On a one-member, one-vote basis, however, 1,393 voted for the reform plan, while 3,356 voted against it. The 4,749-member total registering votes represented 29.7 percent of Lloyd's 16,000 members.

However, on a capacity-weighted basis, turnout was 71 percent, Lloyd's said.

"Our view is that the vote is a clear mandate to move ahead" with implementing the plan, which is designed to assure better underwriting discipline, as well as improve the market's profitability and financial transparency, said Julian James, director of worldwide markets at Lloyd's.

Key components of the plan involve setting up a franchise system at Lloyd's, adopting a system of annual accounting, and preventing unlimited liability members from joining as of Jan. 1, 2003.

Since the plan was first announced, however, some Lloyd's members, including "Names"?individual members who trade with unlimited liability--who are part of a group called The Association of Lloyd's Members, have raised objections to the plan.

Among their concerns were the fact that subsidiaries of corporate capital members had made substantial claims on Lloyd's Central Fund--financed by contributions from all members, and used to pay claims when members are unable to.

The ALM had also expressed a concern that the vote for reforms would mean that changes to the Lloyd's Act would follow without separate consultation on the additional alterations. The group also wanted a regulatory board and regulatory director to be maintained to safeguard the interests of Names.

In a statement released by the ALM, entitled "Names Say No," the group highlighted the 3,356-member vote against reforms, saying that the member-weighted vote sent two messages. The first message is that "there is little prospect of the proposed new Lloyd's Act in the near future. Secondly, Lloyd's will have to reconsider its controversial regulatory proposals," ALM said.

In a letter to members sent out on Aug. 29 that detailed Lloyd's responses to concerns raised during a consultation exercise that ended in mid-August, Lloyd's stated that any changes to the Lloyd's Act would require approval of 75 percent of its members on a one-member, one-vote basis.

Referring to that response, and the 75 percent figure, ALM said, "the fact that only 29 percent of Members voted for the resolution means that at present Lloyd's has no prospect of obtaining approval for a new Act."

ALM also said that Lloyd's would be forced to consider reviewing proposals to get rid of the director of regulation and Regulatory Board, warning that Names would be able to call an extraordinary general meeting, "which could repeal any by-law enacting new regulatory arrangements on a one-member, one-vote basis."

Describing the steps that would be involved in calling a special meeting to block the plan's implementation--in particular, the need to get at least 500 members to call for such a meeting--Mr. James said he doubted that such efforts would be successful.

Noting that capacity that was eligible to vote was split 64 percent corporate capital, and 36 percent third-party capital, Mr. James also said that the vote did not split precisely along these lines, and that Lloyd's had listened and responded to earlier objections with amendments to its original plan.

In ALM's statement, which outlined the group's support for the franchise proposal, Michael Deeny, the chairman of the ALM, softened the threat of a call for an extraordinary meeting. "We would hope that the Council will use the Franchise Board to improve the profitability of Lloyd's, but will reconsider the more controversial proposals, such as a new Lloyd's Act," he said.

"The ALM will make no further comment on these issues for the time being, and will have a series of meetings with Lloyd's to seek a constructive and united way forward," he added.

The ALM represents a majority of Names currently trading at Lloyd's. Names--unlimited and limited--provided about ?3 billion of capacity to Lloyd's syndicates in 2002, according to ALM.