Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Zacaroli J provides guidance for sanction hearings

In Re Equitable Life Assurance (4 December 2019) Zacaroli J sanctioned a scheme of arrangement in respect of England’s first mutual assurance society, which had been in solvent run-off since 2000. Equitable presented a scheme to address unfairness which would arise from the tontine effect in the run-off of Equitable’s with-profits business (by removing the with-profits business in exchange for the conversion of those policies to unit-linked policies but with an uplift in value). However, the immediate effect of the scheme would be that Equitable would hold insufficient capital to meet its own capital requirements. Equitable and another insurer, Utmost Life and Pensions, therefore also sought sanction of a scheme to transfer Equitable’s business to Utmost.

Zacaroli J sanctioned the schemes and provided guidance, inter alia, on:

  • Class composition – Where as in this case, the court had (at the convening hearing) provided a reasoned judgment as to class composition in circumstances where scheme creditors had been given sufficient notice of the issues that were to be determined at that first stage, then while the decision made at the convening hearing was not binding on the court, in practice the court at that later stage would not re-open the issue of class composition.
  • Voting It is the majority of those who vote that is needed, not policyholders as a whole. So the fact that there might be a low turnout (and here considerable effort had been made to engage with policyholders) did not mean there was coercion on the minority.
  • Solvent company The scheme jurisdiction is not limited to cases where there is a “problem requiring a solution” such a prospective insolvency. In any event, here there was clearly a problem requiring a solution. 
  • Certain members excluded on jurisdictional grounds – The scheme excluded policyholders whose policies were governed by German law as there were concerns it might not be recognised in Germany. Instead, those policies would be transferred to a sub-fund on the same terms and conditions.

The Court has an absolute discretion whether or not to sanction a scheme, but this is a discretion which must be exercised by giving due recognition to the commercial judgment entrusted to company directors.  The question is whether the scheme as a whole is fair between the interests of the different classes of persons affected, but the court does not have to be satisfied that no better scheme could have been devised. 

Zacaroli J provides guidance for sanction hearings

Leave A Comment