Financial Times FRONT PAGE - FIRST SECTION: Lloyd's plan reflects shift from Names By Andrew Bolger, Insurance Correspondent FT.com site; Jul 15, 2002 Lloyd's of London will this week re-open fierce debate over who owns the name and brand value of the 300-year-old institution when it announces a controversial proposal to update the 1982 act of parliament that governs the insurance market. A revised act would reflect the dominance by corporate investors of Lloyd's who now provide 80 per cent of the market's underwriting capacity. Lloyd's was reconstructed following its near collapse in the mid-90s after losing £8bn on asbestos and pollution claims. The losses ruined thousands of Names, the individual investors who traditionally provided the market's capital on an unlimited liability basis. The remaining Names are likely to fear a new act would further diminish their status as co-owners of Lloyd's, which is a mutual. Many feel Names have never been adequately rewarded by the corporate investors for being able to use the famous Lloyd's brand name and its international licences. In the past decade, the number of unlimited liability Names has fallen from 35,000 to 2,490. However, thousands have retained membership of the mutual, even though they no longer provide capital. Any proposed change must be approved by an extraordinary meeting of all Lloyd's 12,000 members. Because the votes are cast on a one-member, one-vote basis, corporate investors would only have a little over 900. The Lloyd's hierarchy believes that a new act would provide the market with a more flexible constitution, clarity of ownership and remove restrictions on how business is structured. Sax Riley, chairman of Lloyd's, will propose seeking a new act when he releases the latest version of his ambitious plan to reform the market. Mr Riley will put his proposals to a vote in September. However, he will hold separate votes on the issue of seeking a new act. Lloyd's corporate investors would particularly welcome the removal of the 1982 act's ban on brokers owning managing agents, who employ underwriters. They believe such restrictions are one reason why most of the billions of pounds invested in the industry to take advantage of higher premiums after September 11 have gone to Bermuda.