- A new expansive interpretation of SSAP 25 and the weaponization of the accounting reporting principles which threaten AIF earnings from the Reciprocal Exchange subscribers.
Key Issues Facing AIFs Today
NAAIF Actions to Protect AIFs
- Protect AIF fee earnings from private cause of actions contesting their justification
- Propose and promote a Model Reciprocal Exchange laws in each state
- Monitor and disseminate information regarding key emerging issues that face AIFs
- Encourage AIFs’ support in ongoing litigation through Amicus participation
- Educate legislators and the public on AIF-related matters and their impact at large
About NAAIF
The National Association of Attorneys-In Fact (NAAIF) was created to protect the interests unique to AIFs and provides a forum to educate, discuss best practices and sponsor legislative/regulatory actions.
Resources
Historical Stance of the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (NJ DOBI) on the Insurance Holding Company Act and SSAP No. 25
- Congressional Testimony from the NAIC in 2010 showing that stand-alone reciprocal exchanges and their AIFs, including Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange and New Jersey Physicians United Reciprocal Exchange, are not subject to the Insurance Holding Company Act in New Jersey based on information provided by NJ DOBI
- Sworn Statement from former head of mergers and acquisitions review in the Office of Solvency Regulation at NJ DOBI stating that NJ DOBI did not apply the Insurance Holding Company Act to stand-alone reciprocal exchanges and their AIFs, and did not require Form A filings in connection with any acquisition or merger of these entities
- Sworn Statement from former Chief Insurance Examiner at NJ DOBI stating that NJ DOBI never applied SSAP No. 25 to AIF fees and did not apply the Insurance Holding Company Act to stand-alone reciprocal exchanges and their AIFs
J DOBI’s New Interpretation of the Insurance Holding Company Act and SSAP No. 25
- Correspondence from NJ DOBI’s Acting Assistant Commissioner illustrating NJ DOBI’s new interpretation of SSAP No. 25, demanding that amounts not in compliance with SSAP No. 25 must be “recovered”
- Brief challenging NJ DOBI’s new interpretation of the Insurance Holding Company Act and SSAP No. 25 as set forth in Bulletin No. 22-11
- Brief challenging NJ DOBI’s refusal to accept a revised Power of Attorney filed by an AIF, despite the lack of any statutory authority supporting its unlawful demands