Beyond Structured Settlements

Reliance Structured Settlement Annuities

What happens, or should happen, to structured settlement payees when the owner of their structured settlement annuities becomes insolvent?

Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance), a liability insurer, is the most recent example where these issues are being adjudicated. Previous examples include Monarch Capital Corporation and First Executive Corporation, both non-insurance companies which, as "qualified assignees", owned structured settlement annuities issued by their subsidiary life insurance companies.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Liquidation Court) declared Reliance insolvent and issued an Order of Liquidation which appointed the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner as Liquidator in 2001.

The Reliance Estate, however, remains open and its current assets include approximately 3,400 structured settlement annuity contracts which the Liquidator estimates have a present discounted value of $95.1 million. The Liquidator further estimates:

• Over 85 percent of the structured settlement annuity contracts owned by the Reliance Estate are “qualified assignment” contracts and the rest are “buy and hold” contracts.
• Over 95 percent of the qualified assignment contracts owned by the Reliance Estate involve annuity contracts issued by United Pacific Life Insurance Company, a former Reliance subsidiary which Reliance sold in 1993 and which is now known as Genworth Life Insurance Company.

As part of the Reliance liquidation process, current Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Michael F. Consedine requested the Liquidation Court on September 10, 2012 to enter an Order approving transfer of ownership of these structured settlement annuity contracts to the annuity payees which, in many cases, now include factoring companies and investors who have purchased structured settlement payment rights from factoring companies.

On February 28, 2013, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter ordered the Liquidator’s Application for Approval to Transfer Ownership (Transfer Application) “be held in abeyance until further order of this Court.”

As justification for the proposed transfer of structured settlement ownership, the Transfer Application provides in part:

• With the exception of several structured settlement annuities issued by Executive Life of California and Executive Life of New York (ELNY), all payments related to structured settlement annuities owned by the Reliance Estate have been paid by the annuity issuers.
• The structured settlement annuity payees will have the same right to receive payments from the annuity issuers assuming transfer of ownership to the payees.
• As owner of the annuity contracts, Reliance has the right to transfer ownership upon notice to the annuity issuers.
• The Liquidator has concluded that transferring ownership of the annuity contracts to current payees under those contracts, with the simultaneous discharge of Reliance’s related structured settlement payment obligations:
  • Would be in the “best interest” of the Reliance Estate and represents “the only viable option”; and
  • Would not create any federal income tax liability for Reliance.
• Recognizing that any asset transfer requires prior court approval, the Liquidator “explored several other options” including transfer of the annuity contracts to:
  • A newly-formed entity such as a subsidiary corporation; and/or
  • A trust owned by Reliance.
• The Liquidator, however, concluded that any and all such alternative options would fail to provide the Reliance Estate with finality and expense reduction.

The Liquidator’s Transfer Application provides the following additional comments about the Reliance structured settlement payees:

• Tax consequences – The Liquidator concluded “it is impossible and imprudent” for the Liquidator to make predictions or provide tax advice for the payees because each has unique circumstances. Accordingly, “payees may want to consult a tax advisor or accountant with respect to the [proposed] transfer.”
• Priority in liquidation – If any structured settlement annuity issuer fails to meet its structured settlement obligation (which the Transfer Application questionably refers to as “the primary obligation”), the Liquidator has determined a claim against the Reliance Estate under a “qualified assignment” contract “would warrant no higher than class (e) priority" under the Pennsylvania Insurance Company Act. The Liquidator, however, anticipates no Reliance creditors below class (b) priority will receive any distribution from the Reliance Estate.
• Notice – The Liquidator does not have a complete list of current names and addresses of Reliance structured settlement payees in part because Reliance did not retain copies of either the annuity contracts or other structured settlement documents issued by United Pacific Life Insurance Company when it sold the company in 1993. The Liquidator assumes Reliance structured settlement annuity issuers have the ability to furnish individual notice. In addition, the Liquidator plans to publish notice in multiple regional and national newspapers.

Additional Resources

• For additional documents related to the Reliance Liquidation, see the Reliance Documents website.
• For additional information about the resolution of Monarch Capital Corporation structured settlements, see Section 5.04[2][b][ii] of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).
• For additional information about the resolution of First Executive Corporation structured settlements, see the structured settlement wiki and S2P2J Sections 3.05[11-13].
• For a discussion of alternative funding options ("qualified assignments" vs. "buy and hold") in the context of the ELNY liquidation, see "ELNY Qualified Assignments".

ELNY Appeal - Injunction 1

As reported earlier by S2KM, attorney Edward Stone filed a Notice of Appeal May 30, 2012 with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, on behalf of 18 Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees, as Objectors and Appellants, challenging the Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement approved by Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

The Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as ELNY Receiver and Respondent, and attorney Stone, on behalf of Appellant/Objector ELNY shortfall payees, subsequently and jointly agreed to and requested calendar preference and an accelerated briefing schedule for this Appeal.

Status of Appeal:

• The Appellant/Objectors' served and filed their brief and the record on appeal on Friday, August 17, 2012. For S2KM's summary, see: ELNY Appeal - Objectors' Brief.
• The Superintendent/Respondent served and filed its brief on Friday, September 7 ,2012. In addition, the National Association of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) also served and filed a supporting brief the same day.
• Appellant/Objectors served and filed a reply brief on Friday September 14, 2012.
• The Appellate Court is expected to schedule oral argument "as soon as practicable".

Copies of the Objectors' brief and reply brief are posted on the structured settlement wiki.

In prior blog posts, S2KM:

• Summarized the Appellant/Objectors' due process allegations (ELNY Appeal - Due Process 1);
• Provided additional related due process analysis (ELNY Due Process Issue);
• Reported on the ELNY Immunity Issue featuring analysis by New York attorney Peter Bickford.
• Summarized the Appellant/Objectors' arguments against granting immunity to the Superintendent (ELNY Appeal - Immunity 1)

This blog post summarizes the Appellant/Objectors' allegations that no statutory or common law basis existed for Judge John Galasso's "extraordinarily broad grant of injunctive relief" to protect the Superintendent and his agents, including the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB).

The objecting structured settlement shortfall payees have requested the Appellate Court to reverse the following sentence contained in the ELNY liquidation order:

"All persons are enjoined and restrained from commencing or further prosecuting any actions at law or other proceedings against ELNY or its assets, the Receiver or the New York Liquidation Bureau, or their present or former employees, attorneys, or agents, with respect to this proceeding or the discharge of their duties under Insurance Law Article 74.

To support their objection and request, the Appellant/Objectors maintain:

• The liquidation court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter an injunction unrelated to the collection or disposition of ELNY assets.
• The injunction is not authorized by Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law.
• The injunction is not supportable on any non-statutory basis.

Subject matter jurisdiction

• Subject matter jurisdiction is “the authority of the courts to adjudicate classes of cases.”
• Subject matter jurisdiction may be limited by statute (e.g. Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law).
• A court cannot entertain actions in which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
• In this case, the New York Supreme Court had before it the ELNY estate – and only the ELNY estate.
• Under Article 74, subject matter jurisdiction in a liquidation proceeding is limited to the collection and disposition of the insurer’s assets.
• As a liquidation court, the New York Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to prospectively adjudicate claims or issue orders not involving the estate’s assets.
• During the ELNY liquidation hearing, the Superintendent incorrectly suggested that all claims against him and/or against his agents, regardless of capacity, constituted claims against the estate.
• Injunctions granted to the Superintendent as regulator, however, do not apply to his role as Receiver where he stands in the shoes of management and should be subject to the same standard of care and responsibility.
• Claims against the Superintendent and/or his agents acting in their personal capacities as ELNY's Receiver, therefore, are not claims against the ELNY estate.
• The Superintendent also argued that similar injunctions were included in interim orders during the rehabilitation proceeding.
• However, the same rationale upon which the injunctive provision is void and unauthorized by law should also invalidate similar provisions in interlocutory orders.
• Because Judge Galasso's injunctive protection for the Superintendent, as ELNY's Receiver, and for his agents, in their personal capacities extends beyond ELNY's assets in liquidation, it exceeds the New York Supreme Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and should be void.

