Sunday, September 14, 2025

Membership options

Home Blog Page 116

Protected Cell Companies – 25 years in

0
Peter Child is CEO of SRS Europe and Managing Director of SRS Guernsey.

Twenty-five years ago Protected Cell Company (‘PCC’) legislation was enacted by the States of Guernsey introducing the world to the concept of the cellular company.

A number of local legal, and insurance practitioners were involved in the genesis and drafting of legislation, but it is Steve Butterworth, the Insurance Regulator at the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (‘GFSC’) at the time, who is widely held as being the progenitor of the concept, and the driving force who saw that concept through to fruition.

When he moved to the GFSC from the Cayman regulator in the mid-80s, Steve brought the concept with him.

It had been inspired by the common use of rent-a-captive facilities in the Caribbean jurisdiction. These were single corporate bodies that were licensed to write insurance business, and ‘rented out’ share capital to third parties so that they could take advantage of the captive concept at lower cost to entry and with faster speed of establishment.

There was a desire in Cayman of both sponsors and users of these facilities to provide greater asset protection than could be offered by just contractual agreement and strict application of accounting protocols which Steve found replicated in Guernsey.

The first PCC law of 1997 enabled formation of a single legal entity that encompassed both a core and a theoretically infinite number of cells. The core and cells were differentiated by the issue of share classes which provided the shareholders with different rights.

Core shareholders had those rights that would usually attach to ordinary shareholders, i.e. voting rights at shareholders meetings and the right to distributions arising from profits attributable the core of the company. Cellular shareholders had rights only to distribution of profits arising from the specific cell to which their shares referred. 

At the same time labilities of the companies were segregated so that creditors would have recourse only to the assets of the core or the assets of the cell with which they had contracted   (actually the first draft of the law provided for a default position whereby cellular creditors enjoyed automatic recourse to core assets, but this was soon reversed).

So, a corporate form was born that added statutory protection to the rent-a-captive concept.

Early uses of the PCC were generally restricted to captive insurance vehicles, and through the captive boom of the mid to late ‘80s and through the early ‘90s, Guernsey protected cell companies grew consistently as a new type of home for captives that, similarly to the rent-a-captives were distinguished by lower cost and faster speed of entry.

Guernsey’s success was soon emulated around the world with numerous variations of the cellular vehicle springing up, first in other international insurance domiciles, and latterly onshore notably in the US and UK.  There are now versions of cellular companies in more than 40 domiciles worldwide.

The first wave of cellular companies mirrored the PCC, being single legal entities encompassing a core and multiple cells, known variously as Protected Cell Companies (PCCs), Segregated Account Companies (SACs), or Segregated Portfolio Companies (SPCs), amongst other names.

As the jurisdictions and names proliferated, so the use of these vehicles grew. The speed of establishment, ability of a PCC to spread its statutory minimum capital requirement across multiple cells, and concentration of knowledge of expertise in one sponsor, board of directors and administration team saw cells of PCCs increasingly used to facilitate transformation of investment contracts into insurance contracts, and vice versa.

Single cells were often formed to support single transactions, and this led to an explosion in the number of cells through the late 2000s and 2010s as the ILS market started to use cells as their vehicle of choice.

Also during the 2000s, the use of PCCs was extended to licensed investment vehicles. The statutory separation of assets and liabilities, all over seen by one board of directors and administered by one manager, proved to be just as attractive to clients of the investment management fraternity as it had to the clients of the insurance management community.

Contrary to the sequence in most countries, PCC legislation was first introduced in the UK to accommodate umbrella investment vehicles, and was only latterly extended to facilitate the establishment of ILS PCCs. In the late 2000s a variation on the PCC emerged: the Incorporated Cell Company (ICC). This was a collection of distinct legal entities made up of a core and multiple cells all of which shared a central board of directors and administrator.

These have become the vehicle of choice for pension funds looking to use cells to transfer longevity and other risks out of the pension fund to reinsurance capacity.

There are many factors that go into deciding whether a cell vehicle is right for a particular business need. Location is one of those factors.  We have set out some of the key differences that apply to the principal cellular company jurisdictions throughout the world.

