UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

FOR ANNUAL AND TRANSITION REPORTS

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

Commission File Number 001-33289

ENSTAR GROUP LIMITED

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

P.O. Box HM 2267

Windsor Place, 3^rd Floor, 18 Queen Street

Hamilton HM JX

Bermuda

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (441) 292-3645

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  Yes o     No þ

 

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates, computed by reference to the closing price as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, June 29, 2007, was approximately $753,157,370.

 

As of February 25, 2008, the registrant had outstanding 11,909,969 ordinary shares, $1.00 par value per share.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A relating to its 2008 annual general meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.

 

 

Table of Contents

 

 

 

Background

 

Enstar Group Limited (formerly Castlewood Holdings Limited), referred to herein as “Enstar,” “we,” “us,” or “our,” was formed in August 2001 under the laws of Bermuda to acquire and manage insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off, and to provide management, consulting and other services to the insurance and reinsurance industry. On January 31, 2007, Enstar completed the merger, or the Merger, of CWMS Subsidiary Corp., a Georgia corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Enstar, or CWMS, with and into The Enstar Group Inc., a Georgia corporation, or EGI. As a result of the Merger, EGI, renamed Enstar USA, Inc., is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enstar. Prior to the Merger, EGI owned an approximately 32% economic and 50% voting interest in Enstar.

 

In addition, immediately prior to the closing of the Merger, Enstar completed a recapitalization pursuant to which it: (1) exchanged all of its outstanding shares of Enstar; (2) designated its initial Board of Directors immediately following the Merger; (3) repurchased certain of its shares held by Trident II, L.P. and its affiliates; (4) made payments totaling $5,076,000 to certain of its executive officers and employees as an incentive to remain with Enstar following the Merger; and (5) purchased, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Enstar Limited, the shares of B.H. Acquisition Ltd., a Bermuda company, held by an affiliate of Trident II, L.P.

 

Company Overview

 

Since its formation, Enstar, through its subsidiaries, has completed several acquisitions of insurance and reinsurance companies and is now administering those businesses in run-off. Enstar derives its net earnings from the ownership and management of these companies primarily by settling insurance and reinsurance claims below the recorded loss reserves and from returns on the portfolio of investments retained to pay future claims. In addition, Enstar has formed other businesses that provide management and consultancy services, claims inspection services and reinsurance collection services to Enstar affiliates and third-party clients for both fixed and success-based fees.

 

In the primary (or direct) insurance business, the insurer assumes risk of loss from persons or organizations that are directly subject to the given risks. Such risks may relate to property, casualty, life, accident, health, financial or other perils that may arise from an insurable event. In the reinsurance business, the reinsurer agrees to indemnify an insurance or reinsurance company, referred to as the ceding company, against all or a portion of the insurance risks arising under the policies the ceding company has written or reinsured. When an insurer or reinsurer stops writing new insurance business, either entirely or with respect to a particular line of business, the insurer, reinsurer, or the line of discontinued business is in run-off.

 

In recent years, the insurance industry has experienced significant consolidation. As a result of this consolidation and other factors, the remaining participants in the industry often have portfolios of business that are either inconsistent with their core competency or provide excessive exposure to a particular risk or segment of the market (i.e., property/casualty, asbestos, environmental, director and officer liability, etc.). These non-core and/or discontinued portfolios are often associated with potentially large exposures and lengthy time periods before resolution of the last remaining insured claims resulting in significant uncertainty to the insurer or reinsurer covering those risks. These factors can distract management, drive up the cost of capital and surplus for the insurer or reinsurer, and negatively impact the insurer’s or reinsurer’s credit rating, which makes the disposal of the unwanted company or portfolio an attractive option. Alternatively, the insurer may wish to maintain the business on its balance sheet, yet not divert significant management attention to the run-off of the portfolio. The insurer or reinsurer, in either case, is likely to engage a third party, such as Enstar, that specializes in run-off management to purchase the company or portfolio, or to manage the company or portfolio in run-off.

 

In the sale of a run-off company, a purchaser, such as Enstar, typically pays a discount to the book value of the company based on the risks assumed and the relative value to the seller of no longer having to manage the company in run-off. Such a transaction can be beneficial to the seller because it receives an up-front payment for the company, eliminates the need for its management to devote any attention to the disposed company and removes the risk that

the established reserves related to the run-off business may prove to be inadequate. The seller is also able to redeploy its management and financial resources to its core businesses.

 

Alternatively, if the insurer or reinsurer hires a third party, such as Enstar, to manage its run-off business, the insurer or reinsurer will, unlike in a sale of the business, receive little or no cash up front. Instead, the management arrangement may provide that the insurer or reinsurer will share in the profits, if any, derived from the run-off with certain incentive payments allocated to the run-off manager. By hiring a run-off manager, the insurer or reinsurer can outsource the management of the run-off business to experienced and capable individuals, while allowing its own management team to focus on the insurer’s or reinsurer’s core businesses. Enstar’s desired approach to managing run-off business is to align its interests with the interests of the owners through both fixed management fees and certain incentive payments. Under certain management arrangements to which Enstar is a party, however, it receives only a fixed management fee and does not receive any incentive payments.

 

Following the purchase of a run-off company or the engagement to manage a run-off company or portfolio of business, it is incumbent on the new owner or manager to conduct the run-off in a disciplined and professional manner in order to efficiently discharge the liabilities associated with the business while preserving and maximizing its assets. Enstar’s approach to managing its acquired companies in run-off, as well as run-off companies or portfolios of businesses on behalf of third-party clients, includes negotiating with third-party insureds and reinsureds to commute their insurance or reinsurance agreement for an agreed upon up-front payment by Enstar, or the third-party client, and to more efficiently manage payment of insurance and reinsurance claims. Enstar attempts to commute policies with direct insureds or reinsureds in order to eliminate uncertainty over the amount of future claims. Commutations and policy buy-backs provide an opportunity for the company to exit exposures to certain policies and insureds generally at a discount to the ultimate liability and provide the ability to eliminate exposure to further losses. Such a strategy also contributes to the reduction in the length of time and future cost of the run-off.

 

Following the acquisition of a company in run-off, or new consulting engagement, Enstar will spend time analyzing the acquired exposures and reinsurance receivables on a policyholder-by-policyholder basis. This analysis enables Enstar to identify a target list, based on the nature and value of exposures, of those policyholders and reinsurers it wishes to approach to discuss commutation or policy buy-back. Furthermore, following the acquisition of a company in run-off, or new consulting engagement, Enstar will often be approached by policyholders or reinsurers requesting commutation or policy buy-back. In these instances Enstar will also carry out a full analysis of the underlying exposures in order to determine the viability of a proposed commutation or policy buy-back. From the initial analysis of the underlying exposures it may take several months, or even years, before a commutation or policy buy-back is completed. In a number of cases, if Enstar and the policyholder or reinsurer are unable to reach a commercially acceptable settlement, the commutation or policy buy-back may not be achievable, in which case Enstar will continue to settle valid claims from the policyholder, or collect reinsurance receivables from the reinsurer, as they become due.

 

Insureds and reinsureds are often willing to commute with Enstar, subject to receiving an acceptable settlement, as this provides certainty of recovery of what otherwise may be claims that are disputed in the future, and often provides a meaningful up-front cash receipt that, with the associated investment income, can provide a source of funds to meet future claim payments or even commutation of their underlying exposure. Therefore, subject to negotiating an acceptable settlement, all of Enstar’s insurance and reinsurance liabilities and reinsurance receivables are able to be either commuted or settled by way of policy buy-back over time. Many sellers of companies that Enstar acquires have secure claims paying ratings and ongoing underwriting relationships with insureds and reinsureds which often hinders their ability to commute the underlying insurance or reinsurance policies. Enstar’s lack of claims paying rating and its lack of potential conflicts with insureds and reinsureds of companies it acquires provides a greater ability to commute the newly acquired policies than that of the sellers.

 

Enstar also attempts, where appropriate, to negotiate favorable commutations with reinsurers by securing the receipt of a lump-sum settlement from the reinsurer in complete satisfaction of the reinsurer’s liability in respect of any future claims. Enstar, or the third-party client, is then fully responsible for any claims in the future. Enstar typically invests proceeds from reinsurance commutations with the expectation that such investments will produce

income, which, together with the principal, will be sufficient to satisfy future obligations with respect to the acquired company or portfolio.

 

Strategy

 

Enstar’s corporate objective is to generate returns on capital that appropriately reward it for risks it assumes. Enstar intends to achieve this objective by executing the following strategies:

 

 

Acquisition of Insurers or Portfolios in Run-Off

 

Enstar specializes in the negotiated acquisition and management of insurance and reinsurance companies and portfolios in run-off. Enstar approaches, or is approached by, primary insurers or reinsurance providers with

portfolios of business to be sold or managed in run-off. Enstar evaluates each opportunity presented by carefully reviewing the portfolio’s risk exposures, claim practices, reserve requirements and outstanding claims, and seeking an appropriate discount and/or seller indemnification to reflect the uncertainty contained in the portfolio’s reserves.

 

Based on this initial analysis, Enstar can determine if a company or portfolio of business would add value to its current portfolio of run-off business. If Enstar determines to pursue the purchase of a company in run-off, it then proceeds to price the acquisition in a manner it believes will result in positive operating results based on certain assumptions including, without limitation, its ability to favorably resolve claims, negotiate with direct insureds and reinsurers, and otherwise manage the nature of the risks posed by the business.

 

With respect to its U.K. and Bermudian insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries, Enstar is able to pursue strategies to achieve complete finality and conclude the run-off of a company by promoting a solvent scheme of arrangement whereby a local court-sanctioned scheme, approved by a statutory majority of voting creditors, provides for a one-time full and final settlement of an insurance or reinsurance company’s obligations to its policyholders.

 

Recent Acquisitions

 

In March 2003, Enstar and Shinsei Bank, Limited, or Shinsei, completed the acquisition of The Toa-Re Insurance Company (UK) Limited, a London-based subsidiary of The Toa Reinsurance Company, Limited, for approximately $46.4 million. Upon completion of the transaction, Toa-Re’s name was changed to Hillcot Re Limited. Hillcot Re Limited underwrote reinsurance business throughout the world between 1980 and 1994, when it stopped writing new business and went into run-off. The acquisition was effected through Hillcot Holdings Ltd., or Hillcot, a Bermuda company, in which Enstar has a 50.1% economic interest and a 50% voting interest. Hillcot is included in Enstar’s consolidated financial statements, with the remaining 49.9% economic interest reflected as minority interest. J. Christopher Flowers, a member of our board of directors and one of our largest shareholders, is a director and the largest shareholder of Shinsei.

 

During 2004, Enstar, through one of its subsidiaries, completed the acquisition of Mercantile Indemnity Company Ltd., or Mercantile, Harper Insurance Limited (formerly Turegum Insurance Company), or Harper, and Longmynd Insurance Company Ltd. (formerly Security Insurance Company (UK) Ltd.), or Longmynd, all of which were in run-off, for a total purchase price of approximately $4.5 million. Enstar recorded an extraordinary gain of approximately $21.8 million in 2004 relating to the excess of the fair value of the net assets acquired over the cost of these acquisitions.

 

In May 2005, Enstar, through one of its subsidiaries, purchased Fieldmill Insurance Company Limited (formerly known as Harleysville Insurance Company (UK) Limited) for approximately $1.4 million.

 

In March 2006, Enstar and Shinsei, through Hillcot, completed the acquisition of Aioi Insurance Company of Europe Limited, or Aioi Europe, a London-based subsidiary of Aioi Insurance Company, Limited. Aioi Europe has underwritten general insurance and reinsurance business in Europe for its own account from 1982 until 2002 when it generally ceased underwriting and placed its general insurance and reinsurance business into run-off. The aggregate purchase price paid for Aioi Europe was £62 million (approximately $108.9 million), with £50 million in cash paid upon the closing of the transaction and £12 million in the form of a promissory note, payable twelve months from the date of the closing. Upon completion of the transaction, Aioi Europe changed its name to Brampton Insurance Company Limited. Enstar recorded an extraordinary gain of approximately $4.3 million, net of minority interest, in 2006 relating to the excess of the fair value of the net assets acquired over the cost of this acquisition. In April 2006, Hillcot Holdings Limited borrowed approximately $44 million from a London-based bank to partially assist with the financing of the Aioi Europe acquisition. Following a repurchase by Aioi Europe of its shares valued at £40 million in May 2006, Hillcot Holdings repaid the promissory note and reduced the bank borrowing to $19.2 million, which is repayable in April 2010.

 

In October 2006, Enstar, through its subsidiary Virginia Holdings Ltd., or Virginia, purchased Cavell Holdings Limited (U.K.), or Cavell, for approximately £31.8 million (approximately $59.5 million). Cavell owns a U.K. reinsurance company and a Norwegian reinsurer, both of which wrote portfolios of international reinsurance business and went into run-off in 1993 and 1992, respectively. The purchase price was funded by $24.5 million

borrowed under a facility loan agreement with a London-based bank and available cash on hand. In February 2008, Virginia repaid its bank debt in full.

 

In November 2006, Enstar, through Virginia, purchased Unione Italiana (U.K.) Reinsurance Company Limited, or Unione, a U.K. company, for approximately $17.2 million. Unione underwrote business from the 1940’s though to 1995. Prior to acquisition, Unione closed the majority of its portfolio by way of a solvent scheme of arrangement in the U.K. Unione’s remaining business is a portfolio of international insurance and reinsurance which has been in run-off since 1971.

 

Enstar recorded an extraordinary gain of $26.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2006 relating to the excess of the fair value of the net assets acquired over the costs of Cavell and Unione.

 

On January 31, 2007, Enstar completed the Merger of CWMS with and into EGI and, as a result, EGI, renamed Enstar USA, Inc., is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enstar. Prior to the Merger, EGI owned approximately 32% economic and 50% voting interests in Enstar. As a result of the completion of the Merger, B.H. Acquisition Ltd., or B.H. Acquisition, is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enstar.

 

On February 23, 2007, Enstar through Oceania Holdings Ltd, its wholly-owned subsidiary, completed the acquisition of Inter-Ocean Holdings Ltd., or Inter-Ocean. The total purchase price was approximately $57.5 million, which was funded by $26.8 million borrowed under a facility loan agreement with a London-based bank and available cash on hand. Inter-Ocean owns two reinsurers, one based in Bermuda and one based in Ireland. Both of these companies wrote international reinsurance and had in place retrocessional policies providing for the full reinsurance of all of the risks they assumed. In October 2007, Oceania repaid its bank debt in full.

 

On June 12, 2007, Enstar completed the acquisition of Tate & Lyle Reinsurance Ltd., or Tate & Lyle, for total consideration of approximately $5.9 million. Tate & Lyle is a Bermuda-based reinsurance company.

 

On August 28, 2007, Enstar completed the acquisition of Marlon Insurance Company Limited, a reinsurance company in run-off, and Marlon Management Services Limited for total consideration of approximately $31.2 million, which was funded by $15.3 million borrowed under a facility loan agreement with a London-based bank and available cash on hand. Marlon Insurance Company Limited and Marlon Management Services Limited, together referred to herein as Marlon, are both U.K.-based companies. In February 2008, the facility loan was repaid in full.

 

On June 16, 2006, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enstar entered into a definitive agreement with Dukes Place Holdings, L.P., a portfolio company of GSC Partners, for the purchase of a minority interest in a U.S. holding company that owns two property and casualty insurers based in the United States, both of which are in run-off. Completion of the transaction is conditioned on, among other things, governmental and regulatory approvals and satisfaction of various other closing conditions. As a consequence, Enstar cannot predict if or when this transaction will be completed.

 

In December 2007, Enstar, in conjunction with JCF FPK I L.P., or “JCF FPK,” and a newly-hired executive management team, formed U.K.-based Shelbourne Group Limited, or Shelbourne, to invest in Reinsurance to Close or “RITC” transactions (the transferring of liabilities from one Lloyd’s Syndicate to another) with Lloyd’s of London insurance and reinsurance syndicates in run-off. JCF FPK is a joint investment program between Fox-Pitt, Kelton, Cochran, Caronia & Waller, or FPKCCW, and the Flowers Fund. The Flowers Fund is a private investment fund advised by J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. Mr. Flowers is the founder and Managing Member of J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. Mr. John J. Oros, Enstar’s Executive Chairman and a member of Enstar’s board of directors, is a Managing Director of J.C. Flowers & Co LLC. Mr. Oros splits his time between J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC and Enstar. In addition, an affiliate of the Flowers Fund controls approximately 41% of FPKCCW. Shelbourne is a holding company of a Lloyd’s Managing Agency, Shelbourne Syndicate Services Limited. Enstar owns 50.1% of Shelbourne, which in turn owns 100% of Shelbourne Syndicate Services Limited, the Managing Agency for Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008, a syndicate approved by Lloyd’s of London on December 16, 2007 to undertake RITC transactions with Lloyd’s syndicates in run-off. In February 2008, Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008 entered into RITC agreements with four Lloyd’s Syndicates with total gross insurance reserves of approximately $455.0 million. Since January 1, 2008, Enstar has committed capital of approximately £36.0 million (approximately $72.0 million) to Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008. Enstar’s capital commitment was financed by approximately £12.0 million (approximately $24.0 million) from bank finance; approximately £11.0 million (approximately $22.0 million) from the Flowers

Fund (acting in its own capacity and not through JCF FPK), by way of a non-voting equity participation; and approximately £13.0 million (approximately $26.0 million) from available cash on hand. JCF FPK’s capital commitment to Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008 is approximately £14.0 million (approximately $28.0 million).

 

On December 10, 2007, Enstar entered into a definitive agreement for the purchase from AMP Limited, or AMP, of AMP’s Australian-based closed reinsurance and insurance operations, or Gordian. The purchase price, including acquisition expenses, of approximately AUS$440.0 million (approximately $417.0 million), will be financed by approximately AUS$301.0 million (approximately $285.0 million) from bank finance jointly with a London-based bank and a German bank, in which the Flowers Fund is a significant shareholder of the German bank; approximately AUS$42.0 million (approximately $40.0 million) from the Flowers Fund, by way of non-voting equity participation; and approximately AUS$97.0 million (approximately $92.0 million) from available cash on hand. Following approval of the transaction by Australian regulatory authorities on February 20, 2008, Enstar expects the transaction to close on March 5, 2008. The interest rate on the bank loan is LIBOR plus 2.2% and is repayable within six years.

 

On December 13, 2007, Enstar entered into a definitive agreement for the purchase of Guildhall Insurance Company Limited, a U.K.-based insurance and reinsurance company that has been in run-off since 1986. The acquisition was completed on February 29, 2008. The purchase price, including acquisition expenses, of approximately £32.0 million (approximately $64.0 million) was financed by the drawdown of approximately £16.5 million (approximately $33.0 million) from a facility loan agreement with a London-based bank; approximately £5.0 million (approximately $10.0 million) from the Flowers Fund, by way of non-voting equity participation; and approximately £10.5 million (approximately $21.0 million) from available cash on hand. The interest rate on the bank loan is LIBOR plus 2% and is repayable within five years.

 

Management of Run-Off Portfolios

 

Enstar is a party to several management engagements pursuant to which it has agreed to manage the run-off portfolio of a third party. Such arrangements are advantageous for third-party insurers because they allow a third-party insurer to focus their management efforts on their core competency while allowing them to maintain the portfolio of business on their balance sheet. In addition, Enstar’s expertise in managing portfolios in run-off allows the third-party insurer the opportunity to potentially realize positive operating results if Enstar achieves its objectives in management of the run-off portfolio. Enstar specializes in the collection of reinsurance receivables through its subsidiary Kinsale Brokers Limited. Through Enstar’s subsidiaries, Enstar (US) Inc., (formerly Castlewood (US) Inc.) and Cranmore Adjusters Limited, Enstar also specializes in providing claims inspection services whereby Enstar is engaged by third-party insurance and reinsurance providers to review certain of their existing insurance and reinsurance exposures, relationships, policies and/or claims history.

 

Enstar’s primary objective in structuring its management arrangements is to align the third-party insurer’s interests with those of Enstar. Consequently, management agreements typically are structured so that Enstar receives fixed fees in connection with the management of the run-off portfolio and also typically receives certain incentive payments based on a portfolio’s positive operating results.

 

Management Agreements

 

Enstar has eight management agreements with third-party clients to manage certain run-off portfolios with gross loss reserves, as of December 31, 2007, of approximately $1.7 billion. The fees generated by these engagements include both fixed and incentive-based remuneration based on Enstar’s success in achieving certain objectives. These agreements do not include the recurring engagements managed by Enstar’s claims inspection and reinsurance collection subsidiaries, Cranmore Adjusters Limited and Kinsale Brokers Limited, respectively.

 

Claims Management and Administration

 

An integral factor to Enstar’s success is its ability to analyze, administer, manage and settle claims and related expenses, such as loss adjustment expenses. Enstar’s claims teams are located in different offices within its organization and provide global claims support. Enstar has implemented effective claims handling guidelines along with claims reporting and control procedures in all of its claims units. To ensure that claims are appropriately

handled and reported in accordance with these guidelines, all claims matters are reviewed regularly, with all material claims matters being circulated to and authorized by management prior to any action being taken.

 

When Enstar receives notice of a claim, regardless of size and regardless of whether it is a paid claim request or a reserve advice, it is reviewed and recorded within its claims system, reserving Enstar’s rights where appropriate. Claims reserve movements and payments are reviewed daily, with any material movements being reported to management for review. This enables “flash reporting” of significant events and potential insurance or reinsurance losses to be communicated to senior management worldwide on a timely basis irrespective from which geographical location or business unit location the exposure arises.

