SHARE

April 26, 2022

New York Says Less Than 10% Ownership of an Insurance Company Is Not a Safe Harbor

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content.
Register Now

On April 19, 2022, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) issued Circular Letter No. 5, reminding owners and potential purchasers of shares of insurance companies that acquiring less than 10% of the company's voting securities is not necessarily a safe harbor from requiring regulatory prior approval. Other indicia of control, such as the ability to appoint board members and the terms and conditions of the proposed transaction, can result in NYDFS determining that the person "controls" the insurer and is therefore required to obtain approval before purchasing the shares and gaining such control.

Every state requires prior approval or qualifying for an exemption before any person can obtain control of an insurer domiciled in a particular state. Control is presumed upon, but is not limited to, the direct or indirect acquisition of 10% or more of the voting securities of an insurance company. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners' (NAIC) Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Model Act (which every state has adopted in similar form) defines control as follows:

The term "control" (including the terms "controlling," "controlled by" and "under common control with") means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract other than a commercial contract for goods or nonmanagement services, or otherwise, unless the power is the result of an official position with or corporate office held by the person. Control shall be presumed to exist if any person, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, holds with the power to vote, or holds proxies representing, ten percent (10%) or more of the voting securities of any other person. This presumption may be rebutted by a showing made in the manner provided by [the Act] that control does not exist in fact. The commissioner may determine…that control exists in fact, notwithstanding the absence of a presumption to that effect.

Our experience leads us to believe that the fact NYDFS felt compelled to issue this circular at this time suggests that it may have recently reviewed a number of filings or otherwise became aware that applicants attempted to avoid or limit certain disclosures by using a complex ownership structure that limited ownership to below 10% but allowed the acquirer to obtain effective control over the insurer. Clearly the NYDFS believes that the purpose of the Insurance Holding Company Act is to require a regulatory filing and disclosure upon a change of control, and thus the purpose of the circular is to remind people of that fact and to caution them not to rely on the presumption of control at 10% ownership as a safe harbor or as a hard and fast rule.

New York is not alone in looking at this issue, as we reported in December 2021 when the NAIC's Financial Stability Task Force and Macroprudential Working Group developed a "List of Regulatory Considerations - PE Related and Other," which has since been adopted by the Financial Stability Task Force. Private equity and venture capital investors who would prefer to limit disclosure of certain information should keep this in mind when structuring an insurance transaction in New York and elsewhere.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From McDermott Will & Emery

Trending in Telehealth: January 9 - 16, 2023

By Amanda Enyeart McDermott Will & Emery January 19 , 2023

Trending in Telehealth is a new weekly series from the McDermott Digital Health team where we track telehealth regulatory and legislative activity.

That Stings: Consent to Jurisdiction Must Be Effective at Filing to Invoke Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2)

By Joshua Revilla McDermott Will & Emery January 19 , 2023

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on petition for writ of mandamus, vacated the district court’s transfer order and remanded the transfer to be considered under the clarified parameters of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

Absent Expressed Rationale of Obviousness, Federal Circuit Calls for Do-Over

By Anisa Noorassa McDermott Will & Emery January 19 , 2023

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) where, on appeal, the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) rationale for sustaining the Board’s obviousness rejection did not reflect “the reasoning or findings the Board actually invoked.”

More From Insurance

FINRA Files Amendments to Proposed Rule Change That Will Allow Remote Inspections

By William B. Mack Greenberg Traurig January 25 , 2023

Last summer, the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) proposed a rule change to its supervision rule (FINRA Rule 3110) to allow member firms to conduct remote inspections of some or all branch offices and locations.

IRS Releases Memorandum on Deducting Cryptocurrency Donations

By John T. Lutz McDermott Will & Emery January 18 , 2023

On January 13, 2023, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a memorandum (CCA 202302012) concluding that a qualified appraisal is required when a taxpayer claims a charitable contribution deduction exceeding $5,000 for donated cryptocurrency.

SEC Adopts Final Amendments to Rule 10b5-1 and New Disclosure Requirements

By Raffael Fiumara Greenberg Traurig January 12 , 2023

On Dec. 14, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted significant amendments to Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and new rules and disclosure requirements associated with 10b5-1 trading plans meant to address the SEC and other industry participants’ views of potential abuses under the current insider trading regime, including “cooling-off” periods for insiders, prohibitions on overlapping plans, certain insider certifications, and other requirements summarized below.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...