United States

In the US, cell companies are referred to by a wide variety of names. Different states have not only different naming conventions, but also different forms of vehicle which are too varied to explore within he confines of this short article.

Common benefits that cell vehicles may provide are lower upfront capital, less development time, and less cost due to economies of scale. Protected, incorporated and Series LLC cells are available depending upon the needs of the insured.

Because of quick establishment and lower upfront capital costs, there has been a huge increase in cell growth during the past 10 years.

At one time, the core capital required for a cell facility was more than a million dollars, whereas now it can be as low as $75,000.

Cells are only used for insurance business and once regulatory approval is achieved, establishment of a cell in the US can happen relatively fast, usually between two to four weeks.

Looking forward the industry suggests that cells used to support genuinely “entrepreneurial structures” may be established to enable the insured to participate on risk when there are capital constraints.

This means cells could help programmes getting off the ground by eliminating the need for regulatory capital as that has been addressed by the Core.

Bermuda

Segregated Accounts Companies (SAC) are formed in accordance with the Segregated Accounts Companies Act 200 under Bermuda Law. They can also be formed under private acts which may provide more concrete protections to the segregation of assets and liabilities specific to the company.

The segregated account structure can be applied across a range of captive and commercial licenses (1, 2, 3, 3A, and 3B). The most common use of Segregated Account Companies refers to a class 3 i.e. captive insurance business.

Bermuda cells are mostly used as an entry point to the captive concept. Sometimes they’re used where stand-alone captives would be too expensive. We are increasingly seeing Bermuda cells used to provide Side A Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance which is supported by the active Rhode Island market.

The strong Rhode Island market presence in Bermuda certainly helps generate interest as a domicile. Class 3 companies can benefit from the ability to write risks unrelated to the core owner without imposing the Bermuda Solvency Capital Requirement (BSCR) solvency model (Solvency II equivalent).

Bermudan cells are also commonly used as Special Purpose Insurers (SPIs) and Collateralized Insurers (Cis) within the ILS space. The three most common benefits that a cell vehicle in Bermuda provides are:

  • Cost effective, fast, and efficient access to a captive-like (risk retention) structure
  • Lack of shareholding/corporate consolidation reduces conflicts of interest
  • Avenue for commercial initiatives and fronting without the need to consider the BSCR model

Incorporated Segregated Accounts Companies (ISAC) are available in Bermuda, but less common.

Specific regulatory approval is required to establish a cell in Bermuda, but the regulator will typically allow cells to be formed in accordance with the business plan/license restrictions without prior approval and just with notification at year end.

Going forward the SAC act will continue to underpin the ILS industry through CIs and SPI licenses. Cells will also be used within the rent-a-captive model and will continue to provide support to the commercial fronting (non-admitted/non-rated) space and for hard to place coverages such as cyber/D&O as relief from distressed commercial markets.

Cayman Islands

Cell companies are called Segregated Portfolio Companies (SPC) in the Cayman Islands and are mostly used for segregation of assets and liabilities.

That can be for a single parent captive that may want to have a certain line of coverage segregated or for a rent-a-captive that allows other parties to set up their own cell(s) within a larger structure. The three most common benefits that a cell vehicle provides are:

  • Lower barrier to entry for prospective captive owners/participants.
  • Regulators generally approve new cell applications faster than a stand-alone captive.
  • Segregation of assets and liabilities.

The Cayman Islands SPC structure does not on its own create cells that are incorporated as separate legal entities. However, there is specific legislation for Portfolio Insurance Companies (PIC) that allows for an incorporated entity within an SPC structure.

PICs allow for contractual relationships to be established between any external party and between any cells of the SPC and also have the advantage of allowing for separate governance within the SPC structure.

They can also be used to streamline a cell’s transition into a stand-alone company should that be the desire of the PIC owners.

When it comes to regulatory approval, to establish a SPC, approval from the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) is required.

SPCs can also be created for investment fund purposes or other finance related activities where the segregation of assets and liabilities within a single entity would be desirable, but an SPC cannot be utilized for both insurance and investment fund purposes.

As a result, there has been a large portion of growth in Cayman related to SPCs. Currently there are 148 SPCs licensed in the Cayman Islands and cell growth within the island has increased.

