Thursday, July 30, 2020

No. 384: Long-Term Care Insurance—Another Update on the Skochin Lawsuit Against Genworth

Background
On January 18, 2019, Pennsylvania residents Jerome and Susan Skochin and Maryland resident Larry Huber filed a class action lawsuit against Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth) and Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC). The plaintiffs had purchased long-term care (LTC) insurance policies in 2003 and 2004 from General Electric Capital Assurance Company, a predecessor of Genworth and GLIC.

On October 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. On January 15, 2020, the judge held a hearing, granted preliminary approval of the settlement, directed that the class notice be mailed to class members, and set the final fairness hearing for July 10, 2020. I discussed the case in No. 334 (September 26, 2019), No. 371 (May 13, 2020), and No. 377 (June 15, 2020). (See Skochin v. Genworth, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 3:19-cv-49.)

The California Department's Letter
On June 12, 2020, the California Department of Insurance (Department) sent a nine-page letter to the clerk of the court and to the settlement administrator. The letter is over the signature of Leslie Tick, Assistant Chief Counsel in the Oakland office of the Department. A footnote on the first page of her letter reads:
The Department does not assert standing in this matter, and it does not maintain that this submission is a Class-Member Objection under Federal Rule of Procedure 23(c)(5).
The first paragraph of the "Summary" begins at the bottom of the first page of the letter. Here, with a citation omitted, is that paragraph (the full letter is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):
The Department is concerned that the Court and class members have not been provided sufficient information about the adequacy of the proposed relief. Plaintiffs reference $100 million in aggregate damages payments that class members are expected to receive pursuant to the Special Election Options, but do not attempt to assess the total value of the Special Election Options to class members. Specifically, Plaintiffs do not provide an assessment of the value of the benefits that class members must forfeit pursuant to any Special Election Option, and do not weigh the value of those forfeited benefits against the value of the reductions in premium, damages payments, or enhanced paid-up benefits that class members would receive. Ultimately, the Department is concerned that the proposed settlement may induce policyholders to forfeit policy benefits that are worth substantially more than the compensation they would receive and, conversely, that the settlement could provide Genworth with a windfall if reductions to future claim and reserve obligations greatly exceed damages paid.
After the next three paragraphs of the "Summary," the title of the next section of the letter reads: "Some of the Special Election Options may require class members to give up policy benefits that are worth much more than the compensation received." That section includes an "Analysis of Special Election Option 2" and an "Analysis of Special Election Option 3."

The next section of the letter is entitled "The proposed settlement does not include the information that would be needed to make an accurate actuarial assessment of the value of the Special Election Options." The final section of the letter, entitled "Conclusion," reads:
To its credit, the proposed settlement provides disclosures which will help class members to make informed decisions about their policies. It also appears to include cash payments that would be sufficient to return additional premiums paid by class members who would have been inclined to restructure their policy if fully informed of Genworth's intentions. And the Department is supportive of options that would allow long-term care policyholders to make informed decisions about their coverage and to adjust policy coverage levels. However, class members should not be asked to take reductions to their policy benefits that are disproportionate to the proposed cost-savings and settlement compensation.
The Initial Reply from Plaintiffs
On June 26, 2020, an attorney for the plaintiffs filed a reply in support of the motion for final approval of the settlement. He responded to various objections that had been submitted to the court by class members. Also, at the end of the reply, he included comments on the Department's letter. Those comments are entitled "The California Department of Insurance's Statement Does Not Undermine Approval of the Settlement." At the outset of that section of the reply, he showed the Department's summary paragraph quoted above. However, he did not show any of the "Conclusion" quoted above. His four-page initial reply to the Department's letter is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Supplemental Replies from Plaintiffs
On July 6, the judge issued a one-page order requiring the plaintiffs "to file a supplemental reply responding to each class member's objection individually by 12 P.M. July 8, 2020." The requirement to submit the supplemental reply in only two days probably was because the final fairness hearing was set for July 10. The order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

