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.

Reliance Structured Settlement Annuities

What happens, or should happen, to structured settlement payees when the owner of their structured settlement annuities becomes insolvent?

Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance), a liability insurer, is the most recent example where these issues are being adjudicated. Previous examples include Monarch Capital Corporation and First Executive Corporation, both non-insurance companies which, as "qualified assignees", owned structured settlement annuities issued by their subsidiary life insurance companies.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Liquidation Court) declared Reliance insolvent and issued an Order of Liquidation which appointed the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner as Liquidator in 2001.

The Reliance Estate, however, remains open and its current assets include approximately 3,400 structured settlement annuity contracts which the Liquidator estimates have a present discounted value of $95.1 million. The Liquidator further estimates:

• Over 85 percent of the structured settlement annuity contracts owned by the Reliance Estate are “qualified assignment” contracts and the rest are “buy and hold” contracts.
• Over 95 percent of the qualified assignment contracts owned by the Reliance Estate involve annuity contracts issued by United Pacific Life Insurance Company, a former Reliance subsidiary which Reliance sold in 1993 and which is now known as Genworth Life Insurance Company.

As part of the Reliance liquidation process, current Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Michael F. Consedine requested the Liquidation Court on September 10, 2012 to enter an Order approving transfer of ownership of these structured settlement annuity contracts to the annuity payees which, in many cases, now include factoring companies and investors who have purchased structured settlement payment rights from factoring companies.

On February 28, 2013, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter ordered the Liquidator’s Application for Approval to Transfer Ownership (Transfer Application) “be held in abeyance until further order of this Court.”

As justification for the proposed transfer of structured settlement ownership, the Transfer Application provides in part:

• With the exception of several structured settlement annuities issued by Executive Life of California and Executive Life of New York (ELNY), all payments related to structured settlement annuities owned by the Reliance Estate have been paid by the annuity issuers.
• The structured settlement annuity payees will have the same right to receive payments from the annuity issuers assuming transfer of ownership to the payees.
• As owner of the annuity contracts, Reliance has the right to transfer ownership upon notice to the annuity issuers.
• The Liquidator has concluded that transferring ownership of the annuity contracts to current payees under those contracts, with the simultaneous discharge of Reliance’s related structured settlement payment obligations:
  • Would be in the “best interest” of the Reliance Estate and represents “the only viable option”; and
  • Would not create any federal income tax liability for Reliance.
• Recognizing that any asset transfer requires prior court approval, the Liquidator “explored several other options” including transfer of the annuity contracts to:
  • A newly-formed entity such as a subsidiary corporation; and/or
  • A trust owned by Reliance.
• The Liquidator, however, concluded that any and all such alternative options would fail to provide the Reliance Estate with finality and expense reduction.

The Liquidator’s Transfer Application provides the following additional comments about the Reliance structured settlement payees:

• Tax consequences – The Liquidator concluded “it is impossible and imprudent” for the Liquidator to make predictions or provide tax advice for the payees because each has unique circumstances. Accordingly, “payees may want to consult a tax advisor or accountant with respect to the [proposed] transfer.”
• Priority in liquidation – If any structured settlement annuity issuer fails to meet its structured settlement obligation (which the Transfer Application questionably refers to as “the primary obligation”), the Liquidator has determined a claim against the Reliance Estate under a “qualified assignment” contract “would warrant no higher than class (e) priority" under the Pennsylvania Insurance Company Act. The Liquidator, however, anticipates no Reliance creditors below class (b) priority will receive any distribution from the Reliance Estate.
• Notice – The Liquidator does not have a complete list of current names and addresses of Reliance structured settlement payees in part because Reliance did not retain copies of either the annuity contracts or other structured settlement documents issued by United Pacific Life Insurance Company when it sold the company in 1993. The Liquidator assumes Reliance structured settlement annuity issuers have the ability to furnish individual notice. In addition, the Liquidator plans to publish notice in multiple regional and national newspapers.

