the right to challenge the Massachusetts insurance commissioner's approval for EMLICO to move to Bermuda.

The decision is likely to be hailed as meaningless by the reinsurers, considering the main ruling. But EMLICO and GE are likely to claim it as a victory because they have argued all along that reinsurers had no standing to challenge how EMLICO was allowed to redomesticate.

Kemper Reinsurance Co. and certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Turegum Insurance Co. (London reinsurers), had filed separate actions in the Superior Court to challenge that approval.

EMLICO and EIC were included in the list of defendants. The reinsurers sought judicial review of the commissioner's order and a declaratory judgement concerning the lawfulness of that order.

In addition, the London reinsurers requested mandamus to compel the commissioner to vacate that order.

A Superior Court judge had previously dismissed the complaints for a lack of standing, declaring the reinsurers had failed to state a recognisable injury directly related to the commissioner's order or to show that they are within the area of concern of the applicable statutes, namely policyholders.

The Superior Court judge had also dismissed the petition for mandamus , concluding that mandamus is a remedy for inaction, and generally not available in cases such as this one where action had already taken place.

Upon the reinsurers' appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday agreed that the reinsurers do not come within the area of concern, or within other statutes claimed by the reinsurers to give them standing.

The court said, "We also agree that the reinsurers have not demonstrated that the order has caused them direct and certain injury.

"We affirm the declaration entered by the Superior Court judge dismissing the reinsurers' complaints for lack of standing. The other issues raised by reinsurers require standing, therefore we do not reach them.''