On July 8, the same attorney for the plaintiffs filed two documents. The first is a three-page "Plaintiffs' supplemental reply in support of (1) motion for final approval of class action settlement and (2) class counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and service awards to the named plaintiffs." Attached is a five-page appendix listing all the class members' objections and comments on each of them. The eight-page document is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The second document is a 15-page "Joint Statement Regarding Sequence of Final Approval and Regulatory Oversight." It contains several references to regulators in California and other states. The full document is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The July 10 Final Fairness Hearing
On July 10, the judge held the final fairness hearing. On that date, he issued a two-page order that the hearing will resume on July 14. He said the attorneys will receive a Zoom invitation, and explained how others who may wish to attend remotely may arrange to do so. The order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The July 14 Final Fairness Hearing
On July 14, the judge resumed the final fairness hearing. On July 18, he issued a three-page order "finding that the application for fees is not sufficiently supported to allow the Court to make the assessment necessary to ascertain whether the requested attorneys' fees are reasonable or warranted." He issued a three-page order that continued the final fairness hearing to August 7 and directed the attorneys for the plaintiffs to file a further explanation by July 27. The order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

On July 21, the judge issued an order continuing the final fairness hearing until 10:00 a.m. on August 7. On July 23, he issued an order continuing the hearing until 9:30 a.m. on September 11.

General Observations
I had intended to wait for the judge's final approval of the settlement and his closing of the Skochin case, and then write a final update. However, the delays in the completion of the final fairness hearing prompted me to post this additional update.

When I post the final update, I do not intend to express an opinion about the fairness of the settlement from an actuarial standpoint. I am not an actuary, and I do not feel comfortable expressing such an opinion. However, I would welcome expressions of opinion by professional actuaries. The complimentary packages offered in my four blog posts on the case provide a good starting point. If you need further documents, I have easy access to all the court documents and would be happy to provide them at your request. Should you respond to this invitation, please indicate whether you prefer your opinion to be with or without attribution, and I will honor your request.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 42-page PDF consisting of the California Department's letter to the court (9 pages), the initial reply to the Department's letter (4 pages), the judge's July 6 order (1 page), the first supplemental reply (8 pages), the second supplemental reply (15 pages), the judge's July 10 order (2 pages), and the judge's July 18 order (3 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the July 2020 package about the case of Skochin v. Genworth

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

Friday, July 24, 2020

No. 383: Long-Term Care Insurance—An Alarming Development

The Request for Proposal
On July 8, 2020, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) issued a request for proposal (RFP) No. 2065 about "Long-Term Care (LTC) Insurance Restructuring." Here are the first two paragraphs (the ten-page RFP is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is soliciting proposals from law firms to research and report on existing state laws and regulations that could support a new regulatory framework authorizing insurers to separate policies from one another.
The chosen legal consultant will identify options for insurer restructuring or transfer of blocks of business to accomplish separation of policies from insurers' general accounts to avoid material cross-state rate subsidization and consider the potential risks to state guaranty funds, existing legal impediments, and other potential issues.
The LTC Task Force
The LTC Task Force (task force) of the NAIC is chaired by Commissioner Scott A. White of Virginia. When the task force was appointed, neither the Virginia Bureau of Insurance nor the NAIC answered my question about whether Virginia was selected because Genworth is based there. When I saw the RFP, I asked the Virginia Bureau for more details. A spokesperson referred me to the NAIC. The NAIC did not respond.

The task force has been operating partly in public and partly in secret. As I reported in No. 332 (September 12, 2019), the task force identified six "workstreams": (1) multistate rate review practices, (2) restructuring techniques, (3) reduced benefit options and consumer notices, (4) valuation of LTCI reserves, (5) non-actuarial valuations, and (6) data call design and oversight. I think the RFP discussed in this post grew out of one or both of the first two "workstreams."

