Worldwide: PCC Montana Court ruling examined: AmTrust North America, Inc. v. Pacific Re, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 7505 (CM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44889 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016).

Last Updated: 29 November 2016
Article by Nigel Feetham

I have previously written about the Montana Federal Court judgment concerning a reinsurance dispute between a protected cell company (PCC) and it's reinsured. The case is PAC RE 5-AT v. AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INC., No. CV-14-131-BLG-CSO (D. Mont. May 13, 2015). The judgment has received wide coverage in captive insurance journals internationally because it is the first judicial decision where a court has analysed in detail the legal status of a PCC.

Some of the complex factual backdrop of this case is briefly described in a related court judgment as follows: "Plaintiffs allegedly became involved in the reinsurance program believing that, for them, it would be an almost risk- and cost-free venture. See id. 25-27. According to their complaint, plaintiffs agreed to reinsure insurance policies that were underwritten by one of defendants' companies, believing that defendants would in turn reinsure plaintiffs and cover their costs. See id. These benefits were to come, at least in part, from defendants' captive reinsurance company Pacific Re, Inc. and its protected cell Pac Re 5-AT. See id. 6. Plaintiffs contend that defendants mismanaged and undercapitalized Pacific Re and Pac Re 5-AT, which left these entities unable to fulfill their contractual and fiduciary obligations to plaintiffs. See Compl. 9, 24, 29, 63, 81-82. Plaintiffs now seek, among other things, to pierce the corporate veil in order to recoup their losses. See id. 84-89.", per Judge James Cott in AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. SAFEBUILT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., No. 16-MC-169 (CM)(JLC) (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2016).

It will be recalled that the PCC reinsurer (Pac Re) filed an action in Montana, before the arbitrators issued a decision, seeking a declaratory judgment that only its cell (5-AT), and not the PCC, was a proper party to the arbitration. The Montana Federal Court held that the PCC was the proper party to the arbitration since a cell does not have separate legal identity. Although this was not a case where the cellular regime was being challenged, Judge Ostby stated that "It is clear that the liabilities and assets of a protected cell are segregated from the other cells and from the PCC", also noting that "the statute does not contemplate that the assets of a protected cell will be used to satisfy the liabilities of any other cell". This is consistent with how PCCs are understood to operate by captive professionals around the world, namely, notwithstanding a cell does not have separate legal personality from the PCC (the company itself), and therefore, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, a cell cannot sue or be sued in its own name, the assets and liabilities of each cell are separate for the purposes of limiting creditor liability to cellular assets.

Following the Montana decision, the arbitration panel issued an interim final order ordering the reinsurer to post collateral to pay for reinsured claims and reimburse the reinsured in third party administrator fees pursuant to the reinsurance agreement. The reinsured brought the present action in the New York Federal Court seeking a confirmation of the award whereas the reinsurer sought to have the award set aside.

The reinsurer, in essence, argued that "the arbitrators made their award in manifest disregard of the law". According to the Court judgment the basis for the challenge was as follows:

The arbitrators had determined that Pac Re (the PCC), not simply the cell in this transaction (5-AT), was properly held liable for amounts due from cell 5-AT to the reinsurer. The arbitrators purported to have applied the decision of Judge Ostby, who held that cell 5-AT was not an independent legal entity and that it could not sue and be sued. Pac Re now argued that the New York Federal Court should not confirm the arbitration award because the arbitrators improperly interpreted Judge Ostby's decision as holding that all of Pac Re's assets (including the assets of other protected cells) could be used to satisfy a judgment arising out of the activities of just one of its protected cells (5-AT), when in fact all Judge Ostby did was hold that cell 5-AT could not sue and be sued in its own name—a ruling that Pac Re believed to be much narrower. Meanwhile, reinsurer argued that the arbitrators got Judge Ostby's ruling exactly right and so their award should be confirmed.

It is worth quoting extensively from the law report. The Court held (per Colleen McMahon, United States District Judge):

"Both parties are missing the mark. The award should indeed be confirmed—because the arbitrators did not act in manifest disregard of the law. That is the only arguable basis available for overturning the award. And I cannot say that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the applicable law. They may have misinterpreted the applicable law—but this court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of the arbitrators on that point.

As noted above, the scope of review of an arbitration award is narrow. The parties contracted to allow non-judges to determine their dispute. But that means they chose to eschew having a court of law decide the questions of law applicable to their case, or rule on the facts in accordance with settled legal principals. Arbitrators are free to make an award that they think is fair, even if a court of law would reach a different result. [...] There is no requirement that arbitrators get the law right. [...] Indeed, an award should be confirmed even if it is contrary to what the court understands the law to be. [...] This court does not sit as a court of appeals with the power to correct errors or misinterpretations of law committed by arbitrators (if, indeed, there have been any in this case, which is a question I do not reach). [...]

In order to vacate for manifest disregard of the law, there must be 'something beyond and different from a mere error in the law or failure on the part of arbitrators to understand and apply the law.' [...]. There must be 'egregious impropriety on the part of the arbitrator ....' [...] Here, the arbitrators plainly applied Judge Ostby's ruling as they understood it to be. They did not disregard it at all. Whether the arbitrators got her ruling right or wrong is of no moment to a court sitting as a purely confirmatory body. Parties who want the law strictly applied to the facts of their cases should not sign arbitration clauses. Only litigating in a court of law guarantees that the law will be applied to resolve a dispute. Parties who choose to by-pass the courts cannot be heard to complain if arbitrators do not reach the result they think a court would have reached. They have made their bed; they must lie in it. And indeed, Judge Ostby so stated: she held that Pac Re would be bound by the results of the arbitration. Pac Re 5-AT, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65541, 2015 WL 2383406, at *5. The result of the arbitration is that Pac Re, not just its 5-AT captive cell, must pay AmTrust a whole lot of money."

