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 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.

Liability Insurers' ELNY Motion Denied

Without further explanation, Judge John Galasso has denied a Motion by liability insurers, including Travelers, Fireman's Fund and Hartford, asking the Judge to "clarify and/or correct" his August 16, 2012 Executive Life of New York (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. (see Addendum below)

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 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, asked 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.

Their Motion had attempted to distinguish two types of structured settlement funding alternatives: "buy and hold" vs. qualified assignments. The Motion maintained 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 attempted to clarify statements made during the ELNY Liquidation hearings by attorneys representing liability insurers including Fireman's Fund attorney Peter Vodola and Traveler's attorney Craig Ulman. (see Addendum below)

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."

Similarly, the Motion sought to clarify Ulman's testimony which provided in part: "l can't speak for any but Travelers but they will in fact be covering the shortfalls under their structured settlements. So that the payees will receive the same number of dollars that they are -- were scheduled to receive eventually." Ulman further stated: "The fact is, their obligations are what they are and they will not be affected by the status of the plan." (see Addendum below)

As S2KM has previously written, the legal rights and responsibilities of ELNY qualified assignments represents a critical issue that may subsequently be litigated by the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims. The Motion suggested 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", however, are not necessarily or universally true. For example:

• 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.

In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will review IRC section 130 history and requirements and summarize, in the context of ELNY structured settlement shortfall payments, relevant sections of the Restatement (Second) of Law of Contracts addressing:

• Assignment of Rights
• Delegation of Duties
• Delegation vs. Novation
• Disclaimer by a Beneficiary
• Misrepresentation and Voidable Contracts

For S2KM's complete coverage of the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

ADDENDUM (July 29, 2012) - Please note two corrections to the above report:

1. Although Judge Galasso's Memorandum Decision specifically mentions Travelers, Travelers had nothing to do with the Motion "to clarify and/or correct" the Memorandum Decision. Travelers was "not a party to [the Motion] and learned about it only after it was filed" according to Craig Ulman, Travelers' attorney.
   
2. Although Ulman's testimony, as quoted above, appears in the ELNY liquidation hearing transcript, the Motion "to clarify and/or correct" does not mention Ulman's testimony at the hearing.  Instead, Ulman's hearing testimony, as quoted by S2KM above, appears in the "Affirmation of Edward S. Stone in Opposition to Motions to Clarify and/or Correct the Court's Memorandum Decision."

The following related ELNY documents are accessible on the structured settlement wiki:

• Memorandum Decision
• Motion to Clarify and/or Correct
• Affirmation in Opposition
• Reply in Support
• Decision denying the Motion
• Craig Ulman Testimony from the ELNY Liquidation Hearing Transcript

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.

The ELNY Due Process Issue

Assuming presiding Judge John M. Galasso signs the Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life of New York (ELNY) as proposed by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as ELNY's Receiver, a critical issue arises:

Will the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees have been afforded "due process" before being deprived of a percentage of their payment rights?

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide in part:

• Fifth Amendment - "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
• Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 - "No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted these clauses as creating two doctrines: substantive due process and procedural due process.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process addresses whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person's life, liberty or property. The most obvious, and presumably adequate, reason why the ELNY liquidation hearing could result in some persons (shortfall payees) being deprived of property (percentage of their annuity payments) is that ELNY is insolvent.

ELNY does not have sufficient assets to meet all of its future payment liabilities. Because of variations in state guaranty association laws (primarily coverage caps) as well as individual ELNY contracts (size of annuities), approximately 15 percent of ELNY's annuity payees (mostly structured settlement payees) anticipate shortfalls while the other 85 percent expect to receive 100 percent of their promised future payments from ELNY's successor company, Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC).

Alternative Legal Recourse

Some of the structured settlement shortfall payees should have recourse against defendants and/or liability insurers who funded their structured settlement using a "buy and hold" methodology. Other structured settlement payees, whose structured settlements were funded with qualified assignments, likely would not have similar secondary payment options because First Executive Corporation (FEC), the purchaser and owner of their annuities, declared bankruptcy in 1991 and no longer exists. For an explanation of the difference between "buy and hold" funding and qualified assignments, see this prior S2KM blog post.