Additional Resources

• For additional documents related to the Reliance Liquidation, see the Reliance Documents website.
• For additional information about the resolution of Monarch Capital Corporation structured settlements, see Section 5.04[2][b][ii] of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).
• For additional information about the resolution of First Executive Corporation structured settlements, see the structured settlement wiki and S2P2J Sections 3.05[11-13].
• For a discussion of alternative funding options ("qualified assignments" vs. "buy and hold") in the context of the ELNY liquidation, see "ELNY Qualified Assignments".

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

Garamendi v. Altus Finance S.A.

As Executive Life of New York (ELNY) stakeholders and structured settlement industry participants await the outcome of the ELNY appeal , challenging the ELNY Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement, they may be surprised to learn the ultimate fate of Executive Life of California (ELIC), ELNY's sister company, likewise continues to be litigated.

The most recent ELIC-related development occurred October 29, 2012, in 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.

The actual 1991 ELIC sales agreement was a two-part sales agreement with New California Life Holdings, Inc. (NCLH) and Altus Finance (Altus), an affiliate of the French Bank Credit Lyonnais. That agreement was subsequently modified and approved by a California Superior Court on August 13, 1993 as part of the ELIC rehabilitation plan.

Under the 1991 agreement, Altus paid $3.25 billion and acquired ELIC's $6.4 billion junk bond portfolio. The Altus purchase price included $300 million of capital for a newly formed company, Aurora National Life Assurance Company, Inc. (Aurora) which assumed ELIC's remaining assets and liabilities including its structured settlement obligations. Also, as part of the actual sales agreement, the Artemis S.A. joint venture acquired a controlling interest in NCLH.

 A California Court of Appeals previously summarized these complex ownership relationships as follows: "Artemis S.A. is the parent of Aurora S.A. Aurora S.A. owns a controlling interest in NCLH. NCLH owns 100 percent of Aurora."

In retrospect, many critics claimed the 1991 agreement substantially undervalued ELIC's junk bond portfolio. Although the junk bond market was depressed and thinly traded in 1991, it was among the best performing investment markets in 1992 and 1993. Even in 1991, a substantial percentage of the junk bonds owned by First Executive Corporation (FEC) and its two Executive Life subsidiaries were current on interest payments and ultimately fulfilled their investment obligations.

ELIC-related legal developments between 1993 and the October 29, 2012 jury decision in Garamendi v. Altus Finance have also been complex. Relevant historical highlights:

• Subsequent to its NCLH purchase, Artemis learned of a conspiracy by Altus/MAAF Group, an investment group which previously controlled NCLH, to evade the prohibition under California law on foreign entities controlling California insurers. Rather than disclose this conspiracy to the California Insurance Commissioner, Artemis submitted multiple filings that contained false or misleading information.
• In 1999, the California Insurance Commissioner learned from a whistleblower about the Altus S.A./MAAF Group conspiracy and filed conspiracy lawsuits against multiple defendants including French bank Credit Lyonnais.
• In 2005, some of the defendants in the conspiracy lawsuits, including Credit Lyonnais, settled for $730,500,000, most of which was distributed to former ELIC policyholders and payees.
• The conspiracy lawsuit against the two remaining defendants, Artemis S.A. and Francois Pinault (Artemis' controlling shareholder), was conducted in Federal Court in 2005. The jurors found Artemis and Pinault liable for engaging in a conspiracy and awarded $0 in compensatory damages and $700 million in punitive damages. The trial court awarded an additional $241 million in equitable restitution.
• On August 25, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the damage awards against Artemis and Pinault and remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of damages.

For a more detailed background case summary, see S2KM's 2011 blog post "Aurora S.A. v. Poizner".

 In an article published October 30, 2012, Bloomberg Businessweek wrote that, following the most recent Garamendi v. Altus Finance SA verdict, U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner said "he was inclined to reinstate the restitution that the judge presiding over the 2005 trial had awarded the insurance commissioner" and "[Judge] Klausner ordered both sides to file briefs on the restitution including what amounts they thought were appropriate."

