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.

S2P2J Release 53

Publisher Law Journal Press is currently distributing hardcopy supplements for Release 53 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). Online S2P2J, which includes a searchable index, download capability and one-click access to cases and statutes, has already been updated to include Release 53 materials.

First published in 1986, S2P2J is co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) utilize S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Release 53 Highlights

Release 53 continues S2P2J's comprehensive reporting of the Executive Life insolvencies with updates for both Executive Life of California (ELIC) and Executive Life of New York (ELNY). The ongoing ELNY liquidation threatens severe court-approved reductions for more than 1400 structured settlement recipients across the United States.

Certain prospective ELNY shortfall payees are appealing the ELNY liquidation and restructuring order. Their attorneys are appealing a related contempt order. The outcome of this courtroom drama will significantly impact not only the ELNY shortfall payees but also the structured settlement industry and state life insurance guarantee associations.

Other Release 53 topics:

• American Taxpayer Act of 2012 - updating when and how personal injury damage awards are taxed to a decedent's estate. 
• Non-qualified assignments - expanded analysis of this growing market.
• 2013 HIPAA omnibus final rule - how it impacts settlement planners and structured settlement professionals.
• The Smart Act - which sets new procedures for Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) repayment and reporting.

As the structured settlement and settlement planning markets continue to experience unprecedented changes, S2P2J provides a comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge resource for industry experts and stakeholders.

If you do not already subscribe to S2P2J, or your subscription is out-of-date, review some of the recent S2P2J highlights to see what you are missing.

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.

Superintendent Argues for ELNY Class Action Dismissal

Attorneys for Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, in his capacity as Receiver of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY), filed a Notice of Motion January 18, 2013 with the United States District Court Southern District of New York 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).

The Notice of Motion also states:

• In response to a letter and phone call from Superintendent Lawsky's attorneys setting forth reasons why the class action lawsuit should be dismissed, plaintiffs' attorneys communicated they would not amend their complaint prior to the filing of the motion; and
• Court rules require plaintiffs to file opposing affidavits or memoranda by February 1, 2013 and Superintendent Lawsky to file any replies by February 8, 2013.

Background and Related Legal Actions

• New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso approved an Order of Liquidation and Restructuring Agreement for ELNY  on April 16, 2012 which were subsequently appealed by 18 ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees. Oral arguments in the appeal have been concluded and a decision is expected shortly.

• The ELNY class action, which was filed November 15, 2012, alleges mismanagement of ELNY during its 21 year rehabilitation by Superintendent Lawsky in his non-regulatory capacity as ELNY's Receiver, including predecessor ELNY Receivers, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Credit Suisse Group, AG as defendants.

• For S2KM's re-configuration of selected allegations from the ELNY class action complaint, see the "ELNY Allegation Timeline".

• In a related legal action, attorneys for Superintendent Lawsky have filed a separate Notice of a Motion with the Nassau County New York State Supreme Court to enjoin the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees and their legal counsel from proceeding with their class action lawsuit and to hold the shortfall payees' legal counsel in contempt.

Supporting Legal Memorandum

In support of Superintendent Lawsky's motion to stay or dismiss the ELNY class action lawsuit, his attorneys also filed an accompanying memorandum of law (legal memorandum) plus a declaration with exhibits.

The legal memorandum filed with the Superintendent's Notice of Motion characterizes the class action complaint as:

• Seeking "to circumvent ongoing proceedings in the New York Supreme Court that are subject to New York’s comprehensive Insurance Law, and thereby make an end run around that court’s anti-suit injunctions and other rulings" and
• "[A]n attempt to obtain a preference over other ELNY creditors, which New York law prohibits and they and their counsel were unsuccessful in obtaining from the Receivership Court."