Although ELNY shortfall victims (including both policyholders and payees) might have a legal claim against the Superintendent, as Receiver, and his agents, including the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), the Superientent's proposed Liquidation Order includes an immunity clause intended to protect the Superintendent and his agents from any legal claims that they mismanaged the ELNY Rehabilitation and are responsible for ELNY's insolvency. For additional information about the ELNY immunity issue, see this prior S2KM blog post.

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process addresses whether the government has followed adequate procedures in taking away a person's life, liberty or property. A denial of procedural due process occurs only when there is a denial of life, liberty or property without adequate procedures. For many ELNY structured settlement payees, the probable result of the ELNY Liquidation Order and Restructuring Agreement will be to deny them of a portion of their future structured settlement payment rights. The key question for purposes of procedural due process is whether the procedures that could result in this loss of property have been "adequate".

Structured settlement payees who anticipate shortfalls and their attorneys have argued "no" - the procedures have not been adequate and therefore they anticipate suffering an unconstitutional taking of their property because of:

• Inadequate notice - ELNY's financial records indicate ELNY became insolvent as early as 2002. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer held a press conference in 2007 announcing "an agreement in principle" that all future ELNY payments would be paid in full and on time. The NYLB mailed letters to individual ELNY annuity payees on December 7, 2011: 1)  notifying them about the proposed ELNY Liquidation and Restructuring Agreement; and 2) alerting them of anticipated shortfalls for specific ELNY annuity contracts and a January 16, 2012 deadline for filing written objections. Responding to objections of inadequate notice, the Superintendent has argued 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.
• Denial of information - ELNY shortfall victims and their attorneys claim they have received inadequate information to properly evaluate the proposed Restructuring Agreement in order to propose possible improvements and/or alternatives. The Superintendent's response: this objection does not constitute 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 further points out the objectors have not offered a competing plan. During the ELNY hearing, Judge John Galasso denied a motion by attorneys for the structured settlement shortfall victims to gain access to source materials utilized by Jack Gibson, the Superintendent's expert, who testified: 1) GABC is "financially viable"; 2) the Superintendent's proposed plan was "the best plan"; and 3) all ELNY shortfall victims will be better off under the proposed Restructuring Agreement than under a straight liquidation.
• Denial of witnesses - Judge Galasso refused to allow attorneys for ELNY shortfall payees to introduce several expert witnesses stating "they wouldn't help". Among the witnesses not permitted to testify:
  • A former Chief Executive Officer of ELNY.
  • Two expert actuaries.
  • Two forensic accountants one of whom is also an insurance fraud investigator.

In an article published in the Touro Law Review (Vol 16 page 871), titled "Procedural Due Process Claims", constitutional legal expert Erwin Chemerinsky highlights the following three-part balancing test the United States Supreme Court articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) to determine whether an individual has been denied procedural due process:

• The more important the interest to the individual, the more procedural protections the reviewing court is going to require.
• The reviewing court must balance the ability of additional procedures to increase the accuracy of the fact finding; how likely is it that the additional procedures will reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation?
• Whether the government's interest in administrative efficiency is such that the more expensive the procedures would be, the less likely it would be that the reviewing court would require them.

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

New York Liquidation Hearing - 9

Following 11 days of hearings at the Nassau County New York Supreme Court, presiding Judge John M. Galasso is deciding whether to sign an Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life of New York (ELNY) as proposed by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as ELNY's Receiver.