Malta

Malta is the only EU member state with PCC legislation which was passed in 2004. Cell owners setting up a cell vehicle in Malta may avail themselves of Freedom of Service and Freedom of Establishment passporting rights to write business across all EU/EEA countries, whether set up to:

  • insure their own risks (captive cell).
  • sell insurance to third parties (third party writing cells).
  • reduce EEA fronting costs (fronting cell).
  • insure risks on a non-admitted basis globally, where allowed.
  • reinsure risks outside the EEA.

Because of hardening markets, capacity issues, and access to the EU/EEA markets, establishing a PCC in Europe has multiple benefits such as:

  • Low capital requirements
  • Substance and Resources share economies of scale
  • Direct writing into Europe
  • Reinsurance access for smaller insurers

Businesses looking to establish a PCC or create a cell are required to get the approval and authorization of the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA).

Malta has enacted legislation for both PCCs and Incorporated Cell Companies (ICCs). Within the insurance market the PCCs are sector specific, for example, Insurance PCCs can only have insurance cells, Management PCCs only management cells, and Broker PCCs only broker cells.

For the future, Malta should expect to see growth in the PCC market driven by the creation of cells with added interest from FinTech and InsurTech sectors.

Guernsey

Just as in Malta and other parts of Europe, cells are referred to as PCCs and are used for captives, insurance-linked securities, transformers, and commercial insurers.

Guernsey was the first jurisdiction to introduce this type of vehicle 25 years ago, therefore they are commonly used for a wide variety of structures.

PCCs in Guernsey can be established quickly and provide ongoing expense and capital reduction. Both protected cells and incorporated cell companies are available. Within the insurance sector, ICCs are used mostly for pension longevity risk transfer deals.

In order to establish a cell in Guernsey a business would need regulatory approval. Pre-approval is sometimes available to certain types of SPI and captive cells.

Cells can also be used for other reasons besides insurance business. Investment business and other types of support for regulated financial services activity is permitted.

Cells in the past 10 years have been an engine of growth for the insurance sector in Guernsey. Regardless of where you choose to establish a cell vehicle, the overall benefits can be fruitful. Each of these locations is an option to reap the benefits of a captive.

Read and download Strategic Risk Solutions’ white paper on Cell Vehicles and Domicile Differences here.

Meta deploys captive alongside Side A ‘Laser DIC’ policy


  • Hard D&O market prompted Meta to look for alternative options
  • Corporate Law changes in Delaware earlier this year permitted the use of captives for some Side A risks
  • Laser DIC policy tailored to ensure Ds & Os retain coverage equivalent to the commercial market
  • Meta creates separate cell within its Hawaii captive to segregate D&O capacity from other risks

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and WhatsApp, has used its Hawaii-domiciled captive to provide Side A insurance coverage to its directors and officers.

The technology giant originally formed Honu Insurance Company, LLC in December 2020 to start reinsuring international employee benefits.

Subscribe to Ci Premium to continue reading
Captive Intelligence provides high-value information, industry analysis, exclusive interviews and business intelligence tools to professionals in the captive insurance market.

GCP Exclusive: Meta’s captive ‘Laser DIC’ policy for Side A D&O

0
Janaize Markland, Meta
Nick Troxell, AGCS
Lauri Floresca, Woodruff Sawyer

In episode 77 of the Global Captive Podcast, supported by legacy specialists R&Q, we have an exclusive discussion with Meta and its insurance partners in which they explain its new and unique approach to insuring Side A D&O through its own Hawaii-domiciled captive.

Richard in joined by Janaize Markland, director of business risk and insurance at Meta, Lauri Floresca, a specialist D&O broker with Woodruff Sawyer, and Nick Troxell, manager of global captive fronting at Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS), who discuss the context of the hard D&O market of the past three years, recent corporate law changes in Delaware that made the solution possible and the structure of the ‘Laser DIC’ Side A policy that has been deployed.

Read the associated article here.

