Beyond Structured Settlements

ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 6

During the second day of the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Hearing, presiding Judge John M. Galasso stated: "I have a gun to my head; if the annuitants don't get the Restructuring Agreement, they get a straight liquidation."

That gun discharged metaphorically yesterday in Room 35 of the Nassau County New York State Supreme Court Building. The target, however, was not Judge Galasso. Instead, Judge Galasso took full aim at attorney Edward Stone and the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees. Some of the key developments:

• No Additional Witnesses - After allowing Stone's expert witness Douglas Hartz to testify and be cross-examined on March 26, Judge Galasso refused to allow Stone to introduce additional witnesses on behalf of the shortfall victims stating "they wouldn't help". Among the witnesses Stone had listed in addition to Hartz:
  
  • Ronald Kehrli - former Chief Executive Officer of ELNY prior to ELNY entering Rehabilitation.
  • Corwin K. Zass - an expert actuary.
  • Marshall Sterman - a forensic accountant.
  • Thomas Gober - a forensic accountant and insurance fraud investigator.
  • Laird Zacheis - a consulting actuary.
• Objections Under Seal - Denying previous requests by attorneys for ELNY shortfall victims to review the compendium of objections submitted by all Objectors to the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement, Judge Galasso decided "sua sponte" to place all objections "under seal" thereby preventing those objections from becoming a matter of public record and restricting access by attorneys for the structured settlement shortfall payees.
• Source Materials - Judge Galasso continued to deny attorneys for the shortfall payees access to critical source materials (including the MetLife ELNY database) relied upon by the agents and experts for the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as Receiver for ELNY, in formulating the Superintendent's proposed Restructuring Agreement for ELNY.
• Closing Arguments -  Judge Galasso scheduled closing arguments to begin today, March 28, 2012, with attorneys for the ELNY shortfall victims presenting first.

In their prior cross-examination of witnesses called on behalf of the Superintendent, attorneys representing ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees had attempted to convince Judge Galasso that the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement was neither "fair and equitable" nor the "best possible plan". In presenting their clients' case, those attorneys indicated they planned to suggest improvements and/or alternatives.

By denying attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees the right: 1) to present all of their expert witnesses and 2) to review all objections plus critical source documents previously shared by the Superintendent and NOLHGA with their agents and experts, Judge Galasso appears to have added insult to injury by prematurely putting to rest what was supposed to be a fair and open hearing.

S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY Liquidation Hearing is accessible on the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 3

The fourth day of the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Hearing ended just like the previous three days - with attorneys representing ELNY Objectors (shortfall payees and policyholders) cross-examining Jack Gibson, the expert actuary retained by ELNY's Receiver, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent).

Although presiding Judge John M. Galasso had earlier denied a motion by the ELNY Objectors' attorneys to compel disclosure of Gibson's source materials (see ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 2), Judge Galasso did agree on Tuesday March 20, 2012 to meet two new requests made on behalf of the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims:

• A reservation of rights to call a witness representing the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) to testify about participating Guaranty Association (PGA) coverage amounts and issues;
• A Microsoft Excel version (as opposed to hardcopy and pdf versions) of Schedule 1.15 of the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement.

What exactly are the attorneys for the ELNY Objectors trying to accomplish with their still unfinished cross-examination of Gibson whose testimony and report conclude that Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC), the proposed successor company to ELNY, will be "financially viable"?

Edward Stone, an attorney representing multiple ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims, has informed S2KM that part of his cross-examination strategy is to characterize Gibson's expert report as "Garbage In, Garbage Out" work product. Stone does not dispute Gibson's impressive professional credentials. However, if Gibson has relied on faulty data that has not been independently verified and/or vetted, then Stone maintains Gibson's conclusions become suspect.

In his direct testimony, Gibson 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 GABC. He also testified that all of MetLife's administrative reports (covering the years 2002-2010) were compiled in 2011 and that he determined that MetLife data with respect to ELNY structured settlement mortality prior to 2002 was not credible.

"Gibson was hired by the Superintendent and NOLHGA to produce the results they wanted", Stone stated. "His assignment is to help get the proposed Restructuring Agreement approved not to determine whether it is fair or whether better alternative plans exist."

Although the ELNY Objectors have not yet presented their own case, their attorneys have already entered several documents into the Court record including:

• Written and oral statements by ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims;
• A Society of Actuaries Structured Settlement Mortality Study;
• An article titled "The Trouble with ELNY" written by Peter Bickford.

