Gibraltar: Protected Cell Companies And Series LCC

Last Updated: 29 November 2016
Article by Nigel Feetham

Segregated business forms operate across many jurisdictions around the world including the US and Europe. They are intended to segregate assets and liabilities for specific business transactions. The most familiar is the protected cell company (PCC) but other types of firms in many jurisdictions perform a similar function such as the US series LLC, the Italian regime ('dedicated assets to a specified activity' and 'financing allocated to a specific business activity'), the Luxembourg SICAV and securitisation regimes, the Irish investment fund, the French FCC, and more recently, the UK open-ended investment company (among others). But whereas in Europe the expansion and development of the concept (supported by the powerful insurance and investment sectors and endorsed by local regulators) appears to have gathered momentum, in the US it has yet to achieve the same level of official recognition, and more recently, in respect of the series LLC, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to be reluctant to rule on the issue.

Insurance portfolio transfers and the PCC

Gibraltar implemented protected cell company legislation in 2001 and was the first European jurisdiction to do so. Since then Malta has implemented a PCC Act and the UK itself has introduced its own regime for open-ended investment funds. Whilst the exact number of companies operating as protected cells across the European Union is not known, it is likely to be over 100 in all jurisdictions and sectors. It is also of note that in Europe a PCC insurance company has the distinct advantage that the EU Insurance Insolvency Directive requires mutual recognition of a local insolvency process (which in the case of the PCC must include a PCC insolvency). The same applies to cross-frontier insolvencies under the European Insolvency Regulations. Therefore as a general rule an EU PCC insolvency should be respected across the EU and this augurs well for PCCs.

The Supreme Court of Gibraltar recently heard two applications; one application for the transfer of the insurance business of a Gibraltar PCC to an EEA insurer under Part I of Schedule 10 of the Financial Services (Insurance Companies) Act, and a separate but consequential application for the transfer of the cellular assets under the Protected Cell Companies Act. The proceedings were held in open court.

The case appears to be the first cross-border portfolio transfer application in respect of the insurance business of an EU PCC to a non-PCC.

Under Gibraltar law a transfer of insurance business from a Gibraltar life insurance company to another insurer requires Gibraltar Supreme Court approval. It should be noted, however, that no court approval is required for portfolio transfers by general insurance companies; only the approval of the local regulator, the Financial Services Commission (FSC), is required in that case and several such transfers have previously been approved by the FSC. The equivalent regime in the UK is the Part VII transfer provisions.

As would be expected, the Gibraltar legislation transposes all the requirements of the relevant EU insurance directives, including in respect of publicity of the application, policyholder notifications, and 'home state' consultation with the relevant EEA regulators. Applications are therefore matters of public record.

Under the court process, the judge is taken through the affidavit evidence by counsel for the applicant, especially the independent actuary's report and each statutory requirement that the applicant has to comply with in order to obtain the order sought.

Policyholders can object to the proposed transfer by contacting the applicant or the regulator, and also, they have a right to object directly to the court. It should be noted, however, that the question of approval of the scheme is one for the court alone.

In this case, the court also had to consider the consequential application for a cell transfer order under the Protected Cell Companies Act. These provisions apply to every PCC regardless whether business is being transferred from an insurance company or not. The PCC would be obliged to obtain the approval of the court before the transfer of the business can be made (save for transfers from cellular assets in the ordinary course of the company's business).

The case is interesting for several reasons. It is the first court application in Gibraltar under Part I of Schedule 10 of the Financial Services (Insurance Companies) Act and under the Protected Cell Companies Act. This should be helpful for the further expansion and development of local portfolio transfers. In some jurisdictions insurers may push back from court approved portfolio transfers in the absence of a local precedent.

Further, the case is important because of the very limited history of cross-border transfers of a PCC to a non-PCC anywhere in the world. What we may now see as a result are portfolio transfers from ordinary companies to PCC insurers in the insurance run-off space where promoters are looking to segregate different portfolios using a PCC. This is where the cellular structure comes into its own.

