John Charman

Last updated

John R Charman (born 1953) is an English businessman, who has made his career in insurance. He is currently CEO and chairman at Bermuda based Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd, which has been bought by Sompo Holding (Japan ) in March 2017. He is currently the Executive Chairman of the Sompo Board of Directors. [1]

Contents

Nicknamed "King of the London Insurance Market", Charman was described as "famously strong-willed and opinionated" by the Financial Times. [2] Charman is ranked in the top 100 people in the global finance industry; [3] inside the top ten richest people in the City of London; and 321st overall in the 2004 Sunday Times Rich List. [4]

In August 2006 in what is believed to be the largest sum awarded to an English wife in a contested case, Charman was ordered to pay his ex-wife by the High Court of Justice a sum of £48 million. [5] It beat the £30 million awarded to WPP Group chief executive Martin Sorrell's ex-wife in 2005 after their 32-year marriage ended in divorce. [6]

Career

Charman made his fortune in the 1990, during the 1991 Gulf War, offering war risk insurance on a 24-hour basis. Charman was the chief executive officer of Tarquin plc (a joint venture company among Insurance Partners, Harvard University and the Charman Group), the parent company of the Charman Underwriting Agencies at Lloyd's of London. He was also a deputy chairman of the Council of Lloyd's and a member of the Lloyd's Core Management Group and Lloyd's Market Board between 1995 and 1997.

Nicknamed "King of the London Insurance market", Charman earned the loathing of employees by banning entertainment of clients in company time, and refusing to indulge in long business lunches himself. One critic claimed Charman was so intimidating that colleagues "half-expect the theme from The Godfather to greet him as he arrives at his office." In 2002 Axis settled out of court with a woman who claimed Charman barred her from a meeting, saying: "We are discussing something we decided when you were having babies." [7]

Charman made more money when he sold Tarquin/Charman Underwriting Agencies for £350 million in 1998 to the Bermuda-based ACE International Group, receiving £70.6 million in ACE shares. [2]

Charman was made chief executive officer at ACE Global Markets (the merger of Charman Underwriting and assets of ACE), and in January 2001 was named group president and chief executive officer of Bermuda based ACE International Group, but left the company in March 2001 due to personal differences. [8] He was paid £3,597,241 in lieu of notice, and £500,000 in a one-off pension contribution. [9]

Charman immediately set up Axis Capital, a Bermuda-based reinsurance and insurance business with offices in London, Dublin, Zurich and New York that is listed on the NYSE. The company aimed to cash in on the surge in insurance premiums after the 11 September terrorist attacks. In the financial year 2005 he was paid $7,741,762, and had stock options of $42,027,204 in Axis. [10] Charman has informed the company that he will retire at the end of December 2008, he finally left Axis in 2012.

In May 2013 he became CEO and Chairman of Endurance Specialty Holdings, another NYSE-listed, Bermuda-based reinsurance and insurance business with offices in Bermuda, London, Singapore, Zurich, New York and other locations. He invested $30'000'000 of his private fortune in Endurance at the beginning of his tenure.

Divorce

Charman met his ex-wife Beverly in 1969 at school. When they married in 1976, [11] neither had significant resources and the couple lived initially in her parents' home, and then in his mother's home in Strood near Rochester, Kent. The couple eventually moved to Sevenoaks, where they bought a home now worth £2.75 million. The couple have two children: Nicholas (born 1981) and Michael (born 1986).[ citation needed ]

As Charman's wealth built, the couple created the Bermuda-based Dragon Trust in 1987, [12] which by 2006 had grown to a value of £65 million. The aim of the trust was according to Charman in his court papers agreed by the couple to preserve wealth for future generations.

After failing to secure a new house in England, in November 2003 Charman told his magistrate wife that he was taking up permanent residence in Bermuda and that their marriage was over. He has since set up home in a £2.1 million home in Bermuda, and has started a relationship with another woman, and American by the name of Lorraine Stapleton, to whom he is now married.

Charman initially offered his ex-wife their home in Sevenoaks plus £6 million cash, but Mrs Charman, who was represented by Helen Ward, of Manches, argued that the length of the marriage together with her substantial contributions did not justify such a significant departure from equality. Charman eventually offered his wife a package valued at £20 million. However, his wife still believed that the sum was not enough, and appealed the sum through the UK legal process, declaring the assets of the couple in her legal papers as:

Mrs Charman also declared that a separate £25 million trust catered for the needs of their sons, and so therefore Dragon Trust was an asset under the control of Charman.