Policy Transfers
I have written extensively about policy transfers from one insurance company to another in The Insurance Forum and later in this blog. My first article, of about 30 on the subject, was in the October 1989 issue of the Forum. When I circulated that article and one later article to each of the state insurance commissioners, many of them expressed keen interest. I described developments over the next quarter century in Chapter 23 of my 2015 book entitled The Insurance Forum: A Memoir. The three-page October 1989 article and the 15-page Chapter 23 are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The underlying issue is easily explained. In an insurance policy, which is a legal contract, the policyholder is the creditor and the insurance company is the debtor. A debtor cannot transfer its obligations under the contract to another party without the consent of the creditor. Such a transfer is called a "novation," which is the substitution of one debtor for another, and which cannot be accomplished without the creditor's consent.

General Observations
I am alarmed that the NAIC, through its RFP, may be thinking of taking steps that arguably would violate the constitutional rights of LTC insurance policyholders. The constitutionality issue is discussed in Chapter 23 of my Memoir. The RFP does not mention such an objective, but I fear they will try to avoid the need to obtain the consent of the policyholders. Should they try to do so, I think the NAIC and its legal consultant will face strenuous opposition.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 28-page PDF consisting of the RFP (10 pages), the October 1989 Forum article (3 pages), and Chapter 23 of my Memoir (15 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the July 2020 package about the NAIC's RFP.

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

Thursday, July 16, 2020

No. 382: Former Special Counsel Mueller Speaks Out

Robert S. Muller III served as special counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice from 2017 to 2019.  He rarely speaks out, but he did so after President Donald J. Trump commuted the 40-month sentence of Robert J. Stone Jr. three days before Stone was to report to prison.

Mueller's 757-word statement is an op-ed entitled "Roger Stone remains a convicted felon, and rightly so."  It is in the July 12 issue of The Washington Post.  The first paragraph reads (the full statement is here):
The work of the special counsel's office—its report, indictments, guilty pleas and convictions—should speak for itself.  But I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper, and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office.  The Russia investigation was of paramount importance.  Stone was prosecuted and convicted because he committed federal crimes.  He remains a convicted felon, and rightly so.
===================================

Monday, July 13, 2020

No. 381: Executive Compensation in the Insurance Industry—2019 Data from 2020 SEC Filings

Background
The Insurance Forum, my monthly newsletter, began with the January 1974 issue and ended with the December 2013 issue. In 1975 I began publishing data on executive compensation in the insurance industry. Chapter 24 of my 2015 book, The Insurance Forum: A Memoir, describes the history of my executive compensation tabulations and the efforts of the insurance industry and insurance regulators to block my access to the data.

Most of the efforts to block access involved two organizations. One was the New York Department of Insurance, which is now the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS). The other was the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Some of those efforts were successful and some were not. However, I never encountered problems with access to data filed by shareholder-owned insurance companies with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).


Since ending publication of the Forum, I have from time to time published executive compensation data through blog posts. The most recent post was No. 335 (October 3, 2019), in which I published data for 2018 from my three major sources—SEC, NYDFS, and the Nebraska Department of Insurance (NDOI). Here I show 2019 data from the SEC. I plan to show 2019 data from NYDFS and NDOI later.


The SEC Data

During the final seven years of the Forum, I showed data for individuals who received at least $1 million in the year covered. In the current tabulation, which is at the end of this post, I show data for individuals who received at least $5 million in 2019. Each figure in the tabulation is the "Total" shown in the 2019 "summary compensation table."

The 2019 summary compensation tables for most companies are in the proxy statement filed in advance of the 2020 annual meeting of shareholders. For the two Canadian companies—Manulife Financial and Sun Life Financial—the tables are in 6-K annual reports and the figures shown are in Canadian dollars. Where more than one individual in a company is shown, they are listed in descending order of compensation.


