Beyond Structured Settlements

ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 4

The Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Hearing enters its seventh day today before Judge John M. Galasso in Room 35 of the Nassau County State Supreme Court Building in Mineola, New York. This blog post provides a summary update for S2KM readers. Note: see also the Addendum.

Days 1 and 2 - Attorneys for ELNY's Receiver, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), and the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) present their case for ELNY's liquidation and approval of a proposed Restructuring Agreement to create successor company Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC). They present two witnesses: Jonathan Bing, Special Deputy Superintendent of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), and expert witness Jack Gibson, a Managing Director of Towers Watson.

Attorneys for ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims cross examine Bing and begin their cross-examination of Gibson. Before the Superintendent's attorneys complete their case, Judge Galasso allows ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims attending the hearing to offer oral testimony as an accommodation to their travel schedules.

Day 3 - Attorneys for ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims continue their cross examination of Gibson. Judge Galasso denies their motion to compel immediate disclosure of source materials relied upon by Gibson as well as copies of all objections filed in connection with the Petition to liquidate and restructure ELNY.

Attorneys for the shortfall victims had argued that claims of confidentiality by the Superintendent intentionally deprived their clients of full and fair access to important and relevant information and, accordingly, a full and fair opportunity to challenge the Superintendent's proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement. They also claimed it is "extremely prejudicial" to require them to cross-examine Gibson ("a highly skilled actuary") without access to the source data and assumptions he used to perform his calculations.

Day 4 - Attorneys representing ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims continue cross-examining Gibson. Judge Galasso agrees to two of their requests: a reservation of rights to call a witness representing NOLHGA to testify about participating Guaranty Association (PGA) coverage amounts and issues; and a Microsoft Excel version of Schedule 1.15 of the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement. In addition to Day 2 testimony from ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims, their attorneys have also entered documents into the Court record including:

• Written and oral statements by ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims;
• A Society of Actuaries Structured Settlement Mortality Study;
• An article titled "The Trouble with ELNY" written by Peter Bickford.

Day 5 - Attorneys from Hogan Lovells, representing Travelers Insurance Company as an "Objector", use their opportunity to cross-examine Gibson to show their support for the proposed Restructuring Agreement. Note: Hogan Lovells also serves as General Counsel for the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA).

Cynthia Lindsey, an attorney representing a Michigan structured settlement shortfall victim, reaches the opposite conclusion during her cross examination of Gibson. After quoting dictionary definitions for "fair" and "just", Lindsey characterizes the proposed Restructuring Agreement as "a bunch of bull" telling Gibson: "You are asking this Honorable Court to approve this plan based upon your assumptions. You don't have facts." After repeated questioning by Lindsey, Gibson acknowledges NOLHGA has paid Gibson's employer, Towers Watson, "more than $3 million" since 2006 for their ELNY consulting work.

On re-direct examination, attorneys for the Superintendent (Sidley Austin) and NOLHGA (Faegre Baker Daniels) encourage Gibson to repeat claims from his earlier testimony that the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement represents the "best plan" and that none of the ELNY payees will be worse off compared with a straight liquidation.

Day 6 - Edward Stone, an attorney representing several structured settlement shortfall victims, continues questioning Gibson on re-cross examination. Stone questions whether all shortfall victims will be better off under the proposed Restructuring Agreement compared with a straight liquidation. In a straight liquidation, ELNY shortfall victims could receive full coverage payments from PGAs instead of net payments under the proposed Restructuring Agreement. Stone also introduces the idea of an alternative restructuring plan for ELNY and asks Gibson whether he considered various plan options.

Among Stone's suggested alternatives: 1) discounting ELNY's future deferred lump sum obligations to reduce ELNY's future liabilities and provide immediate cash for ELNY payees; and 2) selling ELNY to an existing life insurance company that could benefit from (and pay a premium for) ELNY's net operating loss carryforwards. Note: in an earlier interview with the Courthouse News Service, Stone stated he could develop a more "fair and equitable" alternative ELNY restructuring plan if he had access to the same information provided NOLHGA and Gibson since 2006.

When Gibson finally steps down (after six days of testimony and cross-examination), attorneys for the Superintendent and NOLHGA call NOLHGA's President, Peter Gallanis as a witness. On cross-examination, Carrie Tendler, an attorney representing multiple structured settlement shortfall victims, gets Gallanis to confirm that PGA contributions under the Superintendent's proposed Restructuring Agreement will be "net amounts" - i.e. their full coverage caps minus credits for current ELNY assets.

The ELNY Liquidation Hearing resumes Friday March 23, 2012 with Tendler continuing her cross-examination of Gallanis. For S2KM's complete reporting about ELNY, see the structured settlement wiki.

Day 7 ADDENDUM - Testimony by, and cross-examination of, NOLHGA's President Peter Gallanis continued on Friday March 23 eliciting the following information: Gallanis acknowleged GABC has not yet selected an investment manager or developed an investment strategy. Attorneys for structured settlement shortfall victims raised two issues related to the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement:

• Orphan contract enhancements create a potential public policy issue because they shift available funds that could be paid to other ELNY shortfall payees.
• If an ELNY structured settlement payee with life contingent payments dies, that payee could receive less than the present value posted on Schedule 1.15 creating a potential legal claim for his/her estate.

The ELNY Hearing continues on Monday March 26 with attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims expected to present witnesses.

ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 2

Presiding Judge John M. Galasso today denied a motion filed on behalf of Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall victims to compel immediate disclosure of source materials relied upon by testifying expert Jack Gibson as well as copies of all objections filed in connection with the Petition to liquidate and restructure ELNY.

Attorneys for the structured settlement shortfall victims had argued that claims of confidentiality by ELNY's Receiver, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, (Superintendent) intentionally deprived their clients of full and fair access to important and relevant information and, accordingly, a full and fair opportunity to challenge the Superintendent's proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement.

Gibson, the Superintendent's expert witness, had earlier testified that an ELNY annuity administrative database prepared by MetLife had formed the sole basis for his projections regarding ELNY's future liabilities which, under the proposed Restructuring Agreement, would become liabilities of successor company Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC).