On 2 August 2006, Mr Justice Coleridge decreed in the High Court of Justice that a fair settlement would involve Charman giving his wife around 37 per cent of his assets, which would involve not only agreeing transfer of assets worth £8 million already under his wife's control, but also an additional one-off lump sum of £40 million. In his written judgement, Mr Justice Coleridge said: "The husband is genuinely bemused that the wife should regard his £20 million offer as anything other than reasonable, even generous. Her refusal to compromise on his terms has led him to deploy every available point to protect what he regards as his wealth generated entirely by his efforts. In the narrow, old-fashioned sense, that perspective is understandable, if somewhat anachronistic. Nowadays it must attract little sympathy." [13]

Charman said: "This judgement is poor and blatantly discriminatory. By any reasonable standards this is an extraordinary decision. I made a fair and open offer to my wife of £20 million, which would be impossible for any reasonable person to spend in their lifetime." Charman later commented that he would be launching an immediate appeal, calling the High Court award "grotesque and unfair".[ citation needed ]

In review, the amount of 37% was slightly less than the wife received in White v White, the House of Lords case in 2000. That case established the principle that for long marriages the courts should begin their deliberations on how to divide marital assets from the standpoint of a 50:50 split between husband and wife, regardless of who earned the money. [6]

Charman began selling shares in Axis on the NYSE to meet the interim legal arrangements, prior to his appeal. If required to complete full payment, then it is calculated that he will need to sell off his shares in Axis. [2]

Charman and his representatives, Withers, mounted a high-profile media campaign, arguing that White and subsequent decisions are discriminatory towards wealthy husbands. Charman and his legal team have been widely quoted in the British press. On 9 March 2007, Mrs Charman was tied up and robbed of jewellery worth £300,000 at her home, in an incident police believe could have been motivated by the press coverage the case has attracted. [14]

Court of Appeal

In a judgment handed down on 24 May 2007, the Court of Appeal dismissed John Charman's appeal against the award of £48 million made to his wife Beverley. [15]

The Court reviewed the law as it stood at the end of May 2006 following the judgment of the House of Lords in the combined cases of Miller and McFarlane, interpreting and refining the guidance provided by the judgments in those cases.

The Court has provided clarity in a number of areas connected with the distribution of assets on divorce, particularly in three aspects:

The Court has also called for a far-reaching review and reform of the law in this area in England and Wales.

Helen Ward of Manches, who has represented Mrs Charman throughout these proceedings, said, "This is a significant judgment and brings welcome clarity to a number of important aspects of the law relating to the distribution of assets on divorce." [16]

"The Solicitors profession will positively embrace the Court's suggestion for a broad review and reform in this area to create modern law reflecting today's modern society."

Statement from Beverley Charman in response to Court of Appeal judgment

"I acknowledge that the sum awarded to me is huge by any standards but the Court of Appeal has decided that it fairly reflects the contributions made by John and me during our twenty eight-year marriage.

The breakdown of our marriage has been a painful experience for all concerned. Our divorce proceedings started nearly three years ago. It has been a difficult time, not just for me but for our family. I have been particularly concerned for our sons who have had to bear the discussion in public of our lives, our marriage and our divorce.

I am relieved that the appeal is over and I hope that John and I can now concentrate on building our new lives." [17]

Related Research Articles

Chubb Limited is an American company incorporated in Zürich, Switzerland. It is the parent company of Chubb, a global provider of insurance products covering property and casualty, accident and health, reinsurance, and life insurance and is the largest publicly traded property and casualty insurance company in the world. Chubb operates in 55 countries and territories and in the Lloyd's insurance market in London. Clients of Chubb consist of multinational corporations and local businesses, individuals, and insurers seeking reinsurance coverage. Chubb provides commercial and personal property and casualty insurance, personal accident and supplemental health insurance, reinsurance, and life insurance.

A supersedeas bond, also known as a defendant's appeal bond, is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until an appeal is over.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asset-protection trust</span> Trust which allows the beneficiary access to assets without legally owning them

In trust law, an asset-protection trust is any form of trust which provides for funds to be held on a discretionary basis. Such trusts are set up in an attempt to avoid or mitigate the effects of taxation, divorce and bankruptcy on the beneficiary. Such trusts are therefore frequently proscribed or limited in their effects by governments and the courts.

Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Insurance</span> Japanese insurance company

Sompo Holdings, Inc., formerly NKSJ Holdings and Sompo Japan, is a Japanese insurance company. It is the second-largest property insurance company in Japan only behind Tokio Marine, with market share of 19.3% in 2007.

Legal responses to agunah are civil legal remedies against a spouse who refuses to cooperate in the process of granting or receiving a Jewish legal divorce or "get".

Marital deduction is a type of tax law that allows a person to give assets to his or her spouse with reduced or no tax imposed upon the transfer. Some marital deduction laws even apply to transfers made postmortem. The right to receive property conveys ownership for tax purposes. A decree of divorce transfers the right to that property by reason of the marriage and is also a transfer within a marriage. It makes no difference whether the property itself or equivalent compensation is transferred before, or after the decree dissolves the marriage. There is no U.S. estate and gift tax on transfers of any amount between spouses, whether during their lifetime or at death. There is an important exceptions for non-citizens. The U.S. federal Estate and gift tax marital deduction is only available if the surviving spouse is a U.S. citizen. For a surviving spouse who is not a U.S. citizen a bequest through a Qualified Domestic Trust defers estate tax until principal is distributed by the trustee, a U.S. citizen or corporation who also withholds the estate tax. Income on principal distributed to the surviving spouse is taxed as individual income. If the surviving spouse becomes a U.S. citizen, principal remaining in a Qualifying Domestic Trust may then be distributed without further tax.