 

Enstar is also able to efficiently manage claims and obtain savings through its extensive relationships with defense counsel (both in-house and external), third-party claims administrators and other professional advisors and experts. Enstar has developed relationships and protocols to reduce the number of outside counsel by consolidating claims of similar types and complexity with experienced law firms specializing in the particular type of claim. This approach has enabled Enstar to more efficiently manage outside counsel and other third parties, thereby reducing expenses, and to establish closer relationships with ceding companies.

 

When appropriate, Enstar negotiates with direct insureds to buy back policies either on favorable terms or to mitigate against existing and/or potential future indemnity exposures and legal costs in an uncertain and constantly evolving legal environment. Enstar also pursues commutations on favorable terms with ceding companies of reinsurance business in order to realize savings or to mitigate against potential future indemnity exposures and legal costs. Such buy-backs and commutations typically eliminate all past, present and future liability to direct insureds and reinsureds in return for a lump sum payment.

 

With regard to reinsurance receivables, Enstar manages cash flow by working with reinsurers, brokers and professional advisors to achieve fair and prompt payment of reinsured claims, taking appropriate legal action to secure receivables where necessary. Enstar also attempts where appropriate to negotiate favorable commutations with its reinsurers by securing a lump sum settlement from reinsurers in complete satisfaction of the reinsurer’s past, present and future liability in respect of such claims. Properly priced commutations reduce the expense of adjusting direct claims and pursuing collection of reinsurance receivables (both of which may often involve extensive legal expense), realize savings, remove the potential future volatility of claims and reduce required regulatory capital.

 

Reserves for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expense

 

Applicable insurance laws and generally accepted accounting practices require Enstar to maintain reserves to cover its estimated losses under insurance policies that it has assumed and for loss adjustment expense, or LAE, relating to the investigation, administration and settlement of policy claims. Enstar’s LAE reserves consist of both reserves for allocated loss adjustment expenses, or ALAE, and for unallocated loss adjustment expenses, or ULAE. ALAE are linked to the settlement of an individual claim or loss, whereas ULAE reserve is based on the Company’s estimates of future costs to administer the claims.

 

Enstar and its subsidiaries establish losses and LAE reserves for individual claims by evaluating reported claims on the basis of:

 

 

Because a significant amount of time can lapse between the assumption of risk, the occurrence of a loss event, the reporting of the event to an insurance or reinsurance company and the ultimate payment of the claim on the loss event, the liability for unpaid losses and LAE is based largely upon estimates. Enstar’s management must use

considerable judgment in the process of developing these estimates. The liability for unpaid losses and LAE for property and casualty business includes amounts determined from loss reports on individual cases and amounts for losses incurred but not reported, or IBNR. Such reserves, including IBNR reserves, are estimated by management based upon loss reports received from ceding companies, supplemented by Enstar’s own estimates of losses for which no ceding company loss reports have yet been received.

 

In establishing reserves, management also considers actuarial estimates of ultimate losses. Enstar’s actuaries employ generally accepted actuarial methodologies and procedures to estimate ultimate losses and loss expenses.

 

Enstar’s loss reserves are largely related to casualty exposures including latent exposures primarily relating to asbestos and environmental, or A&E, as discussed below. In establishing the reserves for unpaid claims, management considers facts currently known and the current state of the law and coverage litigation. Liabilities are recognized for known claims (including the cost of related litigation) when sufficient information has been developed to indicate the involvement of a specific insurance policy, and management can reasonably estimate its liability. In addition, reserves are established to cover loss development related to both known and unasserted claims.

 

The estimation of unpaid claim liabilities is subject to a high degree of uncertainty for a number of reasons. Unpaid claim liabilities for property and casualty exposures in general are impacted by changes in the legal environment, jury awards, medical cost trends and general inflation. Moreover, for latent exposures in particular, developed case law and adequate claims history do not exist. There is significant coverage litigation involved with these exposures which creates further uncertainty in the estimation of the liabilities. Therefore, for these types of exposures, it is especially unclear whether past claim experience will be representative of future claim experience. Ultimate values for such claims cannot be estimated using reserving techniques that extrapolate losses to an ultimate basis using loss development factors, and the uncertainties surrounding the estimation of unpaid claim liabilities are not likely to be resolved in the near future. There can be no assurance that the reserves established by Enstar will be adequate or will not be adversely affected by the development of other latent exposures. The actuarial methods used to estimate ultimate loss and ALAE for Enstar’s latent exposures are discussed below.

 

For the non-latent loss exposures, a range of traditional loss development extrapolation techniques is applied. Incremental paid and incurred loss development methodologies are the most commonly used methods. Traditional cumulative paid and incurred loss development methods are used where inception-to-date, cumulative paid and reported incurred loss development history is available. These methods assume that groups of losses from similar exposures will increase over time in a predictable manner. Historical paid and incurred loss development experience is examined for earlier underwriting years to make inferences about how later underwriting years’ losses will develop. Where company-specific loss information is not available or not reliable, industry loss development information published by reliable industry sources such as the Reinsurance Association of America is considered.

 

The reserving process is intended to reflect the impact of inflation and other factors affecting loss payments by taking into account changes in historical payment patterns and perceived trends. However, there is no precise method for the subsequent evaluation of the adequacy of the consideration given to inflation, or to any other specific factor, or to the way one factor may affect another.

 

The loss development tables below show changes in Enstar’s gross and net loss reserves in subsequent years from the prior loss estimates based on experience as of the end of each succeeding year. The estimate is increased or decreased as more information becomes known about the frequency and severity of losses for individual years. A redundancy means the original estimate was higher than the current estimate; a deficiency means that the current estimate is higher than the original estimate. The first table shows, in the first section of the table, Enstar’s gross reserve for unpaid losses (including IBNR losses) and LAE. The second table shows, in the first section of the table, Enstar’s reserve for unpaid losses (including IBNR losses) and LAE net of reinsurance. The second section of each table shows Enstar’s re-estimates of the reserve in later years. The third section of each table shows the cumulative amounts of losses paid as of the end of each succeeding year. The “cumulative redundancy” line in each table

represents, as of the date indicated, the difference between the latest re-estimated liability and the reserves as originally estimated.

 

 

 

 

 

The $13.0 million gross deficiency arising in 2007 on gross reserves carried at December 31, 2006 is comprised of $44.3 million deficiency on one of Enstar’s subsidiaries offset by $31.3 million redundancy in Enstar’s remaining insurance and reinsurance entities. This subsidiary benefits from substantial reinsurance protection such that the $44.3 million gross deficiency is reduced to a $2.1 million net deficiency.

 

The following table provides a reconciliation of the liability for losses and LAE, net of reinsurance ceded:

 

 

In the table above, incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses related to prior years represents changes in estimates of prior period net loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities comprising net incurred loss movements during a period and changes in estimates of net IBNR liabilities. Net incurred loss movements during a period comprise increases or reductions in specific case reserves advised during the period to Enstar by its policyholders and attorneys, or by Enstar to its reinsurers, less claims settlements made during the period by Enstar to its policyholders, plus claim receipts made to Enstar by its reinsurers. Prior period estimates of net IBNR liabilities may change as Enstar’s management considers the combined impact of commutations, policy buy-backs, settlement of losses on carried reserves and the trend of incurred loss development compared to prior forecasts. The trend of incurred loss development in any period comprises the movement in net case reserves less net claims settled during the period. See “— Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Policies — Loss and Loss Adjustment Expenses” beginning on page 54 for an explanation of how the loss reserving methodologies are applied to the movement, or development, of net incurred losses during a period to estimate IBNR liabilities.

 

Commutations provide an opportunity for Enstar to exit exposures to entire policies with insureds and reinsureds at a discount to the previously estimated ultimate liability. Enstar’s internal and external actuaries eliminate all prior historical loss development that relates to commuted exposures and apply their actuarial methodologies to the remaining aggregate exposures and revised historical loss development information to reassess estimates of ultimate liabilities.

 

Policy buy-backs provide an opportunity for Enstar to settle individual policies and losses usually at a discount to carried advised loss reserves. As part of Enstar’s routine claims settlement operations, claims will settle at either below or above the carried advised loss reserve. The impact of policy buy-backs and the routine settlement of claims updates historical loss development information to which actuarial methodologies are applied often resulting in revised estimates of ultimate liabilities. Enstar’s actuarial methodologies include industry benchmarking which, under certain methodologies (discussed further under “— Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Policies” beginning on page 53), compares the trend of Enstar’s loss development to that of the industry. To the extent that the trend of Enstar’s loss development compared to the industry changes in any period, it is likely to have an impact on the estimate of ultimate liabilities.

 

Year Ended December 31, 2007

 

Net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2007 was $24.5 million, excluding the impacts of adverse foreign exchange rate movements of $18.6 million and including both net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities of $9.0 million relating to companies acquired during the year and premium and commission adjustments triggered by incurred losses of $0.3 million.

 

The net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for 2007 of $24.5 million was attributable to a reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $30.7 million and a reduction in estimates of loss adjustment expense liabilities of $22.0 million, relating to 2007 run-off activity, partially offset by an increase in aggregate provisions for bad debt of $1.7 million, primarily relating to companies acquired in 2006, and the amortization, over the estimated payout period, of fair value adjustments relating to companies acquired amounting to $26.5 million.

The reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $30.7 million comprised net adverse incurred loss development of $1.0 million offset by reductions in estimates of IBNR reserves of $31.7 million. An increase in estimates of net ultimate losses of $2.1 million relating to one of Enstar’s insurance entities was offset by reductions in estimates of net ultimate losses of $32.8 million in Enstar’s remaining insurance and reinsurance entities.

 

The net adverse incurred loss development of $1.0 million and reductions in IBNR reserves of $31.7 million, respectively, comprised the following:

 

(i) net adverse incurred loss development in one of Enstar’s reinsurance entities of $36.6 million, whereby advised case reserves of $16.9 million were settled for net paid losses of $53.5 million. This net adverse incurred loss development resulted from the settlement of case and LAE reserves above carried levels and from new loss advices, partially offset by approximately 12 commutations of assumed and ceded exposures below carried reserve levels. Actuarial analysis of the remaining unsettled loss liabilities resulted in a decrease in the estimate of IBNR loss reserves of $13.1 million after consideration of the $36.6 million adverse incurred loss development during the year, and the application of the actuarial methodologies to loss data pertaining to the remaining non-commuted exposures. Of the 12 commutations completed for this entity, three were among its top ten cedant exposures. The remaining 9 were of a smaller size, consistent with Enstar’s approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships. The entity in question also benefits from substantial stop loss reinsurance protection whereby the ultimate adverse loss development of $23.4 million was largely offset by a recoverable from a single AA- rated reinsurer such that a net ultimate loss of $2.1 million was retained by Enstar;

 

(ii) net favorable incurred loss development of $29.0 million, comprising net paid loss recoveries, relating to another one of Enstar’s reinsurance companies, offset by increases in net IBNR loss reserves of $29.0 million, resulting in no ultimate gain or loss. This reinsurance company has retrocessional arrangements providing for full reinsurance of all risks assumed; and

 

(iii) net favorable incurred loss development of $6.5 million in Enstar’s remaining insurance and reinsurance entities together with reductions in IBNR reserves of $26.3 million. The net favorable incurred loss development in Enstar’s remaining insurance and reinsurance entities of $6.6 million, whereby net advised case and LAE reserves of $2.5 million were settled for net paid loss recoveries of $4.0 million, arose from the settlement of non-commuted losses in the year below carried reserves and approximately 57 commutations of assumed and ceded exposures at less than case and LAE reserves. Enstar adopts a disciplined approach to the review and settlement of non-commuted claims through claims adjusting and the inspection of underlying policyholder records such that settlements of assumed exposures may often be achieved below the level of the originally advised loss, and settlements of ceded receivables may often be achieved at levels above carried balances. The net reduction in the estimate of IBNR loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities relating to Enstar’s remaining insurance and reinsurance companies amounted to $26.3 million and results from the application of Enstar’s reserving methodologies to (a) the reduced historical incurred loss development information relating to remaining exposures after the 57 commutations, and (b) reduced case and LAE reserves in the aggregate. Of the 57 commutations completed during 2007 for the remaining Enstar reinsurance and insurance companies, five were among their top ten cedant and/or reinsurance exposures. The remaining 52 were of a smaller size, consistent with Enstar’s approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships, as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships.

 

Year Ended December 31, 2006

 

Net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2006 was $31.9 million, excluding the impacts of adverse foreign exchange rate movements of $24.9 million and including both net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities of $2.7 million relating to companies acquired during the year and premium and commission adjustments triggered by incurred losses of $1.3 million. The net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for 2006 of $31.9 million was attributable to a reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $21.4 million, a reduction in estimates of loss adjustment expense liabilities of $15.1 million relating to 2006 run-off activity, a reduction in aggregate provisions for bad debt of $6.3 million,

resulting from the collection of certain reinsurance receivables against which bad debt provisions had been provided in earlier periods, partially offset by the amortization, over the estimated payout period, of fair value adjustments relating to companies acquired amounting to $10.9 million. The reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $21.4 million comprised net adverse incurred loss development of $37.9 million offset by reductions in estimates of IBNR reserves of $59.3 million. An increase in estimates of ultimate losses of $3.4 million relating to one of Enstar’s insurance entities was offset by reductions in estimates of net ultimate losses of $24.8 million in Enstar’s remaining insurance and reinsurance entities.

 

The adverse incurred loss development of $37.9 million, whereby advised case and LAE reserves of $37.4 million were settled for net paid losses of $75.3 million, comprised adverse incurred loss development of $59.2 million relating to one of Enstar’s insurance companies partially offset by favorable incurred loss development of $21.3 million relating to Enstar’s remaining insurance and reinsurance companies.

 

The adverse incurred loss development of $59.2 million relating to one of Enstar’s insurance companies was comprised of net paid loss settlements of $81.3 million less reductions in case and LAE reserves of $22.1 million and resulted from the settlement of case and LAE reserves above carried levels and from new loss advices, partially offset by approximately ten commutations of assumed and ceded exposures below carried reserves levels. Actuarial analysis of the remaining unsettled loss liabilities resulted in an increase in the estimate of IBNR loss reserves of $35.0 million after consideration of the $59.2 million adverse incurred loss development during the year, and the application of the actuarial methodologies to loss data pertaining to the remaining non-commuted exposures. Factors contributing to the increase include the establishment of a reserve to cover potential exposure to lead paint claims, a significant increase in asbestos reserves related to the entity’s single largest cedant (following a detailed review of the underlying exposures), and a change in the assumed A&E loss reporting time-lag as discussed further below. Of the ten commutations completed for this entity, two were among its top ten cedant and/or reinsurance exposures. The remaining eight were of a smaller size, consistent with Enstar’s approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships. The entity in question also benefits from substantial stop loss reinsurance protection whereby the adverse loss development of $59.2 million was largely offset by a recoverable from a single AA- rated reinsurer. The increase in estimated net ultimate losses of $3.4 million was retained by Enstar.

 

The favorable incurred loss development of $21.3 million, relating to Enstar’s remaining insurance and reinsurance companies, whereby net advised case reserves of $15.3 million were settled for net paid loss recoveries of $6.0 million, arose from approximately 35 commutations of assumed and ceded exposures at less than case and LAE reserves, where receipts from ceded commutations exceeded settlements of assumed exposures, and the settlement of non-commuted losses in the year below carried reserves. Enstar adopts a disciplined approach to the review and settlement of non-commuted claims through claims adjusting and the inspection of underlying policyholder records such that settlements may often be achieved below the level of the originally advised loss.

 

The net reduction in the estimate of IBNR loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities relating to Enstar’s remaining insurance and reinsurance companies (i.e., excluding the net $55.8 million reduction in IBNR reserves relating to the entity referred to above) amounted to $3.5 million. This net reduction is comprised of an increase of $19.8 million resulting from (i) a change in assumptions as to the appropriate loss reporting time lag for asbestos related exposures from two to three years and for environmental exposures from two to two and one-half years, which resulted in an increase in net IBNR reserves of $6.4 million, and (ii) a reduction in ceded IBNR recoverables of $13.4 million resulting from the commutation of ceded reinsurance protections. The increase in IBNR of $19.8 million is offset by a reduction of $23.3 million resulting from the application Enstar’s reserving methodologies to (i) the reduced historical incurred loss development information relating to remaining exposures after the 35 commutations, and (ii) reduced case and LAE reserves in the aggregate. Of the 35 commutations completed during 2006 for the remaining Enstar reinsurance and insurance companies, ten were among their top ten cedant and/or reinsurance exposures. The remaining 25 were of a smaller size, consistent with Enstar’s approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships.

Year Ended December 31, 2005

 

Net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2005 was $96.0 million, excluding the impacts of adverse foreign exchange rate movements of $3.7 million and including both net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities of $7.4 million relating to companies acquired during the year and premium and commission adjustments triggered by incurred losses of $1.3 million. The net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for 2005 of $96.0 million was attributable to a reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $73.2 million, a reduction in estimates of loss adjustment expense liabilities of $10.5 million, relating to 2005 run-off activity, and a reduction in aggregate provisions for bad debt of $20.2 million, resulting from the collection of certain reinsurance receivables against which bad debt provisions had been provided in earlier periods, partially offset by the amortization, over the estimated payout period, of fair value adjustments relating to companies acquired amounting to $7.9 million. The reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $73.2 million was comprised of favorable incurred loss development during the year of $5.9 million and reductions in estimates of IBNR reserves of $67.3 million. The favorable incurred loss development, whereby advised case and LAE reserves of $74.9 million were settled for net paid losses of $69.0 million, arose from approximately 68 commutations of assumed and ceded exposures at less than case and LAE reserves and the settlement of non-commuted losses in the year below carried reserves. Enstar adopts a disciplined approach, through claims adjusting and the inspection of underlying policyholder records, to the review and settlement of non-commuted claims such that settlements may often be achieved below the level of the originally advised loss.

 

The $67.3 million reduction in the estimate of IBNR loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities resulted from the application of Enstar’s reserving methodologies to (i) the reduced historical incurred loss development information relating to remaining exposures after the 68 commutations, and (ii) reduced case and LAE reserves in the aggregate. The application of Enstar’s reserving methodologies to the reduced historical incurred loss development information relating to Enstar’s remaining exposures after elimination of the historical loss development relating to the 68 commuted exposures had the following effects (with the methodologies that weighed most heavily in the analysis for this period listed first):

 

 

Under the IBNR:Case Ratio Method, the application of ratios of industry IBNR reserves to industry case reserves to Enstar’s case reserves resulted in reduced estimates of IBNR loss reserves as a result of the aggregate reduction, combining the impact of commutations and settlement of non-commuted losses, in Enstar’s case and LAE reserves of $74.9 million during the year. As such case and LAE reserves were settled for less than $74.9 million, the IBNR reserves determined under the IBNR:Case Ratio Method associated with such case reserves were eliminated. See “— Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Policies — Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Liabilities” beginning on page 54 for a further explanation of how the loss reserving methodologies are applied to the movement, or development, of net incurred losses during a period to estimate IBNR liabilities. Of the 68 commutations completed during 2005, ten were among the top ten cedant and/or reinsurance exposures of the individual Enstar reinsurance subsidiaries involved. The remaining 58 were of smaller size, consistent with Enstar’s approach of targeting

significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships.

 

Year Ended December 31, 2004

 

Net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense for the year ended 2004 amounted to $13.7 million, excluding the impacts of adverse foreign exchange rate movements of $4.1 million and including premium and commission adjustments triggered by incurred losses of $0.1 million. Total favorable net incurred loss development during 2004 of $14.7 million, whereby advised case and LAE reserves of $33.7 million were settled for net paid losses of $19.0 million, included adverse incurred development of A&E exposures the combination of which resulted in a net increase in IBNR loss reserves of $15.7 million. The increase in IBNR of $15.7 million offset by the favorable incurred development of $14.7 million resulted in an increase in net ultimate losses of $1.0 million. The favorable incurred loss development arose from approximately 36 commutations of assumed and ceded exposures at less than case and LAE reserves and the settlement of losses in the year below carried reserves. Of the 36 commutations completed during 2004, three were among the top ten cedant and/or reinsurance exposures of the individual Enstar reinsurance subsidiaries involved. The remaining 33 were of smaller size, consistent with Enstar’s approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships. There was no change to the provisions for bad debts in 2004. In 2004, Enstar reduced its estimate of loss adjustment expense liabilities by $14.7 million relating to 2004 run-off activity.

 

Year Ended December 31, 2003

 

Net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2003 was $24.0 million, excluding the impacts of adverse foreign exchange rate movements of $10.6 million and including net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities of $5.4 million relating to companies acquired during the year. The net reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for 2003 was primarily attributable to a reduction in estimates of ultimate net losses of $13.6 million, partly comprised of favorable incurred loss development during the year of $5.8 million, whereby advised case and LAE reserves of $9.9 million were settled for net paid losses of $4.1 million. The favorable incurred loss development arose from approximately 13 commutations of assumed and ceded exposures at less than case and LAE reserves and the settlement of losses in the year below carried reserves which contributed to reductions in actuarial estimates of IBNR losses of $7.8 million. Of the 13 commutations completed during 2003, two were among the top ten cedant and/or reinsurance exposures of the individual Enstar reinsurance subsidiaries involved. The remaining 11 were of smaller size, consistent with Enstar’s approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships. During 2003, Enstar reduced its estimate of loss adjustment expense liabilities by $10.4 million relating to 2003 run-off activity.

 

Asbestos and Environmental (A&E) Exposure

 

General A&E Exposures

 

A number of Enstar’s subsidiaries wrote general liability policies and reinsurance prior to their acquisition by Enstar under which policyholders continue to present asbestos-related injury claims and claims alleging injury, damage or clean-up costs arising from environmental pollution. These policies, and the associated claims, are referred to as A&E exposures. The vast majority of these claims are presented under policies written many years ago.