 For a background summary of ELIC, see S2KM's blog post "Executive Life of California" and, for greater detail, section 3.05[12] of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

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

Structured Settlements in 2011 - 3

Prior S2KM 2011 year-end structured settlement blog posts have highlighted the historic significance of the ELNY liquidation and provided a strategic 2011 industry retrospective . This blog post summarizes additional important 2011 structured settlement developments and information.

Taxation

• IRS Audit Guides - The Internal Revenue Service published an Audit Guide in 2011 to assist its examiners in determining the tax treatment of proceeds from lawsuits, settlements and awards received after August 21, 1996. That date marked the enactment of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 which added a "physical" requirement to IRC § 104(a)(2). The IRS had previously published an Audit Guide to assist its examiners in determining whether the IRC §5891 excise tax applies to specific structured settlement factoring transactions.
• JTC Structured Settlement Estimate - The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) in 2011 released its Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2010-2014 (JCT Report). For the first time, the JCT Report calculated an estimated tax revenue loss for the "exclusion of investment income from structured settlement arrangements". The JCT estimate projected structured settlement tax revenue loss to be "de minimis" - meaning less that $50 million for Fiscal Years 2010-2014 or less than $12.5 million per year.

Government Benefits

• Medicare Secondary Payer Protocol - Although no statutory or regulatory authority requires Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) in third party liability settlements, confusion continues as to whether and when MSAs are necessary and/or appropriate for such cases. On May 6, 2011, the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York (USAOWDNY) released a one page "Medicare Secondary Payer Protocol" (MSP Protocol) establishing a voluntary process by which that U.S. Attorney's Office will review MSA proposals for liability cases provided certain conditions are met.

• U.S. v. Stricker - In this case involving periodic payments and the MSP Act, a U.S. District Court in Alabama denied a motion by the U.S. Government to reconsider the court's earlier dismissal based upon its finding that the applicable statutes of limitations barred the Government's complaint. The Government had argued on appeal that the court erred in granting its motions to dismiss without considering the Government's theory of continuing accrual argument.

• WCMSA portal - The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the creation of an Internet portal for submission of workers compensation MSA (WCMSA) proposals. The new web-based application:
  • Enables WCMSA proposals to be submitted electronically for CMS review;
  • Accepts submission documents and supplemental information CMS may request;
  • Provides online status updates for MSA applications;
  • Generates email alerts when approval letters are issued.
• Conditional payment guidelines - CMS released guidelines during 2011 to provide certainty and finality for conditional Medicare payments. This "self-calculated final conditional payment amount" option, will be initiated in February 2012 for claims with a total settlement value of $25,000 or less allowing attorneys and/or claimants to receive a final amount owed number from CMS prior to settlements. For additional information see the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor (MSPRC) website.

Minors Settlements - Whether a structured settlement annuity that extends beyond the age of majority is "suitable" for, or in the "best interests" of, a minor (especially a minor without a debilitating injury) represents an important industry issue. In his 2009 presentation to the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) titled "What Judges Look for When Approving a Minor's Settlement", Texas attorney Phillip McCrury surveyed state minors' statutes and concluded many states require judges to consider the "best interest" of a minor even though very few states directly address structured settlement annuities. Two 2011 cases (only one involving a structured settlement) highlight the potential for conflicting judicial interpretations when annuities are part of a proposed minor's settlement.

• Hancock v. Share - A Florida Appellate Court reversed a Florida Trial Court ruling that denied approval of a proposed structured settlement for a minor. Although the trial court had found that the proposed structured settlement was in the "best interests" of the minor, it refused to approve the structured settlement citing a Florida statute that prohibits a guardian "to bind the assets" of a minor beyond the age of majority.
• In the Matter of Sandra McDuffie - A New York trial court ruled against an estate administrator who proposed to purchase an annuity for a minor child of the decedent stating "the Court cannot authorize the administrator to restrict funds due to an infant after the infant has reached the age of [majority]".

Executive Life Insurance Company of California - In a legal dispute (Aurora S.A. v. Poizner) which it characterized as "another aspect of the dizzyingly complex and heavily litigated failure of the Executive Life Insurance Company", a California Court of Appeals on August 8, 2011 upheld a trial court decision that California's Insurance Commissioner correctly declined to approve the proposed sale of Aurora National Life Assurance Company (Aurora) by Aurora S.A. to Reassure America Life Insurance Company (REALIC), a Swiss Reinsurance subsidiary.

Structured Settlement Annuity Sales - S2KM acknowledges and appreciates receiving market recap reports highlighting quarterly structured settlement annuity sales (Melissa Evola) and weekly financial market data (Richard Nahill).

• Annuity sales - Evola's most recent quarterly compilation of 2011 structured settlement annuity sales (thru September 30) indicates 21,846 cases have been structured for a total premium of $3,633,489,474. These numbers represent a significant decrease from 2010 (also thru September 30) of 23,578 cases and $4,140,704,642 of premium.
• Interest rates - Nahill's most recent 2011 financial market recap (for week ending December 16) shows interest rates of 1.86 percent for 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds compared with 3.30 percent as of December 31, 2010.

For prior S2KM annual reports summaring structured settlement industry developments, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlement Metrics - 3

A 2011 National Litigation Management study sponsored by the Council on Litigation Management (CLM):

• Identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives;
• Determined that more than 74 percent of the study's participants rated their available litigation management metrics as "Fair" or worse for measuring the effectiveness of their litigation management programs; and
• Concluded that, to be successful, national litigation management service programs must deliver metrics and analytics that justify the quality, performance, and satisfaction levels litigation management executives are seeking.

What metrics and analytics should litigation management executives utilize to justify and evaluate their structured settlement programs?

In two prior blog posts, S2KM summarized findings from CLM's Litigation Management study and highlighted historic justifications, characteristics and metrics for defense structured settlement programs. This blog post and two subsequent posts will examine historic structured settlement performance analytics and discuss those analytics in the context of the "quality, performance and satisfaction levels" litigation management executives should be seeking.

Recognizing no official or accepted industry records exist for total historic structured settlement annuities written and/or annuity payment rights transferred, S2KM offers the following estimates based upon industry input and sources including "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), Melissa Evola's primary market compilations, and DBRS' June 8, 2011 Pre-Sale Report for J.G. Wentworth's Fixed Rate Asset-Backed Notes Series 2011-1:

• Primary market (1976-2010)
  • Total annuities written: 716,500
  • Total Premium: $124 billion
• Secondary market (1986-2010)
  • Total number of annuity (or partial annuity) transfers: 98,300
  • Total recipients who have sold payment rights: 65,600
  • Total aggregate payment streams purchased: $7.5 billion

S2KM welcomes continuing industry input and reserves the right to revise these estimates and/or future estimates based upon industry input.

Regardless of how many structured settlement annuities have been written, or transferred, or how much structured settlement annuity premium has been generated, or payment streams purchased, the key issue for evaluating the "quality" of structured settlements concerns structured settlement payout performance. Most specifically, how many annuity-funded structured settlement recipients or transferees have or have not received 100% of their promised periodic payments?

For annuity funded structured settlements, the payout performance to date has been excellent though not perfect. Overall, even when structured settlement annuity providers such as Confederation Life, Monarch Life and Capital Life have entered receivership, the protections provided by state life and health guaranty associations have proven to be an important safety net - at least for the purchaser/obligors and original structured settlement recipients.

The only exception to date, of which S2KM is aware, for some annuity-funded structured settlement recipients not receiving 100% of their promised periodic payments is Executive Life Insurance Company of California (ELIC) which became insolvent in 1991 and involved approximately 5500 structured settlement annuities as well as many other life insurance products. Note also, however:

• New York's Insurance Superintendent has petitioned for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY), to enter liquidation and undergo restructuring. Although all ELNY structured settlement annuities have been paid in full to date, the exact impact of the ELNY liquidation and restructuring plan on individual structured settlement payees and transferees will not be known at least until the state life and health guaranty associations finalize the amount of their ELNY contributions.
• The DBRS report cited above indicates that J.G. Wentworth, and/or investors of J.G. Wentworth's securitized structured settlement payment rights, have suffered losses of 0.11% from the 59,000 transactions J.G. Wentworth has consummated since 1995 without identifying the specific source of these losses.