How to Access the SEC Tables

For readers who want to access the SEC summary compensation tables, go to:


In the "Company and Personal Lookup" box, enter the ticker symbol if you know it, and click "Search." Examples of ticker symbols are AIG for American International Group, GNW for Genworth Financial, MET for MetLife, PRU for Prudential Financial, and PRI for Primerica. If you do not know the ticker symbol, enter the company name (or a portion of it) and click "Search." If your search produces a list of companies with similar names, you will need to click on the one you want. When you make your selection, a list of documents in reverse chronological order by filing date will appear. Select the most recent "DEF 14A" definitive proxy statement. The proxy's table of contents may contain a link to the summary compensation table. If it does not, you will need to search for it, but it is usually not hard to find.


A Note on Women

I believe that the above 2019 list includes only twelve women. I checked back in the above mentioned No. 335, and I believe that the 2018 SEC list there included only nine women. I do not know when the top ranks of insurance companies will include a large number of women.

Available Material

The Insurance Forum: A Memoir and back issues of the Forum containing executive compensation tabulations are available for purchase from us. The final tabulation in the Forum was in the July 2013 issue. Ordering instructions are on our website at theinsuranceforum.com.

SEC Data for 2019
AFLAC Inc
Daniel P Amos
$14,108,852
Frederick J Crawford
5,218,692
Alleghany Corp
Weston M Hicks
13,993,062
John L Sennott Jr
8,968,661
Joseph P Brandon
6,035,398
Allstate Corp
Thomas J Wilson
19,615,696
Steven E Shebik
6,978,948
AMBAC Financial Group Inc
Claude LeBlanc
5,588,236
American Financial Group Inc
Carl H Lindner III
10,464,587
S Craig Lindner
10,457,420
American International Group Inc
Brian Duperreault
19,369,637
Peter Zaffino
18,388,334
Douglas A Dachille
10,545,619
Kevin T Hogan
8,294,833
Mark D Lyons
7,755,130
Ameriprise Financial Inc
James M Cracchiolo
24,516,930
Walter S Berman
9,642,581
William F Truscott
7,726,201
Colin Moore
6,284,780
Joseph E Sweeney
5,114,622
Anthem Inc
Gail K Boudreaux
15,473,139
Felicia F Norwood
7,922,755
Gloria M McCarthy
5,247,126
John E Gallina
5,109,053
Peter D Haytaian
5,076,966
Aon plc
Gregory C Case
16,007,843
Christa Davies
7,739,418
Peter Lieb
5,642,995
Arch Capital Group Ltd
Marc Grandisson
9,360,029
Arthur J Gallagher & Co
Pat Gallagher
8,960,616
Assurant Inc
Alan B Colberg
10,155,682
Gene E Mergelmeyer
5,949,189
Assured Guaranty Ltd
Dominic J Frederico
12,153,470
AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd
Albert A Benchimol
9,278,330
Berkshire Hathaway Inc
Gregory E Abel
19,014,000
Ajit Jain
19,014,000
Brighthouse Financial Inc
Eric Steigerwalt
8,490,118
Brunswick Corp
David M Foulkes
5,840,775
Centene Corp
Michael F Neidorff
26,438,425
Jeffrey A Schwaneke
9,434,284
Brandy L Burkhalter
8,637,416
Jesse N Hunter
6,118,969
Chubb Ltd
Evan G Greenberg
20,475,070
John W Keogh
8,105,031
Paul J Krump
7,638,117
John J Lupica
6,691,425
Philip V Bancroft
5,078,019
Cigna Corp
Timothy C Wentworth
23,544,332
David M Cordani
19,303,032
Matthew G Manders
6,199,848
Eric P Palmer
6,140,264
CNA Financial Corp
Dino E Robusto
13,054,480
CNO Financial Group Inc
Gary C Bhojwani
6,792,823
CVS Health Corp (Acquired Aetna)
Larry J Merlo
36,451,749
Jonathan C Roberts
15,048,380
Eva C Boratto
9,564,223
Equitable Holdings Inc
Mark Pearson
11,254,123
Seth Bernstein
9,444,889
Jeffrey Hurd
5,329,638
Nick Lane
5,310,608
Everest Re Group Ltd
Dominic J Addesso
7,628,608
Fidelity National Financial Inc
Raymond R Quirk
9,646,148
Brent B Bickett
6,080,183
First American Financial Corp
Dennis J Gilmore
10,367,225
Christopher M Leavell
5,276,048
Kenneth D DeGiorgio
5,229,453
Genworth Financial Inc
Thomas J McInerney
9,102,634
Daniel J Sheehan IV
5,766,990
Kevin D Schneider
5,583,956
Globe Life Inc (Formerly Torchmark)
Gary L Coleman
8,342,279
Larry M Hutchison
8,337,263
Hartford Financial Services Group Inc
Christopher Swift
14,560,748
Douglas Elliot
9,332,849
Heritage Insurance Holdings Inc
Bruce Lucas
6,076,316
Humana Inc
Bruce D Broussard
16,726,455
Brian A Kane
5,381,124
Kemper Corp
Joseph P Lacher Jr
8,560,950
Lincoln National Corp
Dennis R Glass
15,412,217
Loews Corp
James S Tisch
5,738,615
David B Edelson
5,326,200
Kenneth I Siegel
5,166,201
Jonathan M Tisch
5,018,643
Magellan Health Inc
Barry M Smith
8,357,548
Manulife Financial Corp
(Canadian Dollars)
Roy Gori
14,695,549
Rashul Joshi
6,689,275
Marianne Harrison
6,347,665
Anil Wadhwani
5,647,644
Phil Witherington
5,112,122
Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc
Daniel S Glaser
20,331,697
John Q Doyle
7,890,432
Dominic J Burke
6,935,944
Martine Ferland
6,461,959
Mark C McGivney
5,648,555
MetLife Inc
Michel A Khalaf
14,570,581
Steven A Kandarian
12,037,102
Steven J Goulart
7,088,939
John D McCallion
6,319,358
Martin J Lippert
5,467,707
MGIC Investment Corp
Patrick Sinks
7,541,912
Molina Healthcare Inc
Joseph M Zubretsky
18,025,074
Mr Cooper Group Inc
Christopher Marshall
9,127,757
Jay Bray
7,194,496
National General Holdings Corp
Barry Karfunkel
5,607,270
Robert Karfunkel
5,037,270
Primerica Inc
Glenn J Williams
5,279,228
Principal Financial Group Inc
Daniel J Houston
14,748,051
Timothy M Dunbar
6,176,552
Patrick G Halter
5,027,436
Progressive Corp
Susan Patricia Griffith
14,041,272
Prudential Financial Inc
Mark B Grier
17,179,235
Charles F Lowrey
15,132,939
Stephen Pelletier
14,831,222
Robert M Falzon
12,082,978
Scott G Sleyster
7,495,887
Radian Group Inc
Richard G Thornberry
8,197,874
Reinsurance Group of America Inc
Anna Manning
8,116,275
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd
Kevin J O'Donnell
10,768,159
State Auto Financial Corp
Michael E LaRocco
5,042,968
Sun Life Financial Inc
(Canadian Dollars)
Dean A Connor
9,646,625
Stephen C Peacher
7,178,598
Travelers Companies Inc
Alan D Schnitzer
16,778,809
William H Heyman
6,123,164
Avrohom J Kess
6,303,440
Gregory C Toczydlowski
5,257,621
UnitedHealth Group Inc
David S Wichmann
18,886,989
Andrew P Witty
16,526,020
Steven H Nelson
14,059,422
John F Rex
10,627,085
Dirk C McMahon
8,966,980
Stephen J Hemsley
7,389,261
Marianne D Short
6,963,677
Universal Insurance Holdings Inc
Sean P Downes
5,406,060
Unum Corp
Richard P McKenney
9,727,186
Voya Financial Inc
Rodney O Martin Jr
12,554,291
Christine Hurtsellers
6,419,295
Michael S Smith
5,159,992
Charles P Nelson
5,001,396
W R Berkley Corp
William R Berkley
11,289,025
W Robert Berkley Jr
11,017,931
White Mountains Insurance Group Ltd
G Manning Rountree
6,858,274

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

Monday, July 6, 2020

No. 380: Prudential Agreed in 2016 To Settle a 2012 Federal Securities Lawsuit

In No. 378 (June 24, 2020), I discussed a 2012 federal securities class action lawsuit against MetLife, Inc. that the company is settling in 2020. A reader promptly informed me of a similar 2012 federal securities class action lawsuit against Prudential Financial, Inc. that the company settled in 2016. Here I discuss the Prudential case.

On August 22, 2012, the City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System filed a class action lawsuit against Prudential (NYSE:PRU) and four senior officers of the company. (Sterling Heights is in Michigan.) The class consisted of all purchasers of Prudential common stock between May 5, 2010 and November 2, 2011. The original 50-page complaint alleged three counts of violations of federal securities laws. On May 6, 2013, the plaintiff filed a 114-page amended complaint containing two counts. (See City of Sterling Heights v. Prudential, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Case No 2-12-cv-5275.)

Prudential's Descriptions of the Case
After the original complaint was filed, Prudential included a one-paragraph description of the case in the company's 10-Q report for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2012. After the case was settled, Prudential included a one-paragraph description in the company's 10-Q report for the quarter ended September 30, 2016, filed November 4, 2016. Those two short descriptions are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Amended Complaint
The court filings in the City of Sterling Heights case were extensive throughout the four years during which the case was fought. The "Introduction and Review" section of the amended complaint alleged that Prudential used the Social Security Administration's Death Master File (DMF), known to be incomplete and inaccurate, to stop making payments to life annuitants. Another allegation was that the company did not use the DMF to try to locate life insurance beneficiaries, therefore avoiding either the escheatment of unclaimed property to the states or the payment of death benefits to beneficiaries. Part of the amended complaint is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Settlement
A memorandum of law described the settlement. The settlement amount was $33 million. Out of that was paid 30 percent ($9.9 million) for attorneys' fees and almost $800,000 for attorneys' expenses. Here was part of a paragraph from the memorandum of law (the first 15 pages of the memorandum of law are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):
Lead Counsel have succeeded in obtaining a $33,000,000 cash settlement for the benefit of the Class. This is a very good result in the face of substantial risk and is a credit to Lead Counsel's vigorous, persistent, and skilled efforts. Lead Counsel respectfully move this Court for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of 30% of the Settlement Amount and payment of their litigation expenses in the amount of $798,955.79, plus interest on both amounts....
On September 29, 2016, the judge issued an order approving the plan of settlement, an order awarding attorneys' fees and expenses, and a final judgment and order dismissing the case with prejudice (permanently). The final judgment and order are in the complimentary package at the end of this post.

General Observations
I have no basis on which to express an opinion on the fairness of the settlement in the Prudential case. Therefore, I will not do so.

The MetLife case discussed in No. 378 and the Prudential case discussed here have several similarities. First, both cases started in 2012. Second, the MetLife case dragged on for more than eight years; it is now being settled. Third, the Prudential case dragged on for more than four years; it was settled in 2016. Fourth, both cases involved failure to use the DMF to find missing life insurance beneficiaries. Fifth, both cases involved the use of the DMF to avoid payments to life annuitants. Sixth, both cases involved major investigations by state unclaimed property officials. Seventh, both cases involved major investigations by state insurance regulators. Eighth, both cases involved strong denials of wrongdoing by company officials. I think it is likely there were similar lawsuits against other life insurance companies.

Email from a Reader
After No. 378 was posted, I received an email from a reader. Here is a lightly edited version of what the reader said:
Thanks for your post about MetLife's settlement. Most MetLife common stock is held by institutional investors. If Vanguard, Black Rock, State Street, and the other exchange traded funds and mutual funds get a check as part of the settlement, I question whether beneficial investors will participate. I guess theoretically money should go to the beneficial owners who held shares during the class period. I am pretty sure there will be no effort by the exchange traded funds and mutual funds to go back eight years to try to sort out who owned shares at the time. The companies settling such cases almost never admit wrongdoing. Their strategy seems to be to drag out the litigation until the substance of the complaint is forgotten and then work to minimize any negative public relations problems associated with the settlement.
Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 41-page PDF consisting of Prudential's short descriptions of the case (1 page), an excerpt from the amended complaint (18 pages), an excerpt from a memorandum of law (15 pages), and the judge's final order and judgment (7 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the July 2020 package about the case of City of Sterling Heights v. Prudential.

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

Monday, June 29, 2020

No. 379: The John Newton Russell Memorial Award and a Letter to NAIFA

The JNR Award
In each year since the 1940s, the National Association of Life Underwriters (NALU) and its successor, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA), have been issuing the John Newton Russell Memorial Award (JNR Award). NAIFA describes the JNR Award as
the highest honor that can be bestowed upon an individual in the life insurance and financial planning industry. The award recognizes a lifetime of professional excellence, service to the industry, and commitment to ethical conduct.
About 60 years ago, when I first learned of the JNR Award, I was struck by the fact that it is given only to living recipients. That seemed odd in view of the huge contributions made by many deceased individuals.

The May 2018 Letter
I was deeply honored to receive the JNR Award in 2017. The honor was accompanied by the requirement that I serve on the nominating committee for three years. In that capacity, I considered writing to NAIFA to suggest giving the JNR Award occasionally to a deceased person. Before sending the letter, however, I ran the idea by a few old friends (all JNR Award recipients). They were receptive to the idea.

On May 22, 2018, I sent a letter to NAIFA and suggested giving the JNR Award occasionally to a deceased individual. Here are three sentences near the end of the letter:
One possibility would be to grant an award to a deceased person only once every five years. Another possibility would be to occasionally grant two awards in a single year—one to a living person and one to a deceased person. I might add that granting an award occasionally to a deceased person would serve the purpose of educating NAIFA members and others about the rich history of the life insurance business.
Attached to the letter were discussions of Elizur Wright (the first insurance regulator in the U.S.) and Charles Evans Hughes (counsel of the Armstrong investigation in New York in 1905). Also mentioned in the letter was Jacob Lyman Greene, who was chief executive officer of Connecticut Mutual during the tontine wars.

In response to the letter, a NAIFA official informed me the board had considered and rejected the idea. However, the official did not give a reason for the rejection.

General Observations
I think the occasional granting of a JNR Award to a deceased person is a reasonable suggestion. However, I would welcome readers' thoughts. My May 2018 letter and the attachments are here.

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

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

No. 378: MetLife Agrees to Settle an Eight-Year-Old Federal Securities Lawsuit

On January 12, 2012, the City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System filed a class action lawsuit against MetLife, Inc. (NYSE:MET) and several MetLife senior officers and directors. The classes of plaintiffs consist of MetLife shareholders who allegedly suffered losses as the result of defendants' violations of federal securities laws. The original complaint has three counts of such violations. On May 14, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint containing five counts. (See City of Westland v. MetLife, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No 1-12-cv-256.)