The ELNY Liquidation Hearing is scheduled for only one-half day on Wednesday March 21, 2012 and is expected to conclude later this week. For S2KM's complete ELNY reporting, see 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.

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.

Structured Settlement Sales Decline

Compared with prior years, total United States structured settlement annuity premium dropped sharply in 2011 to $4,974,710,838 according to a newly released report by Melissa Evola. Evola, President of Structured Financial Associates, Inc., has tracked structured settlement industry sales since 2002 based upon input from life insurance companies that participate in the structured settlement market.

The 2011 structured settlement annuity premium total represents an approximate 10 percent decline from 2010 and an approximate 20 percent decline from 2008. Evola's report further indicates 28,811 structured settlement annuities were sold during 2011 for an average per case premium of $172,667.

Based upon Evola's report, MetLife and Prudential Life were the leading structured settlement annuity providers in 2011. Their combined structured settlement premium of $2,119,300,000 represented approximately 43 percent of total 2011 U.S. structured settlement sales. According to Evola's report, 12 life insurance companies comprised the U.S. structured settlement market in 2011 compared with 22 companies in 2002.

Evola's report also tracks "non-qualified" structured settlement sales which are included in her total structured settlement premium figures. Structured settlements that are non-qualified [under IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(2)] are utilized to defer future payments from immediate income tax. Only two annuity providers currently offer this product. Total non-qualified structured settlement annuity premium in 2011 was $119,513,424, according to Evola's report, compared with $123,532,247 in 2010 and an historic high of $192,501,540 in 2008.

Historic annual U.S. structured settlement annuity premium - as reported by Evola:

• 2011 - $4,974,710,838
• 2010 - $5,524,359,408
• 2009 - $5,383,998,395
• 2008 - $6,226,578,725
• 2007 - $5,998,277,764
• 2006 - $6,111,583,112
• 2005 - $6,125,251,601
• 2004 - $6,135,000,000
• 2003 - $5,965,000,000
• 2002 - $6,142,000,000

For estimated structured settlement annuity sales estimates from 1975-2011, see the structured settlement wiki which features estimates from the authors of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) based upon historical input from industry sources including Evola since 2002.

Many structured settlement industry participants attribute declining sales to low interest rates including future forecasts by the Federal Reserve. Market yields on U.S. Treasury securities at 30 year constant maturity peaked at 13.45 percent in 1981 according to reports published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Here are several historic average annual rates for 30 year Treasury securities based upon the same information source:

• 2011 - 3.91%
• 2010 - 4.25%
• 2009 - 4.08%
• 2008 - 4.28%
• 2007 - 4.84%
• 2000 - 5.94%
• 1990 - 8.61%
• 1980 - 11.27%

Although interest rates represent an important investment consideration, they impact all investment products not just structured settlement annuities. Regardless of interest rates, many other factors, such as mortality risk transfer and relative financial security, favor structured settlement annuities as the core settlement planning product for many personal physical injury victims. For additional information about structured settlement product suitability standards, see the structured settlement wiki.

"The Trouble with ELNY"

In an article titled "The Trouble with ELNY" and published this week on his website, New York attorney Peter Bickford describes "how the receivership process has failed Executive Life Insurance Company of New York [ELNY], its policyholders and annuitants." Bickford calls for a review of the "flawed receivership process" in New York that he claims has resulted in ELNY's proposed liquidation and restructuring.

On its ELNY web page, the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), the entity responsible for day to day management of ELNY's rehabilitation, blames ELNY's failure on "adverse economic conditions" including the financial and stock market collapse of 2008. However, as Bickford points out:

• Neither the 1991 ELNY rehabilitation order nor the 1992 order approving the ELNY rehabilitation plan declared ELNY to be insolvent; and
• Based on ELNY financial reports (including unaudited reports prior to 2006 that Bickford obtained through Freedom of Information Law requests), ELNY was "de facto insolvent" long before the 2008 economic downturn.  
• Note: Bickford's article features a chart that shows ELNY's surplus turned into a deficit in 2002, ten years following ELNY's plan of rehabilitation was approved and six years prior to the 2008 economic downturn.