US middle market continues rapid captive growth, MSL major driver


  • Medical stop loss has been a significant driver of single parent and group captive formations
  • Smaller insureds worse hit by hard market conditions of the past three years
  • Strategic approach to risk financing and investor relations a common motivator

The proliferation in the use of captives in the SME space has been vast over the past few years, with rising medical-stop-loss costs being one of the key drivers of captive growth.

Prabal Lakhanpal, management consultant at Spring Consultant Group, told Captive Intelligence: “A captive medical stop loss programme is giving you the opportunity to pare back those costs. And I think that’s going to be a massive driver for folks looking at captives.

Subscribe to Ci Premium to continue reading
Captive Intelligence provides high-value information, industry analysis, exclusive interviews and business intelligence tools to professionals in the captive insurance market.

TRISTAR acquires Hawaii-based TPA

0

TRISTAR Claims Management Services has completed the acquisition of FiRMS Claims Services (FCS), a Hawaii-domiciled third-party administrator.

TRISTAR, which provides services in property & casualty claims and benefits administration, works closely with captives and the alternative market in the Unites States.

FCS services the Hawaii marketplace and has been acquired from First Insurance Company of Hawaii, Ltd (FICOH).

“We are excited to welcome the FCS team to the TRISTAR family. Similar to Matrix, a previous acquisition of ours, FiRMS is a Tokio Marine subsidiary and, therefore, part of an organization with whom we share common values,” Tom Veale, President of TRISTAR.

“We now have full claims handling capability for auto, liability, workers compensation, and disability in Hawaii, making TRISTAR one of the few companies with direct employees handling claim files in all 50 states.”

The new Hawaii team will report to Mark Antonson, Senior VP of the Western Region at TRISTAR.

Telefonica captive gets A- financial strength rating

0

AM Best has affirmed the Financial Strength Rating of ‘A-’ (Excellent) and the Long-Term Issuer Credit Rating of “a-” (Excellent) of Telefónica’s Luxembourg captive Nova Casiopea Re S.A. (NCRe).

NCRe operates as a single parent captive of Telefónica, a multinational broadband and telecommunications provider based in Spain with operations in Europe, as well as North, Central and South America.

NCRe was established in 2017, assuming the assets and liabilities of its predecessor captive Casiopea Re S.A.

It is common in Luxembourg for older captives to be closed as equalisation reserves accumulate over time, with and a second captive being formed in its place.

AM Best said NCRe benefits from Telefonica’s geographic diversification across Europe and Latin America.

NCRe maintains a broad portfolio mix, but as a pure captive its business profile remains constrained to Telefonica’s operations and strategic decisions.

NCRe generated a pre-tax profit of €11.3m compared with €21.3m in 2020, mainly driven by the captive’s net technical results, which reported a higher loss ratio of 38.6% compared with 21.4% in 2020.

The better net results in 2020 are mainly due to low frequency, low severity losses.

In 2021, the captive’s combined ratio was 72.0%, still below CRe’s historical five-year weighted average of 85.4% (2012-2016).

Recent changes to Telefónica’s business model have not materially affected the captive’s operations.

However, AM Best notes that potential spin-offs of Telefónica’s major businesses in Latin America will likely impact the captive’s risk exposure.

Price volatility, M&A and defence strategies lead healthcare motives

0

Now is the prime time for healthcare companies or professionals to either join or start a captive, experts told Captive Intelligence at the 2022 Cayman Captive Forum.

“We’re definitely in a hard market, rates are going up and capacity is less,” Amy Evans, executive vice president at Intercare Holdings, said.

“There’s still a lot of capital in the commercial market, but they are reducing cover and they’re not insuring a lot of things.”

Evans also noted that healthcare professionals are increasingly wanting to control their own risk.

“They are just tired of the volatility, they are naturally creative people who are always striving for innovation because you can’t be complacent in healthcare,” she added. “You’ve always got to be one step ahead and strategic.”

Dr Ira Richterman launched the Cayman-domiciled StarKap Insurance Company in 2005, due to proliferating costs for medical malpractice insurance in the commercial market.

“For myself, a lot of my friends, malpractice insurance as a small independent group was unaffordable,” he said.

“As a result, in 2005, an orthopaedic group, an anaesthesia group, and a large multi-specialty, medicine group got together, and we all felt the captive was the right thing for our practices and more importantly for our community.”

