Beyond Structured Settlements

2014 Educational Conferences

Personal injury settlement planning conferences will start early in 2014 when the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) hosts a Regional Meeting in Miami, Florida on January 10.

Here is a preliminary listing of 2014 educational conferences and events which historically have addressed personal injury settlement planning and structured settlement issues, some of which limit attendance to members while others are open to non-members:

• January 10 - NAMSAP Miami Regional Meeting - open to non-members.
• February 8-12 - American Association for Justice (AAJ) Winter Meeting - members only.
• February 11-13 - National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Structures 101 - members only.
• March 18 - American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) Leadership Gala - open to non-members.
• March 27-29 - Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) Annual Conference - open to non-members.
• April 1-3 - NSSTA Annual Conference - members only.
• April 27-29 - Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) Annual Conference - open to non-members.
• May 8-9 - NAMSAP Annual Meeting - open to non-members.
• May 15-17 - National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) Annual Meeting - members only.
• July 26-30 - AAJ Annual Meeting - members only.
• November 4-7 - National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) Annual Conference - open to non-members.

One of the issues common to all of these associations' members and clients will be the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the most important provisions of which (including the individual mandate and pre-existing injury coverage) became effective January 1, 2014.

The following S2KM blog posts address ACA issues that should concern settlement planning and structured settlement professionals - and hopefully will be discussed during their 2014 educational conferences:

• Impact of Health Care Reform - highlighting articles and authors featured in the Spring 2011 Issue of NAELA Journal.
• Medicare Cost-Savings Components - review of Spring 2013 NAELA Journal article written by Alfred J. Chiplin Jr. and Bethany J. Lilly.
• Impact on Personal Injury Damage Awards - review of research paper written by Joshua Congdon-Hohman and Victor A. Matheson.
• Impact on the Collateral Source Rule - review of law review articles by Rebecca Levenson and Ann Levin.

For background reporting about significant 2013 structured settlement and settlement planning developments, see these S2KM blog posts:

• Primary Market
• Settlement Planning
• Secondary Market
• ELNY and Reliance Liquidations

For historic S2KM reporting about structured settlement and settlement planning professional association educational conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

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.

Reliance Structured Settlement Annuities - 2

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

Reliance was declared insolvent in 2001 and the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner was appointed as Liquidator. The Reliance Estate, however, remains open and its current assets, prior to the Transfer Order, included approximately 3,400 structured settlement annuity contracts of which approximately 3093 involve annuity contracts issued by Genworth and owned by Reliance.

Many of these Genworth funded structured settlements 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.

According to the November 4, 2013 Transfer Application which Judge Leadbetter's Order approved:

• The transferred structured settlements will continue to satisfy the corresponding periodic payment obligations and Reliance will be discharged from its obligation for those future periodic payments.
• Based upon a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service:
  • Neither Reliance nor Genworth will incur any adverse tax consequences as a result of the transfer.
  • The tax treatment of the periodic payments to the structured settlement recipients will remain unchanged.
• Genworth Annuity Service Corporation will be owed 80 percent by Genworth and 20 percent by Reliance.

In an earlier Transfer Application filed with the Liquidation Court on September 10, 2012, the Reliance Liquidator had requested an Order approving transfer of ownership of all Reliance-owned structured settlement annuity contracts to the annuity payees. In many cases according to that transfer application, these payees included factoring companies and investors who had purchased structured settlement payment rights from factoring companies.

Judge Leadbetter never approved the September 10, 2012 Transfer Application and on February 28, 2013 ordered that Transfer Application “be held in abeyance until further order of this Court.”

The September 10, 2012 Transfer Application noted:

• The Liquidator did not have a complete list of current names and addresses of Reliance structured settlement payees.
• This failure resulted, 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 to Genworth in 1993.
• The Liquidator assumed Reliance structured settlement annuity issuers had the ability to furnish individual notice.

For an earlier S2KM report about Reliance structured settlement annuities, see this blog post.

Global Insurance Capital Standard

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), whose members constitute nearly all of the world's insurance supervisors including the United States Treasury's Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and the National Association of Insurance Commissioner (NAIC), has committed to develop and implement the first-ever risk based global insurance capital standard (ICS), according to Peter Braumüller, chairman of the IAIS Executive Committee.

This development was reported by the Duane Morris law firm in an October 11, 2013 Alert which also identified a 2016 target date for development of the ICS with full implementation expected in 2019 following two years of testing and refinement.

Established in 1994, IAIS is "the international standard setting body responsible for developing and assisting in the implementation of principles, standards and other supporting material for the supervision of the insurance sector", according to its website.

IAIS' mission is "to promote effective and globally consistent supervision of the insurance industry in order to develop and maintain fair, safe and stable insurance markets for the benefit and protection of policyholders and to contribute to global financial stability."

The Duane Morris Alert additionally reported conflicting reactions to the ICS from representatives of the FIO and the NAIC.

• FIO - Michael T. McRaith, director of the FIO and chairman of the IAIS Technical Committee, offered this assessment: "[f]rom the [2008] financial crisis, we learned that our global financial regulatory regime should be more robust and comprehensive in scope, and jurisdictions should share a commitment to global standards."
• NAIC - Ben Nelson, CEO of the NAIC, issued this response to the IAIS's announcement: "Although U.S. state insurance regulators continue to have serious concerns about the timing, necessity, and complexity of developing a global capital standard given regulatory differences around the globe, we intend to remain fully engaged in the process to ensure that any development augments the strong legal entity capital standards in the U.S. that have provided proven and tested security for U.S. policyholders and stable insurance markets for consumers and industry."

The United States structured settlement industry played an important historical role influencing the development of risk based capital requirements for insurance companies and will likely be impacted by related national and international developments.

Historical Background

• The United States insurance industry historically has been regulated almost exclusively by the states whose regulatory responsibility was reaffirmed in 1945 when Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
• Following the collapse of First Executive Corporation and its two Executive Life subsidiaries in 1991, which had invested heavily in "junk bonds" and had sold a substantial number of structured settlement annuities, the NAIC adopted several model reforms including risk based capital (RBC) requirements.
• RBC requires insurance companies with higher amounts of risk to retain higher amounts of capital and surplus.
• Prior to the Executive Life collapse, state insurance regulators had used fixed capital standards to monitor the financial solvency of insurance companies.
• Under fixed capital standards, depending upon the state and its line of business, insurance companies were required to maintain the same minimum amount of capital, regardless of the financial condition of the company.
• As a result of the 2008 global financial crisis and huge exposures to subprime real estate mortgages incurred by one its non-insurance subsidiaries, American International Group, Inc. (AIG), a significant structured settlement annuity provider, required a $182 billion government bailout to avoid collapse.
• The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), enacted in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, created changes in the United States financial regulatory system that impact all aspects of the financial services industry including insurance.
• Among many provisions, Dodd-Frank, according the U.S. Treasury website, "vested FIO with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sector ... and to represent the United States on prudential aspects of international insurance matters, including at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors [IAIS]."
• The Financial Stability Board (FSB),an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system, published a list of nine insurers on July 18, 2013 that it identified as “global systemically important”.
• The FSB list includes three United States insurers, AIG, MetLife and Prudential - each of which currently sells structured settlement annuities in the U.S. market.
• Although these insurers insist they are nothing like banks in terms of insolvency risks, "regulators are more worried by non-insurance activities carried out by insurance groups than by their core activities", according to a July 27, 2013 article in The Economist titled "Global Systemic Insurers".
• "But it is not clear", The Economist article adds, "which activities the FSB considers core and which it thinks are too racy for insurers. Regulators (and others) worry about some annuities, savings-like products which offer guaranteed returns to customers."
• The Duane Morris Alert also reported the IAIS announcement "that by late 2014 it will have finalized and made ready for implementation 'straightforward, backstop capital requirements' for insurers that are designated as global systemically important insurers."

