Before the Equitas premium judgments were entered against the Names in England, they received notice, retained counsel and defended Lloyd's claims in multiple hearings. During the 25 days of hearings, the English courts exhaustively considered the Names' defenses and objections to implementation of R&R and enforcement of the Equitas contract, including the "pay- now, sue later" and "conclusive evidence" clauses. As a matter of substantive English common law and statutory law, the English courts rejected the Names' objections. Accordingly, R&R was upheld, the Equitas contract was found enforceable and the Names were held liable for their Equitas premiums.

The fact that the Names could not assert their alleged fraud claim as a set-off to payment of the Equitas premium did not deprive them of due process. The validity of that clause was fully litigated and it is undisputed that the Names were free to pursue their fraud claims. In effect, the English courts merely severed or bifurcated the Equitas premium issues from any fraud claim for damages.

The English courts' rulings on the "conclusive evidence" clause also did not deprive them of due process. The validity of that clause also was fully litigated and the Names were provided the data supporting the premium calculations and had an opportunity to challenge the amounts of the premiums. Accordingly, their claim that the English courts do not "provide procedures compatible with due process" is baseless and simply an attempt to relitigate issues already addressed and carefully decided by the English courts. This Court should not act as a second tier English court of appeals.

Go to complete Lloyds Reply Brief

Return to Ashenden Briefs