M&A

Heather McClure, chief risk advisor in the US Healthcare Practice at Aon, noted that the merger of physicians into hospital employment over the last three years has grown “exponentially”, which has benefited physicians in their defence against lawsuits.

“What that means for the risk is that those physicians don’t have their own separate policies anymore, as their risk is joined with the hospitals,” she said.

McClure added that the plaintiff’s attorneys used to be able to pick off and sue the physician or the hospital separately. “And now there’s that opportunity for joint defence.”

Oklahoma has “tremendous” growth potential as a domicile – Kinion

0

Steve Kinion, Oklahoma’s new captive director, has outlined the potential and his ambitions for the state as a captive domicile, in an exclusive interview with Captive Intelligence.

Kinion was Delaware’s captive regulator for more than 13 years, but left the post in September after failing to agree a contract renewal.

He originally joined the Oklahoma Insurance Department in 1995 as counsel to the Oklahoma state board for property and casualty rates and assistant general counsel.

As in Delaware, Kinion will serve in his new position as a contractor and remain based in Illinois.

Since returning to Oklahoma’s insurance department, Kinion said most captive applications he’s seen have been from Oklahoma-based businesses, with carbon industries having a big presence.

“They may have a difficult time obtaining insurance coverage in the commercial market,” he said. “They’re welcome in Oklahoma because Oklahoma has a long history with that industry.”

“Entrepreneurial” Commissoner Mulready

Oklahoma’s new captive director said the state’s insurance commissioner, Glen Mulready, was crucial to his decision to return.

“Mulready is a commissioner who is what I call an entrepreneurial thinker,” Kinion said. “He wants to make Oklahoma the best insurance department it can be, if not the best insurance department in the United States.”

He noted that Mulready was excited about future of captives in the state, which also helped entice him to the role.

“This is a very good thing because if you have the support from the very top, you’ll be successful,” he said.

Kinion said he was excited about Oklahoma’s new Insurance Business Transfers (IBT) law, which allows companies to transfer books of business to a new company.

“Commissioner Mulready wanted to make a good captive insurance programme that really serves the needs of Oklahoma-based businesses, so they no longer have to look elsewhere for their captive insurance risk management needs,” Kinion said.

He noted that Oklahoma had been successful with the two IBT tractions it had completed already, suggesting there might be four more coming to the state in the near future.

“Mulready understood that I’m a native of the state and asked me if I would consider coming back and being part of the success, and I said yes.”

Kinion acknowledged that although it seems like he’s coming “full circle” with his return to Oklahoma, he is not coming to the end of his career and is simply “going back to a familiar environment and an environment that I know”.

In his final weeks as Delaware’s captive regulator, Kinion spoke to the Global Captive Podcast about his plans to focus more on his captive legal practice, and in particular his desire to provide consulting around the area of D&O being written in captives.

One of the main reasons Kinion accepted the new position was because it allowed him to continue to be based in Illinois and remain working as a lawyer at Zack Stamp.

“I did the same in Delaware very successfully, and I can do the same in Oklahoma,” he said.

Kinion also praised the success of the most recent Oaklahoma captive conference, which had almost 300 attendees this year. “I was one of the fortunate people who got a space early and I saw the electricity in the air, and the excitement about Oklahoma’s captive programme,” he added.

Enel’s captive PSI signatory is “finishing touch” for sustainability focus

0

  • Enel Insurance tasked with contributing to group sustainability initiatives
  • Captive focused on four pillars – finance, underwriting, governance and reporting
  • Nervini says “the time is now” for more captives to sign the UN’s PSIs
  • Read Aon and the UN’s white paper on Using a Captive to Drive Positive ESG Outcomes here.

Antonio Nervini, Head of Insurance in the Netherlands at Enel Insurance N.V., is hoping that other captives follow the Italian multinational’s lead in signing up to the United Nations’ Principles for Sustainable Insurance (PSI).

Speaking exclusively to Captive Intelligence in GCP #76, recorded in Luxembourg in November, Nervini explained why and how Enel Insurance had become the first captive signatory of the PSI.