 

There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding A&E claims. This uncertainty impacts the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate amount of unpaid claims and related LAE. The majority of these claims differ from any other type of claim because there is inadequate loss development and there is significant uncertainty regarding what, if any, coverage exists, to which, if any, policy years claims are attributable and which, if any, insurers/reinsurers may be liable. These uncertainties are exacerbated by lack of clear judicial precedent and legislative interpretations of coverage that may be inconsistent with the intent of the parties to the insurance contracts and expand theories of liability. The insurance and reinsurance industry as a whole is engaged in extensive

litigation over these coverage and liability issues and is, thus, confronted with continuing uncertainty in its efforts to quantify A&E exposures.

 

Enstar’s A&E exposure is administered out of its offices in the United Kingdom and Rhode Island and centrally administered from the United Kingdom. In light of the intensive claim settlement process for these claims, which involves comprehensive fact gathering and subject matter expertise, management believes that it is prudent to have a centrally administered claim facility to handle A&E claims on behalf of all of Enstar’s subsidiaries. Enstar’s A&E claims staff, working in conjunction with two U.S.-qualified attorneys experienced in A&E liabilities, proactively administers, on a cost-effective basis, the A&E claims submitted to Enstar’s insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries.

 

Enstar uses industry benchmarking methodologies to estimate appropriate IBNR reserves for Enstar’s A&E exposures. These methods are based on comparisons of Enstar’s loss experience on A&E exposures relative to industry loss experience on A&E exposures. Estimates of IBNR are derived separately for each relevant Enstar subsidiary and, for some subsidiaries, separately for distinct portfolios of exposure. The discussion that follows describes, in greater detail, the primary actuarial methodologies used by Enstar’s independent actuaries to estimate IBNR for A&E exposures.

 

In addition to the specific considerations for each method described below, many general factors are considered in the application of the methods and the interpretation of results for each portfolio of exposures. These factors include the mix of product types (e.g. primary insurance versus reinsurance of primary versus reinsurance of reinsurance), the average attachment point of coverages (e.g. first-dollar primary versus umbrella over primary versus high-excess), payment and reporting lags related to the international domicile of Enstar subsidiaries, payment and reporting pattern acceleration due to large “wholesale” settlements (e.g. policy buy-backs and commutations) pursued by Enstar, lists of individual risks remaining and general trends within the legal and tort environments.

 

1. Paid Survival Ratio Method.  In this method, Enstar’s expected annual average payment amount is multiplied by an expected future number of payment years to get an indicated reserve. Enstar’s historical calendar year payments are examined to determine an expected future annual average payment amount. This amount is multiplied by an expected number of future payment years to estimate a reserve. Trends in calendar year payment activity are considered when selecting an expected future annual average payment amount. Accepted industry benchmarks are used in determining an expected number of future payment years. Each year, annual payments data is updated, trends in payments are re-evaluated and changes to benchmark future payment years are reviewed. This method has advantages of ease of application and simplicity of assumptions. A potential disadvantage of the method is that results could be misleading for portfolios of high excess exposures where significant payment activity has not yet begun.

 

2. Paid Market Share Method.  In this method, Enstar’s estimated market share is applied to the industry estimated unpaid losses. The ratio of Enstar’s historical calendar year payments to industry historical calendar year payments is examined to estimate Enstar’s market share. This ratio is then applied to the estimate of industry unpaid losses. Each year, calendar year payment data is updated (for both Enstar and industry), estimates of industry unpaid losses are reviewed and the selection of Enstar’s estimated market share is revisited. This method has the advantage that trends in calendar-year market share can be incorporated into the selection of company share of remaining market payments. A potential disadvantage of this method is that it is particularly sensitive to assumptions regarding the time-lag between industry payments and Enstar payments.

 

3. Reserve-to-Paid Method.  In this method, the ratio of estimated industry reserves to industry paid-to-date losses is multiplied by Enstar’s paid-to-date losses to estimate Enstar’s reserves. Specific considerations in the application of this method include the completeness of Enstar’s paid-to-date loss information, the potential acceleration or deceleration in Enstar’s payments (relative to the industry) due to Enstar’s claims handling practices, and the impact of large individual settlements. Each year, paid-to-date loss information is updated (for both Enstar and the industry) and updates to industry estimated reserves are reviewed. This method has the advantage of relying purely on paid loss data and so is not influenced by subjectivity of case reserve loss estimates. A potential disadvantage is that the application to Enstar portfolios which do not have complete inception-to-date paid loss history could produce misleading results. To address this potential disadvantage, a variation of the method is also

considered, which multiplies the ratio of estimated industry reserves to industry losses paid during a recent period of time (e.g. 5 years) times Enstar’s paid losses during that period.

 

4. IBNR:Case Ratio Method.   In this method, the ratio of estimated industry IBNR reserves to industry case reserves is multiplied by Enstar’s case reserves to estimate Enstar IBNR reserves. Specific considerations in the application of this method include the presence of policies reserved at policy limits, changes in overall industry case reserve adequacy and recent loss reporting history for Enstar. Each year, Enstar case reserves are updated, industry reserves are updated and the applicability of the industry IBNR:case ratio is reviewed. This method has the advantage that it incorporates the most recent estimates of amounts needed to settle open cases included in current case reserves. A potential disadvantage is that results could be misleading where Enstar case reserve adequacy differs significantly from overall industry case reserve adequacy.

 

5. Ultimate-to-Incurred Method.  In this method, the ratio of estimated industry ultimate losses to industry incurred-to-date losses is applied to Enstar incurred-to-date losses to estimate Enstar’s IBNR reserves. Specific considerations in the application of this method include the completeness of Enstar’s incurred-to-date loss information, the potential acceleration or deceleration in Enstar’s incurred losses (relative to the industry) due to Enstar’s claims handling practices and the impact of large individual settlements. Each year incurred-to-date loss information is updated (for both Enstar and the industry) and updates to industry estimated ultimate losses are reviewed. This method has the advantage that it incorporates both paid and case reserve information in projecting ultimate losses. A potential disadvantage is that results could be misleading where cumulative paid loss data is incomplete or where Enstar case reserve adequacy differs significantly from overall industry case reserve adequacy.

 

Within the annual loss reserve studies produced by Enstar’s external actuaries, exposures for each subsidiary are separated into homogeneous reserving categories for the purpose of estimating IBNR. Each reserving category contains either direct insurance or assumed reinsurance reserves and groups relatively similar types of risks and exposures (e.g. asbestos, environmental, casualty and property) and lines of business written (e.g. marine, aviation and non-marine). Based on the exposure characteristics and the nature of available data for each individual reserving category, a number of methodologies are applied. Recorded reserves for each category are selected from the indications produced by the various methodologies after consideration of exposure characteristics, data limitations and strengths and weaknesses of each method applied. This approach to estimating IBNR has been consistently adopted in the annual loss reserve studies for each period presented.

 

As of December 31, 2007, Enstar had 19 separate insurance and/or reinsurance subsidiaries whose reserves are categorized into approximately 146 reserve categories in total, including 22 distinct asbestos reserving categories and 20 distinct environmental reserving categories.

 

The five methodologies described above are applied for each of the 22 asbestos reserving categories and each of the 20 environmental reserving categories. As is common in actuarial practice, no one methodology is exclusively or consistently relied upon when selecting a recorded reserve. Consistent reliance on a single methodology to select a recorded reserve would be inappropriate in light of the dynamic nature of both the A&E liabilities in general, and the actual Enstar exposure portfolios in particular.

 

In selecting a recorded reserve, management considers the range of results produced by the methods, and the strengths and weaknesses of the methods in relation to the data available and the specific characteristics of the portfolio under consideration. Trends in both Enstar data and industry data are also considered in the reserve selection process. Recent trends or changes in the relevant tort and legal environments are also considered when assessing methodology results and selecting an appropriate recorded reserve amount for each portfolio.

 

The liability for unpaid losses and LAE, inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects Enstar’s best estimate for future amounts needed to pay losses and related LAE as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the financial statements herein in accordance with GAAP. As of December 31, 2007, Enstar had net loss reserves of $355.2 million for asbestos-related claims and $64.8 million for environmental pollution-related claims. The following table

provides an analysis of Enstar’s gross and net loss and ALAE reserves from A&E exposures at year-end 2007, 2006 and 2005 and the movement in gross and net reserves for those years:

 

 

During 2007, excluding the impact of loss reserves acquired during the year, our reserves for A&E liabilities decreased by $34.5 million on a gross basis and by $2.2 million on a net basis. The reduction arose from paid claims, successful commutations, policy buy-backs, generally favorable claim settlements and a reduction in IBNR resulting from actuarial analysis of remaining liabilities during the year.

 

During 2006, excluding the impact of loss reserves acquired during the year, our reserves for A&E liabilities increased by $10.1 million on a gross basis and decreased by $17.0 million on a net basis. The increase in gross reserves arose from adverse incurred development and actuarial analysis of remaining liabilities from one particular Enstar insurance subsidiary amounting to $104.7 million less claim settlements of $73.2 million. As the entity in question benefits from substantial reinsurance protection, the gross incurred loss of $104.7 million is reduced to $10.1 million on a net basis.

 

Excluding the impact of loss reserves acquired during the year, our reserves for A&E liabilities decreased during 2005 by $172.3 million on a gross basis ($101.7 million on a net basis). The reduction arose from paid claims, successful commutations, policy buybacks, generally favorable claim settlements and actuarial analysis of remaining liabilities during the year.

 

Asbestos continues to be the most significant and difficult mass tort for the insurance industry in terms of claims volume and expense. Enstar believes that the insurance industry has been adversely affected by judicial interpretations that have had the effect of maximizing insurance recoveries for asbestos claims, from both a coverage and liability perspective. Generally, only policies underwritten prior to 1986 have potential asbestos exposure, since most policies underwritten after this date contain an absolute asbestos exclusion.

 

In recent years, especially from 2001 through 2003, the industry has experienced increasing numbers of asbestos claims, including claims from individuals who do not appear to be impaired by asbestos exposure. Since 2003, however, new claim filings have been fairly stable. It is possible that the increases observed in the early part of the decade were triggered by various state tort reforms (discussed immediately below). At this point, Enstar cannot predict whether claim filings will return to pre-2004 levels, remain stable, or begin to decrease.

 

Since 2001, several U.S. states have proposed, and in many cases enacted, tort reform statutes that impact asbestos litigation by, for example, making it more difficult for a diverse group of plaintiffs to jointly file a single case, reducing “forum-shopping” by requiring that a potential plaintiff must have been exposed to asbestos in the state in which he/she files a lawsuit, or permitting consolidation of discovery. These statutes typically apply to suits

filed after a stated date. When a statute is proposed or enacted, asbestos defendants often experience a marked increase in new lawsuits, as plaintiffs’ attorneys seek to file suit before the effective date of the legislation. Some of this increased claim volume likely represents an acceleration of valid claims that would have been brought in the future, while some claims will likely prove to have little or no merit. As many of these claims are still pending, Enstar cannot predict what portion of the increased number of claims represent valid claims. Also, the acceleration of claims increases the uncertainty surrounding projections of future claims in the affected jurisdictions.

 

During the same timeframe as tort reform, the U.S. federal and various U.S. state governments sought comprehensive asbestos reform to manage the growing court docket and costs surrounding asbestos litigation, in addition to the increasing number of corporate bankruptcies resulting from overwhelming asbestos liabilities. Whereas the federal government has failed to establish a national asbestos trust fund to address the asbestos problem, several states, including Texas and Florida, have implemented a medical criteria reform approach that only permits litigation to proceed when a plaintiff can establish and demonstrate actual physical impairment.

 

Much like tort reform, asbestos litigation reform has also spurred a significant increase in the number of lawsuits filed in advance of the law’s enactment. Enstar cannot predict whether the drop off in the number of filed claims is due to the accelerated number of filings or an actual trend decline in alleged asbestos injuries.

 

Environmental Pollution Exposures

 

Environmental pollution claims represent another significant exposure for Enstar. However, environmental pollution claims have been developing as expected over the past few years as a result of stable claim trends. Claims against Fortune 500 companies are generally declining, and while insureds with single-site exposures are still active, in many cases claims are being settled for less than initially anticipated due to improved site remediation technology and effective policy buy-backs.

 

Despite the stability of recent trends, there remains significant uncertainty involved in estimating liabilities related to these exposures. Unlike asbestos claims which are generated primarily from allegedly injured private individuals, environmental claims generally result from governmentally initiated activities. First, the number of waste sites subject to cleanup is unknown. Approximately 1,200 sites are included on the National Priorities List (NPL) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or USEPA. State authorities have separately identified many additional sites and, at times, aggressively implement site cleanups. Second, the liabilities of the insureds themselves are difficult to estimate. At any given site, the allocation of remediation cost among the potentially responsible parties varies greatly depending upon a variety of factors. Third, as with asbestos liability and coverage issues, judicial precedent regarding liability and coverage issues regarding pollution claims does not provide clear guidance. There is also uncertainty as to the U.S. federal “Superfund” law itself and, at this time, Enstar cannot predict what, if any, reforms to this law might be enacted by the U.S. federal government, or the effect of any such changes on the insurance industry.

 

Other Latent Exposures

 

While Enstar does not view health hazard exposures such as silica and tobacco as becoming a material concern, recent developments in lead litigation have caused Enstar to watch these matters closely. Recently, municipal and state governments have had success, using a public nuisance theory, pursuing the former makers of lead pigment for the abatement of lead paint in certain home dwellings. As lead paint was used almost exclusively into the early 1970’s, large numbers of old housing stock contain lead paint that can prove hazardous to people and, particularly, children. Although governmental success has been limited thus far, Enstar continues to monitor developments carefully due to the size of the potential awards sought by plaintiffs.

 

Investments

 

Investment Strategy and Guidelines

 

We derive a significant portion of our income from our invested assets. As a result, our operating results depend in part on the performance of our investment portfolio. Because of the unpredictable nature of losses that may arise under our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries’ insurance or reinsurance policies and as a result of our

opportunistic commutation strategy, our liquidity needs can be substantial and may arise at any time. We generally follow a conservative investment strategy designed to emphasize the preservation of our invested assets and provide sufficient liquidity for the prompt payment of claims and settlement of commutation payments.

 

As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, we had cash and cash equivalents of $1.16 billion and $0.51 billion, respectively. Our cash and cash equivalent portfolio is comprised mainly of high-grade fixed deposits, commercial paper with maturities of less than three months and liquid reserve funds.

 

Our investment portfolio consists primarily of high investment grade-rated, liquid, fixed-maturity securities of short-to-medium term duration, and mutual funds — 87.4% and 94.3% of our total investment portfolio as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, consisted of investment grade securities. The decrease in percentage of our investments held in investment grade securities was due to our redemption of 100% of our holdings in the Goldman Sachs mutual fund, which were, as of December 31, 2006, classified as investments, and the proceeds of which were reinvested in cash and cash equivalent instruments. In addition, we have other investments, which are non-investment grade securities — these investments accounted for 12.6% and 5.7% of our total investment portfolio as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Assuming the commitments to the other investments were fully funded as of December 31, 2007 out of cash balances on hand at that time, the percentage of investments held in other than investment grade securities would increase to 21.7%.

 

We strive to structure our investments in a manner that recognizes our liquidity needs for future liabilities. In that regard, we attempt to correlate the maturity and duration of our investment portfolio to our general liability profile. If our liquidity needs or general liability profile unexpectedly change, we may not continue to structure our investment portfolio in its current manner and would adjust as necessary to meet new business needs.

 

Our investment performance is subject to a variety of risks, including risks related to general economic conditions, market volatility, interest rate fluctuations, foreign exchange risk, liquidity risk and credit and default risk. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary policies, domestic and international economic and political conditions and other factors beyond our control. A significant increase in interest rates could result in significant losses, realized or unrealized, in the value of our investment portfolio. A significant portion of our non-investment grade securities consist of alternative investments that subject us to restrictions on redemption, which may limit our ability to withdraw funds for some period of time after the initial investment. The values of, and returns on, such investments may also be more volatile.

 

Investment Committee and Investment Manager

 

The investment committee of our board of directors supervises the Company’s investment activity. The investment committee regularly monitors our overall investment results which it ultimately reports to the board of directors.

 

We have engaged Goldman Sachs to provide investment management services. We have agreed to pay investment management fees based on the month-end market values of a portion of the investments in the portfolio. The fees, which vary depending on the amount of assets under management, are included in net investment income.

 

Investment Portfolio

 

Accounting Treatment

 

Our investments primarily consist of fixed income securities. Our fixed income investments are comprised of available-for-sale, held to maturity and trading investments as defined in FAS 115, “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities.” Held to maturity investments are carried at their amortized cost and both the available-for-sale and trading investments are carried at their fair value on the balance sheet date. Unrealized holdings gains and losses on trading investments, which represent the difference between the amortized cost and the fair market value of securities, are recorded as investment income in net earnings.

Composition as of December 31, 2007

 

As of December 31, 2007, our aggregate invested assets totaled approximately $1.80 billion. Aggregate invested assets include cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash and cash equivalents, fixed-maturity securities, equities, short-term investments and other investments.

 

The following table shows the types of securities in our portfolio, including cash equivalents, and their fair market values and amortized costs as of December 31, 2007:

 

 

 

 

U.S. Government and Agencies

 

U.S. government and agency securities are comprised primarily of bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Home Loan Bank, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Federal National Mortgage Association.

 

Non-U.S. Government Securities

 

Non-U.S. government securities represent the fixed income obligations of non-U.S. governmental entities.

 

Corporate Securities

 

Corporate securities are comprised of bonds issued by corporations that are diversified across a wide range of issuers and industries. The largest single issuer of corporate securities in our portfolio was Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which represented 15% of the aggregate amount of corporate securities and had a credit rating of AA- by Standard & Poor’s, as of December 31, 2007.

 

Other Investments

 

In December 2005, we invested in New NIB Partners LP, or NIB Partners, a Province of Alberta limited partnership, in exchange for an approximately 1.6% limited partnership interest. NIB Partners was formed for the purpose of purchasing, together with certain affiliated entities, 100% of the outstanding share capital of NIBC Holding N.V. (formerly, NIB Capital N.V.) and its affiliates, or NIBC. J. Christopher Flowers, a member of our board of directors and one of our largest shareholders, is a director of New NIB Limited and is on the supervisory board of NIBC. Certain affiliates of J.C. Flowers I L.P., which is managed by J.C. Flowers & Co., LLC of which Mr. Flowers and Mr. John J. Oros, our Executive Chairman, are Managing Directors, also participated in the acquisition of NIBC. Certain of our officers and directors made personal investments in NIB Partners.

 

Enstar owns a non-voting 7% membership interest in Affirmative Investment LLC, or Affirmative. J.C. Flowers I LP, a private investment fund formed by J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC, of which Mr. Flowers and

Mr. Oros are managing directors, owns the remaining 93% interest in Affirmative. Affirmative owns approximately 51.2% of the outstanding stock of Affirmative Insurance Holdings, a publicly traded company.

 

We have a capital commitment of up to $10 million in the GSC European Mezzanine Fund II, LP, or GSC. GSC invests in mezzanine securities of middle and large market companies throughout Western Europe. As of December 31, 2007, the capital contributed to GSC was $2.8 million with the remaining commitment being $7.2 million. The $10 million represents 8.5% of the total commitments made to GSC.

 

We have also committed to invest up to $100 million in the Flowers Fund. During 2007, we funded a total of $12.2 million of our remaining commitment to the Flowers Fund, which increased our total funding in the Flowers Fund to $32.6 million as of December 31, 2007. As of January 14, 2008, we funded an additional $20.9 million of our $100 million commitment. We intend to use cash on hand to fund our remaining commitment. During 2007, we received $1.2 million in advisory service fees from the Flowers Fund.

 

Equities

 

During 2007 we purchased two equity portfolios that invest in both small and large market capitalization publicly traded U.S. companies. The equity portfolios are actively managed by a third-party manager.

 

Ratings as of December 31, 2007

 

The investment ratings (provided by major rating agencies) for our fixed income investments held as of December 31, 2007 and the percentage of investments they represented on that date were as follows:

 

 

Maturity Distribution as of December 31, 2007

 

The maturity distribution for our fixed income investments held as of December 31, 2007 was as follows:

 

Investment Returns for the Years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006

 

Our investment returns for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 were as follows:

 

 

 

 

Regulation

 

General

 

The business of insurance and reinsurance is regulated in most countries, although the degree and type of regulation varies significantly from one jurisdiction to another. Enstar is subject to extensive regulation under applicable statutes in the United Kingdom, Bermuda, Belgium and other jurisdictions.

 

Bermuda

 

As a holding company, Enstar is not subject to Bermuda insurance regulations. However, the Insurance Act 1978 of Bermuda and related regulations, as amended, or, together, the Insurance Act, regulate the insurance business of Enstar’s operating subsidiaries in Bermuda and provide that no person may carry on any insurance business in or from within Bermuda unless registered as an insurer by the Bermuda Monetary Authority, or BMA, under the Insurance Act. Insurance as well as reinsurance is regulated under the Insurance Act.

 

The Insurance Act also imposes on Bermuda insurance companies certain solvency and liquidity standards and auditing and reporting requirements and grants the BMA powers to supervise, investigate, require information and the production of documents and intervene in the affairs of insurance companies. Certain significant aspects of the Bermuda insurance regulatory framework are set forth below.

 

Classification of Insurers.  The Insurance Act distinguishes between insurers carrying on long-term business and insurers carrying on general business. There are four classifications of insurers carrying on general business, with Class 4 insurers subject to the strictest regulation. Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries, which are incorporated to carry on general insurance and reinsurance business, are registered as Class 2 or 3 insurers in Bermuda and are regulated as such under the Insurance Act. These regulated Bermuda subsidiaries are not licensed to carry on long-term business. Long-term business broadly includes life insurance and disability insurance with terms in excess of five years. General business broadly includes all types of insurance that are not long-term business.

