Beyond Structured Settlements

ELNY Contempt Order Appealed

Three Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees (objector respondents) and their legal counsel have filed a Notice of Appeal dated February 14, 2013 challenging "each and every part" of a Contempt Order issued January 25, 2013 by New York Supreme Court Judge John Galasso "on questions of both fact and law".

Judge Galasso's Contempt Order:

• Responded to a federal class action lawsuit filed November 8, 2012 by the three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees, as plaintiffs, against Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, in his non-regulatory capacity as ELNY's Receiver, including predecessor ELNY Receivers (Superintendent), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Credit Suisse Group, AG, as defendants.
• Determined the federal class action lawsuit violated three ELNY injunctions: injunctions contained in the ELNY Rehabilitation Order (1991) and the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan Approval (1992) as well as an injunction in Judge Galasso's April 16, 2012 ELNY Liquidation Order which states: "All persons are enjoined and restrained from commencing or further prosecuting any actions at law or other proceedings against ELNY or its assets, the Receiver or the New York Liquidation Bureau, or their present or former employees, attorneys, or agents, with respect to this proceeding or the discharge of their duties under Insurance Law Article 74."
• Imposed a fine, payable by the ELNY shortfall payees’ legal counsel to the Superintendent for costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney’s fees the Superintendent had incurred defending the federal class action and for pursuing the contempt application plus potential additional legal expenses assuming the Superintendent achieved a favorable result in the concurrent appeal of the ELNY Liquidation Order which was denied February 6, 2013 by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
• Acknowledged: "This Court is not empowered to dismiss the federal complaint outright."

Following Judge Galasso's Contempt Order and the denial of their Liquidation Order appeal, attorneys representing the structured settlement shortfall payees voluntarily dismissed their ELNY class action lawsuit without prejudice preserving their right to refile claims and tolling the statute of limitations.

Attorney Edward Stone characterized the voluntary dismissal as a "strategic decision" attributable to the Contempt Order which left open the possibility of additional fines for continued legal efforts to protect ELNY shortfall payees.  

The objector respondents and their legal counsel, attorneys Stone, Roger Christensen and Karra Porter, have six months to perfect their appeal of Judge Galasso's Contempt Order with the same appellate court that denied their earlier appeal of the ELNY Liquidation Order. Based upon previous court filings and out-of-court statements, they are expected to argue, in part, that Judge Galasso's Contempt Order violates the United States Constitution.

In a letter written to United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman prior to the voluntary dismissal of the ELNY class action lawsuit, attorney Christensen quoted from the 1964 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Donovan v. City of Dallas: "Early in the history of our country, a general rule was established that state and federal courts would not interfere with or try to restrain each others proceedings. That rule has continued substantially unchanged to this time."

Christensen's letter continued: "It could not be more clear that a state court cannot enjoin a federal action or use contempt proceedings to preclude citizens' attempts to have their claims heard in federal court." 

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

Superintendent Seeks ELNY Contempt Order

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

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

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

Class Action Lawsuit

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

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

ELNY Appeal

Previously, on May 30, 2012, the objector legal counsel, on behalf of 18 ELNY shortfall payees, filed a Notice of Appeal (ELNY appeal) with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, challenging the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement signed by New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

The oral arguments in the ELNY appeal occurred November 15, 2012 and a decision is expected before 2012 calendar year end.

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

Preemptive Correspondence

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

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

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

Legal Memorandum in Support of Motion

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

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

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

ELNY Appeal - Oral Arguments

Two Executive Life of New York (ELNY) legal actions are currently in process:

• ELNY Appeal - Oral arguments occurred on November 15, 2012 in Brooklyn before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department challenging the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement signed by New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.
• ELNY Class Action - Attorney Edward Stone and representatives of the Christensen & Jensen law firm filed a class action lawsuit November 8, 2012 on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims in the United States District Court Southern District of New York against defendants Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, in his non-regulatory capacity as ELNY's Receiver, including predecessor ELNY Receivers (Superintendent/Rehabilitator), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse).

ELNY Appeal

The appeal, filed May 30, 2012 on behalf of 18 ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims as objectors:

• Alleges Judge Galasso "erroneously denied objectors' request to reject the proposed agreement of restructuring in connection with the [ELNY] liquidation";
• Further alleges  Judge Galasso's order:
  • "[I]mproperly grants and/or continues certain injunctions and immunities and discriminates against the objectors";
  • "[C]reates impermissible sub-classes of claimants"; and
  • "[R]eflects the courts erroneous denial of objectors' requests to adjourn the hearing ... due to a lack of proper notice of such hearing."
• Seeks to compel:
  • The Superintendent, as ELNY's Rehabilitator, "to provide certain discovery necessary to, among other things, allow objectors to demonstrate why the plan should not be approved and submit a viable competing restructuring plan";
  • Judge Galasso "to unseal certain documents submitted to the court by the rehabilitator"; and
• Further seeks to allow the objectors "to present evidence (in the form of live testimony by certain witnesses) rebutting the receiver's experts and otherwise showing that the proposed-liquidation plan should not have been approved."

Appellate Briefs

S2KM previously summarized:

• Objectors' appellate brief
• Arguments in the objectors' preliminary brief:
  • Due process
  • Immunity
  • Injunction
• Arguments in the Superintendent's brief and the objectors' reply brief:
  • Due process
  • Immunity
  • Injunction

Oral Arguments

S2KM did not attend the ELNY oral arguments in Brooklyn, N.Y. The following reporting notes were provided to S2KM by structured settlement shortfall payees, and their attorney Edward Stone, who did attend the oral arguments and includes their opinions and observations.

The four appellate judges who heard the oral arguments appeared to understand the complexity of the issues on appeal:

• Associate Justice Mark C. Dillon
• Associate Justice Sandra L. Sgroi
• Associate Justice Cheryl E. Chambers
• Associate Justice Robert J. Miller

Each briefing attorney summarized his/her arguments then responded to questions from the judges:

• Karra J. Porter - for the ELNY shortfall payees.
• Steven M. Bierman - for the Superintendent.
• Kevin P. Griffith - for NOLHGA.

At least a dozen attorneys supporting the ELNY liquidation plan approved by Judge Galasso attended the oral arguments, many at the expense of the ELNY victims.These attorneys included several each representing the Superintendent and NOLHGA.

Appearing on behalf of the ELNY shortfall payees, attorney Porter focused her comments on lower court proceedings that denied ELNY shortfall payees their basic due process rights including the right to verify information the Superintendent and NOLHGA relied upon in formulating their restructuring plan.

Porter also addressed the scope of immunity, if any, to be accorded the Superintendent under New York law. She asked the panel to hold the Superintendent's ELNY conduct to the same standard applicable to all private receivers: good faith and appropriate care and prudence. She argued there is no basis in either New York or common law for the immunity and injunctive relief Judge Galasso granted to the Superintendent and his agents.

Appearing on behalf of the Superintendent, attorney Bierman claimed the ELNY shortfall payees had been afforded a fair hearing and noted Judge Galasso had determined the ELNY liquidation and restructuring plan were appropriate under the circumstances. Bierman insisted the Superintendent represented all of the ELNY shortfall victims and acted in their best interest.

Bierman never referenced or attempted to refute evidence that the Superintendent and his agents mismanaged the ELNY estate. Instead, he characterized as "galling" that ELNY shortfall payees would challenge the results of the ELNY liquidation hearing and added "no good deed goes unpunished".

Understandably, the ELNY shortfall victims who attended the oral arguments strongly disagree with attorney Bierman as to what is "galling" about the ELNY rehabilitation, liquidation hearing and restructuring plan. What is "galling" to ELNY shortfall victims:

• The Superintendent's claim that he acted in their best interests.
• The Superintendent's gross mismanagement of the ELNY estate.
• Judge Galasso's denial of their basic due process rights.
• Judge Galasso's grant of immunity and injunction to:
  • Protect the Superintendent and his agents from lawsuits; and
  • Prevent meaningful verification of the Superintendent's assertions.

The judges seemed disinterested in the due process arguments presented by attorney Griffith on behalf of NOLHGA, according to the ELNY shortfall payees who attended the oral arguments. The only question asked: "Wasn't it always the obligation of NOLHGA's state guarantee association members to pay their coverage amounts to the ELNY shortfall payees?"

A decision in the ELNY appeal is expected by year end 2012.

For additional notes about the ELNY oral arguments, see attorney Edward Stone's website.