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.

NY Court of Appeals Denies ELNY Review

The New York State Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals), New York's highest judicial authority, has denied a Motion for Leave to Appeal a February 6, 2013 decision bythe Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department which rejected a legal challenge by Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees 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.

The appeal challenging the merits of the ELNY Liquidation Order had raised three primary issues each of which the Court of Appeals' decision effectively rejected:

• Due Process - "Did inadequate notice and the denial of information to Objectors (ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees), 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?"

The Court of Appeals decision effectively ends litigation challenging the merits of the ELNY Liquidation Order and permits the National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association (NOLHGA) to proceed with the ELNY Restructuring Agreement including substantial annuity payment reductions for more than 1400 structured settlement recipients.

ELNY Contempt Order and Class Action Lawsuit

Another anticipated result of the Court of Appeals decision will be the filing of a brief by legal counsel for three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees (objector respondents) to perfect their appeal of a Contempt Order issued January 25, 2013 by Judge Galasso. Based upon previous court filings and out-of-court statements, they are expected to argue that Judge Galasso's Contempt Order violates the United States Constitution.

Following Judge Galasso's Contempt Order, attorneys representing the structured settlement shortfall payees voluntarily dismissed their federal court ELNY class action lawsuit , without prejudice, preserving their right to refile claims and tolling the statute of limitations. At that time, shortfall payee 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.

In a letter written to United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman prior to the voluntary dismissal of the ELNY class action lawsuit, shortfall payee attorney Roger Christensen quoted from the 1964 United States Supreme Court decision 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."

The original class action Complaint named Jeanice Dolan, Daniel A. Malin, Keith Vincent, and other similarly situated ELNY shortfall victims, as plaintiffs, and 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 (Rehabilitator), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse) as defendants.

Based upon allegations of defendant misconduct (see: ELNY Allegation Timeline), the original class action Complaint requested the following damages and relief:

• "Damages equaling the full present value of each Class Member's annuity issued by ELNY, less any amount determined to be owing to Plaintiff under the terms of ELNY's liquidation;
• "Damages equaling the amount of each defendant's unjust enrichment and ill-gotten gains;
• "Attorney fees and litigation expenses, to the extent permitted by contract or law;
• "Pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent provided by contract or law; and
• "Such other equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate."

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

 

An ELNY Nightmare

While almost 1500 Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees await the outcome of continuing ELNY litigation, it is worth remembering how seriously Judge John Galasso's ELNY liquidation order and related restructuring agreement will impact some of these unfortunate individuals assuming his order and the restructuring agreement are ultimately upheld and implemented.

Glenn Arensdorf 

Glenn Arensdorf is one such individual. Glenn is a 49 year old Florida resident who is permanently and totally disabled. He cannot work in any capacity. Glenn's ELNY structured settlement payments are scheduled to be reduced by 58 percent which places him among the most drastically reduced of all the ELNY shortfall payees. 

Significantly, Glenn's structured settlement was funded in 1984 with two "buy and hold" annuities issued by ELNY and owned by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, then known as Kemper Insurance Company, ("Lumbermens") one of the liability insurers in Glenn's personal injury case.

"Buy and hold" annuities, whereby an underlying insurer (in Glenn's case, Lumbermens) retained the liability for future periodic payments, and funded that liability through its ownership of qualified funding assets (in Glenn's case, two ELNY annuities), might appear advantageous compared with ELNY qualified assignments.

With qualified assignments, defendants and their liability insurers often seek to transfer their future liability for periodic payments to a qualified assignee which for ELNY annuities is First Executive Corporation. Unfortunately for ELNY qualified assignee payees, First Executive Corporation ceased to exist in 1991. 

Lumbermens, however, was ordered into rehabilitation July 2, 2012 so its financial and legal ability to fulfill its structured settlement obligations to Glenn are uncertain.

To add insult to injury: although Glenn has an application pending with the ELNY Hardship Fund, the fund specifically excludes applications for which the underlying insurer may still be responsible. To date, Glenn has not received any notification of an award or a rejection by the ELNY Hardship Fund.

Glenn, therefore, appears to face a "Catch 22" which he refers to as "my ELNY nightmare". Glenn's attorneys expect he will qualify under the Illinois Life and Health Guarantee Fund (Lumbermens' home state) where the combined coverage for both of Glenn's ELNY annuities appears to be $168,750.

Glenn's Personal Injuries

Three days after he began college in 1981, Glenn was a rear seat passenger in a one car accident in which a friend and driver lost control, hit a tree and died. Glenn was admitted to the hospital in an unconscious condition and was not expected to live. Although he survived, Glenn sustained traumatic brain injury, multiple fractures, and broken teeth among other injuries. He remained in a coma for five weeks. Glenn has no memory of either the accident or his first days in college.