Article 74

• Unlike immunity, Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law contains a provision involving injunctions. However, it is inapplicable to the Receiver’s request.
• The injunctive provision are concerned with enjoining actions against the assets of ELNY, not those of the Superintendent, as ELNY's Receiver.
• Article 74 Subsection (a) limits injunctions to those which prohibit persons other than the Receiver “from the transaction of its [the insurer’s] business or the waste or disposition of its [the insurer’s] property.”
• Article 74 Subsection (b) permits injunctions as necessary to prevent “waste of the assets of the insurer, or the commencement or prosecution of any actions . . . against the insurer, its assets or any part thereof.”
• An action against the Receiver in his personal capacity is not the same as an action against the insurer or the insurer’s assets.
• Barring all claims against the Receiver is inconsistent with Article 74’s express purpose of protecting policyholders.
• A Receiver is judicially immune from liability if he acts in good faith and with appropriate care and prudence.
• Therefore, the only actions that are effectively enjoined by Judge Galasso's liquidation order are those where the Superintendent, as ELNY's Receiver, breached fiduciary or other duties.
• As a result, Judge Galasso's broad injunction is unsupported by, and inconsistent with, New York Insurance Law.

Non-Statutory Basis

• The Superintendent did not present any evidence that his property rights would be irreparably harmed absent the injunction.
• Instead, without evidence or argument, the Superintendent simply asked for unlimited injunctive relief, and Judge Galasso granted the request.
• As argued above, a lawsuit against the Superintendent in his personal capacity is not the same as a claim against ELNY or its assets.
• Even if the Superintendent might be inconvenienced by claims against him in his personal capacity, mere annoyance and litigation expense, even substantial and unrecoverable cost, does not constitute "irreparable injury” sufficient to authorize an injunction.
• The Superintendent also argued that interlocutory orders issued in 1991 and 1992 as part of ELNY's rehabilitation proceeding contained similar language.
• Those injunctions, however, were by definition temporary, not permanent.
• Any past bar to the filing of claims by ELNY shortfall payees is immaterial where such claims did not accrue until Judge Galasso's liquidation order resulted in a loss of benefits
• Regardless, prior injunctive provisions possess the same jurisdictional and statutory defects as the injunctive provision in the ELNY liquidation order.

For S2KM's complete and ELNY reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Appeal - Due Process 1

In a prior blog post, S2KM summarized the appellate brief filed August 17, 2012 on behalf of 18 structured settlement shortfall payees (objector/appellants) who are appealing the Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) liquidation plan and restructuring agreement approved by New York Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

This blog post provides a more detailed summary of due process allegations contained in the objectors' appellate brief. For additional related background information, see also "The ELNY Due Process Issue".

Due process, according to authorities cited in the objectors' appellate brief, requires:

• At a minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard before a person is deprived of a property interest; and
• Balancing (1) the interests of the parties to the dispute; (2) the adequacy of the contested procedures to protect those interests; and (3) the government’s stake in the outcome.

The objecting ELNY shortfall payees allege they were denied due process because the procedures afforded the ELNY shortfall payees were unfair and prejudicial. More specifically they allege:

• The notices sent to the ELNY shortfall payees were inadequate and misleading.
  • Although the ELNY shortfall victims had a substantial interest in the ELNY liquidation hearing, they were not parties to the proceeding. They were never served with any petitions, orders, or filings.
  • Instead, Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso permitted the New York Superintendent of Financial Services (Superintendent), as Receiver (Receiver), to send a single letter of notification.
    • The letters were sent from a Minnesota address and had an outward appearance of junk mail.
    • Hundreds of notices were returned undelivered presumably because the Receiver's records were outdated.
    • Many ELNY shortfall payees received their notices during the December holidays.
    • The notice was difficult for non-lawyers to understand and many shortfall payees experienced difficulty finding qualified legal counsel on such short notice.
  • The notice was misleading because it reassured shortfall victims that a $100 million ELNY hardship fund had been created without fully disclosing limitations related to the hardship fund.
  • The objectors were not given adequate time to object to the proposed ELNY liquidation plan ("three weeks for some recipients").
  • The notice stated ELNY shortfall payees waived their right to object after a January 16, 2012 deadline and therefore served to dissuade potential objectors who concluded they could not comply within the deadline.
  • Having imposed these court-endorsed impediments to the objection process, however, the Superintendent, as ELNY's Receiver, subsequently cited the low number of objections received (130 objections out of 1,456 affected shortfall payees) as evidence that the proposed ELNY liquidation and restructuring plan was fair.
• The time allowed for ELNY shortfall payees to prepare for the ELNY liquidation hearing, and their lack of access to information, were unreasonable.
  • S2KM Note: for perspective, here are excerpts from the Executive Life timeline available on the structured settlement wiki:
    • 1991 - ELNY enters rehabilitation and its plan for rehabilitation is subsequently court approved in 1992. Neither the 1991 ELNY rehabilitation order nor the 1992 order approving the ELNY rehabilitation plan declared ELNY to be insolvent. The Superintendent and his agent, the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), as ELNY's Receiver, have managed ELNY's business continuously from 1991 to the present.
    • 2002 - ELNY's unpublished and unaudited financial statements, obtained by attorney Peter Bickford as a result of Freedom of Information Law requests, show that ELNY's surplus turned into a deficit in 2002.
    • 2007 - New York Governor Eliot Spitzer announces an "agreement in principle" for ELNY designed to continue paying all ELNY annuitants 100% of their benefits. The announced plan, however, whereby various insurers and guarantee associations agree to pay $650 to $750 million to fund approximately $2 billion of future ELNY payments, never materializes.
    • 2009 - Audited financial statements indicate ELNY has a deficit in excess of $1.5 billion. The National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) estimates the majority of ELNY's guaranty association costs (e.g. 66-75%) will likely be borne by New York's two life insurance guaranty associations and that 20-30 state guaranty associations may eventually participate in a final ELNY liquidation plan.
    • 2010 - A New York State Supreme Court Judge orders the Superintendent to present the Court with a proposed order and plan of liquidation for ELNY which the Superintendent eventually files with the court on September 1, 2011.
    • December 7, 2011 - The NYLB, acting as the Superintendent's agent, mails letters to individual ELNY annuity payees notifying them for the first time about the proposed ELNY liquidation and Restructuring Agreement and alerting them of anticipated shortfalls for specific ELNY annuity contracts.
    • January 16, 2012 - deadline for ELNY liquidation Answering Papers (objections) to be served on the Superintendent in response to the petition.
    • March 15-30, 2012 - hearing before Judge Galasso of the New York State Supreme Court to consider the Superintendent's Petition for an Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for ELNY.
  • Although the Superintendent (and his agents), as Receiver, spent years preparing for the ELNY liquidation and restructuring plan, the Superintendent provided ELNY shortfall payees with inadequate time to: 1) review and comprehend their complicated legal dilemma and proposed ELNY restructuring plan; 2) find an attorney qualified and willing to represent their interests; and 3) prepare a response.
  • Had the ELNY shortfall payees been given adequate notice (at least as early as 2010), they could have begun taking steps to protect themselves. For example: they could have: 1) sought counsel; 2) pooled resources to hire consultants; 3) exercised their rights as annuity payees; 4) made appropriate demands on the Receiver; and 5) offered a meaningful response at the Order to Show Cause hearing.
  • Despite requests and objections, the Superintendent, as Receiver, withheld material information from the shortfall payees and their attorneys. Without these documents, attorneys for the shortfall payees were not able to verify and/or effectively question the assumptions or conclusions of the Receiver’s expert.
  • Conversely, years prior to the ELNY liquidation hearing, the Superintendent not only notified NOLHGA and various insurance companies about the pending ELNY liquidation, he also shared documents with them and invited and accepted their input into the drafting of the proposed ELNY liquidation plan.
  • However, when attorneys for the shortfall payees sought to submit their own alternative liquidation and restructuring plan for comparison, both the Receiver and Judge Galasso refused their input - with the Receiver repeatedly citing the absence of an alternative plan as evidence that his plan was viable and fair.
• Judge Galasso selectively applied procedural rules to the detriment of the ELNY shortfall payees.
  • Despite objections, Judge Galasso permitted the Superintendent, as Receiver, to establish critical components of its case through hearsay and speculative testimony.
  • As one example, Judge Galasso characterized as a "gun to my head" repeated threats by attorneys representing the Superintendent, as Receiver, and NOLHGA that voluntary contributions from insurance companies for an ELNY hardship fund would "go out the door" if Judge Galasso refused to approve the Superintendent's plan. This threat, however, was completely unsupported by admissible evidence and one of the Superintendent's own witnesses admitted such predictions were speculative.
  • In addition, Judge Galasso permitted the Superintendent's attorneys to admit into evidence binders of exhibits never served on the payees as well as a revised version of the Superintendent's restructuring plan not filed until March 6, 2012, less than 10 days before the hearing and more than six weeks after the objection period had ended.
  • By comparison, Judge Galasso repeatedly denied requests by attorneys for the ELNY shortfall payees for documents which the Superintendent had shared with NOLHGA and various insurance companies and their counsel.
  • There was no justification for Judge Galasso to allow the Superintendent and his attorneys to play "hide the ball" - refusing to share documents with shortfall payees to whom the Superintendent, as Receiver, owed an affirmative duty of disclosure while sharing those same documents with other parties including NOLHGA, various insurance companies and their attorneys.