Selected highlights from ELIC's receivership and rehabilitation plan - Sources: Sections 3.05[10] of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgements" (S2P2J) and the structured settlement wiki.

• Beginning in 1991, California insurance regulators and courts addressed the 5,500 structured settlement annuities issued by ELIC in a series of actions, stretching over two years and culminating in the sale of ELIC in late 1993.
• During this time, most structured settlement recipients received 70% of their scheduled periodic payments. The supervising Los Angeles Superior Court permitted approximately 600 “hardship” claimants to petition for and receive continuation of full scheduled payments.
• Recipients who experienced a 30% shortfall were of two categories: assigned and non-assigned cases. Approximately 800 ELIC structured settlement recipients had agreed to a qualified assignment using ELIC's parent, First Executive Corporation (FEC), as assignee. FEC entered bankruptcy in 1991.
• For the 4700 ELIC structured settlement recipients who had not agreed to a qualified assignment, the original obligor (defendant or liability insurer) continued to be liable. Many of these original obligors made direct arrangements with individual ELIC structured settlement recipients to pay the 30% difference. Others waited until the overall shortfall could be determined.
• In 1993, the supervising court approved an ELIC sales agreement and rehabilitation plan under which a newly formed company, Aurora National Life Assurance Company, Inc. (Aurora) assumed ELIC's structured settlement obligations.
• ELIC's former policyholders and structured settlement recipients were given the opportunity to either opt out of the rehabilitation plan and receive the liquidation value of their existing ELIC contracts or opt in to a new restructured contract with Aurora.
• Structured settlement recipients choosing to opt out of the Aurora plan were promised a cash payment of 56% of their ELIC annuity's value when ELIC became insolvent (without any state guaranty association enhancement) plus subsequent payments depending upon future events which could provide an additional estimated 28% of their annuity value.
• The other choice was to accept a revised annuity from Aurora which for most former ELIC structured settlement payees would be enhanced by payments from state life and health guaranty funds. Most of the former ELIC structured settlement payees who selected this option (approximately 4000) received 100% of the value of their ELIC policies plus 5.34% interest for past shortfalls.
• For the remaining 1500 ELIC structured settlement payees (including Aurora opt outs) shortfalls, which S2P2J's authors originally estimated to average 10%, exist.
• The future (post 1994) enhancements for former ELIC structured settlement payees, however, received an unexpected bonus source in 1998 when an anonymous whistle-blower alleged that Crédit Lyonnais was the real buyer of ELIC and controlled Aurora through secret agreements. Because banks were prohibited from owning U.S. insurance companies in 1993, the California Insurance Department sued Credit Lyonnais and other parties alleging violations of the federal Bank Holding Company Act, the California Insurance Code and other California statutes.
• The results of these lawsuits:
  • A 2003 settlement with Credit Lyonnais for $730.5 million of which $211 million was distributed to opt out policyholders and former structured settlement payees and $403 million to Aurora to supplement payments for opt in policyholders and continuing structured settlement payees; and
  • A 2005 verdict against the other defendants including $700 million in punitive damages which awaits retrial following appeal and remand on the issue of damages.

The Executive Life insolvencies, both of which originated in 1991, represent exceptions that prove the rule: the payout record ("quality" metric) of structured settlement annuities has been excellent - based upon the performance record of annuity providers who have issued an S2KM-estimated 716,500 structured settlement annuities since 1976.

The quality of structured settlement annuities was further highlighted during the 2011 Annual Meeting of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) by:

• Jim Morris, Chairman, President, and CEO of Pacific Life Insurance Company, who accentuated the current financial strength of U.S. life insurance companies and explained why structured settlement annuities represent an excellent strategic product for life companies; and
• Thomas Ronce, a member of the NOLHGA Board of Directors, who highlighted lessons learned and industry improvements resulting from the Executive Life experience:
  • Risk-based capital testing - more sophisticated systems to measure insurance and investment risk in life insurers.
  • Coordinated, sophisticated, national regulatory consultation for troubled companies doing business nationally.
  • Skilled, professional leadership and stakeholder participation in the processes to resolve insolvencies of nationally significant insurers.