Due to his brain injury, Glenn has subsequently developed permanent double vision and partial paralysis of facial muscles resulting in disfigurement. His left arm and hand are virtually useless. Glenn walks with a limp following 11 surgeries to his left leg. Both his left arm and left leg are noticeably smaller than his right as a result of muscle atrophy. Glenn also suffers psychological issues, neurological limitations, motor function impairment, cognitive limitations, impaired problem-solving skills, poor short-term memory, a short attention span and slow information processing speed - all as a result of his personal injuries.

Before his accident, Glenn played guitar and was a member of a rock 'n roll band - or, at least, that is what Glenn has been told. He cannot remember playing his guitar. After his accident, when Glenn finally returned home, he found a huge guitar amplifier and a Fender Stratocaster guitar. Having lost both his sense of rhythm and use of his left hand, Glenn became so depressed, he sold his amplifier and guitar "for pennies".

"Glenn's World"

With support and encouragement from his family, Glenn has learned to adapt to his handicapped status and has made progress toward living independently. Glenn lives in a gated community attached to a plaza with a grocery store, several restaurants, and various professional offices. He refers to his community as "Glenn's World" where he serves as an inspiration to other disabled persons who endeavor to live an independent life style.

Every morning, Glenn rides his three-wheel bike to his favorite restaurant, Pete's Place, where he eats breakfast and socializes with the staff and regular customers "by telling them bad jokes". He visits a chiropractor three times each week for treatment of the scoliosis he developed from accident-related injuries. Everyday, Glenn also visits his other favorite restaurant in the plaza, Duffy's, where he helps the staff set up for a busy lunch hour by folding napkins and telling more bad jokes. Although he cannot cook, Glenn generally returns home in time to prepare a sandwich for lunch. 

During the afternoon, Glenn watches TV or reads his emails. Then he rides his bike back to the plaza for dinner at one of several restaurants. The staff of these restaurants have known Glenn for 20 years. When Glenn orders his dinners "chop chop", they help cut up his meals because he is unable to do so himself. Like other brain injured individuals, Glenn's life requires and benefits from similar daily and weekly routines. This includes Glenn's nighttime routine when, due to back pain, he always sleeps on his left side on the right side of his bed.

The ELNY Liquidation

Glenn's ability to sustain his life in "Glenn's World" depends upon his monthly ELNY annuity payments. His financial needs are extraordinary and his limitations profound. Glenn is completely reliant and dependent on others to do what he cannot do for himself. Besides his ELNY annuity payments, the only income Glenn receives is a monthly Social Security Disability payment in the amount of $720.

Glenn is presently being treated by a psychologist for the emotional stress and anxiety created by the ELNY liquidation. He suffers from depression and has difficulty sleeping at night. Glenn does not understand why the State of New York or other insurance companies did not bail out ELNY or why ELNY shortfall payees with catastrophic injuries will be forced to exist on budgets that do not meet their needs. Although Glenn would like to be part of an ELNY support group with other shortfall payees, Judge Galasso has ruled that Glenn and other shortfall payees cannot have access to each others names and contact information.

Some proponents claim that structured settlements are "the ultimate safeguards to guarantee the long term financial health of people harmed in accidents". For Glenn Arensdorf and similarly situated ELNY shortfall payees, however, the structured settlement system has failed them. To protect their rights, they have been forced to challenge the legality and unfairness of Judge Galasso's liquidation order and restructuring agreement against long odds and powerful opponents.

Additional Information

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

ELNY Allegation Timeline

The Executive Life of New York (ELNY)  class action lawsuit , filed November 8, 2012 by attorney Edward Stone and representatives of the Christensen & Jensen law firm, 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 (Superintendent and/or Rehabilitator), MetLife and Credit Suisse, substantially expands the historical allegations of post-1991 ELNY mismanagement and non-disclosure. 

What follows is S2KM's re-configuration of selected allegations from the class action complaint into an ELNY "allegation timeline".

For persons seeking more comprehensive understanding of alleged mismanagement of ELNY during its 21 year rehabilitation, S2KM recommends reading the ELNY class action complaint which is posted on the structured settlement wiki. The following S2KM blog posts provide additional critiques of the New York Liquidation Bureau's (NYLB) role in ELNY insolvency:

• Elephant in the ELNY Courtroom - S2KM's summary of Peter Bickford's article.
• NYLB Role in ELNY Disaster -  highlighting allegations in the National Underwriter article "The Complete ELNY Saga"

ELNY Class Action Allegation Timeline

April 16, 1991

• New York's Insurance Superintendent Salvatore Curiale states: "[ELNY] isn't insolvent and has ample cash on hand to pay life insurance death benefits and meet annuity payments."
• Curiale further states: "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."