In addition to the MetLife database, attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims unsuccessfully sought disclosure of other documents relied upon by Gibson including an ELNY 2002-2010 Mortality Experience Study, a MetLife/ELNY Administrative Agreement, Investment Reports from ELNY's Investment Managers, plus information developed by NOLHGA showing Guaranty Association estimates and allocations for individual annuity contracts.

Neither the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims nor their attorneys have had access to any of these materials which Gibson relied upon to conclude that GABC is financially viable. The ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims' attorneys claimed it is "extremely prejudicial" to require them to cross-examine Gibson ("a highly skilled actuary") without access to the source data and assumptions he used to perform his calculations.

In addition to Gibson's source materials, the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims' motion also sought to compel the Superintendent to make accessible all publicly filed court documents including especially the Objections filed by all objectors.

Despite references to various objections in the Superintendent's Reply Memorandum and Jonathan Bing's Affidavit and testimony, the Superintendent has refused to share copies with the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims or their attorneys. In contrast, the Superintendent has shared the full set of Objections with the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) and the Life Insurance Company Guaranty Corporation of New York (LICGCNY).

To address the Superintendent's claimed concerns of confidentiality, attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims offered to accept redacted versions of the documents or enter into a confidentiality agreement. Challenging the Superintendent's claimed concerns of confidentiality, attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims alleged the Superintendent's true motive is to deprive the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims a full and fair opportunity to challenge the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement.

The ELNY Liquidation Hearing will reconvene Tuesday March 20, 2012 with attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims continuing their cross-examination of Gibson. For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 1

Following two days of testimony March 15 and 16, 2012 before Judge John M. Galasso, the hearing to consider the proposed liquidation and restructuring of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) will continue Monday March 19 in Room 35 of the Nassau County New York Supreme Court Building.

In addition to the direct testimony of Jonathan Bing, Special Deputy Superintendent of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), and expert witness Jack Gibson, a Managing Director of Towers Watson, the first two days featured cross examinations by attorneys representing ELNY structured settlement payees and testimony from ELNY annuitants who would suffer significant payment shortfalls under the ELNY Restructuring Agreement proposed by ELNY's Receiver, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent).

According to Schedule 1.15 for the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement, 4168 of ELNY's remaining 9694 annuities are structured settlement annuities of which 1459 (approximately 15 percent) will experience shortfalls, some more than 50 percent, even assuming proposed state guaranty association contributions and life insurance company enhancements. The remaining ELNY annuities (approximately 85 percent) are expected to be paid in full by a new special purpose entity to be named Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC).

Attorneys representing the Superintendent (Sidley Austin) and NOLHGA (Faegre Baker Daniels) led Bing and Gibson through their direct testimony and introduced multiple Exhibits including Bing's Affidavit and Gibson's Expert Report both of which S2KM summarized in a prior blog post. The essence of the Superintendent's case:

• ELNY is insolvent with assets sufficient to pay for only 34 percent of its future obligations.
• ELNY's insolvency resulted from unfavorable investment results with sustained low interest rates and poor capital market performance.
• The proposed Restructuring Agreement is in best interest of policyholders, creditors and the public.
• Differences among individual annuitants result from variations in state guaranty association limits as applied to specific ELNY contracts.
• ELNY annuitants with anticipated shortfalls received adequate notice to raise objections and no one has proposed an alternative restructuring plan.
• No ELNY annuitant will be worse off under the Restructuring Agreement than with a straight liquidation.
• GABC is financially viable because of its initial funding, participating guaranty association (PGA) contributions plus voluntary life insurance company enhancements.
• GABC will be run by professional insurance managers and supervised by the New York Superintendent.
• Any surpluses earned by GABC will be paid to former ELNY annuitants on a pro rata basis.
• As ELNY's Receiver and Liquidator, the Superintendent is granted discretion under New York Law and should be granted legal immunity along with his agents including the NYLB.

On cross-examination of Bing and Gibson, attorneys for objecting ELNY annuitants highlighted the following issues:

• In fulfilling NYLB's responsibilities for ELNY, Bing has consulted with representatives of NOLHGA, the NOLHGA ELNY Task Force, ELNY PGAs, contributing ELNY life companies, ELNY policyholders, past and present Superintendents, plus the Superintendent's ELNY attorneys and experts. Bing has not, however, consulted with any ELNY annuitants or their representatives.
• Although representatives of NYLB and NOLHGA have access to all of the written objections filed with the Court by ELNY policyholders and payees, representatives of annuitants do not have access to all of the written objections and those objections have not been posted on the ELNY website.
• Although it is difficult, even for Bing, to specifically define the NYLB, it is not a taxpayer funded state agency.
• Except for individual notices mailed to ELNY annuitants on December 7, 2011, none of the other ELNY "notifications" (public notices, press releases, websites, or 800 numbers) informed individual ELNY annuitants whether they would experience shortfalls under the proposed Restructuring Agreement.
• January 16, 2012, the deadline for ELNY policyholders and payees to file objections with the Court was a legal holiday and the Court was closed.
• Until ELNY's 2006 audited financial statements were completed showing a surplus deficit of $1.266 billion, the NYLB was unaware that ELNY had insufficient assets to pays its future obligations.
• In formulating his expert opinions, Gibson relied upon source materials that annuitants and their attorneys have not been given an opportunity to review.
• Note: Judge Galasso set a Monday March 19, 2012 deadline for annuitants' attorneys to file separate motions requesting access to Gibson's source materials and to all written objections previously filed by ELNY policyholders and payees with the Court.

Before the Superintendent's attorneys completed presenting their case, Judge Galasso allowed ELNY annuitants attending the hearing to offer oral testimony as an accommodation to their travel schedules. Some of the highlights of their testimony:

• All of the testifying ELNY annuitants asserted the ELNY Restructuring Agreement and notification process were "unfair" because:
  • The Governor of New York and the Superintendent had assured the public as recently as 2007 that all ELNY benefits would be paid in full.
  • The Superintendent had years to prepare the Restructuring Agreement with assistance from NOLHGA, sophisticated attorneys, actuaries, accountants and financial advisers plus a staff of 250 NYLB employees.
  • When they received their notification letters just prior to the 2011 Christmas holidays in what some described as "junk mail envelopes", ELNY shortfall victims who wanted to challenge the Restructuring Agreement were required to:
    • Comprehend complex legal and financial materials without access to any independent professional evaluation;
    • Locate qualified attorneys willing to assist them on short notice during the holidays;
    • File written objections and propose an alternative restructuring proposal without access to critical source materials on or before a deadline that turned out to be a legal holiday.
• None of the testifying ELNY annuitants thought it was fair that 15 percent of the ELNY annuitants should bear 100 percent of the total ELNY shortfall while 85 percent of the ELNY annuitants continue to receive 100 percent of their payments.
• Some testifying ELNY annuitants stated:
  • Negotiation participants, structured settlement sales materials and/or language in their settlement documents assured them their annuity payments were "guaranteed" for life and/or a period certain.
  • It is unconscionable that: 1) the Superintendent, as ELNY's Receiver, and his agents, including the NYLB, should be granted immunity from lawsuits; and/or 2) the Superintendent should be given any supervisory role for GABC.
  • It is unfair to treat ELNY structured settlement annuitants differently depending upon whether or not original tort defendants funded their payment obligations with a Qualified Assignment.
• One ELNY annuitant (currently serving as a California State Appellate Judge) with an Article 75 (pre-1986) ELNY contract stated that three named representatives of the New York Insurance Department assured him in 1991 that he would receive all of his ELNY payments in full. Note: Judge Galasso requested briefing on the Article 75 New York Guaranty Association issues.

Based upon S2KM's written notes, here are some selected quotes from Judge Galasso during the first two days of the ELNY hearing taken out of context and sequence:

• "We are trying to be fair to everyone."
• "This company has been in trouble since 1991 and unlike banks, you cannot take your money out."
• "I have a gun to my head; if the annuitants don't get the Restructuring Agreement, they get a straight liquidation."
• "It seems unfair that 15 percent of the annuitants bear all of the loss."
• "When agents sold you your policy did they say you exceeded the guaranty association cap?"
• "My problem is that people buy their annuities and think they are 'guaranteed'"
• "Who determined the amount of voluntary life insurance contributions?"
• "Whatever I decide probably will be appealed."
• "How can insurance companies make contributions for orphan contracts but not for seriously injured payees?"
• "Results in many cases depend upon where you live. Why is that fair?"
• "Who is representing the annuitants interests? Does the Superintendent have a conflict of interest?"

The ELNY liquidation hearing continues on Monday March 19, 2012. For S2KM's complete ELNY reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Objections and Replies

On March 15, 2012, the Supreme Court of Nassau County New York (Court) is scheduled to consider a Petition by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent) for an Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY).

In response to the proposed ELNY Liquidation Order and Restructuring Agreement, approximately 130 persons and/or companies have filed objections. On March 1, 2012, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York and Attorney for the Superintendent, filed an "Omnibus Reply Memorandum of Law in Response to the Objections to the Proposed Liquidation of ELNY and Distribution of ELNY's Assets Pursuant to the Restructuring Agreement" (Reply Memorandum).

The Reply Memorandum consists of 56 pages plus an Exhibit A titled "List of Objections". Exhibit A identifies individual objectors (presumably ELNY annuity payees) by contract number and liability insurers (presumably ELNY "buy and hold" annuity owners) by name. Exhibit A also identifies a couple of structured settlement factoring companies as objectors. Among the Reply Memorandum's conclusions:

• "No interested person has come forward with a viable alternative or proposed statutorily compliant changes to the Restructuring Agreement that would increase benefit payments to ELNY Contract policyholders and payees above those already provided for and guaranteed under the Restructuring Agreement."
• "The Court should overrule the objections submitted and issue an order declaring ELNY to be insolvent and directing the liquidation of ELNY on the terms set forth in the Restructuring Agreement."

S2KM summarized the Reply Memorandum as well as two other recent ELNY Court filings in a prior blog post. In this blog post, S2KM summarizes the ELNY objections and the Superintendent's replies as set forth in the Reply Memorandum. For S2KM's complete coverage of the ELNY liquidation, including an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

Benefit Reductions

• Objection- ELNY annuity benefit payments should not be reduced because:
  • A reduction in benefits will cause extreme hardship.
  • The terms of the ELNY annuity contracts prohibit a reduction in payments.
  • Many of the ELNY annuity contract were issued pursuant to structured settlement agreements approved by court orders that cannot be abrogated.
  • Assurances were received that the ELNY structured settlement annuity payments would be guaranteed.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • These objections cannot outweigh the necessity for an order of liquidation because ELNY’s current assets are insufficient to cover the claims of all creditors.
  • Without liquidation, insolvency will continue to worsen and ELNY will exhaust its assets without the ability to meet its future annuity payment obligations.
  • Upon a finding of insolvency and the issuance of an order of liquidation, ELNY will cease to exist and the Superintendent, as liquidator, will be vested with discretionary authority to dispose of ELNY’s assets and to compromise its claims in accordance with New York Insurance Law Section 7435 in the manner directed by this Court.
  • As a result, prior orders and contractual obligations regarding payments do not form a valid basis for objecting to the approval of the Restructuring Agreement.
  • The Restructuring Agreement maximizes benefits and minimizes the risk of disruption and loss to ELNY policyholders and payees.

Additional Disclosure

• Objection - More information is needed to determine whether objections exist to the Restructuring Agreement.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • This objection is not grounds for rejecting the Restructuring Agreement because the information sought has been provided or is premature and unnecessary for the Court’s consideration and approval of the Restructuring Agreement.
  • The Superintendent has been working to provide objectors with all of the information requested, most of which has already been disclosed including recently completed Exhibit 6.1.2, the Supplemental Benefits Reinsurance and Participation Agreement.
• Objection - The Restructuring Agreement and its exhibits and schedules have not been finalized and executed.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • The reason for seeking approval of the Restructuring Agreement as drafted is to allow flexibility for making non-material changes to successfully close the Restructuring Agreement without negatively impacting ELNY policyholders and payees.
  • The Superintendent does not object to the Court considering and resolving any objections filed after the January 16, 2012 deadline to the extent they concern disclosures or changes made after that date.
  • The Superintendent is negotiating a draft "facilitation plan" with NOLHGA, on behalf of GABC, and certain annuity owners, which is not a closing condition to the Restructuring Agreement.
  • Even without the facilitation plan, ELNY policyholders and annuitants will still receive the same benefit payments from GABC plus whatever supplemental payments they are entitled to from responsible annuity owners.
• Objection - The Superintendent did not provide sufficient information and/or assurances concerning the financial ability of GABC to meet its future obligations to ELNY policyholders and payees.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • The Superintendent did not present additional financial information concerning the assets and liabilities of GABC at the time of filing the Verified Petition.
  • Reason: except for GABC's New York Article 75 guaranty payments (less than 5 percent of total liabilities), GABC's liabilities will be guaranteed by state guaranty associations or life insurance companies.
  • Because of this objection, however, the Superintendent has filed an expert report of Jack Gibson and an affidavit of Jonathan Bing and intends to present their testimony as well as Ivy Chang's testimony on March 15, 2012. Note: Gibson's report plus the affidavits of Bing and Chang are posted on the ELNY website. S2KM summarized Gibson's report and Bing's affidavit in this prior blog post and Chang's affidavit in this prior blog post.
  • The Superintendent also promises to provide additional information concerning Schedule 1.15, including guaranty association coverage, enhancements, and the treatment of third parties with rights under assignments of annuity benefit payments in accordance with Article 74 of the Insurance Law.
• Objection - The Restructuring Agreement is subject to change after Court approval including Schedule 1.15, participating guaranty association (PGA) coverage, and/or the extent of third-party rights to payments from PGAs.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • Prior notices to ELNY policyholders and annuitants explained that information about possible benefit reductions was “estimated” and “subject to change”.
  • Note: the Superintendent has revised the proposed Restructuring Agreement as of March 6, 2012.
  • The Superintendent promises to file with the Court an updated Schedule 1.15 prior to the March 15, 2012 hearing on the Petition.
  • Under the applicable statutes, however, Schedule 1.15 cannot be finalized until after court approval of the Restructuring Agreement to allow sufficient time for resolution of any Section 1.15-related disputes.
  • After the Court approves the Restructuring Agreement, Schedule 1.15 will also change to the extent:
    • An ELNY policyholder moves, provides updated address information, or dies, which could alter PGA coverage and/or ELNY’s contractual obligations;
    • The total assets and liabilities of ELNY change to a sufficient degree to alter the projected pro rata percentage distribution of ELNY’s assets to all ELNY policyholders and payees;
    • A PGA determines that an ELNY policyholder or payee is or is not entitled to coverage previously noted in Schedule 1.15; and/or
    • Information is provided that shows an error in Schedule 1.15, requiring correction pursuant to the Restructuring Agreement.

Notice Issues

• Objection - The notice procedures and briefing schedule were inadequate to provide interested parties with an opportunity to review and to present objections to the proposed ELNY liquidation and Restructuring Agreement.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • The ELNY notice and briefing schedule balanced the need for a prompt resolution of ELNY’s deepening insolvency against the ability of affected parties to review and object to the proposed liquidation and Restructuring Agreement.
  • By the March 15, 2012 hearing date, interested parties will have had:
    • 195 days since the Superintendent issued a press release about ELNY’s financial situation and the plans to liquidate and restructure;
    • 118 days since a form of Court-approved Notice began being published in the national editions of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal for four consecutive weeks, and
    • 99 days since personalized informational mailings were distributed to the last known address of each ELNY policyholder and payee.
  • The Superintendent, through the NYLB, created a new dedicated website specifically for ELNY policyholders and other interested parties on September 1, 2011 - the same day the Order to Show Cause was issued.
  • The Superintendent has received, considered and responded to several objections submitted past the January 16, 2012 deadline.

Not Fair and Equitable

• Objection- The Restructuring Agreement is not fair and equitable and does not comport with New York law because:
  • Some ELNY annuity payees will experience substantial shortfalls while the great majority of ELNY annuity payees will be paid in full; and
  • It improperly favors ELNY contracts that are either not covered by a PGA or covered by a PGA in an amount less than $250,000.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • The Restructuring Agreement complies with the statutory requirements of Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law. It treats all ELNY policyholders equally and creates no favored subclass with respect to ELNY's assets.
  • A straight liquidation of the ELNY estate without implementation of the Restructuring Agreement would provide far fewer benefits in a significantly less orderly manner.
  • Under New York law, the Superintendent has the power to enter into the Restructuring Agreement and the Court has the ability to direct the manner in which payments and dividends to creditors shall be made.
  • In his role managing the affairs of an insolvent insurer, the Superintendent, as Rehabilitator or Liquidator, is entitled to deference unless his decisions are arbitrary or unreasonable.

PGA Participation and Funding

• Objection - The Restructuring Agreement should not be approved because it limits or alters ELNY policyholders’ and payees’ rights against the PGAs.
• Superintendent's Reply - The Restructuring Agreement does not limit or alter ELNY Contract policyholders’ and payees’ rights against the PGAs, including the right to contest the amount or conditions of any applicable state guaranty association coverage.
• Objection - The Restructuring Agreement unfairly permits the PGAs to reduce the amount of their statutory coverage obligations.
• Superintendent's Reply
  • The net contribution, as opposed to a full contribution by the PGAs of the maximum amount of each PGA’s statutory coverage, arises under the express provisions of Section 7435 of the New York Insurance Law, not under applicable state guaranty association statutes.
  • This netting effect occurs because the contributing PGA is entitled to a pro rata distribution of ELNY’s assets with equal priority to the claims of ELNY policyholders and payees.
  • It is accounted for in the Restructuring Agreement by calculating the PGAs total required contributions on a net basis after reduction of the PGAs’ corresponding claim against the ELNY estate.

Proposed Immunity Provisions

• Objections
  • Provisions in the proposed Order of Liquidation extending judicial immunity to the Superintendent, his successors, agents and representatives, should be denied and/or eliminated.
  • The Court should use funds from the ELNY estate to appoint an investigator/expert to determine the cause of ELNY’s insolvency.
• Superintendent's Reply- The Court should reject these requests and grant immunity to the Superintendent and his agents because:
  • The Superintendent, as regulator of the insurance industry in the State of New York, is immune for his decision to seek liquidation and the timing of such decision.
  • The Superintendent, as Receiver for ELNY, has no liability for actions performed within the scope of his authority pursuant to the Rehabilitation Order, the Rehabilitation Plan Order, and subsequent orders of this Court.
  • Historical returns on ELNY’s investments were not as high as anticipated under the Rehabilitation Plan (13% for the common stocks and 100-150 basis points above 30 year U.S. Treasury obligations for bonds).
  • The Superintendent adjusted and increased the reserves required to meet ELNY’s future annuity obligations in 2006 using the then-current statutory basis of 5.25 percent.
  • The net effect was to increase the projected funds needed by ELNY to meet its future obligations by nearly $1 billion dollars.
  • While ELNY’s actual payment obligations remained unchanged, the 2006 financial statements showed an increase in assets necessary to meet those obligations.
  • New York Insurance law does not provide for the appointment of an investigator/expert by the Court to be paid for by the ELNY estate.
  • Any claim against the Superintendent would deplete estate assets without any benefit to ELNY Contract policyholders or payees.
  • If the Court does not grant immunity, the Superintendent will be forced to reserve assets in the ELNY estate to pay the costs of defending these meritless claims, which could significantly delay the liquidation of ELNY and the closing of the Restructuring Agreement.
  • The injunctions restraining all persons from commencing any action against the Superintendent, as Receiver, should be continued.
  • No objector has met its burden of proof to vacate or modify the injunctions granted by the Court.

Miscellaneous

• Objection - The Court should provide a lump sum payment option or the right to opt out of the proposed Restructuring Agreement.
• Superintendent's Reply - An opt out is not required under New York Insurance Law and would not provide any economic or administrative benefit to policyholders and payees.
• Objection - The Court should appoint counsel to represent ELNY policyholders and payees or hold an annual hearing to determine if the economy has sufficiently recovered to permit 100% back pay.
• Superintendent's Reply - Such measures are outside the scope of New York Insurance Laws. In addition, Section 6.2 of the Restructuring Agreement already provides, if economic conditions improve, any excess of assets necessary to meet GABC’s obligations will be returned to the ELNY estate for distribution to ELNY policyholders and payees.
• Objection - Any remaining valuable assets of First Executive Corporation (FEC) should be segregated and credited to structured settlement payees to whom FEC is obligated pursuant to a qualified assignment.
• Superintendent's Reply - Any segregation or crediting of annuity contracts owned by FEC would impermissibly create a subclass under New York insurance law.
• Objection - Certain property and casualty insurance companies that own ELNY Contracts object to specific provisions of the Restructuring Agreement.
• Superintendent's Reply - With a couple of exceptions, if the Court agrees with any of these provision specific objections to the Restructuring Agreement, the Superintendent will not object. The Superintendent does oppose one provision specific objection concerning third-party beneficiary rights (Section 16.15) and proposes an amendment to the provision (8) of the proposed liquidation order agreeing that the current version is unintentionally and overly broad.
• Objection - Contributions by life insurance companies should be enhanced significantly, with additional enhancements for ELNY structured settlement annuity payees.
• Superintendent's Reply - There is no mechanism for the Superintendent or the Court to compel contributions above what is already provided, and capped, by statute.

New ELNY Website Documents

On March 15, 2012, the Supreme Court of Nassau County New York is scheduled to consider a Petition by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent) for an Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY).

According to Schedule 1.15 for the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement, 4168 of ELNY remaining 9694 annuities are structured settlement annuities of which 1459 will experience shortfalls even assuming proposed state guaranty association contributions and enhancements. For the 1459 ELNY SSAs with anticipated shortfalls:

• 156 SSAs are identified as having been factored - although some industry sources believe the actual number of current ELNY SSAs previously factored is considerably higher.
• 1100 SSAs have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $100,000 each on a present value (PV) basis including
• 237 SSAs which have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $1,000,000 PV each including
• 17 SSAs which have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $5,000,000 PV each.
• The largest ELNY SSA has an "uncovered amount" of $25,692,377 PV.

During the past two weeks, five new documents have been added to the ELNY website:

• Affidavit of Jonathan L. Bing,
• Reply Memorandum in Response to Objections to the Proposed Liquidation of ELNY
• Expert Report of Jack L. Gibson
• Exhibit 6.1.1 - Revised Reinsurance and Participation Agreement
• Exhibit 6.1.2 - Supplemental Benefits Reinsurance and Participation Agreement

Bing's Affidavit

Bing was appointed Special Deputy Superintendent of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) in 2011. Created in 1909 by the New York State Legislature, the NYLB "carries out the responsibilities of the Superintendent of Insurance as Receiver, and acts on his behalf in the discharging of his statutorily defined duties to protect the interests of the policyholders and creditors of insurance companies that have been declared impaired or insolvent." The NYLB has been responsible for the day to day management of ELNY since it entered rehabilitation in 1991.

Filed with the Court on March 1, 2012, Bing's ELNY Affidavit supports the Superintendent's Petition for Liquidation, the proposed Restructuring Agreement and the Reply Memorandum referenced above and summarized below. Bing's Affidavit summarizes the history of the ELNY rehabilitation and acknowledges "[t]he Superintendent or his representatives received a number of requests for additional information concerning the proposed liquidation." In response, Bing's Affidavit states:

• "[C]oncerning the Restructuring Agreement, on February 17, 2012 the Superintendent filed with the Court a revised form of Reinsurance and Participation Agreement (which is Exhibit 6.1.1 to the Restructuring Agreement) and the form of Supplemental Benefits Reinsurance and Participation Agreement (which is Exhibit 6.1.2 to the Restructuring Agreement), which both contained details concerning certain benefits and guarantees provided by a consortium of life insurance companies."
• "[C]oncerning the Guaranty Association Benefits Company (“GABC”), on February 27, 2012 the Superintendent filed and served the expert report of Jack L. Gibson, a Managing Director of Towers Watson, concerning the financial viability of GABC, which was also posted to the ELNY.org website."