For S2KM's complete reporting and analysis about: 1) Executive Life and 2) structured settlement metrics, see the structured settlement wiki.

Aurora S.A. v. Poizner

In a legal dispute (Aurora S.A. v. Poizner) which it characterized as "another aspect of the dizzyingly complex and heavily litigated failure of the Executive Life Insurance Company", a California Court of Appeals on August 8, 2011 upheld a trial court decision that California's Insurance Commissioner correctly declined to approve the proposed sale of Aurora National Life Assurance Company (Aurora) by Aurora S.A. to Reassure America Life Insurance Company (REALIC), a Swiss Reinsurance subsidiary.

Background

• After Executive Life Insurance Company of California (ELIC) failed in 1991, then California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi approved the transfer of ELIC's insurance policies, including approximately 5500 structured settlement annuities, to Aurora, a newly formed company, and agreed to allow Aurora to operate as a life insurance company in California. Aurora was a subsidiary of New California Life Holdings (NCLH) which was controlled by an investment group called Altus S.A./MAAF.
• In 1992, with the approval of Commissioner Garamendi, a joint venture called Artemis S.A. acquired a controlling interest in NCLH. As summarized by the California Court of Appeals: "Artemis S.A. is the parent of Aurora S.A. Aurora S.A. owns a controlling interest in NCLH. NCLH owns 100 percent of Aurora."
• Subsequent to its NCLH purchase, Artemis learned of a conspiracy by Altus/MAAF Group to evade the prohibition under California on foreign entities controlling California insurers. Rather than disclose this conspiracy to the California Insurance Commissioner, Artemis submitted multiple filings that contained false or misleading information about Artemis' own interest in Aurora as well as Altus's secret control of Aurora through its agreement with the MAAF Group.
• In 1999, the California Insurance Commissioner learned from a whistleblower about the Altus S.A./MAAF Group conspiracy and filed lawsuits (conspiracy lawsuits) against multiple defendants including French bank Credit Lyonnais (which allegedly was a secret, indirect buyer of ELIC and controlled Aurora through secret agreements) alleging violations of the Federal Bank Holding Company Act, the California Insurance Code and other California statutes.
• In 2000, Aurora S.A. and one of its investment partners agreed to sell their interests in NCLH to Reassure America Life Insurance Company (REALIC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Swiss Reinsurance Company for $227,805,874 subject to the approval of the California Insurance Commissioner.
• In 2005, some of the defendants in the conspiracy lawsuits, including Credit Lyonnais, settled for $730,500,000, most of which was distributed to former ELIC policyholders and payees who had earlier "opted out" of the Aurora rehabilitation plan and received the liquidation value of their existing ELIC contracts and to Aurora to supplement payments for policyholders and payees who had "opted in" (i.e. accepted the Aurora rehabilitation plan).
• The conspiracy lawsuits against the two remaining defendants, Artemis S.A. and Francois Pinault (a key participant in the alleged conspiracy), was conducted in Federal Court in 2005. The jurors found Artemis liable for engaging in a conspiracy and awarded $0 in compensatory damages and $700 million in punitive damages. The trial court awarded an additional $241 million in equitable restitution.
• Artemis appealed, moved to stay execution of judgment while the appeal was pending and offered to pledge as security $55 million from its anticipated sale of NCLH to REALIC. The trial court accepted the Artemis offer and agreed to stay execution of judgment. On August 25, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the damage awards against Artemis and remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of damages.
• On September 18, 2008, after the trial court vacated its earlier order requiring Artemis to pledge $55 million, REALIC filed an application requesting California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner to approve REALIC's purchase of Aurora from Aurora S.A.
• On September 23, 2009, following several earlier, acrimonious communications with representatives of REALIC, a representative of the California Insurance Commissioner sent an email stating the Department of Insurance "intends to deny the pending Form A application unless 100% of the Artemis sale proceeds are deposited in an escrow account satisfactory to the Commissioner. It is our understanding that Artemis refuses to agree to place 100% of its sale proceeds into escrow. Therefore, we are in the process of preparing a denial letter."
• On October 14, 2009, Aurora S.A. filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the California Insurance Commissioner to issue a decision on REALIC's application to purchase Aurora. After the Commissioner formally disapproved REALIC's request to purchase Aurora on November 23, 2009, Aurora S.A. amended its lawsuit alleging the Commissioner's disapproval constituted abuse of discretion.
• On July 22, 2010, the trial court ruled the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion and denied Aurora S.A.'s petition. Aurora S.A. appealed.