 September 7, 2012 is the deadline for the Superintendent (Respondent), as Receiver, to serve and file his appellate brief. NOLHGA has requested and is expected to file its own appellate brief. For S2KM's complete and continuing ELNY liquidation reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Appeal - Objectors' Brief

Approximately 1456 Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) shortfall victims, who collectively anticipate a $920 million present value loss under the proposed ELNY liquidation plan and restructuring agreement approved by New York Supreme Court Judge John Galasso on April 16, 2012, were denied their constitutional rights to due process according to an appeal filed August 17, 2012 with the Appellate Division (Second Department) of the New York Supreme Court.

The appeal, filed by attorney Edward Stone and the Christensen & Jensen law firm on behalf of 18 of the shortfall victims (objectors), also alleges Judge Galasso erred in granting immunity and injunctive protection to the New York Superintendent of Financial Services (Superintendent) in his capacity as ELNY's receiver (Receiver).

The objectors' appellate brief requests the appellate court to reverse the ELNY liquidation order in its entirety or, in the alternative, to reverse the paragraphs granting immunity and injunctive relief to the Superintendent and his agents including the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB).

Due Process

The appellate brief alleges the objecting ELNY shortfall victims were denied their due process to a fair hearing because of a lack of reasonable notice and necessary information and the selective application of civil practice law and rules.

Due process, according to authorities cited in the objectors' appellate brief, requires:

• At a minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard before a person is deprived of a property interest; and
• Balancing (1) the interests of the parties to the dispute; (2) the adequacy of the contested procedures to protect those interests; and (3) the government’s stake in the outcome.

Looking first at the interests of the parties to the dispute, the objectors maintain:

• The shortfall payees have a "substantial interest" in a fair hearing because of: 1) their anticipated shortfalls and related financial and medical hardships; 2) their concerns about the future management of their remaining ELNY assets under a viable plan; and 3) their concerns that the Superintendent, whom they allege was responsible for their ELNY shortfalls, will continue to exercise supervisory responsibilities under the proposed ELNY restructuring plan.
• When acting in their capacity as receiver, the Superintendent and the NYLB are not acting as government agencies. Their interests are limited to protecting the policyholders, creditors, and the public including the ELNY shortfall payees. Their interests in a fair hearing should be extremely high - the same as the shortfall payees. Conversely, the burden of a fair hearing on the Superintendent and the NYLB would have been minimal.
• The government also has a high interest in a fair ELNY hearing in order to protect the integrity of the statutory receivership system as well as the financial well-being of 1456 individuals some of whom could become public charges as a result of their ELNY benefit reductions.

The ELNY shortfall victims were denied due process, according to the objectors, because the procedures afforded the ELNY shortfall victims were unfair and prejudicial:

• The notices were inadequate and misleading.
• The time allowed, and the lack of access to information, were unreasonable.
• Judge Galasso selectively applied procedural rules to the detriment of the ELNY shortfall payees.

Judicial Immunity

The objectors allege Judge Galasso and the ELNY liquidation court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and otherwise erred in granting judicial immunity to the Superintendent (along with his employees, agents and attorneys), acting as ELNY's receiver, in their personal capacities because:

• The New York Supreme Court, as a liquidation court, does not have jurisdiction under Article 74 of the New York insurance statute to prospectively adjudicate claims or issue orders not involving ELNY's assets. Claims against the Superintendent, as Receiver, or others in their personal capacities are not claims against the ELNY estate.
• The scope of the ELNY Liquidation Order’s immunity provision is unsupported by and unprecedented under New York law which provides immunity for acts taken “in good faith” and "with appropriate care and prudence.” Conversely, the ELNY liquidation order confers immunity for virtually every act or omission the Superintendent has ever undertaken, whether in an official or personal capacity, or whether in bad faith or violation of a court order.

Permanent Injunctive Relief

The objectors allege Judge Galasso and the ELNY liquidation court lacked jurisdiction and otherwise erred in granting permanent injunctive relief to the Superintendent (along with his employees, agents and attorneys), acting as ELNY's receiver, in their personal capacities because:

• The injunction provision of Article 74 of New York's insurance law applies to an action against the insurer (ELNY) or the insurer's assets not to an action against the Superintendent, as ELNY receiver, in his personal capacity.
• A receiver is judicially immune from liability if he acts in good faith and with appropriate care and prudence. Therefore, the only actions effectively enjoined by Judge Galasso's liquidation order are actions where the Superintendent, as ELNY's receiver, breached his fiduciary or other duties.
• The Superintendent did not offer any evidence that his property rights would be irreparably harmed absent the injunction.

Briefing Schedule and Additional ELNY Reporting

As reported in S2KM's recent ELNY Update, the Superintendent, as ELNY Receiver and Respondent, and attorney Stone, on behalf of Appellant/Objectors, have jointly agreed and requested calendar preference and an accelerated briefing schedule for this Appeal:

• September 7, 2012 - deadline for Respondent's brief to be served and filed.
• September 14, 2012 - deadline for Appellants' reply brief, if any, to be served and filed, with oral argument to be set by the Court as soon as practicable thereafter.