 

Principal Representative.  An insurer is required to maintain a principal office in Bermuda and to appoint and maintain a principal representative in Bermuda. For the purpose of the Insurance Act, each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries’ principal offices is at P.O. Box HM 2267, Windsor Place, 3rd Floor, 18 Queen Street, in Hamilton, Bermuda, and each of their principal representatives is Enstar Limited. Without a reason acceptable to the BMA, an insurer may not terminate the appointment of its principal representative, and the principal representative may not cease to act in that capacity, unless 30 days’ notice in writing is given to the BMA. It is the duty of the principal representative, forthwith on reaching the view that there is a likelihood that the insurer will become insolvent or that a reportable “event” has, to the principal representative’s knowledge, occurred or is believed to have occurred, to notify the BMA and, within 14 days of such notification, to make a report in writing to the BMA setting forth all the particulars of the case that are available to the principal representative. For example,

any failure by the insurer to comply substantially with a condition imposed upon the insurer by the BMA relating to a solvency margin or a liquidity or other ratio would be a reportable “event.”

 

Independent Approved Auditor.  Every registered insurer must appoint an independent auditor who will audit and report annually on the statutory financial statements and the statutory financial return of the insurer, both of which, in the case of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries, are required to be filed annually with the BMA. The independent auditor must be approved by the BMA and may be the same person or firm that audits Enstar’s consolidated financial statements and reports for presentation to its shareholders. Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries’ independent auditor is Deloitte & Touche, who also audits Enstar’s consolidated financial statements.

 

Loss Reserve Specialist.  As a registered Class 2 or 3 insurer, each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries is required, every year, to submit an opinion of its approved loss reserve specialist with its statutory financial return in respect of its losses and loss expenses provisions. The loss reserve specialist, who will normally be a qualified casualty actuary, must be approved by the BMA.

 

Statutory Financial Statements.  Each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries must prepare annual statutory financial statements. The Insurance Act prescribes rules for the preparation and substance of these statutory financial statements, which include, in statutory form, a balance sheet, an income statement, a statement of capital and surplus and notes thereto. Each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries is required to give detailed information and analyses regarding premiums, claims, reinsurance and investments. The statutory financial statements are not prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and are distinct from the financial statements prepared for presentation to an insurer’s shareholders under the Companies Act. As a general business insurer, each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries is required to submit the annual statutory financial statements as part of the annual statutory financial return. The statutory financial statements and the statutory financial return do not form part of the public records maintained by the BMA.

 

Annual Statutory Financial Return.  Each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda Class 2 and 3 insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries are required to file with the BMA a statutory financial return no later than six or four months, respectively, after its fiscal year end unless specifically extended upon application to the BMA. The statutory financial return for a Class 2 or 3 insurer includes, among other matters, a report of the approved independent auditor on the statutory financial statements of the insurer, solvency certificates, the statutory financial statements, and the opinion of the loss reserve specialist. The solvency certificates must be signed by the principal representative and at least two directors of the insurer certifying that the minimum solvency margin has been met and whether the insurer has complied with the conditions attached to its certificate of registration. The independent approved auditor is required to state whether, in its opinion, it was reasonable for the directors to make these certifications. If an insurer’s accounts have been audited for any purpose other than compliance with the Insurance Act, a statement to that effect must be filed with the statutory financial return.

 

Minimum Liquidity Ratio.  The Insurance Act provides a minimum liquidity ratio for general business insurers, like Enstar’s regulated Bermuda insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries. An insurer engaged in general business is required to maintain the value of its relevant assets at not less than 75% of the amount of its relevant liabilities. Relevant assets include, but are not limited to, cash and time deposits, quoted investments, unquoted bonds and debentures, first liens on real estate, investment income due and accrued, accounts and premiums receivable and reinsurance balances receivable. There are some categories of assets which, unless specifically permitted by the BMA, do not automatically qualify as relevant assets, such as unquoted equity securities, investments in and advances to affiliates and real estate and collateral loans. Relevant liabilities are total general business insurance reserves and total other liabilities less deferred income tax and sundry liabilities (i.e., liabilities which are not otherwise specifically defined).

 

Minimum Solvency Margin and Restrictions on Dividends and Distributions.  Under the Insurance Act, the value of the general business assets of a Class 2 or 3 insurer, such as Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries, must exceed the amount of its general business liabilities by an amount greater than the prescribed minimum solvency

margin. Each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries is required, with respect to its general business, to maintain a minimum solvency margin equal to the greatest of:

 

For Class 2 insurers:

 

 

For Class 3 insurers:

 

 

Each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries is prohibited from declaring or paying any dividends during any fiscal year if it is in breach of its minimum solvency margin or minimum liquidity ratio or if the declaration or payment of such dividends would cause it to fail to meet such margin or ratio. In addition, if it has failed to meet its minimum solvency margin or minimum liquidity ratio on the last day of any fiscal year, each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries will be prohibited, without the approval of the BMA, from declaring or paying any dividends during the next financial year.

 

Each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries is prohibited, without the approval of the BMA, from reducing by 15% or more its total statutory capital as set out in its previous year’s financial statements.

 

Additionally, under the Companies Act, Enstar and each of its regulated Bermuda subsidiaries may declare or pay a dividend, or make a distribution from contributed surplus, only if it has no reasonable grounds for believing that the subsidiary is, or will be, after the payment, unable to pay its liabilities as they become due, or that the realizable value of its assets will thereby be less than the aggregate of its liabilities and its issued share capital and share premium accounts.

 

Supervision, Investigation and Intervention.  The BMA may appoint an inspector with extensive powers to investigate the affairs of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries if the BMA believes that such an investigation is in the best interests of its policyholders or persons who may become policyholders. In order to verify or supplement information otherwise provided to the BMA, the BMA may direct Enstar’s regulated Bermuda insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries to produce documents or information relating to matters connected with its business. In addition, the BMA has the power to require the production of documents from any person who appears to be in possession of those documents. Further, the BMA has the power, in respect of a person registered under the Insurance Act, to appoint a professional person to prepare a report on any aspect of any matter about which the BMA has required or could require information. If it appears to the BMA to be desirable in the interests of the clients of a person registered under the Insurance Act, the BMA may also exercise the foregoing powers in relation to any company which is, or has at any relevant time been, (1) a parent company, subsidiary company or related company of that registered person, (2) a subsidiary company of a parent company of that registered person, (3) a parent company of a subsidiary company of that registered person or (4) a controlling shareholder of that registered person, which is a person who either alone or with any associate or associates, holds 50% or more of the shares of that registered person or is entitled to exercise, or control the exercise of, more than 50% of the voting power at a general meeting of shareholders of that registered person. If it appears to the BMA that there is a risk of a regulated Bermuda insurance and reinsurance subsidiary becoming insolvent, or that a regulated Bermuda insurance and reinsurance subsidiary is in breach of the Insurance Act or any conditions imposed upon its registration, the BMA may, among other things, direct such subsidiary (1) not to take on any new insurance

business, (2) not to vary any insurance contract if the effect would be to increase its liabilities, (3) not to make certain investments, (4) to liquidate certain investments, (5) to maintain in, or transfer to the custody of a specified bank, certain assets, (6) not to declare or pay any dividends or other distributions or to restrict the making of such payments and/or (7) to limit such subsidiary’s premium income.

 

Disclosure of Information.  In addition to powers under the Insurance Act to investigate the affairs of an insurer, the BMA may require insurers and other persons to furnish information to the BMA. Further, the BMA has been given powers to assist other regulatory authorities, including foreign insurance regulatory authorities, with their investigations involving insurance and reinsurance companies in Bermuda. Such powers are subject to restrictions. For example, the BMA must be satisfied that the assistance being requested is in connection with the discharge of regulatory responsibilities of the foreign regulatory authority. Further, the BMA must consider whether cooperation is in the public interest. The grounds for disclosure are limited and the Insurance Act provides sanctions for breach of the statutory duty of confidentiality. Under the Companies Act, the Minister of Finance has been given powers to assist a foreign regulatory authority that has requested assistance in connection with inquiries being carried out by it in the performance of its regulatory functions. The Minister’s powers include requiring a person to furnish him or her with information, to produce documents to him or her, to attend and answer questions and to give assistance in connection with inquiries. The Minister must be satisfied that the assistance requested by the foreign regulatory authority is for the purpose of its regulatory functions and that the request is in relation to information in Bermuda which a person has in his possession or under his control. The Minister must consider, among other things, whether it is in the public interest to give the information sought.

 

Notification by Shareholder Controller of New or Increased Control.  Any person who, directly or indirectly, becomes a holder of at least 10%, 20%, 33% or 50% of the Ordinary Shares must notify the BMA in writing within 45 days of becoming such a holder or 30 days from the date they have knowledge of having such a holding, whichever is later. The BMA may, by written notice, object to such a person if it appears to the BMA that the person is not fit and proper to be such a holder. The BMA may require the holder to reduce their holding of Ordinary Shares and direct, among other things, that voting rights attaching to the Ordinary Shares shall not be exercisable. A person that does not comply with such a notice or direction from the BMA will be guilty of an offense.

 

Objection to Existing Shareholder Controller.  For so long as Enstar has as a subsidiary an insurer registered under the Insurance Act, the BMA may at any time, by written notice, object to a person holding 10% or more of the Ordinary Shares if it appears to the BMA that the person is not or is no longer fit and proper to be such a holder. In such a case, the BMA may require the shareholder to reduce its holding of Ordinary Shares and direct, among other things, that such shareholder’s voting rights attaching to Ordinary Shares shall not be exercisable. A person who does not comply with such a notice or direction from the Authority will be guilty of an offense.

 

Certain Other Bermuda Law Considerations.  Although Enstar is incorporated in Bermuda, it is classified as a non-resident of Bermuda for exchange control purposes by the BMA. Pursuant to its non-resident status, Enstar may engage in transactions in currencies other than Bermuda dollars and there are no restrictions on its ability to transfer funds (other than funds denominated in Bermuda dollars) in and out of Bermuda or to pay dividends to U.S. residents who are holders of its ordinary shares.

 

Under Bermuda law, exempted companies are companies formed for the purpose of conducting business outside Bermuda from a principal place of business in Bermuda. As “exempted” companies, neither Enstar nor any of its regulated Bermuda subsidiaries may, without the express authorization of the Bermuda legislature or under a license or consent granted by the Minister of Finance, participate in certain business transactions, including: (1) the acquisition or holding of land in Bermuda (except that held by way of lease or tenancy agreement which is required for its business and held for a term not exceeding 50 years, or which is used to provide accommodation or recreational facilities for its officers and employees and held with the consent of the Bermuda Minister of Finance, for a term not exceeding 21 years), (2) the taking of mortgages on land in Bermuda to secure an amount in excess of $50,000, or (3) the carrying on of business of any kind for which it is not licensed in Bermuda, except in limited circumstances such as doing business with another exempted undertaking in furtherance of its business carried on outside Bermuda. Each of Enstar’s regulated Bermuda subsidiaries is a licensed insurer in Bermuda, and, as such, may carry on activities from Bermuda that are related to and in support of its insurance business.

Ordinary shares may be offered or sold in Bermuda only in compliance with the provisions of the Investment Business Act 2003 of Bermuda, which regulates the sale of securities in Bermuda. In addition, the BMA must approve all issues and transfers of securities of a Bermuda exempted company. Where any equity securities (meaning shares which entitle the holder to vote for or appoint one or more directors or securities which by their terms are convertible into shares which entitle the holder to vote for or appoint one or more directors) of a Bermuda company are listed on an appointed stock exchange (which includes Nasdaq), the BMA has given general permission for the issue and subsequent transfer of any securities of the company from and/or to a non-resident for so long as any such equity securities of the company remain so listed.

 

The Bermuda government actively encourages foreign investment in “exempted” entities like Enstar and its regulated Bermuda subsidiaries that are based in Bermuda, but which do not operate in competition with local businesses. Enstar and its regulated Bermuda subsidiaries are not currently subject to taxes computed on profits or income or computed on any capital asset, gain or appreciation, or any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax or to any foreign exchange controls in Bermuda.

 

Under Bermuda law, non-Bermudians (other than spouses of Bermudians, holders of a permanent resident’s certificate or holders of a working resident’s certificate) may not engage in any gainful occupation in Bermuda without an appropriate governmental work permit. Work permits may be granted or extended by the Bermuda government upon showing that, after proper public advertisement in most cases, no Bermudian (or spouse of a Bermudian, holder of a permanent resident’s certificate or holder of a working resident’s certificate) is available who meets the minimum standard requirements for the advertised position. In 2004, the Bermuda government announced a new immigration policy limiting the duration of work permits to six years, with specified exemptions for “key” employees. The categories of “key” employees include senior executives (chief executive officers, presidents through vice presidents), managers with global responsibility, senior financial posts (treasurers, chief financial officers through controllers, specialized qualified accountants, quantitative modeling analysts), certain legal professionals (general counsels, specialist attorneys, qualified legal librarians and knowledge managers), senior insurance professionals (senior underwriters, senior claims adjusters), experienced/specialized brokers, actuaries, specialist investment traders/analysts and senior information technology engineers/managers. All of Enstar’s executive officers who work in its Bermuda office have obtained work permits.

 

United States

 

Enstar currently has seven indirect wholly-owned non-insurance subsidiaries organized under the laws of the States of Delaware (four), Georgia (two) and Florida (one). Each of these entities provides services to the insurance industry including the management of insurance portfolios in run-off and forensic claims inspection. Enstar’s United States subsidiaries are not subject to regulation in the United States as insurance companies, and are generally not subject to other insurance regulations.

 

If Enstar acquires insurance or reinsurance run-off operations in the United States, those subsidiaries operating in the United States would be subject to extensive regulation.

 

United Kingdom

 

General.  On December 1, 2001, the U.K. Financial Services Authority, or the FSA, assumed its full powers and responsibilities as the single statutory regulator responsible for regulating the financial services industry in respect of the carrying on of “regulated activities” (including deposit taking, insurance, investment management and most other financial services business by way of business in the U.K.), with the purpose of maintaining confidence in the U.K. financial system, providing public understanding of the system, securing the proper degree of protection for consumers and helping to reduce financial crime. It is a criminal offense for any person to carry on a regulated activity in the U.K. unless that person is authorized by the FSA and has been granted permission to carry on that regulated activity or falls under an exemption.

 

Insurance business (which includes reinsurance business) is authorized and supervised by the FSA. Insurance business in the United Kingdom is divided between two main categories: long-term insurance (which is primarily investment-related) and general insurance. It is not possible for an insurance company to be authorized in both long-term and general insurance business. These two categories are both divided into “classes” (for example: permanent

health and pension fund management are two classes of long-term insurance; damage to property and motor vehicle liability are two classes of general insurance). Under the Financial, Services and Markets Act 2000, or the FSMA, effecting or carrying out contracts of insurance, within a class of general or long-term insurance, by way of business in the United Kingdom, constitutes a regulated activity requiring individual authorization. An authorized insurance company must have permission for each class of insurance business it intends to write.

 

Certain of Enstar’s regulated U.K. subsidiaries, as authorized insurers, would be able to operate throughout the European Union, subject to certain regulatory requirements of the FSA and in some cases, certain local regulatory requirements. An insurance company with FSA authorization to write insurance business in the United Kingdom can seek consent from the FSA to allow it to provide cross-border services in other member states of the E.U. As an alternative, FSA consent may be obtained to establish a branch office within another member state. Although in run-off, Enstar’s regulated U.K. subsidiaries remain regulated by the FSA, but may not underwrite new business.

 

As FSA authorized insurers, the insurance and reinsurance businesses of Enstar’s regulated U.K. subsidiaries are subject to close supervision by the FSA. The FSA has implemented specific requirements for senior management arrangements, systems and controls of insurance and reinsurance companies under its jurisdiction, which place a strong emphasis on risk identification and management in relation to the prudential regulation of insurance and reinsurance business in the United Kingdom.

 

Supervision.  The FSA carries out the prudential supervision of insurance companies through a variety of methods, including the collection of information from statistical returns, review of accountants’ reports, visits to insurance companies and regular formal interviews.

 

The FSA has adopted a risk-based approach to the supervision of insurance companies. Under this approach the FSA performs a formal risk assessment of insurance companies or groups carrying on business in the U.K. periodically. The periods between U.K. assessments vary in length according to the risk profile of the insurer. The FSA performs the risk assessment by analyzing information which it receives during the normal course of its supervision, such as regular prudential returns on the financial position of the insurance company, or which it acquires through a series of meetings with senior management of the insurance company. After each risk assessment, the FSA will inform the insurer of its views on the insurer’s risk profile. This will include details of any remedial action that the FSA requires and the likely consequences if this action is not taken.

 

Solvency Requirements.  The Integrated Prudential Sourcebook requires that insurance companies maintain a required solvency margin at all times in respect of any general insurance undertaken by the insurance company. The calculation of the required margin in any particular case depends on the type and amount of insurance business a company writes. The method of calculation of the required solvency margin is set out in the Integrated Prudential Sourcebook, and for these purposes, all insurer’s assets and liabilities are subject to specific valuation rules which are set out in the Integrated Prudential Sourcebook. Failure to maintain the required solvency margin is one of the grounds on which wide powers of intervention conferred upon the FSA may be exercised. For fiscal years ending on or after January 1, 2004, the calculation of the required solvency margin has been amended as a result of the implementation of the EU Solvency I Directives. In respect of liability business accepted, 150% of the actual premiums written and claims incurred must be included in the calculation, which has had the effect of increasing the required solvency margin of Enstar’s regulated U.K. subsidiaries. Enstar continuously monitors the solvency capital position of the U.K. subsidiaries and maintains capital in excess of the required solvency margin.

 

Insurers are required to calculate an Enhanced Capital Requirement, or ECR, in addition to their required solvency margin. This represents a more risk-sensitive calculation than the previous required solvency margin requirements and is used by the FSA as its benchmark in assessing its Individual Capital Adequacy Standards. Insurers must maintain financial resources which are adequate, both as to amount and quality, to ensure that there is no significant risk that its liabilities cannot be met as they come due. In order to carry out the assessment as to the necessary financial resources that are required, insurers are required to identify the major sources of risk to its ability to meet its liabilities as they come due, and to carry out stress and scenario tests to identify an appropriate range of realistic adverse scenarios in which the risk crystallizes and to estimate the financial resources needed in each of the circumstances and events identified. In addition, the FSA gives Individual Capital Guidance, or ICG, regularly to insurers and reinsurers following receipt of individual capital assessments, prepared by firms themselves. The FSA’s guidance may be that a company should hold more or less than its then current level of

regulatory capital, or that the company’s regulatory capital should remain unaltered. Enstar calculated the ECR for its regulated U.K. subsidiaries for the period ended December 31, 2006 and submitted those calculations in March 2007 to the FSA as part of their statutory filings. The ECR calculations for its regulated U.K. subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007 will be submitted by no later than March 31, 2008.

 

In addition, an insurer (other than a pure reinsurer) that is part of a group is required to perform and submit to the FSA an audited Group Capital Adequacy Return (GCAR). The GCAR is a solvency margin calculation return in respect of its ultimate parent undertaking, in accordance with the FSA’s rules. This return is not part of an insurer’s own solvency return and hence will not be publicly available. Although there is no requirement for the parent undertaking solvency calculation to show a positive result, the FSA may take action where it considers that the solvency of the insurance company is or may be jeopardized due to the group solvency position. Further, an insurer is required to report in its annual returns to the FSA all material related party transactions (e.g., intra-group reinsurance, whose value is more than 5% of the insurer’s general insurance business amount).

 

Restrictions on Dividend Payments.  U.K. company law prohibits Enstar’s regulated U.K. subsidiaries from declaring a dividend to their shareholders unless they have “profits available for distribution.” The determination of whether a company has profits available for distribution is based on its accumulated realized profits less its accumulated realized losses. While the United Kingdom insurance regulatory laws impose no statutory restrictions on a general insurer’s ability to declare a dividend, the FSA strictly controls the maintenance of each insurance company’s required solvency margin within its jurisdiction. The FSA’s rules require Enstar’s regulated U.K. subsidiaries to obtain FSA approval for any proposed or actual payment of a dividend.

 

Reporting Requirements.  U.K. insurance companies must prepare their financial statements under the Companies Act of 1985 (as amended), which requires the filing with Companies House of audited financial statements and related reports. In addition, U.K. insurance companies are required to file with the FSA regulatory returns, which include a revenue account, a profit and loss account and a balance sheet in prescribed forms. Under the Interim Prudential Sourcebook for Insurers, audited regulatory returns must be filed with the FSA within two months and 15 days (or three months where the delivery of the return is made electronically) of the company’s year end. Enstar’s regulated U.K. insurance subsidiaries are also required to submit abridged quarterly information to the FSA.

 

Supervision of Management.  The FSA closely supervises the management of insurance companies through the approved persons regime, by which any appointment of persons to perform certain specified “controlled functions” within a regulated entity, must be approved by the FSA.

 

Change of Control.  FSMA regulates the acquisition of “control” of any U.K. insurance company authorized under FSMA. Any company or individual that (together with its or his associates) directly or indirectly acquires 10% or more of the shares in a U.K. authorized insurance company or its parent company, or is entitled to exercise or control the exercise of 10% or more of the voting power in such authorized insurance company or its parent company, would be considered to have acquired “control” for the purposes of the relevant legislation, as would a person who had significant influence over the management of such authorized insurance company or its parent company by virtue of his shareholding or voting power in either. A purchaser of 10% or more of Enstar’s ordinary shares would therefore be considered to have acquired “control” of Enstar’s regulated U.K. subsidiaries.

