts. Any matter would be before the courts on a continuing basis and the courts would be best placed to consider on each occasion whether or not the LMRO should remain in force. Indeed the court has to be satisfied in the first place that any regulatory solvency requirement is not or may not be met and that the objectives of the LMRO in dealing with such a situation are likely to be achieved. For the duration that this is the view taken by the Court, and only for as long as this is the case, will the LMRO remain in force.I hope that this letter addresses your concerns. Please let me know if there is any further clarification I can provide on these regulations or the directive more generally.Letter from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, dated 9 November 2005Further to my letter of 31 October 2005, I also agreed to write about other issues you raised about the Regulations when we met.Scope of DirectiveYou explained that some do not believe that Equitas and Equitas reinsured Names are within the scope of the Directive and asked for my comments on this issue.It is correct that the Directive does not apply directly to Equitas because it is a reinsurer. As a reinsurer, in the event that Equitas were to fail, outstanding liabilities under insurance contracts reinsured by it would revert to the Names it reinsured. Such Names would be insurers for the purpose of the Directive. They remain liable ultimately if those with whom the contracts were reinsured are unable to meet claims under them and, as Names are part of the association of underwriters known as Lloyd’s. It was therefore necessary to find a way of implementing the Directive that applied certain provisions of it to those Names. Failure to do so would have been a failure to implement the Directive and in particular a failure to the effect required as to priority of insurance claims under Article 10 of the Directive.As part of the association of underwriters known as Lloyd’s, we believed it was appropriate to treat them as insurers for the purposes of insolvency only in the event that the requirements of the Directive were triggered for the association. This means that priority is given to insurance creditors over other unsecured creditors in relation to their unencumbered assets only in circumstances when Equitas is unable to meet its liabilities AND the solvency of the market is in doubt. We have, however, given them the initial benefit of the moratorium once an LMRO is made in the event that the solvency of the market is in doubt.Mutualisation You expressed concern that any LMRO would inevitably have to operate on the basis that Equitas mutualisation would extend to the current and future liabilities of names without redress.An LMRO would not operate to mutualise losses. It is suggested that Equitas has mutualised the losses it has reinsured. That may be the case. However, it is not a matter for the Treasury to interfere with commercial arrangements. That is one of the reasons why the regulations overlay the existing legal position rather than altering it.Payments to the Central FundYou expressed concern about current and past unlimited liability Names being required to make good a central fund shortfall.It is correct that there may be circumstances where Names currently underwriting insurance may be asked to contribute further sums to the New Central Fund to enable the market to continue to write business. It will then be a matter for Names to decide if they want to be able to continue to write business in a Lloyd’s market. However, it is not possible for pre 1996 Names to be required to contribute to the New Central Fund. This is solely a matter for them. The LMRO does nothing to change this.

Legislation

Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) (Lloyds) Regulations 2005

Date

10 November 2005

Reference

2224; 675 c94-8WA

House

House of Lords

McIntosh of Haringey, Lord

What powers they have, under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, or other legislation, to enable the Secretary of State to require assets of Names at Lloyd's, or Names whose Lloyd's liabilities have been reinsured into Equitas, to be placed in a trust if either Lloyd's or Equitas were unable to...

Asked by

Lord Desai (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

22 February 2005

Reference

HL 1268; 669 c188WA

House

House of Lords

Treasury

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what action he intends to take to provide information to the American policyholders on the solvency of Equitas following publicity arising from legal proceedings over Lloyds of London currently in progress in the United States of America. - (Holding answer 24 March 1998).

Asked by

Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)

Answering body

Treasury

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

25 March 1998

Reference

309 c201W; 36141

House

House of Commons

Simon of Highbury, Lord

What steps they intend to take to prevent the dissipation or distancing of the personal funds of former Lloyd's Names who ceased to be members of Lloyd's with the benefit of Equitas reinsurance and who are now subject to regulation by the DTI under Part II of the Insurance Companies...

Asked by

Lord Desai (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 June 1997

Reference

580 c149WA

House

House of Lords

Dept of Trade and Industry

Pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Bournemouth West on 29th March, Official Report, columns 762-4, what developments there have been since 29th March concerning Equitas.

Asked by

John Greenway (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

10 May 1996

Reference

29305; 277 c297-8W

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

Answered by

Anthony Nelson (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

17 April 1996

Reference

275 c712

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

Answered by

Anthony Nelson (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

17 April 1996

Reference

275 c712

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

When DTI expects to make an announcement on Equitas rescue plan initiated by Lloyds. -

Asked by

Stephen Timms (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Oral questions - Lead

Status

Answered

Date

17 April 1996

Reference

275 c712; 23940

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

1st supplementary on Equitas project.

Asked by

Stephen Timms (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Oral questions - 1st Supplementary

Status

Answered

Date

17 April 1996

Reference

275 c712

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

Statement on whether he has taken a decision under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 on the authorisation of Equitas. - Including figures.