Burford Abstention Argument

Superintendent Lawsky's legal memoradum argues that a Burford abstention is warranted as "the Second Circuit repeatedly has held in suits involving the Superintendent during pending Article 74 proceedings." This case, according to the Superintendent's attorneys, satisfies four factors the Second Circuit has previously recognized in determining whether a Burford abstention is appropriate:

1. Specificity - New York Insurance Law Article 74 is specific and comprehensive and has “particularly detailed provisions concerning [insurance company] rehabilitation and liquidation.”
2. Substantial state concern - New York Insurance Law’s rehabilitation and liquidation provisions constitute “a matter of special state concern.” Continuation of the ELNY class action lawsuit "would disrupt New York’s unified administrative and judicial framework for the administration of the estates of insolvent insurance companies.”
3. Debatable construction - Continuation of the ELNY class action lawsuit would require the U.S. District Court to determine how Article 74's priority rule "requires any recovery to be apportioned." It would undoubtedly result in plaintiffs seeking "to collaterally litigate and debate issues related to Article 74 (some of which the Receivership Court already has ruled upon.)"
4. Minimal federal interests - The ELNY rehabilitation has been ongoing for a long time and presents no issues of federal law while there has been no "relative progress of the federal action."

FRCP 12(b)(6) Argument

As an alternative argument, the Superintendent's legal memorandum maintains the plaintiffs' class action claims should be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) "because they lack standing to assert their claims and, even if they had standing, the claims would fail for [four] additional reasons."

1. Any alleged financial harm was sustained by the ELNY estate, and thus any claim belongs to the ELNY estate and not to individual creditors of the ELNY estate.
2. Plaintiffs "fail to plead either a fraudulent omission claim with particularity or a plausible breach of fiduciary duty claim against Superintendent Lawsky." The class action complaint only mentions Superintendent Lawsky twice and neither allegation states a claim.
3. Plaintiffs Jeanice Dolan’s and Keith Vincent’s claims are time-barred and plaintiff Daniel Malin’s fiduciary duty claim is not timely.
4. The Receivership Court discharged Superintendent Lawsky from liability for the conduct plaintiffs alleged caused them harm.

For S2KM's complete and continuing coverage of the ELNY liquidation and related legal actions, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Victims Hold Press Conference

Responding to injustices they attribute to Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services for the State of New York (Superintendent), in his capacity as Receiver of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY), and his predecessors and their agents, a group of ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees and their attorneys held a press conference today at the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City.

Added January 9, 2013: Among several news organizations that attended the press conference, the New York Daily News has now published its first ELNY article.

Added January 13, 2013: See also this ELNY article from the Courthouse News Service.

Contempt Motion

The alleged injustices include a recent Motion filed by the Superintendent's attorneys with the Nassau County New York State Supreme Court to:

• Enjoin three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees and their legal counsel from proceeding with a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York;
• Hold in contempt of court the shortfall payees' legal counsel; and
• Require their payment of the related costs and attorney's fees incurred by the Superintendent.

The stated purpose of the Superintendent's motion is "to punish the accused for a contempt of court, and such punishment may consist of fine or imprisonment, or both, according to the law."

S2KM Summaries

• For the structured settlement shortfall payees' legal response to the Superintendents' contempt motion, see this prior blog post.

• For ELNY class action allegations of post-1991 ELNY mismanagement and non-disclosure set forth in the ELNY class action, see this prior blog post.

• For 2012 ELNY retrospective summary, see this prior blog post.

Press Conference Comments

In addition to the structured settlement shortfall payees, two of their attorneys, Edward Stone and Roger Christensen, spoke during the press conference.

“What is most shocking to victims", Stone stated, "is that the structured settlement funds set aside for future medical expenses and care were wasted by folks charged with protecting their interests. When New York State took over ELNY in 1991, the company was financially in the black, but decades of neglect and fiscal mismanagement by the NYLB led to this horrible scenario for victims. For the state to give these suffering victims a legal ultimatum and then sue them for asking for justice is unconscionable in my view. Billion dollar deficits are not created overnight.”

Christensen, whose law firm Christensen & Jensen has previously secured major victories against insurance companies, added: “The wasting of ELNY assets that has been perpetrated here in New York State against these victims and the legal intimidation the superintendent is now seeking to impose upon them must not be tolerated in a democratic and supposedly moral society. If we must, we will take this fight to the highest levels of our nation’s legal systems to obtain justice for nearly 1,500 ELNY victims scattered across all 50 states and three foreign nations. The superintendent is now asking us to be held in contempt for what he and his predecessors should have been doing all along, protecting these good people. They put their trust in the leadership of New York State and were betrayed.”

There are a total of 1,457 ELNY shortfall victims across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and three countries. The largest proportion of victims hail from: California, New York, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Washington, Nevada, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, Louisiana, Maryland, Illinois, Georgia and Connecticut.

Complete ELNY Coverage

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

ELNY Payees' Attorneys Respond to Contempt Motion

Should Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services, acting as Receiver for Executive Life of New York, (Superintendent) receive a "free pass" for all actions taken by Lawsky, his predecessor Superintendents and their agents during the past 21 years with respect to the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) rehabilitation and liquidation no matter how egregious and regardless of whether or not those actions were taken in good faith and/or constituted illegal conduct under Article 74 of New York's insurance law?

Motion for Contempt Order

That is the central strategic question posed by attorney Edward Stone and the Christensen & Jensen law firm (ELNY shortfall attorneys) in their Memorandum of Law responding to a Motion filed last month by attorneys representing the Superintendent with the Nassau County New York State Supreme Court to:

• Enjoin three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees and their legal counsel from proceeding with a class action lawsuit filed November 8, 2012 in the United States District Court Southern District of New York;
• Hold in contempt of court the shortfall payees' legal counsel; and
• Require their payment of the related costs and attorney's fees incurred by the Superintendent.

Characterizing the Superintendent's Motion for a Contempt Order as a "SLAPP" ("strategic lawsuit against public participation"), the ELNY shortfall attorneys argue in their Memorandum of Law that the Superintendent's Motion should not be condoned and that the Superintendent "is presumably wasting estate assets to avoid a proper inquiry into malfeasance by his predecessors and agents,continuing a disturbing pattern."

ELNY Class Action

In their class action Complaint, the named ELNY shortfall payees and their attorneys assert causes of action against the Superintendent and his predecessors, in their personal capacity: 1) for breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment in not conducting the rehabilitation of ELNY in good faith; 2) for self-dealing; 3) for material misstatements; and 4) for fraudulently concealing and failing to disclose material information regarding ELNY’s financial status. See the ELNY Allegation Timeline for S2KM's re-configuration of selected allegations of malfeasance from the class action complaint.

Superintendent's Contempt Argument

In their Memoradum of Law supporting their Motion for Contempt, the Superintendent's attorneys argue:

• The ELNY class action lawsuit violates an injunction provision in the ELNY Liquidation Order signed by New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012; and
• "It is literally hornbook law that [a] violation of an injunction constitutes a contempt.'”

The ELNY Liquidation Order injunction: “enjoins and restrains [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 [NYLB], 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.”

ELNY Shortfall Payees' Argument - In their Memorandum of Law Responding to the Motion for Contempt

The ELNY class action lawsuit does not violate the ELNY Liquidation Order injunction because:

• The ELNY payees' attorneys "tailored their Complaint specifically and conservatively to avoid any claim against ELNY or its assets and any claim properly precluded by the injunction or immunity provisions of the April 16th Order of this Court, acting within its subject matter jurisdiction."
• Their Federal class action lawsuit:
  • "[I]s not an in rem suit against the ELNY estate or its assets;
  • "[D]oes not concern how ELNY was run prior to being placed into rehabilitation or seek any damages payable from estate assets;
  • "[D]oes not affect or even seek to prevent the Court’s Order of Liquidation and Restructuring Agreement from proceeding;
  • "[D]oes not seek to hold the Receiver liable for any conduct of administering the business and assets of ELNY while acting in good faith with appropriate care in compliance with the Court’s prior Order of Rehabilitation."

The Superintendent's Motion for a Contempt Order should be denied because:

• The ELNY class action lawsuit is outside the scope of the ELNY liquidation.
• The ELNY liquidation court's subject matter jurisdiction is limited to administration of the ELNY estate.
• The ELNY Liquidation Order's injunction provision cannot be broader than the scope of judicial immunity.
• The injunction provision should be interpreted and enforced consistent with the purpose and provisions of New York insurance law Article 74.
• The claims made in the ELNY class action lawsuit seek to hold the Superintendent and his agents liable in their personal capacities for bad faith conduct.
• The ELNY liquidation court should not hold the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit or their attorneys in civil contempt.
• The injunction does not clearly and unequivocally bar suits against the Superintendent in his personal capacity.
• Positions taken by the ELNY shortfall payees in the ELNY appeal are not admissions, but rather the proper way to protect their rights.