MetLife's Descriptions of the Case
After the original complaint was filed, MetLife included a one-paragraph description of the case in the company's 10-K report for the year ended December 31, 2011, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2012. The most recent description is in the company's 10-Q report for the quarter ended March 31, 2020, filed May 8, 2020. Those two short descriptions are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

Recently I learned through news reports that the parties are settling the case. I asked a media relations person at MetLife whether the company has issued a statement about the settlement. The person referred me to another person, from whom I heard nothing. I followed up with the person who had made the referral. MetLife apparently has not issued a statement recently on the case (other than the short statement in the latest 10-Q report, which does not mention the settlement). The person provided the following statement, which apparently was prepared especially for me:
MetLife denies the claims brought forward in the lawsuit and strongly believes its conduct was at all times proper and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The company is entering into this settlement to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation.
On page 80 in the 10-Q report for the quarter ended March 31, 2020, MetLife said its board received six letters dated from March 2018 to April 2020 on behalf of individual shareholders. I asked the media relations person for copies of the letters. In response, another person said: "The 10-Q you reference is the public notification of those letters. The letters themselves are not public."

The Original Complaint
The court filings in the City of Westland case have been extensive throughout the eight years since the case began. Here is part of the "Summary of Action" in the original 22-page complaint (the full complaint is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):
This is a securities fraud class action alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of MetLife, Inc. between February 2, 2010 and October 6, 2011, inclusive. The claims asserted herein are brought against MetLife and certain of its current and former officers and directors...
During the class period, the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and multiple violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ... by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future financial condition in quarterly and year-end financial statements.
The Amended Complaint
The amended complaint is more elaborate than the original complaint. The first 13 pages of the 182-page document include a "Table of Contents" and an "Introduction and Review." The latter section, for example, alleges that MetLife used the Social Security Administration's Death Master File (DMF) to stop payments to supposedly deceased life annuitants, and did not use the DMF to identify and locate life insurance beneficiaries to whom death benefits may have been owed. In other words, the amended complaint alleges that the company did not adjust its reserves to reflect that it had unclaimed property subject to escheatment pursuant to state unclaimed property laws. The first 13 pages of the amended complaint are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Class Notice
On June 17, 2020, as part of the filing of a request to the judge for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, the plaintiff submitted as an exhibit a proposed notice to be sent to the members of the various classes. The notice has not yet been sent out, because the judge has not yet approved the form of the class notice. Nonetheless, the proposed notice is helpful because of its description of the case. Part of the beginning of the "Statement of Class Recovery" in the proposed notice reads:
Pursuant to the Settlement described herein, an $84,000,000.00 settlement fund has been established (the "Settlement Amount"). The Settlement Amount together with any interest earned thereon is the "Settlement Fund." The Settlement Fund, less (a) any taxes, (b) any Notice and Administration Expenses, and (c) any attorneys' fees and litigation costs, charges and expenses (including any award to Lead Plaintiff of its costs and expenses in representing the Classes) awarded by the Court, will be distributed to Members of the Classes in accordance with a plan of allocation that is approved by the Court. The proposed plan of allocation (the "Plan of Allocation") is set forth on pages ___ below. Based on the Lead Plaintiff's estimate of the number of shares of MetLife common stock eligible to recover, the average distribution under the Plan of Allocation is roughly $0.26 per common share, before deduction of any taxes on the income earned on the Settlement Fund, Notice and Administration Expenses, and allowable attorneys' fees and expenses (including any award to Lead Plaintiff) as determined by the Court. Members of the Classes should note, however, that these are only estimates [emphasis in original].
The proposed class notice consists of 22 pages. It is included in full in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

General Observations
The lengthy court docket in this case reveals that the parties fought the case intensely during the entire eight years since it was filed. During that time, they met three times with a retired judge in unsuccessful efforts to mediate the dispute. Now that the matters prompting the lawsuit are ancient history, the parties are settling the case as quietly as possible. Among those matters, for example, are investigations by state insurance regulators into the failure of companies to pay certain life annuity benefits and life insurance death benefits, and investigations by state unclaimed property officials into the failure of companies to escheat unclaimed property to the states. I think the case provides an important history lesson for persons keenly interested in the life insurance business.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 58-page PDF consisting of MetLife's short descriptions of the case (1 page), the original complaint (22 pages), the beginning of the amended complaint (13 pages), and the proposed class notice (22 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the June 2020 package about the case of City of Westland v. MetLife.

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