No. 339: The House Judiciary Committee Wins a Major Court Victory

On July 26, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) filed in federal court an application for an order authorizing release to HJC of certain grand jury materials. On September 13 the Department of Justice (DOJ) responded to the application. On October 3 Doug Collins, the ranking minority member of HJC, filed an amicus brief arguing that the court should deny the application without prejudice because, among other reasons, the House has not authorized HJC to open an impeachment proceeding.

On October 25 Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia handed down a lengthy opinion and a brief order granting HJC's application. DOJ had redacted certain material from the report filed in March 2019 by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. (See In re Application of HJC for an order authorizing release of certain grand jury materials, U.S. District Court. District of Columbia, Grand Jury Action No. 19-48.)

Excerpts from the Opinion
The opinion includes a one-page table of contents and 74 pages of text. Here (without citations) are the first three paragraphs and the concluding two paragraphs of the opinion (the full opinion and the order are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

In March 2019, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III ended his 22-month investigation and issued a two-volume report summarizing his investigative findings and declining either to exonerate the President from having committed a crime or to decide that he did. The Special Counsel explained that bringing federal criminal charges against the President would "potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct." With this Statement, the Special Counsel signaled his view that Congress, as the federal branch of government tasked with presidential impeachment duty under the U.S. Constitution, was the appropriate body to resume where the Special Counsel left off.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives has announced an official impeachment inquiry, and the House Judiciary Committee ("HJC"), in exercising Congress's "sole Power of Impeachment," is reviewing the evidence set out in the Mueller Report. As part of this due diligence, HJC is gathering and assessing all relevant evidence, but one critical subset of information is currently off limits to HJC: information in and underlying the Mueller Report that was presented to a grand jury and withheld from Congress by the Attorney General.

The Department of Justice ("DOJ") claims that existing law bars disclosure to the Congress of grand jury information. DOJ is wrong. In carrying out the weighty constitutional duty of determining whether impeachment of the President is warranted, Congress need not redo the nearly two years of effort spent on the Special Counsel's investigation, nor risk being misled by witnesses, who may have provided information to the grand jury and the Special Counsel that varies from what they tell HJC. As explained in more detail below, HJC's application for an order authorizing the release to HJC of certain grand jury materials related to the Special Counsel investigation is granted....

For the foregoing reasons, HJC's application is granted. Consequently, DOJ is ordered to provide promptly, by October 30, 2019, to HJC all portions of the Mueller Report that were redacted pursuant to Rule 6(e) and any underlying transcripts or exhibits referenced in the portions of the Mueller Report that were redacted pursuant to Rule 6(e). HJC is permitted to file further requests articulating its particularized needs for additional grand jury information requested in the initial application.

An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

The Order
The "final and appealable" order grants HJC's application and orders DOJ to disclose to HJC, by October 30, certain material from the Mueller Report. It also says HJC may submit further requests for material in addition to the material requested in the application.

General Observations
At this writing I do not know whether DOJ will comply with the order. Recent press reports say DOJ is studying the ruling and considering its options. Meanwhile, I strongly recommend you read the entire opinion, whether or not you have read the Mueller Report. The early sections of the opinion include an interesting summary of the Mueller report.

In No. 295 (November 9, 2018), I wrote about the "Road Map" the Watergate Grand Jury transmitted under seal to HJC in 1974. HJC used the Road Map in developing articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. On September 14, 2018, three individuals petitioned for an order to unseal the Road Map. On October 11, 2018, Chief Judge Howell granted the petition.

Available Material
In the above mentioned No. 295, I offered a complimentary 68-page package containing the Road Map. That package is still available.

Now I am offering a complimentary 77-page PDF consisting of Chief Judge Howell's opinion (75 pages) and her order (2 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the October 2019 package relating to Chief Judge Howell's ruling on the HJC application.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 338: Greg Lindberg—An Update

In No. 309 (April 17, 2019), I discussed the indictment of Greg E. Lindberg and three others by a federal grand jury in North Carolina. In No. 320 (July 1, 2019), I provided an update, including a discussion of the placement of four Lindberg insurance companies into court-ordered rehabilitation at the request of the North Carolina insurance commissioner. Here I provide a further update. (See U.S.A. v. Lindberg, U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Case No. 5-19-cr-22.)

The Lindberg Motion to Dismiss

On September 18, 2019, Lindberg filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense. Here (without citations) are the first two paragraphs of the supporting memorandum (the motion and the full supporting memorandum are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

The government's entire case against Greg E. Lindberg turns on a legally flawed understanding of what constitutes an "official act." According to the government, requesting a personnel move is an official act giving rise to federal criminal liability even when the defendant in no way requested an ultimate outcome on any matter or proceeding that may in the future be pending before the government.

The government's theory is foreclosed by the logic of two recent decisions of the Supreme Court: McDonnell v. U.S. and Skilling v. U.S. And the government's theory raises the full range of constitutional issues that the Court identified in those decisions. Most notably, prosecutions of this nature will inhibit the rights of all Americans to make demands of their elected representatives—and vote and contribute accordingly. Because the charges against Mr. Lindberg are legally infirm, this Court can—and should—dismiss the indictment against him.

The Government Opposition

On September 25 the U.S. Attorney filed an opposition to the Lindberg motion to dismiss the indictment. Here (without citations) is the three-paragraph introduction to the opposition (the full opposition is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

Decisions to hire, fire, assign, and reassign government employees are core official acts under McDonnell v. U.S. The Bill of Indictment charges the defendant, a wealthy insurance executive, with offering a $2 million bribe to the top ranking insurance official in North Carolina to remove a subordinate regulator the defendant did not like, and replace her with one of the defendant's co-conspirators or another individual of his choosing. The defendant's argument that he could do this as long as he did not explicitly request an "ultimate outcome" rests upon a misreading of McDonnell, which nowhere applies an "ultimate outcome" test. Instead, as McDonnell and the courts that have subsequently interpreted that decision have made clear, the removal of the disfavored regulator—and her replacement by a regulator of the defendant's choosing—were themselves "official acts." This Court should reject the defendant's novel and erroneous interpretation of McDonnell.

Similarly, the defendant's argument that Skilling v. U.S. imposed a new requirement that the government must prove a personal financial benefit to a bribe payor is unsupported by any authority, including the Skilling decision itself. A bribe is a bribe, regardless of the payor's motive or realization of profit.

Finally, the defendant's constitutional concerns—regarding the First Amendment's alleged protection of the exchange of campaign contributions for specific action—are unfounded, and have already been addressed by the Supreme Court. When a campaign contribution is conditioned on specific official action it constitutes a bribe and is not protected by the First Amendment. McCormick v. U.S.

The Lindberg Reply

On October 2 Lindberg filed a reply to the government's opposition to the motion to dismiss the indictment. Here is the first paragraph of the argument in the reply (the full reply is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

The government is incorrect that the jury, rather than the Court, must decide the legal definition of "official act." Before trial, a defendant may move to dismiss an indictment for failure to state an offense. And the Court must grant the motion if the "indictment fails to allege facts which constitute a prosecutable offense." Thus, where there is "an infirmity of law in the prosecution" contained in the indictment, a case should not reach a jury. That is the situation here. Because Mr. Lindberg's indictment fails to allege either an official act—a required element of all charges against him—or a bribery scheme that benefitted him, the Court must dismiss the indictment.

The Hayes Guilty Plea

Robert Cannon Hayes is one of Lindberg's four co-defendants named in the indictment. He was charged with five criminal counts: one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, one count of bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds and aiding and abetting, and three counts of false statements.

On September 27 Hayes pleaded guilty to one count of false statements. The plea agreement is not publicly available. What is publicly available is a document called "entry and acceptance of guilty plea." It lists 39 questions the magistrate judge asked Hayes, and shows the answers given by Hayes. It also includes the magistrate judge's acceptance of the guilty plea on October 2. The document is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Journal Article

On October 4 the print edition of The Wall Street Journal carried a 2,540-word front-page article entitled "Indicted Executive Used Operatives To Spy on Women—Insurance tycoon's surveillance included GPS trackers, secret photos, dossiers." The reporters were Mark Maremont and Leslie Scism. Here are the first few sentences of the article:

Federal investigators were closing in on Greg Lindberg. FBI agents confronted the North Carolina insurance tycoon last year as they probed whether he tried to bribe a state regulator. In March, officials obtained a sealed warrant for his arrest. His attorneys were negotiating his surrender.

Mr. Lindberg also had something else on his mind—the comings and goings of a number of women he was dating, interested in dating, or, in at least one case, cultivating as an egg donor for his future offspring.

Mr. Lindberg paid for dozens of surveillance operatives to tail the women up to 24 hours a day, taking surreptitious photos and sometimes putting GPS trackers on their vehicles, according to former security staffers and copies of internal reports produced by these operatives that were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

General Observations

As indicated in No. 320, I think the federal criminal case against Lindberg and his four associates will be lengthy. I plan to report further developments.

I found the Journal article shocking. I have no idea where it might lead, and will not speculate on what if anything will happen as a result of the findings in the article.

Available Material

The complimentary packages offered in Nos. 309 and 320 are still available. Now I am offering a complimentary 62-page PDF consisting of the Lindberg motion to dismiss the indictment (27 pages), the government's opposition to the motion to dismiss (16 pages), Lindberg's reply to the opposition (15 pages), and the material relating to the guilty plea by Hayes (4 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the October 2019 Lindberg package.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 337: Long-Term Care Insurance—Another Class Action Lawsuit Against Genworth

On September 21, 2018, Richard F. Burkhart and four other individuals filed a class action lawsuit against Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth) and four affiliates relating to long-term care (LTC) insurance. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in state court in Delaware, where Genworth and several of its affiliates were organized. On January 29, 2019, according to the docket, the plaintiffs filed a confidential, unredacted version of an amended complaint, which I have not seen. On February 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a redacted version of the amended complaint, which I discuss in this post. (See Burkhart v. Genworth, Court of Chancery, State of Delaware, Case No. 2018-0691.)

The Parties

Three plaintiffs are Massachusetts residents and two are Connecticut residents. Three of them bought LTC insurance policies during the 2002-2004 period from General Electric Capital Assurance Company, a predecessor of Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC). One bought an LTC insurance policy in 2013 from GLIC. One is an agent who sold LTC insurance policies and other policies issued by GLIC. The defendants are Genworth, GLIC, and three other Genworth affiliates.

The Amended Complaint

The amended complaint describes how Genworth and its affiliates allegedly reduced GLIC's capital to the detriment of policyholders and agents. Here is the first paragraph of the introduction (the amended complaint is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

This action challenges a deliberate, long-term scheme by defendant Genworth, an insurance holding company, and by its affiliated defendants, to bleed capital from GLIC, a wholly-owned insurance subsidiary of Genworth upon which over a million policyholders depend for long-term care insurance benefits in the event that they become disabled. This conduct has profoundly harmed and will continue to harm GLIC policyholders and the agents through whom such policyholders purchased insurance. Absent injunctive and other equitable relief, defendants' conduct will leave the policyholders at critical risk at the point in their lives when they have greatest need for the benefits provided by the policies.

The amended complaint describes how Genworth allegedly used fraudulent transfers to remove assets and capital support from GLIC for the benefit of other Genworth companies, shareholders, bondholders, and management, to the detriment of GLIC, its policyholders, and its agents. Among the allegedly fraudulent transfers are substantial dividends, the termination of a reinsurance transaction, and the proposed merger with China Oceanwide. The amended complaint includes four counts: (1) Intentional Fraudulent Transfer—Payment of GLIC Dividends, (2) Constructive Fraudulent Transfer—Payment of GLIC Dividends, (3) Intentional Fraudulent Transfer—Reinsurance Termination, and (4) Constructive Fraudulent Transfer—Reinsurance Termination. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unwinding of the reinsurance termination, an unwinding of the GLIC dividends, attorney fees, and costs.

The Redactions

The redactions are three paragraphs (24 lines) in the amended complaint. Here are four paragraphs preceding and four paragraphs following the redactions:

60. There is substantial evidence that was not known or discoverable by Plaintiffs at the time the GLIC dividends were paid that demonstrates that Genworth knew full well that GLIC's DLR [disabled life/claim reserve] was inadequate long before it corrected the DLR in November 2014 and again in 2016, and rather than correct the inaccuracies in the Statutory Financial Statements filed with the [Delaware] Department, Genworth suppressed the adverse information.

61. In January 2014, Genworth hired James Boyle as the CEO of its U.S. Life Insurance Division ("Division"), which included the long-term care business of GLIC. Shortly thereafter, Lynne Patterson was hired as the Division's interim CFO. In May 2014, Patterson began a review and investigation of the underlying actuarial assumptions for long-term care reserves.

62. On information and belief, in early June 2014, following a series of meetings with the actuaries involved in developing the reserves, Patterson discovered that the assumptions the actuaries were using to develop the reserves had been "back-fitted" to meet the demands of senior management and were unreliable. Boyle and Patterson shared their concerns with Genworth's CFO, Martin Klein, on June 16, 2014.

63. On July 16, 2014, Boyle advised Genworth's Audit Committee: that John Nigh, the Division's chief actuary, and Loida Abraham, a supervising actuary, had attempted to manipulate actuarial assumptions to reduce long-term care claim reserves; that Genworth's chief actuary, Robert Vrolyk, on June 6, 2014, had admitted to Boyle that based on independent work Vrolyk had performed, there may have been an error in Genworth's long-term care claim reserve calculations of as much as 20%, or approximately $500-600 million; that three in-house actuaries overseen by Patterson to prepare a new "clean-slate" estimate of long-term care claim reserves using actual claims experience had arrived at a claim reserve that was $800 million higher than previously stated; that assumptions underlying the long-term care claim reserve announced in December 2013 had not been properly peer-reviewed, and that the documentation needed to support the claim reserve announced in December 2013 was incomplete or missing; and that Boyle and Patterson were being isolated and that efforts were being made to slow down a final conclusion regarding the claim reserve's adequacy and amount. Those efforts included directions to Milliman, an independent actuarial firm that Genworth had retained, to eliminate its validation of the proposed $800 million claim reserve adjustment.

64. Five lines redacted.

65. Seven lines redacted.

66. Five lines redacted.

67. Seven lines redacted.

68. On information and belief, in or around mid-July 2014, Boyle gave a "red alert" warning to Genworth's Board of Directors.

69. Less than two weeks later, on July 28, 2014, Boyle and Patterson resigned, about six months after joining the company. Genworth issued a press release stating that Thomas J. McInerney, Genworth's CEO, would also assume the duties of CEO of the Division effective immediately.

70. Immediately following the resignation of Boyle and Patterson, on a July 30, 2014 investor conference call, McInerney, who was now CEO of both Genworth and the Division, revealed that Genworth would be conducting a detailed review of its DLR assumptions, methodology and process, and that changes to the assumptions for the DLR could be required as a result.

71. On November 6, 2014, Genworth's management disclosed during an earnings call with investors that the DLR for its long-term care policies had been understated by $589 million in the Statutory Financial Statements filed with the [Delaware] Department, resulting in a reserve restatement in that amount (the "2014 DLR Restatement"). During that call, Klein, Genworth's CFO, stated that approximately half of this overall increase in the DLR was attributable to "updating" assumptions regarding claim termination rates, including adjusting the average length of claim assumption to reflect Genworth's actual experience between 2010 and 2013, the period during which the GLIC Dividends were paid.

The Motion to Dismiss

On March 13, 2019, Genworth filed a motion to dismiss. Here is the first paragraph of the summary (the full motion to dismiss is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

The named plaintiffs in this purported nationwide class action are long term care ("LTC") insurance policyholders of defendant Genworth Life Insurance Company ("GLIC") and agents who sold LTC policies for GLIC. The policyholder Plaintiffs have been insured continuously since they bought their policies. Not one alleges to have ever made an LTC policy claim, let alone that a claim has gone unpaid. The agent Plaintiffs are compensated through commissions paid each time an annual premium is paid on an LTC policy they sold; they also do not allege that GLIC has ever failed to pay them a commission they are owed. Plaintiffs nonetheless ask this Court to reverse GLIC's payment of $410 million in dividends between 2012 and 2015 to its corporate shareholder parent and to unwind a 2016 merger of subsidiaries because, at some unspecified point in the distant future, GLIC might have insufficient assets to pay their possible LTC claims and commissions. Plaintiffs assert that these were fraudulent transfers of GLIC's assets to other Genworth affiliates. This action should be dismissed in its entirety because Plaintiffs fail to allege an actual or imminent injury sufficient to confer standing in this Court.

The Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss

On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Here is the first paragraph (the full opposition is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants posit a classic Catch-22. They argue first that Plaintiffs sued too soon, because Defendant Genworth Life Insurance Company ("GLIC") has not (yet) defaulted on the relevant insurance policies. At the same time, Defendants argue Plaintiffs sued too late, because the challenged transfers cannot be avoided more than four years after they were made. That is, Plaintiffs must wait decades until they are infirm and GLIC collapses, at which point they will be told it is too late to avoid the challenged transfers. Catch-22. [Emphasis in original.]

The Reply to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss

On June 14, 2019, Genworth filed a reply to the opposition to the motion to dismiss. Here, without citations, is the first paragraph of the summary (the full reply is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

Plaintiffs assert repeatedly that Defendants' 2012-2015 dividend payments and purported "Reinsurance Termination" caused them "injury," but Plaintiffs do not plead facts demonstrating that any such injury is actual or imminent. Their Answering Brief admits that "GLIC has not yet defaulted" on any obligations to Plaintiffs. Their Amended Complaint can only conclusorily [sic] speculate that GLIC "will likely become unable to pay its policyholders and agents in full" at some indeterminate point in the far future. And Plaintiffs also admit that "the maturity date and scope of any particular policyholder's claim is unknowable."

General Observations

Oral argument on Genworth's motion to dismiss is scheduled for October 21, 2019. It will be interesting to see the judge's ruling on the motion to dismiss.

With regard to the redactions in the amended complaint, they probably reflect Milliman's findings, which Milliman probably submitted to Genworth on a confidential basis. I have been through this before.

In 2008, when Conseco transferred its LTC insurance company to a trust that would own Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP), Conseco told the Pennsylvania Insurance Department that Milliman had prepared a report saying the assets transferred would be sufficient to run off all of SHIP's LTC insurance business. I tried to obtain the Milliman report, but Conseco and the Department said it was confidential. As I reported in No. 308 (April 11, 2019), SHIP's liabilities of $2.653 billion at the end of 2018 exceeded its assets of $2.206 billion, leaving the company insolvent by $447 million. The deficit was $481 million as of March 31, 2019, and $496 million as of June 30, 2019. Many years remain before all of SHIP's LTC insurance business runs off.

As a layman—I am not an attorney—I read the documents in this case. In my opinion, the arguments advanced by the plaintiffs are stronger than those advanced by the defendants, although others who read the documents may feel differently. If the lawsuit survives the motion to dismiss, the case should be followed closely. However, like other such lawsuits, the case is likely to be settled before trial. I plan to report further developments.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 227-page PDF consisting of the amended complaint (65 pages), the motion to dismiss the amended complaint (60 pages), the opposition to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint (64 pages), and the reply to the opposition to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint (38 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the October 2019 package relating to Burkhart v. Genworth.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 336: Long-Term Care Insurance—An Update on the Newman Lawsuit Against Metropolitan Life

In No. 253 (February 15, 2018), I wrote about a class action lawsuit filed in March 2016 by Margery Newman, an Illinois resident, against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company relating to long-term care (LTC) insurance. She was 56 when she bought an "LTC Premier" policy in September 2004. The policy included a "reduced-pay at 65 option," which Metropolitan had described as follows in a marketing brochure:

By paying more than the regular annual premium amount you would pay each year up to the Policy Anniversary on or after your 65th birthday, you pay half the amount of your pre-age 65 premiums thereafter.

Before Newman turned 65, the semiannual premium was $3,813.68. In September 2012 the semiannual premium declined by 50 percent, to $1,906.84. In March 2015, Metropolitan increased the semiannual premium by 102 percent, to $3,851.81.

The Complaint

In her March 2016 complaint and June 2016 amended complaint, Newman alleged breach of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, fraud, and fraudulent concealment. In July 2016 Metropolitan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. In March 2017 U.S. District Court Judge Thomas A. Durkin dismissed the complaint without prejudice. His ruling is in the complimentary package, which is still available, offered at the end of the above-mentioned No. 253.

In April 2017, in accordance with the judge's ruling, Newman filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and attached a proposed second amended complaint. The judge denied the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. (See Newman v. Metropolitan, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:16-cv-3530.)

The Appeal

Newman appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and the case was assigned to a three-judge panel. On February 6, 2018, the panel unanimously reversed the district court's action and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. Here is the final paragraph of the panel's ruling (the full ruling is in the complimentary package, which is still available, offered at the end of the above-mentioned No. 253):

Newman asserts that MetLife lured her into a policy by promising a trade of short-term expense for long-term stability. She took the deal and spent nine years investing in a plan, only to have MetLife pull the rug out from under her. Neither MetLife's brochure nor the terms of the policy forecast this possibility. These allegations were enough to entitle her to prevail on the liability phase of her contract claim, and they are enough to permit her to go forward on her other theories. We therefore REVERSE the district court's grant of MetLife's motion to dismiss and REMAND for further proceedings.

On February 20, 2018, Metropolitan petitioned for a rehearing by the full appellate court. On March 7 Newman opposed the petition. On March 22 the panel denied the petition and filed an amended ruling. There were only a few changes from the panel's original ruling. One of the changes was in the next-to-the-last sentence of the final paragraph quoted above. That sentence in the amended ruling reads: "These allegations were enough to state a claim under the theories Newman presented." The amended 17-page appellate ruling is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post. (See Newman v. Metropolitan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Case No. 17-1844.)

Recent Developments in the District Court

On April 18, 2018, Metropolitan filed an answer to Newman's complaint. During the next few months several individuals sought to intervene in the case, and three were allowed to do so. During that time, there were also discussions of mediation with the goal of settling the case. In August 2018 the parties held a settlement conference. In November the judge held a telephone conference to discuss settlement issues, but the parties were not able to reach a settlement. In December the judge ordered the parties to submit a proposed discovery plan for class certification.

On January 3, 2019, the parties submitted a proposed discovery plan for class certification. On January 24 the parties said settlement discussions were ongoing. On January 27 the parties said they have agreed to private mediation. On March 5 Newman filed a motion for a stay pending the outcome of the private mediation. On March 12 the judge granted the motion. On April 25 the parties said they are proceeding with private mediation.

On September 24, I emailed an attorney on each side asking whether they think the private mediation eventually will succeed or whether they think the case will go to trial. One acknowledged the email but declined to comment. The other did not acknowledge the email.

General Observations

Newman is an interesting case. However, I will not speculate on whether the private mediation will succeed, or whether the case will go to trial. I plan to report significant further developments in the case.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 17-page PDF consisting of the March 22, 2018 appellate panel's amended ruling. Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the October 2019 package relating to Newman v. Metropolitan.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No: 335: Executive Compensation in the Insurance Industry in 2018

Beginning in 1975, in many issues of The Insurance Forum, I provided tabulations of executive compensation data in the insurance industry. The final tabulation was in the July 2013 issue, because I ended the Forum with the December 2013 issue. From time to time since then, I have posted some executive compensation data on my blog. The most recent tabulation was in No. 287 (September 24, 2018), which showed data for 2017. Here I show data for 2018.

Sources of Data

The three sources of data for my tabulations have long been the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), and the Nebraska Department of Insurance (NDI). In some instances, the figure I show for an individual differs from one of my sources to another. A reason for such occurrences is differing definitions of compensation among the sources.

Chapter 24 of my 2015 book, The Insurance Forum: A Memoir, describes the history of my executive compensation tabulations. It also describes the efforts of the insurance industry and state insurance regulators to prevent access to all or some of the data. Chapter 24 is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

During the final seven years of the Forum, I showed data for individuals who received at least $1 million in the year under study. The final tabulation in the Forum, showing data for 2012, is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post. In the new tabulation in this post, I show data for individuals who received at least $5 million in 2018. Where two or more individuals in a company are shown, they are listed in descending order of compensation.

SEC Data for 2018

SEC data are filed by shareholder-owned public companies. Each figure I show is the "total" in the 2019 Summary Compensation Table (Table). The components of the "total" are "salary," "bonus," "stock awards," "option awards," "non-equity incentive plan compensation," "change in pension value and non-qualified deferred compensation earnings," and "all other compensation."

The Table for most companies is in the proxy statement filed in advance of the company's 2019 annual meeting of shareholders. For a few companies, the Table is in the 10-K annual report for 2018. For the Canadian companies—Manulife and Sun Life—the Table is in the 6-K annual reports for 2018. The documents referred to here are available to the public without charge on the SEC website at https://sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html.

SEC Data for 2018
AFLAC Inc
Daniel P Amos	$17,535,398
Frederick J Crawford	7,388,355
Eric M Kirsch	5,043,897
Alleghany Corp
Weston M Hicks	8,129,352
Joseph P Brandon	5,594,449
Allstate Corp
Thomas J Wilson	18,687,246
Steven E Shebik	7,157,835
John E. Dugenske	6,764,401
Glenn T Shapiro	5,316,299
AMBAC Financial Group
Claude LeBlanc	6,203,007
American Financial Group
Carl H Lindner III	10,209,385
S Craig Lindner	10,191,495
American International Group
Brian Duperreault	20,854,669
Peter Zaffino	12,620,459
Douglas A Dachille	9,707,396
Kevin T Hogan	9,121,469
Siddhartha Sankaran	6,598,362
Ameriprise Financial
James M Cracchiolo	25,742,524
Walter S Berman	10,072,622
William F Truscott	7,515,167
Colin Moore	6,532,179
Anthem
Gail K Boudreaux	14,184,276
Brian T Griffin	6,066,160
Peter D Haytaian	5,936,543
Gloria M McCarthy	5,436,787
John E Gallina	5,153,866
Aon
Gregory C Case	16,163,875
Christa Davies	12,318,169
Arch Capital Group
Marc Grandisson	12,884,187
Arthur J Gallagher & Co
Pat Gallagher	8,062,954
Assurant
Alan B Colberg	13,616,946
Richard S Dziadzio	5,702,380
Assured Guaranty
Dominic J Frederico	12,771,902
AXA Equitable Holdings Inc
Mark Pearson	12,138,563
Seth Bernstein	9,084,847
Jeffrey Hurd	5,875,951
Anders Malmström	5,269,624
AXIS Capital Holdings
Albert A Benchimol	7,804,796
Steve K Arora	5,923,087
Berkshire Hathaway Inc
Gregory E Abel	18,013,750
Ajit Jain	18,013,750
Brighthouse Financial Inc
Eric Steigerwalt	15,537,371
Peter Carlson	7,457,356
John Rosenthal	5,123,879
Brunswick Corp
Mark D Schwabero	8,243,580
Centene
Michael F Neidorff	26,122,414
Jeffrey A Schwaneke	9,960,954
Brandy L Burkhalter	7,573,238
Jesse N Hunter	6,164,144
Chubb
Evan G Greenberg	20,357,484
John W Keogh	7,859,298
John J Lupica	6,208,344
Paul J Krump	6,203,320
Philip V Bancroft	5,039,875
Cigna
David M Cordani	18,944,045
Timothy C Wentworth	8,875,346
Alan M Muney MD	5,862,659
Christopher J Hocevar	5,352,336
CNA Financial
Dino E Robusto	10,109,176
D Craig Mense	8,157,197
CNO Financial
Gary C Bhojwani	7,701,334
CVS Health (Acquired Aetna)
Larry J Merlo	21,939,098
Jonathan C Roberts	16,066,968
Derica W Rice	12,806,073
Thomas M Moriarty	10,983,856
Eva C Borrato	6,972,421
David M Denton	5,564,551
Everest Re
Dominic J Addesso	7,066,735
Fidelity National Financial
Raymond R Quirk	9,078,683
First American Financial
Dennis J Gilmore	8,402,957
Genworth Financial
Thomas J McInerney	9,311,944
Globe Life (Formerly Torchmark)
Gary L Coleman	7,831,616
Larry M Hutchison	7,797,408
Hartford Financial Services
Christopher Swift	13,883,615
Douglas Elliot	8,999,113
Heritage Ins Holdings Inc
Bruce Lucas	8,735,043
Humana Group
Bruce D Broussard	16,312,517
Brian A Kane	5,005,025
Kemper Corp
Joseph P Lacher Jr	6,905,879
Lincoln National
Dennis R Glass	14,422,495
Loews
James S Tisch	5,714,569
David B Edelson	5,525,784
Kenneth I Siegel	5,229,566
Magellan Health Inc
Barry M Smith	10,162,716
Manulife (U.S. Dollars)
Roy Gori	10,087,189
Warren Thomson	5,634,846
Marsh & McLennan
Daniel S Glaser	17,281,919
John Q Doyle	7,023,080
Julio A Portalatin	5,983,531
Peter C Hearn	5,071,744
MBIA Inc
William C Fallon	13,855,479
Anthony McKiernan	7,085,400
Adam T Bergonzi	6,772,350
MetLife Inc
Steven A Kandarian	17,426,745
Michel A Khalaf	10,807,500
Martin J Lippert	7,881,101
Steven J Goulart	6,726,883
MGIC Investment
Patrick Sinks	7,971,526
Molina Healthcare
Joseph M Zubretsky	15,219,770
Mr Cooper Group Inc
Jay Bray	25,119,076
Anthony L Ebers	11,254,213
National General Holdings Corp
Barry Karfunkel	5,892,270
Robert Karfunkel	5,288,240
NMI Holdings Inc
Bradley M Shuster	6,706,568
Primerica Inc
Glenn J Williams	5,145,317
Principal Financial
Daniel J Houston	12,227,017
James P McCaughan	8,168,029
Progressive
Susan Patricia Griffith	14,172,925
John P Sauerland	7,134,820
Protective Life
John D Johns	11,201,101
Richard J Bielen	6,614,845
Prudential Financial
John R Strangfeld	26,696,966
Stephen Pelletier	18,525,767
Mark B Grier	15,216,589
Charles F Lowrey	10,357,459
Robert M Falzon	8,110,321
Scott G Sleyster	5,215,867
Radian
Richard G Thornberry	9,533,691
Reinsurance of America
Anna Manning	6,700,422
RenaissanceRe Holdings
Kevin J O'Donnell	10,819,363
State Auto Financial Corp
Michael E LaRocco	6,191,934
Sun Life Canada (U.S. Dollars)
Dean A Connor	7,500,277
Jacques Goulet	6,144,072
Travelers
Alan D Schnitzer	14,648,213
William H Heyman	6,621,541
Avrohom J Kess	6,009,603
Jay S Benet	5,896,441
UnitedHealth
Andrew P Witty	21,232,550
David S Wichmann	18,107,356
Stephen J Hemsley	11,352,513
Steven H Nelson	9,763,024
John F Rex	8,587,912
Universal Ins Holdings
Sean P Downes	17,923,379
Jon W Springer	7,213,248
Unum
Richard P McKenney	9,896,861
Voya Financial
Rodney O Martin Jr	11,337,911
Christine Hurtsellers	5,649,873
W R Berkley
William R Berkley	12,325,841
W Robert Berkley Jr	11,852,862
WellCare Health Plans
Kenneth A Burdick	12,675,372
White Mountains
G Manning Rountree	6,247,593

DFS Data for 2018

DFS data are filed by life insurance companies doing business in New York State, and by health insurance companies doing business there. The data are from the 2019 "Schedule G" (Schedule), which is in the New York Supplement to the statutory annual statement. I obtained the Schedules through a request pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law. The Life Bureau of DFS sent the Schedules for life insurance companies, and the Health Bureau of DFS sent the Schedules for health insurance companies. Both bureaus provided the Schedules by email without charge. The Schedule for life insurance companies differs significantly from the Schedule for health insurance companies.

The Schedule for life insurance companies shows one figure for each individual. It is "the aggregate amount (any and all remuneration, including all wages, salaries, commissions, stock grants, gains from the exercise of stock options and other emoluments) received by the payee attributable to services performed for, or on behalf of, the reporting insurer, regardless of whether the payee is employed and paid by the insurer or a related or affiliated company." For life insurance companies that are part of a group of companies, the Schedule may not show the individual's total compensation from all companies in the group. Also, pursuant to changes made several years ago in the New York State executive compensation disclosure statute to curtail the amount of compensation data available to the public, the Schedule sometimes redacts the names but shows the amounts of compensation and the titles of certain individuals. In those instances, I show the individual's title and the amount of compensation.

The Schedule for health insurance companies shows four figures for each individual: (1) "salary paid by company and all other companies in holding company system," (2) "bonus & all other compensation deferred or paid by company and all other companies in holding company system," (3) "total amount paid by company and all other companies in holding company system," and (4) "amount paid by or amount allocated to company." I show the third of those four figures.

DFS Data for 2018
Life Insurance Companies
Aetna Life (Acquired by CVS Health)
Mark Bertolini	$331,776,150
Thomas J Sabatino	24,164,969
Margaret McCarthy	23,030,488
Steven B Kelmar	23,030,147
Gary Loveman	19,053,604
Thomas W Weidenkopf	16,707,671
Karen S Lynch	15,481,922
Harold L Paz	12,138,143
Jean LaTorre	10,018,253
EVP Integration	13,342,088
EVP Government Services	12,470,663
SVP Medicare	11,533,517
SVP & Dep Gen Cnsl Aetna	9,613,347
SVP Commercial Business	6,466,738
SVP Products & Services	6,076,843
VP JV Operations	5,732,175
SVP Service Operations	5,601,306
VP Enterprise IT Delivery	5,297,360
VP Chief Mktg Officer	5,022,928
American Progressive
Kenneth Alan Burdick	21,219,890
Andrew Lynn Asher	7,168,174
AXA Equitable Life
Mark Pearson	11,836,009
Cigna Health & Life
David Cordani	11,859,705
First Health Life & Health
Karen S Lynch	18,348,308
Richard M Jelinek	8,357,794
Shawn M Guertin	6,303,937
Globe Life of New York
Frank Martin Svoboda	6,714,362
Guardian Life of America
Deanna Mulligan	8,536,819
Liberty Life Assur of Boston
Dennis A Glass	30,578,194
Randal J Freitag	9,400,216
Wilford H Fuller	7,013,771
Ellen G Cooper	5,072,368
Massachusetts Mutual Life
Roger Crandall	16,407,926
Melvin Corbett	5,563,206
Metropolitan Life
Steven Albert Kandarian	14,417,969
New York Life
Theodore A Mathas	24,483,407
John Y Kim	11,397,963
John T Fleurant	8,066,000
Matthew M Grove	5,710,361
Anthony R Malloy	5,046,000
Northwestern Mutual Life
John E Schlifske	13,489,916
Gregory C Oberland	5,450,131
Principal Life
Daniel Joseph Houston	9,909,774
President Global Asset Mgmt	7,224,751
Karl W Nolin	5,478,188
Prudential Ins Co of America
John Robert Strangfeld Jr	6,713,831
Mark Brown Grier	5,614,191
Teachers Ins & Annuity Assn
Ronald Pressman	6,349,193
Roger Ferguson	6,219,093
Voya Retirement Ins & Annuity
Charles Patrick Nelson	5,396,999
Health Insurance Companies
Anthem
Gail A Boudreaux	11,711,001
Joseph R Swedish	7,808,541
Peter David Haytaian	6,323,390
Gloria M McCarthy	5,505,445
John E Gallina	5,320,958
Hallmark Life
Michael Frederic Neidorff	23,476,087
Jesse Nathan Hunter	5,539,330
Humana of New York
Christopher Howal Hunter	6,762,908
Mutual of Omaha
James T Blackledge	7,699,034
Sierra Health & Life
Forrest Gregory Burke	6,024,535
UnitedHealthcare of New York
Peter Marshall Gill	24,344,532
Robert Worth Oberrender	9,822,538
William John Golden	8,311,207
WellCare Prescription Ins
Kenneth A Burdick	21,219,889
Andrew L Asher	7,168,174

NDI Data for 2018

NDI data are in a "Supplemental Compensation Exhibit" (Exhibit) filed by all insurance companies doing business in Nebraska. The Exhibit normally shows figures for ten top officials. The figure I show is the "total" for each individual. Components of the "total" are "salary," "bonus," "stock awards," "option awards," "sign-on awards," "severance payments," and "all other compensation." NDI provided the Exhibits on a CD at a cost of $80.

Where companies are members of a company group, some companies show the total amount received by each individual from all companies in the group. Some companies, however, allocate each individual's compensation to each company in the group. Thus, for some individuals, the figure I show may be smaller than the individual's total compensation, for two reasons. First, I may not have found exhibits for all companies in the group. Second, some company groups may include companies that are not licensed in Nebraska and therefore do not file Exhibits.

NDI Data for 2018
Acuity, A Mutual Ins Co
Benjamin M Salzmann	$5,174,079
AFLAC Inc
Daniel P Amos	16,660,694
Frederick J Crawford	7,640,518
Eric M Kirsch	5,081,432
Alleghany Group
Michael C Sapnar	8,748,634
Javier E Vijii	6,043,844
AMBAC Financial Group
Claude LeBlanc	6,247,765
Allstate Corp
Thomas J Wilson	17,814,076
Steven E Shebik	6,809,317
John E Dugenske	6,686,395
Glenn T Shapiro	5,269,735
Dogan Civgin	5,153,711
American Family Ins
Jack C Salzwedel	11,039,858
Jonathan Ritz	5,934,753
Fabian John Fondriest	5,409,028
American Financial Group
Carl H Lindner III	9,599,630
American International Group
Kevin Hogan	7,178,384
Jay S Wintrob	5,275,962
American Pet Ins Co
Darryl Rawlings	18,260,455
Ameriprise Financial
Steven B Staver	5,863,464
Amtrust Financial Services
Jean Bahier	5,244,502
Apollo Global Management
James Belardi	5,011,830
Assured Guaranty
Dominic Frederico	14,189,764
Atlantic Specialty Ins
Timothy M Miller	18,295,748
Automobile Club of Michigan
Joseph Richardson Jr	11,548,127
AXA Ins
Mark Pearson	12,248,123
Berkshire Hathaway
Thomas P Nemey	22,214,862
Olza Minor Nicely	15,868,178
Sidney Ferenc	6,872,248
Steven Menzies	6,835,309
William Evan Roberts	5,596,235
Timothy Kenesey	5,025,423
Brighthouse Holdings
Eric T Steigerwalt	13,927,818
Chubb
John J Lupica	5,722,600
Cigna Health
David Cordani	11,859,705
Cincinnati Financial
Steven Justus Johnston	5,304,710
CNA Ins
Dino Robusto	9,593,963
D Craig Mense	8,413,429
CVS Health (Acquired Aetna)
Karen S Lynch	18,348,308
Richard M Jelinek	8,357,794
Shawn M Guertin	6,303,937
Essent Group
Mark Casale	6,556,015
Everest Reinsurance
Dominic J Addesso	5,926,259
Factory Mutual Ins
Thomas A Lawson	6,033,927
Federated Mutual
Jeffrey E Fetters	5,598,924
Fidelity & Guaranty Life
Dennis R Vigneau	5,559,928
Fidelity National Financial
Raymond Randall Quirk	8,488,420
Roger Scott Jewkes	7,291,776
Erika Meinhardt	6,868,522
First American Title
Dennis J Gilmore	7,579,689
Genworth Financial
Thomas McInerney	9,825,404
Globe Life (Formerly Torchmark)
Frank Martin Svoboda	6,714,362
Guardian Life of America
Deanna Mulligan	9,335,810
Hartford Fire & Casualty
Douglas G Elliot	10,047,508
Christopher Swift	5,400,054
Health Care Service Corp
Paula A Steiner	15,090,980
Colleen Foley Reitan	5,561,015
Humana Group
Bruce D Broussard	26,766,992
Christopher Howal Hunter	6,762,908
Insurance Co of the West
Kevin Prior	12,543,879
Ernest Rady	6,797,168
Bernard Feldman	5,236,832
Jackson National Life
Barry Stowe	10,022,913
Paul C Myers	6,600,916
James R Sopha	6,487,262
John Hancock
Daniel Janis III	6,660,559
Liberty Mutual
David H Long	19,262,058
J Paul Condin III	13,004,010
Neeti Bhalla	7,094,502
Timothy Sweeney	6,950,550
Kevin H Kelley	6,206,424
Dennis J Langwell	6,019,610
Christopher L Peirce	5,789,412
Lincoln National
Dennis R Glass	30,578,194
Randal J Freitag	9,400,216
Wilford H Fuller	7,013,771
Ellen G Cooper	5,072,368
Main Street America
T Van Berkel	20,053,624
E Kuhl	6,578,115
Massachusetts Mutual Life
Roger Crandall	15,637,391
Michael Fanning	6,088,727
Elizabeth Chicares	5,244,457
Metropolitan Life
Steven A Kandarian	14,417,969
Mortgage Guaranty Ins
Patrick Sinks	7,879,020
Mutual of Omaha
James T Blackledge	7,486,811
Nationwide Corp
Steve Rasmussen	8,478,253
New York Life
Theodore A Mathas	24,483,407
John Y Kim	11,397,963
John T Fleurant	8,066,000
Matthew M Grove	5,710,361
Anthony R Malloy	5,046,000
Northwestern Mutual Life
John E Schlifske	13,489,916
Gregory C Oberland	5,450,131
Ohio National Life
Gary Thomas Huffman	5,008,187
OneAmerica Financial
James S Davison	5,073,760
Pacific Life
James T Morris	8,758,573
Primerica Inc
Glen J Williams	5,235,159
Principal Financial
Daniel J Houston	9,909,774
Karl W Nolin	5,478,188
Progressive Corp
Susan Patricia Griffin	7,171,857
Protective Life
John Johns	12,771,271
Deborah Long	9,915,492
Richard Bielen	9,887,161
John Sawyer	5,780,110
Prudential Ins Co of America
John R Strangfeld Jr	10,194,091
Mark Brown Grier	6,114,285
Radian Group
Richard Thornberry	7,090,529
RLI Ins
Jonathan E Michael	6,715,194
Sammons Enterprises
Esfandyar E Dinshaw	5,274,345
Security Benefit Life
Michael Patrick Kiley	6,956,207
Selective Ins
Gregory E Murphy	5,235,275
Sentry Ins Group
Peter McPartland	8,072,659
Standard Ins Co
John Gregory Ness	7,960,535
State Farm Mutual
Michael Leon Tipsord	6,646,304
Teachers Ins & Annuity Assn
Ronald Pressman	6,349,193
Roger Ferguson	6,219,093
Travelers
Alan D Schnitzer	13,940,523
Willaim H Heyman	6,058,513
Jay S Benet	5,771,835
Avrohom J Kess	5,756,549
Madelyn Joseph Lankton	5,262,906
UnitedHealth
Stevan Dean Garcia	7,793,300
Voya Financial
Alain Maurice Karaoglan	9,002,380
Rodney Owen Martin Jr	8,133,747
Western & Southern
John Barrett	9,193,300

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 22-page PDF containing Chapter 24 of The Insurance Forum: A Memoir (12 pages) and the executive compensation tabulation in the July 2013 issue of The Insurance Forum (10 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the October 2019 package relating to executive compensation.

The 361-page Memoir may be purchased at www.theinsuranceforum.com. If you would like it autographed, please so indicate on your order.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com