The other side of the Atlantic – a cautionary tale

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recently been given (and missed) the opportunity to provide judicial clarity to another type of segregated business form in the US, known as the series LLC. (When looking at this business form for 'series' read 'cell' and note that a series LLC can have many series just like a PCC can have many cells). The case is Glenn E. Alphonse, Jr. v. Arch Bay Holdings, L.L.C.; Specialized Loan Servicing, L.L.C. (filed 11 December 2013, although the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except for limited circumstances).

I am particularly interested in the series LLC because I discussed US legal developments for this type of firm in the book Protected Cell Companies: a Guide to their Implementation and Use (2nd edition). I noted the lack of judicial authorities in the US, especially regarding the enforcement of the internal firewalls (also known as the statutory ring-fence) in other states, but given the wide spread use of the series LLC I considered it likely that judicial clarification was inevitable.

As an academic I therefore cannot hide my disappointment with the Fifth Circuit opinion. It is not necessary to restate the facts of the case or the court's legal analysis (or lack thereof). It seems clear (and not just to me) that the court appeared to have difficulty in finding an appropriate legal classification for a Delaware Series LLC: "...Series 2010B is a Series LLC, and Series LLCs only exist to represent the interest of the parent LLC, which in this case is Arch Bay." As other commentators have observed, the court's description of Arch Bay Holdings, LLC as the "parent" of "Series 2010B" must be legally wrong, even if it is open to the courts to conclude that the Series 2010B is "a distinct juridical entity". Admittedly, recognition that a series has separate juridical status (at least for certain legal purposes) should aid recognition of series separation by foreign states and countries, and therefore, its internal firewall more likely to be enforced across jurisdictions. Still, that does not make the legal relationship between an LLC and a series that of a parent and subsidiary. The court also described a series LLC as "basically a business entity within a business entity" (which, loosely, is not incorrect).

One could be forgiven for saying that the US court should have grasped the opportunity to provide a much needed judicial precedent. Instead, the question for consideration was remanded back to the US District Court to decide. Essentially, it dodged the question.

Judging the wind

The concept of segregated business structures is indeed very complex. Despite the fact that I have written extensively about the subject matter, I can say unashamedly that I still find it difficult to articulate clearly in oral discussion how they work. And if I find it difficult, it cannot be easy even for lawyers who practice in this business area, and less still for judges who may lack the experience of them at a commercial level. But as I attempted to discuss in my book, similar structures have already attracted multi-jurisdictional recognition through local laws and we are now at the stage of the evolutionary process where the cross-border recognition is the next step. In the US, unlike in Europe where European legislation has come to the aid of cross-border PCC transactions, only judicial authorities can provide the necessary certainty and predictability. It is therefore most unfortunate that the US Court did not do so in the above mentioned case.

My natural apprehension for the series LLC is that they can be used as a cheap alternative to establishing a new corporate entity whereas legislatures around the world have tended to restrict the PCC for more sophisticated uses (especially insurance and investment funds). But, at the same time, US interstate series LLC transactions have become a fact of commercial reality which a court should not ignore, and absent any considerations of fraud or bad faith, they should take a realistic view of the position. This is even more so given the fact that many US States also have PCC legislation and accordingly should recognise a cell type structure.

Squaring the circle over liability

Over the years I have spent a lot of time thinking about cell structures, in particular consideration of the enforcement of the internal firewalls in foreign court proceedings. While judicial clarification would be extremely helpful, the fact that they have been endorsed by regulators and used throughout the world has become a more important factor in the quest for global recognition. Indeed, the absence of judicial decisions has not stopped the concept's expansion or development. But I am increasingly convinced that, notwithstanding cells (of a protected cell company) are not separate legal entities as such, it would help the process of judicial acceptance if a cell was treated, for certain legal purposes at least, as if it was. This is not the same thing as saying that a cell must be a legal person separate from the company (i.e. have 'incorporated' status as in the case of the incorporated cell company). In my view this is neither necessary nor desirable. Rather, it can be treated by the applicable legislation for certain legal purposes as a separate entity.