Miller v Miller 2006 is a divorce case between Alan Miller and Melissa Miller. He is an asset manager in the City of London who had a fortune of some £30m. Melissa was entitled to £5 million of her former husband's assets after just two years and nine months of marriage, no children, the Law Lords ruled. Five Law Lords agreed that the benchmark for division should be equal shares - save in certain circumstances - no matter how short the marriage. They said that to achieve fairness at the end of a marriage, the courts should look to three main considerations: financial needs, compensation, and equal sharing.

Paternity fraud is one form of misattributed paternity or paternal discrepancy. Specifically, paternity fraud is the intentional misidentification of a child's biological father by its mother. Paternity fraud is distinct from other, unintentional misattribution, which may arise from simple error, an accident such as a mix-up during fertility treatment, or a sexual assault.

<i>White v White</i>

White v White is an English family law decision by the House of Lords, and a landmark case in redistribution of finances as well as property on divorce. This case involved a couple with assets exceeding £4.5m which was deemed more than either needs for their reasonable requirements. It was held that the absence of financial need did not mean departing from a more generous settlement for an applicant in big money cases. This, therefore, enables the courts to make settlements reflecting the wealth of the parties, and not just their needs and requirements.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Florida since January 6, 2015, as a result of a ruling in Brenner v. Scott from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The court ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional on August 21, 2014. The order was stayed temporarily. State attempts at extending the stay failed, with the U.S. Supreme Court denying further extension on December 19, 2014. In addition, a state court ruling in Pareto v. Ruvin allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in Miami-Dade County on the afternoon of January 5, 2015. In another state case challenging the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, a Monroe County court in Huntsman v. Heavilin stayed enforcement of its decision pending appeal and the stay expired on January 6, 2015.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Louisiana since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The court held that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, invalidating Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling clarified conflicting court rulings on whether state officials are obligated to license same-sex marriages. Governor Bobby Jindal confirmed on June 28 that Louisiana would comply with the ruling once the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its decision in a Louisiana case, which the Fifth Circuit did on July 1. Jindal then said the state would not comply with the ruling until the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana reversed its judgment, which it did on July 2. All parishes now issue marriage licenses in accordance with federal law.

<i>R v R</i> English marital rape trial

R v R[1991] UKHL 12 is a decision in which the House of Lords determined that under English criminal law, it is a crime for a husband to rape his wife.

Sir Roger Fray Greenwood Ormrod, PC was a British Lord Justice of Appeal.

<i>Foskett v McKeown</i>

Foskett v McKeown[2000] UKHL 29 is a leading case on the English law of trusts, concerning tracing and the availability of proprietary relief following a breach of trust.

<i>Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd</i>

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415 is a leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the context of English family law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brian Duperreault</span> American executive

Brian Charles Duperreault is a Bermuda-born American executive in the insurance industry. He stepped down as executive chairman of American International Group in December 2021.

<i>Macleod v Macleod</i>

Macleod v Macleod [2008] UKPC 64 was a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in an appeal originating from the Isle of Man. It made clear that postnuptial agreements in the Isle of Man cannot be varied by a court other than for sufficient policy reasons. Although technically only applying to Manx postnuptial agreements, the judgment is treated with authority in the United Kingdom.

Same-sex marriage is currently not recognised nor performed in Bermuda, a British Overseas Territory, but it was legal between 2017 and 2022. However, marriages performed during that period remain valid.

<i>Owens v Owens</i> 2018 Supreme Court of the UK case

Owens v Owens[2018] UKSC 41 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case involving the divorce of Mr and Mrs Owens, a couple who had married in 1978. The Supreme Court upheld a decision made at trial, and previously upheld by the Court of Appeal, to refuse a contested divorce petition by Mrs Owens, on the basis that the trial judge could not conclude that Mr Owens's behaviour towards his wife amounted to behaviour so unreasonable that a reasonable person could not be expected to live with him. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal expressed regret at not being able to grant the divorce petition, and public reaction to the perceived unfairness Mrs Owens was placed in led to the passage of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020.

References

  1. ↑ "John R. Charman". Sompo International. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
  2. 1 2 3 Charman speech – OneLimeStreet Archived 14 August 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ 100 Most Influential People In Finance « Treasury&Risk Archived 24 November 2006 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ↑ Sunday Times – Rich List
  5. ↑ This is so unfair, says tycoon as he counts the cost of his £48m divorce – Britain – Times Online
  6. 1 2 LawFuel – The Law News Network Archived 21 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine
  7. ↑ "We are discussing something we decided when you were having babies."
  8. ↑ John Charman To Leave ACE
  9. ↑ Sample Contracts – Severance Agreement – ACE London Services Ltd. and John Charman – Competitive Intelligence for Investors
  10. ↑ John Charman Profile – Forbes.com [ dead link ]
  11. ↑ John Charman Divorce Settlement
  12. ↑ BBC NEWS | England | Kent | Wife wins 'biggest' divorce award
  13. ↑ The Scotsman
  14. ↑ "Gunman ties up and robs woman given £48m divorce payout". TheGuardian.com . 12 March 2007.
  15. ↑ Reuters Archived 8 January 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  16. ↑ Times
  17. ↑ BBC
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.