ELNY Liquidation Date Announced

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

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

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

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

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

On December 17, 2010, Nassau County New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso issued an Order to Show Cause requiring New York's Insurance Superintendent to present the Court with a proposed Order and Plan of Liquidation for ELNY on or before July 1, 2011. As justification for ELNY's proposed liquidation, the Petition, which was ultimately filed September 1, 2011, stated: “ELNY's financial condition is progressively deteriorating” and “ELNY will be unable to pay its outstanding lawful obligations as they mature in the regular course of business and further efforts to rehabilitate ELNY are futile . . . . the unprecedented global economic crisis and resulting market collapse of 2008 had a significant negative impact on ELNY's retained assets and made continued implementation of the Rehabilitation Plan without a liquidation unfeasible."

The ELNY Restructuring Plan submitted to, and approved by, Judge Galasso was jointly prepared by the Superintendent and the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA). Under the Restructuring Plan, participating state life and health guaranty associations (PGAs) and certain life insurance companies have formed a new special purpose not-for-profit captive insurance company under the laws of the district of Columbia to replace ELNY once it is liquidated. The PGAs have agreed to supplement the ELNY benefit payments for annuity contracts eligible for state guaranty association coverage up to the maximum allowable by their state guaranty association laws. The various participating life companies have agreed to provide additional enhancements and have set up an ELNY Hardship Fund.

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

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

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

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

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

Subsequent ELNY-related litigation and court filings followed:

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

For additional information about ELNY, see:

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

S2P2J Release 54

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates an October 2013 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for Release 54 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update simultaneously at no additional charge.

Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability as well as link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

First published in 1986 and updated semi-annually, S2P2J is co-authored 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) have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs. 

Release 54 Highlights - Release 54 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:

• Negotiating structured settlements vs. cashing out
• Defendant disclosure issues
• Business practices of consultants
• Insurance company insolvencies
• Medicare set-aside arrangements
• Re-cycled structured settlement payment rights
• Securitization of structured settlement payment rights
• Australia structured settlement update

Negotiating Structured Settlements vs. Cashing Out - Why and when should defendants agree to structured settlements as opposed to lump sum settlements? Do defendants save money using structured settlements and, if yes, why and how? Do structured settlements result in additional costs and risks for defendants and, if yes, how do defendants reduce these costs and risks? Release 54 examines these questions in the context of existing state statutes and case law and offers recommendations for defendants when they review their traditional structured settlement policies and business practices. The recommendations include new sample structured settlement Mission and Disclosure Statements for liability insurers.

Defendant Disclosure Issues - Release 54 substantially expands and re-organizes S2P2J's existing coverage of defendant structured settlement disclosure issues. Topics addressed:

• State structured settlement protection act requirements
• Product disclosures and representations
  • Cost or Value
  • NAIC Annuity Disclosure Model Regulation
  • NAIC Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation
  • Compensation disclosure
  • "Guaranteed" payments
  • Dissipation studies
  • Public assistance
  • Annuity ownership and rights
  • Taxation
  • Financial condition of funding entities
• Conflicts of interest
• Medicaid/Medicare disclosures
• Securities issues
• Class action lawsuits vs. defendants
• Meeting professional responsibilities

Structured Settlement Consultants - Release 54 expands and updates S2P2J's coverage of structured settlement consultants to address: consultant selection criteria; structured settlement product suitability; and consultant business practice issues including laws and regulations, industry standards, commission disputes, privacy rules, and disclosure and representation requirements.

Insurance Company Insolvencies - Release 54 expands and updates S2P2J's already extensive coverage of insurance company insolvencies including state insurance guaranty associations and the most recent developments impacting Executive Life of New York [ELNY] and Reliance Insurance Company. Following ELNY's 22 years of New York State supervised "rehabilitation", S2P2J's Release 54 identifies lessons that potential structured settlement recipients and their attorneys and advisers can and should learn from the ELNY debacle.

Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements - Release 54 re-organizes and promotes S2P2J's coverage of Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) with updated materials for both workers compensation (WC) MSAs and liability MSAs. These updates include an extensive summary and analysis of the structured settlement provisions in the new CMS WCMSA Reference Guide as well as conclusions and recommendations for utilizing MSAs in personal injury liability cases.

Re-cycled Structured Settlement Payment Rights - As low interest rates continue to negatively impact the primary structured settlement market, new products featuring re-cycled structured settlement payment rights have begun to proliferate as funding alternatives for personal injury periodic payment settlements. Release 54 features a new section with detailed diagrams and charts (designed by Timothy Morbach) to explain the several variations of these products. In addition, this new section compares the features of these products with traditional structured settlements and summarizes recent investor warnings about these products issued by the SEC and FINRA.

Securitization of Structured Settlement Payment Rights - S2P2J already includes a detailed Chapter 16 titled "Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights" which provides comprehensive coverage of most structured settlement secondary market issues. This coverage includes: the history of the secondary market; summary and analysis of IRC section 5891 and the state structured settlement protection acts; and how judges review (or should review) transfer applications. Release 54 adds a new section, with detailed diagrams and charts (designed by Timothy Morbach), explaining how securitization of structured settlement payment rights works.

Australia Structured Settlement Update - S2P2J continues to track structured settlement developments in countries outside the United States including Canada, the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Release 54 highlights a recent legislative development in Australia called “The Lifetime Care and Support Scheme” which provides treatment, rehabilitation and attendant care services to people severely injured in automobile accidents. At least one Australian structured settlement expert believes this legislative development could prevent an annuity-funded structured settlement market from developing in Australia anytime soon.

"Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" is a complete reference work for attorneys, settlement planners, structured settlement consultants, risk managers, liability insurers, annuity providers and secondary market participants. It is available in both hardcopy and online versions which are updated semi-annually. For highlights from previous S2P2J updates, see the structured settlement wiki.

Reliance Structured Settlement Annuities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources

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

ELNY Appeal - Injunction 1

As reported earlier by S2KM, attorney Edward Stone filed a Notice of Appeal May 30, 2012 with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, on behalf of 18 Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees, as Objectors and Appellants, challenging the Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement approved by Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

The Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as ELNY Receiver and Respondent, and attorney Stone, on behalf of Appellant/Objector ELNY shortfall payees, subsequently and jointly agreed to and requested calendar preference and an accelerated briefing schedule for this Appeal.

Status of Appeal:

• The Appellant/Objectors' served and filed their brief and the record on appeal on Friday, August 17, 2012. For S2KM's summary, see: ELNY Appeal - Objectors' Brief.
• The Superintendent/Respondent served and filed its brief on Friday, September 7 ,2012. In addition, the National Association of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) also served and filed a supporting brief the same day.
• Appellant/Objectors served and filed a reply brief on Friday September 14, 2012.
• The Appellate Court is expected to schedule oral argument "as soon as practicable".

Copies of the Objectors' brief and reply brief are posted on the structured settlement wiki.

In prior blog posts, S2KM:

• Summarized the Appellant/Objectors' due process allegations (ELNY Appeal - Due Process 1);
• Provided additional related due process analysis (ELNY Due Process Issue);
• Reported on the ELNY Immunity Issue featuring analysis by New York attorney Peter Bickford.
• Summarized the Appellant/Objectors' arguments against granting immunity to the Superintendent (ELNY Appeal - Immunity 1)

This blog post summarizes the Appellant/Objectors' 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).

The objecting structured settlement shortfall payees have requested the Appellate Court to reverse the following sentence contained in the ELNY liquidation order:

"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.

To support their objection and request, the Appellant/Objectors maintain:

• The liquidation court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter an injunction unrelated to the collection or disposition of ELNY assets.
• The injunction is not authorized by Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law.
• The injunction is not supportable on any non-statutory basis.

Subject matter jurisdiction

• Subject matter jurisdiction is “the authority of the courts to adjudicate classes of cases.”
• Subject matter jurisdiction may be limited by statute (e.g. Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law).
• A court cannot entertain actions in which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
• In this case, the New York Supreme Court had before it the ELNY estate – and only the ELNY estate.
• Under Article 74, subject matter jurisdiction in a liquidation proceeding is limited to the collection and disposition of the insurer’s assets.
• As a liquidation court, the New York Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to prospectively adjudicate claims or issue orders not involving the estate’s assets.
• During the ELNY liquidation hearing, the Superintendent incorrectly suggested that all claims against him and/or against his agents, regardless of capacity, constituted claims against the estate.
• Injunctions granted to the Superintendent as regulator, however, do not apply to his role as Receiver where he stands in the shoes of management and should be subject to the same standard of care and responsibility.
• Claims against the Superintendent and/or his agents acting in their personal capacities as ELNY's Receiver, therefore, are not claims against the ELNY estate.
• The Superintendent also argued that similar injunctions were included in interim orders during the rehabilitation proceeding.
• However, the same rationale upon which the injunctive provision is void and unauthorized by law should also invalidate similar provisions in interlocutory orders.
• Because Judge Galasso's injunctive protection for the Superintendent, as ELNY's Receiver, and for his agents, in their personal capacities extends beyond ELNY's assets in liquidation, it exceeds the New York Supreme Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and should be void.

Article 74

• Unlike immunity, Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law contains a provision involving injunctions. However, it is inapplicable to the Receiver’s request.
• The injunctive provision are concerned with enjoining actions against the assets of ELNY, not those of the Superintendent, as ELNY's Receiver.
• Article 74 Subsection (a) limits injunctions to those which prohibit persons other than the Receiver “from the transaction of its [the insurer’s] business or the waste or disposition of its [the insurer’s] property.”
• Article 74 Subsection (b) permits injunctions as necessary to prevent “waste of the assets of the insurer, or the commencement or prosecution of any actions . . . against the insurer, its assets or any part thereof.”
• An action against the Receiver in his personal capacity is not the same as an action against the insurer or the insurer’s assets.
• Barring all claims against the Receiver is inconsistent with Article 74’s express purpose of protecting policyholders.
• A Receiver is judicially immune from liability if he acts in good faith and with appropriate care and prudence.
• Therefore, the only actions that are effectively enjoined by Judge Galasso's liquidation order are those where the Superintendent, as ELNY's Receiver, breached fiduciary or other duties.
• As a result, Judge Galasso's broad injunction is unsupported by, and inconsistent with, New York Insurance Law.

Non-Statutory Basis

• The Superintendent did not present any evidence that his property rights would be irreparably harmed absent the injunction.
• Instead, without evidence or argument, the Superintendent simply asked for unlimited injunctive relief, and Judge Galasso granted the request.
• As argued above, a lawsuit against the Superintendent in his personal capacity is not the same as a claim against ELNY or its assets.
• Even if the Superintendent might be inconvenienced by claims against him in his personal capacity, mere annoyance and litigation expense, even substantial and unrecoverable cost, does not constitute "irreparable injury” sufficient to authorize an injunction.
• The Superintendent also argued that interlocutory orders issued in 1991 and 1992 as part of ELNY's rehabilitation proceeding contained similar language.
• Those injunctions, however, were by definition temporary, not permanent.
• Any past bar to the filing of claims by ELNY shortfall payees is immaterial where such claims did not accrue until Judge Galasso's liquidation order resulted in a loss of benefits
• Regardless, prior injunctive provisions possess the same jurisdictional and statutory defects as the injunctive provision in the ELNY liquidation order.

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

ELNY Appeal - Due Process 1

In a prior blog post, S2KM summarized the appellate brief filed August 17, 2012 on behalf of 18 structured settlement shortfall payees (objector/appellants) who are appealing the Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) liquidation plan and restructuring agreement approved by New York Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

This blog post provides a more detailed summary of due process allegations contained in the objectors' appellate brief. For additional related background information, see also "The ELNY Due Process Issue".

Due process, according to authorities cited in the objectors' appellate brief, requires:

• At a minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard before a person is deprived of a property interest; and
• Balancing (1) the interests of the parties to the dispute; (2) the adequacy of the contested procedures to protect those interests; and (3) the government’s stake in the outcome.

