Approval suggests interventionist approach taken in Prudential/Rothesay Life could be limited.
The recent High Court approval of a Part VII transfer between Legal & General Assurance Society (LGAS) to ReAssure suggests the interventionist approach the court adopted in the Prudential Assurance Company to Rothesay Life transfer could be limited in its scope to the facts of that case.
In August last year, the High Court declined to sanction the Part VII transfer of a large annuities book from Prudential to Rothesay, despite the independent expert's view the transfer would not have a material adverse effect on policyholders and the Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct Authority not objecting to it.
The deciding judge, Justice Snowden, examined whether the commercial rationale for the transfer (that is, the release of regulatory capital to support the demerger of Prudential Group's UK and European businesses) outweighed the impact on policyholders. In a shift from previous judgments, Snowden J decided against sanctioning the transfer, a decision that shocked the insurance industry, leading to speculation it could prohibit annuity transfers between insurers and make the transfer of any long-term business very challenging.
No broader precedent
The August 2020 decision in LGAS/ReAssure, however, handed down by Justice Zacaroli, indicates Snowden J's conclusions in Prudential/Rothesay do not necessarily constitute a broader precedent beyond the facts of that case. As no two cases are the same, a detailed comparison with circumstances of other cases has limited utility. This should relay industry concerns on the Part VII market, provided applicants can distinguish their transfers from the particular facts of the Prudential/Rothesay transfer.
In distinguishing the facts, Zacaroli J highlighted three important differences. First, LGAS annuities were less than 1% of the total number of policies transferred, while in Prudential/Rothesay the transfer involved a large transfer of annuities and this emphasised policyholder protection arguments, which Snowden J sided with.
Second, the motivation for the LGAS transfer was a strategic reorganisation of its business, with Zacaroli J saying the Part VII transfer would provide a better outcome for affected policyholders rather than remaining with a company whose strategic focus is elsewhere. The motivation for the transfer is an important distinction from the Prudential/Rothesay transfer, where the primary motivation (regulatory capital benefits) was not considered essential and was satisfied in large part by the reinsurance arrangements already in place.
Third was the issue of parental support, with Zacaroli J in LGAS/ReAssure taking comfort from ReAssure being part of a large and well-capitalised group, which would continue to be so following its sale from Swiss Re to Phoenix. Snowden J in Prudential/Rothesay put significant weight on the Prudential history, brand and the parental guarantee, when compared to Rothesay, as transferee.
ourts. The Judge, Cooke J, dismissed the appeal, thus also finding in favour of S, the reinsured, and finding that the arbitrators were not wrong in law in determining that all the losses, claims, liability and expense, arose from one event, “the WTC attacks”.
For more information about the Clifford Chance Global Insurance Sector Group, please visit here
Please note this blog post was written by a Clifford Chance LLP employee. Clifford Chance LLP is the parent company of Clifford Chance Applied Solutions (CCAS). The content within this post does not constitute legal advice.