For S2KM's complete reporting and analysis of the Executive Life Insurance Companies, including an Executive  Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

Life Insurer Liquidation Process

What happens if and when a multistate life insurance company like Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) is liquidated?

The answer: no one knows for certain. This uncertainty, specifically for ELNY, results from many factors:

• No significant multistate life insurers have failed since 1994.
• Many state life insurance guaranty association laws have been amended since 1994.
• Different state life insurance guaranty laws provide significantly different coverage applications, caps and requirements.
• ELNY's current negative surplus is historically large compared with previously liquidated life insurers.
• The vast majority of ELNY's remaining liabilities consist of structured settlement obligations.
• A 2007 "Agreement in Principle" to address ELNY's problems has never materialized.
• In a 2007 Business Insurance article, Mark Peters, then head of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) stated that this proposed bail-out plan “would be cheaper for the insurers and avoids the ‘chaos’ that would come with a liquidation.” (emphasis added)
• As ELNY's Rehabilitator, the New York Insurance Superintendent has repeatedly extended the original July 1, 2011 state court imposed deadline for filing a plan of liquidation, most recently to September 1, 2011.
• According to some critics, including New York attorney Peter Bickford, the problems with the insurer liquidation process in New York are systemic and lack transparency and accountability.
• New York has two state life and health insurance guaranty funds with different coverage dates, caps and requirements.
• The 2010 Dodd Frank law created a Federal Insurance Office (FIO) which could eventually supervise some life insurer insolvencies.

How U.S. life insurer liquidations are supposed to work

The United States federal bankruptcy law expressly excludes insurance companies from the definition of "debtor". As a result, when a life insurance company fails, it does not enter bankruptcy. Instead, the insurance commissioner (or superintendent) of the state that granted the life insurer's charter (domiciliary state) places the company in receivership - a status which can include conservatorship, rehabilitation and/or liquidation depending upon the severity of the insurer's problems. Liquidation is the most serious form of receivership.

All forms of life insurer receivership are conducted pursuant to the domiciliary state's insurance receivership statute under the supervision of a state court. Thirty-two states have adopted some version of the Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Model Act which the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted in 1978. This Model Act helps to achieve uniformity and encourages reciprocity among the states.

ELNY was placed into rehabilitation on April 23, 1991 by the New York Superintendent of Insurance, a status it retains to the present day under the supervision of the NYLB. Prior to 1991, ELNY sold an estimated 8,000 structured settlement annuities which, according to ELNY's most recent financial statements (December 31, 2010) continue to represent "the vast majority of the value of ELNY's remaining contract liabilities." To date, all related ELNY structured settlement payments have been paid in full. However, the most recent ELNY financial statements show assets of $905,945,200 compared with liabilities of $2,474,317,342 resulting in a negative surplus of $1,568,372,142.

If and when the insurance commissioner (or superintendent) determines that a life insurer should be placed in liquidation, the commissioner petitions a state court for an Order of Liquidation. On December 17, 2010, a New York State Supreme Court Judge ordered the Superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department to present the Court with a proposed Order and Plan of Liquidation for ELNY on or before July 1, 2011 - a date which has now been pushed back twice most recently to September 1, 2011.

In most states, following an order of liquidation, the court appoints the commissioner/superintendent as liquidator and grants the liquidator title to all of the life insurer's assets and, subject to court approval, control of the life insurer's operations with the objective of winding up the life insurer's business. In New York, the NYLB, acting as agent for the Superintendent of Insurance, generally serves as liquidator in life insurance insolvency proceedings.