 

Under FSMA, any person proposing to acquire “control” over a U.K. authorized insurance company must give prior notification to the FSA of his intention to do so. The FSA would then have three months to consider that person’s application to acquire “control.” In considering whether to approve such application, the FSA must be satisfied that both the acquirer is a fit and proper person to have such “control” and that the interests of consumers would not be threatened by such acquisition of “control.” Failure to make the relevant prior application could result in action being taken against Enstar by the FSA.

 

Intervention and Enforcement.  The FSA has extensive powers to intervene in the affairs of an authorized person, culminating in the ultimate sanction of the removal of authorization to carry on a regulated activity. FSMA imposes on the FSA statutory obligations to monitor compliance with the requirements imposed by FSMA, and to enforce the provisions of FSMA-related rules made by the FSA. The FSA has power, among other things, to enforce

and take disciplinary measures in respect of breaches of both the Interim Prudential Sourcebook for Insurers and breaches of the conduct of business rules generally applicable to authorized persons.

 

The FSA also has the power to prosecute criminal offenses arising under FSMA, and to prosecute insider dealing under Part V of the Criminal Justice Act of 1993, and breaches of money laundering regulations. The FSA’s stated policy is to pursue criminal prosecution in all appropriate cases.

 

Passporting.  European Union directives allow Enstar’s regulated U.K. subsidiaries to conduct business in European Union states other than the United Kingdom in compliance with the scope of permission granted these companies by the FSA without the necessity of additional licensing or authorization in other European Union jurisdictions. This ability to operate in other jurisdictions of the European Union on the basis of home state authorization and supervision is sometimes referred to as “passporting.” Insurers may operate outside their home member state either on a “services” basis or on an “establishment” basis. Operating on a “services” basis means that the company conducts permitted businesses in the host state without having a physical presence there, while operating on an “establishment” basis means the company has a branch or physical presence in the host state. In both cases, a company remains subject to regulation by its home regulator, and not by local regulatory authorities, although the company nonetheless may have to comply with certain local rules. In addition to European Union member states, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (members of the broader European Economic Area) are jurisdictions in which this passporting framework applies.

 

Belgium and Austria

 

Enstar indirectly owns, through B.H. Acquisition, Paget Holdings Limited, or Paget, an Austrian holding company, which owns Compagnie Européenne d’Assurances Industrielles S.A., or CEAI, a registered insurer domiciled in Belgium. CEAI currently is in run-off and does not write new business. The insurance operations of CEAI are subject to Belgian insurance laws. CEAI is required to comply with the terms of its registration and any other conditions the banking, finance and insurance commission may impose from time to time. Under the applicable insurance laws and regulations, the banking, finance and insurance commission must be informed about and approve the management structure, the directors, and current management. The banking, finance and insurance commission also regulates solvency and certain operations and activities of Belgian insurers.

 

Paget is generally subject to the laws of Austria. Because the principal activity of Paget is owning CEAI, Paget is not required to be licensed by Austrian authorities.

 

Switzerland and Luxembourg

 

Enstar indirectly owns Harper Holding SARL, or Harper Holding, a Luxembourg holding company, which owns Harper Insurance Limited, or Harper Insurance, a reinsurer domiciled in Switzerland. Because the activities of Harper Insurance are limited to reinsurance run-off, it is not required to be licensed by Swiss authorities but is subject to regulation by the Federal Office of Private Insurance, or FOPI.

 

Harper Holding is a private limited liability company, incorporated under the laws of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, generally subject to the laws of Luxembourg. Because the principal activity of Harper Holding is owning subsidiaries not domiciled in Luxembourg, Harper Holding is not required to be licensed by Luxembourg authorities.

 

Competition

 

Enstar competes in international markets with domestic and international reinsurance companies to acquire and manage reinsurance companies in run-off. The acquisition and management of reinsurance companies in run-off is highly competitive. Some of these competitors have greater financial resources than Enstar, have been operating for longer than Enstar and have established long-term and continuing business relationships throughout the reinsurance industry, which can be a significant competitive advantage. As such, Enstar may not be able to compete successfully in the future for suitable acquisition candidates or run-off portfolio management engagements.

Employees

 

As of December 31, 2007, Enstar had approximately 221 employees, 5 of whom were executive officers. All non-Bermudian employees who operate out of Enstar’s Bermuda office are subject to approval of any required work permits. None of Enstar’s employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements, and its management believes that its relationship with its employees is excellent.

 

Available Information

 

Enstar maintains a website with the address www.enstargroup.com. The information contained on Enstar’s website is not included as a part of, or incorporated by reference into, this filing. Enstar makes available free of charge (other than an investor’s own Internet access charges) on or through its website its annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after the material is electronically filed with or otherwise furnished to the SEC. Enstar’s annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports are also available on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. In addition, copies of Enstar’s corporate governance guidelines, codes of business conduct and ethics and the governing charters for the audit and compensation committees of its Board of Directors are available free of charge on its website. The public may read and copy any materials Enstar files with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F. Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.

 

 

You should carefully consider these risks along with the other information included in this document, including the matters addressed under “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements,” as well as risks included elsewhere in our documents filed with the SEC, before investing in any of our securities. We may amend, supplement or add to the risk factors described below from time to time in future reports filed with the SEC.

 

Risks Relating to Our Business

 

If we are unable to implement our business strategies, our business and financial condition may be adversely affected.

 

Our future results of operations will depend in significant part on the extent to which we can implement our business strategies successfully, including our ability to realize the anticipated growth opportunities, expanded market visibility and increased access to capital. Our business strategies include continuing to operate our portfolio of run-off insurance and reinsurance companies and related management engagements, as well as pursuing additional acquisitions and management engagements in the run-off segment of the insurance and reinsurance market. We may not be able to implement our strategies fully or realize the anticipated results of our strategies as a result of significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control.

 

The effects of emerging claims and coverage issues may result in increased provisions for loss reserves and reduced profitability in our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries. Such adverse business issues may also reduce the level of incentive-based fees generated by our consulting operations. Adverse global economic conditions, such as rising interest rates and volatile foreign exchange rates, may cause widespread failure of our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries’ reinsurers’ ability to satisfy their obligations, as well as failure of companies to meet their obligations under debt instruments held by our subsidiaries. If the run-off industry becomes more attractive to investors, competition for run-off acquisitions and management and consultancy engagements may increase and, therefore, reduce our ability to continue to make profitable acquisitions or expand our consultancy operations. If we are unable to successfully implement our business strategies, we may not be able to achieve future growth in our earnings and our financial condition may suffer and, as a result, holders of our ordinary shares may receive lower returns.

Our inability to successfully manage our portfolio of insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off may adversely impact our ability to grow our business and may result in losses.

 

We were founded to acquire and manage companies and portfolios of insurance and reinsurance in run-off. Our run-off business differs from the business of traditional insurance and reinsurance underwriting in that our insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off no longer underwrite new policies and are subject to the risk that their stated provisions for losses and loss adjustment expense will not be sufficient to cover future losses and the cost of run-off. Because our companies in run-off no longer collect underwriting premiums, our sources of capital to cover losses are limited to our stated reserves, reinsurance coverage and retained earnings. As of December 31, 2007, our gross reserves for losses and loss adjustment expense totaled $1.59 billion, and our reinsurance receivables totaled $465.3 million.

 

In order for us to achieve positive operating results, we must first price acquisitions on favorable terms relative to the risks posed by the acquired portfolio and then successfully manage the acquired portfolios. Our inability to price acquisitions on favorable terms, efficiently manage claims, collect from reinsurers and control run-off expenses could result in us having to cover losses sustained under assumed policies with retained earnings, which would materially and adversely impact our ability to grow our business and may result in losses.

 

Our inability to successfully manage the companies and portfolios for which we have been engaged as a third-party manager may adversely impact our financial results and our ability to win future management engagements.

 

In addition to acquiring insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off, we have entered into several management agreements with third parties to manage their portfolios or companies in run-off. The terms of these management engagements typically include incentive payments to us based on our ability to successfully manage the run-off of these companies or portfolios. We may not be able to accomplish our objectives for these engagements as a result of unforeseen circumstances such as the length of time for claims to develop, the extent to which losses may exceed reserves, changes in the law that may require coverage of additional claims and losses, our ability to commute reinsurance policies on favorable terms and our ability to manage run-off expenses. If we are not successful in meeting our objectives for these management engagements, we may not receive incentive payments under our management agreements, which could adversely impact our financial results, and we may not win future engagements to provide these management services, which could slow the growth of our business. Consulting fees generated from management agreements amounted to $31.9 million, $33.9 million and $22.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2007, December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively.

 

If our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries’ loss reserves are inadequate to cover their actual losses, our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries’ net income and capital and surplus would be reduced.

 

Our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries are required to maintain reserves to cover their estimated ultimate liability for losses and loss adjustment expenses for both reported and unreported claims incurred. These reserves are only estimates of what our subsidiaries think the settlement and administration of claims will cost based on facts and circumstances known to the subsidiaries. Our commutation activity and claims settlement and development in recent years has resulted in net reductions in provisions for loss and loss adjustment expenses of $24.5 million, $31.9 million and $96.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2007, December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively. Although this recent experience indicates that our loss reserves have been more than adequate to meet our liabilities, because of the uncertainties that surround estimating loss reserves and loss adjustment expenses, our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries cannot be certain that ultimate losses will not exceed these estimates of losses and loss adjustment expenses. If the subsidiaries’ reserves are insufficient to cover their actual losses and loss adjustment expenses, the subsidiaries would have to augment their reserves and incur a charge to their earnings. These charges could be material and would reduce our net income and capital and surplus.

 

The difficulty in estimating the subsidiaries’ reserves is increased because the subsidiaries’ loss reserves include reserves for potential A&E liabilities. At December 31, 2007, our insurance and reinsurance companies recorded gross A&E loss reserves of $677.6 million, or 42.6% of the total gross loss reserves. Net A&E loss reserves at December 31, 2007 amounted to $420.0 million, or 36.1% of total net loss reserves. A&E liabilities are especially

hard to estimate for many reasons, including the long waiting periods between exposure and manifestation of any bodily injury or property damage, the difficulty in identifying the source of the asbestos or environmental contamination, long reporting delays and the difficulty in properly allocating liability for the asbestos or environmental damage. Developed case law and adequate claim history do not always exist for such claims, especially because significant uncertainty exists about the outcome of coverage litigation and whether past claim experience will be representative of future claim experience. In view of the changes in the legal and tort environment that affect the development of such claims, the uncertainties inherent in valuing A&E claims are not likely to be resolved in the near future. Ultimate values for such claims cannot be estimated using traditional reserving techniques and there are significant uncertainties in estimating the amount of our subsidiaries’ potential losses for these claims. Our subsidiaries have not made any changes in reserve estimates that might arise as a result of any proposed U.S. federal legislation related to asbestos. To further understand this risk, see “Business — Reserves for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expense” beginning on page 9.

 

Our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries’ reinsurers may not satisfy their obligations to our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries.

 

Our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries are subject to credit risk with respect to their reinsurers because the transfer of risk to a reinsurer does not relieve our subsidiaries of their liability to the insured. In addition, reinsurers may be unwilling to pay our subsidiaries even though they are able to do so. As of December 31, 2007, the balances receivable from reinsurers amounted to $465.3 million, of which $350.2 million was associated with two reinsurers with Standard & Poor’s credit ratings of AA-. The failure of one or more of our subsidiaries’ reinsurers to honor their obligations in a timely fashion may affect our cash flows, reduce our net income or cause us to incur a significant loss. Disputes with our reinsurers may also result in unforeseen expenses relating to litigation or arbitration proceedings.

 

The value of our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries’ investment portfolios and the investment income that our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries receive from these portfolios may decline as a result of market fluctuations and economic conditions.

 

We derive a significant portion of our income from our invested assets. The fair market value of the fixed-income securities classified as trading and available-for-sale in our subsidiaries’ investment portfolios amounted to $343.0 million at December 31, 2007, and the investment income from these assets fluctuates depending on general economic and market conditions. For example, the fair market value of our subsidiaries’ fixed-income securities generally increases or decreases in an inverse relationship with fluctuations in interest rates. The fair market value of our subsidiaries’ fixed-income securities can also decrease as a result of any downturn in the business cycle that causes the credit quality of those securities to deteriorate. The net investment income that our subsidiaries realize from investments in fixed income securities will generally increase or decrease with interest rates. The changes in the market value of our subsidiaries’ securities that are classified as available-for-sale are reflected in our financial statements. Permanent impairments in the value of our subsidiaries’ fixed income securities are also reflected in our financial statements. As a result, a decline in the value of the securities in our subsidiaries’ portfolio may reduce our net income or cause us to incur a loss.

 

In addition to fixed-income securities, we have invested, and may from time to time continue to invest, in limited partnerships and limited liability companies. These and other similar investments may be illiquid. As of December 31, 2007, we had an aggregate of $75.3 million of such investments, $69.7 million of which had no readily ascertainable market value. For more information, see “Business — Investment Portfolio” beginning on page 21.

Fluctuations in the reinsurance industry may cause our operating results to fluctuate.

 

The reinsurance industry historically has been subject to significant fluctuations and uncertainties. Factors that affect the industry in general may also cause our operating results to fluctuate. The industry’s profitability may be affected significantly by:

 

 

The effects of emerging claim and coverage issues on our business are uncertain.

 

As industry practices and legal, judicial, social and other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claims and coverage may emerge. These issues may adversely affect the adequacy of our provision for losses and loss adjustment expenses by either extending coverage beyond the intent of insurance policies and reinsurance contracts envisioned at the time they were written, or by increasing the number or size of claims. In some instances, these changes may not become apparent until some time after we have acquired companies or portfolios of insurance or reinsurance contracts that are affected by the changes. As a result, the full extent of liability under these insurance or reinsurance contracts may not be known for many years after a contract has been issued. To further understand this risk, see “Business — Reserves for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expense” beginning on page 9.

 

Insurance laws and regulations restrict our ability to operate, and any failure to comply with these laws and regulations may have a material adverse effect on our business.

 

We are subject to extensive regulation under insurance laws of a number of jurisdictions, and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements is expensive. These laws limit the amount of dividends that can be paid to us by our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries, prescribe solvency standards that they must meet and maintain, impose restrictions on the amount and type of investments that they can hold to meet solvency requirements and require them to maintain reserves. Failure to comply with these laws may subject our subsidiaries to fines and penalties and restrict them from conducting business. The application of these laws may affect our liquidity and ability to pay dividends on our ordinary shares and may restrict our ability to expand our business operations through acquisitions. At December 31, 2007, the required statutory capital and surplus of our Bermuda, U.K. and European insurance and reinsurance companies amounted to $88.0 million compared to the actual statutory capital and surplus of $483.8 million. As of December 31, 2007, $55.5 million of our total investments of $637.2 million were not admissible for statutory solvency purposes.

 

If we fail to comply with applicable insurance laws and regulations, we may be subject to disciplinary action, damages, penalties or restrictions that may have a material adverse effect on our business.

 

We cannot assure you that our subsidiaries have or can maintain all required licenses and approvals or that their businesses fully comply with the laws and regulations to which they are subject, or the relevant insurance regulatory authority’s interpretation of those laws and regulations. In addition, some regulatory authorities have relatively broad discretion to grant, renew or revoke licenses and approvals. If our subsidiaries do not have the requisite licenses and approvals or do not comply with applicable regulatory requirements, the insurance regulatory authorities may preclude or suspend our subsidiaries from carrying on some or all of their activities, place one of more of them into rehabilitation or liquidation proceedings, or impose monetary penalties on them. These types of actions may have a material adverse effect on our business and may preclude us from making future acquisitions or obtaining future engagements to manage companies and portfolios in run-off.

We have made, and expect to continue to make, strategic acquisitions of insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off, and these activities may not be financially beneficial to us or our shareholders.

 

We have pursued and, as part of our strategy, we will continue to pursue growth through acquisitions and/or strategic investments in insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off. We have made several acquisitions and investments and we expect to continue to make such acquisitions and investments. We cannot be certain that any of these acquisitions or investments will be financially advantageous for us or our shareholders.

 

The negotiation of potential acquisitions or strategic investments, as well as the integration of an acquired business or portfolio, could result in a substantial diversion of management resources. Acquisitions could involve numerous additional risks such as potential losses from unanticipated litigation or levels of claims, an inability to generate sufficient revenue to offset acquisition costs and financial exposures in the event that the sellers of the entities we acquire are unable or unwilling to meet their indemnification, reinsurance and other obligations to us.

 

Our ability to manage our growth through acquisitions or strategic investments will depend, in part, on our success in addressing these risks. Any failure by us to effectively implement our acquisition or strategic investment strategies could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Future acquisitions may expose us to operational risks such as cash flow shortages, challenges to recruit appropriate levels of personnel, financial exposures to foreign currencies, additional integration costs and management time and effort.

 

We may in the future make additional strategic acquisitions, either of other companies or selected portfolios of insurance or reinsurance in run-off. Any future acquisitions may expose us to operational challenges and risks, including:

 

 

Our failure to manage successfully these operational challenges and risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Exit and finality opportunities provided by solvent schemes of arrangement may not continue to be available, which may result in the diversion of our resources to settle policyholder claims for a substantially longer run-off period and increase the associated costs of run-off of our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries.

 

With respect to our U.K. and Bermudian insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries, we are able to pursue strategies to achieve complete finality and conclude the run-off of a company by promoting solvent schemes of arrangement. Solvent schemes of arrangement have been a popular means of achieving financial certainty and finality, for insurance and reinsurance companies incorporated or managed in the U.K. and Bermuda, by making a one-time full and final settlement of an insurance and reinsurance company’s liabilities to policyholders. A solvent scheme of arrangement is an arrangement between a company and its creditors or any class of them. For a solvent scheme of arrangement to become binding on the creditors, a meeting of each class of creditors must be called, with the permission of the local court, to consider and, if thought fit, approve the solvent scheme arrangement. The

requisite statutory majority of creditors of not less than 75% in value and 50% in number of those creditors actually attending the meeting, either in person or by proxy, must vote in favor of a solvent scheme of arrangement. Once the solvent scheme of arrangement has been approved by the statutory majority of voting creditors of the company it requires the sanction of the local court.

 

In July 2005, the case of British Aviation Insurance Company, or BAIC, was the first solvent scheme of arrangement to fail to be sanctioned by the English High Court, following opposition by certain creditors. The primary reason for the failure of the BAIC arrangement was the failure to adequately provide for different classes of creditors to vote separately on the arrangement. It was thought at the time that the BAIC judgment might signal the decline of solvent schemes of arrangement. However, since BAIC, 30 solvent schemes of arrangement have been sanctioned, such that the prevailing view is that the BAIC judgment was very fact-specific to the case in question, and solvent schemes generally should continue to be promoted and sanctioned as a viable means for achieving finality for our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries. Following the BAIC judgment, insurance and reinsurance companies must now take more care in drafting a solvent scheme of arrangement to fit the circumstances of the company including the determination of the appropriate classes of creditors. Should a solvent scheme of arrangement promoted by any of our insurance or reinsurance subsidiaries fail to receive the requisite approval by creditors or sanction by the court, we will have to run off these liabilities until expiry, which may result in the diversion of our resources to settle policyholder claims for a substantially longer run-off period and increase the associated costs of run-off, resulting potentially in a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

We are dependent on our executive officers, directors and other key personnel and the loss of any of these individuals could adversely affect our business.

 

Our success substantially depends on our ability to attract and retain qualified employees and upon the ability of our senior management and other key employees to implement our business strategy. We believe that there are only a limited number of available qualified personnel in the business in which we compete. We rely substantially upon the services of Dominic F. Silvester, our Chief Executive Officer, Paul J. O’Shea and Nicholas A. Packer, our Executive Vice Presidents and Joint Chief Operating Officers, Richard J. Harris, our Chief Financial Officer, John J. Oros, our Executive Chairman, and our subsidiaries’ executive officers and directors to identify and consummate the acquisition of insurance and reinsurance companies and portfolios in run-off on favorable terms and to implement our run-off strategy. Each of Messrs. Silvester, O’Shea, Packer, Oros and Harris has an employment agreement with us. In addition to serving as our Executive Chairman, Mr. Oros is a managing director of J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC, an investment firm specializing in privately negotiated equity and equity-related investments in the financial services industry. Mr. Oros splits his time commitment between us and J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC, with the expectation that Mr. Oros will spend approximately 50% of his working time with us; however, there is no minimum work commitment set forth in our employment agreement with Mr. Oros. J. Christopher Flowers, one of our directors, and one of our largest shareholders, is a Managing Director of J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. We believe that our relationships with Mr. Oros and Mr. Flowers and their affiliates provide us with access to additional acquisition and investment opportunities, as well as sources of co-investment for acquisition opportunities that we do not have the resources to consummate on our own. The loss of the services of any of our management or other key personnel, or the loss of the services of or our relationships with any of our directors, including in particular Mr. Oros and Mr. Flowers, or their affiliates could have a material adverse effect on our business.

 

Further, if we were to lose any of our key employees in Bermuda, we would likely hire non-Bermudians to replace them. Under Bermuda law, non-Bermudians (other than spouses of Bermudians, holders of permanent resident’s certificates or holders of a working resident’s certificate) may not engage in any gainful occupation in Bermuda without an appropriate governmental work permit. Work permits may be granted or extended by the Bermuda government upon showing that, after proper public advertisement in most cases, no Bermudian (or spouse of a Bermudian, holder of a permanent resident’s certificate or holders of a working resident’s certificate) is available who meets the minimum standard requirements for the advertised position. The Bermuda government’s policy limits the duration of work permits to six years, with certain exemptions for key employees and job categories where there is a worldwide shortage of qualified employees.

