Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]


7.	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Debt Obligations and Facilities

Changes in the Company’s debt obligations are set out in Note 14 — ‘Debt’ to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Guarantees

Guarantees issued by Willis Group Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries with respect to the senior notes are discussed in Note 19—‘Financial information for parent guarantor, other guarantor subsidiaries and non-guarantor subsidiaries’ and Note 20—‘Financial information for parent issuer, guarantor subsidiaries and non-guarantor subsidiaries’.

The revolving credit facilities are fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a joint and several basis by Willis Netherlands Holdings B.V., Willis Investment UK Holdings Limited, TA1 Limited, Trinity Acquisition plc, Willis Group Limited and Willis Group Holdings plc.

Other Contractual Obligations

In July 2010, the Company made a capital commitment of $25 million to Trident V Parallel Fund, LP. As at June 30, 2011 there had been approximately $5 million of capital contributions.

In May 2011, the Company made a capital commitment of $10 million to Dowling Capital Partners I, LP. As at June 30, 2011 there had been no capital contributions.

Claims, Lawsuits, and Other Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to various actual and potential claims, lawsuits, and other proceedings relating principally to alleged errors and omissions in connection with the placement of insurance and reinsurance. Similar to other corporations, the Company is also subject to a variety of other claims, including those relating to the Company’s employment practices. Some of the claims, lawsuits and other proceedings seek damages in amounts which could, if assessed, be significant.

Errors and omissions claims, lawsuits, and other proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business are covered in part by professional indemnity or other appropriate insurance. The terms of this insurance vary by policy year and self-insured risks have increased significantly in recent years. Regarding self-insured risks, the Company has established provisions which are believed to be adequate in the light of current information and legal advice, and the Company adjusts such provisions from time to time according to developments.

On the basis of current information, the Company does not expect that the actual claims, lawsuits and other proceedings, to which the Company is subject, or potential claims, lawsuits, and other proceedings relating to matters of which it is aware, will ultimately have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation and disputes with insurance companies, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

The material actual or potential claims, lawsuits and other proceedings, of which the Company is currently aware, are:

Assurance of Discontinuance

In connection with the investigation launched by the New York State Attorney General in April 2004 concerning, among other things, contingent commissions paid by insurers to insurance brokers, in April 2005, the Company entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance (‘Original AOD’) with the New York State Attorney General and the Superintendent of the New York Insurance Department and paid $50 million to eligible clients. As part of the Original AOD, the Company also agreed not to accept contingent compensation and to disclose to customers any compensation the Company will receive in connection with providing policy placement services to the customer. The Company also resolved similar investigations launched by the Minnesota Attorney General, the Florida Attorney General, the Florida Department of Financial Services, and the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation for amounts that were not material to the Company.

Similarly, in August 2005, HRH entered into an agreement with the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut and the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Connecticut to resolve all issues related to their investigations into certain insurance brokerage and insurance agency practices and to settle a lawsuit brought in August 2005 by the Connecticut Attorney General alleging violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act. As part of this settlement, HRH agreed to take certain actions including establishing a $30 million national fund for distribution to certain clients; enhancing disclosure practices for agency and broker clients; and declining to accept contingent compensation on brokerage business.

On February 16, 2010, the Company entered into the Amended and Restated Assurance of Discontinuance with the Attorney General of the State of New York and the Amended and Restated Stipulation with the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York (the ‘Amended and Restated AOD’) on behalf of itself and its named subsidiaries. The Amended and Restated AOD was effective February 11, 2010 and supersedes and replaces the Original AOD.

The Amended and Restated AOD specifically recognizes that the Company has substantially met its obligations under the Original AOD and ends many of the requirements previously imposed. It relieves the Company of a number of technical compliance obligations that have imposed significant administrative and financial burdens on its operations. The Amended and Restated AOD no longer limits the types of compensation the Company can receive and has lowered the compensation disclosure requirements. The Amended and Restated AOD requires the Company among, other things to: (i) in New York, and each of the other 49 states of the United States, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, provide compensation disclosure that will, at a minimum, comply with the terms of the applicable regulations, as may be amended from time to time, or the provisions of the AOD that existed prior to the adoption of the Amended and Restated AOD; and (ii) maintain its compliance programs and continue to provide appropriate training to relevant employees in business ethics, professional obligations, conflicts of interest, and antitrust and trade practices compliance.

