REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application under Division 3A of Part III of the Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (the "Áct") for confirmation of a scheme under which the insurance business carried on by the Australian branch of CUMIS Insurance Society Inc. ("CUMIS") will be transferred to QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited ("QBE").
2 The details of the companies involved are fully set out in Mr Owens' written submissions, which I will mark as MFI 1. Mr Owens explains in the submissions that CUMIS is an Iowa corporation and a member of an international financial services group known as CUNA Mutual Group. CUMIS's ultimate parent company is CMFG Life Insurance Company, which was previously known as CUNA Mutual Insurance Society.
3 CUMIS has been writing general insurance business in Australia through a branch since 1969. The requirements relating to foreign general insurers carrying on insurance business in Australia are referred to in a number of provisions of the Act and in the Prudential Standard GPS 110 Capital Adequacy. The relevant provisions are described in MFI 1, and I need not refer to them.
4 CUMIS Australian branch underwrote a range of general insurance products, the bulk of which fall into the four categories described in MFI 1.
5 In January 2011, the CUNA Mutual Group agreed to sell its Australian operations to QBE Insurance Group. The agreement provided that from 1 April 2011, QBE would reinsure a hundred per cent of the Australian branch of CUMIS's net insurance liabilities. QBE is a member of QBE Insurance Group of Companies, a well-known Australian international insurance group based in Australia; the parent company of which is listed on the Australian stock exchange.
6 The legislative framework and the authorities and the provisions dealing with the discretion to confirm the scheme are described in MFI 1. I need not refer to them, save to say that the critical factor governing the exercise of the discretion is whether "affected policy holders" will be materially detrimentally affected by the implementation of the scheme (Re Insurance Australia Limited (2004) 139 FCR 450).
7 The position also falls to be considered in light of s 17F(1A) of the Act, which specifically requires the interests of the policy holders of the transferee company to be taken into account. This was referred to by Lindgren J in Re Westport Insurance Corporation (No 2) [2009] FCA 1598, in particular at [35].
8 Matters to be taken into account in favour of the exercise of discretion include the fact that QBE currently manages the policies and assumes all the risk under them. The effect of the scheme as is pointed out by Mr Owens is that it aligns the legal and practical position which has existed between CUMIS and QBE and the policy holder since 1 April 2011.
9 A significant factor in the exercise of the discretion is a consideration of the solvency position of the companies in the actuarial evidence to which I have been taken in detail this morning. The position is set out fully in the actuarial reports of Mr Andrew McInerney. Mr McInerney's reports take into account the APRA returns as at 30 June 2011, and include consideration of the most recent APRA returns as at December 2011. The actuarial reports show that the solvency coverage ratio enjoyed by CUMIS policy holders is, or was at the relevant date, 4.24.
10 However, as Mr McInerney observes, that figure is "somewhat illusory". In other words, the figure is inflated by the fact that CUMIS's insurance liabilities have been fully reinsured by QBE since April 2011. Accordingly, as Mr McInerney points out, it is more meaningful to take into account the position which existed historically that is explained in a graph which is contained in Mr McInerney's report. It shows that the historical average of the solvency ratio is between 1.5 and 2. QBE's solvency coverage ratio as at 30 June was approximately 1.31, and increased slightly to 1.34 as at December 2011.
11 It follows from this that the transferring policy holders will be transferred to QBE, which has, on the face of it, a lower solvency ratio than is presently enjoyed by CUMIS policy holders. Nevertheless, for the reasons explained by Mr McInerney, the policy holders post transfer will obtain an adequate level of protection, despite the nominal reduction in the solvency coverage ratio. Mr McInerney sets out the reasons for this, in particular, it is important to bear in mind that QBE is a much larger and more diversified insurer.
12 I was taken to the details of existing reinsurance policies entered into by CUMIS. It presently holds facultative reinsurance policies with four reinsurers. Three have indicated their agreement to novate the policies. A fourth reinsurer has not yet indicated agreement, but the position is that the fourth reinsurer, Gen Re, seems likely to do so shortly.
13 The effect of Mr McInerney's report is that even if Gen Re were not to novate the policy, this would not be a material consideration in the actuary's assessment of the impact of the scheme on CUMIS policy holders.
14 Other factors to be taken into account are that there will be no change to the policy terms and conditions of affected policy holders, apart from the substitution of QBE as insurer. Also there will be no change to claims handling procedures or "culture" as a result of the scheme.
15 APRA does not oppose the confirmation of the scheme. That is a matter to which the court gives great weight.
16 I am satisfied that all of the pre-conditions to the making of the application have been satisfied. The procedural requirements include those which were the subject of orders which I made on 14 December 2011, when I dispensed with the requirement that the applicant must give to every affected policy holder a scheme summary.
17 As I have said, I am satisfied that all of the procedural steps have been complied with. Indeed, as Mr Owens observes, this is a case in which the evidence demonstrates that CUMIS has taken additional steps to those that are required by the orders.
18 Accordingly I propose to make orders in terms of paragraphs (1) to (3) of the short minutes or order, which I will sign and date.
I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.