I will participate in a panel discussion on today’s most talked about topic among corporate policyholders, their coverage counsel, and defense counsel: Berkshire Hathaway and the implications of its enormous concentration of legacy insurance liabilities, the greatest in the industry, and in history.
I led an ABA roundtable on the subject two years ago, and I’ll revisit it during a session titled “Berkshire Hathaway the New Goliath; Strategies for the Boy David.” This time, I will be joined by Vijay Bondada from Pfizer’s Risk Management Group, John Sylvester of K&L Gates, and Laura Foggan from Wiley Rein.
In conjunction, I’ve written a white paper that can be found at the ABA website: “Berkshire Hathaway and Loss Portfolio Transfers: Do They Make Sense?”
I’ve been retained as an expert witness in a number of cases concerning various aspects of these transactions. With that perspective, I weigh in and explore:
- Why Loss Portfolio Transfers (LPTs) make financial sense for Berkshire
- Why National Indemnity Company, the principal insurance subsidiary through which Berkshire transacts most of its LPTs, is no ordinary insurance company
- The importance of the packaging of claims administration
- The impenetrable accounting regulations that mask the truly enormous concentration of risk at Berkshire
Keep the Conversation Going
I’m interested to know what you think. Can LPTs be a good thing for policyholders?
Do you think such concentration of risk at a single entity is good public policy?
Whether you can attend the panel discussion or not, I’m interested to hear your comments as well as your questions.