The objecting ELNY shortfall payees allege they were denied due process because the procedures afforded the ELNY shortfall payees were unfair and prejudicial. More specifically they allege:

• The notices sent to the ELNY shortfall payees were inadequate and misleading.
  • Although the ELNY shortfall victims had a substantial interest in the ELNY liquidation hearing, they were not parties to the proceeding. They were never served with any petitions, orders, or filings.
  • Instead, Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso permitted the New York Superintendent of Financial Services (Superintendent), as Receiver (Receiver), to send a single letter of notification.
    • The letters were sent from a Minnesota address and had an outward appearance of junk mail.
    • Hundreds of notices were returned undelivered presumably because the Receiver's records were outdated.
    • Many ELNY shortfall payees received their notices during the December holidays.
    • The notice was difficult for non-lawyers to understand and many shortfall payees experienced difficulty finding qualified legal counsel on such short notice.
  • The notice was misleading because it reassured shortfall victims that a $100 million ELNY hardship fund had been created without fully disclosing limitations related to the hardship fund.
  • The objectors were not given adequate time to object to the proposed ELNY liquidation plan ("three weeks for some recipients").
  • The notice stated ELNY shortfall payees waived their right to object after a January 16, 2012 deadline and therefore served to dissuade potential objectors who concluded they could not comply within the deadline.
  • Having imposed these court-endorsed impediments to the objection process, however, the Superintendent, as ELNY's Receiver, subsequently cited the low number of objections received (130 objections out of 1,456 affected shortfall payees) as evidence that the proposed ELNY liquidation and restructuring plan was fair.
• The time allowed for ELNY shortfall payees to prepare for the ELNY liquidation hearing, and their lack of access to information, were unreasonable.
  • S2KM Note: for perspective, here are excerpts from the Executive Life timeline available on the structured settlement wiki:
    • 1991 - ELNY enters rehabilitation and its plan for rehabilitation is subsequently court approved in 1992. Neither the 1991 ELNY rehabilitation order nor the 1992 order approving the ELNY rehabilitation plan declared ELNY to be insolvent. The Superintendent and his agent, the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), as ELNY's Receiver, have managed ELNY's business continuously from 1991 to the present.
    • 2002 - ELNY's unpublished and unaudited financial statements, obtained by attorney Peter Bickford as a result of Freedom of Information Law requests, show that ELNY's surplus turned into a deficit in 2002.
    • 2007 - New York Governor Eliot Spitzer announces an "agreement in principle" for ELNY designed to continue paying all ELNY annuitants 100% of their benefits. The announced plan, however, whereby various insurers and guarantee associations agree to pay $650 to $750 million to fund approximately $2 billion of future ELNY payments, never materializes.
    • 2009 - Audited financial statements indicate ELNY has a deficit in excess of $1.5 billion. The National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) estimates the majority of ELNY's guaranty association costs (e.g. 66-75%) will likely be borne by New York's two life insurance guaranty associations and that 20-30 state guaranty associations may eventually participate in a final ELNY liquidation plan.
    • 2010 - A New York State Supreme Court Judge orders the Superintendent to present the Court with a proposed order and plan of liquidation for ELNY which the Superintendent eventually files with the court on September 1, 2011.
    • December 7, 2011 - The NYLB, acting as the Superintendent's agent, mails letters to individual ELNY annuity payees notifying them for the first time about the proposed ELNY liquidation and Restructuring Agreement and alerting them of anticipated shortfalls for specific ELNY annuity contracts.
    • January 16, 2012 - deadline for ELNY liquidation Answering Papers (objections) to be served on the Superintendent in response to the petition.
    • March 15-30, 2012 - hearing before Judge Galasso of the New York State Supreme Court to consider the Superintendent's Petition for an Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for ELNY.
  • Although the Superintendent (and his agents), as Receiver, spent years preparing for the ELNY liquidation and restructuring plan, the Superintendent provided ELNY shortfall payees with inadequate time to: 1) review and comprehend their complicated legal dilemma and proposed ELNY restructuring plan; 2) find an attorney qualified and willing to represent their interests; and 3) prepare a response.
  • Had the ELNY shortfall payees been given adequate notice (at least as early as 2010), they could have begun taking steps to protect themselves. For example: they could have: 1) sought counsel; 2) pooled resources to hire consultants; 3) exercised their rights as annuity payees; 4) made appropriate demands on the Receiver; and 5) offered a meaningful response at the Order to Show Cause hearing.
  • Despite requests and objections, the Superintendent, as Receiver, withheld material information from the shortfall payees and their attorneys. Without these documents, attorneys for the shortfall payees were not able to verify and/or effectively question the assumptions or conclusions of the Receiver’s expert.
  • Conversely, years prior to the ELNY liquidation hearing, the Superintendent not only notified NOLHGA and various insurance companies about the pending ELNY liquidation, he also shared documents with them and invited and accepted their input into the drafting of the proposed ELNY liquidation plan.
  • However, when attorneys for the shortfall payees sought to submit their own alternative liquidation and restructuring plan for comparison, both the Receiver and Judge Galasso refused their input - with the Receiver repeatedly citing the absence of an alternative plan as evidence that his plan was viable and fair.
• Judge Galasso selectively applied procedural rules to the detriment of the ELNY shortfall payees.
  • Despite objections, Judge Galasso permitted the Superintendent, as Receiver, to establish critical components of its case through hearsay and speculative testimony.
  • As one example, Judge Galasso characterized as a "gun to my head" repeated threats by attorneys representing the Superintendent, as Receiver, and NOLHGA that voluntary contributions from insurance companies for an ELNY hardship fund would "go out the door" if Judge Galasso refused to approve the Superintendent's plan. This threat, however, was completely unsupported by admissible evidence and one of the Superintendent's own witnesses admitted such predictions were speculative.
  • In addition, Judge Galasso permitted the Superintendent's attorneys to admit into evidence binders of exhibits never served on the payees as well as a revised version of the Superintendent's restructuring plan not filed until March 6, 2012, less than 10 days before the hearing and more than six weeks after the objection period had ended.
  • By comparison, Judge Galasso repeatedly denied requests by attorneys for the ELNY shortfall payees for documents which the Superintendent had shared with NOLHGA and various insurance companies and their counsel.
  • There was no justification for Judge Galasso to allow the Superintendent and his attorneys to play "hide the ball" - refusing to share documents with shortfall payees to whom the Superintendent, as Receiver, owed an affirmative duty of disclosure while sharing those same documents with other parties including NOLHGA, various insurance companies and their attorneys.