ELNY Appeal

The ELNY Order's injunction, and its related grant of immunity, are simultaneously being contested in an ELNY appeal filed May 30, 2012 with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department. Oral arguments for the ELNY appeal occurred November 15, 2012 but no decision has been announced. This S2KM blog post summarizes the injunction arguments in the Superintendent's appellate brief and the ELNY shortfall payees' appellate reply brief.

Continuing ELNY Coverage

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

 

Structured Settlements in 2012 - 4

Executive Life of New York

At one time or another, each of us may have become acquainted with individuals who have overcome personal injuries and successfully transformed their disabilities and special needs into special lifetime accomplishments. Kyle Walsh, profiled in a 2012 S2KM blog post, is one such individual. The late Randy Snow, featured in a 2008 S2KM blog series, was another.

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?

These questions are highlighted by the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation - the dominant structured settlement story of 2012 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".

Significantly, neither the 1991 ELNY Rehabilitation Order nor the 1992 Order approving the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan declared ELNY to be insolvent. When then New York's Insurance Commissioner Salvatore Curiale seized control of ELNY on April 16, 1991 and placed it in receivership, he stated: "The company is currently neither in an insolvent or impaired condition. . . . I have not petitioned the Court to make a finding of insolvency. ELNY is a company well able to meet its current obligations."

Exactly twenty-one years later, on April 16, 2012, following 11 days of hearings at the Nassau County New York Supreme Court, presiding Judge John M. Galasso approved an Order of Liquidation and a Restructuring Agreement for ELNY as proposed by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as ELNY's Receiver, and the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Funds (NOLHGA).

The result of the ELNY Liquidation Order and Restructuring Plan, even following contributions from state guaranty funds and voluntary life insurance company contributions, is a $900 million shortfall allocated entirely (and arguably inequitably) to more than 1400 ELNY payees out of a total of approximately 9700 current ELNY payees. The remaining ELNY payees expect to receive 100 percent of their promised future payments. The average individual shortfall is estimated to exceed $600,000 present value. Although an ELNY Hardship Fund has been created, it has not yet been funded.

An appeal was filed May 30, 2012, on behalf of 18 ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees, challenging the ELNY liquidation order and restructuring agreement on the basis of due process. The appeal also alleges that immunities and injunctions granted under the liquidation order are improper. Oral arguments occurred on November 15, 2012 in Brooklyn before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department. No decision has been announced.

Another legal challenge to the ELNY liquidation order occurred June 14, 2012 when attorneys for several liability insurers filed a Motion asking Judge John Gallasso to "clarify and/or correct" his April 16, 2012 ELNY Memorandum Decision. The motion indirectly raises the issue of whether qualified assignments extinguish the liability of defendants and/or liability insurers for shortfall payments resulting from the ELNY liquidation? Judge Galasso denied the Motion without further explanation. 

In a subsequent development, somewhat related to the liability insurers' motion, the ELNY website announced an ELNY Facilitation Plan to assist owners of ELNY structured settlement annuities (SSAs) make supplemental payments to ELNY SSA payees and to coordinate those payments with the ELNY benefit payments scheduled to be made by the Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC) under the ELNY Restructuring Plan approved by Judge Galasso on April 16, 2012 as part of the ELNY liquidation order.

The same attorneys who filed the ELNY appeal, Edward Stone and representatives of the Christensen & Jensen law firm, filed a class action lawsuit November 8, 2012, on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims, against Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, and his predecessor ELNY Rehabilitators, as well as MetLife and Credit Suisse. The class action allegations provide a critical litany of mismanagment and non-disclosure during the 21 years ELNY's estate was being supervised by these defendants.

In response, attorneys representing Benjamin M. Lawsky, in his capacity as ELNY's Receiver, filed a Notice of a Motion with the Nassau County New York State Supreme Court requesting oral argument on January 4, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard:

• to enjoin three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees and their legal counsel from proceeding with a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York;
• to hold in contempt of court the shortfall payees' legal counsel; and
• to require their payment of the related costs and attorney's fees incurred by the Superintendent.

Although the ELNY liquidation has so far received limited coverage in the mainstream media, specialty insurance experts and analysts have not been silent. Examples:

• Peter Bickford - In his article titled "The Elephant in the Court Room" (summarized here by S2KM), Bickford argues New York’s receivership system has failed ELNY, its policyholders and beneficiaries, as well as the insurance industry and its customers due to a lack of basic accountability standards. Although the ELNY restructuring plan may solve the immediate ELNY problem (at the expense of the remaining ELNY shortfall victims), Bickford maintains it does not address the broader, underlying systemic defects inherent in the New York life insurance receivership system. Without an act of the New York legislature, according to Bickford, "there will be no life insurance guaranty fund coverage in New York" following ELNY. Bickford's article also provides succinct summaries of objections raised by ELNY shortfall victims and ELNY legal issues which he states "could linger in the courts for years"
• LifeHealthPro - In an article titled "The Complete ELNY Saga: 21 Years of Mismanagement, Corruption, Broken Promises and Shattered Lives", (summarized here by S2KM), the authors assign primary blame for ELNY insolvency to the NYLB which they describe as "a rogue agency known for its codes of secrecy and characterized by many who spoke for this story as ineffective and mismanaged at best, and a snake pit of corruption at worst". In a companion article (reviewed here by S2KM), writer Warren Hersch asks: "is the structured settlement process in need of reform"?  In a follow-up oped article titled "Governor Cuomo I'm Calling You Out", (summarized here by S2KM), Bill Coffin, LifeHealthPro's Group Editor, charges New York Governor Andrew Cuomo with personal responsibility to clean up the "ELNY debacle".

The final results of the ELNY liquidation will depend upon the outcome of the continuing litigation highlighted in this article. It also remains to be seen what reforms, if any, will result from the failed ELNY receivership process.

In conclusion, it should also be noted that ELIC-related litigation continued in 2012 (Garamendi v. Altus Finance S.A.) when a federal jury in Los Angeles rejected a claim by California's Insurance Commissioner that, but for a conspiracy by French investor group Artemis S.A.:

• ELIC's original conservator (then California insurance commissioner John Garamendi) would have accepted an alternative bid in 1991 by state insurance guaranty associations; and
• The alternative bid would have retained profits from ELIC's junk bond portfolio for the benefit of policyholders including ELIC structured settlement recipients.

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

This blog post completes S2KM's series "Structured Settlements in 2012":

• Part 1 - Primary market
• Part 2 - Settlement planning
• Part 3 - Secondary market
• Part 4 - Executive Life of New York

Superintendent Seeks ELNY Contempt Order

Attorneys representing Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services for the State of New York (Superintendent), in his capacity as Receiver of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY), have filed Notice of a Motion with the Nassau County New York State Supreme Court requesting oral argument on January 4, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard:

• to enjoin three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees and their legal counsel from proceeding with a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York;
• to hold in contempt of court the shortfall payees' legal counsel; and
• to require their payment of the related costs and attorney's fees incurred by the Superintendent.

The purpose of motion, according to the notice, "is to punish the accused for a contempt of court, and such punishment may consist of fine or imprisonment, or both, according to the law."

Class Action Lawsuit

The named ELNY shortfall payees, Jeanice Dolan, Daniel A. Malin, and Keith Vincent, (objector plaintiffs) through their legal counsel, Edward S. Stone, and Roger P. Christensen, Karra J. Porter, and Kristen C. Kiburtz of Christensen & Jensen, P.C. (objector legal counsel), filed the class action lawsuit November 8, 2012 naming as defendants the Superintendent in his non-regulatory capacity as ELNY's Receiver, including predecessor ELNY Receivers (Receiver), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse).

This S2KM blog post re-configures selected allegations from the class action complaint into an ELNY "allegation timeline". A copy of the class action complaint is posted on the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Appeal

Previously, on May 30, 2012, the objector legal counsel, on behalf of 18 ELNY shortfall payees, filed a Notice of Appeal (ELNY appeal) with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, 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 oral arguments in the ELNY appeal occurred November 15, 2012 and a decision is expected before 2012 calendar year end.