Asked by

John Butterfill (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

For answer on

29 March 1996

Answered on

29 March 1996

Mr. Butterfill: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has taken a decision under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 on the authorisation of Equitas; and if he will make a statement.[24286] Mr. Nelson: I have considered carefully the proposals made by Lloyd's for the authorisation of Equitas Reinsurance Ltd. and Equitas Ltd. ("Equitas"). Lloyd's proposes to reinsure the market's 1992 and prior non-life liabilities into Equitas, and to provide matching assets together with an additional solvency margin of free assets. Equitas would be a pure reinsurer, and Lloyd's application does not seek authorisation for it to undertake any subsequent business. Lloyd's proposals are based on a thorough review of the 1992 and prior liabilities and in particular of exposure to US asbestos and pollution claims. This review has been assisted by work undertaken by a number of leading firms of consulting actuaries and chartered accountants. I have decided to authorise Equitas on the basis of Lloyd's proposals, subject to certain conditions which Lloyd's does not expect to fulfil before August this year. Of these, the most important are, first, that the contracts reinsuring names' liabilities into Equitas cannot be completed until Lloyd's can demonstrate that the assets available to Equitas are such as to ensure it has the minimum solvency margin I have required. Lloyd's statement of assets available to Equitas will be subject to independent review by Coopers and Lybrand, which is to be appointed as Equitas' auditors once the contracts are completed. Secondly, there are conditions to ensure that if developments between now and August should lead to an increase in the estimate of the overall level of liabilities, then a matching increase in the assets would have to be provided. In addition, there is a condition making any dividend to any shareholders or return premium to reinsured names subject to DTI consent. Any future proposal that Equitas should undertake further business would require DTI consent. Under section 32 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, UK insurance companies are required to maintain a minimum margin of free assets, calculated according to a formula. The formula was not devised with circumstances such as the Equitas proposal in mind, and is likely to produce widely fluctuating requirements over the first four years of Equitas' life. I have therefore decided to exercise the discretion to which I am entitled under the Act to make a direction under section 68 to modify the normal requirements in 1996 and 1998. In reaching this decision, I have been mindful of my responsibilities under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 in relation to the authorisation of new insurance companies and the protection of policyholders in general. In this case, I have to consider whether policyholders would be better protected if Equitas is authorised than if it is not. I must also be satisfied that all the statutory requirements for authorisation under the Act have been met. The main reasons for my decision are as follows. First, policyholders will benefit from substantial additional funds which would not otherwise be likely to be forthcoming. The provisions made for 1992 and prior liabilities have been increased by more than £1.5 billion. Equitas will be funded to meet its estimated liabilities and to provide the additional margin of free assets. Some £1 billion plus of the funding is to be provided from sources which have no obligation to support 1992 and prior losses, together with approaching a further £2.5 billion deriving from new money from names, the settlement of the current litigation and from 1993-94-95 profits which would not otherwise be necessarily or immediately available to support these losses. The Equitas proposals will also ensure that the assets to cover these provisions will be fully paid, in contrast to the present position in which some £4 billion of Lloyd's assets is represented by uncalled losses or unpaid cash calls. Furthermore, subject to the division of Equitas' assets between US, Canadian and UK trust funds, the assets of Equitas will be fully mutualised and all available to support all of Equitas' liabilities to policyholders. Second, the creation of Equitas offers a strong prospect of lower claims handling costs and higher investment yields than would otherwise be the case, the benefits of which will accrue to policyholders in the first instance. Overall, I am satisfied that the resources available to support 1992 and prior policyholders through Equitas will be greater and more certain than without its authorisation. The Government Actuary takes the view that there is a reasonable prospect that Equitas will be able to pay off its liabilities in full as they fall due. Third, if against expectation, the liabilities of Equitas at some future point should appear to be on the point of exceeding the assets available, arrangements will have been built into the reinsurance contract with names designed to ensure that policyholders would continue to receive an uninterrupted flow of claims payments, albeit at less than 100 per cent., with the residual balance of claims falling back on to the reinsured names. These arrangements would provide a much superior outcome for all policyholders, including reinsured names, than conventional insolvency proceedings for Equitas. Fourth, the creation of Equitas as proposed will very significantly improve the security of 1993 and subsequent policyholders at Lloyd's, by substantially removing the risk that further deterioration in the 1992 and prior liabilities would affect them. Lastly, if Equitas does not proceed, Lloyd's has acknowledged that there is a significant risk that Lloyd's as a whole would have to cease underwriting. In that event, the subsequent run-off would face an uncertain future. I therefore consider Lloyd's proposals are a well-judged response to this situation in the interests of existing Lloyd's policyholders, and of reinsuring names as policyholders. It is now for the members of Lloyd's to decide whether to support Lloyd's proposals as the next step before Equitas can go live later this year.

Legislation

Insurance Companies Act 1982

Date

29 March 1996

Reference

24286; 274 c762-4W

House

House of Commons

Fraser of Carmyllie, RtHonLord

To put in the Library of the House the correspondence with, and submissions to, Mr Martin J. Brebner of the insurance division of the Department of Trade and Industry, from R. M. Fields and Company (UK) Ltd. on the regulatory requirements of the proposed Equitas solution to the problems of...

Asked by

Lord Desai (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

5 February 1996

Reference

569 c2WA

House

House of Lords

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Lord

Whether the Inland Revenue has agreed that the premium which Names at Lloyds may be asked to pay under the proposed Equitas plan will be allowable for tax against gross income of Names for the tax year 1993-94, and if so what estimate they have made of the cost the...

Asked by

Lord Desai (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

25 January 1996

Reference

568 c90-1WA

House

House of Lords

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher