BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Representation of American Life and Reassure Limited [2012] JRC 142 (24 July 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2012/2012_142.html Cite as: [2012] JRC 142 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
Sir Michael Cameron St John Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Kerley and Crill. |
IN THE MATTER OF AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (''ALICO'') AND REASSURE LIMITED (REASSURE) (''THE REPRESENTORS'')
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 27 AND SCHEDULE 2 OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS (JERSEY) LAW 1996
Advocate S. M. Huelin for the Representors.
judgment
the bailiff:
1. This is an application under Article 27 and Schedule 2 of the Insurance Business (Jersey) Law 1996 for the transfer of certain long-term insurance business carried on or from within Jersey from American Life Insurance Company referred to as (''Alico'') to Reassure Limited. The Jersey scheme is ancillary to a scheme for the transfer of business in the UK which is the subject of a similar application to the High Court in London.
2. In matters of this nature the Court has to be satisfied first that the procedural requirements of the Law have been complied with; those requirements have, as is usually the case, been modified by an earlier order of the Court in this case. Having seen the affidavits we are satisfied that the procedural requirements have been complied with.
3. The second matter which we must then consider is whether any person is likely to be adversely affected by the scheme ,in the sense that the scheme is likely to leave him worse off than if there had been no scheme. We are quite satisfied from the evidence before us on this second aspect. I would summarise our reasons as follows:-
(i) There is a report from the Independent Actuary which makes it clear that, in the opinion of the Actuary, no policy holder will be materially adversely affected nor will the security of the benefits for all the various policyholders be affected.
(ii) The scheme has been approved by the High Court in London.
(iii) There has been no objection from any policyholder of either company.
(iv) There is a confirmation that there are no adverse tax consequences as a result of the transfer either in the United Kingdom or in Jersey.
(v) The Jersey Financial Services Commission as regulator has confirmed that it has no objection to what is proposed.
4. Putting all those matters together and having regard to the information in the affidavits we are satisfied that no policyholder will be adversely affected and therefore we are content to approve the scheme and make the Order. We approve the terms of the draft order which has been submitted.