The liquidator is responsible for "marshalling" the insurer's assets, evaluating the claims of policyholders and creditors, and distributing assets to approved claimants according to statutorily prescribed priorities. Alternatively, as was the case with Executive Life Insurance Company of California (ELIC), a liquidation plan may provide for the transfer of some or all of the failed insurers assets and/or liabilities to a new and/or healthy insurer. The objective, with either alternative is to protect policyholders and consumers against three risks:

• Delays in claim payments;
• Uncertainties about payment amounts; and
• Replacement costs for defaulted policies.

An Order of Liquidation also generally triggers involvement by one or more state life and health insurance Guaranty Associations. These state Guaranty Associations are specially chartered, not-for-profit legal entities created pursuant to state guaranty association legislation. All fifty states, plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have enacted some version of the NAIC's Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Model Act which was first promulgated in 1971. Important differences, however, exist among these various state statutes including coverage caps and whether the Guaranty Associations protect annuity policyholders or payees.

All state life and health guaranty associations are also members of the National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA), a not-for-profit organization founded in 1983. The core mission of NOLHGA and its member Guaranty Associations, according to NOLGA President Peter Gallanis, is "to ensure that consumers receive at least a statutorily prescribed base level of financial protection when a life or health insurance company fails. That protection may be achieved either by transferring to a healthy insurer the failed company's business that is in force at the time of the company's failure or by supporting the 'runoff' of that in-force business."

A 2009 NOLHGA document assessing ELNY and titled "Information and Guidance on Estimating Potential Guaranty Association Assessments Relating to Executive Life Insurance Company of New York ('ELNY')" includes the following paragraph:

"No guaranty association has yet to enter into a legally binding commitment to participate in any plan or contribute any level of funding. As a result, at this time, we cannot confirm which particular state guaranty associations will participate in any plan. It is estimated, however, that if a plan similar to the one that is being considered is adopted, the majority of the guaranty associations’ costs (e.g., 66-75%), will likely be borne by New York's guaranty associations. Currently, it is estimated that 20-30 guaranty associations may eventually participate in a final plan once it is completed. In most states, assessments by guaranty associations relating to annuities are primarily associated with the allocated annuity account. New York has two separate guaranty associations: the assessment base for its “new” guaranty association is primarily associated with its life insurance, annuity and funding agreement account; while the assessment base for its “old” guaranty association is based upon admitted assets."

The 2009 NOLHGA document also includes a section titled "Guidance on Estimating a Company’s Potential Guaranty Association Assessment".

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

ELNY Liquidation Plan Postponed

The Superintendent of the New York Insurance Department, serving as Rehabilitator for Executive Life of New York (ELNY), has informed the New York Supreme Court of Nassau County by letter that it '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, the August 8, 2011 letter from the Superintendent's legal counsel indicated the Superintendent now plans to submit the proposed order and plan on or about August 26, 2011. Even if the plan is filed by that date, however, it apparently will not have been approved by the Life and Health Guaranty Associations.

ELNY first entered rehabilitation in 1991. For a summary of ELNY and its sister company Executive Life Insurance Company of California (ELIC) prior to rehabilitation, see "The Fall of First Executive".

In 2007, then New York Governor Eliot Spitzer announced an "agreement in principle" for ELNY designed to continue paying all ELNY annuitants 100% of their benefits. The agreement, which was intended to protect approximately 11,000 ELNY annuity recipients including approximately 8000 structured settlement recipients, has never materialized.

On December 17, 2010, a Nassau County Supreme Court Judge ordered 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 confered with the Life Insurance Company Guaranty Corporation of New York and other interested parties. The plan was supposed to establish a briefing schedule and provide for notice to all ELNY creditors.

On June 23, 2011, the Superintendent filed a motion to postpone the deadline for filing a proposed order and plan of liquidation for ELNY with the New York State Supreme Court of Nassau County 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."

As of December 31, 2011, audited financial statements indicated ELNY had assets of $905,945,200 compared with liabilities of $2,474,317,342 resulting in a negative surplus of $1,568,372,142.

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