For additional background information about issues addressed in the objectors' appellate brief, see:

• The ELNY Due Process Issue; and
• The ELNY Immunity Issue - featuring Peter Bickford's analysis.

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation, including a copy of the objectors/petitioners' appellate brief, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Periodic Payment Obligations

More than 1400 structured settlement annuity payees are expected to suffer payment shortfalls under the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Plan approved by New York State Supreme Court Judge John Galasso on April 16, 2012. The average individual shortfall is estimated to exceed $600,000 present value.

Under what circumstances, if any, will defendants/liability insurers have the legal responsibility to make up the difference in ELNY structured settlement shortfall payments?

Recent Motion

This issue was highlighted in a recent Motion by liability insurers asking Judge Galasso to "clarify and/or correct" his ELNY Memorandum Decision insofar as the Memorandum Decision "caused confusion or mistake" concerning responsibilities of those liability insurers to make up shortfalls on ELNY annuities. Judge Galasso denied the Motion on July 23, 2012.

The Motion attempted to distinguish two types of structured settlement funding alternatives ("buy and hold" vs. qualified assignments). "Buy and hold" annuities, according to the Motion, "are those whereby the underlying insurer retained, or held the liability for future payments, and funded that liability through its ownership of a qualified funding asset, or annuity."

In contrast, the Motion states, "where a structured settlement includes a qualified assignment, the defendant and its liability insurer are fully released from future liability - which liability is assumed by the assignee, here, First Executive Corporation." (emphasis added). Of course, one of the problems for all ELNY stakeholders is that First Executive Corporation ceased to exist in 1991.

As S2KM has previously written, those "suggestions" and/or "assumptions" are not necessarily or universally true. Legal rights and responsibilities resulting from attempts to create qualified assignments must be determined on a case by case basis.

Three Funding Choices

As more fully explained in Section 3.02 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J): with a structured settlement, each defendant and/or liability insurer has three choices regarding its obligation to fund future periodic payment obligations to the claimant (1) to have no obligation; (2) to assume or share the obligation; or (3) to assume and then transfer the obligation without recourse. In general:

• "No obligation" means either a claim is paid on a lump sum basis or a structured settlement occurs and all parties agree that the particular defendant or liability insurer shall have no duty to make any future periodic payments.
• “Assume the obligation” means that a particular defendant or liability insurer ("obligor") assumes a legal obligation to pay future periodic payments. This obligor may be solely, jointly, or jointly and severally liable for the payments and, by assuming the obligation, accepts certain risks. One such risk is the potential insolvency of the financing company (e.g. ELNY).
• "Transfer the obligation" means "novation" as defined in Section 280 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (Restatement): "A novation is a substituted contract that includes as a party one who was neither the obligor nor the obligee of the original duty." Comments to Section 280 further provide:
  • "Effect of novation. A novation discharges the original duty, just as any other substituted contract does, so that breach of the new duty gives no right of action on the old duty.
  • "Consideration. A novation is subject to the same requirements as any other contract, including that of consideration.... [C]onsideration to support the discharge of the original duty can usually be found in the promise to undertake a new duty….Assent of the obligee of the original duty and of the obligor of the new duty is always necessary."
  • "Substitution of obligor. ….[A] mere promise by a third party to assume the obligor’s duty, not offered in substitution for that duty, does not result in a novation, and the new duty that the third party may owe to the obligee as an intended beneficiary is in addition to and not in substitution for the obligor’s original duty."
  • Illustration: "A owes B $1000. B promises C that he will discharge the debt immediately if C will promise to pay him $1000. Intending to benefit A, C so promises. There is a novation under which B’s and C’s promises are consideration for each other, and A’s duty to pay B is discharged. A is the intended beneficiary of B’s promise …and can by disclaimer render the transaction, including the discharge, inoperative from the beginning."

Qualified Assignment

The most common method for transferring a structured settlement obligation is a "qualified assignment" as defined in IRC Section 130(c). For purposes of understanding "transfer of obligation" in the context of structured settlements, however, the Section 130 definition of "qualified assignment" presents two significant problems:

• IRC section 130 does not address whether the assignor's duty is discharged as a result of a qualified assignment.
• Section 130 incorrectly uses the term "assignment" when it should have utilized the term "delegation".

Restatement of Contracts

Comments to Section 316 of the Restatement explain both the difference and the significance of these two terms:

• "Assignment and delegation. In this Chapter rights are said to be 'assigned'; duties are said to be 'delegated' ….. 'Assignment' is the transfer of a right by the owner (the obligee or assignor) to another person (the assignee)."
• "Comparing delegation to assignment. A person subject to a duty (the obligor) does not ordinarily have such a power to substitute another in his place without the consent of the obligee; that is what is meant when it is said that duties cannot be assigned. 'Delegation' of performance may be effective to empower a substitute to perform on behalf of the obligor, but the obligor remains subject to the duty until it has been discharged by performance or otherwise."

Comments to Section 318 of the Restatement further differentiate "delegation" and "novation" as follows: "An obligor is discharged by the substitution of a new obligor only if the contract so provides or if the obligee makes a binding manifestation of assent, forming a novation….Otherwise the obligee retains his original right against the obligor, even though the obligor manifests an intention to substitute another obligor in his place and the other purports to assume the duty. The obligee may, however, have rights against the other as an intended beneficiary of the promise to assume the duty."

NSSTA Model Agreements

After ELNY entered rehabilitation in 1991, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) published Model Qualified Assignment Agreements (with and without a Release) which documents were updated following the enactment of IRC 5891 in 2001. Both versions of NSSTA's current Model Qualified Assignment Agreements reference IRC section 130 and utilize "assignment" to describe what the Restatement more properly characterizes as a "delegation".

Here is the relevant comparative language from current paragraphs 1 of the NSSTA Model Agreements:

• With Release - "Assignment and Assumption; Release of Assignor. Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee, and Assignee hereby accepts and assumes, all of Assignor’s liability to make the Periodic Payments. Each Claimant hereby accepts and consents to such assignment by Assignor and assumption by Assignee. Effective on the Effective Date, each Claimant hereby releases and discharges Assignor from all liability to make the Periodic Payments."
• Without Release - "Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee, and Assignee hereby accepts and assumes, all of Assignor’s liability to make the Periodic Payments."

Impact for Defendants and ELNY Victims

How does this discussion impact whether defendants/liability insurers have the legal responsibility to make up the difference in ELNY structured settlement shortfall payments?

• NSSTA's Model Qualified Assignment Agreements did not exist during the time period (1985-1990) when ELNY was selling structured settlement annuities.
• Legal rights and responsibilities resulting from attempts to create qualified assignments must be determined on a case by case basis.
• Whatever language parties used to describe and/or label their transactions (e.g. annuity financing; buy and hold; qualified assignment; novation; transfer; etc.) is not by itself determinative of the rights and responsibilities set forth in the actual language of the settlement documentation.
• Some common industry practices, at least during the 1985-1990 time period, could create problems for defendant/liability insurers.
• For example, in the paper he delivered at the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) 2012 Annual Meeting, attorney David Higgins pointed out how some defendants and liability insurers have attempted "to collapse the creation of the liability with the assignment of the liability to the assignee."
• Higgins, who drafted the text of the 1982 structured settlement law introduced in the House and the Senate, warned that "such a collapse is to be avoided if the definition [of a qualified assignment] is to be met."
• Under U.S. common law, whether a novation has occurred is a question of fact, and the burden of proving it is generally upon the party asserting it.
• The Restatement identifies potential defenses for ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims who attempt to void a novation including misrepresentation (Sections 159-162) and disclaimer (Section 306).
• All ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees, as well as defendants and/or liability insurers who purchased the related ELNY structured settlement annuities, should retain qualified legal counsel to review their settlement documentation.

