Beyond Structured Settlements

Structured Settlements 2013 - ELNY and Reliance

Structured settlements are supposed to provide economic security for people with serious injuries and disabilities - to help them rebuild their lives and, in many cases, to achieve special lifetime accomplishments. Instead of an all-cash personal injury settlement, structured settlement recipients accept a promise of future periodic payments.

What happens, if and when, that promise is broken? What happens when a structured settlement funding company, and the regulators and guaranty system responsible for protecting the structured settlement recipients, fail to make and/or insure full payment?

ELNY Liquidation

These questions are highlighted by the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation - the dominant structured settlement story of 2012 and 2013 and one of the most important developments in the history of the United States structured settlement industry.

The story of ELNY, as well as its affiliate Executive Life of California (ELIC), and their parent company, First Capital Corporation (FEC), is long and complex. For background of events prior to ELNY's 1991 receivership, S2KM recommends Gary Schulte's 1992 book "The Fall of First Executive".  For an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

Significantly, neither the 1991 ELNY Rehabilitation Order nor the 1992 Order approving the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan declared ELNY to be insolvent.

Following 22 years of "Rehabilitation" supervised by various New York State Superintendents of Insurance and Financial Services, as Receivers, ELNY was officially liquidated August 8, 2013 pursuant to an Order of Liquidation signed by Nassau County New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

As part of his Liquidation Order, Judge Galasso also approved a Restructuring Agreement, as proposed by ELNY's Receiver and NOLHGA, whereby ELNY's remaining assets and ongoing liabilities have now been transferred to a successor company, Guaranty Associations Benefit Company (GABC), a not-for-profit Washington D.C.-based captive insurance company.

ELNY Shortfall Payees

GABC published two versions of a final Schedule 1.15 on its website in November 2013. Among the significant details:

• Thirty-seven (37%) percent of all remaining ELNY (now GABC) structured settlement annuities (SSAs) will experience shortfalls.
• SSAs represent ninety-eight (98%) percent of total ELNY shortfall annuities.
• The total percentage of each ELNY SSA contract value "protected" by ELNY's remaining assets, state guaranty fund payments plus additional enhancements varies from 31% to 100% depending upon the individual contract.

In a 2013 blog post titled "An ELNY Nightmare", S2KM profiled Glenn Arensdorf, one of the ELNY structured settlement victims. For profiles of five additional ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees, see "The Complete ELNY Saga - 21 Years of Mismanagement, Corruption, Broken Promises and Shattered Lives", the lead article in a comprehensive ELNY analysis published in 2012 by LifeHealthPro.

Faced with significant payment reductions resulting from ELNY's liquidation and restructuring agreement, ELNLY's structured settlement shortfall payees were left with three options:

1. Accept their payment reductions under the ELNY Restructuring Agreement and do nothing; or,
2. Appeal Judge Galasso's Order and ask the Appellate Court to send ELNY's Receiver back to drawing board; or,
3. Bring a separate legal action against the Receiver personally for bad faith conduct, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment or waste.

Several ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees chose Options 2 and 3.

Option 2 failed. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department denied the ELNY shortfall payees' appeal of Judge Galasso's Order on February 6, 2013. New York State Court of Appeals denied a subsequent motion by ELNY shortfall payees for Leave to Appeal the Second Department decision on May 3, 2013.

Option 3 remains unresolved.

• Class Action Lawsuit - Several ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees pursued Option 3 by filing a federal class action lawsuit November 8, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the ELNY Receiver (New York Superintendent of Financial Services Benjamin Lawsky) in his personal capacity.
• Receiver's Response - In response, the Receiver filed a motion December 7, 2012 asking the Liquidation Court (Judge Galasso) to find the shortfall payees in contempt for violating the injunction provision of the ELNY Liquidation Order.
• Contempt Order - Judge Galasso issued a Contempt Order on January 25, 2013. He also imposed a $5000 fine and threatened additional fines plus imprisonment of legal counsel if the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees did not dismiss their Federal action which they did (without prejudice) on February 7, 2013.
• Bottom Line - So long as Judge Galasso's Contempt Order and continuing threat of additional fines and imprisonment of legal counsel remain in effect, ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees are effectively barred from pursuing Federal legal action against ELNY's Receiver for alleged mismanagement of ELNY's assets during ELNY's 22 year Rehabilitation.
• Shortfall Payee's Appeal - ELNY's shortfall payees are currently pursuing an appeal challenging "each and every part" of Judge Galasso's January 25, 2013 Contempt Order as a necessary step before re-filing their Federal action against the Receiver and his agents.
• Appellate Issues - The appellate brief filed on behalf of the ELNY shortfall payees addresses three legal issues:
  • Did the ELNY Liquidation Court exceed it subject matter jurisdiction or otherwise err by interfering with shortfall payees' constitutional right to bring suit against the Receiver in Federal court?
  • Did the ELNY Liquidation Court err in holding the shortfall payees in contempt for violating its injunctive Order when the order does not clearly and unequivocally bar personal capacity suits against the Receiver?
  • Did the ELNY Liquidation Court err in holding that the shortfall payees conceded the Order barred personal capacity lawsuits by appealing the order and using this alleged concession as the basis to hold the shortfall payees in contempt?

Reliance Liquidation

Reliance Insurance Company was declared insolvent in 2001 and the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner was appointed as Liquidator. The Reliance Estate, however, remains open and its assets, until November 4, 2013, included approximately 3,400 structured settlements of which approximately 3093 involve annuities 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.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter signed an Order on November 4, 2013 approving a Transfer and Assumption Agreement whereby Reliance will transfer all Reliance-owned structured settlement annuity contracts and corresponding payment obligations issued by Genworth Life Insurance Company to a new corporation, the Genworth Annuity Service Corporation.

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

For additional S2KM 2013 annual reports, see:

• Part 1 - Primary market.
• Part 2 - Settlement planning.
• Part 3 - Secondary market.

Brief Filed in ELNY Contempt Appeal - 2

Did New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso violate the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution when he ordered three Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees and their legal counsel in civil contempt for filing a federal class action lawsuit against ELNY's Receiver in the United States District Court Southern District of New York in violation of existing ELNY anti-lawsuit injunction orders?

This constitutional question is one of three issues the ELNY shortfall payees have raised in appealing Judge Galasso's January 25, 2013 Contempt Order , which also imposed a $5000 fine and threatened additional fines, plus imprisonment of their legal counsel, if the shortfall payees did not dismiss their Federal action - which they did (without prejudice) on February 7, 2013.

In their prior federal class action lawsuit, the shortfall payees asserted causes of action against ELNY's Receivers, in personam, for breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment, for not conducting the ELNY rehabilitation in good faith, for self-dealing, for material misstatements, and for fraudulently concealing and failing to disclose material information regarding ELNY financial status. See: ELNY allegation timeline.

S2KM's prior blog post (Part 1) about the shortfall payees' appellate brief summarized background developments resulting in the appeal of Judge Galasso's Contempt Order including the alleged statutory responsibilities of, and mismanagement by, ELNY's Receivers and the strategic options available to ELNY shortfall payees following Judge Galasso's April 16, 2012 ELNY Liquidation Order.

In his Liquidation Order, Judge Galasso found ELNY to be insolvent, approved a Restructuring Agreement proposed by ELNY's Receiver and NOLHGA, converted the ELNY proceeding from rehabilitation to liquidation and appointed the Receiver as ELNY's liquidator. The Liquidation Order also contained broad immunity and injunction provisions proposed by ELNY's Receiver. The injunction provision provided the basis for Judge Galasso's subsequent Contempt Order.

Under the ELNY Restructuring Agreement, payments to 1456 structured settlement payees will be cut by $920 million (present value) even following contributions by state life and health guaranty associations and various life insurance companies. During the hearing that proceeded the Liquidation Order, Judge Galasso refused to entertain efforts by ELNY shortfall payees and their legal counsel to determine how and why ELNY had suffered such significant losses.

This blog post highlights and summarizes the following issues raised by the ELNY shortfall payees in their appeal of Judge Galasso's Contempt Order with the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department which they view as a necessary step before re-filing their Federal class action.

• Did the ELNY Liquidation Court exceed it subject matter jurisdiction or otherwise err by interfering with the shortfall payees' constitutional right to bring a class action lawsuit against the ELNY Receiver in Federal court?
• Did the ELNY Liquidation Court err in holding the shortfall payees in contempt for violating its injunction order when the order does not clearly and unequivocally bar personal capacity lawsuits against the Receiver?
• Did the ELNY liquidation court err in holding that the shortfall payees conceded the order barred personal capacity lawsuits by appealing the order and using this alleged concession as the basis to hold the shortfall payees in contempt?

Constitutional Issue

The ELNY shortfall payees argue the ELNY Liquidation Court violated the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution when it interfered with their federal class action lawsuit. In his order, Judge Galasso recognized he did not have authority to dismiss the federal lawsuit outright, but concluded he could punish the shortfall payees for bringing and continuing the federal action by holding them in contempt, fining them $5000, and threatening them with further fines.

To support their appeal, the ELNY shortfall payees cite two U.S. Supreme Court cases: Donovan v. City of Dallas (1964) which held "[s]tate courts are completely without power to to restrain federal court proceedings"; and General Atomic Company v. Felter (1997) which held "[a] plaintiff's right to pursue an in personam action in federal court cannot be restricted by a state court." Among other cases, they also cite Johnstown Min. Co. v. Morse (1904) in which a New York court stated: "[t]his prohibition applies whether the state court restrains the federal court proceeding directly by, for instance, ordering the federal case be dismissed, or whether that interference is indirect by compelling a party to dismiss the case by threatening or holding them in contempt."

Because Judge Galasso allegedly had no authority to enjoin their federal class action lawsuit, the ELNY shortfall payees maintain he could not properly use an injunction order to hold them and their counsel in contempt which, along with the threat of fines, effectively prevents them from pursuing their federal action. Because this issue is jurisdictional, the ELNY shortfall payees further maintain it can be raised at any time, even on appeal.

Personal Capacity Lawsuits

To be enforceable, a contempt order cannot be ambiguous and/or vague. Contrary to Judge Galasso's ruling, the shortfall payees argue the ELNY injunction does not "clearly and unequivocally" bar lawsuits that are not against ELNY assets but rather seek to collect damages from the ELNY Receiver in his personal capacity. They point out the injunctive language does not prohibit all actions against the Receiver, but only actions "with respect to this proceeding or the discharge of [his] duties under [New York] Insurance Law Article 74."

Based on New York case law and the language of Article 74, the shortfall payees argue ELNY's Receiver operated beyond his Article 74 duties because he did not "act in good faith, with care and prudence commensurate with the situation as it exist[ed] at the time." As a result, they maintain a personal capacity lawsuit is appropriate. In addition, according to the shortfall payees, barring all claims against the ELNY Receiver is inconsistent with Article 74's express purpose of protecting policyholders and payees.

Alleged Shortfall Payee Concession

In their appeal of Judge Galasso's Liquidation Order, the shortfall payees unsuccessfully asked the appellate court to either construe the injunction language narrowly or, alternatively, to reverse the Order because the injunction language violated Article 74. During the contempt proceeding, the Receiver argued the shortfall payees were judicially estopped from arguing that the injunction language should be interpreted more narrowly because of their alternative appellate argument that the language violated Article 74 by enjoining personal capacity suits. Judge Galasso agreed with the Receiver.

Judicial estoppel, according to the shortfall payee's brief, rests on the principle that "a litigant should not be permitted ... to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise." However, they maintain, submission of alternative legal arguments (as opposed to inconsistent factual pleadings) is not a basis for judicial estoppel. Therefore, by appealing the injunction language in the ELNY Liquidation Order, the shortfall payees argue they did not concede that the Liquidation Order barred their federal action and Judge Galasso erred in using this "concession" to hold the shortfall payees in contempt.

For S2KM's complete Executive Life reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

Brief Filed in ELNY Contempt Order Appeal - 1

"People should know when they are conquered." - Quintus in "Gladiator"

"It ain't over till it's over." - Yogi Berra

Following 22 years of "Rehabilitation" supervised by various New York State Superintendents of Insurance and Financial Services, as Receivers, Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) was officially liquidated August 8, 2013 pursuant to an Order of Liquidation signed by Nassau County New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

As part of his Liquidation Order, Judge Galasso also approved a Restructuring Agreement, as proposed by ELNY's Receiver and NOLHGA, whereby ELNY's remaining assets and ongoing liabilities have now been transferred to a successor company, Guaranty Associations Benefit Company (GABC), a not-for-profit Washington D.C.-based captive insurance company.

As a result of ELNY's liquidation and restructuring, approximately 1456 structured settlement payees will experience payment shortfalls totaling approximately $920 million (present value) following contributions from state life and health insurance guaranty associations and various life insurance companies.

ELNY Receivers' Responsibilities 

Significantly, ELNY's 1991 Rehabilitation Order did not result because of ELNY's insolvency. Instead, then New York Insurance Superintendent Salvatore Curiale's stated concern was a "run" on ELNY assets by policyholders.

Beginning with ELNY's 1991 Rehabilitation Order and continuing to ELNY's August 8, 2013 liquidation date, Superintendent Curiale and his successor New York Superintendents of Insurance and Financial Services managed ELNY's Rehabilitation (in their capacity as Receivers not regulators) with day-to-day management responsibilities assigned to their agent, the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB).

As ELNY's Receiver, these Superintendents undertook fiduciary responsibilities toward ELNY's policyholders and payees. Their duties, pursuant to Article 74 of New York's Insurance law, included: conducting ELNY's business, safeguarding ELNY's assets, and removing the causes and conditions that made ELNY's rehabilitation necessary.

Until December 17, 2010, however, when Judge Galasso issued an ex parte Order to Show Cause seeking an ELNY liquidation plan, ELNY's Receivers had not filed a single report with the court or made any efforts to inform policyholder or payees about ELNY's declining financial position. As of December 31, 2010, ELNY's audited financial statements show ELNY had assets of $905,945,200 compared with liabilities of $2,474,317,342, resulting in a negative surplus of $1,568,372,142.

During ELNY's March 2012 Liquidation Hearing, Judge Galasso ruled against ELNY shortfall payees' attempts to determine how and why ELNY had suffered such losses reasoning such issues were beyond the scope of the hearing. To further protect the Receiver, Judge Galasso's April 16, 2012 ELNY Liquidation Order contained immunity and injunction provisions proposed by ELNY's Receiver.

Although the Receiver represented these provisions did not immunize him from liability outside his Article 74 duties, structured settlement shortfall payees expressed concern the broad language of the immunity and injunction provisions could insulate the Receiver from liability beyond the scope of Article 74. They also believed, contrary to the Receiver's representations, that Article 74 prohibits not just bad faith conduct but also conduct without appropriate care and prudence.

ELNY Shortfall Payees' Options 

Faced with significant payment reductions resulting from ELNY's liquidation and restructuring agreement, ELNLY's structured settlement shortfall payees were left with three options:

1. Accept their payment reductions under the ELNY Restructuring Agreement and do nothing; or,
2. Appeal Judge Galasso's Order and ask the Appellate Court to send ELNY's Receiver back to drawing board; or,
3. Bring a separate legal action against the Receiver personally for bad faith conduct, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment or waste.

The ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees chose options 2 and 3.

Option 2 failed. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department denied the ELNY shortfall payees' appeal of Judge Galasso's Order on February 6, 2013. New York State Court of Appeals denied a subsequent motion by ELNY shortfall payees for Leave to Appeal the Second Department decision on May 3, 2013.

Option 3 faces a significant judicial roadblock - a Contempt Order with the threat of fines plus imprisonment of legal counsel.

Prior to this Contempt Order, several ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees pursued Option 3 by filing a federal class action lawsuit November 8, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the ELNY Receiver (New York Superintendent of Financial Services Benjamin Lawsky) in his personal capacity. In response, the Receiver filed a motion December 7, 2012 asking the Liquidation Court (Judge Galasso) to find the shortfall payees in contempt for violating the injunction provision of the ELNY Liquidation Order.

Judge Galasso issued a Contempt Order on January 25, 2013. He also imposed a $5000 fine and threatened additional fines plus imprisonment of legal counsel if the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees did not dismiss their Federal action which they did (without prejudice) on February 7, 2013. 

Bottom line: so long as Judge Galasso's Contempt Order and continuing threat of additional fines and imprisonment of legal counsel remain in effect, ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees are effectively barred from pursuing Federal legal action against ELNY's Receiver for alleged mismanagement of ELNY's assets during ELNY's 22 year Rehabilitation. 

Appeal of Contempt Order

As a result, ELNY's shortfall payees are currently pursuing an appeal challenging "each and every part" of Judge Galasso's January 25, 2013 Contempt Order as a necessary step before re-filing their Federal action against the Receiver and his agents.

On August 9, 2013, Attorney Edward Stone filed a preliminary brief with the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department on behalf of ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees Jeanice Dolan, Keith Vincent, Daniel Malin and their attorneys.

The appellate brief filed on behalf of the ELNY shortfall payees addresses three legal issues:

• Did the ELNY Liquidation Court exceed it subject matter jurisdiction or otherwise err by interfering with shortfall payees' constitutional right to bring suit against the Receiver in Federal court?
• Did the ELNY Liquidation Court err in holding the shortfall payees in contempt for violating its injunctive Order when the order does not clearly and unequivocally bar personal capacity suits against the Receiver?
• Did the ELNY Liquidation Court err in holding that the shortfall payees conceded the Order barred personal capacity lawsuits by appealing the order and using this alleged concession as the basis to hold the shortfall payees in contempt?

S2KM will summarize the ELNY shortfall payees' arguments for each of these issues in a subsequent blog post. For S2KM's complete ELNY reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Liquidation Date Announced

New York Superintendent of Financial Services Benjamin Lawsky, as Receiver for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY), has announced the proposed liquidation date and the proposed date of closing of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement will be August 8, 2013. ELNY's shortfall payees, including hundreds of structured settlement recipients, can expect their payment reductions to take effect shortly thereafter.

ELNY first entered rehabilitation in 1991 when then New York Insurance Commissioner Salvatore Curiale obtained a Court Order seizing control of the company. The Nassau New York State Supreme Court approved a Plan of Rehabilitation for ELNY in 1992. Neither the ELNY Order of Rehabilitation in 1991 nor the ELNY Plan of Rehabilitation in 1992 determined that ELNY was insolvent.

Under the Rehabilitation Plan, owners of ELNY single premium deferred annuities (SPDA), interest sensitive life policies, whole life policies and term policies were given the option to have Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) assume their policies. However, all of ELNY's single premium immediate annuities (including all ELNY structured settlement annuities) remained with ELNY under the supervision of the Insurance Superintendent and his agent, the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB). The Rehabilitation Plan named MetLife as Administrator of the ELNY single premium immediate annuities (SPIAs) and payees continued to receive their scheduled annuity payments as part of the Rehabilitation Plan.

The first public announcement that ELNY was experiencing financial problems during its Rehabilitation occurred in December of 2007 when then New York Governor Eliot Spitzer reassuringly announced an “Agreement in Principle” designed to continue paying all ELNY annuitants 100 percent of their benefits. Unfortunately, the “Agreement in Principle” never materialized.

The first audited financial statements for ELNY during its Rehabilitation were released in 2009 for years 2006 and 2007. Those financial statements showed that, as of December 31, 2007, ELNY had assets of $1,344,729,904 and liabilities of $2,538,548,125 resulting in a negative surplus of $1,193,818,221. Subsequent financial statements for years 2008-2010 indicated a deteriorating financial condition. As of December 31, 2010, ELNY had assets of $905,945,201 and liabilities of $2,474,317 resulting in a negative surplus of $1,568,372,142. 

On December 17, 2010, Nassau County New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso issued an Order to Show Cause requiring New York's Insurance Superintendent to present the Court with a proposed Order and Plan of Liquidation for ELNY on or before July 1, 2011. As justification for ELNY's proposed liquidation, the Petition, which was ultimately filed September 1, 2011, stated: “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 . . . . 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 ELNY Restructuring Plan submitted to, and approved by, Judge Galasso was jointly prepared by the Superintendent and the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA). Under the Restructuring Plan, participating state life and health guaranty associations (PGAs) and certain life insurance companies have formed a new special purpose not-for-profit captive insurance company under the laws of the district of Columbia to replace ELNY once it is liquidated. The PGAs have agreed to 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. The various participating life companies have agreed to provide additional enhancements and have set up an ELNY Hardship Fund.

The Restructuring Plan includes Schedule 1.15 listing all of ELNY's current annuities, with the names of the annuity owners and payees redacted. Schedule 1.15 includes additional information such as individual contract identification numbers, the proposed "uncovered amount" (shortfall) and "total percentage of contract protected" assuming contributions from state life and health insurance guaranty associations and certain supplemental enhancements. Following the Schedule 1.15 filing, the NYLB sent informational notices to each ELNY annuity payee and published weekly notices in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Judge Galasso signed the ELNY Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement on April 16, 2012 (as proposed by the Superintendent and despite objections by several structured settlement payees and their attorneys) following a two week hearing March 15-30, 2012.