From my reading of the Montana Court judgment (although admittedly this is not entirely clear) Judge Ostby did not (but nor was she required to) rule on what specific assets of Pac Re under the relevant contract (i.e. whether core and cell, or cell only) attached to the liabilities and just ruled on the question before the Court, namely, who was the proper party to the arbitration proceedings. This appears borne out by the Judge's comment "Although a protected cell has many attributes of independence from the PCC, it remains a part of the PCC, which has the capacity to act on behalf of the protected cell, as in this instance Pacific Re acted on behalf of Cell 5 in agreements at issue. This interpretation gives meaning to the entire statute because the arbitration may consider and apply the statutory attributes of the protected cell's independence." I read from this that the Judge left it for the arbitration to decide this matter (which the arbitrators in effective did, albeit, applying Judge Ostby's ruling as they understood it to be), whilst, importantly for the PCC regime, still making it clear that the liabilities and assets of a protected cell are segregated from the other cells.

The effect of the arbitration decision as confirmed by the New York Federal Court therefore appears to be that that the counter-party would be free to enforce the award against the assets of the "core" (PCC), and not just the cell. The difficulty for Pac Re, of course, is that if the assets of the core and cell are insufficient to pay the liabilities of the arbitration award (i.e. it was unable to post the collateral), presumably the PCC itself could be subject to winding up proceedings.

We can make a number of observations about this judgment.

First, it confirms the courts reluctance to interfere with arbitration decisions given, as stated in the judgment, the parties have contracted to allow non-judges to determine their dispute and there is no requirement that arbitrators should get the law right; therefore they are bound by the arbitration decision and cannot later complain to the court.

Second, PCC promoters will note with interest the judgment's comment: "And indeed, Judge Ostby so stated: she held that Pac Re would be bound by the results of the arbitration. Pac Re 5-AT, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65541, 2015 WL 2383406, at *5. The result of the arbitration is that Pac Re, not just its 5-AT captive cell, must pay AmTrust a whole lot of money." It is true that Judge Ostby held that Pac Re would be bound by the arbitration; there is nothing inconsistent here with the status of a protected cell company since as Judge Ostby pointed out cells do not have a separate legal identity and Pac Re had "entered into contracts at issue both on its own and on behalf of the protected cell." But that is not to say that the liability of one cell can be enforced against the assets of other cells, and importantly, neither the judgment of the Montana nor New York Federal Court decide otherwise. In fact, to the extent that there was any suggestion to the contrary by the parties in their pleadings, the New York Federal Court must be taken to have rejected this as "missing the mark". Both judgments therefore implicitly leave the cellular regime intact.

Third, the reinsurance agreement contained an arbitration clause and the parties consented to arbitration in New York, rather than in the state of incorporation of the PCC (Montana).

Fourth, the Court cited, with implicit approval, the passage by Judge Ostby on the legal status of a protected cell company. This augurs well for judicial recognition of the statutory ring-fencing of assets and liabilities of different cells.

Fifth, save as stated above, the decision is of limited precedential value as it is clearly confined to its facts, and given as the Judge pointed out, she was not required to make a decision on any question of law.

Finally, if PCC legislation allows a PCC to contract solely on behalf of a cell with no recourse to the assets of the core and the PCC does properly contract in this manner through the express inclusion of a limited recourse provision in the contract between the parties (i.e. the parties identify the assets which would satisfy any claim incurred by the PCC by reference solely to the cell), then, notwithstanding that in law the party to the contract (and therefore to any proceedings) is the PCC itself, the PCC cellular regime would limit the contracting party's right to enforce any claim against the assets of the core, thereby limiting creditor liability to the relevant cell's assets. Assuming parties so contracted, in the event of a judgment or arbitration award being made against "the PCC", the rights of enforcement against the PCC would be limited in recourse against the assets of the specified cell.

Can we learn anything from this case? Most certainly. First, when it comes to PCCs, contracting parties should avoid arbitration. Indeed, PCCs give rise to very complex questions of law and any such disputes are better suited to a court of law than arbitration which is intended to be non-legalistic. Second, to protect the PCC (the corporate entity) from insolvency risk as the contracting party to a contract, the PCC would be well advised to put in place clear contractual language into the contracts in the form of 'risk mitigation clauses' (e.g. cell limitation/limited recourse and local governing law); not to do so could expose the PCC itself. The various mitigation technics are explained in a memorandum published recently. Third, in the case of a contractual dispute, the PCC should always seek to litigate locally (i.e. disputes - arbitration or court proceedings - should be litigated in the jurisdiction of the PCC).

The New York Federal Court case is AmTrust North America, Inc. v. Pacific Re, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 7505 (CM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44889 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016). It is note that the Southern District of New York is one of the most influential federal district courts in the US, with the New York financial centre falling within its jurisdiction.


Nigel Feetham is a senior partner at Gibraltar law firm Hassans and the co-author, with Grant Jones, of "Protected Cell Companies: a Guide to their Implementation and Use" (Spiramus Press, 2010). He is also a Visiting Professor of law at Nottingham Trent University.


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
 
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
 
Related Articles
 
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