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Qualified Assignments

Do qualified assignments extinguish the liability of defendants and/or liability insurers for shortfall payments resulting from the liquidation of Executive Life of New York (ELNY)?

That issue is highlighted by a Motion filed June 14, 2012 on behalf of several liability insurers ("Motion") asking Judge John Gallasso to "clarify and/or correct" his April 16, 2012 ELNY Memorandum Decision. For additional background, see S2KM's blog post "ELNY Shortfall Payments".

Judge Galasso's ELNY Memorandum Decision states in relevant part: "certain insurance companies such as Travelers, the Fireman's Fund Companies and Hartford have assured the Court that they will make up the difference to those identified shortfall payees for any settlement obligation where they purchased an ELNY annuity on behalf of an injured party."

The Motion attempts to distinguish two types of structured settlement funding alternatives ("buy and hold" vs. qualified assignments). "Buy and hold" annuities, according to the Motion, "are those whereby the underlying insurer retained, or held the liability for future payments, and funded that liability through its ownership of a qualified funding asset, or annuity."

In contrast, the Motion states, "where a structured settlement includes a qualified assignment, the defendant and its liability insurer are fully released from future liability - which liability is assumed by the assignee, here, First Executive Corporation." (emphasis added). Of course, one of the problems for all ELNY stakeholders is that First Executive Corporation ceased to exist in 1991.

Regardless of whether Judge Galasso grants the liability insurers' motion, the legal rights and responsibilities of ELNY qualified assignments represents a critical issue that may subsequently be litigated. The Motion suggests that all qualified assignments release all defendants and liability insurers from future liability for promised periodic payments and that annuity ownership determines liability.

Those "suggestions" and/or "assumptions" are not necessarily or universally true. Legal rights and responsibilities resulting from attempts to create qualified assignments must be determined on a case by case basis for multiple reasons:

• IRC section 130, which defines a "qualified assignment", does not address whether the assignor's duty is discharged as a result of a qualified assignment.
• IRC section 130 does include requirements which must be met to successfully create a qualified assignment.
• The Monarch Capital case demonstrates some judges apply "creative" legal analysis to protect structured settlement payees following the bankruptcy of a qualified structured settlement assignee.

See "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) Section 3.05[9] for information about life insurance insolvencies including ELNY; Section 3.06 for information about qualified assignments; and Section 5.04 which addresses the risk of non-payment to a structured settlement payee.

See the structured settlement wiki for S2KM's complete and continuing reporting about Executive Life of New York,

ELNY Shortfall Payments

Who has responsibility to make up the difference in annuity shortfall payments under the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Plan approved by New York State Supreme Court Judge John Galasso on April 16, 2012?

Attorneys representing several liability insurers who previously purchased ELNY structured settlement annuities have filed a Motion asking Judge Galasso to "clarify and/or correct" his ELNY Memorandum Decision insofar as the Memorandum Decision "caused confusion or mistake" concerning responsibilities of those liability insurers to make up shortfalls on ELNY annuities.

The ELNY Memorandum Decision states in relevant part: "certain insurance companies such as Travelers, the Fireman's Fund Companies and Hartford have assured the Court that they will make up the difference to those identified shortfall payees for any settlement obligation where they purchased an ELNY annuity on behalf of an injured party."

In their June 14, 2012 Motion, attorneys Seiger Gfeller Laurie, representing those liability insurers, as well as Jefferson Insurance Company, Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company dba Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty North America, John Hancock Property and Casualty Insurance Company and John Hancock Indemnity Company, ask the Court to "amend its decision to omit what the Court likely intended as an aside, or background, which is not material to the Court's approval" of the ELNY Liquidation Plan.

The Motion attempts to distinguish two types of structured settlement funding alternatives: "buy and hold" vs. qualified assignments. The Motion maintains that "at no time" did the liability insurers "undertake liability following qualified assignments - liability was extinguished pursuant to the qualified assignment arrangements."

The Motion further attempts to clarify statements made during the ELNY Liquidation hearings by Fireman's Fund attorney Peter Vodola. According to the Motion, Vodola's promise on behalf of Fireman's Fund that structured settlement shortfall payees "will receive a hundred percent of their benefits regardless of what happens here" was specifically limited to ELNY annuitants "who are entitled to payments under annuities owned by Fireman's Fund."

At least one ELNY shortfall victim has already requested that Fireman's Fund make up the difference on a structured settlement funded with a qualified assignment.  The Motion highlights as an Exhibit an April 25, 2012 letter written by attorney Edward Stone to Fireman's Fund's Chief Counsel on behalf of ELNY shortfall victim Jeanice Dolan.

Stone's letter states that Dolan anticipates a 47 percent payment reduction under the ELNY Liquidation Plan resulting in a present value loss of $815,162.62. After quoting the Memorandum Decision language the Motion seeks to "clarify and/or correct", Stone's letter requests Fireman's Fund to compensate Dolan for her ELNY shortfall.

Stone has indicated to S2KM he plans to file opposition papers and a cross motion.

A copy of the Motion to Clarify and/or Correct the Court's Memorandum Decision is posted on the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 2

Presiding Judge John M. Galasso today denied a motion filed on behalf of Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall victims to compel immediate disclosure of source materials relied upon by testifying expert Jack Gibson as well as copies of all objections filed in connection with the Petition to liquidate and restructure ELNY.

Attorneys for the structured settlement shortfall victims had argued that claims of confidentiality by ELNY's Receiver, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, (Superintendent) intentionally deprived their clients of full and fair access to important and relevant information and, accordingly, a full and fair opportunity to challenge the Superintendent's proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement.

Gibson, the Superintendent's expert witness, had earlier testified that an ELNY annuity administrative database prepared by MetLife had formed the sole basis for his projections regarding ELNY's future liabilities which, under the proposed Restructuring Agreement, would become liabilities of successor company Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC).

In addition to the MetLife database, attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims unsuccessfully sought disclosure of other documents relied upon by Gibson including an ELNY 2002-2010 Mortality Experience Study, a MetLife/ELNY Administrative Agreement, Investment Reports from ELNY's Investment Managers, plus information developed by NOLHGA showing Guaranty Association estimates and allocations for individual annuity contracts.

Neither the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims nor their attorneys have had access to any of these materials which Gibson relied upon to conclude that GABC is financially viable. The ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims' attorneys claimed it is "extremely prejudicial" to require them to cross-examine Gibson ("a highly skilled actuary") without access to the source data and assumptions he used to perform his calculations.

In addition to Gibson's source materials, the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims' motion also sought to compel the Superintendent to make accessible all publicly filed court documents including especially the Objections filed by all objectors.

Despite references to various objections in the Superintendent's Reply Memorandum and Jonathan Bing's Affidavit and testimony, the Superintendent has refused to share copies with the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims or their attorneys. In contrast, the Superintendent has shared the full set of Objections with the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) and the Life Insurance Company Guaranty Corporation of New York (LICGCNY).

