Other matters for consideration
32 Consideration has also been given in the evidence to the reinsurance position. Both of ZAL's and OPL's reinsurance arrangements are managed in accordance with the ZSFA risk management framework and Zurich Group risk policy framework. There are some differences in reinsurance arrangements and exposures. Both have reinsurance exposures to APRA regulated reinsurers and an offshore reinsurer, which is ZIC, being OPL's largest reinsurance counterparty.
33 Under the Scheme arrangements, all rights and obligations of OPL under reinsurance treaties to which it is a party will become rights and obligations of ZAL on their current terms, and will continue for the benefit of ZAL if the Scheme is confirmed. There is also evidence that, as a matter of abundant caution, written consent has been obtained from OPL's reinsurers (other than ZIC) to the transfer of their respective treaties from OPL to ZAL under the Scheme. The reinsurers have confirmed that they will not seek to take any action under or in respect of their reinsurance treaties with OPL or ZAL as a result of, or in connection with, the Scheme.
34 In addition, in order to formalise arrangements with ZIC after the Scheme, OPL, ZAL and ZIC have entered into novation deeds in respect of the transfer to ZAL of all of OPL's reinsurance treaties with ZIC. The effect of the deeds is that if the Scheme is confirmed, ZAL will be substituted for OPL under each of the reinsurance treaties between OPL and ZIC, and those treaties otherwise will continue.
35 The written submissions for the applicants also address remediation programs. The Scheme requires ZAL to maintain policies and procedures relating to remediation to enable it to conduct the assumed business of OPL in a manner which is consistent with its legal and regulatory obligations, and which satisfies the contractual rights and benefits of OPL policy owners.
36 The appointed actuaries noted that the remediation programs underway are supported by existing provisions in the OPL statutory funds which will transfer to ZAL. Further, any residual risks transferred to ZAL are not expected, according to the appointed actuaries, to be material so as to adversely impact on the benefit security of ZAL policy owners.
37 The applicants have submitted, and I accept, that the Court should be satisfied as a result that customers of OPL, who are participating in remediation activities in relation to OPL products, will not be adversely affected by the Scheme. As OPL policy owners are already exposed to risks associated with these OPL remediation programs, it follows that the Scheme will not adversely impact the benefit security of OPL policy owners as a whole.
38 The written submissions for the applicants also identify that there are two class actions on foot, in which OPL has been joined as one of several respondents. Those class actions are at a relatively early stage, and OPL is defending them. If the Scheme is confirmed it is intended that the class actions will be continued against ZAL rather than OPL, as set out in clause 6 of the Scheme. No costs and expenses associated with the class actions will be charged to policy owners of OPL or ZAL. All of the contingent liabilities relating to these class actions will be transferred to and borne by the ZAL shareholder fund, as proposed in clause 11.3(f) of the Scheme.
39 I accept that, as a result, any liabilities of ZAL ultimately arising from the class actions would be funded from the ZAL shareholder fund. The appointed actuaries consider that these arrangements provide additional protection to ZAL policyholders because the ZAL statutory fund assets can be used only to meet liabilities to those policy owners, and any transfer of such assets to the ZAL shareholder fund is subject to the regulation of the Life Insurance Act.
40 The independent actuary has also considered the transfer of the class action liabilities to the ZAL shareholder fund, and has expressed the view that the benefit security of both policyholders of ZAL and OPL will not be adversely impacted by these arrangements.
41 My attention has otherwise been drawn to certain communications between the solicitors for the applicants and for the applicants in the class actions, and none of those communications give rise to any issue of concern.
42 The submissions for the applicants note that concepts such as customer experience and corporate culture are not readily accommodated within the framework of Pt 9 of the Life Insurance Act. However, they submit that, in any event, there will be no material changes to the manner in which OPL policies are administered or OPL policyholders are serviced as a consequence of the Scheme, and that there should be no adverse changes to the customer experience of such policyholders in the management and administration of their policies. They note that in circumstances where the life insurance business of OPL has been operating under the ZFSA Group since 2019, that is, a period of over three years, and the process of integration of that business with the business of ZAL has been substantially completed, there is no basis to conclude that confirmation of the Scheme would bring about any perceptible change in corporate culture or values adversely impacting policyholders. I accept this submission.
43 In terms of feedback and inquiry from policy owners and others, the evidence discloses that five complaints were received where a policy owner expressed some dissatisfaction or concern regarding the Scheme, not involving any substantive submission about or challenge to the Scheme. There were another 227 instances where a policy owner or other persons sought information or clarification about the Scheme. Further, as I have already mentioned, Dr Timofticiuc has appeared today in order to object to the Scheme.
44 As I have also mentioned, APRA appeared at the confirmation hearing. It is apparent from the evidence that APRA has played an active role in respect of the Scheme and in this proceeding. APRA was consulted as to the form of the Dispensation Orders and appeared at the dispensation hearing. It has closely monitored the preparation of all of the relevant documents, specifically the Scheme documents and actuarial reports. It did not require a report from an independent actuary under s 192 of the Life Insurance Act. APRA has had an adequate opportunity to consider all of the material and to convey to the Court its views, which it has done in its oral submissions. I accept that I should be satisfied that APRA itself is satisfied from the material that there is adequate evidence that policy owners will not be adversely affected by the Scheme.