The ELNY hearings have raised a variety of issues not all of which Judge Galasso will be expected or required to address:

• Will Judge Galasso approve the ELNY Liquidation Order and Restructuring Agreement as proposed by the Superintendent? 
• Does Judge Galasso have any other options?
• Why wouldn't Judge Galasso appoint a "Special Master" to consider objections and/or alternatives to the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement?
• Would his denial of the proposed Order necessarily result in a "statutory liquidation" under New York law?
• What would a statutory liquidation mean for: 1) ELNY annuity policyholders and payees; 2) NOLHGA and the participating Guaranty Associations (PGAs); 3) New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky; 4) the structured settlement industry?
• Would any of the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees be better off under a statutory liquidation?

Assuming Judge Galasso does approve the proposed Order:

• Will the Liquidation Order grant legal immunity to the Superintendent, as ELNY Receiver, and his agents, including the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), for their acts and omissions in managing ELNY's Rehabilitation since 1991?
• What is the legal justification for any such grant of immunity?
• Did Judge Galasso commit reversible errors when he denied various motions by attorneys representing ELNY structured settlement payees who expect to experience shortfalls under the proposed Restructuring Agreement?
• Would attorneys for the ELNY shortfall payees appeal the result?
• What would be the basis for their appeal?
• Assuming an appeal bond is required, how much would it cost?
• Assuming the ELNY shortfall payees won an appeal, what would they hope/expect to accomplish with a new hearing?
• Besides an appeal, what other options, if any, exist for ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees?

Additional issues raised, but not definitively resolved, during the ELNY hearing:

• When did ELNY become insolvent?
• Who was responsible for ELNY's insolvency?
• How many of the ELNY structured settlement shortfall annuities are funded with Qualified Assignments as opposed to "Buy and Hold" funding?
• Who are the defendants, liability insurers and/or brokers who purchased or funded ELNY annuities with anticipated shortfalls?
• Which PGAs will contribute to specific ELNY contracts?
• Which life insurance companies have offered to make voluntary contributions and/or enhancements to Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC)?
• Why would they contribute anything? And, why won't they contribute more?
• How much additional money would be required to make all ELNY structured settlement payees whole?
• What impact, if any, will the ELNY Liquidation have upon:
  • The structured settlement industry?
  • The existing state insurance regulatory system?
  • The insurance liquidation process in New York?

For additional S2KM reporting about the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 7

Day 10 of the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Hearing was consumed by the closing summations of attorneys representing Objectors to the ELNY Restructuring Agreement proposed by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as Receiver for ELNY. The Objectors included: ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees, ELNY policyholders and at least one structured settlement factoring company.

Attorney Megha Charalambides, speaking on behalf of her shortfall victim clients, proposed to presiding Judge John M. Galasso that he appoint a "Special Master" to meet with representatives of all parties for the purpose of considering possible alternatives to the Superintendent's proposed plan. If an alternative plan materialized by a specified deadline, the Judge could consider it. Otherwise, he could approve the Superintendent's plan. Judge Galasso did not immediately respond to Charalambides' proposal.

Representing Travelers, attorney Craig Ulman confirmed his client was prepared to make whole any ELNY-related structured settlement payment obligations funded on a "buy and hold" basis and that Travelers had already sent out notices to payees under such ELNY annuity contracts. On "cross-summation" attorney Edward Stone pointed out that Travelers is already legally obligated to make those payments and that Travelers' offer apparently does not apply to ELNY structured settlement payment obligations Travelers funded using a "Qualified Assignment".

Note: This prior S2KM blog post explains the difference between buy and hold and Qualified Assignment structured settlement funding. The problem for most, if not all, of the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims with Qualified Assignment funding is that First Executive Corporation (FEC), the assignee/owner, collapsed in 1991 and no longer exists. This prior S2KM blog post provides a background summary of FEC's history.

Judge Galasso denied two motions by attorney Stone during his closing summation without offering explanations:

• Stone moved for a mistrial (which Judge Galasso re-characterized as a motion for a misorder) on the grounds that his clients' property was being taken without due process.
• Stone also moved for a 30 day stay of hearing to allow structured settlement shortfall victims to develop and present an alternative ELNY restructuring plan.

Closing summations continue on Thursday. For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY Liquidation Hearing, 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).