High Court refuses Prudential’s annuity transfer

The court process is not merely a “rubber stamping” exercise.

The High Court has refused to sanction the transfer of £11.2 billion worth of annuities from the Prudential Assurance Company (PAC) to Rothesay Life.

PAC wished to reduce the solvency capital requirement of its shareholder-backed business to facilitate the proposed demerger of  the Prudential group into two separate parts. To achieve this, it entered into a reinsurance agreement with Rothesey Life for around 400,000 annuity policies in 2018 with the aim of obtaining the Court’s approval to their subsequent transfer under Part VII of FSMA 2000 (referred to as “the Scheme”), although (perhaps crucially) the commercial agreement was not conditional on the court ultimately approving the transfer.

The Scheme did not propose any changes to the policies being transferred and, in accordance with legal requirements, reports were obtained from an independent expert who concluded that the transfer would have no material adverse effect on the security of benefits or the reasonable benefit expectations of policyholders. Neither the PRA nor the FCA objected to the Scheme.

However Mr Justice Snowden refused to sanction the Scheme, on the grounds that:

  • Although Rothesay Life currently has solvency capital requirement metrics at least equal to PAC’s, “it does not have the same capital management policies or the backing of a large group with the resources and a reputational imperative to support a company that carries its business name should the need arise“. If support was needed, policyholders having to rely upon “an uncertain capital raising exercise from the investors in Rothesey or the markets more generally, is a material disadvantage“.
  • The policyholders chose PAC to provide their annuities on the basis of its age, reputation and the financial support it would be likely to receive from the wider Prudential group, and it was reasonable for them to have assumed that PAC would not seek to transfer their policies to another provider.
  • PAC’s need to release regulatory capital to support its proposed demerger was achieved by the reinsurance agreement (which continues even if the Scheme is not sanctioned). The judge did not consider the additional costs that PAC and Rothesey Life will incur as a result of the judgment to be significant when set against the “fundamental change in status and material disadvantage that they seek to impose” on the policyholders.

The judge stressed that transfer of bulk annuity business was legally possible under Part VII but the court has a wider discretion than the regulators who were constrained by “objective financial related factors“.  In exercising its discretion the court was required to take into account wider factors including what individual policy holders would have taken into account when placing their business.

The judge found that it was highly likely that the age and reputation of PAC was a material factor on which the policy holders relied in making their decision and therefore it was a relevant factor for the court to take into account when deciding whether to sanction the Scheme.  Comparing the age and reputation of PAC with Rothesay Life and balancing the impact on all parties, the judge did not approve the Scheme.

However, this may not be the end of the story as we understand that PAC and Rothesay Life have been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.


Gavin Ellison