Conflicts of interest might prevent us from pursuing desirable investment and business opportunities.

 

Our directors and executive officers may have ownership interests or other involvement with entities that could compete against us, either in the pursuit of acquisition targets or in general business operations. On occasion, we have also participated in transactions in which one or more of our directors or executive officers had an interest. In particular, we have invested, and expect to continue to invest, in or with entities that are affiliates of or otherwise related to Mr. Oros and/or Mr. Flowers. The interests of our directors and executive officers in such transactions or such entities may result in a conflict of interest for those directors and officers. The independent members of our board of directors review any material transactions involving a conflict of interest, and the board of directors will take other actions as may be deemed appropriate by them in particular circumstances, such as forming a special committee of independent directors or engaging third-party financial advisers to evaluate such transactions. We may not be able to pursue all advantageous transactions that we would otherwise pursue in the absence of a conflict should our board of directors be unable to determine that any such transaction is on terms as favorable as we could otherwise obtain in the absence of a conflict.

 

We may require additional capital in the future that may not be available or may only be available on unfavorable terms.

 

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including our ability to manage the run-off of our assumed policies and to establish reserves at levels sufficient to cover losses. We may need to raise additional funds through financings in the future. Any equity or debt financing, if available at all, may be on terms that are not favorable to us. In the case of equity financings, dilution to our shareholders could result, and, in any case, such securities may have rights, preferences and privileges that are senior to those of our already outstanding securities. If we cannot obtain adequate capital, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

 

We are a holding company, and we are dependent on the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute funds to us.

 

We are a holding company and conduct substantially all of our operations through subsidiaries. Our only significant assets are the capital stock of our subsidiaries. As a holding company, we are dependent on distributions of funds from our subsidiaries to pay dividends, fund acquisitions or fulfill financial obligations in the normal course of our business. Our subsidiaries may not generate sufficient cash from operations to enable us to make dividend payments, acquire additional companies or insurance or reinsurance portfolios or fulfill other financial obligations. The ability of our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries to make distributions to us is limited by applicable insurance laws and regulations, and the ability of all of our subsidiaries to make distributions to us may be restricted by, among other things, other applicable laws and regulations.

 

Fluctuations in currency exchange rates may cause us to experience losses.

 

We maintain a portion of our investments, insurance liabilities and insurance assets denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars. Consequently, we and our subsidiaries may experience foreign exchange losses.

 

We publish our consolidated financial statements in U.S. dollars. Therefore, fluctuations in exchange rates used to convert other currencies, particularly other European currencies including the Euro and British pound, into U.S. dollars will impact our reported consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows from year to year.

 

Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Ordinary Shares

 

Our stock price may experience volatility, thereby causing a potential loss of value to our investors.

 

The market price for our ordinary shares may fluctuate substantially due to, among other things, the following factors:

 

 

 

A few significant shareholders may influence or control the direction of our business. If the ownership of our ordinary shares continues to be highly concentrated, it may limit your ability and the ability of other shareholders to influence significant corporate decisions.

 

The interests of Messrs. Flowers, Silvester, Packer and O’Shea and Trident II, L.P. and its affiliates, or Trident, may not be fully aligned with your interests, and this may lead to a strategy that is not in your best interest. Messrs. Flowers, Silvester, Packer and O’Shea and Trident beneficially own approximately 10.4%, 18.9%, 6.0%, 6.1% and 11.2%, respectively, of our outstanding ordinary shares. Although they do not act as a group, Trident and each of Messrs. Flowers, Silvester, Packer and O’Shea exercise significant influence over matters requiring shareholder approval, and their concentrated holdings may delay or deter possible changes in control of Enstar, which may reduce the market price of our ordinary shares. For further information on aspects of our bye-laws that may discourage changes of control of Enstar, see “— Some aspects of our corporate structure may discourage third-party takeovers and other transactions or prevent the removal of our board of directors and management” below.

 

Some aspects of our corporate structure may discourage third-party takeovers and other transactions or prevent the removal of our board of directors and management.

 

Some provisions of our bye-laws have the effect of making more difficult or discouraging unsolicited takeover bids from third parties or preventing the removal of our current board of directors and management. In particular, our bye-laws make it difficult for any U.S. shareholder or Direct Foreign Shareholder Group (a shareholder or group of commonly controlled shareholders of Enstar that are not U.S. persons) to own or control ordinary shares that constitute 9.5% or more of the voting power of all of our ordinary shares. The votes conferred by such shares will be reduced by whatever amount is necessary so that after any such reduction the votes conferred by such shares will constitute 9.5% of the total voting power of all ordinary shares entitled to vote generally. The primary purpose of this restriction is to reduce the likelihood that we will be deemed a “controlled foreign corporation” within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, for U.S. federal tax purposes. However, this limit may also have the effect of deterring purchases of large blocks of our ordinary shares or proposals to acquire us, even if some or a majority of our shareholders might deem these purchases or acquisition proposals to be in their best interests. In addition, our bye-laws provide for a classified board, whose members may be removed by our shareholders only for cause by a majority vote, and contain restrictions on the ability of shareholders to nominate persons to serve as directors, submit resolutions to a shareholder vote and request special general meetings.

 

These bye-law provisions make it more difficult to acquire control of us by means of a tender offer, open market purchase, proxy contest or otherwise. These provisions are designed to encourage persons seeking to acquire control of us to negotiate with our directors, which we believe would generally best serve the interests of our shareholders. However, these provisions may have the effect of discouraging a prospective acquirer from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us. In addition, these bye-law provisions may prevent the removal of our current board of directors and management. To the extent these provisions discourage takeover attempts, they may deprive shareholders of opportunities to realize takeover premiums for their shares or may depress the market price of the shares.

 

The market value of our ordinary shares may decline if large numbers of shares are sold, including pursuant to existing registration rights.

 

We have entered into a registration rights agreement with Trident, Mr. Flowers and Mr. Silvester and certain other of our shareholders. This agreement provides that Trident, Mr. Flowers and Mr. Silvester may request that we effect a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933 of certain of their ordinary shares. As of

December 31, 2007, an aggregate of 4,794,873 ordinary shares held by Trident, Mr. Flowers and Mr. Silvester were subject to the agreement. By exercising their registration rights, these holders could cause a large number of ordinary shares to be registered and generally become freely tradable without restrictions under the Securities Act immediately upon the effectiveness of the registration. Our ordinary shares have in the past been, and may from time to time continue to be, thinly traded, and significant sales, pursuant to the existing registration rights or otherwise, could adversely affect the market price for our ordinary shares and impair our ability to raise capital through offerings of our equity securities.

 

Because we are incorporated in Bermuda, it may be difficult for shareholders to serve process or enforce judgments against us or our directors and officers.

 

We are a Bermuda company. In addition, certain of our officers and directors reside in countries outside the United States. All or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of these officers and directors are or may be located outside the United States. Investors may have difficulty effecting service of process within the United States on our directors and officers who reside outside the United States or recovering against us or these directors and officers on judgments of U.S. courts based on civil liabilities provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws even though we have appointed an agent in the United States to receive service of process.

 

Further, no claim may be brought in Bermuda against us or our directors and officers in the first instance for violation of U.S. federal securities laws because these laws have no extraterritorial jurisdiction under Bermuda law and do not have force of law in Bermuda. A Bermuda court may, however, impose civil liability, including the possibility of monetary damages, on us or our directors and officers if the facts alleged in a complaint constitute or give rise to a cause of action under Bermuda law.

 

We believe that there is doubt as to whether the courts of Bermuda would enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained in actions against us or our directors and officers, as well as our independent auditors, predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws or original actions brought in Bermuda against us or these persons predicated solely upon U.S. federal securities laws. Further, there is no treaty in effect between the United States and Bermuda providing for the enforcement of judgments of U.S. courts, and there are grounds upon which Bermuda courts may not enforce judgments of U.S. courts.

 

Some remedies available under the laws of U.S. jurisdictions, including some remedies available under the U.S. federal securities laws, may not be allowed in Bermuda courts as contrary to that jurisdiction’s public policy. Because judgments of U.S. courts are not automatically enforceable in Bermuda, it may be difficult for you to recover against us based upon such judgments.

 

Shareholders who own our ordinary shares may have more difficulty in protecting their interests than shareholders of a U.S. corporation.

 

The Bermuda Companies Act, or the Companies Act, which applies to us, differs in certain material respects from laws generally applicable to U.S. corporations and their shareholders. As a result of these differences, shareholders who own our shares may have more difficulty protecting their interests than shareholders who own shares of a U.S. corporation. For example, class actions and derivative actions are generally not available to shareholders under Bermuda law. Under Bermuda law and our bye-laws, only shareholders holding 5% or more of our outstanding ordinary shares or numbering 100 or more are entitled to propose a resolution at an Enstar general meeting.

 

We do not intend to pay cash dividends on our ordinary shares.

 

We do not intend to pay a cash dividend on our ordinary shares. Rather, we intend to use any retained earnings to fund the development and growth of our business. From time to time, our board of directors will review our alternatives with respect to our earnings and seek to maximize value for our shareholders. In the future, we may decide to commence a dividend program for the benefit of our shareholders. Any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will be limited by our position as a holding company that lacks direct operations, significant regulatory restrictions, the results of operations of our subsidiaries, our financial condition, cash requirements and prospects and other factors that our board of directors deems relevant. As

a result, capital appreciation, if any, on our ordinary shares may be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future. In addition, there are regulatory and other constraints that could prevent us from paying dividends in any event.

 

Our board of directors may decline to register a transfer of our ordinary shares under certain circumstances.

 

Our board of directors may decline to register a transfer of ordinary shares under certain circumstances, including if it has reason to believe that any non-de minimis adverse tax, regulatory or legal consequences to us, any of our subsidiaries or any of our shareholders may occur as a result of such transfer. Further, our bye-laws provide us with the option to repurchase, or to assign to a third party the right to purchase, the minimum number of shares necessary to eliminate any such non-de minimis adverse tax, regulatory or legal consequence. In addition, our board of directors may decline to approve or register a transfer of shares unless all applicable consents, authorizations, permissions or approvals of any governmental body or agency in Bermuda, the United States or any other applicable jurisdiction required to be obtained prior to such transfer shall have been obtained. The proposed transferor of any shares will be deemed to own those shares for dividend, voting and reporting purposes until a transfer of such shares has been registered on our shareholders register.

 

It is our understanding that while the precise form of the restrictions on transfer contained in our bye-laws is untested, as a matter of general principle, restrictions on transfers are enforceable under Bermuda law and are not uncommon.

 

These restrictions on transfer may also have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control.

 

Risks Relating to Taxation

 

We might incur unexpected U.S. or U.K. tax liabilities if companies in our group that are incorporated outside of those jurisdictions are determined to be carrying on a trade or business there.

 

We and a number of our subsidiaries are companies formed under the laws of Bermuda or other jurisdictions that do not impose income taxes; it is our contemplation that these companies will not incur substantial income tax liabilities from their operations. Because the operations of these companies generally involve, or relate to, the insurance or reinsurance of risks that arise in higher tax jurisdictions, such as the United States or the United Kingdom, it is possible that the taxing authorities in those jurisdictions may assert that the activities of one or more of these companies creates a sufficient nexus in that jurisdiction to subject the company to income tax there. There are uncertainties in how the relevant rules apply to insurance businesses, and in our eligibility for favorable treatment under applicable tax treaties. Accordingly, it is possible that we could incur substantial unexpected tax liabilities.

 

U.S. persons who own our ordinary shares might become subject to adverse U.S. tax consequences as a result of “related party insurance income,” or RPII, if any, of our non-U.S. insurance company subsidiaries.

 

If the RPII rules of the Code were to apply to us, a U.S. person who owns our ordinary shares directly or indirectly through foreign entities on the last day of the taxable year would be required to include in income for U.S. federal income tax purposes the shareholder’s pro rata share of our non-U.S. subsidiaries’ RPII for the entire taxable year, determined as if that RPII were distributed proportionately to the U.S. shareholders at that date regardless whether any actual distribution is made. In addition, any RPII that is includible in the income of a U.S. tax-exempt organization would generally be treated as unrelated business taxable income. Although we and our subsidiaries intend to generally operate in a manner so as to qualify for certain exceptions to the RPII rules, there can be no assurance that these exceptions will be available. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that U.S. Persons who own our ordinary shares will not be required to recognize gross income inclusions attributable to RPII.

 

In addition, the RPII rules provide that if a shareholder who is a U.S. Person disposes of shares in a foreign insurance company that has RPII and in which U.S. Persons collectively own 25% or more of the shares, any gain from the disposition will generally be treated as dividend income to the extent of the shareholder’s share of the

corporation’s undistributed earnings and profits that were accumulated during the period that the shareholder owned the shares (whether or not those earnings and profits are attributable to RPII). Such a shareholder would also be required to comply with certain reporting requirements, regardless of the amount of shares owned by the shareholder. These rules should not apply to dispositions of our ordinary shares because we will not be directly engaged in the insurance business. The RPII rules, however, have not been interpreted by the courts or the IRS, and regulations interpreting the RPII rules exist only in proposed form. Accordingly, there is no assurance that our views as to the inapplicability of these rules to a disposition of our ordinary shares will be accepted by the IRS or a court.

 

U.S. persons who own our ordinary shares would be subject to adverse tax consequences if we or one or more of our non-U.S. subsidiaries were considered a “passive foreign investment company,” or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

 

We believe that we and our non-U.S. subsidiaries will not be PFICs for U.S. federal income purposes for the current year. Moreover, we do not expect to conduct our activities in a manner that will cause us or any of our non-U.S. subsidiaries to become a PFIC in the future. However, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not challenge this position or that a court will not sustain such challenge. Accordingly, it is possible that we or one or more of our non-U.S. subsidiaries might be deemed a PFIC by the IRS or a court for the current year or any future year. If we or one or more of our non-U.S. subsidiaries were a PFIC, it could have material adverse tax consequences for an investor that is subject to U.S. federal income taxation, including subjecting the investor to a substantial acceleration and/or increase in tax liability. There are currently no regulations regarding the application of the PFIC provisions of the Code to an insurance company, so the application of those provisions to insurance companies remains unclear in certain respects.

 

We may become subject to taxes in Bermuda after March 28, 2016.

 

The Bermuda Minister of Finance, under the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966, as amended, of Bermuda, has given us and each of our Bermuda subsidiaries an assurance that if any legislation is enacted in Bermuda that would impose tax computed on profits or income, or computed on any capital asset, gain or appreciation, or any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, then the imposition of any such tax will not be applicable to us or our Bermuda subsidiaries or any of our or their respective operations, shares, debentures or other obligations until March 28, 2016. Given the limited duration of the Minister of Finance’s assurance, we cannot be certain that we will not be subject to any Bermuda tax after March 28, 2016. In the event that we become subject to any Bermuda tax after such date, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

We lease office space in the locations set forth below. We believe that this office space is sufficient for us to conduct our operations for the foreseeable future.

 

We also own, through various of our subsidiaries, the following properties: 1) two apartments in Guildford, England; 2) a building in Norwich, U.K. and 3) an apartment in New York, NY.

 

See Note 18 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of our lease commitments for real property.

 

 

We are, from time to time, involved in various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including litigation regarding claims. We do not believe that the resolution of any currently pending legal proceedings, either individually or taken as a whole, will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Nevertheless, we cannot assure you that lawsuits, arbitrations or other litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We anticipate that, similar to the rest of the insurance and reinsurance industry, we will continue to be subject to litigation and arbitration proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including litigation generally related to the scope of coverage with respect to A&E claims. There can be no assurance that any such future litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

On January 31, 2007, we completed the merger, or the Merger, of CWMS Subsidiary Corp., a Georgia corporation and our wholly-owned subsidiary, or CWMS, with and into The Enstar Group Inc., a Georgia corporation, or EGI. As a result of the Merger, EGI, renamed Enstar USA, Inc., is now our wholly-owned subsidiary.

 

Our ordinary shares trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol ESGR. Prior to the completion of the Merger, EGI’s common stock traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol ESGR.

 

Because our ordinary shares did not commence trading until after the Merger, the following table reflects the range of high and low selling prices by quarter of Enstar’s shares for the period February 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 and of EGI’s shares for the year ended December 31, 2006 and the month ended January 31, 2007, as reflected in the Nasdaq Trade and Quote Summary Reports:

 

 

On February 25, 2008, the number of holders of record of our ordinary shares was 2,582. This figure does not represent the actual number of beneficial owners of our ordinary shares because shares are frequently held in “street name” by securities dealers and others for the benefit of beneficial owners who may vote the shares.

 

We are a holding company and have no direct operations. Our ability to pay dividends or distributions depends almost exclusively on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends to us. Under applicable law, our subsidiaries may not declare or pay a dividend if there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are, or would after the payment be, unable to pay their liabilities as they become due, or the realizable value of their assets would thereby be less than the aggregate of their liabilities and their issued share capital and share premium accounts. Additional restrictions apply to our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries. We do not intend to pay a dividend on our ordinary shares. Rather, we intend to reinvest any earnings back into the company. For a further description of the restrictions on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends, see “Risk Factors — Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Ordinary Shares — We do not intend to pay cash dividends on our ordinary shares” and “Business — Regulation” beginning on pages 40 and 24, respectively.

 

On January 30, 2007, EGI paid a one-time $3.00 per share cash dividend to the holders of its common stock.

 

On July 2, 2007 and October 1, 2007, we credited an aggregate of 353.403 share units and 793.681 share units, respectively, to the accounts of non-employee directors under the Deferred Compensation and Ordinary Share Plan for Non-Employee Directors. Under this plan, non-employee directors electing to defer receipt of all or a portion of their compensation for service as directors until retirement or termination receive such compensation in the form of share units payable as a lump sum distribution upon termination of service. The lump sum share unit distribution will be made in the form of ordinary shares, with fractional shares paid in cash. The offer and issuance of these share units are exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, as transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering. Alternatively, registration of such shares was not required because their issuance did not involve a “sale” under Section 2(3) of the Securities Act.

 

Because our ordinary shares did not commence trading until after the Merger, the graph below reflects the cumulative shareholder return on the common stock of EGI, our predecessor, compared to the cumulative shareholder return of the NASDAQ Composite Index (the Nasdaq index for U.S. companies used in prior years was discontinued in 2006), and EGI’s peer group index, or the Peer Group Index, through January 31, 2007.

Thereafter, the graph below reflects the same comparison for Enstar. The graph reflects the investment of $100.00 on December 31, 2002 (assuming the reinvestment of dividends) in EGI common stock, the NASDAQ Composite Index, and the Peer Group Index. The Peer Group Index consists of Annuity and Life Re Holdings, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (Class A), ESG Re Ltd., Everest Re Group Ltd., IPC Holdings Ltd., Max Capital Group Ltd., Odyssey Re Holdings Corp., Argo Group International Holdings Ltd. (fka PXRE Group Ltd.), RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. and Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., which are publicly traded companies selected by EGI, as they were identified by Bloomberg L.P. in 2003 as comparable to EGI based on certain similarities in their principal lines of business with EGI’s reinsurance operations.

 

 

 

The following selected historical financial information of Enstar for each of the past five fiscal years has been derived from our audited historical financial statements. This information is only a summary and should be read in conjunction with management’s discussion and analysis of results of operations and financial condition of Enstar and the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this annual report.

 

Since its inception, we have made several acquisitions which impact the comparability of the information reflected in the Enstar Summary Historical Financial Data. See “Business — Recent Acquisitions” beginning on page 6 for information about our acquisitions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

 

This annual report and the documents incorporated by reference contain statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Exchange Act with respect to our financial condition, results of operations, business strategies, operating efficiencies, competitive positions, growth opportunities, plans and objectives of our management, as well as the markets for our ordinary shares and the insurance and reinsurance sectors in general. Statements that include words such as “estimate,” “project,” “plan,” “intend,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “seek,” and similar statements of a future or forward-looking nature identify forward-looking statements for purposes of the federal securities laws or otherwise. All forward-looking statements are necessarily estimates or expectations, and not statements of historical fact, reflecting the best judgment of our management and involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements should, therefore, be considered in light of various important factors, including those set forth in and incorporated by reference in this annual report.

Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the forward-looking statements include:

 

 

The factors listed above should not be construed as exhaustive. Certain of these factors are described in more detail in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” above. We undertake no obligation to release publicly the results of any future revisions we may make to forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

 

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this annual report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or included elsewhere in this annual report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for its business, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results and the timing of events could differ materially from those anticipated by these forward-looking statements as a result of many factors, including those discussed under “Risk Factors,” “Forward-Looking Statements” and elsewhere in this annual report.

Business Overview

 

Enstar was formed in August 2001 under the laws of Bermuda to acquire and manage insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off, and to provide management, consulting and other services to the insurance and reinsurance industry.

 

Since our formation we have acquired a number of insurance and reinsurance companies and are now administering those businesses in run-off. We derive our net earnings from the ownership and management of these companies primarily by settling insurance and reinsurance claims below the recorded loss reserves and from returns on the portfolio of investments retained to pay future claims. In addition, we have formed other businesses that provide management and consultancy services, claims inspection services and reinsurance collection services to our affiliates and third-party clients for both fixed and success-based fees.

 

In the primary (or direct) insurance business, the insurer assumes risk of loss from persons or organizations that are directly subject to the given risks. Such risks may relate to property, casualty, life, accident, health, financial or other perils that may arise from an insurable event. In the reinsurance business, the reinsurer agrees to indemnify an insurance or reinsurance company, referred to as the ceding company, against all or a portion of the insurance risks arising under the policies the ceding company has written or reinsured. When an insurer or reinsurer stops writing new insurance business, either entirely or with respect to a particular line of business, the insurer, reinsurer, or the line of discontinued business is in run-off.