April 23, 1991

• ELNY Rehabilitation Court enters an Order of Rehabilitation which prohibits "all" persons, including the Rehabilitator, from "doing or permitting to be done any act or thing which might waste the assets" of ELNY.
• Under ELNY's Order of Rehabilitation, no more than 30 percent of ELNY's assets can be invested in common stock at any given time. This 30 percent cap is 50 percent higher than the percentage allowed by active insurance companies.
• Consistent with normal practice, Superintendent Curiale, ELNY's Rehabilitator, delegates most of his ELNY rehabilitation duties to the New York Liquidation Bureau [NYLB], directed by a Special Deputy Superintendent who in 1991 is Kevin Foley.

May 17, 1991 - In a letter to ELNY policyholders, the Superintendent confirms the sole basis for ELNY's rehabilitation has been the risk of policy surrenders. The letter further states the Superintendent is "presently analyzing the assets and liabilities of ELNY[.]"

June 7, 1991 - NYLB files a petition, which the Rehabilitation Court approves to retain First Boston Corporation (First Boston) as ELNY's exclusive financial advisor.

• The court also approves an investment advisory and management agreement with a First Boston affiliate providing for the payment of multi-million dollar fees.
• First Boston (and its successor/purchaser Credit Suisse) subsequently invests ELNY's assets in violation of its contractual obligations, in violation of the court's order, in violation of its representations to the NYLB and the court, and in violation of its fiduciary duties to ELNY shortfall payees.
• Instead, First Boston and Credit Suisse engage in a pattern of risky investments that generate high management fees and place ELNY's assets at considerable risk.
• Note: Credit Suisse acquired First Boston Corporation in 1990 but did not phase out the First Boston name until 2006.

June 1991 - The Superintendent contacts the Life Insurance Guaranty Corporation of New York (LIGCNY) to discuss the disposition of ELNY. MetLife, the largest domiciled insurance company in New York, has a lead position in LIGCNY and receives information about ELNY that is not available to other insurers generally or to the public.

Between June and November 1991

• NYLB enters into discussions with MetLife. Deputy Superintendent Foley is the principal person representing NYLB in these discussions.
• Under an agreement ultimately approved by the Rehabilitation Court, MetLife receives more than $1.5 billion of ELNY's traditional whole life, term life and single premium deferred annuity books of business plus $1.5 billion of ELNY's highest-quality assets.
• NYLB takes several steps to prevent competitive bids from other insurers.
• The products transferred to MetLife include 52,748 single premium deferred annuities and 80,891 life insurance policies. This large book of business allows MetLife to increase its assets by more than $1 billion at essentially no risk.
• In addition to receiving cash, MetLife is allowed to pick and choose from among ELNY's bonds and to charge "substantially higher surrender charges" than allowed under the ELNY contracts.
• Part of the agreement with MetLife includes retention of MetLife to service ELNY's remaining SPIAs (including structured settlement annuities) with a monthly fee of $5.50 per payee if payments begin before the last day of any month and $2.50 per payee if payments have not begun.
• Under this arrangement, ELNY's true liabilities are ascertainable only by NYLB and MetLife, the only entities with access to the annuity contracts.

October 9, 1991 - In a letter to ELNY policyholders and annuitants, the Superintendent reiterates the original ELNY takeover was due to surrender requests and further states: "it remains our belief that ELNY policyholders, annuitants and contract holders will receive 100% of the amounts due them under any of the options chosen as part [of] the rehabilitation plan. ... Please be assured that your money is being well protected and conservatively invested by the Rehabilitator."

January 21, 1992 - In a letter to ELNY policyholders and annuitants, the Superintendent states he is proposing a transfer of assets to MetLife and that "[t]he contemplated exchange and reinsurance agreements [with MetLife] would place you in a substantially similar position as you were at the time of the entry of the Rehabilitation Order."

March 26, 1992 - To implement the agreements with First Boston and MetLife, NYLB submits a proposed ELNY Rehabilitation Plan which the court approves.

• First Boston represents to the court the only possible course of action is to transfer virtually all of ELNY's investment grade assets to MetLife in exchange for MetLife assuming ELNY's obligations to only part of its policyholders.
• First Boston and NYLB represent that with First Boston's management of ELNY's assets, it is more than 90% certain the remaining ELNY assets will be sufficient to meet 100% of ELNY's obligations.
• Superintendent Curiale represents that, following "an extensive and detailed analysis ... Petitioner, as Rehabilitator, determined that the transaction proposed in the Plan would not impose any unwarranted or unreasonable risks on ELNY's SPIA holders, creditors or shareholders."
• Deputy Superintendent Foley states that, after the transfer, "we will make continued full payment" to annuitants, that he is "fully confident that these payments can and will be made," and that it is a "100 percent guarantee."
• NYLB represents that ELNY's remaining assets and liabilities will be approximately equal after the transfer of assets to MetLife. In fact, after the highest-value assets are transferred to MetLife, ELNY's remaining assets are less that its fixed liabilities by at least $300 million.
• From 1992 until 2010, the NYLB never files any reports with or otherwise updates the ELNY Rehabilitation Court with respect to ELNY's annuities.

April 13, 1992 - In a letter to ELNY policyholders and annuitants, the Superintendent states the proposed transfer of assets to MetLife "best protects all classes of ELNY policyholders and provides security, value, fairness, timeliness and practicality."

During 1992 - The Superintendent conducts "an extensive and detailed," "careful and exhaustive," "comprehensive" "full study" of ELNY's assets and liabilities and afterward reaffirms that ELNY is solvent.

• Following the transfer to MetLife, ELNY retains 23,666 annuity contracts in force and approximately $3.3 billion of assets.
• Foley acknowledges, under the deal, MetLife received "extremely high quality assets" and ELNY was left with lower-quality assets.
• Foley predicts the ELNY rehabilitation process will take "four or five years" or possibly less.
• NYLB asks Milliman & Robertson [M&R] to render actuarial opinions regarding the sufficiency of ELNY's remaining assets based upon certain assumptions and investment strategies.
• M&R does not audit or independently verify any of the information or assumptions provided to it.
• Based upon the assumptions provided by NYLB and First Boston, NYLB represents:
  • "[T]he investment strategy adopted by [the Superintendent] does not impose any unreasonable risks on ELNY's SPIA holders, creditors or shareholders."
  • "[I]n more than 90 percent of 500 randomly generated interest rate scenarios under ... base case assumptions, ELNY's SPIA obligations are satisfied in full."
  • "Under the M&R study, the projected cash flows from the remaining assets [are] sufficient to meet 95% of the SPIA obligations under approximately 99% of the scenerios tested using ... base case default, recovery, yield and rate of return assumptions."

1996 - NYLB for the first time refuses unrestricted access by the New York State Comptroller's office (Comptroller) to its records and personnel.

• The Comptroller reports: "During our work, Department and Bureau officials prevented auditors from examining relevant records related to the liquidation of one estate and employee personnel-related records. Our audit was precluded from interviewing agency managers and operating personnel without senior management present, thereby creating an environment where those individuals could not speak freely."
• Prior to its takeover of ELNY, NYLB had generally cooperated with audits requested by the Comptroller's office.
• For example, no limitations were placed on the Comptroller in 1976, 1984, or 1990.
• In 1994, the Comptroller performed a follow up audit limited to items that had not been reviewed in 1990.

1998 - Common stock comprises 38 percent of ELNY's portfolio exceeding the 30 percent limit set by the 1991 Order of Rehabilitation. 

1999

• A NYLB representative states it could take up to 100 years before ELNY is finally liquidated.
• Former Deputy Superintendent Foley begins employment with MetLife as its Vice President of External and Internal Communications.

2000

• Common stock comprises as much as 44 percent of ELNY's investment portfolio.
• ELNY's common stock portfolio loses hundreds of millions of dollars, nearly one-third of its value.

2001

• In a meeting with a potential ELNY investor representative, the then Deputy Superintendent states: "Why would we want to sell [ELNY] when we can sit here and clip coupons all day."
• ELNY's common stock portfolio drops another 13 percent.

2002 - ELNY's common stock portfolio drops another 19 percent.

2004 - The NYLB refuses a Comptroller request to perform a comprehensive audit to include a review of ELNY's assets and liabilities.

July 23, 2004 - The Comptroller issues subpoenas related to the proposed NYLB audit.

November 17, 2004 - The Superintendent files suit to quash the subpoenas.

June 30, 2005 - A New York Supreme Court quashes the subpoenas, and the Comptroller appeals.

Late 2005 or early 2006

• Then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer campaigns for Governor on an anti-corruption platform.
• NYLB officials approach NOLHGA and the two entities begin working on a plan to liquidate ELNY without informing the Rehabilitation Court or ELNY's policyholders and annuitants of ELNY's insolvency.
• Under this plan, more than 1400 ELNY annuitants would suffer reduced payments of up to 66 percent.

