Europe’s leading reinsurers have expressed confidence that they will not suffer major losses as a result of the H1N1 influenza outbreak, which has now officially been confirmed as a pandemic. Hannover Re said on Friday that “the WHO (World Health Organization) moving to phase six doesn’t fundamentally change our view that we do not expect tangibly higher loss claims due to the swine ‘flu”. Munich Re told Reuters that it was sticking to its announcement last month, when it said that it did not expect major losses. Swiss Re said on Friday that it was keeping a close eye on the pandemic, but noted that recent pandemics had been far less fatal than the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918/19, which killed tens of millions of people. Swiss Re has estimated that a 1-in-200 year pandemic event could cost it about $3.3bn, but that there was no evidence that the current outbreak would be anywhere near that severe.

The introduction in Gibraltar next year of a flat Corporation Tax thought likely to be in the region of 10% has led the self-governing British overseas territory to promote its strong regulatory reputation and, as a member of the EU, the “passporting” facility into the rest of the EU that it offers. Speaking to journalists last week, chief minister Peter Caruana observed that the decision to move away from a “brass-plate tax-haven” reputation had been taken in 1996, before the EU observed that differential tax rates in Corporation Tax could be seen as a form of state aid. “They could still go to the Isle of Man, Jersey, or Guernsey, but they are not doing so”, Mr Caruana said, adding that “tax competitiveness is important, but companies stay for other reasons”. Mr Caruana was less keen on the “grey list” produced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) shortly after the recent G20 summit, which he said was a sudden imposition that accelerated the timetable of a debate that had been progressing well. Mr Caruana said that Gibraltar was confident that Gibraltar would sign Tax Information Exchange Agreements with 12 other countries — the “artificial” number chosen by the OECD — by the end of the coming winter.

Bermuda-based reinsurer IPC said late Friday that it would consider a $1.72bn unsolicited offer from locally based Validus Holdings, in the wake of favoured bidder Max Capital’s statement on Friday that it would not increase the value of its bid. Max Capital made the announcement after IPC shareholders voted against the proposed merger, which would have given IPC shareholders a 58% stake in a company that would have borne the Max Capital name and which would have had Max’s Marty Becker in charge. Max had first announced its plans to effectively acquire IPC in early March. In a separate meeting on Friday, Max’s shareholders had voted heavily to back the deal. IPC chairman Kenneth Hammond said that “the board will review all strategic alternatives to maximize shareholder value, including the sale of the company, and as part of this review will give consideration to Validus”. In a separate statement, Validus chairman Ed Noonan said that “we now expect IPC’s board to heed the message sent by IPC’s shareholders by agreeing to Validus pending amalgamation agreement without delay”. Mr Becker did not hide his disappointment that the deal had fallen through. “We believed and continue to believe that the combination of Max and IPC would have created significant value for both companies’ shareholders. However, we also believe that maintaining our perspective and discipline as a participant in this process was in the best interest of our shareholders. Max is a strong, diversified underwriting company and will continue to focus on building the value of our global business for our shareholders,” he said. Validus claimed that about 72% of IPC shareholders had rejected the deal with Max Capital. In a letter to his company’s shareholders, Mr Becker said that “while a majority of IPC shareholders did not recognize the value creation of the combined entity, the voting returns from Max shareholders were overwhelmingly positive — with over 90% in favour of the transaction”.

New York-based insurer AIG, now 80%-owned by the US taxpayer, is removing its logo from employee badges and corporate charge cards, according to a Bloomberg report, citing two people familiar with the situation. The new ID tags were issued last month, it was claimed. In A March 2009 memo AIG had advised some employees to keep a low profile, concealing their badges and not to mention the name of the insurer in public. The same internal memo mentioned “public attention” that AIG alleged had been increased by the level of media scrutiny, particularly on the Water Street building in New York. CEO Edward Liddy had also blamed the comments of some politicians on Capitol Hill for inflaming hatred of AIG staff, who had been advised not to travel alone at night. Mr Liddy said that the AIG brand had been “disgraced”. Its logo has been removed from several AIG buildings. In the Far East, the AIA brand name is being emphasized, while the “new” holding company in the US will be known as AIU.