Bermuda has moved closer to equivalence under Solvency II (Directive 2009/138/EC) and the retention of EU market access for Bermuda commercial (re)insurers. The encouraging news follows the recent consultation paper published by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) which is focused on the equivalence assessment of the Bermuda supervisory system (EIOPA-CP-14/042). EIOPA has endorsed certain key aspects of Bermuda’s regulatory and supervisory regime subject to certain caveats. A notable area of required improvement includes those rules applicable to the supervision of commercial life (re)insurers. It is, however, acknowledged that the BMA has implemented, or plans to implement, rule changes to address these concerns. EIOPA’s advice is limited to the commercial class of (re)insurer being 3A, 3B, 4, C, D and E and (re)insurance groups. This is significant as it preserves the Bermuda Monetary Authority’s (BMA) risk based and proportionate approach to the regulation of the commercial market as distinct from its captive market.
2014 also saw the introduction of the Trustee (Special Provisions) Amendment Act 2014 (the “Act”) which provides statutory clarity and certainty with respect to the powers settlors can reserve or grant over a trust without calling into question the validity of the trust structure. The powers enshrined in this legislation are expected to attract a wide class of settlors from both North America and Europe and further enhance Bermuda’s reputation as the offshore jurisdiction of choice for trusts. The Act amends the Trusts (Special Provision) Act 1989 by inserting a new section 2A which sets out an express list of certain interests and powers that can be retained by a settlor or granted to a third party, including the following:
In the case of Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Algosaibi Trading Services Limited  SC (Bda) 71 Com (12 September 2014), the Chief Justice delivered an ex tempore judgment which clarified what the position is when a registered office purports to resign. It confirmed the traditional view held by many commercial practitioners that section 62(3) of the Companies’ Act 1981 (the “Act”) means that when a registered office has not been changed with the Registrar of Companies (“ROC”), the last known registered office remains the effective office for service.
In January this year we acted for the Plaintiff against five Defendants in a claim for damages for breach of a Sale & Purchase Agreement of a Bermudian fund management company. The Defendants were directors and shareholders of the fund management company and had negotiated a staged management buyout from the Plaintiff vendor. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants entered into an agreement with another fund manager to conduct business from their platform in an attempt to evade liability for ongoing payment of the staged purchase trailer fees (“the impugned transaction”).