Jersey Unreported Judgments

Companies - application relating to proposed scheme for the transfer of business.

[2012]JRC232

Royal Court

(Samedi)

13 December 2012

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Olsen.

 

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 27 OF AND SCHEDULE 2 TO THE INSURANCE BUSINIESS (JERSEY) LAW 1996

Advocate S. M. Huelin for the Representor.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is an application by three companies in the Friends Life Group for the transfer of insurance business pursuant to Article 27 and Schedule 2 of the Insurance Business (Jersey) Law 1996.  More particularly the intention is to transfer to Friends Life Limited the whole of the long-term insurance business carried on or from within Jersey by Friends Life Assurance Society Limited and part of the long-term insurance business carried on in or from within Jersey by Friends Life Company Limited.  It is part of a group re-organisation and the Jersey part of the scheme forms part of a larger scheme which has come before the High Court in London for approval under the relevant English legislation. 

2.        The test in such cases is well established.  First the Court must be satisfied that the relevant procedural requirements have been complied with.  This relates particularly, of course, to notifying all policy holders who might be affected by the proposed changes; secondly, the Court must consider whether any policyholder or others would be adversely affected by the scheme. 

3.        Dealing with the first point we have received appropriate affidavit evidence and we are quite satisfied that the requirements of the Law, as modified by the Court at an earlier hearing, have been complied with. 

4.        As to the second and significant part of the test, we are satisfied that the transfer can properly be approved.  We refer to a number of matters.  First and most importantly, there is the report of the independent actuary, which is to the effect that the scheme will not have a material impact on the benefit expectations nor will it materially disadvantage the benefit security of any group of policyholders.  Secondly, we note that the UK scheme has been approved by the High Court on 4^th December.  Thirdly, we note that the matter has been referred to the Jersey Financial Services Commission who are the regulators of insurance matters in the Island and they have confirmed that they have no objection.  Fourthly, we note that there is evidence that there are no adverse tax consequences for any policyholders as a result of the transfers whether in Jersey or in the United Kingdom.  And fifthly, and very importantly also, we note that there have been no objections received from any policyholder. 

5.        In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that no policyholder or other person will be materially adversely affected and we are content to approve the scheme in the terms of the draft Act produced to us.  We should note that the company does own immovable property in the Island and accordingly we order that our Act be registered in the Public Registry. 

Authorities

Insurance Business (Jersey) Law 1996.