Bing's Affidavit further states the Superintendent has received "approximately" 130 objections to the proposed ELNY liquidation and restructuring agreement. Bing's response: "[n]otwithstanding the objections, it is clear that approval of the Restructuring Agreement as part of a comprehensive plan of liquidation is in the best interest of policyholders, creditors, and the public."

Reply Memorandum

Also filed with the Court on March 1, 2012, the Reply Memorandum is fully titled "Omnibus Reply Memorandum of Law in Response to the Objections to the Proposed Liquidation of ELNY and Distribution of ELNY's Assets Pursuant to the Restructuring Agreement." It is signed by Ralph Pernick, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York and Attorney for the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York.

The Reply Memorandum consists of 56 pages plus an Exhibit A titled "List of Objections". Exhibit A identifies individual objectors (presumably ELNY annuity payees) by contract number and liability insurers (presumably ELNY "buy and hold" annuity owners) by name. Exhibit A also identifies a couple of structured settlement factoring companies as objectors.

The contents of the Reply Memorandum are organized as follows:

• Preliminary Statement
• Factual Background
• Argument
• Conclusion
• Exhibit A

The Preliminary Statement confirms that "130 objectors have raised several types of issues that the Superintendent has organized into categories, which this single, omnibus response addresses for the Court’s convenience." The Superintendent's categories of objections:

• Objections to benefit reductions by individual policyholders, including objections that ELNY Contracts cannot be modified pursuant to their contractual terms or a prior court order;
• Objections requesting additional disclosure;
• Objections relating to notice issues;
• Objections arguing that the Restructuring Agreement contravenes applicable New York law and/or is not fair and equitable;
• Objections to the calculation, amount, and timing of participation and funding by the PGAs;
• Objections to the immunity provisions of the proposed liquidation order and requests for the appointment of an independent investigator or expert; and
• Miscellaneous other objections.

The Preliminary Statement concludes:

• "No interested person has come forward with a viable alternative or proposed statutorily compliant changes to the Restructuring Agreement that would increase benefit payments to ELNY Contract policyholders and payees above those already provided for and guaranteed under the Restructuring Agreement."
• "The Court should overrule the objections submitted and issue an order declaring ELNY to be insolvent and directing the liquidation of ELNY on the terms set forth in the Restructuring Agreement."

In addition to providing factual background about the ELNY rehabilitation, the second section states: "[t]he Superintendent continues to believe that obtaining approval of the Restructuring Agreement as part of a comprehensive plan of liquidation is in the best interest of ELNY’s creditors, ELNY Contract policyholders, and the public because it:

• "Adds substantial additional value from state guaranty associations and voluntary insurance industry participants that will result in the full coverage of approximately 85 percent of ELNY Contracts,
• "Minimizes the risk of disruption in annuity benefit payments,
• "Provides guaranty association coverage without disruption of benefits and without requiring ELNY Contract policyholders and payees from having affirmatively to seek guaranty association coverage to which they are entitled under state statutes,
• "Provides for an optimal transition for ELNY from rehabilitation to liquidation,
• "Does not impermissibly discriminate against any class of ELNY creditors, and
• "Treats ELNY creditors and all other interested parties fairly and equitably in accordance with the requirements and intent of Insurance Law Section 7435."

The Factual Background section concludes: "if the Restructuring Agreement is not approved, benefit payments for the more than 9,500 non-objecting ELNY Contract policyholders and payees will be placed at risk of disruption, there will be no guarantee for future payments, and orphan contracts (those not covered by a state guaranty association) would suffer a reduction in benefits to a level supported only by ELNY’s current assets. Such a result is inconsistent with the best interest of ELNY creditors, ELNY Contract policyholders and payees, and the public."

In the Argument section, the Reply Memorandum considers and rejects each of the categories of objections outlined above. S2KM will summarize and discuss the Reply Memorandum arguments in a subsequent blog post.

The Reply Memorandum concludes: "For the reasons set forth above, this Court should grant the relief requested in the Verified Petition and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Jack Gibson Expert Report

Jack Gibson's Expert Report is dated February 27, 2012. It consists of 18 pages, 33 Exhibits and 3 Appendices. According to Gibson, he has been retained as an expert witness by Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, on behalf of its client, NOLHGA, and Sidley Austin LLP, on behalf of its client, the Superintendent of Financial Services of New York, as Receiver for ELNY. Gibson's clients have asked him to review the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement and to assess the financial viability of the resulting special purpose entity (GABC).

Among his qualifications, Gibson states he is a Managing Director of Towers Watson. He previously supported NOLHGA related to Executive Life of California. He has been engaged by NOLHGA since February 2006 as consulting actuary for the NOLHGA ELNY Task Force. In connection with Gibson's ELNY consulting services, his clients are compensating Towers Watson at an hourly billing rate of $525.

Among the information and materials Gibson reviewed for his ELNY analysis, several appear not to have been made available to ELNY annuity payees, their representatives or the general public:

• ELNY 2002-2010 Mortality Experience Study, developed by Towers Watson under Gibson's direct supervision and direction;
• MetLife/ELNY Administration Agreement 2011-2013, dated May 12, 2011;
• Investment asset data provided by the investment managers for ELNY, Wellington Management Company and Goldman Sachs Asset Management, as of July 31, 2011 and December 31, 2011;
• ELNY Contract administrative record detail from MetLife as of September 30, 2002, September 30, 2003, September 30, 2004, September 30, 2005, September 30, 2006, March 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, December 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2011; and
• March 31, 2011 estimates for every ELNY contract, showing Guaranty Association coverage state (if any), GA coverage amount (if any), and Article 75 allocations (if any), provided by NOLHGA.

Based upon his analysis, Gibson concludes:

• "GABC is financially viable and provides a combination of significant initial funding of assets, along with an array of guarantees that together provide significant security and protection to enable GABC to meet all future financial obligations; and
• "For every one (100%) of the 9,000 scenarios tested and summarized in this report, the assets of GABC were sufficient to pay all future GABC benefit payments."

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

New York Liquidation Bureau

What is the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) and what role will the NYLB play if and when Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) is liquidated?