It should then follow that a foreign court would be more likely to respect the internal firewalls by reference to the greater separation it offers; most importantly, the ring-fence protection in liquidation of its individual cells. This is because if a cell can be legally liquidated as if it was a separate legal entity, the liability of the cell (of a protected cell company) itself would not, in liquidation, be limited in any way; the liability of the cell (like of a limited company) would be unlimited but such liability would be discharged only from its assets. It would be the liability of its members which would be limited, in accordance with the universally accepted insolvency principle, and in liquidation the non-liability of other cells follows from the liability shield as separate legal entities. In my view, the important legal distinction is not the incorporation of a cell, but that the cell could be wound-up as if it was a company in liquidation under the insolvency legislation and that, therefore, for the purposes of the cell liquidation, each cell is endowed with a corporate shield.

Interestingly, this is where the US District Court (which will now have to consider the case again) may have been heading with its legal analysis that a series LLC was (per Judge Helen Berrigan) a "separate juridical entity": according to the court, the correct defendant in this claim should have been "Arch Bay Holdings LLC, Series 2010B" (not Arch Bay Holdings LLC).

If a 'cell', 'series', 'segregated portfolio' (or whatever term is used), as a creation of local statute is treated for certain important legal purposes as a separate juridical entity (despite the fact that for other purposes it is not), that does seem to square the liability circle. In this regard, it is of note that in the case of PCCs, some jurisdictions have introduced ad hoc amendments to the original legislation to provide for cells to be treated as if they were separate companies in relation to certain matters (usually, liquidation and taxation e.g. Gibraltar) despite the fact that it is the PCC that still carries on business as a single legal person. In this sense, one could say a cell has 'quasi corporate status' even if it is not a company in its own right (which should offer a PCC more protection in a foreign court). Indeed, the clear direction of the local legislatures to courts in a foreign state is that a cell of a PCC should be treated as a separate entity for liability purposes.

Whatever the uncertainties in the US might be for a series LLC, back in Europe a PCC established in the EU should also enjoy the protection of the EU insolvency regime. In my view, one of the future growth areas for European cell companies is likely to be in the portfolio transfer opportunities and the insurance run-off market. I also expect to see the expansion of the concept in the Asian region where its uptake has not been noticeable.

"The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail. Yet hope remains while the company is true." (The Lord of the Rings).

It is usually the case in jurisdictions with financial centre aspirations that local lawyers pioneer ideas to promote a jurisdiction's competitiveness and the local legislature then implements them by statute. This is often done with a degree of flexibility in the expectation that in the development of local case-law the judiciary will be as flexible as possible within what was originally intended by the legislature. Sometimes the evidence of intention is not always apparent and the legislature has to step in to amend the existing law as courts begin to interpret it beyond the gaps left open by the legislation. If the statute finds favour it is soon adopted by foreign jurisdictions seeking the same competitive advantage for their own financial sector. Others may take longer to persuade as they wait for regulators and courts around the world to resolve any open questions. Whilst a local court can clearly only apply local laws and develop local jurisprudence, in a world where law reports are easily accessible over the internet (especially to the probing mind of the academic who writes about them in equally accessible local journals) this can often influence the development of similar legal concepts by foreign courts. Unfortunately, in the case of segregated business forms (whether PCC, series LLC or other), judicial guidance of any sort has not been there. That spurred the publication of the PCC book but the elusive quest for judicial acceptance of the cellular structure has not yet come to an end. Yet hope remains.

Nigel Feetham is a partner at Hassans law firm and visiting professor at Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University. Nigel is also the author or co-author of a number of books, including Protected Cell Companies: a Guide to their Implementation and Use (2nd edition), co-authored with Professor Grant Jones. He has also consulted widely for clients on protected cell companies, including the Government of Gibraltar and regulators.

www.gibraltarlaw.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Nigel Feetham
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions