Beyond Structured Settlements

NY Court of Appeals Denies ELNY Review

The New York State Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals), New York's highest judicial authority, has denied a Motion for Leave to Appeal a February 6, 2013 decision bythe Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department which rejected a legal challenge by Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees to the ELNY Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement signed by New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

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

• Due Process - "Did inadequate notice and the denial of information to Objectors (ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees), along with the selective application of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, deny Objectors a fair hearing as required by principles of due process?"
• Immunity - "Did the Supreme Court exceed its subject matter jurisdiction or otherwise err in granting immunity to the Receiver and others in their personal capacities, where such immunity is not provided for by statute, is inconsistent with the common law, and is unsupported by evidence?"
• Injunction - "Did the Supreme Court exceed its jurisdiction or otherwise err in permanently enjoining claims against the Receiver and others in their personal capacities, where such injunction is not provided for by statute or the common law, and no evidence was adduced at the hearing?"

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

ELNY Contempt Order and Class Action Lawsuit

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

Following Judge Galasso's Contempt Order, attorneys representing the structured settlement shortfall payees voluntarily dismissed their federal court ELNY class action lawsuit , without prejudice, preserving their right to refile claims and tolling the statute of limitations. At that time, shortfall payee attorney Edward Stone characterized the voluntary dismissal as a "strategic decision" attributable to the Contempt Order which left open the possibility of additional fines for continued legal efforts to protect ELNY shortfall payees.

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

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

The original class action Complaint named Jeanice Dolan, Daniel A. Malin, Keith Vincent, and other similarly situated ELNY shortfall victims, as plaintiffs, and Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, in his non-regulatory capacity as ELNY's Receiver, including predecessor ELNY Receivers (Rehabilitator), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse) as defendants.

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

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

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

 

ELNY Contempt Order Appealed

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

Judge Galasso's Contempt Order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ELNY Class Action Dismissed

Attorneys representing Executive Life of New York (ELNY) shortfall victims have voluntarily dismissed an ELNY class action lawsuit without prejudice preserving their right to refile claims and tolling the statute of limitations.

The dismissal of the ELNY class action lawsuit follows:

• Contempt Order Issued - Judge M. Galasso sanctioned attorney Edward Stone and representatives of the Christensen & Jensen law firm for civil contempt February 25, 2013 for filing the ELNY class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York in violation of existing ELNY anti-lawsuit injunction orders.
• Anticipated Appeal of Contempt Order - Stone and Christensen & Jensen responded January 28, 2013 with a press release announcing their plan to pursue an appeal of the contempt order with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
• Appeal of Liquidation Order Denied - The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department denied an appeal February 6, 2013 challenging the ELNY Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement signed by Judge Galasso on April 16, 2012.

Attorney Stone has informed S2KM Limited the voluntary dismissal of the ELNY class action was a "strategic decision" attributable to Judge Galasso's contempt order which left open the possibility of additional fines for continued legal efforts to protect ELNY shortfall payees. Judge Galasso's contempt order provides in relevant part:

"Should [Superintendent Benjamin M Lawsky] accrue additional legal expenses, such as in filing a motion to dismiss the federal complaint upon a successful appellate result, [Stone and Christensen & Jensen] may be subject to an additional fine."

Judge Galasso acknowledged in the contempt order: "This Court is not empowered to dismiss the federal complaint outright."

Stone and the Christensen law firm maintain that the blanket immunity and permanent injunction granted by Judge Galasso in the ELNY liquidation order go beyond what Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law allows and that Judge Galasso's contempt order violates the United States Constitution.

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

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

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

ELNY Victims Hold Press Conference

Responding to injustices they attribute to 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), and his predecessors and their agents, a group of ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees and their attorneys held a press conference today at the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City.

Added January 9, 2013: Among several news organizations that attended the press conference, the New York Daily News has now published its first ELNY article.

Added January 13, 2013: See also this ELNY article from the Courthouse News Service.

Contempt Motion

The alleged injustices include a recent Motion filed by the Superintendent's attorneys with the Nassau County New York State Supreme Court 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;
• Hold in contempt of court the shortfall payees' legal counsel; and
• Require their payment of the related costs and attorney's fees incurred by the Superintendent.

The stated purpose of the Superintendent's motion 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."

S2KM Summaries

• For the structured settlement shortfall payees' legal response to the Superintendents' contempt motion, see this prior blog post.

• For ELNY class action allegations of post-1991 ELNY mismanagement and non-disclosure set forth in the ELNY class action, see this prior blog post.

• For 2012 ELNY retrospective summary, see this prior blog post.

Press Conference Comments

In addition to the structured settlement shortfall payees, two of their attorneys, Edward Stone and Roger Christensen, spoke during the press conference.

“What is most shocking to victims", Stone stated, "is that the structured settlement funds set aside for future medical expenses and care were wasted by folks charged with protecting their interests. When New York State took over ELNY in 1991, the company was financially in the black, but decades of neglect and fiscal mismanagement by the NYLB led to this horrible scenario for victims. For the state to give these suffering victims a legal ultimatum and then sue them for asking for justice is unconscionable in my view. Billion dollar deficits are not created overnight.”

Christensen, whose law firm Christensen & Jensen has previously secured major victories against insurance companies, added: “The wasting of ELNY assets that has been perpetrated here in New York State against these victims and the legal intimidation the superintendent is now seeking to impose upon them must not be tolerated in a democratic and supposedly moral society. If we must, we will take this fight to the highest levels of our nation’s legal systems to obtain justice for nearly 1,500 ELNY victims scattered across all 50 states and three foreign nations. The superintendent is now asking us to be held in contempt for what he and his predecessors should have been doing all along, protecting these good people. They put their trust in the leadership of New York State and were betrayed.”

There are a total of 1,457 ELNY shortfall victims across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and three countries. The largest proportion of victims hail from: California, New York, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Washington, Nevada, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, Louisiana, Maryland, Illinois, Georgia and Connecticut.

Complete ELNY Coverage

For S2KM's complete and continuing reporting about the ELNY liquidation, including 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.