 

In recent years, the insurance industry has experienced significant consolidation. As a result of this consolidation and other factors, the remaining participants in the industry often have portfolios of business that are either inconsistent with their core competency or provide excessive exposure to a particular risk or segment of the market (e.g., property/casualty, asbestos, environmental, director and officer liability, etc.). These non-core and/or discontinued portfolios are often associated with potentially large exposures and lengthy time periods before resolution of the last remaining insured claims resulting in significant uncertainty to the insurer or reinsurer covering those risks. These factors can distract management, drive up the cost of capital and surplus for the insurer or reinsurer, and negatively impact the insurer’s or reinsurer’s credit rating, which makes the disposal of the unwanted company or portfolio an attractive option. Alternatively, the insurer may wish to maintain the business on its balance sheet, yet not divert significant management attention to the run-off of the portfolio. The insurer or reinsurer, in either case, is likely to engage a third party, such as ourselves, that specializes in run-off management to purchase the company, or to manage the company or portfolio in run-off.

 

In the sale of a run-off company, a purchaser, such as ourselves, typically pays a discount to the book value of the company based on the risks assumed and the relative value to the seller of no longer having to manage the company in run-off. Such a transaction can be beneficial to the seller because it receives an up-front payment for the company, eliminates the need for its management to devote any attention to the disposed company and removes the risk that the established reserves related to the run-off business may prove to be inadequate. The seller is also able to redeploy its management and financial resources to its core businesses.

 

Alternatively, if the insurer or reinsurer hires a third party, such as us, to manage its run-off business, the insurer or reinsurer will, unlike in a sale of the business, receive little or no cash up front. Instead, the management arrangement may provide that the insurer or reinsurer will share in the profits, if any, derived from the run-off with certain incentive payments allocated to the run-off manager. By hiring a run-off manager, the insurer or reinsurer can outsource the management of the run-off business to experienced and capable individuals, while allowing its own management team to focus on the insurer’s or reinsurer’s core businesses. Our desired approach to managing run-off business is to align our interests with the interests of the owners through both fixed management fees and certain incentive payments. Under certain management arrangements to which we are a party, we only receive a fixed management fee and do not receive any incentive payments.

 

Following the purchase of a run-off company or the engagement to manage a run-off company or portfolio of business, it is incumbent on the new owner or manager to conduct the run-off in a disciplined and professional manner in order to efficiently discharge liabilities associated with the business while preserving and maximizing its assets. Our approach to managing our acquired companies in run-off as well as run-off companies or portfolios of businesses on behalf of third-party clients includes negotiating with third-party insureds and reinsureds to commute

their insurance or reinsurance agreement (sometimes called policy buy-backs) for an agreed upon up-front payment by us, or the third-party client, and to more efficiently manage payment of insurance and reinsurance claims. We attempt to commute policies with direct insureds or reinsureds in order to eliminate uncertainty over the amount of future claims. We also attempt, where appropriate, to negotiate favorable commutations with reinsurers by securing the receipt of a lump-sum settlement from the reinsurer in complete satisfaction of the reinsurer’s liability in respect of any future claims. We, or our third-party client, are then fully responsible for any claims in the future. We typically invest proceeds from reinsurance commutations with the expectation that such investments will produce income, which, together with the principal, will be sufficient to satisfy future obligations with respect to the acquired company or portfolio.

 

With respect to our U.K. and Bermuda insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries, we are able to pursue strategies to achieve complete finality and conclude the run-off of a company by promoting solvent schemes of arrangement. Solvent schemes of arrangement, or a Solvent Scheme, have been a popular means of achieving financial certainty and finality, for insurance and reinsurance companies incorporated or managed in the U.K. and Bermuda by making a one-time full and final settlement of an insurance and reinsurance company’s liabilities to policyholders. Such a Solvent Scheme is an arrangement between a company and its creditors or any class of them. For a Solvent Scheme to become binding on the creditors, a meeting of each class of creditors must be called, with the permission of the local court, to consider and, if thought fit, approve the Solvent Scheme. The requisite statutory majority of creditors of not less than 75% in value and 50% in number of those creditors actually attending the meeting, either in person or by proxy, must vote in favor of a Solvent Scheme. Once a Solvent Scheme has been approved by the statutory majority of voting creditors of the company it requires the sanction of the local court. While a Solvent Scheme provides an alternative exit strategy for run-off companies it is not our strategy to make such acquisitions with this strategy solely in mind. Our preferred approach is to generate earnings from the disciplined and professional management of acquired run-off companies and then consider exit strategies, including a Solvent Scheme, when the majority of the run-off is complete. To understand risks associated with this strategy, see “Risk Factors — Risks Relating to Our Business — Exit and finality opportunities provided by solvent schemes of arrangement may not continue to be available, which may result in the diversion of our resources to settle policyholder claims for a substantially longer run-off period and increase the associated costs of run-off of our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries” beginning on page 36.

 

We manage our business through two operating segments: reinsurance and consulting.

 

Our reinsurance segment comprises the operations and financial results of its insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries. The financial results of this segment primarily consist of investment income less net reductions in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities, direct expenses (including certain premises costs and professional fees) and management fees paid to our consulting segment.

 

Our consulting segment comprises the operations and financial results of those subsidiaries that provide management and consulting services, forensic claims inspections services and reinsurance collection services to third-party clients. This segment also provides management services to the reinsurance segment in return for management fees. The financial results of this segment primarily consist of fee income less overhead expenses comprised of staff costs, information technology costs, certain premises costs, travel costs and certain professional fees.

 

See Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of our segments.

 

As of December 31, 2007 we had $2,417.1 million of total assets and $450.6 million of shareholders’ equity. We operate our business internationally through our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries and our consulting subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe and Bermuda.

 

Financial Statement Overview

 

Consulting Fee Income

 

We generate consulting fees based on a combination of fixed and success-based fee arrangements. Consulting income will vary from period to period depending on the timing of completion of success-based fee arrangements. Success-based fees are recorded when targets related to overall project completion or profitability goals are

achieved. Our consulting segment, in addition to providing services to third parties, also provides management services to the reinsurance segment based on agreed terms set out in management agreements between the parties. The fees charged by the consulting segment to the reinsurance segment are eliminated against the cost incurred by the reinsurance segment on consolidation.

 

Net Investment Income and Net Realized Gains/(Losses)

 

Our net investment income is principally derived from interest earned primarily on cash and investments offset by investment management fees paid. Our investment portfolio currently consists of the following: (1) bond portfolios that are classified as both trading and held-to-maturity and carried at fair value and amortized cost, respectively; (2) cash and cash equivalents; (3) other investments that are accounted for on the equity basis; and (4) fixed and short-term investments that are classified as trading and are carried at fair value.

 

Our current investment strategy seeks to preserve principal and maintain liquidity while trying to maximize investment return through a high-quality, diversified portfolio. The volatility of claims and the effect they have on the amount of cash and investment balances, as well as the level of interest rates and other market factors, affect the return we are able to generate on our investment portfolio. It is our current investment policy to hold our bond portfolio to maturity, and not to trade or have such portfolio available-for-sale. When we make a new acquisition we will often restructure the acquired investment portfolio, which may generate one-time realized gains or losses.

 

The majority of cash and investment balances are held within our reinsurance segment.

 

Net Reduction in Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Liabilities

 

Our insurance-related earnings are primarily comprised of reductions, or potentially increases, of net loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities. These liabilities are comprised of:

 

 

Net loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities are reviewed by our management each quarter and by independent actuaries annually. Reserves reflect management’s best estimate of the remaining unpaid portion of these liabilities. Prior period estimates of net loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities may change as our management considers the combined impact of commutations, policy buy-backs, settlement of losses on carried reserves and the trend of incurred loss development compared to prior forecasts.

 

Commutations provide an opportunity for us to exit exposures to entire policies with insureds and reinsureds at a discount to the previously estimated ultimate liability. Our internal and external actuaries eliminate all prior historical loss development that relates to commuted exposures and apply their actuarial methodologies to the remaining aggregate exposures and revised historical loss development information to reassess estimates of ultimate liabilities.

 

Policy buy-backs provide an opportunity for us to settle individual policies and losses usually at a discount to carried advised loss reserves. As part of our routine claims settlement operations, claims will settle at either below or above the carried advised loss reserve. The impact of policy buy-backs and the routine settlement of claims updates historical loss development information to which actuarial methodologies are applied often resulting in revised estimates of ultimate liabilities. Our actuarial methodologies include industry benchmarking which, under certain methodologies (discussed further under “— Critical Accounting Policies” below), compares the trend of our loss development to that of the industry. To the extent that the trend of our loss development compared to the industry changes in any period it is likely to have an impact on the estimate of ultimate liabilities. Additionally,

consolidated net reductions, or potentially increases, in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities include reductions, or potentially increases, in the provisions for future losses and loss adjustment expenses related to the current period’s run-off activity. Net reductions in net loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities are reported as negative expenses by us in our reinsurance segment. The unallocated loss adjustment expenses paid by the reinsurance segment comprise management fees paid to the consulting segment and are eliminated on consolidation. The consulting segment costs in providing run-off services are classified as salaries and general and administrative expenses. For more information on how the reserves are calculated, see “— Critical Accounting Policies — Loss and Loss Adjustment Expenses” below.

 

As our reinsurance subsidiaries are in run-off, our premium income is insignificant, consisting primarily of adjustment premiums triggered by loss payments.

 

Salaries and Benefits

 

We are a service-based company and, as such, employee salaries and benefits are our largest expense. We have experienced significant increases in our salaries and benefits expenses as we have grown our operations, and we expect that trend to continue if we are able to successfully expand our operations.

 

On September 15, 2006, our board of directors and shareholders adopted the Enstar Group Limited 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, or the Equity Incentive Plan, and the Enstar Group Limited 2006-2010 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, or the Annual Incentive Plan, which is administered by a Compensation Committee appointed by our board of directors, or the Plan Committee.

 

The Annual Incentive Plan provides for the annual grant of bonus compensation, or, each, a bonus award, to certain of officers and employees of Enstar and our subsidiaries, including our senior executive officers. Bonus awards for each calendar year from 2006 through 2010 will be determined based on our consolidated net after-tax profits. The Plan Committee determines the amount of bonus awards in any calendar year, based on a percentage of our consolidated net after-tax profits. The percentage is 15% unless the Plan Committee exercises its discretion to change the percentage no later than 30 days after our year-end. For the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 the percentage was left unchanged by the Plan Committee. The Plan Committee determines, in its sole discretion, the amount of bonus awards payable to each participant.

 

Bonus awards are payable in cash, ordinary shares or a combination of both. Ordinary shares issued in connection with a bonus award will be issued pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions of the Equity Incentive Plan, and the number of shares issued will be determined based on the fair market value of ordinary shares for the thirty calendar days preceding the grant of ordinary shares as a bonus award.

 

For information on the awards made under both the Annual and Equity Incentive plans for the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, see Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

With the exception of the expense relating to the Annual Incentive Plan, which is allocated to both the reinsurance and consulting segments, the costs of all of our employees are accounted for as part of the consulting segment.

 

General and Administrative Expenses

 

General and administrative expenses include rent and rent-related costs, professional fees (legal, investment, audit and actuarial) and travel expenses. We have operations in multiple jurisdictions and our employees travel frequently in connection with the search for acquisition opportunities and in the general management of the business. While certain general and administrative expenses, such as rent and related costs and professional fees, are incurred directly by the reinsurance segment, the remaining general and administrative expenses are incurred by the consulting segment. To the extent that such costs incurred by the consulting segment relate to the management of the reinsurance segment, they are recovered by the consulting segment through the management fees charged to the reinsurance segment.

Foreign Exchange Gain/(Loss)

 

Our reporting and functional currency is U.S. dollars. Through our subsidiaries, however, we hold a variety of foreign (non-U.S.) currency assets and liabilities, the principal exposures being Euros and British pounds. At each balance sheet date, recorded balances that are denominated in a currency other than U.S. dollars are adjusted to reflect the current exchange rate. Revenue and expense items are translated into U.S. dollars at average rates of exchange for the period. The resulting exchange gains or losses are included in our net income. We seek to manage our exposure to foreign currency exchange by broadly matching our foreign currency assets against our foreign currency liabilities.

 

Income Tax/(Recovery)

 

Under current Bermuda law, Enstar and its Bermuda-based subsidiaries are not required to pay taxes in Bermuda on either income or capital gains. These companies have received an undertaking from the Bermuda government that, in the event of income or capital gains taxes being imposed, they will be exempted from such taxes until the year 2016. Enstar’s non-Bermuda subsidiaries record income taxes based on their graduated statutory rates, net of tax benefits arising from tax loss carryforwards. On January 1, 2007 we adopted the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 48. “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes,” or FIN 48. As a result of the implementation of FIN 48, we recognized a $4.9 million increase to the January 1, 2007 balance of retained earnings.

 

Minority Interest

 

The acquisitions of Hillcot Re Limited (formerly Toa-Re Insurance Company (UK) Limited) in March 2003 and of Brampton Insurance Company Limited (formerly Aioi Insurance Company of Europe Limited) in March 2006 were effected through Hillcot Holdings Limited, or Hillcot, a Bermuda-based company in which we have a 50.1% economic interest. The results of operations of Hillcot are included in our consolidated statements of operations with the remaining 49.9% economic interest in the results of Hillcot reflected as a minority interest.

 

Enstar owns 50.1% of The Shelbourne Group Limited, which in turn owns 100% of Shelbourne Syndicate Services Limited, the Managing Agency for Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008, a syndicate approved by Lloyd’s of London on December 16, 2007. Enstar has committed to provide approximately 65% of the capital required by Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008 which is authorized to undertake RITC transactions (the transferring of the liabilities from one Lloyd’s Syndicate to another) of Lloyd’s Syndicates in Run-off.

 

Negative Goodwill

 

Negative goodwill represents the excess of the fair value of businesses acquired by us over the cost of such businesses. In accordance with FAS 141 “Business Combinations,” this amount is recognized upon the acquisition of the businesses as an extraordinary gain. The fair values of the reinsurance assets and liabilities acquired are derived from probability-weighted ranges of the associated projected cash flows, based on actuarially prepared information and our management’s run-off strategy. Any amendment to the fair values resulting from changes in such information or strategy will be recognized when they occur. For more information on how the goodwill is determined, see “— Critical Accounting Policies — Goodwill” below.

 

Critical Accounting Policies

 

Certain amounts in our consolidated financial statements require the use of best estimates and assumptions to determine reported values. These amounts could ultimately be materially different than what has been provided for in our consolidated financial statements. We consider the assessment of loss reserves and reinsurance recoverable to be the values requiring the most inherently subjective and complex estimates. In addition, the assessment of the possible impairment of goodwill involves certain estimates and assumptions. As such, the accounting policies for these amounts are of critical importance to our consolidated financial statements.

Loss and Loss Adjustment Expenses

 

The following table provides a breakdown of gross loss and loss adjustment expense reserves by type of exposure as of December 31, 2007 and 2006:

 

 

Note: The “All Other” exposure category consists of a mix of casualty, property, marine, aviation and other miscellaneous exposures, which are generally long-tailed in nature.

 

The following table provides a breakdown of loss and loss adjustment expense reserves (net of reinsurance balances recoverable) by type of exposure as of December 31, 2007 and 2006:

 

 

As of December 31, 2007, the IBNR reserves (net of reinsurance balances receivable) accounted for $570.7 million, or 49.1%, of our total loss reserves. The reserve for IBNR (net of reinsurance balance receivable) accounted for $359.4 million, or 41.2%, of our total loss reserves at December 31, 2006.

 

Annual Loss and Loss Adjustment Reviews

 

Because a significant amount of time can lapse between the assumption of risk, the occurrence of a loss event, the reporting of the event to an insurance or reinsurance company and the ultimate payment of the claim on the loss event, the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses is based largely upon estimates. Our management must use considerable judgment in the process of developing these estimates. The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses for property and casualty business includes amounts determined from loss reports on individual cases and amounts for IBNR reserves. Such reserves are estimated by management based upon loss reports received from ceding companies, supplemented by our own estimates of losses for which no ceding company loss reports have yet been received.

 

In establishing reserves, management also considers independent actuarial estimates of ultimate losses. Our actuaries employ generally accepted actuarial methodologies to estimate ultimate losses and loss adjustment expenses. A loss reserve study is prepared by an independent actuary annually in order to provide additional insight into the reasonableness of our reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses.

 

As of December 31, 2007, 2002 was the most recent year in which policies were underwritten by any of our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries. As a result, all of our unpaid claims liabilities are considered to have a long-tail claims payout. Loss reserves relate primarily to casualty exposures, including latent claims, of which approximately 44.5% relate to asbestos and environmental, or A&E, exposures.

 

Within the annual loss reserve studies produced by our external actuaries, exposures for each subsidiary are separated into homogeneous reserving categories for the purpose of estimating IBNR. Each reserving category

contains either direct insurance or assumed reinsurance reserves and groups relatively similar types of risks and exposures (for example asbestos, environmental, casualty, property) and lines of business written (for example marine, aviation, non-marine). Based on the exposure characteristics and the nature of available data for each individual reserving category, a number of methodologies are applied. Recorded reserves for each category are selected from the indications produced by the various methodologies after consideration of exposure characteristics, data limitations and strengths and weaknesses of each method applied. This approach to estimating IBNR has been consistently adopted in the annual loss reserve studies for each period presented.

 

The ranges of gross loss and loss adjustment expense reserves implied by the various methodologies used by each of Enstar’s insurance subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 were:

 

 

Latent Claims

 

Our loss reserves are related largely to casualty exposures including latent exposures relating primarily to A&E. In establishing the reserves for unpaid claims, management considers facts currently known and the current state of the law and coverage litigation. Liabilities are recognized for known claims (including the cost of related litigation) when sufficient information has been developed to indicate the involvement of a specific insurance policy, and management can reasonably estimate its liability. In addition, reserves are established to cover loss development related to both known and unasserted claims.

 

The estimation of unpaid claim liabilities is subject to a high degree of uncertainty for a number of reasons. First, unpaid claim liabilities for property and casualty exposures in general are impacted by changes in the legal environment, jury awards, medical cost trends and general inflation. Moreover, for latent exposures in particular, developed case law and adequate claim history do not exist. There is significant coverage litigation related to these exposures, which creates further uncertainty in the estimation of the liabilities. As a result, for these types of exposures, it is especially unclear whether past claim experience will be representative of future claim experience. Ultimate values for such claims cannot be estimated using reserving techniques that extrapolate losses to an ultimate basis using loss development factors, and the uncertainties surrounding the estimation of unpaid claim liabilities are not likely to be resolved in the near future. There can be no assurance that the reserves established by us will be adequate or will not be adversely affected by the development of other latent exposures.

 

Our asbestos claims are primarily products liability claims submitted by a variety of insureds who operated in different parts of the asbestos distribution chain. While most such claims arise from asbestos mining and primary asbestos manufacturers, we have also been receiving claims from tertiary defendants such as smaller manufacturers, and the industry has seen an emerging trend of non-products claims arising from premises exposures. Unlike products claims, primary policies generally do not contain aggregate policy limits for premises claims, which, accordingly, remain at the primary layer and, thus, rarely impact excess insurance policies. As the vast majority of Enstar’s policies are excess policies, this trend has had only a marginal effect on our asbestos exposures thus far.

 

Asbestos reform efforts have been underway at both the federal and state level to address the cost and scope of asbestos claims to the American economy. While congressional efforts to create a federal trust fund that would replace the tort system for asbestos claims failed, several states, including Texas and Florida, have passed reforms based on “medical criteria” requiring certain levels of medically documented injury before a lawsuit can be filed, resulting in a drop of year-on-year case filings in those states adopting this reform measure.

 

Asbestos claims primarily fall into two general categories: impaired and unimpaired bodily injury claims. Property damage claims represent only a small fraction of asbestos claims. Impaired claims primarily include individuals suffering from mesothelioma or a cancer such as lung cancer. Unimpaired claims include asbestosis and

those whose lung regions contain pleural plaques. Unimpaired claims are not life threatening and do not cause changes to one’s ability to function or to one’s lifestyle.

 

Unlike traditional property and casualty insurers that either have large numbers of individual claims arising from personal lines such as auto, or small numbers of high value claims as in medical malpractice insurance lines, our primary exposures arise from A&E claims that do not follow a consistent pattern. For instance, we may encounter a small insured with one large environmental claim due to significant groundwater contamination, while a Fortune 500 company may submit numerous claims for relatively small values. Moreover, there is no set pattern for the life of an environmental or asbestos claim. Some of these claims may resolve within two years whereas others have remained unresolved for nearly two decades. Therefore, our open and closed claims data do not follow any identifiable or discernible pattern.

 

Furthermore, because of the reinsurance nature of the claims we manage, we focus on the activities at the (re)insured level rather than at the individual claims level. The counterparties with whom we typically interact are generally insurers or large industrial concerns and not individual claimants. Claims do not follow any consistent pattern. They arise from many insureds or locations and in a broad range of circumstances. An insured may present one large claim or hundreds or thousands of small claims. Plaintiffs’ counsel frequently aggregate thousands of claims within one lawsuit. The deductibles to which claims are subject vary from policy to policy and year to year. Often claims data is only available to reinsurers, such as us, on an aggregated basis. Accordingly, we have not found claim count information or average reserve amounts to be reliable indicators of exposure for our reserve estimation process or for management of our liabilities. We have found data accumulation and claims management more effective and meaningful at the (re)insured level rather than at the underlying claim level. As a result, we have designed our reserving methodologies to be independent of claim count information. As the level of exposures to a (re)insured can vary substantially, we focus on the aggregate exposures and pursue commutations and policy buy-backs with the larger (re)insureds.

