ELNY Appeal - Due Process 2

Eighteen Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees (shortfall payees), as Objectors and Appellants, have challenged the Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement, approved by Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012, by filing an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department,

Status of Appeal:

• The ELNY shortfall payees 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 of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as ELNY Receiver and Respondent, served and filed his brief on Friday, September 7, 2012.
• The National Association of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA), as a non-party respondent, also served and filed a supporting brief on September 7, 2012.
• The ELNY shortfall payees served and filed a reply brief on Friday September 14, 2012.
• The Appellate Court is expected to schedule oral argument "as soon as practicable".

In prior blog posts, S2KM:

• Summarized the ELNY shortfall payees':
  • Due process allegations (ELNY Appeal - Due Process 1)
  • Arguments against granting judicial immunity to the Superintendent (ELNY Appeal - Immunity 1)
  • Arguments against granting judicial injunctive protection to the Superintendent (ELNY Appeal - Injunction 1)
• Provided additional due process analysis (ELNY Due Process Issue)
• Reported on the ELNY Immunity Issue featuring analysis by New York attorney Peter Bickford.

This blog post summarizes the due process arguments presented in the appellate briefs filed by the Superintendent and NOLHGA as well as the due process responses included in the reply brief filed by the ELNY shortfall payees. A subsequent S2KM blog post will summarize and compare the immunity and injunction arguments.

Superintendent

• The Court-ordered notice for the ELNY liquidation hearing satisfied due process requirements.
• Not only was the notice constitutionally adequate, it far exceeded the notice usually provided in insurer liquidation cases.
• A longer notice period would not have had any relevant impact upon the Court’s approval of the liquidation and restructuring plan.
• The Court properly exercised its broad discretion in:
  • Denying objecting shortfall payees' motion to compel discovery.
  • Sealing objections containing personal information.
  • Denying the shortfall payees' mid-hearing request to call newly disclosed witnesses.
• Conclusions - the Court:
  • Correctly held that the notice provided complied with the insurance law and due process.
  • Properly exercised its discretion in ruling on discovery and case management issues.

ELNY Shortfall Payees' Response

• The notice was inadequate in numerous respects. For examples:
  • The Court required payees to disclose all of their supporting documentation without discovery requests. Until the hearing, the payees had no reason to suspect that this obligation would be one-sided.
  • The Court-approved notice did not tell the payees that they would be required to file formal discovery requests or how to do so.
  • Although the Superintendent says he sent notices to the last known address in "ELNY's" records, the Superintendent had been managing ELNY for 20 years. The records, therefore, were his records and he had responsibility for keeping the addresses current.
• The lack of fair process prejudiced the payees.
  • The Superintendent's brief does not refute most of the payees' facts on this issue.
  • The Superintendent argues that any constitutional deprivation did not prejudice the payees.
  • However, an undisputed inability to challenge an opponent's evidence, resulting in a one-sided presentation, is patently prejudicial.
  • The inability to obtain assistance from an expert on complicated issues to permit a meaningful defense is prejudicial.
  • Findings based upon improperly one-sided evidence are inherently defective.
  • The Superintendent's "no prejudice" argument ignores the very purpose of due process - to allow people a true day in court.
  • Due process does not require ELNY shortfall payees to prove in advance that they would have procured a different outcome if they had been granted a fair hearing.

NOLHGA

• NOLHGA submitted its brief on appeal "to address a core, foundational error in Appellants’ argument": their "subtle but pervasive claim" that NOLHGA's early involvement in developing the ELNY restructuring plan denied the ELNY shortfall payees their due process rights because the shortfall payees were not afforded an equivalent role.
• The insurance laws of New York and other states grant state guaranty funds, operating through NOLHGA, a central and special role in life insurer insolvency proceedings.
• The state guaranty associations had no "conflict of interest" that implicated the due process rights of the objecting ELNY shortfall payees.
• Because the New York Superintendent serves as the statutorily mandated receiver “to protect the interests of policyholders in the liquidation proceeding", there generally is no need for policyholders to speak on their own behalf as a matter of due process.
• Therefore, the pre-liquidation consultations between the Superintendent and the state guaranty associations does not evidence any denial of due process rights for the ELNY shortfall payees.

ELNY Shortfall Payees' Response

• Most significantly, NOLHGA's arguments do not address issues on appeal.
• With respect to insurance industry involvement, the ELNY shortfall payees' chief complaint is one of fairness. While excluding ELNY policyholders, the Court permitted NOLHGA and others access, notice, disclosure and participation. No one has argued otherwise.
• Concerning conflicts of interest, NOLHGA objects to this statement by the ELNY shortfall payees: "[t]he [guaranty] associations' interest was in limiting their contributions, and the payees' interest was in maximizing them."
• In support of their statement, the objecting ELNY shortfall payees cite former New York Superintendent Michael Corcoran who stated the following in 2002 when he testified before Congress about ELNY: "The whole thrust [of state guaranty funds] is to try to pay as little as possible".

For S2KM's complete and continuing ELNY reporting, and copies of the shortfall payees' appellate briefs, see the structured settlement wiki.