The closure to new business of the world’s oldest mutual, the Equitable Life Assurance Society, in December 2000, followed the House of Lords ruling in the Hyman proceedings ([2000] 3 WLR 529). As is well known, their lordships held that the differential terminal bonus policy, which the society had introduced in 1993, was unlawful. In short, it was held that the policy discriminated against those policyholders who had contracted to take retirement benefits with an option for Guaranteed Annuity Rates (GARs) to be applied.
This debacle highlighted shortcomings in management and marketing of investments in the company’s with-profits fund – management failures in terms of a seeming lack of appreciation of the financial risks posed by the volume of its guaranteed annuities written in earlier years; and marketing failures in terms of the omission to explain the same risks to new investors into the fund.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]