 

We employ approximately 32 full time equivalent employees, including two U.S. attorneys, actuaries, and experienced claims-handlers to directly administer our A&E liabilities. We have estimated a provision for future expenses of $29.8 million, which reflects the total anticipated costs to administer these claims to expiration.

 

Our future asbestos loss development may be influenced by many factors including:

 

 

The influence of each of these factors is not easily quantifiable and our historical asbestos loss development is of limited value in determining future asbestos loss development using traditional actuarial reserving techniques.

 

Significant trends affecting insurer liabilities and reserves in recent years had little effect on environmental claims, except for claims arising out of damages to natural resources. New Jersey has pioneered the use of natural resources damages to advance further pursuit of funds from potentially responsible parties, or PRPs who may have been contributors to the source contamination. A successful action in 2006 against Exxon Mobil has increased the likelihood that the use of natural resource damages will expand within New Jersey and perhaps other states. These actions target primary policies and will likely have less effect on excess carriers because damages, when awarded, are typically spread across many PRPs and across many policy years. As such, claims do not generally reach excess insurance layers.

 

Our future environmental loss development may also be influenced by other factors including:

 

 

 

The influence of each of these factors is not easily quantifiable and, as with asbestos-related exposures, our historical environmental loss development is of limited value in determining future environmental loss development using traditional actuarial reserving techniques.

 

Finally, the issue of lead paint liability represents a potential emerging trend in latent claim activity that could potentially result in future reserve adjustments. After a series of successful defense efforts by defendant lead pigment manufacturers in lead paint litigation, in 2005, a Rhode Island court ruled in favor of the government in a nuisance claim against the defendant manufacturers. Although the damages portion of the case has yet to be decided, the plaintiff could receive a significant award. Further, there are similar pending claims in several jurisdictions including California and Ohio. Insureds have yet to meet policy terms and conditions to establish coverage for lead paint public nuisance claims as opposed to traditional bodily injury and property damage claims but there is the potential for significant impact to excess insurers should plaintiffs prevail in successive nuisance claims pending in other jurisdictions and coverage is established.

 

Our independent, external actuaries use industry benchmarking methodologies to estimate appropriate IBNR reserves for our A&E exposures. These methods are based on comparisons of our loss experience on A&E exposures relative to industry loss experience on A&E exposures. Estimates of IBNR are derived separately for each of our relevant subsidiaries and, for some subsidiaries, separately for distinct portfolios of exposure. The discussion that follows describes, in greater detail, the primary actuarial methodologies used by our independent actuaries to estimate IBNR for A&E exposures.

 

In addition to the specific considerations for each method described below, many general factors are considered in the application of the methods and the interpretation of results for each portfolio of exposures. These factors include the mix of product types (e.g. primary insurance versus reinsurance of primary versus reinsurance of reinsurance), the average attachment point of coverages (e.g. first-dollar primary versus umbrella over primary versus high-excess), payment and reporting lags related to our international domicile subsidiaries, payment and reporting pattern acceleration due to large “wholesale” settlements (e.g. policy buy-backs and commutations) pursued by us, lists of individual risks remaining and general trends within the legal and tort environments.

 

1. Paid Survival Ratio Method.  In this method, our expected annual average payment amount is multiplied by an expected future number of payment years to get an indicated reserve. Our historical calendar year payments are examined to determine an expected future annual average payment amount. This amount is multiplied by an expected number of future payment years to estimate a reserve. Trends in calendar year payment activity are considered when selecting an expected future annual average payment amount. Accepted industry benchmarks are used in determining an expected number of future payment years. Each year, annual payments data is updated, trends in payments are re-evaluated and changes to benchmark future payment years are reviewed. This method has advantages of ease of application and simplicity of assumptions. A potential disadvantage of the method is that results could be misleading for portfolios of high excess exposures where significant payment activity has not yet begun.

 

2. Paid Market Share Method.  In this method, our estimated market share is applied to the industry estimated unpaid losses. The ratio of our historical calendar year payments to industry historical calendar year payments is examined to estimate our market share. This ratio is then applied to the estimate of industry unpaid losses. Each year, calendar year payment data is updated (for both us and industry), estimates of industry unpaid losses are reviewed and the selection of our estimated market share is revisited. This method has the advantage that trends in calendar year market share can be incorporated into the selection of company share of remaining market payments. A potential disadvantage of this method is that it is particularly sensitive to assumptions regarding the time-lag between industry payments and our payments.

 

3. Reserve-to-Paid Method.  In this method, the ratio of estimated industry reserves to industry paid-to-date losses is multiplied by our paid-to-date losses to estimate our reserves. Specific considerations in the application of

this method include the completeness of our paid-to-date loss information, the potential acceleration or deceleration in our payments (relative to the industry) due to our claims handling practices, and the impact of large individual settlements. Each year, paid-to-date loss information is updated (for both us and the industry) and updates to industry estimated reserves are reviewed. This method has the advantage of relying purely on paid loss data and so is not influenced by subjectivity of case reserve loss estimates. A potential disadvantage is that the application to our portfolios which do not have complete inception-to-date paid loss history could produce misleading results. To address this potential disadvantage, a variation of the method is also considered by multiplying the ratio of estimated industry reserves to industry losses paid during a recent period of time (e.g. 5 years) times our paid losses during that period.

 

4. IBNR:Case Ratio Method.  In this method, the ratio of estimated industry IBNR reserves to industry case reserves is multiplied by our case reserves to estimate our IBNR reserves. Specific considerations in the application of this method include the presence of policies reserved at policy limits, changes in overall industry case reserve adequacy and recent loss reporting history for us. Each year, our case reserves are updated, industry reserves are updated and the applicability of the industry IBNR:case ratio is reviewed. This method has the advantage that it incorporates the most recent estimates of amounts needed to settle open cases included in current case reserves. A potential disadvantage is that results could be misleading where our case reserve adequacy differs significantly from overall industry case reserve adequacy.

 

5. Ultimate-to-Incurred Method.  In this method, the ratio of estimated industry ultimate losses to industry incurred-to-date losses is applied to our incurred-to-date losses to estimate our IBNR reserves. Specific considerations in the application of this method include the completeness of our incurred-to-date loss information, the potential acceleration or deceleration in our incurred losses (relative to the industry) due to our claims handling practices and the impact of large individual settlements. Each year incurred-to-date loss information is updated (for both us and the industry) and updates to industry estimated ultimate losses are reviewed. This method has the advantage that it incorporates both paid and case reserve information in projecting ultimate losses. A potential disadvantage is that results could be misleading where cumulative paid loss data is incomplete or where our case reserve adequacy differs significantly from overall industry case reserve adequacy.

 

Under the Paid Survival Ratio Method, the Paid Market Share Method and the Reserve-to-Paid Method, we first determine the estimated total reserve and then deduct the reported outstanding case reserves to arrive at an estimated IBNR reserve. The IBNR:Case Ratio Method first determines an estimated IBNR reserve which is then added to the advised outstanding case reserves to arrive at an estimated total loss reserve. The Ultimate-to-Incurred Method first determines an estimate of the ultimate losses to be paid and then deducts paid-to-date losses to arrive at an estimated total loss reserve and then deducts outstanding case reserves to arrive at the estimated IBNR reserve.

 

Within the annual loss reserve studies produced by our external actuaries, exposures for each subsidiary are separated into homogeneous reserving categories for the purpose of estimating IBNR. Each reserving category contains either direct insurance or assumed reinsurance reserves and groups relatively similar types of risks and exposures (e.g. asbestos, environmental, casualty and property) and lines of business written (e.g. marine, aviation and non-marine). Based on the exposure characteristics and the nature of available data for each individual reserving category, a number of methodologies are applied. Recorded reserves for each category are selected from the indications produced by the various methodologies after consideration of exposure characteristics, data limitations, and strengths and weaknesses of each method applied. This approach to estimating IBNR has been consistently adopted in the annual loss reserve studies for each period presented.

 

As of December 31, 2007, we had 19 separate insurance and/or reinsurance subsidiaries whose reserves are categorized into approximately 146 reserve categories in total, including 22 distinct asbestos reserving categories and 20 distinct environmental reserving categories.

 

The five methodologies described above are applied for each of the 22 asbestos reserving categories and each of the 20 environmental reserving categories. As is common in actuarial practice, no one methodology is exclusively or consistently relied upon when selecting a recorded reserve. Consistent reliance on a single methodology to select a recorded reserve would be inappropriate in light of the dynamic nature of both the A&E liabilities in general, and our actual exposure portfolios in particular.

In selecting a recorded reserve, management considers the range of results produced by the methods, and the strengths and weaknesses of the methods in relation to the data available and the specific characteristics of the portfolio under consideration. Trends in both our data and industry data are also considered in the reserve selection process. Recent trends or changes in the relevant tort and legal environments are also considered when assessing methodology results and selecting an appropriate recorded reserve amount for each portfolio.

 

The following key assumptions were used to estimate A&E reserves at December 31, 2007:

 

1. $65 billion Ultimate Industry Asbestos losses — This level of industry-wide losses and its comparison to industry-wide paid, incurred and outstanding case reserves is the base benchmarking assumption applied to Paid Market Share, Reserve-to-Paid, IBNR: Case Ratio and the Ultimate-to-Incurred asbestos reserving methodologies.

 

2. $35 billion Ultimate Industry Environmental losses — This level of industry-wide losses and its comparison to industry-wide paid, incurred and outstanding case reserves is the base benchmarking assumption applied to Paid Market Share, Reserve-to-Paid, IBNR: Case Ratio and the Ultimate-to-Incurred environmental reserving methodologies.

 

3. Loss reporting lag — Our subsidiaries assumed a mix of insurance and reinsurance exposures generally through the London market. As the available industry benchmark loss information, as supplied by our independent consulting actuaries, is compiled largely from U.S. direct insurance company experience, our loss reporting is expected to lag relative to available industry benchmark information. This time-lag used by each of our insurance subsidiaries varies from 2 to 5 years depending on the relative mix of domicile, percentages of product mix of insurance, reinsurance and retrocessional reinsurance, primary insurance, excess insurance, reinsurance of direct, and reinsurance of reinsurance within any given exposure category. Exposure portfolios written from a non-U.S. domicile are assumed to have a greater time-lag than portfolios written from a U.S. domicile. Portfolios with a larger proportion of reinsurance exposures are assumed to have a greater time-lag than portfolios with a larger proportion of insurance exposures.

 

The assumptions above as to Ultimate Industry Asbestos and Environmental losses have not changed from the immediately preceding period. For our company as a whole, the average selected lag for Asbestos has decreased from 3 years to 2.8 years and the average selected lag for Environmental has increased from 2.5 years to 2.6 years. The changes arise largely as a result of the acquisition of new portfolios of A&E exposures.

 

The following tables provide a summary of the impact of changes in industry ultimate losses, from the selected $65 billion for asbestos and $35 billion for environmental, and changes in the time-lag, from the selected averages of 2.8 years for asbestos and 2.6 years for environmental, for us behind industry development that it is assumed relates to our insurance and reinsurance companies. Please note that the table below demonstrates sensitivity to changes to key assumptions using methodologies selected for determining loss and ALAE at December 31, 2007 and differs from the table on page 55 which demonstrates the range of outcomes produced by the various methodologies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Industry publications indicate that the range of ultimate industry asbestos losses is estimated to be between $55 billion and $65 billion. Based on management’s experience of substantial loss development on our asbestos exposure portfolios, we have selected the upper end of the range as the basis for our asbestos loss reserving. Although the industry publications suggest a low end of the range of industry ultimate losses of $55 billion, we consider that unlikely and believe that it is more reasonable to assume that the lower end of this range of ultimate losses could be $60 billion.

 

Guidance from industry publications is more varied in respect of estimates of ultimate industry environmental losses. Consistent with an industry published estimate, we believe the reasonable range for ultimate industry environmental losses is between $30 billion and $40 billion. We have selected the midpoint of this range as the basis for our environmental loss reserving based on advice supplied by our independent consulting actuaries. Another industry publication, released prior to the one relied upon by us, indicates that ultimate industry environmental losses could be $56 billion. However, based on our own loss experience, including successful settlement activity by us, the decline in new claims notified in recent years and improvements in environmental clean-up technology, we do not believe that the $56 billion estimate is a reasonable basis for our reserving for environmental losses.

 

Management’s current estimate of the time lag that relates to our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries compared to the industry is considered reasonable given the analysis performed by our internal and external actuaries to date.

 

Over time, additional information regarding such exposure characteristics may be developed for any given portfolio. This additional information could cause a shift in the lag assumed.

 

Non-Latent Claims

 

Non-latent claims are less significant to us, both in terms of reserves held and in terms of risk of significant reserve deficiency. For non-latent loss exposure, a range of traditional loss development extrapolation techniques is applied. Incremental paid and incurred loss development methodologies are the most commonly used methods. Traditional cumulative paid and incurred loss development methods are used where inception-to-date, cumulative paid and reported incurred loss development history is available.

 

These methods assume that cohorts, or groups, of losses from similar exposures will increase over time in a predictable manner. Historical paid and incurred loss development experience is examined for earlier accident years to make inferences about how later accident years’ losses will develop. Where company-specific loss information is not available or not reliable, industry loss development information published by industry sources such as the Reinsurance Association of America is considered. These methods calculate an estimate of ultimate losses and then deduct paid-to-date losses to arrive at an estimated total loss reserve. Outstanding losses are then deducted from estimated total loss reserves to calculate the estimated IBNR reserve. Management does not expect changes in underlying reserving assumptions to have a material impact on net loss and loss adjustment expense reserves as they are primarily sensitive to changes due to loss development.

 

Quarterly Reserve Reviews

 

In addition to an in-depth annual review, we also perform quarterly reserve reviews. This is done by examining quarterly paid and incurred loss development to determine whether it is consistent with reserves established during the preceding annual reserve review and with expected development. Loss development is reviewed separately for each major exposure type (e.g. asbestos, environmental, etc.), for each of our relevant subsidiaries, and for large “wholesale” commutation settlements versus “routine” paid and advised losses. This process is undertaken to determine whether loss development experience during a quarter warrants any change to held reserves.

Loss development is examined separately by exposure type because different exposures develop differently over time. For example, the expected reporting and payout of losses for a given amount of asbestos reserves can be expected to take place over a different time frame and in a different quarterly pattern from the same amount of environmental reserves.

 

In addition, loss development is examined separately for each of our relevant subsidiaries. While the most significant exposures for most of our subsidiaries are latent A&E exposures, there are differing profiles to the exposure across our subsidiaries. Companies can differ in their exposure profile due to the mix of insurance versus reinsurance, the mix of primary versus excess insurance, the underwriting years of participation and other criteria. These differing profiles lead to different expectations for quarterly and annual loss development by company.

 

Our quarterly paid and incurred loss development is often driven by large, “wholesale” settlements — such as commutations and policy buy-backs — which settle many individual claims in a single transaction. This allows for monitoring of the potential profitability of large settlements which, in turn, can provide information about the adequacy of reserves on remaining exposures which have not yet been settled. For example, if it were found that large settlements were consistently leading to large negative, or favorable, incurred losses upon settlement, it might be an indication that reserves on remaining exposures are redundant. Conversely, if it were found that large settlements were consistently leading to large positive, or adverse, incurred losses upon settlement, it might be an indication — particularly if the size of the losses were increasing — that certain loss reserves on remaining exposures are deficient. Moreover, removing the loss development resulting from large settlements allows for a review of loss development related only to those contracts which remain exposed to losses. Were this not done, it is possible that savings on large wholesale settlements could mask significant underlying development on remaining exposures.

 

Once the data has been analyzed as described above, an in-depth review is performed on classes of exposure with significant loss development. Discussions are held with appropriate personnel, including individual company managers, claims handlers and attorneys, to better understand the causes. If it is determined that development differs significantly from expectations, reserves would be adjusted.

 

Quarterly loss development is expected to be fairly erratic for the types of exposure insured and reinsured by us. Several quarters of low incurred loss development can be followed by spikes of relatively large incurred losses. This is characteristic of latent claims and other insurance losses which are reported and settled many years after the inception of the policy. Given the high degree of statistical uncertainty, and potential volatility, it would be unusual to adjust reserves on the basis of one, or even several, quarters of loss development activity. As a result, unless the incurred loss activity in any one quarter is of such significance that management is able to quantify the impact on the ultimate liability for loss and loss adjustment expenses, reductions or increases in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities are carried out in the fourth quarter based on the annual reserve review described above.

 

As described above, our management regularly reviews and updates reserve estimates using the most current information available and employing various actuarial methods. Adjustments resulting from changes in our estimates are recorded in the period when such adjustments are determined. The ultimate liability for loss and loss adjustment expenses is likely to differ from the original estimate due to a number of factors, primarily consisting of the overall claims activity occurring during any period, including the completion of commutations of assumed liabilities and ceded reinsurance receivables, policy buy-backs and general incurred claims activity.

 

Reinsurance Balances Receivable

 

Our acquired reinsurance subsidiaries, prior to acquisition by us, used retrocessional agreements to reduce their exposure to the risk of insurance and reinsurance they assumed. Loss reserves represent total gross losses, and reinsurance receivables represent anticipated recoveries of a portion of those unpaid losses as well as amounts receivable from reinsurers with respect to claims that have already been paid. While reinsurance arrangements are designed to limit losses and to permit recovery of a portion of direct unpaid losses, reinsurance does not relieve us of our liabilities to our insureds or reinsureds. Therefore, we evaluate and monitor concentration of credit risk among our reinsurers, including companies that are insolvent, in run-off or facing financial difficulties. Provisions are made for amounts considered potentially uncollectible.

Goodwill

 

We follow FAS No. 142 “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” which requires that recorded goodwill be assessed for impairment on at least an annual basis. In determining goodwill, we must determine the fair value of the assets of an acquired company. The determination of fair value necessarily involves many assumptions. Fair values of reinsurance assets and liabilities acquired are derived from probability-weighted ranges of the associated projected cash flows, based on actuarially prepared information and our management run-off strategy. Fair value adjustments are based on the estimated timing of loss and loss adjustment expense payments and an assumed interest rate, and are amortized over the estimated payout period, as adjusted for accelerations on commutation settlements, using the constant yield method options. Interest rates used to determine the fair value of gross loss reserves are based upon risk free rates applicable to the average duration of the loss reserves. Interest rates used to determine the fair value of reinsurance receivables are increased to reflect the credit risk associated with the reinsurers from who the receivables are, or will become, due. If the assumptions made in initially valuing the assets change significantly in the future, we may be required to record impairment charges which could have a material impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

FAS No. 141 “Business Combinations” also requires that negative goodwill be recorded in earnings. During 2004, 2006 and 2007, we took negative goodwill into earnings upon the completion of the acquisition of certain companies and presented it as an extraordinary gain.

 

New Accounting Pronouncements

 

In September 2006, the FASB issued FAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurement, or FAS 157. This Statement provides guidance for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities. Under this standard, the definition of fair value focuses on the price that would be received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability (an exit price), not the price that would be paid to acquire the asset or received to assume the liability (an entry price). FAS 157 clarifies that fair value is a market based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement, and sets out a fair value hierarchy with the highest priority being quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority being unobservable data. Further, FAS 157 requires tabular disclosures of the fair value measurements by level within the fair value hierarchy. FAS 157 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. The adoption of FAS 157 is not expected to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

 

In February 2007, the FASB issued FAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities,” or FAS 159. This standard permits an entity to irrevocably elect fair value on a contract-by-contract basis as the initial and subsequent measurement attribute for many financial instruments and certain other items including insurance contracts. An entity electing the fair value option would be required to recognize changes in fair value in earnings and provide disclosure that will assist investors and other users of financial information to more easily understand the effect of the company’s choice to use fair value on its earnings. Further, the entity is required to display the fair value of those assets and liabilities for which the company has chosen to use fair value on the face of the balance sheet. This standard does not eliminate the disclosure requirements about fair value measurements included in FAS 157 and FAS No. 107, “Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments”. FAS 159 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. We have not made any elections to date under FAS 159.

 

In December 2007, the FASB issued FAS No. 141(R) “Business Combinations” (“FAS 141(R)”). FAS 141(R) replaces FAS No. 141 “Business Combinations,” or FAS 141, but retains the fundamental requirements in FAS No. 141 that the acquisition method of accounting be used for all business combinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each business combination. FAS 141(R) requires an acquirer to recognize the assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree at the acquisition date, measured at their fair values as of that date. FAS 141(R) also requires acquisition-related costs to be recognized separately from the acquisition, recognize assets acquired and liabilities assumed arising from contractual contingencies at their acquisition-date fair values and recognized goodwill as the excess of the consideration transferred plus the fair value of any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree at the acquisition date over the fair values of the identifiable net assets acquired. FAS 141(R) applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after

the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008 (January 1, 2009 for calendar year-end companies). We are currently evaluating the provisions of FAS 141(R) and its potential impact on future financial statements.

 

In December 2007, the FASB issued FAS No. 160 “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements — an amendment of ARB No. 51,” or FAS 160. FAS 160 amends ARB No. 51 to establish accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. FAS 160 clarifies that a noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary is an ownership interest in the consolidated entity that should be reported as equity in the consolidated financial statements. FAS 160 requires consolidated net income to be reported at the amounts that include the amounts attributable to both the parent and the noncontrolling interest. This statement also establishes a method of accounting for changes in a parent’s ownership interest in a subsidiary that does result in deconsolidation. FAS 160 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning on or after December 15, 2008 (January 1, 2009 for calendar year-end companies). The presentation and disclosure of FAS 160 shall be applied retrospectively for all periods presented. We are currently evaluating the provisions of FAS 160 and its potential impact on future financial statements.

 

Results of Operations

 

The following table sets forth our selected consolidated statement of operations data for each of the periods indicated.