According to its Mission Statement: NYLB "acts for the Superintendent of Insurance as the court appointed fiduciary and Receiver of impaired and insolvent insurance companies, to maximize assets and resolve liabilities, return rehabilitated companies to the marketplace or distribute the proceeds of the company in a timely manner to creditors."

The NYLB website adds:

• NYLB is "a unique entity. Receiving no funding from taxpayers, it carries out the responsibilities of the Superintendent of Insurance as Receiver, and acts on his behalf in the discharging of his statutorily defined duties to protect the interests of the policyholders and creditors of insurance companies that have been declared impaired or insolvent.
  
• "The NYLB has performed this function since 1909, when the New York State Legislature passed the law mandating that the Superintendent assume the separate responsibility of Receiver. In the case of each insurance company in receivership, the Superintendent as Receiver is appointed by the New York State Supreme Court. The Court approves all of the actions of the Superintendent, and by extension those of the NYLB."

The New York Court of Appeals held in 2007 in the case Dinallo v. DiNapoli that, in his capacity as liquidator of insurance companies, the superintendent of insurance is not a state officer and that the NYLB, acting as the superintendent/liquidator's agent, is not a state agency and therefore is not subject to state audit.

The Court of Appeals reasoned: "[t]he Bureau does not perform a governmental or proprietary function 'for the state', but rather runs the day-to-day operations of private businesses in liquidation pursuant to Supreme Court order. The Bureau is not part of the Insurance Department's budget, operates without the benefit of state funds, maintains its own errors and omissions coverage, and is represented by its own private counsel, not the Attorney General, as is normally the case when a state agency is sued. Thus, the Bureau is not a 'state agency' within the ambit of State Finance Law § 8(2-b)(a)."

The Court of Appeals added: "When acting as liquidator of a distressed insurer, the Superintendent operates as a statutory receiver who stands in the shoes of a private entity and 'takes immediate possession and control of the assets and proceeds to a liquidation of its affairs' .... Indeed, the Superintendent as liquidator occupies a legal status that is 'separate and distinct from the superintendent of insurance as the public official charged with regulating the insurance industry generally' .... Thus, while the Superintendent's role as liquidator is judicial and private, his role as regulator and supervisor is administrative and public. Consequently, the Superintendent as liquidator is not a state officer but rather one who acts on behalf of a private entity."

New York attorney Peter Bickford has written a series of blog posts (titled "Insolvency Process in New York") which are highly critical of the NYLB. According to Bickford, the NYLB had (as of 2007) more than 450 employees ("most of whom are protected by union contracts") and an annual budget of more than $100 million.

Bickford's primary complaint about the NYLB is that the "receivership process in New York lacks meaningful transparency and accountability." Although the NYLB has promoted "a new era of openness and accountability" (including external audits beginning in 2006), Bickford maintains the opposite is true. As a primary example, Bickford highlights the NYLB's "recent unprecedented use of the courts to further insulate itself from outside scrutiny and accountability". As evidence, Bickford points to the following provision which he states now appears in liquidation and rehabilitation orders issued by New York courts:

“The Superintendent as [rehabilitator] [liquidator] of [the company], his successors in office and their agents and employees are relieved of any liability or cause of action of any nature against them for any action taken by any one or more of them when acting in accordance with this Order and/or in the performance of their powers and duties pursuant to Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law."

By adding this paragraph to court orders of liquidation or rehabilitation, Bickford claims "the [NYLB] seeks to obtain immunity without any basis in the law", and for which he maintains there is no precedent. This immunity, according to Bickford, "bestows absolute immunity – including for gross negligence or intentional acts committed while acting as liquidator or rehabilitator of an estate."

How do Bickford's criticisms of the NYLB square with the rehabilitation, and anticipated liquidation, of ELNY?

• As of today, 20 years following its 1991 Order of Rehabilitation, the ELNY profile that appears on the NYLB website is threadbare.
• Without any public explanation, the much ballyhooed 2007 announcement of "an agreement in principle", whereby various insurers and guarantee associations apparently had agreed to pay $650 to $750 million to fund future ELNY payments (which is not publicly available), has never materialized.
• The participants in the agreement, which apparently included Allianz, Fireman’s Fund, Allstate, State Farm and Travelers among other liability insurers who previously purchased ELNY annuities to fund structured settlements, have signed confidentiality agreements with the NYLB.

In a separate blog post, Bickford quotes from a Business Insurance article reporting statements by Mark Peters, who then served as the NYLB Superintendent, about the ELNY 2007 agreement in principle:

“The contributions will be enough to offset the $2 billion deficit that ELNY is predicted to face in 12 to 15 years, regulators say. The deficit results largely from an overly optimistic assumption in ELNY’s 1992 rehabilitation plan that the estate would earn 10% annually on its invested assets, Mr. Peters said. The actual return was between 7% and 8%. The Liquidation Bureau is now assuming a future annual return of just over 6%, he said. Most of ELNY’s contracts will run off within 35 years, with the last contract expiring in about 70 years, he said.”

In his blog post, Bickford takes issue with Peter's ELNY explanation, stating in part:

• "Inadequate interest rate assumptions cannot begin to account for the purported deficit."
• "The 1992 plan of rehabilitation does not include interest rate assumptions."
• "The 1992 plan of rehabilitation specifically stated that that the cash flows from investments 'are projected to be sufficient to cover current [covered annuity] payouts for at least ten (10) years.'”
• "So if it is not the interest rate assumptions causing the purported deficit, what is causing it?"

ELNY sold an estimated 8,000 structured settlement annuities prior to entering rehabilitation. To date, all related ELNY structured settlement payments have been paid in full. The most recent financial statements for ELNY (as of December 31. 2010) show assets of $905,945,200 compared with liabilities of $2,474,317,342 resulting in a negative surplus of $1,568,372,142. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently appointed Jonathan Bing to serve as Special Deputy Superintendent of the NYLB.

On June 23, 2011 the Superintendent of the New York Insurance Department filed a motion to postpone the previous 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."

Thanks to John Darer whose earlier ELNY blog posts introduced S2KM to Peter Bickford's writing.

S2KM's complete ELNY reporting and analysis appear on the structured settlement wiki.