 September 7, 2012 is the deadline for the Superintendent (Respondent), as Receiver, to serve and file his appellate brief. NOLHGA has requested and is expected to file its own appellate brief. For S2KM's complete and continuing ELNY liquidation reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Appeal - Objectors' Brief

Approximately 1456 Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) shortfall victims, who collectively anticipate a $920 million present value loss under the proposed ELNY liquidation plan and restructuring agreement approved by New York Supreme Court Judge John Galasso on April 16, 2012, were denied their constitutional rights to due process according to an appeal filed August 17, 2012 with the Appellate Division (Second Department) of the New York Supreme Court.

The appeal, filed by attorney Edward Stone and the Christensen & Jensen law firm on behalf of 18 of the shortfall victims (objectors), also alleges Judge Galasso erred in granting immunity and injunctive protection to the New York Superintendent of Financial Services (Superintendent) in his capacity as ELNY's receiver (Receiver).

The objectors' appellate brief requests the appellate court to reverse the ELNY liquidation order in its entirety or, in the alternative, to reverse the paragraphs granting immunity and injunctive relief to the Superintendent and his agents including the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB).

Due Process

The appellate brief alleges the objecting ELNY shortfall victims were denied their due process to a fair hearing because of a lack of reasonable notice and necessary information and the selective application of civil practice law and rules.