To address the Superintendent's claimed concerns of confidentiality, attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims offered to accept redacted versions of the documents or enter into a confidentiality agreement. Challenging the Superintendent's claimed concerns of confidentiality, attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims alleged the Superintendent's true motive is to deprive the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims a full and fair opportunity to challenge the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement.

The ELNY Liquidation Hearing will reconvene Tuesday March 20, 2012 with attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims continuing their cross-examination of Gibson. For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Objections and Replies

On March 15, 2012, the Supreme Court of Nassau County New York (Court) is scheduled to consider a Petition by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent) for an Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY).

In response to the proposed ELNY Liquidation Order and Restructuring Agreement, approximately 130 persons and/or companies have filed objections. On March 1, 2012, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York and Attorney for the Superintendent, filed an "Omnibus Reply Memorandum of Law in Response to the Objections to the Proposed Liquidation of ELNY and Distribution of ELNY's Assets Pursuant to the Restructuring Agreement" (Reply Memorandum).

The Reply Memorandum consists of 56 pages plus an Exhibit A titled "List of Objections". Exhibit A identifies individual objectors (presumably ELNY annuity payees) by contract number and liability insurers (presumably ELNY "buy and hold" annuity owners) by name. Exhibit A also identifies a couple of structured settlement factoring companies as objectors. Among the Reply Memorandum's conclusions:

• "No interested person has come forward with a viable alternative or proposed statutorily compliant changes to the Restructuring Agreement that would increase benefit payments to ELNY Contract policyholders and payees above those already provided for and guaranteed under the Restructuring Agreement."
• "The Court should overrule the objections submitted and issue an order declaring ELNY to be insolvent and directing the liquidation of ELNY on the terms set forth in the Restructuring Agreement."

S2KM summarized the Reply Memorandum as well as two other recent ELNY Court filings in a prior blog post. In this blog post, S2KM summarizes the ELNY objections and the Superintendent's replies as set forth in the Reply Memorandum. For S2KM's complete coverage of the ELNY liquidation, including an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

Benefit Reductions

• Objection- ELNY annuity benefit payments should not be reduced because:
  • A reduction in benefits will cause extreme hardship.
  • The terms of the ELNY annuity contracts prohibit a reduction in payments.
  • Many of the ELNY annuity contract were issued pursuant to structured settlement agreements approved by court orders that cannot be abrogated.
  • Assurances were received that the ELNY structured settlement annuity payments would be guaranteed.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • These objections cannot outweigh the necessity for an order of liquidation because ELNY’s current assets are insufficient to cover the claims of all creditors.
  • Without liquidation, insolvency will continue to worsen and ELNY will exhaust its assets without the ability to meet its future annuity payment obligations.
  • Upon a finding of insolvency and the issuance of an order of liquidation, ELNY will cease to exist and the Superintendent, as liquidator, will be vested with discretionary authority to dispose of ELNY’s assets and to compromise its claims in accordance with New York Insurance Law Section 7435 in the manner directed by this Court.
  • As a result, prior orders and contractual obligations regarding payments do not form a valid basis for objecting to the approval of the Restructuring Agreement.
  • The Restructuring Agreement maximizes benefits and minimizes the risk of disruption and loss to ELNY policyholders and payees.

Additional Disclosure

• Objection - More information is needed to determine whether objections exist to the Restructuring Agreement.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • This objection is not grounds for rejecting the Restructuring Agreement because the information sought has been provided or is premature and unnecessary for the Court’s consideration and approval of the Restructuring Agreement.
  • The Superintendent has been working to provide objectors with all of the information requested, most of which has already been disclosed including recently completed Exhibit 6.1.2, the Supplemental Benefits Reinsurance and Participation Agreement.
• Objection - The Restructuring Agreement and its exhibits and schedules have not been finalized and executed.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • The reason for seeking approval of the Restructuring Agreement as drafted is to allow flexibility for making non-material changes to successfully close the Restructuring Agreement without negatively impacting ELNY policyholders and payees.
  • The Superintendent does not object to the Court considering and resolving any objections filed after the January 16, 2012 deadline to the extent they concern disclosures or changes made after that date.
  • The Superintendent is negotiating a draft "facilitation plan" with NOLHGA, on behalf of GABC, and certain annuity owners, which is not a closing condition to the Restructuring Agreement.
  • Even without the facilitation plan, ELNY policyholders and annuitants will still receive the same benefit payments from GABC plus whatever supplemental payments they are entitled to from responsible annuity owners.
• Objection - The Superintendent did not provide sufficient information and/or assurances concerning the financial ability of GABC to meet its future obligations to ELNY policyholders and payees.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • The Superintendent did not present additional financial information concerning the assets and liabilities of GABC at the time of filing the Verified Petition.
  • Reason: except for GABC's New York Article 75 guaranty payments (less than 5 percent of total liabilities), GABC's liabilities will be guaranteed by state guaranty associations or life insurance companies.
  • Because of this objection, however, the Superintendent has filed an expert report of Jack Gibson and an affidavit of Jonathan Bing and intends to present their testimony as well as Ivy Chang's testimony on March 15, 2012. Note: Gibson's report plus the affidavits of Bing and Chang are posted on the ELNY website. S2KM summarized Gibson's report and Bing's affidavit in this prior blog post and Chang's affidavit in this prior blog post.
  • The Superintendent also promises to provide additional information concerning Schedule 1.15, including guaranty association coverage, enhancements, and the treatment of third parties with rights under assignments of annuity benefit payments in accordance with Article 74 of the Insurance Law.
• Objection - The Restructuring Agreement is subject to change after Court approval including Schedule 1.15, participating guaranty association (PGA) coverage, and/or the extent of third-party rights to payments from PGAs.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • Prior notices to ELNY policyholders and annuitants explained that information about possible benefit reductions was “estimated” and “subject to change”.
  • Note: the Superintendent has revised the proposed Restructuring Agreement as of March 6, 2012.
  • The Superintendent promises to file with the Court an updated Schedule 1.15 prior to the March 15, 2012 hearing on the Petition.
  • Under the applicable statutes, however, Schedule 1.15 cannot be finalized until after court approval of the Restructuring Agreement to allow sufficient time for resolution of any Section 1.15-related disputes.
  • After the Court approves the Restructuring Agreement, Schedule 1.15 will also change to the extent:
    • An ELNY policyholder moves, provides updated address information, or dies, which could alter PGA coverage and/or ELNY’s contractual obligations;
    • The total assets and liabilities of ELNY change to a sufficient degree to alter the projected pro rata percentage distribution of ELNY’s assets to all ELNY policyholders and payees;
    • A PGA determines that an ELNY policyholder or payee is or is not entitled to coverage previously noted in Schedule 1.15; and/or
    • Information is provided that shows an error in Schedule 1.15, requiring correction pursuant to the Restructuring Agreement.

Notice Issues

• Objection - The notice procedures and briefing schedule were inadequate to provide interested parties with an opportunity to review and to present objections to the proposed ELNY liquidation and Restructuring Agreement.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • The ELNY notice and briefing schedule balanced the need for a prompt resolution of ELNY’s deepening insolvency against the ability of affected parties to review and object to the proposed liquidation and Restructuring Agreement.
  • By the March 15, 2012 hearing date, interested parties will have had:
    • 195 days since the Superintendent issued a press release about ELNY’s financial situation and the plans to liquidate and restructure;
    • 118 days since a form of Court-approved Notice began being published in the national editions of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal for four consecutive weeks, and
    • 99 days since personalized informational mailings were distributed to the last known address of each ELNY policyholder and payee.
  • The Superintendent, through the NYLB, created a new dedicated website specifically for ELNY policyholders and other interested parties on September 1, 2011 - the same day the Order to Show Cause was issued.
  • The Superintendent has received, considered and responded to several objections submitted past the January 16, 2012 deadline.