• This S2KM blog post summarizes the Appellant/Objectors' appellate allegations that no statutory or common law basis existed for Judge John Galasso's "extraordinarily broad grant of injunctive relief" to protect the Superintendent and his agents, including the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB).
• This S2KM blog post summarizes the injunction arguments in the Superintendent's appellate brief and the ELNY shortfall payees' reply brief.

Preemptive Correspondence

Prior to filing the December 8, 2012 Notice of Motion seeking to enforce injunctions and a contempt order, attorney Steven M. Bierman, representing the Superintendent, and objector legal counsel exchanged preemptive letters, copies of which S2KM has reviewed.

In response to attorney Bierman's threats to file a motion "to enforce the Receivership Orders and to obtain an order of contempt", the objector legal counsel replied in part:

• "[W]e view your recent letter on behalf of the Superintendent as an attempt at intimidation and as further evidence of complicity by the Superintendent in the long-standing cover-up regarding the aborted rehabilitation of ELNY and the illegal wasting of its assets. As you know such wasting was in direct violation of the Supreme Court's orders."
• "[I]f you do elect to initiate contempt proceedings, you can anticipate a cross motion raising, among other things, the Superintendent's violation of the Supreme Court's orders, which are serious and numerous."
• "[W]e are puzzled by the current position taken by Superintendent Lawsky. While it was proper to name him in the subject complaint, he is currently in a position to distance himself from the failings of his predecessors under whose watch the critical failings occurred."
• "[W]e are willing to explore with you the possibility of Superintendent Lawsky's joining with us in protecting and asserting the rights of the shortfall payees."

Legal Memorandum in Support of Motion

In support of their motion to enforce the court's injunctions and for a contempt order, attorneys for the Superintendent also filed a Memorandum of Law from which selected excerpts follow:

• "During the rehabilitation and liquidation proceedings of ELNY under Article 74 of the Insurance Law, and consistent with Insurance Law § 7419, this Court has entered various antisuit injunctions—in 1991, 1992 (which were continued by this Court’s order on December 17, 2010), and 2012—that 'enjoined and restrained [all persons] from bringing or further prosecuting any action at law, suit in equity, special or other proceeding against [ELNY] or its assets, or the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York and his successors in office as Rehabilitators thereof, or their agents'.”
• "In their pending appeal, those objectors and their counsel recognized the force of these injunctions, stating that this Court 'granted the Receiver’s request to permanently enjoin the bringing of any claims against the Receiver or others, including claims in their personal capacities.' They also conceded that '[l]eave of the court must be obtained to sue a receiver in his or her representative, as opposed to individual, capacity.'”
• "Notwithstanding their admissions that the Court enjoined 'the bringing of any claims against the Receiver,' three of the objector-appellants, Jeanice Dolan, Daniel A. Malin, and Keith Vincent ..., through their counsel Edward S. Stone and Roger P. Christensen, Karra J. Porter, and Kristen C. Kiburtz of Christensen & Jensen, P.C. ..., recently filed a putative class action in the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York that violates this Court’s anti-suit injunctions."
• "It is literally hornbook law that '[a] violation of an injunction constitutes a contempt.'”
• "Here: (1) this Court’s anti-suit injunctions expressly enjoined actions against the Superintendent as ELNY’s Receiver, (2) the Objector Plaintiffs and Counsel unquestionably violated these injunctions by filing suit in federal district court, (3) Counsel for the Objector-Plaintiffs admittedly had knowledge of the Court’s injunctions, and (4) the Superintendent has been prejudiced because, inter alia, he has had to retain counsel, to analyze the claims, and to begin preparing a responsive pleading to the federal court complaint against him, which has distracted from his work and that of his staff in orderly liquidating ELNY."
• "Disobedience of a court order is 'sufficient to sustain a finding of civil contempt, regardless of motive, where . . . it was calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the [other party’s] rights.'”
• "Counsel for Objector-Plaintiffs’ refusal to comply with the anti-suit injunctions has caused the Receiver to incur costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees (both in analyzing and preparing a response to the Complaint and in bringing this contempt action)."
• "Accordingly, the Court should include such costs and fees as part of a contempt order and require Counsel for Objector-Plaintiffs to pay to the Superintendent the full amount of his costs and attorney’s fees that are incurred as a result of their contempt."

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