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    • Hundreds of notices were returned undelivered presumably because the Receiver's records were outdated.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.

Comments

[structured settlements]

This will be a great resource for my future college paper. Thank you so much for helping me understand the ins and outs of this ELNY issue. I originally came to this blog because I searched due process. The due process search was for my crim class, but then I started to read more into this post. I never knew there were topic based wikis. Thank you for this resource. I will come back for when I start my next paper.