European Commission Sector Inquiry

In 2006, the European Commission issued questionnaires pursuant to its Sector Inquiry or, in respect of Norway, the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority, related to insurance business practices, including compensation arrangements for brokers, to at least 150 European brokers including our operations in nine European countries. The Company filed responses to the European Commission and the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority questionnaires. The European Commission reported on September 25, 2007, expressing concerns over potential conflicts of interest in the industry relating to remuneration and binding authorities and also over the nature of the coinsurance market. The Company cooperated with both the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority and the European Commission to resolve issues raised in its final report regarding coinsurance as required of the industry by the European Commission. The Company has recently learned that the European Commission has renewed its interest in the coinsurance market and we anticipate that, like our competitors and insurers, our European subsidiaries will receive further questionnaires on this matter later this year or early 2012.

Contingent Compensation Class Action

Since August 2004, the Company and HRH (along with various other brokers and insurers) have been named as defendants in purported class actions in various courts across the United States. All of these actions have been consolidated into a single action in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey (‘MDL’). These actions allege that the brokers breached their duties to their clients by entering into contingent compensation agreements with either no disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated in other improper activities. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, and certain equitable relief. In May 2011, the majority of defendants, including the Company and HRH, entered into a written settlement agreement with plaintiffs. On June 28, 2011, the Judge entered an Order granting preliminary approval to the settlement agreement. Notice of the settlement will be sent to all members of the class and each member will have the opportunity to opt out of the settlement and pursue its own individual claim against any defendant. A Fairness Hearing to decide if the settlement should be given final approval is scheduled for September 14, 2011. The amount of the proposed settlement to be paid by the Company and HRH is immaterial and was previously reserved.

Additional actions could be brought in the future by individual policyholders. The Company disputes the allegations in all of these suits and has been and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against these actions. The outcomes of these lawsuits, however, including any losses or other payments that may occur as a result, cannot be predicted at this time.

Reinsurance Market Dispute

Various legal proceedings are pending, have concluded, or may commence between reinsurers, reinsureds and in some cases their intermediaries, including reinsurance brokers, relating to personal accident excess of loss reinsurance for the years 1993 to 1998. The proceedings principally concern allegations by reinsurers that they have sustained substantial losses due to an alleged abnormal ‘spiral’ in the market in which the reinsurance contracts were placed, the existence and nature of which, as well as other information, was not disclosed to them by the reinsureds or their reinsurance broker.

A ‘spiral’ is a market term for a situation in which reinsureds and reinsurers reinsure each other with the effect that the same loss or portion of that loss moves through the market multiple times.

The reinsurers concerned have taken the position that, despite their decisions to underwrite risks or a group of risks, they are no longer bound by their reinsurance contracts. As a result, they have stopped settling claims and are seeking to recover claims already paid. The Company also understands that there have been arbitration awards in relation to a ‘spiral,’ among other things, in which the reinsurer successfully argued that it was no longer bound by parts of its reinsurance program. Willis Limited, the Company’s principal insurance brokerage subsidiary in the United Kingdom, acted as the reinsurance broker or otherwise as intermediary, but not as an underwriter, for numerous personal accident reinsurance contracts. Due to the small number of reinsurance brokers generally, Willis Limited also utilized other brokers active in this market as sub-agents, including brokers who are parties to the legal proceedings described above, for certain contracts and may be responsible for any errors and omissions they may have made. In July 2003, one of the reinsurers received a judgment in the English High Court against certain parties, including a sub-broker Willis Limited used to place two of the contracts involved in this trial. Although neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries were a party to this proceeding or any arbitration, Willis Limited entered into tolling agreements with certain of the principals to the reinsurance contracts tolling the statute of limitations pending the outcome of proceedings between the reinsureds and reinsurers.