The anticipated shortfalls resulting from the ELNY liquidation and restructuring were expected to total $920,641,977 on a present value basis as of April 16, 2012. This figure assumed promised state guarantee association payments and enhancements but did not include possible payments from the ELNY Hardship Fund and/or from structured settlement defendants who negotiated and promised to pay future periodic payments funded with ELNY annuities. As a result, approximately 15 percent of the ELNY annuitants are expected to experience an average present value loss of more than $600,000 per annuitant. The remaining ELNY annuitants are not expected to experience any reduction in their payments.

As part of his ELNY Liquidation Order, Judge Galasso granted judicial immunity "to the Receiver and his successors in office, the New York Liquidation Bureau, and their respective attorneys, agents and employees, ... for any cause of action of any nature against them, individually or jointly, for any action or omission by any one or more of them when acting in good faith, in accordance with this Order, or in the performance of their duties pursuant to Insurance Law Article 74 ..."

The Order also enjoined all persons "from commencing or further prosecuting any actions at law or other proceedings against ELNY or its assets, the Receiver or the New York Liquidation Bureau, or their present or former employees, attorneys, or agents, with respect to this proceeding or the discharge of their duties under Insurance Law Article 74."

Subsequent ELNY-related litigation and court filings followed:

• Appeal of Liquidation Order - On March 30, 2012, attorneys representing ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the ELNY Liquidation Order and Restructuring Agreement. Both the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department and the New York State Court of Appeals subequently denied this Appeal.
• Motion to Clarify and/or Correct - On June 14, 2012, attorneys representing several liability insurers who previously purchased ELNY structured settlement annuities filed a Motion asking Judge Galasso to "clarify and/or correct" his ELNY Memorandum Decision insofar as it "caused confusion or mistake" concerning responsibilities of those liability insurers to make up shortfalls on ELNY annuities. Judge Galasso denied the Motion.
• Class Action Lawsuit - On November 8, 2012, attorneys representing ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York against Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, in his non-regulatory capacity as ELNY's Receiver, including predecessor ELNY Receivers, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse) as defendants. The class action Complaint alleged  the defendants' mismanagement and misconduct had caused the plaintiffs' ELNY payment shortfalls.
• Contempt Order - On December 7, 2012, responding to the ELNY shortfall payees' class action lawsuit, Superintendent Lawsky filed a Notice of Motion seeking to enforce Judge Galasso's ELNY injunctions and to hold the ELNY shortfall payees' attorneys in contempt of Judge Galasso's ELNY Liquidation Order. On January 25, 2013, Judge Galasso issued an Order holding the ELNY shortfall payees' attorneys in contempt of court and imposing a fine for filing the class action lawsuit.
• Dismissal of Class Action - As a result Judge Galasso's Contempt Order, the ELNY shortfall payees voluntarily dismissed their class action lawsuit on February 7, 2013 without prejudice thereby preserving their right to re-file claims and tolling the statute of limitations.
• Appeal of Contempt Order - On February 14, 2013, three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees and their attorneys filed a Notice of Appeal challenging Judge Galasso's Contempt Order. That Appeal currently remains unresolved.

For additional information about ELNY, see:

• Section 3.05[13] of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).
• The structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Shortfall Payees Seek Review by NY's Highest Court

Attorneys representing Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees (Objectors) have filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal dated March 8, 2013 and a supporting Memorandum of Law with the New York State Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals).

This Motion, requesting review by New York's highest judicial authority, seeks to reverse a February 6, 2013 decision by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department (Second Department) which rejected an earlier legal challenge to the ELNY Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement signed by New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

In addition to attorney Edward Stone and the Christensen & Jensen law firm, the ELNY shortfall payees' appellate legal team now includes Michael J. Hutter, Jr., a law professor at the Albany Law School of Union University. Professor Hutter's online biography states he "has argued over 275 appeals in all of New York's appellate courts and many of the cases in which he represented the prevailing party are considered to be landmark decisions."

The ELNY shortfall payees consist of approximately 1456 structured settlement payees whose benefits under the ELNY Restructuring Agreement will be reduced up to 66 percent with an average per payee present value reduction of approximately $632,310 and a total present value reduction of approximately $920,642,947.

The issues being presented to the Court of Appeals requesting their review are the same issues the Second Department rejected:

• Due Process - "Did inadequate notice and the denial of information to Objectors, along with the selective application of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, deny Objectors a fair hearing as required by principles of due process?"
• Immunity - "Did the Supreme Court exceed its subject matter jurisdiction or otherwise err in granting immunity to the Receiver and others in their personal capacities, where such immunity is not provided for by statute, is inconsistent with the common law, and is unsupported by evidence?"
• Injunction - "Did the Supreme Court exceed its jurisdiction or otherwise err in permanently enjoining claims against the Receiver and others in their personal capacities, where such injunction is not provided for by statute or the common law, and no evidence was adduced at the hearing?"

