Converium

[FaGal]

Compagnie
Converium indagata da Sec e Borsa svizzera
11/10/2004

La Sec e la Swiss Stock exchange stanno indagando su eventuali reati di insider trading in relazione a Converium e ad un comunicato emesso dalla compagnia elvetica il 20 luglio scorso. La Sec avrebbe richiesto a Converium di fornirle tutta la documentazione relativa alle transazioni precedenti all'annuncio del 20 luglio.

Il titolo della compagnia svizzera era calato vertiginosamente del 46% il 20 luglio, quando aveva annunciato di aver aumentato di 385 mln di dollari le riserve dell'anno precedente relative alle attività negli USA.

Converium sta collaborando già da agosto con le autorità e ha ammesso che la Sec sta verificando se c'è stata violazione alle leggi di sicurezza finanziaria.
http://www2.assinews.it:8080/testi/t...111004com.html

[FaGal]

Converium perde un grosso cliente: Admiral
14/10/2004

Nuovo duro colpo per Converium: Admiral, la compagnia di assicurazione britannica, ha cancellato un contratto multimilionario con la compagnia di riassicurazione elvetica.

Admiral ha comunicato che la cancellazione del contratto, per un valore di 66,5 mln di dollari nel 2003, è legata alla recente decisione delle agenzie di rating di togliere a Converium la nota A per la solidità finanziaria. Admiral avrebbe firmato accordi con General Re e Axis Re Europe, che godono, rispettivamente di note come AAA e A.
http://www2.assinews.it:8080/testi/t...141004com.html

[pietro66]

Per chi volesse, c'è sempre questa possibilità ...



===================================
Converium faces class action suit
Troubled Swiss reinsurer Converium has been targeted with another class action lawsuit in the United States.

In the second class action suit filed against Converium this year, shareholders accused the company of not disclosing the extent of the crisis in its North American subsidiary.

A statement released on Wednesday by New York law firm Murray, Frank and Sailer said that Converium – formed from Zurich Re - “gave erroneous information concerning activities in US indemnity insurance”.

The law firm also placed an advertisement inviting those who invested in Converium between December 11, 2001 and July 20, 2004 to join the action before December 3 this year.

In July, Converium announced a gaping hole in reserves of $385 million (SFr452 million), a figure which has since been revised upwards. The problem forced the company to raise $420 million in fresh capital to stay afloat.

Plaintiffs allege that Converium, “contrary to representations”, failed to maintain adequate reserves to cover claims by North American policyholders.

It also says that reserve increases announced by Converium were insufficient and, as a result of the understatement of loss reserves, earnings and assets were consistently overstated.

Difficult times
The lawsuit comes at a particularly difficult time for Converium.

On July 20, the company issued a profit warning that sent its stock plummeting by almost 50 per cent.

At the same time it also unveiled plans to raise up to $400 million from investors to cover the gap in its reserves left by rising casualty claims in the US.

Then on September 2, following a review of Converium reserves, rating agencies Standard & Poor and A.M. Best lowered the ratings for Converium and its subsidiaries.

A month later, the company was hit with a class action suit by New York firm Schiffrin and Barroway, which levelled many similar allegations to this latest suit.

Converium chief financial officer, Martin Kauer, announced on November 4 that he would resign from his post, the first manager to bow to persistent pressure for a shake-up in the wake of the crisis.

The advertisement for potential claimants in the latest lawsuit caught shareholders off guard - company shares have lost more than 70 per cent of their value since the beginning of the year.

swissinfo with agencies

Copyright © Swissinfo / Neue Zürcher Zeitung AG

[FaGal]

12 dicembre 2004

A foreign pursuit for the lawyers

Converium, the Swiss reinsurer, has had a terrible year. After it discovered problems with its US business, its shares have lost more than two thirds of their value; it has sacked staff, and is scaling back its operations.


To add to its woes, Converium is also facing a potential US securities-law class action lawsuit, with disgruntled holders of its NYSE-listed shares accusing it of misleading the market over the extent of its problems.

Converium is not alone. This year so far, potential class action complaints have been filed against 26 non-US companies, up from just 15 last year.

"The numbers we have to date indicate that there are more foreign companies that have been subject to class action suits than in the past," says Grace Lamont, who analyses securities law filings for PwC Research.

Overall, the number of companies facing new securities litigation has remained largely unchanged, standing at 216 by mid-December. The figures are in line with the 200-270 range seen in five of the past six years, excluding a peak of 493 in 2001, when the figures were boosted by Wall Street's IPO allocation scandals.

Complaints against non-US companies also peaked in 2001, at 45. But when IPO-related suits are excluded there were just 16 that year, rising to 23 in 2002, before dropping to 16 in 2003, and then rallying again in 2004.

As with the US companies, the list of non-US companies targeted this year reflects the performance of the companies involved. It includes those hit by scandal, such as Parmalat and China Life; those with accounting problems, such as Nortel and Converium; and smaller companies such as Ireland's Hibernia and Taro Pharmaceuticals from Israel.

According to PwC's Ms Lamont, the range of companies suggests US class action lawyers are now giving as much attention to US-listed overseas-based companies as they do to US ones.

"I think that now that we have had the major European scandals there defi nitely is more focus on the foreign filers . . . both investors and the plantiffs' bar are more familiar with the problems that may crop up with foreign filers," she says.

"There is certainly a rising concern about class action suits in general, which is occasioned by the fact that the overall numbers are going up," says Rhian Chilcott, who heads the Washington office of the Confederation of British Industry.

But she concurs: "I haven't seen any differentiation between what US companies are worried about and what foreign companies are worried about."

If non-US companies are facing a rise in securities-related class action suits in the US, they may also be wondering whether clouds are gathering in Europe.

In many European countries, while it is possible to establish liability through a class action-style claim, damages still have to be sorted out case by case.

Proposed legislation in the Netherlands may be poised to change this. A new law, which is before the Dutch parliament, would permit settlements for damages to be made binding on all members of a defined class in a particular mass action.

Lawyers say the act would be a big step forward. At present, a group of litigants pursuing a "mass claim" can ask the Dutch courts to resolve everything except monetary damages. Under the new system, such a group would be able to strike a settlement with the defendant, and the parties could jointly approach a court to have this reviewed.

If the court agreed that the settlement was reasonable, it could enforce it on the whole class. Individual class members would then have the choice of opting out of the settlement if they wished but if there are too many "opt-outs", the defendant would be entitled to withdraw the offer.

If the act becomes law - and Dutch lawyers say the chances are strong - it would apply to all types of disputes, including securities-related litigation. Moreover, as lawyers at NautaDutilh point out, the law, as proposed, could cover the settlement of existing, outstanding claims. Already, for example, it is being suggested that the mass settlement mechanism might have a role to play in the Ahold accounting scandal.

That said, Dutch lawyers concede that there are areas that remain unclear. One is the extent to which the proposed legislation would bind foreign claimants. "The most important unanswered question is whether a foreign member [of a class] could opt-out and pursue a claim elsewhere," says Fons Leijten at Stibbe, the Amsterdam-based law firm.
http://www.assinews.it/rassegna/arti...t131204co.html