Due process, according to authorities cited in the objectors' appellate brief, requires:

• At a minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard before a person is deprived of a property interest; and
• Balancing (1) the interests of the parties to the dispute; (2) the adequacy of the contested procedures to protect those interests; and (3) the government’s stake in the outcome.

Looking first at the interests of the parties to the dispute, the objectors maintain:

• The shortfall payees have a "substantial interest" in a fair hearing because of: 1) their anticipated shortfalls and related financial and medical hardships; 2) their concerns about the future management of their remaining ELNY assets under a viable plan; and 3) their concerns that the Superintendent, whom they allege was responsible for their ELNY shortfalls, will continue to exercise supervisory responsibilities under the proposed ELNY restructuring plan.
• When acting in their capacity as receiver, the Superintendent and the NYLB are not acting as government agencies. Their interests are limited to protecting the policyholders, creditors, and the public including the ELNY shortfall payees. Their interests in a fair hearing should be extremely high - the same as the shortfall payees. Conversely, the burden of a fair hearing on the Superintendent and the NYLB would have been minimal.
• The government also has a high interest in a fair ELNY hearing in order to protect the integrity of the statutory receivership system as well as the financial well-being of 1456 individuals some of whom could become public charges as a result of their ELNY benefit reductions.

The ELNY shortfall victims were denied due process, according to the objectors, because the procedures afforded the ELNY shortfall victims were unfair and prejudicial:

• The notices were inadequate and misleading.
• The time allowed, and the lack of access to information, were unreasonable.
• Judge Galasso selectively applied procedural rules to the detriment of the ELNY shortfall payees.

Judicial Immunity

The objectors allege Judge Galasso and the ELNY liquidation court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and otherwise erred in granting judicial immunity to the Superintendent (along with his employees, agents and attorneys), acting as ELNY's receiver, in their personal capacities because:

• The New York Supreme Court, as a liquidation court, does not have jurisdiction under Article 74 of the New York insurance statute to prospectively adjudicate claims or issue orders not involving ELNY's assets. Claims against the Superintendent, as Receiver, or others in their personal capacities are not claims against the ELNY estate.
• The scope of the ELNY Liquidation Order’s immunity provision is unsupported by and unprecedented under New York law which provides immunity for acts taken “in good faith” and "with appropriate care and prudence.” Conversely, the ELNY liquidation order confers immunity for virtually every act or omission the Superintendent has ever undertaken, whether in an official or personal capacity, or whether in bad faith or violation of a court order.

Permanent Injunctive Relief

The objectors allege Judge Galasso and the ELNY liquidation court lacked jurisdiction and otherwise erred in granting permanent injunctive relief to the Superintendent (along with his employees, agents and attorneys), acting as ELNY's receiver, in their personal capacities because:

• The injunction provision of Article 74 of New York's insurance law applies to an action against the insurer (ELNY) or the insurer's assets not to an action against the Superintendent, as ELNY receiver, in his personal capacity.
• A receiver is judicially immune from liability if he acts in good faith and with appropriate care and prudence. Therefore, the only actions effectively enjoined by Judge Galasso's liquidation order are actions where the Superintendent, as ELNY's receiver, breached his fiduciary or other duties.
• The Superintendent did not offer any evidence that his property rights would be irreparably harmed absent the injunction.

Briefing Schedule and Additional ELNY Reporting

As reported in S2KM's recent ELNY Update, the Superintendent, as ELNY Receiver and Respondent, and attorney Stone, on behalf of Appellant/Objectors, have jointly agreed and requested calendar preference and an accelerated briefing schedule for this Appeal:

• September 7, 2012 - deadline for Respondent's brief to be served and filed.
• September 14, 2012 - deadline for Appellants' reply brief, if any, to be served and filed, with oral argument to be set by the Court as soon as practicable thereafter.

For additional background information about issues addressed in the objectors' appellate brief, see:

• The ELNY Due Process Issue; and
• The ELNY Immunity Issue - featuring Peter Bickford's analysis.

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation, including a copy of the objectors/petitioners' appellate brief, see the structured settlement wiki.