Why should the Court of Appeals grant the ELNY shortfall payees' Motion seeking leave to appeal? Their attorneys argue the distribution and protection of Article 74 assets is a matter of public importance and the Second Department decision warrants leave to appeal for the following reasons:

• The Second Department's decision to authorize immunity and enjoin suits against the Receiver in his personal capacity "undermines the public's interest in protecting policyholders and receivership assets."
• The Second Department's decision is inconsistent with the Court of Appeals' previous ruling in Dinallo v. DiNapoli, "which implicitly recognized that an Article 74 Receiver is no different than any other court appointed private Receiver."
• The immunity and injunction provisions included in the ELNY Liquidation Order "exceed the subject matter jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court and is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 74."

In addition, the ELNY shortfall payees' attorneys argue the Court of Appeals should grant leave to appeal "to determine whether the limited notice and the denial of information to Objectors, along with the selective application of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, provided Objectors a fair hearing as required by the principles of due process" for two reasons:

• First, under New York law, "leave to appeal is not required to appeal constitutional issues."
• Second, even absent this express right, "the issue of whether an Article 74 proceeding, or any court proceeding, is conducted in accordance with principles of due process is a matter of public importance and concern."

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

For S2KM's summary of arguments presented earlier to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department by attorneys representing Benjamin M. Lawsky,  Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, and the ELNY shortfall payees, see:

• Due process
• Immunity
• Injunction

ELNY Contempt Order Appealed

Three Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees (objector respondents) and their legal counsel have filed a Notice of Appeal dated February 14, 2013 challenging "each and every part" of a Contempt Order issued January 25, 2013 by New York Supreme Court Judge John Galasso "on questions of both fact and law".

Judge Galasso's Contempt Order:

• Responded to a federal class action lawsuit filed November 8, 2012 by the three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees, as plaintiffs, against Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, in his non-regulatory capacity as ELNY's Receiver, including predecessor ELNY Receivers (Superintendent), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Credit Suisse Group, AG, as defendants.
• Determined the federal class action lawsuit violated three ELNY injunctions: injunctions contained in the ELNY Rehabilitation Order (1991) and the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan Approval (1992) as well as an injunction in Judge Galasso's April 16, 2012 ELNY Liquidation Order which states: "All persons are enjoined and restrained from commencing or further prosecuting any actions at law or other proceedings against ELNY or its assets, the Receiver or the New York Liquidation Bureau, or their present or former employees, attorneys, or agents, with respect to this proceeding or the discharge of their duties under Insurance Law Article 74."
• Imposed a fine, payable by the ELNY shortfall payees’ legal counsel to the Superintendent for costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney’s fees the Superintendent had incurred defending the federal class action and for pursuing the contempt application plus potential additional legal expenses assuming the Superintendent achieved a favorable result in the concurrent appeal of the ELNY Liquidation Order which was denied February 6, 2013 by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
• Acknowledged: "This Court is not empowered to dismiss the federal complaint outright."

Following Judge Galasso's Contempt Order and the denial of their Liquidation Order appeal, attorneys representing the structured settlement shortfall payees voluntarily dismissed their ELNY class action lawsuit without prejudice preserving their right to refile claims and tolling the statute of limitations.

Attorney Edward Stone characterized the voluntary dismissal as a "strategic decision" attributable to the Contempt Order which left open the possibility of additional fines for continued legal efforts to protect ELNY shortfall payees.  

The objector respondents and their legal counsel, attorneys Stone, Roger Christensen and Karra Porter, have six months to perfect their appeal of Judge Galasso's Contempt Order with the same appellate court that denied their earlier appeal of the ELNY Liquidation Order. Based upon previous court filings and out-of-court statements, they are expected to argue, in part, that Judge Galasso's Contempt Order violates the United States Constitution.

In a letter written to United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman prior to the voluntary dismissal of the ELNY class action lawsuit, attorney Christensen quoted from the 1964 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Donovan v. City of Dallas: "Early in the history of our country, a general rule was established that state and federal courts would not interfere with or try to restrain each others proceedings. That rule has continued substantially unchanged to this time."

Christensen's letter continued: "It could not be more clear that a state court cannot enjoin a federal action or use contempt proceedings to preclude citizens' attempts to have their claims heard in federal court." 

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation, including related litigation and an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Class Action Dismissed

Attorneys representing Executive Life of New York (ELNY) shortfall victims have voluntarily dismissed an ELNY class action lawsuit without prejudice preserving their right to refile claims and tolling the statute of limitations.

The dismissal of the ELNY class action lawsuit follows:

• Contempt Order Issued - Judge M. Galasso sanctioned attorney Edward Stone and representatives of the Christensen & Jensen law firm for civil contempt February 25, 2013 for filing the ELNY class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York in violation of existing ELNY anti-lawsuit injunction orders.
• Anticipated Appeal of Contempt Order - Stone and Christensen & Jensen responded January 28, 2013 with a press release announcing their plan to pursue an appeal of the contempt order with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
• Appeal of Liquidation Order Denied - The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department denied an appeal February 6, 2013 challenging the ELNY Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement signed by Judge Galasso on April 16, 2012.

Attorney Stone has informed S2KM Limited the voluntary dismissal of the ELNY class action was a "strategic decision" attributable to Judge Galasso's contempt order which left open the possibility of additional fines for continued legal efforts to protect ELNY shortfall payees. Judge Galasso's contempt order provides in relevant part:

"Should [Superintendent Benjamin M Lawsky] accrue additional legal expenses, such as in filing a motion to dismiss the federal complaint upon a successful appellate result, [Stone and Christensen & Jensen] may be subject to an additional fine."

Judge Galasso acknowledged in the contempt order: "This Court is not empowered to dismiss the federal complaint outright."