August 2006 - Then-Special Deputy Superintendent Jody Hall, who has responsibility for NYLB, is fired for suspected corruption. She later pleads guilty and is convicted.

November 2006 - Governor-elect Spitzer identifies an investigation of the NYLB as an important priority for his administration.

2007

• On at least three occasions prior to 2007, groups of potential investors advise the Superintendent of an interest in purchasing ELNY's assets and liabilities. On each occasion, the Superintendent directly interposes impediments to the performance of due diligence and other investment-related activities.
• NYLB personnel begin contacting insurance companies and others, such as purchasers of structured settlement payment rights, demanding they contribute money to shore up ELNY or face punitive actions by the New York Department of Insurance.

January 2007 - Governor Spitzer appoints Mark Peters as the new Superintendent.

March 6, 2007 - The New York Appellate Division rules the Comptroller can enforce its subpoenas against NYLB.

May 2007 - Superintendent Peters announces NYLB will be subjected to a "top to bottom" audit by an independent auditor for the first time in NYLB history. The auditors discover the NYLB's financial records are in complete disarray requiring the NYLB to "reconstruct" the financial records of all 60 estates under its supervision.

October 11, 2007 - In Dinallo v. DiNapoli , the New York Court of Appeals holds that, in his capacity as rehabilitator/liquidator of insurance companies, the Superintendent is not a state officer. Therefore, acting as the Superintendent's agent, the NYLB is not a state agency and is not subject to audit by the New York State Comptroller.

December 2007

• NYLB personnel inform Governor Spitzer that a deal has been reached with insurance companies and others assuring 100 percent payment to ELNY policyholders and/or annuitants.
• Unknown to Governor Spitzer, no deal has been reached. Instead, the NYLB is still working privately with NOLHGA on the plan to liquidate ELNY.
• Governor Spitzer announces an "agreement in principle" for ELNY, subject to approval by ELNY's Rehabilitation Court. The agreement is designed to:
  • Continue paying all ELNY annuitants 100% of their benefits;
  • Provide protection for approximately 11,000 ELNY annuity recipients including structured settlement recipients.
• The announced plan, whereby various insurers and guarantee associations apparently agree to pay $650 to $750 million to help fund $2 billion of future ELNY payments, never materializes.

October 2008 - Independent auditors discover NYLB has been understating ELNY's shortfall by more than $1 billion for years. Examining ELNY's estate as of December 31, 2006, the auditor concludes ELNY's liabilities exceed its assets by $1.26 billion.

March 18, 2009 - without notification to ELNY policyholders and annuitants, Judge Daniel Martin signs an Order allowing NYLB to:

• Replace Credit Suisse as ELNY's investment advisor with Wellington Management Company and Goldman Sachs Asset Management; and
• "[F]rom time to time amend the [Investment] Guidelines set by the Rehabilitator in consultation with his new financial advisors if the Rehabilitator deems it beneficial to ELNY."

December 17, 2010 - State Supreme Court Judge Galasso orders the Superintendent to present the Court with a proposed order and plan of liquidation for ELNY on or before July 1, 2011 after the Superintendent confers with the New York Life Insurance Company Guaranty Corporation and other interested parties.

June 23, 2011 - The Superintendent files a motion to postpone the deadline for filing a proposed order and plan of liquidation for ELNY from July 1, 2011 to August 10, 2011 "in order to present a comprehensive and consensual proposed Plan of Liquidation that maximizes the potential benefits for ELNY's structured settlement and other annuitants."

August 8, 2011 - Counsel for the Superintendent advises the court the Superintendent 'is not in a position to submit a consensual proposed order and plan of liquidation on or before August 10, 2011" as previously promised. Instead, he anticipates the Superintendent doing so on or about August 26, 2011.

October 3, 2011 - Governor Andrew Cuomo creates the New York Department of Financial Services by consolidating the New York Insurance and Banking Departments. The Superintendent of Financial Services becomes the court appointed fiduciary and Receiver/Rehabilitator of ELNY as well as other impaired and insolvent insurance companies in New York.

December 2011 - NYLB:

• Files an ex parte motion stating its intent to liquidate ELNY.
• Notifies ELNY shortfall payees for the first time that their benefits will be cut.

March 2012 - Following a hearing, Judge Galasso determines ELNY is insolvent and approves the liquidation plan and restructuring agreement upon which NYLB and NOLHGA have been collaborating since 2006.

• Under the plan, ELNY shortfall payees face a potential loss of benefits exceeding $920 million.
• During the hearing, NYLB successfully prevents shortfall payees from exploring the causes of ELNY's insolvency.
• The order approving the ELNY liquidation plan and restructuring agreement is currently being appealed.