Bing Appointed NYLB Superintendent

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's recent appointment of Jonathan Bing to serve as Special Deputy Superintendent of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) could prove a positive development for structured settlement stakeholders in the anticipated liquidation of Executive Life of New York (ELNY).

Bing, who was serving his fifth term in the New York State Assembly, assumed his new position just prior to the June 23, 2011 motion by the Superintendent of the New York Insurance Department 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."

Created in 1909 by the New York State Legislature, the NYLB "carries out the responsibilities of the Superintendent of Insurance as Receiver, and acts on his behalf in the discharging of his statutorily defined duties to protect the interests of the policyholders and creditors of insurance companies that have been declared impaired or insolvent."

Prior to the collapse of First Executive Corporation in 1991, at which time ELNY entered rehabilitation under the supervision of the NYLB, ELNY sold an estimated 8,000 structured settlement annuities. To date, all related ELNY structured settlement payments have been paid in full. However, the most recent financial statements for ELNY (as of December 31. 2010) show assets of $905,945,200 compared with liabilities of $2,474,317,342 resulting in a negative surplus of $1,568,372,142. The 2007 announcement of "an agreement in principle", whereby various insurers and guarantee associations apparently had agreed to pay $650 to $750 million to fund future ELNY payments, has never materialized.

As the NYLB's Special Deputy Superintendent, Bing can be expected to play an important role in any ELNY liquidation. What are Bing's attitudes toward structured settlement recipients and persons with disabilities?

Bing's strong support for, and favorable attitude toward, persons with disabilities (and also therefore, at least potentially, structured settlement victims) are apparent from his responses to a 2008 Questionnaire when he was running for re-election to the New York State Assembly. The questionnaire was compiled and published by the 504 Democratic Club, "The First Democratic Club in the Country Focusing on Disabled Rights". Here are some of Bing's responses:

• "While in office, I have introduced legislation sponsored by 41 colleagues to expand the Disabled Rent Increase Exemption ... for rent regulated tenants and worked closely with the disability community on this issue."
• "This year [2008], I authored legislation ... to create licensing for vision rehabilitation therapists and orientation and mobility specialists."
• "I co-sponsored the law that phased in an increase to $29,000 in the income eligibility for the real property tax exemption for disabled property owners."
• "I have also sponsored legislation to create a New York State housing registry containing up-to-date information regarding accessible housing statewide for people with disabilities, and supported the law which created the Access to Home program to provide financial and technical resources to assist renters and property owners to make dwelling units accessible for low and moderate income persons with disabilities."
• "I was also a co-sponsor of "Timothy's Law," [designed to end health insurance discrimination by enacting parity in coverage for people with biologically-based psychiatric disabilities] which was a significant step to end our health insurance system's second-class treatment of individuals requiring mental health care."
• "In [my] capacity [as the New York Coordinator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Legal Services Program after 9/11], I supervised attorneys responding to disabled New Yorkers with questions concerning housing, employment, health and environment, and a host of other issues."
• "During the two-year process of writing [a substantial 1996 law journal article on the subject of the mentally retarded and capital punishment], I learned much about the plight of mentally retarded defendants in the criminal justice system."
• "In December 1990, I was hospitalized for emergency surgery to repair a detached retina in my left eye....The experience taught me to appreciate the difficulties that people with visual impairments or blindness must face."
• "The first person I hired in my political career was Micah Kellner, a person with a disability who was elected to the Assembly in 2007."
• "With regard to the DRIE legislation discussed above, I have brought together a coalition of advocates for the disabled - including the Coalition for the Homeless, Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Center for the Independence of the Disabled -- to work to advance this measure as well as prevent bills that would cause harm to the disability community from moving forward in the Assembly."
• "I have supported legislation ... which has passed the Assembly on several occasions that would waive sovereign immunity for New York State for [Americans with Disabilities] violations."
• "Yes" in response to: "Would you oppose proposals which would negatively affect eligibility, benefits, coverage, and/or access to services for Medicaid beneficiaries and eliminate the systemic bias that leads to unwanted placement in nursing homes and other institutions?"
• I am a sponsor of ... legislation that would require the inclusion of [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] among the list of biologically based mental illnesses that would be covered under Timothy`s Law. I was a sponsor of the 2006 law which ensured that treatment of autism was covered by health insurance."
• "Yes" in response to: "Do you support Medicaid Presumptive Eligibility legislation which would eliminate the standard 45 days coverage gap that blocks access to treatment?"
• "I am a sponsor of ... legislation that would add low-income disabled persons to the list of those eligible for [Elderly Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage] ."
• "I have also sponsored legislation ... that has passed the Assembly to create a statewide registry of accessible housing for people with disabilities."
• "Yes" in response to: "Do you favor incorporating [provisions Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requiring housing developers to set aside a certain percentage of accessible units for persons with disabilities when federal funds are used for construction] into State law so that the Department of Housing and Community Renewal can be empowered to enforce these provisions?"
• "I support many efforts to ensure that those with disabilities have access to the voting booth. I am a sponsor of ... legislation which passed the Assembly that would require each New York State polling place to be accessible to physically disabled voters. I have also voted for [legislation] which would require that polling places, whenever practicable, be on a public transportation route, and ... which would provide that ballots be made available in Braille."
• "Yes" in response to: "Will you support a fully funded office of disability services on each SUNY and CUNY campus to assist students with disabilities in securing accommodations?"
• "I will work with schools in my District to ensure that students with disabilities have access to a quality education. I am a sponsor of A. 3496, the "Dignity for All Students Act," that would authorize the State Education Department to establish policies and procedures for affording all public school students an environment free of harassment and discrimination based on their disability."
• "I convinced the New York City Department of Transportation to build a driveway in front of a senior facility in the heart of the Second Avenue Subway construction zone in the East 90s so that the residents would have access to wheelchair-accessible transportation. I have also supported [legislation] to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to gasoline at service stations."
• "Yes" in response to: "Will you support Assembly Member Kellner's proposed bill requiring NYC to transition to a 100% accessible taxi fleet?"
• "Yes" in response to:"Do you support legislation requiring car services, and all shuttle services to purchase wheelchair accessible vehicles or otherwise ensure that they have the capacity to serve persons with disabilities?"

For complete and continuing S2KM reporting about Executive Life of New York, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.