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”

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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.