Stone and the Christensen law firm maintain that the blanket immunity and permanent injunction granted by Judge Galasso in the ELNY liquidation order go beyond what Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law allows and that Judge Galasso's contempt order violates the United States Constitution.

In a letter written to United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman prior to the voluntary dismissal of the ELNY class action lawsuit, attorney Roger Christensen quoted from the 1964 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Donovan v. City of Dallas: "Early in the history of our country, a general rule was established that state and federal courts would not interfere with or try to restrain each others proceedings. That rule has continued substantially unchanged to this time."

Christensen's letter continued: "It could not be more clear that a state court cannot enjoin a federal action or use contempt proceedings to preclude citizens' attempts to have their claims heard in federal court."

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation, including related litigation and an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Appeal Denied

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, has denied an appeal challenging the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement signed by New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

The unanimous February 6, 2013 appellate decision:

• Dismissed the appeal;
• Affirmed Judge Galasso's order; and
• Awarded costs to Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services (petitioner-respondent) and NOLHGA (nonparty-respondent).

The appeal, filed May 30, 2012 on behalf of 18 ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims as objectors:

• Alleged Judge Galasso "erroneously denied objectors' request to reject the proposed agreement of restructuring in connection with the [ELNY] liquidation";
• Further alleged Judge Galasso's order:
  • "[I]mproperly grants and/or continues certain injunctions and immunities and discriminates against the objectors";
  • "[C]reates impermissible sub-classes of claimants"; and
  • "[R]eflects the courts erroneous denial of objectors' requests to adjourn the hearing ... due to a lack of proper notice of such hearing."
• Sought to compel:
  • The Superintendent, as ELNY's Rehabilitator, "to provide certain discovery necessary to, among other things, allow objectors to demonstrate why the plan should not be approved and submit a viable competing restructuring plan";
  • Judge Galasso "to unseal certain documents submitted to the court by the rehabilitator"; and
• Further sought to allow the objectors "to present evidence (in the form of live testimony by certain witnesses) rebutting the receiver's experts and otherwise showing that the proposed-liquidation plan should not have been approved."

The Appellate Court rejected all of these allegations and denied further relief.

The brief appellate opinion focused primary on due process issue. The Appellate Court stated: "[t]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard" and concluded the ELNY shortfall payees had not been denied due process "either in the manner in which the notice was provided to them or in the conduct of the hearing."

Concerning due process, the Appellate Court reasoned: "The notice mailed to the last known addresses of the ELNY annuity payees was reasonably calculated to apprise them of the pendency of the liquidation proceeding and the execution of the proposed agreement, and to afford them an opportunity to be heard, and, thus, satisfied due process.... Moreover, the record does not support the contention that the hearing was "an unfair proceeding."

The appellate opinion summarily dismissed the immunity and injunction issues. "There is no merit to the contention that the Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to include, in the order approving the agreement, provisions which granted the receiver for ELNY judicial immunity and preliminary injunctive relief," the Appellate Court stated. "Furthermore, such relief was appropriately granted in the order."

Additional ELNY Developments

The ELNY appellate court decision follows a civil contempt order issued by Judge Galasso January 25, 2013 in which he sanctioned legal counsel for three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees for filing an ELNY class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York. The attorneys issued a press release January 28, 2013 announcing their plan to appeal the contempt order. The ELNY class action lawsuit is still pending despite arguments on behalf of Superintendent Lawsky seeking dismissal.

Addendum: subsequent to publishing this blog post, S2KM learned the ELNY class action lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Please see this S2KM blog post for details.

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation and related litigation, see the structured settlement wiki.

Attorneys to Appeal ELNY Contempt Order

Attorney Edward Stone and representatives of the Christensen & Jensen law firm, who are representing Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees in multiple legal actions, have responded to a contempt order issued January 25, 2013 by New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso with a press release announcing their plan to pursue an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Judge Galasso's contempt order against the ELNY shortfall payee attorneys followed their filing of an ELNY class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York (federal court) which Judge Galasso ruled was a violation of existing ELNY anti-lawsuit injunction orders.

Stone and Christensen & Jensen filed the ELNY class action November 8, 2012 against Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, (Superintendent) and his predecessors, in their “non-regulatory” capacities as ELNY receivers, claiming breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent omission among other allegations. The class action complaint also named Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Credit Suisse Group, AG as defendants.

Judge Galasso's contempt order also included a fine, payable by the ELNY shortfall payee attorneys to the Superintendent, for costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney’s fees the Superintendent has incurred defending the federal class action and for pursuing the contempt application plus potential additional legal expenses if the Superintendent achieves a favorable result in the ELNY appeal. For purposes of the fine, the Superintendent's attorney fees are capped at $5000.

Representing 18 ELNY shortfall payees, Stone and Christensen & Jensen have also appealed Judge Galasso's April 16, 2012 ELNY Liquidation Order. Oral arguments in the ELNY appeal have concluded and a decision is expected shortly.

Press Release - distributed by Stone and Christensen & Jensen on January 28, 2013: 

"GALASSO CONTEMPT DECISION - VIOLATES UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; PUNISHES VICTIMS; WASTES ELNY ASSETS

New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso decided to hold attorneys for structured settlement victims in civil contempt for filing a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York despite acknowledging that "This Court is not empowered to dismiss the federal complaint outright".