Two former clients of Willis Limited, American Reliable Insurance Company and one of its associated companies (‘ARIC’), and CNA Insurance Company Limited and two of its associated companies (‘CNA’) terminated their respective tolling agreements with Willis Limited and commenced litigation in September 2007 and January 2008, respectively, in the English Commercial Court against Willis Limited. ARIC alleged conspiracy between a former Willis Limited employee and the ARIC underwriter as well as negligence and CNA alleged deceit and negligence by the same Willis Limited employee both in connection with placements of personal accident reinsurance in the excess of loss market in London and elsewhere. On June 9, 2009, Willis Limited entered into a settlement agreement under which Willis Limited paid a total of $139 million to ARIC, which was covered by errors and omissions insurance. On September 11, 2009, Willis Limited entered into a settlement agreement under which Willis Limited paid a total of $130 million to CNA. The Company has collected in full from errors and omissions insurers. The settlements include no admission of wrongdoing by any party. Each party also realized and waived all claims it may have against any of the other parties arising out of or in connection with the subject matter of the litigation.

From time to time, former clients or their reinsurers request co-operation from the Company and suggest that claims may be asserted against the Company. Such claims may be made against the Company if reinsurers do not pay claims on policies issued by them. A number of mutual releases have been entered by the Company or its subsidiaries with former clients and/or reinsurers for no financial consideration. The Company cannot predict at this time whether any further claims will be made or the damages that may be alleged.

Gender Discrimination Class Action

In December 2006, a purported class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, alleging that the Company discriminated against female officers and officer equivalent employees on the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. In January 2011, the Company reached a monetary settlement with plaintiffs that resolves all individual and class claims. The amount of this settlement is not material. However, this matter cannot be formally and finally settled until the Court approves the settlement and until members of the class are given an opportunity to object to the terms of the settlement.

World Trade Center

The Company acted as the insurance broker, but not as an underwriter, for the placement of both property and casualty insurance for a number of entities which were directly impacted by the September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center complex, including Silverstein Properties LLC, which acquired a 99-year leasehold interest in the twin towers and related facilities from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in July 2001. Although the World Trade Center complex insurance was bound at or before the July 2001 closing of the leasehold acquisition, consistent with standard industry practice, the final policy wording for the placements was still in the process of being finalized when the twin towers and other buildings in the complex were destroyed on September 11, 2001. There have been a number of lawsuits in the United States between the insured parties and the insurers for several placements. Other disputes may arise in respect of insurance placed by us which could affect the Company including claims by one or more of the insureds that the Company made culpable errors or omissions in connection with our brokerage activities. However, the Company does not believe that our role as broker will lead to liabilities which in the aggregate would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Stanford Financial Group Litigation

The Company has been named as a defendant in six similar lawsuits relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group (‘Stanford’), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford’s alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit.

The six actions are as follows:


•	Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-CV-01274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2010, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, which motions are currently pending. It may be several months or longer before rulings are issued on these motions.

•	Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 09-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the ‘JPML’). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.

•	Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-CV-01474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.

•	Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million, attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert.


•	Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-01862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Casanova.

•	Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI02585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 13, 2011, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, which the plaintiffs moved to vacate on May 13, 2011. That motion is currently pending. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

Additional actions could be brought in the future by other investors in certificates of deposit issued by Stanford and its affiliates. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend itself vigorously against these actions. The outcomes of these actions, however, including any losses or other payments that may occur as a result, cannot be predicted at this time.

Regulatory Investigation

Given the increased interest expressed by US and UK regulators in the effectiveness of compliance controls relating to financial crime in our market sector in particular, we began a voluntary internal review of our policies and controls four years ago. This review includes analysis and advice from external experts on best practices, review of public regulatory decisions, and discussions with government regulators in the US and UK. In addition, the UK Financial Services Authority (the ‘FSA’) conducted an investigation of Willis Limited’s, our UK brokerage subsidiary, compliance systems and controls between 2005 and 2009. On July 21, 2011, we and the FSA announced a settlement under which the FSA concluded its investigation by assessing a £7 million ($11 million) fine on Willis Limited for lapses in its implementation and documentation of its controls to counter the risks of improper payments being made to non-FSA authorized overseas third parties engaged to help win business, particularly in high risk jurisdictions.

As a result of the FSA settlement, we will also be conducting a further internal review of all payments made between 2005 and 2009. We also continue to fully cooperate with our US regulators, however we are unable to predict at this time when our discussions with them will be concluded. We do not believe that this further internal review or our discussions with the US regulators will result in any material fines or sanctions, but there can be no assurance that any resolution will not have an adverse impact on our ability to conduct our business in certain jurisdictions. While we believe that our current systems and controls are adequate and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, we cannot assure that such systems and controls will prevent any violations of applicable laws and regulations.