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.

Comments

[KR Birkenbuel]

Is there any more information available on the outcome of today's proceedings?

[janet gibson]

Thank you for all your effort and information. We have received so little about something so impactful. I am already struggling to hang on to my home and don't know what I will do if my payment is cut by 40%.
Is there a possibility of a class action suit?

[Anonymous]

Why can't the President of the USA provide a bail-out for ELNY with benefits paid to every contract holder in full (this worked for GM? Then ELNY could sell the contracts to other insurance companys such as MET LIFE which would strengthen them, and the economy!

[Elisha]

We only had, roughly, 30 days to file objections and one of my letters was sent to a very old address because MetLife is so unorganized. Not to mention I did not even receive the one I had by the date I was supposed to.

I guess I missed their press release here in the Mid-West.

[Elisha]

Why would the Superintendent be allowed to use assets of ELNY for his defense if ELNY is not granted immunity?

I also think the whole point of a lump sum offer would be to assure that people get their money and that it isn't going to disappear all together. This company has gone under twice now. People should have the option of moving their money to some place safe.

Just because there are no laws for some of these objections, ELNY could do it anyway. I didn't realize there needed to be a law before people did the right thing.

[Bill]

Thank you sir for your effort on our behalf. We need all the information we can get.