According to Bickford, "[t]he 1992 ELNY rehabilitation Plan, like the Titanic, was doomed the moment it left port..." (emphasis added) How was it doomed? Bickford points out ELNY's original rehabilitation plan "stripped out all the traditional life and annuity business and transferred it to Met Life with the supporting, statutory reserve assets. These contract holders received an equivalent policy from Met Life and suffered no material financial consequences..... [F]or whatever reason the most volatile, long-tailed book of ELNY business [single premium immediate annuities (SPIAs) including all structured settlements] was left in ELNY together with its weakest assets."

ELNY's 1992 rehabilitation plan included an assessment that projected ELNY's bond investments and common stock dividends would "be sufficient to cover current SPIA payouts for at least ten years" which turned out to be accurate until ELNY's started running deficits in 2002. Given the fact that ELNY was not declared insolvent in 1992 and was not subsequently audited until 2006, Bickford asks why proper accounting and reserve levels were not maintained? Even before ELNY's first external audit in 2006 (resulting in a substantial increase in reserves), the NYLB, according to Bickford, acknowledged that the reserve standard used in its annual statements “substantially understate[d] reserves when compared to reserves that would be required to satisfy regulatory requirements for a going concern insurance carrier.”

To explain how ELNY was allowed to pay full annuity benefits for a decade after becoming de facto insolvent in 2002, Bickford blames the receivership process in New York. Counter intuitively, according to Bickford, when an insurance company enters rehabilitation in New York, it ceases to be regulated. "The rigorous statutory requirements for filings, reports or certifications imposed on other licensed companies are no longer imposed on estates in rehabilitation; there are no periodic regulatory reviews, examinations or communications; there is no regulatory oversight of the operations, assets or finances; and there is no mechanism for regulatory oversight of financial condition or compliance with the insurance law or regulations."

If ELNY had never entered rehabilitation, and had been required to continue to file statutory financial statements, annual independent accountings and actuarial certifications, Bickford argues:

• Insurance regulators would never have allowed ELNY to reach its current status;
• ELNY's management might have proposed a recovery plan and been allowed to correct its financial problems; and/or
• ELNY's officers, directors, independent auditors, actuaries and other agents, could have potentially been held accountable for their actions or inactions contributing to ELNY failure.

Bickford points out, however, with ELNY in rehabilitation, the New York Superintendent of Insurance (Superintendent) and the NYLB (the same parties charged with managing ELNY since 1991) are also the proponents and overseers of ELNY's proposed liquidation and restructuring plan. To add insult to injury, they are also seeking court-ordered immunity for their past actions and omissions even though, according to Bickford, no statutory immunity exists for the New York Superintendent or his agents in their roles as ELNY's receiver.

Note: New York Governor Cuomo merged the New York State Department of Insurance with the New York State Banking Department to create the New York State Department of Financial Services as part of the 2011-2012 State Budget.

As an additional source of recovery, the NYLB has suggested that ELNY structured settlement annuity recipients may have recourse against the owners of ELNY annuity policies or others who may still be liable under the original settlements. But even if true, Bickford asks: why should ELNY structured settlement annuitants have the burden of pursuing litigation to recover their loses for a second time? And why is there no recourse against the parties responsible for ELNY's insolvency?

Bickford also argues that the logic behind the state insurance guaranty fund caps is "upside down" in the ELNY scenario. Instead of fully protecting annuitants with the greatest need (structured settlement recipients who have the largest annuities), the guaranty funds are more likely to fully protect investors with relatively smaller ELNY annuities. In this respect, however, Bickford's argument is incomplete, if not partially incorrect, because he does not address the uncertain status in ELNY's proposed liquidation and restructuring of investors who have purchased ELNY's structured settlement payment rights via factoring transactions.

Addendum (February 15, 2012): apologies to Peter Bickford for comments in the concluding paragraph above. S2KM overlooked footnote 12 in Bickford's article which states: "Many of these [structured settlement] claims have been sold by SPIA beneficiaries to factoring companies, which raises a whole other set of issues that are not covered by this article."

For additional ELNY reporting, including links to other ELNY articles by Peter Bickford plus an ELNY timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

 

ELNY Liquidation - 5

Acting as agent for the Receiver of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY), the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) mailed letters (shortfall letters) on December 7, 2011 to many individual ELNY structured settlement annuity (SSA) payees notifying them about the proposed ELNY liquidation and restructuring agreement as well as the amount of their anticipated shortfalls.

