Monday, January 25, 2021

No. 407: Security Life of Denver Is the Defendant in an Ongoing 2018 Cost-of-Insurance Class Action Lawsuit

The July 2018 Complaint
On July 26, 2018, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services (Advance Trust) filed a cost-of-insurance class action lawsuit against Security Life of Denver Insurance Company (Security Life), a subsidiary of Voya Financial, Inc. (Voya). The complaint contains a single count of breach of contract. The complaint is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post. On August 28, 2018, Security Life answered the complaint. (See Advance Trust v. Security Life, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, Case No. 1-18-cv-1897.)

The Judge
The case is in the hands of U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico. President Trump nominated him in January 2019. The Senate confirmed him in April 2019 by a vote of 55-42 along party lines.

Advance Trust's Motion to Certify a Class
On August 23, 2019, Advance Trust filed a motion to certify a class. On April 13, 2020, after extensive briefing, the judge denied without prejudice Advance Trust's motion to certify a class.

Security Life's Motion for Summary Judgment
On July 22, 2020, Security Life filed a motion for summary judgment. Interestingly, Security Life said in its motion that Advance Trust is a securities intermediary for Life Partners Position Holders Trust (Trust), which owns five universal life insurance policies originally issued by Security Life, and that the Trust is a successor owner, through bankruptcy, of a company that purchased the policies from the original policyholders in the secondary market. Brian Pardo's Life Partners Holdings, Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection on January 20, 2015. See, for example, No. 81 (January 22, 2015). Security Life's motion for summary judgment is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Judge's Order
On January 6, 2021, after extensive briefing, the judge granted Security Life's motion for summary judgment in part, denied the motion in part, and preliminarily certified a class of policyholders. The judge's order, which prompted me to prepare this post, is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

General Observations
Despite the fact that this case is in its 18th month, it still has a long way to go. Fairly soon we should learn what the members of the class will be told when they are notified of the existence of the lawsuit. Farther down the road, we will probably learn what type of settlement may be reached. I plan to follow developments in the case.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 71-page PDF consisting of the July 2018 complaint (26 pages), Security Life's motion for summary judgment (21 pages), and the judge's January 2021 order (24 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the January 2021 package relating to the case of Advance Trust v. Security Life.

===================================

Friday, January 8, 2021

No. 406: Genworth and Oceanwide—Recent Developments

The January 4 Genworth/Oceanwide Update
On October 21, 2016, Genworth Financial Inc, (Genworth) entered into a merger agreement with China Oceanwide (Oceanwide). Since then, the parties have entered into "waiver agreements," under which the parties extended the "end date" in the merger agreement. On October 1, 2020, Genworth said the parties had entered into a 16th waiver agreement under which they extended the end date to December 31, 2020. On January 4, 2021, Genworth and Oceanwide issued an update in which they said in part (the full update is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):
Given uncertainty around the completion and timing of the remaining steps required to close the transaction, Genworth and Oceanwide have not extended the current December 31, 2020 "end date" under the merger agreement. Oceanwide has indicated that the factors contributing to the delay since the parties agreed to their most recent extension of the merger agreement on November 30, 2020, were: (a) the finalization of the Hony Capital financing terms; and (b) the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions. However, the merger agreement remains in effect, although either party is able to terminate the merger agreement at any time. Genworth has shared that it will continue to work towards closing the transaction, and Genworth remains open to completing the transaction if Oceanwide completes the remaining steps.
The January 4 Genworth News Release
On January 4, Genworth issued a news release announcing it will hold a special topics call with Genworth's CEO on January 5 at 8:00 a.m. to discuss the recent update relating to Oceanwide. Genworth said a replay of the call will be available until January 19 at (888) 203-1112 (U.S.) or (719) 457-0820 (outside the U.S.) The conference ID is # 3039080. The webcast will also be archived on the company's website for one year.

The January 4 Genworth 8-K Report
On January 4, Genworth filed an 8-K (significant event) report with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Among other things, the above mentioned January 4 Genworth/Oceanwide Update was included.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 8-page PDF consisting of the January 4 Genworth/Oceanwide Update (6 pages) and the January 4 Genworth News Release (2 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the January 2021 package relating to Genworth and Oceanwide.

===================================

Wednesday, January 6, 2021

No. 405: American National and Lincoln Benefit Are the Defendants in Two Similar Class Action Lawsuits

American National Insurance Company (ANIC) and Lincoln Benefit Life Company (LBL) are the defendants in two similar class action lawsuits. The cases were filed in December 2020 by the same plaintiffs' attorneys, and in the Central and Eastern federal district courts in California. The cases are discussed briefly in this post.

The Complaint Against ANIC
The complaint against ANIC was filed on December 10. The named plaintiffs are Myra Steen and Janet Williams. Here are portions of the "Nature of the Case" section of the complaint:
Since January 1, 2013, ANIC and other related entities have systematically and purposely failed to provide certain classes of policy owners, insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of pending lapse or termination. ANIC has failed to notify thousands of policy owners of their right to designate someone to receive critical notices and information regarding life insurance despite being required to do so on an annual basis. All of these important safeguards are required by, among other sources, California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. California law requires strict compliance with these safeguards and ANIC refuses to comply.
As a result, ANIC has failed to properly administer policies, evaluate the status of payments due under policies and pay claims to beneficiaries for policies improperly lapsed or terminated. Indeed, thousands of policy owners and beneficiaries have lost, and continue to lose, the benefit, value and security of their life insurance; have been, and continue to be, forced into unnecessary reinstatements; and in many instances have lost all reasonable access to any insurance at all.
The complaint against ANIC includes four counts: two counts seeking declaratory judgment relief, one count for breach of contract, and one count of unfair competition under California law. The full complaint against ANIC is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post. (See Steen v. ANIC, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-11226.)

The Complaint Against LBL
The complaint against LBL was filed on December 16. The named plaintiff is Deana Farley. Much of the language in the complaint against LBL is similar or identical to the language in the complaint against ANIC. The full complaint against LBL is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post. (See Farley v. LBL, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-2485.)

My Email to Craig Nicholas
Craig M. Nicholas of the San Diego firm of Nicholas & Tomasevic is one of the plaintiffs' attorneys who signed the complaints in the ANIC and LBL cases. On December 28, I sent Nicholas an email. After identifying myself, I asked two questions: first, whether he is aware of other similar lawsuits filed against insurance companies, and, if so, to identify them; and second, whether he anticipates further similar cases, and, if so, to identify them when they are filed. I gave him my telephone number if he wished to speak with me. I asked him to respond to my email by 5:00 pm Eastern time on January 4. I received no reply.

General Observations
The ANIC and LBL cases are similar or identical to one another in many respects. Also, the cases contain serious allegations of wrongdoing. Finally, it is interesting that the cases were filed only a few days apart in different federal district courts in California. I perused lists of cases in the other two California districts—the Northern and Southern districts—to see if I could spot any other similar cases. I did not see any other similar cases. I plan to write further about these cases.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 52-page PDF consisting of the complaint in the ANIC case (28 pages) and the complaint in the LBL case (24 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the January 2021 package about the ANIC and LBL cases.

===================================

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)