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.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

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.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

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.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 404: Executive Compensation in the Insurance Industry—2019 Data from the Nebraska Department of Insurance

Background

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 the Forum ended with the December 2013 issue. From time to time since then, I have posted some executive compensation data on my blog. Recent tabulations include No. 335 (October 3, 2019), where I showed 2018 data from my three sources of information: the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), and the Nebraska Department of Insurance (NDI). In No. 381 (July 13, 2020), I showed 2019 data from the SEC. In No. 385 (August 7, 2020), I showed 2019 data from the DFS. Here I show 2019 data from the NDI.

NDI Data for 2019

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

In the tabulation below, I show data for individuals who received at least $5 million in 2019. Where two or more individuals in a company are shown, they are listed in descending order of compensation.

The Allocation Problem and a Modification

Where companies are members of a holding company group, some companies show the total amount received by each individual from all companies in the holding company group. Some companies, however, allocate each individual's compensation to each company in the holding company group.

For companies that allocate, the difficulty in locating all companies doing business in Nebraska that are part of a holding company group has become increasingly prohibitive. For that reason, I have modified the tabulation shown below from past years in that this year I did not attempt to assemble the group data. I have instead shown the figures for the company with the largest dollar amounts for each group.

For some individuals listed below, because of the modification, the compensation figure shown is smaller, and in some instances probably much smaller, than the individual's total compensation from all members of the holding company group. Also, because of the modification, some companies probably are not listed because no individual had at least $5 million of compensation from a single company in their group.

NDI Data for 2019
Acuity, A Mutual Ins Co
Benjamin M Salzmann	$16,347,333
Aetna Life Ins Co
Richard M Jelinek	9,658,380
Karen S Lynch	8,673,924
AFLAC Inc
Daniel P Amos	14,744,603
Frederick J Crawford	5,505,399
Allianz Life Ins North America
Walter R White	6,746,838
Allstate Ins Co
Thomas J Wilson	16,261,339
Steven E Shebik	5,915,393
AMBAC Assurance Corp
Claude LeBlanc	5,289,234
American Family Ins Co
Jack C Salzwedel	11,251,032
American General Life Ins Co
Kevin Hogan	9,411,779
American United Life Ins Co
James S Davison	6,064,438
Amguard Ins Co
Sy Foguel	5,299,791
Assured Guaranty Corp
Dominic Frederico	12,736,290
Assurity Life Ins Co
Thomas E Henning	7,814,132
Athene Annuity & Life Assur Co
James Belardi	5,007,098
Atlantic Specialty Ins
Timothy M Miller	5,036,019
AXA Equitable Life Ins Co
Mark Pearson	6,295,387
BCS Ins Co
Howard F Beacham III	21,435,850
Brighthouse Life Ins Co
Eric T Steigerwalt	8,229,713
Care Improvement Plus of Texas
Janice Clayton Zigler	5,428,024
Chicago Title Ins Co
Raymond Randall Quirk	14,579,836
Roger Scott Jewkes	8,729,398
Michael Joseph Nolan	7,157,620
Anthny John Park	5,344,120
Chubb Indemnity Ins Co
John J Lupica	6,030,000
Paul J Krump	5,003,500
Continental Casualty Co
Dina Robusto	9,135,270
Employers Assurance Co
Douglas Dean Dirks	5,315,872
Essent Guaranty Inc
Mark Casale	7,636,915
Everest Reinsurance Co
Dominic J Addesso	10,759,779
Juan C Andrade	10,481,729
Farmers Ins Exchange
Jeffrey J Dailey	7,853,208
First American Title Ins Co
Dennis Gilmore	8,588,389
GEICO Casualty Co
Olza Minor Nicely	15,452,510
William Evan Roberts	7,789,401
Genworth Life Ins Co
Thomas McInerney	9,115,260
Globe Life & Accident Ins Co
Frank M Svoboda	9,359,904
William M Pressley	6,474,615
Bill E Leavell	5,400,498
Great American Ins Co
Carl H Lindner III	10,284,610
Great-West Life Assur Co (US)
Robert Shaw	7,638,745
Andra S Bolotin	5,902,744
Edmund F Murphy	5,215,422
Guardian Life Ins Co of America
Deanna Mulligan	8,606,700
Tracy L Rich	6,418,359
Hartford Fire Ins Co
Christopher Swift	6,175,641
Health Care Service Corp
Paula Steiner	31,013,500
Eric Feldstein	7,471,886
David Lesar	6,038,111
Horace Mann Ins Co
Marita Zuraitis	7,429,404
Humana Ins Co
Bruce D Broussard	24,635,360
Illinois Ins Co
Steven Menzies	10,657,018
Insurance Co of the West
Kevin Prior	13,694,265
Ernest Rady	5,861,143
Jackson National Life Ins Co
Paul C Myers	7,008,073
John Hancock Life Ins Co USA
Daniel Janis III	6,692,374
Emory Sanders Jr	5,765,776
Christopher Conkey	5,264,701
Liberty Mutual Ins Co
David H Long	12,701,326
Timothy Sweeney	5,341,983
Lincoln National Life Ins Co
Dennis R Glass	28,328,586
Randal J Freitag	7,747,826
Wilford H Fuller	7,332,269
Ellen G Cooper	6,073,150
Lisa M Buckingham	5,169,731
Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins Co
Roger Crandall	17,808,738
Elizabeth Chicares	6,933,041
Michael Fanning	6,420,327
Melvin T Corbett	6,337,670
Metropolitan Life Ins Co
Michel Khalaf	6,505,805
Steven J Goulart	6,338,392
Mortgage Guaranty Ins Corp
Patrick Sinks	7,389,088
National Western Life Ins Co
Ross R Moody	6,831,982
National Life Ins Co
Mehran Assadi	7,788,000
New York Life Ins Co
Theodore A Mathas	24,007,290
Craig L DeSanto	5,452,283
Anthony R Malloy	5,246,200
Northwestern Mutual Life Ins Co
John E Schlifske	13,692,772
Ohio National Life Ins Co
Gary Thomas Huffman	8,955,246
Pacific Life Ins Co
James T Morris	8,290,370
Penn Mutual Life Ins Co
Eileen McDonnell	5,596,160
Philadelphia Indemnity Ins Co
Robert D O'Leary	5,146,147
Principal Life Ins Co
Karl W Nolin	7,113,249
Daniel J Houston	7,000,237
Mustafa Sagun	5,232,118
Protective Life Ins Co
John Johns	11,046,696
Richard Bielen	6,749,265
Prudential Ins Co of America
Mark Brown Grier	7,633,867
Charles F Lowrey	6,854,886
Robert Michael Falzon	5,296,179
Stephen Pelletier	5,220,842
QCC Ins Co
Daniel J Hilferty	5,718,026
Radian Guaranty Inc
Richard Thornberry	9,040,149
Sagicor Life Ins Co
Dodridge Miller	12,468,464
Scor Reinsurance Co
Mark Kociancic	6,918,899
Selective Ins Co of America
Gregory Murphy	5,330,094
Standard Ins Co
John Gregory Ness	9,161,498
Starr Indemnity & Liability Co
Maurice R Greenberg	10,802,945
State Farm Mutual
Michael Leon Tipsord	10,271,892
Teachers Ins & Annuity Assn
Ronald Pressman	8,546,026
Roger Ferguson	6,252,325
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans
Bradford L Hewitt	7,013,638
Transatlantic Reinsurance Co
Michael C Sapnar	6,884,413
Kenneth Apfel	5,607,047
Travelers Casualty Co
Alan D Schnitzer	15,303,458
Willaim H Heyman	6,389,000
Avrohom J Kess	6,067,301
Jay S Benet	5,023,442
United of Omaha Life Ins Co
James T Blackledge	5,093,821
United States Liability Ins Co
Thomas P Nemey	21,417,692
Voya Retirement Ins & Annuity
Charles Patrick Nelson	5,427,368
Western & Southern Life Ins Co
John Barrett	9,499,300

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 403: General Electric Enters into a $200 Million Settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission

In No. 395 (October 26, 2020), I said General Electric Company (GE) had received a Wells notice on September 30, 2020 from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The notice related to an SEC investigation of, among other things, GE's inadequate reserves for its legacy long-term care (LTC) insurance business. On December 9, 2020, GE filed an 8-K (significant event) report disclosing that GE and the SEC had entered into a $200 million settlement to end the previously disclosed SEC investigation.

The GE 8-K

In the 8-K, GE said it had reached a settlement in connection with the SEC investigation. GE went on to say (the relevant section of the 8-K is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

Consistent with common SEC practice, GE neither admits nor denies the findings in the administrative order that the SEC issued today. Under the terms of the settlement, GE consented to the entry of an order requiring it to pay a civil penalty of $200 million and to cease and desist from violations of specified provisions of the federal securities laws and rules promulgated thereunder.

The SEC Order

A paragraph near the beginning of the SEC Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings reads as follows (the full Order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent [GE] has submitted an Offer of Settlement which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purposes of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission's jurisdiction over it and the subject matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, as set forth below.

No Admission of Wrongdoing

The "neither admits nor denies" language is an important part of the GE/SEC settlement. In No. 244 (December 11, 2017), I wrote about an SEC settlement in August 2013 with Philip A. Falcone and companies associated with him. There I quoted at some length from a January 2014 speech by then SEC Chair Mary Jo White. Here is a brief, edited description of what she said:

For many years, the SEC, like virtually every other civil law enforcement agency, typically did not require entities or individuals to admit wrongdoing in order to enter into a settlement. This no admit/no deny settlement protocol makes sense and has served the public interest well. She cited such things as more and quicker settlements and avoidance of litigation risk. So why modify the no admit/no deny protocol? She cited such things as a greater measure of public accountability and the need for public confidence in the strength and credibility of law enforcement. She said that, as a U.S. Attorney, she had required an admission of wrongdoing in a 1994 case, and she brought that mind set when she became SEC Chair in 2013.

General Observations

One knowledgeable reader with whom I spoke about the settlement thought the dollar amount of the settlement was a pittance. However, I am not in a position to express an opinion on that matter.

As for the no admit/no deny protocol, it will be interesting to see what happens when the SEC, the Department of Justice, and other federal law enforcement agencies become part of the Biden administration. I cannot predict what will happen, but I hope the no admit/no deny protocol will receive close attention.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 20-page PDF consisting of an excerpt from the GE 8-K (1 page) and the SEC Order (19 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the December 2020 package about the GE/SEC settlement.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 402: Brian Alfaro, a Former Texas Securities Broker, Goes to Federal Prison

On November 10, 2020, the U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Texas issued a press release announcing that Brian Keith Alfaro, a former Texas securities broker (CRD #4049120), was sentenced to 121 months in federal prison and ordered to pay restitution of almost $10 million for "scheming to defraud investors." I say "former" because Alfaro has been barred from the securities industry. The press release is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Federal Indictments

On November 28, 2018, a federal grand jury in San Antonio handed down an eight-count sealed indictment against Alfaro. The indictment was unsealed a few days later, after Alfaro's arrest. He pleaded not guilty.

The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Samuel F. Biery. President Clinton nominated him in November 1993. The Senate confirmed him in March 1994. He served as Chief Judge from June 2010 to December 2015.

On June 19, 2019, the grand jury handed down a superseding eight-count indictment. The seventh of the eight mail fraud counts in both indictments was later dismissed at the government's request. The superseding indictment is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Federal Jury Trial

In early February 2020, the federal jury trial was held. The jury found Alfaro guilty on all seven remaining counts. The jury verdict form is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

On November 20, 2020, the judge sentenced Alfaro to 121 months in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release, no fine, a $600 special assessment, and restitution of almost $10 million. (See U.S.A. v. Alfaro, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Case No. 5:18-cr-879.)

The Texas Order

On November 9, 2020, Texas Securities Commissioner Travis J. Iles issued an Emergency Cease and Desist Order directed at Alfaro, members of his family, and others associated with him. The order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The FINRA Report

"Broker Check" is operated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority on its website (finra.org). I reviewed the report on Alfaro. He is described as a "previously registered broker" and as currently "barred." The report shows six "disclosure events" consisting of one "criminal" event, four "customer dispute" events, and one "investigation" event.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 32-page PDF consisting of the U.S. Attorney's press release (1 page), the superseding indictment (10 pages), the jury verdict form (3 pages), and the Texas emergency order (18 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the December 2020 package about Alfaro.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 401: Unum Life of America Takes a $2 Billion Hit to Its Long-Term Care Insurance Reserves

The MBOI Examination of ULA
On June 30, 2020, Eric A. Cioppa, the Superintendent of the Maine Bureau of Insurance (MBOI), accepted and made public the Report of Examination of Unum Life Insurance Company of America (ULA) as of December 30, 2018 (Report). On page 19 of the Report are two paragraphs disclosing that ULA suffered a $2 billion hit to the reserves for its long-term care (LTC) insurance business. Here are the two paragraphs (the full Report is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

As discussed in the Summary of Significant Findings and Note 1 to the Comments on the Financial Statements of this Report, the MBOI found ULA's gross LTC reserves to be deficient by $2,085,740,649 as of December 31, 2018 as a result of this examination. On May 1, 2020, the MBOI approved a permitted practice which allows ULA to delay full recognition of the statutory reserve deficiency identified in connection with this examination that would otherwise be required under Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles (SSAP) 54 Individual and Group Accident and Health Contracts. The request was made subject to the confidential Phase in, Guardrails and Monitoring Plan for Unum Life Insurance Company of America LTC Statutory Reserve Strengthening ("Plan"). The reserve increase will be recognized over a seven-year period beginning with the statutory financial statements for the year-ended December 31, 2020 and continue until the statutory financial statement for the year-ended December 31, 2026 according to a defined schedule, as outlined in the Plan. The permitted accounting practice was approved retroactively to December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2019 such that no additional reserves would be required to be reported until year-end 2020. If this permitted practice had not been granted, it is estimated that ULA's net income and surplus at December 31, 2018 would have been reduced by approximately $2.1 billion due to the need to write off the uncollectible reinsurance recoverable and reverse the cession of the $2.1 billion of reserves to Fairwind. The MBOI will monitor ULA's compliance with the Plan during the reserve phase-in period by continuing the limited scope examination.

[ULA] paid dividends of $492,000,000 to Unum Group during 2019. [ULA] paid a dividend to Unum Group of $234,000,000 in the first quarter of 2020.

Fairwind, referred to above, is Fairwind Insurance Company. It is an affiliated captive insurance company with which ULA had entered into reinsurance arrangements. Those arrangements are discussed in the Report.

The Kansas/GE Parallel

The MBOI bailout of ULA bears a striking resemblance to the 2018 bailout of General Electric Company (GE) by the Kansas Insurance Department. I discussed the Kansas/GE matter in No. 258 (March 19, 2018).

In January 2018, GE disclosed it would contribute $15 billion of capital to Employers Reassurance Corporation (ERAC), a GE subsidiary domiciled in Kansas. ERAC requested and the Kansas department approved an arrangement allowing GE to "spread and delay" contributing the additional reserves over the next seven years.

GE also reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was investigating the matter. In October 2020, GE reported that it received a Wells notice from the SEC staff indicating the staff may recommend enforcement action by the SEC. I discussed the Wells notice in No. 395 (October 26, 2020).

General Observations

I do not know whether the SEC will investigate the MBOI bailout of ULA. However, such an investigation would come as no surprise, given the similarity between the MBOI/ULA bailout and the Kansas/GE bailout. In any case, I plan to report further developments relating to both bailouts.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 24-page PDF containing the recent MBOI examination report on ULA. Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the December 2020 package about the MBOI/ULA examination report.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com