The ELNY shortfall letters also encourage ELNY SSA payees with anticipated shortfalls to contact their ELNY SSA owner "who may be responsible for supplemental payments, depending upon the terms of the structured settlement agreement, to the extent full payments are not made under the Restructuring Agreement."

Many SSA recipients of the NYLB letters are understandably confused because their annuity contracts identify "First Executive Corporation" (FEC) as the owner of their SSAs. Unfortunately for these ELNY payees and their beneficiaries, FEC declared bankruptcy in 1991 and no longer exists. For a background summary about the rise and fall and ultimate bankruptcy of FEC, see this prior S2KM blog post.

To help SSA recipients of the NYLB shortfall letters better understand their situation, this blog post explains the difference between two alternative methods utilized to fund ELNY SSAs:

• Traditional annuity financing (aka "buy and hold"); and
• Qualified assignments - as defined in Internal Revenue Code Section 130.

Here is a graphic comparison of the "buy and hold" and qualified assignment financing alternatives, courtesy of The Settlement Services Group (TSSG), as set forth in Chapter 3 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). Note: Patrick Hindert, author of "Beyond Structured Settlements", is also Managing Director of TSSG and co-author of S2P2J.

Annuity Financing ("Buy and Hold")

As defined in S2P2J, “ 'annuity financing' [buy and hold] means that a defendant or its liability insurer (the 'obligor') (1) gives the claimant an unfunded, unsecured promise to pay money in the future and (2) purchases and owns an annuity to provide a source of funds to meet this obligation."

Applied to ELNY, the owner of the annuity (defendant or its liability insurer) is the obligor and, if ELNY cannot pay, then the owner is obligated to make the periodic payments or make up the difference.

S2P2J further explains the rights and duties of the parties resulting from annuity financing:

1. "In exchange for a release from tort liability, the obligor promises to make periodic payments to the claimant and purchases an annuity to provide a source of funds to meet this obligation.
2. "The obligor owns the annuity, and as such, retains all incidents of annuity ownership, including the right to change the payee of annuity benefits. Of its own volition, the obligor directs that annuity benefits be paid by the annuity issuer to the claimant.
3. "The claimant has the right to receive periodic payments as due and may rely only on the general credit of the obligor for the collection of such payments. The claimant does not have rights in any property or investments owned by the obligor that are greater than rights of the obligor’s other general creditors.
4. "The claimant has no express rights against the annuity issuer because there is no privity of contract between them. Nonetheless, the claimant receives annuity benefits directly from the annuity issuer, and has no reason to complain to the obligor as long as the benefits are received as promised."

Qualified Assignment

As defined in S2P2J, “ 'qualified assignment' means that the defendant or its liability insurer (1) first gives the claimant a promise to pay money in the future; (2) then transfers that obligation to a substituted obligor pursuant to [Internal Revenue Code] Section 130; and (3) thus extinguishes its contractual liability for the obligation so transferred."

Applied to ELNY, the substituted obligor/assignee/annuity owner is FEC and, assuming the qualified assignment complied with all of the statutory requirements, the original obligor/assignor (defendant or liability insurer) thereby extinguished (or intended to extinguish) its contractual liability for the transferred periodic payment obligation.

S2P2J further explains the rights and duties of the parties resulting from a qualified assignment:

1. "In exchange for a release from tort liability, the defendant or its liability insurer or both (the 'assignor') promise to make specified periodic payments to the claimant.
2. "The claimant agrees to discharge the assignor’s duty provided an acceptable new obligor (an 'assignee') promises to make the periodic payments to the claimant.
3. "The assignee makes this promise to the claimant, the claimant accepts the assignee’s promise, and the assignor’s duty is discharged.
4. "For qualified assignments entered into on or before November 10, 1988: The claimant has the right to receive periodic payments as due and may rely only on the general credit of the assignee for the collection of the payments. The claimant does not have rights in any property or investments owned by the assignee that are greater than rights of the assignee’s other general creditors."
5. Note: because of a change in the tax law, for qualified assignments entered into after November 10, 1988, claimants may have a security interest in property owned by the substituted obligor without jeopardizing the tax-free status of the promised payments. If applicable to specific ELNY SSA payees, such a security interest could raise interesting legal issues because FEC also owed Executive Life of California (ELIC).

So what should ELNY SSA payees who received NYLB shortfall letters do?