Not Fair and Equitable

• Objection- The Restructuring Agreement is not fair and equitable and does not comport with New York law because:
  • Some ELNY annuity payees will experience substantial shortfalls while the great majority of ELNY annuity payees will be paid in full; and
  • It improperly favors ELNY contracts that are either not covered by a PGA or covered by a PGA in an amount less than $250,000.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • The Restructuring Agreement complies with the statutory requirements of Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law. It treats all ELNY policyholders equally and creates no favored subclass with respect to ELNY's assets.
  • A straight liquidation of the ELNY estate without implementation of the Restructuring Agreement would provide far fewer benefits in a significantly less orderly manner.
  • Under New York law, the Superintendent has the power to enter into the Restructuring Agreement and the Court has the ability to direct the manner in which payments and dividends to creditors shall be made.
  • In his role managing the affairs of an insolvent insurer, the Superintendent, as Rehabilitator or Liquidator, is entitled to deference unless his decisions are arbitrary or unreasonable.

PGA Participation and Funding

• Objection - The Restructuring Agreement should not be approved because it limits or alters ELNY policyholders’ and payees’ rights against the PGAs.
• Superintendent's Reply - The Restructuring Agreement does not limit or alter ELNY Contract policyholders’ and payees’ rights against the PGAs, including the right to contest the amount or conditions of any applicable state guaranty association coverage.
• Objection - The Restructuring Agreement unfairly permits the PGAs to reduce the amount of their statutory coverage obligations.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • The net contribution, as opposed to a full contribution by the PGAs of the maximum amount of each PGA’s statutory coverage, arises under the express provisions of Section 7435 of the New York Insurance Law, not under applicable state guaranty association statutes.
  • This netting effect occurs because the contributing PGA is entitled to a pro rata distribution of ELNY’s assets with equal priority to the claims of ELNY policyholders and payees.
  • It is accounted for in the Restructuring Agreement by calculating the PGAs total required contributions on a net basis after reduction of the PGAs’ corresponding claim against the ELNY estate.

Proposed Immunity Provisions

• Objections
  • Provisions in the proposed Order of Liquidation extending judicial immunity to the Superintendent, his successors, agents and representatives, should be denied and/or eliminated.
  • The Court should use funds from the ELNY estate to appoint an investigator/expert to determine the cause of ELNY’s insolvency.
• Superintendent's Reply- The Court should reject these requests and grant immunity to the Superintendent and his agents because:
  • The Superintendent, as regulator of the insurance industry in the State of New York, is immune for his decision to seek liquidation and the timing of such decision.
  • The Superintendent, as Receiver for ELNY, has no liability for actions performed within the scope of his authority pursuant to the Rehabilitation Order, the Rehabilitation Plan Order, and subsequent orders of this Court.
  • Historical returns on ELNY’s investments were not as high as anticipated under the Rehabilitation Plan (13% for the common stocks and 100-150 basis points above 30 year U.S. Treasury obligations for bonds).
  • The Superintendent adjusted and increased the reserves required to meet ELNY’s future annuity obligations in 2006 using the then-current statutory basis of 5.25 percent.
  • The net effect was to increase the projected funds needed by ELNY to meet its future obligations by nearly $1 billion dollars.
  • While ELNY’s actual payment obligations remained unchanged, the 2006 financial statements showed an increase in assets necessary to meet those obligations.
  • New York Insurance law does not provide for the appointment of an investigator/expert by the Court to be paid for by the ELNY estate.
  • Any claim against the Superintendent would deplete estate assets without any benefit to ELNY Contract policyholders or payees.
  • If the Court does not grant immunity, the Superintendent will be forced to reserve assets in the ELNY estate to pay the costs of defending these meritless claims, which could significantly delay the liquidation of ELNY and the closing of the Restructuring Agreement.
  • The injunctions restraining all persons from commencing any action against the Superintendent, as Receiver, should be continued.
  • No objector has met its burden of proof to vacate or modify the injunctions granted by the Court.

Miscellaneous

• Objection - The Court should provide a lump sum payment option or the right to opt out of the proposed Restructuring Agreement.
• Superintendent's Reply - An opt out is not required under New York Insurance Law and would not provide any economic or administrative benefit to policyholders and payees.
• Objection - The Court should appoint counsel to represent ELNY policyholders and payees or hold an annual hearing to determine if the economy has sufficiently recovered to permit 100% back pay.
• Superintendent's Reply - Such measures are outside the scope of New York Insurance Laws. In addition, Section 6.2 of the Restructuring Agreement already provides, if economic conditions improve, any excess of assets necessary to meet GABC’s obligations will be returned to the ELNY estate for distribution to ELNY policyholders and payees.
• Objection - Any remaining valuable assets of First Executive Corporation (FEC) should be segregated and credited to structured settlement payees to whom FEC is obligated pursuant to a qualified assignment.
• Superintendent's Reply - Any segregation or crediting of annuity contracts owned by FEC would impermissibly create a subclass under New York insurance law.
• Objection - Certain property and casualty insurance companies that own ELNY Contracts object to specific provisions of the Restructuring Agreement.
• Superintendent's Reply - With a couple of exceptions, if the Court agrees with any of these provision specific objections to the Restructuring Agreement, the Superintendent will not object. The Superintendent does oppose one provision specific objection concerning third-party beneficiary rights (Section 16.15) and proposes an amendment to the provision (8) of the proposed liquidation order agreeing that the current version is unintentionally and overly broad.
• Objection - Contributions by life insurance companies should be enhanced significantly, with additional enhancements for ELNY structured settlement annuity payees.
• Superintendent's Reply - There is no mechanism for the Superintendent or the Court to compel contributions above what is already provided, and capped, by statute.

New ELNY Website Documents

On March 15, 2012, the Supreme Court of Nassau County New York is scheduled to consider a Petition by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent) for an Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY).

According to Schedule 1.15 for the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement, 4168 of ELNY remaining 9694 annuities are structured settlement annuities of which 1459 will experience shortfalls even assuming proposed state guaranty association contributions and enhancements. For the 1459 ELNY SSAs with anticipated shortfalls:

• 156 SSAs are identified as having been factored - although some industry sources believe the actual number of current ELNY SSAs previously factored is considerably higher.
• 1100 SSAs have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $100,000 each on a present value (PV) basis including
• 237 SSAs which have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $1,000,000 PV each including
• 17 SSAs which have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $5,000,000 PV each.
• The largest ELNY SSA has an "uncovered amount" of $25,692,377 PV.

During the past two weeks, five new documents have been added to the ELNY website:

• Affidavit of Jonathan L. Bing,
• Reply Memorandum in Response to Objections to the Proposed Liquidation of ELNY
• Expert Report of Jack L. Gibson
• Exhibit 6.1.1 - Revised Reinsurance and Participation Agreement
• Exhibit 6.1.2 - Supplemental Benefits Reinsurance and Participation Agreement

Bing's Affidavit

Bing was appointed Special Deputy Superintendent of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) in 2011. Created in 1909 by the New York State Legislature, the NYLB "carries out the responsibilities of the Superintendent of Insurance as Receiver, and acts on his behalf in the discharging of his statutorily defined duties to protect the interests of the policyholders and creditors of insurance companies that have been declared impaired or insolvent." The NYLB has been responsible for the day to day management of ELNY since it entered rehabilitation in 1991.