We are disappointed that Judge Galasso interprets the injunctions as broader in scope than the immunity provisions contained in the various orders issued in connection with the failed rehabilitation of The Executive Life Insurance Company of New York dating back to 1991. On the other hand, we agree that Galasso is not empowered to dismiss the federal complaint and we look forward to the day when the victims of this tragedy will have a chance to shed light on what actually transpired with ELNY over the past 21 years. We intend to do everything we can to shed light on what led to this insurance industry failure of epic proportions.

For more than 21 years, victims have been kept in the dark while assets set aside to provide for their long term needs were squandered on the Superintendent's watch. We asked the Superintendent to look into the single largest failed effort at "Rehabilitation" in the history of the State of New York and he refused. We regret Superintendent Lawsky's decision to pursue contempt sanctions and we obviously interpret the injunctions differently than Judge Galasso does. We plan on pursuing an appeal on substantive and constitutional grounds with the Appellate Division."

Additional Resources

For additional S2KM reporting about the ELNY contempt proceeding, see:

• Superintendent Seeks ELNY Contempt Order
• ELNY Payees' Attorneys Respond to Contempt Motion
• ELNY Contempt Order Issued

For S2KM's complete and continuing ELNY reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Contempt Order Issued

New York Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso has ordered legal counsel for three Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees in civil contempt for filing an ELNY class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York (federal court) in violation of existing ELNY anti-lawsuit injunction orders.

Despite issuing the contempt order, Judge Galasso acknowledged:

• "This Court is not empowered to dismiss the federal complaint outright"; and
• "The results of the pending [s]tate appeal may also impact the viability of the federal action."

ELNY Class Action and Appeal

Attorney Edward Stone and representatives of the Christensen & Jensen law firm, the attorneys subject to the contempt order, filed the ELNY class action lawsuit November 8, 2012 in federal court against the Superintendent and his predecessors,  in their “non-regulatory” capacities as ELNY Receivers, claiming breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent omission among other allegations. The class action complaint also named Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Credit Suisse Group, AG as defendants.

Attorneys for the Superintendent filed a Notice of Motion January 18, 2013 with the United States District Court to:

• Stay the ELNY class action lawsuit pursuant to the Burford abstention doctrine; or, alternatively,
• Dismiss the ELNY class action complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6).

Questions concerning immunity and due process, which are also raised in the pending ELNY appeal, were not subjects of the contempt proceeding. Oral arguments in the ELNY appeal have concluded and a decision is expected shortly.

Fine Imposed

Judge Galasso's January 25, 2013 contempt order also imposes a fine, payable by the ELNY shortfall payees’ legal counsel to Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), for costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney’s fees the Superintendent has incurred defending the federal class action and for pursuing the contempt application plus potential additional legal expenses if the Superintendent achieves a favorable result in the ELNY appeal.

The ELNY contempt order indicates Judge Galasso will determine the amount of the fine without a hearing upon receipt of an affidavit in support of the Superintendent's attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements along with a proposed judgment. For purposes of the ELNY contempt fine, the Superintendent's attorney fees will be capped at $5000.

Three Injunctions

Three ELNY injunctions were at issue in the contempt proceeding: injunctions contained in the ELNY Rehabilitation Order (1991) and the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan Approval (1992) as well as an injunction in Judge Galasso's April 16, 2012 ELNY Liquidation Order. The injunction in the Liquidation Order states:

"All persons are enjoined and restrained from commencing or further prosecuting any actions at law or other proceedings against ELNY or its assets, the Receiver or the New York Liquidation Bureau, or their present or former employees, attorneys, or agents, with respect to this proceeding or the discharge of their duties under Insurance Law Article 74."

The ELNY Liquidation Order also discharged the Superintendent, as Rehabilitator, and his agents, employees, etc., from any liability for their acts prior to the approval of the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan in the performance of their duties related to the ELNY rehabilitation. That discharge was in addition to any statutory or other immunity to which they might be entitled.

Judge Galasso's Reasoning

• The Superintendent's motion for contempt must be considered within the context of the Court enforcing its own directives.
• Counsel for plaintiffs should to be held in contempt if, by commencing the federal lawsuit against the Superintendent, an order has been disobeyed.
• New York insurance law permits a judge to issue injunctions or orders during an Article 74 rehabilitation or liquidation to prevent interference with the Receiver or the plan.
• The ELNY orders are a matter of public record, clearly expressed and unequivocal.
• The Superintendent, and his predecessors are prejudiced by being sued.
• The ELNY class action contention that no harm or waste will inure to the ELNY estate as a result of the federal action is not supported by the ELNY shortfall payees' arguments that:
  • The federal claims are against the Superintendent and his predecessors in their personal capacity; and/or
  • The federal complaint does not seek damages payable from the ELNY estate assets or prevent the ELNY Liquidation Order from proceeding as directed.
• On their face, the allegations in the federal complaint are neither "ultra vires" nor illegal.
• Naming the Superintendent and his predecessors, in their non-regulatory capacity, as defendants in the federal complaint without clearly prosecuting them in their individual capacities "appears to be a deliberate obfuscation in an effort to avoid a charge of violating the mandates of the state injunctions still in force." (emphasis added)

Additional Resources

For additional S2KM reporting about the ELNY contempt proceeding, see:

• Superintendent Seeks ELNY Contempt Order
• ELNY Payees' Attorneys Respond to Contempt Motion

For S2KM's complete and continuing ELNY reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.