• First, they should try to locate copies of their annuity contracts, settlement agreements and, if applicable, qualified assignment agreements. If they have not personally retained these documents, they might try contacting:
  • The attorney who represented them in their original lawsuit; or
  • The structured settlement agent who helped purchase their annuity from ELNY; or
  • Metropolitan Life Insurance Company which has been administering ELNY annuities since 1991.
• Second, they should retain legal counsel to review their documents and recommend options keeping in mind:
  • The January 16, 2012 deadline (Martin Luther King Day) for filing objections to the proposed ELNY Liquidation Petition and Restructuring Agreement; and
  • The announced ELNY "Hardship Fund" of at least $100 million (not a component of the Restructuring Agreement) created by a consortium of life insurance companies with a toll-free information line at 1-888-809-2254.

For additional information about FEC and ELNY, see the structured settlement wiki.

For additional information about annuity financing and qualified assignments, see Chapter 3 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

ELNY Liquidation - 1

James Wrynn, New York's Insurance Superintendent, (Superintendent and/or Rehabilitator, and/or Liquidator) has petitioned the Supreme Court of Nassau County New York for an Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY).

In addition to the Petition, the Superintendent's September 1, 2011 court filing also includes an Affidavit by Ivy Chang , an Accounting Manager for the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Petition, a proposed Order to Show Cause plus numerous related Exhibits including the Proposed Restructuring Agreement and prior ELNY financial reports from 2006 to 2010.

In the Petition, the Superintendent requests the court to issue a Show Cause Order:

• Setting a hearing on the Petition;
• Approving a briefing schedule;
• Approving the form of notice and method of service for ELNY's policyholders and creditors;
• Ordering that payments to structured settlement and other annuitants be continued pursuant to the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan;
• Continuing the injunctions provided by the Rehabilitation Order.

ELNY entered rehabilitation in 1991 and has been operating under the supervision of the NYLB, as agent for the Superintendent, pursuant to a Rehabilitation Plan approved by the Nassau County Supreme Court in 1992. The Rehabilitation Plan permitted the sale of ELNY's existing policies to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) except for structured settlement annuities and certain other non-surrenderable contracts which MetLife has also administered under a separate servicing contract.

According to the Petition, ELNY will have obligations to approximately 9700 policyholders as of January 1, 2012. In a separate communication to its members, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), which has been working closely with New York officials on the ELNY matter, estimated that approximately 4800 ELNY structured settlement annuities remain in force. Prior to entering rehabilitation, ELNY sold approximately 8000 structured settlement annuities. To date, all ELNY structured settlement annuities have been paid in full and on time.

As justification for ELNY's proposed liquidation, the Petition states: "ELNY's financial condition is progressively deteriorating" and "ELNY will be unable to pay its outstanding lawful obligations as they mature in the regular course of business and further efforts to rehabilitate ELNY are futile."

Ivy Chang's Affidavit adds:

• "ELNY experienced financial difficulties because of unfavorable investment results, with sustained low interest rates and poor capital market performance during significant periods."
• "The Rehabilitator began negotiating with various life insurance industry parties, and in 2007, he announced that he had secured a commitment, in principle, of funds that would permit the continuation of full benefit payments for all ELNY policyholders."
• "Until the financial crisis of 2008, it appeared that such a restructuring of the Rehabilitation Plan would be possible."

According to the Petition: "the unprecedented global economic crisis and resulting market collapse of 2008 had a significant negative impact on ELNY's retained assets and made continued implementation of the Rehabilitation Plan without a liquidation unfeasible." The most recent ELNY financial statements (as of December 31, 2010) show assets of $905,945,200 compared with liabilities of $2,474,317,342 resulting in a negative surplus of $1,568,372,142.

The proposed ELNY Restructuring Plan, which is subject to court approval, was jointly prepared by the Superintendent and the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA). Key provisions:

• A formula to determine the present value of all ELNY annuity contracts using a 4.25% discount rate and a jointly-agreed upon mortality table.
• A liquidation value assigned to each annuity contract which will be reduced by a percentage based upon the ratio of the liquidation value of ELNY's assets to the aggregate liquidation value of all contracts.
• This restructured value for each annuity contract is expected to lower benefit payments to approximately 34% of any remaining obligations.
• The participating state guaranty associations (PGAs) will supplement the ELNY benefit payments for annuity contracts eligible for state guaranty association coverage up to the maximum allowable by their state guaranty association laws. This maximum can vary between $100,000 and $500,000.
• In addition, New York's Article 75 Guaranty Association (its second of two life insurance guaranty associations) has agreed to provide coverage for ELNY contracts on a pro rata basis up to its statutory cap of $50 million. The Article 75 Guaranty Association coverage applies to ELNY contracts issued prior to August 2, 1985, and not otherwise covered by the PGAs, regardless of where the owner, payee or beneficiary resides.
• A consortium of life insurance companies has agreed to provide hypothetical guaranty association coverage up to $100,000 for ELNY policyholders and/or payees who are not otherwise covered by a state guaranty association.
• The Superintendent and NOLHGA have reached an agreement in principle with these same life insurance companies for additional, supplemental benefit enhancements subject to the completion of definitive documentation.
• Assuming ratification by all PGAs (anticipated by October 1, 2011) and all of the above contributions, the Superintendent and NOLHGA estimate 84% of ELNY contracts will be fully paid under the Restructuring Agreement - or 79% without the supplemental benefit enhancements.
• To replace ELNY and administer ELNY's restructured contracts, the PGAs and life insurance industry will form a special purpose not-for-profit captive insurance company ("NEWCO") under the laws of the District of Columbia.
• ELNY policyholders will receive a policy certificate to evidence NEWCO's reinsurance and assumption of all or the appropriate portion of ELNY's contract liabilities.
• Although insurance company professionals and independent directors will manage NEWCO, the Superintendent (as Liquidator) will exercise additional oversight and will retain the ability to petition the Nassau County court for relief if NEWCO fails to honor its obligations.
• The Liquidator and NEWCO will attempt to facilitate the efforts of any owners of ELNY structured settlement annuities that decide to provide additional payments to payees and or beneficiaries.
• At defined future dates, NEWCO will attempt to transfer all of NEWCO's liabilities to a financially-strong third party life insurance company and remit the net proceeds back to the ELNY estate.
• Although creditors must present proofs of their claims within four months of the proposed Order of Liquidation, all policyholders who appear on ELNY's books and records will be deemed to have filed timely proofs of claims.

The Petition states the Superintendent proposes to give notice to ELNY policyholders, creditors and all other interested parties of the Petition and its requested relief and to allow such parties to present their objections. The Petition further proposes a court hearing on or about March 15, 2012 to consider the petition and a briefing schedule.

For S2KM's complete reporting and analysis of Executive Life and ELNY's anticipated liquidation, including an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

Addendum (September 9, 2011): The Supreme Court of Nassau County New York has entered the Order to Show Cause requested by the Superintendent of the New York Insurance Department as Rehabilitator (now Liquidator) for ELNY. The Order sets March 15, 2012 as the date for hearing on the entry of orders described above and requires the Superintendent, following submission to the Court of the schedule to the Restructuring Agreement, to give notice to each ELNY policyholder that will show the projected liquidation plan treatment of benefits under individual ELNY annuities. The schedule is anticipated to be submitted later this month after state Guaranty Associations have approved the restructuring plan and agreed to specific funding commitments.

Delta Settlements 2011 Annual Meeting

When David and Dorothy Snyder sold Delta Settlements to Michael Upchurch in 2008, David Snyder stated: "One of the main reasons Dorothy and I selected Michael Upchurch to purchase our company is that we felt he will bring much needed "added value" to you, the [Delta] Producers. ... We are confident that once you have had a chance to work with Michael, you too will feel comfortable with his honesty and integrity, and will help him grow the company to become the foremost plaintiff firm in the business."

Based upon Delta Settlements 2011 Annual Meeting this past week on Amelia Island, Florida, the Snyders' evaluation of Upchurch and the "value added" he brings to Delta and its producers was justified. Upchurch has continued to focus Delta's marketing on injury victims and their attorneys while improving Delta's operating systems and technology.

Delta's producers and administrators were joined at their annual meeting by structured settlement representatives from Allstate, MetLife, Pacific Life, and Prudential, who separately highlighted their companys' financial strength, product innovations and servicing improvements.

Delta's guest speakers also included Patrick Hindert, Managing Director of The Settlement Services Group (TSSG), primary author of "Beyond Structured Settlements" and co-author of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Titled "Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning", Hindert's presentation featured:

• Diagrams and maps to help explain transitional industry issues; 
• Highlights from the SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings;
• Analysis of Spencer v. Hartford and Executive Life of New York; plus
• A private educational wiki for Delta to enhance and extend its Amelia Island learning experience.