Filed with the Court on March 1, 2012, Bing's ELNY Affidavit supports the Superintendent's Petition for Liquidation, the proposed Restructuring Agreement and the Reply Memorandum referenced above and summarized below. Bing's Affidavit summarizes the history of the ELNY rehabilitation and acknowledges "[t]he Superintendent or his representatives received a number of requests for additional information concerning the proposed liquidation." In response, Bing's Affidavit states:

• "[C]oncerning the Restructuring Agreement, on February 17, 2012 the Superintendent filed with the Court a revised form of Reinsurance and Participation Agreement (which is Exhibit 6.1.1 to the Restructuring Agreement) and the form of Supplemental Benefits Reinsurance and Participation Agreement (which is Exhibit 6.1.2 to the Restructuring Agreement), which both contained details concerning certain benefits and guarantees provided by a consortium of life insurance companies."
• "[C]oncerning the Guaranty Association Benefits Company (“GABC”), on February 27, 2012 the Superintendent filed and served the expert report of Jack L. Gibson, a Managing Director of Towers Watson, concerning the financial viability of GABC, which was also posted to the ELNY.org website."

Bing's Affidavit further states the Superintendent has received "approximately" 130 objections to the proposed ELNY liquidation and restructuring agreement. Bing's response: "[n]otwithstanding the objections, it is clear that approval of the Restructuring Agreement as part of a comprehensive plan of liquidation is in the best interest of policyholders, creditors, and the public."

Reply Memorandum

Also filed with the Court on March 1, 2012, the Reply Memorandum is fully titled "Omnibus Reply Memorandum of Law in Response to the Objections to the Proposed Liquidation of ELNY and Distribution of ELNY's Assets Pursuant to the Restructuring Agreement." It is signed by Ralph Pernick, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York and Attorney for the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York.

The Reply Memorandum consists of 56 pages plus an Exhibit A titled "List of Objections". Exhibit A identifies individual objectors (presumably ELNY annuity payees) by contract number and liability insurers (presumably ELNY "buy and hold" annuity owners) by name. Exhibit A also identifies a couple of structured settlement factoring companies as objectors.

The contents of the Reply Memorandum are organized as follows:

• Preliminary Statement
• Factual Background
• Argument
• Conclusion
• Exhibit A

The Preliminary Statement confirms that "130 objectors have raised several types of issues that the Superintendent has organized into categories, which this single, omnibus response addresses for the Court’s convenience." The Superintendent's categories of objections:

• Objections to benefit reductions by individual policyholders, including objections that ELNY Contracts cannot be modified pursuant to their contractual terms or a prior court order;
• Objections requesting additional disclosure;
• Objections relating to notice issues;
• Objections arguing that the Restructuring Agreement contravenes applicable New York law and/or is not fair and equitable;
• Objections to the calculation, amount, and timing of participation and funding by the PGAs;
• Objections to the immunity provisions of the proposed liquidation order and requests for the appointment of an independent investigator or expert; and
• Miscellaneous other objections.

The Preliminary Statement concludes:

• "No interested person has come forward with a viable alternative or proposed statutorily compliant changes to the Restructuring Agreement that would increase benefit payments to ELNY Contract policyholders and payees above those already provided for and guaranteed under the Restructuring Agreement."
• "The Court should overrule the objections submitted and issue an order declaring ELNY to be insolvent and directing the liquidation of ELNY on the terms set forth in the Restructuring Agreement."

In addition to providing factual background about the ELNY rehabilitation, the second section states: "[t]he Superintendent continues to believe that obtaining approval of the Restructuring Agreement as part of a comprehensive plan of liquidation is in the best interest of ELNY’s creditors, ELNY Contract policyholders, and the public because it:

• "Adds substantial additional value from state guaranty associations and voluntary insurance industry participants that will result in the full coverage of approximately 85 percent of ELNY Contracts,
• "Minimizes the risk of disruption in annuity benefit payments,
• "Provides guaranty association coverage without disruption of benefits and without requiring ELNY Contract policyholders and payees from having affirmatively to seek guaranty association coverage to which they are entitled under state statutes,
• "Provides for an optimal transition for ELNY from rehabilitation to liquidation,
• "Does not impermissibly discriminate against any class of ELNY creditors, and
• "Treats ELNY creditors and all other interested parties fairly and equitably in accordance with the requirements and intent of Insurance Law Section 7435."

The Factual Background section concludes: "if the Restructuring Agreement is not approved, benefit payments for the more than 9,500 non-objecting ELNY Contract policyholders and payees will be placed at risk of disruption, there will be no guarantee for future payments, and orphan contracts (those not covered by a state guaranty association) would suffer a reduction in benefits to a level supported only by ELNY’s current assets. Such a result is inconsistent with the best interest of ELNY creditors, ELNY Contract policyholders and payees, and the public."

In the Argument section, the Reply Memorandum considers and rejects each of the categories of objections outlined above. S2KM will summarize and discuss the Reply Memorandum arguments in a subsequent blog post.

The Reply Memorandum concludes: "For the reasons set forth above, this Court should grant the relief requested in the Verified Petition and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Jack Gibson Expert Report

Jack Gibson's Expert Report is dated February 27, 2012. It consists of 18 pages, 33 Exhibits and 3 Appendices. According to Gibson, he has been retained as an expert witness by Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, on behalf of its client, NOLHGA, and Sidley Austin LLP, on behalf of its client, the Superintendent of Financial Services of New York, as Receiver for ELNY. Gibson's clients have asked him to review the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement and to assess the financial viability of the resulting special purpose entity (GABC).

Among his qualifications, Gibson states he is a Managing Director of Towers Watson. He previously supported NOLHGA related to Executive Life of California. He has been engaged by NOLHGA since February 2006 as consulting actuary for the NOLHGA ELNY Task Force. In connection with Gibson's ELNY consulting services, his clients are compensating Towers Watson at an hourly billing rate of $525.

Among the information and materials Gibson reviewed for his ELNY analysis, several appear not to have been made available to ELNY annuity payees, their representatives or the general public:

• ELNY 2002-2010 Mortality Experience Study, developed by Towers Watson under Gibson's direct supervision and direction;
• MetLife/ELNY Administration Agreement 2011-2013, dated May 12, 2011;
• Investment asset data provided by the investment managers for ELNY, Wellington Management Company and Goldman Sachs Asset Management, as of July 31, 2011 and December 31, 2011;
• ELNY Contract administrative record detail from MetLife as of September 30, 2002, September 30, 2003, September 30, 2004, September 30, 2005, September 30, 2006, March 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, December 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2011; and
• March 31, 2011 estimates for every ELNY contract, showing Guaranty Association coverage state (if any), GA coverage amount (if any), and Article 75 allocations (if any), provided by NOLHGA.

Based upon his analysis, Gibson concludes:

• "GABC is financially viable and provides a combination of significant initial funding of assets, along with an array of guarantees that together provide significant security and protection to enable GABC to meet all future financial obligations; and
• "For every one (100%) of the 9,000 scenarios tested and summarized in this report, the assets of GABC were sufficient to pay all future GABC benefit payments."

For complete S2KM reporting and analysis about ELNY, including an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.