The podcast discussion also featured Butch Bacani, programme leader for the UN’s Principles for Sustainable Insurance initiative, and Ciaran Healy, chief commercial officer for EMEA at Aon Global Risk Consulting.

Aon and the UN have published a white paper on Using a Captive Insurance Company to Drive Positive ESG Outcomes. Read it here.

Nervini said that the Netherlands-domiciled captive had previously been tasked with contributing to the wider group’s sustainability efforts and initially had struggled to understand or appreciate the role the captive could play.

“The first reaction [from the captive], was we can do nothing actually,” he said.

“We were pushed to take actions anyway and we started to figure out what we could really do for sustainability. There are actually many actions that can be done by a captive.”

Enel has a track record of embracing and investing in renewable and sustainable energy practices, including being the first to design and install smart meters in 2001, and the first private company in the renewable power sector to be listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index.

Enel Insurance pursued a sustainable framework for the captive based on four pillars – sustainable finance, underwriting and risk management, compliance and governance, and reporting.

Nervini paid special thanks to the Guernsey International Insurance Association (GIIA) for the publication of its ESG Framework for Insurers in 2021.

“It was extremely, and it is extremely, useful for captives to understand what to do,” he said.

Nervini said to have “real sustainable finance” completely embedded in the captive’s investment strategy was a big achievement and more sophisticated than a simple approach with a list of restrictions.

“Once we achieved the first step, we moved to underwriting and even in underwriting captives can do a lot,” he added. “We can help the group to achieve sustainable targets.”

These included having Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) embedded in international programmes, and the captive providing support to the group during the pandemic.

Nervini also emphasised the importance of reporting and said this is one of the most important areas to get right and develop in the future.



“Reporting means that you have to be taken accountable for what you do,” he said. “You have to measure your actions.

“It can be done for sustainable finance, but for the other pillars it’s quite difficult. So what I look forward to is to be rated by agencies in our performance as a sustainable captive.”

More broadly, Nervini explained that the captive becoming a signatory of the PSI earlier this year was simply the “finishing touch of a longer process of working on sustainability for the captive”.

He explained one of the motivations to become a signatory was to lead the way and he now hopes other captives will follow suit.

“We understood that it was time for us to step in and take the lead and try to advocate for sustainable insurance,” he said.

“It’s time for captives to join the PSI. It’s time to take action. So we would like to think that others will come soon. This is our main goal, to invite others to join us.”

You can listen to the full 25-minute discussion between Antonio Nervini, the UN’s Butch Bacani and Aon’s Ciaran Healy on the Captive Intelligence site here, or on any podcast app. Just search for the ‘Global Captive Podcast’.

GCP #76: Enel Insurance, the first captive signatory of the UN’s Principles for Sustainable Insurance

0
Antonio Nervini, Enel
Butch Bacani, United Nations
Ciaran Healy, Aon

In episode 76 of the Global Captive Podcast, supported by legacy specialists R&Q, Richard is joined by three of the professionals instrumental in the first captive insurance signatory of the United Nations’ Principles for Sustainable Insurance (PSI).

Earlier this year Enel Insurance, the Netherlands-domiciled captive owned by Italian energy multinational Enel, became the first captive to sign up to the PSI.

In a 25 minute discussion recorded at the European Captive Forum in Luxembourg, in November, listeners will hear from Antonio Nervini, Head of Insurance in the Netherlands at Enel, Butch Bacani, Programme Leader for the UN’s Principles for Sustainable Insurance, and Ciaran Healy, Chief Commercial Officer for EMEA at Aon Global Risk Consulting.

Now Enel has a long track record of embracing and investing in renewable and sustainable energy practices, including being the first to design and install smart meters in 2001, and the first private company in the renewable power sector to be listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. And this step by the captive to sign up to the PSI is a good reflection of a group-wide approach to meeting sustainability and ESG targets.

Antonio will explain why Enel wanted to be the first captive to become a signatory of the PSI, Ciaran explains the work involved and whether he expects other captives to follow suit, but Butch begins provides some background on the PSI and his own ambitions for the captive market.

To read the Report authored by Aon and the United Nations on Using a Captive Insurance Company to Drive Positive ESG Outcomes, click here.