No. 385: Executive Compensation in the Insurance Industry—2019 Data from 2020 NYDFS 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. 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. In No. 335 (October 3, 2019), I published data for 2018 from my three major sources—SEC, NYDFS, and the Nebraska Department of Insurance (NDOI). No. 381 (July 13, 2020) showed data from the SEC for 2019. Here I show 2019 data from NYFDS. I plan to show 2019 data from NDOI later.

NYDFS 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 tabulation of SEC data in No. 381, I showed data for individuals who received at least $5 million in 2019. In the tabulation of NYDFS data for 2019, which is at the end of this post, I show data for individuals who received at least $5 million in 2019.

NYDFS 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," which is in the New York Supplement to the statutory annual statement. I obtained the Schedule Gs through a request pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law. The Life Bureau of NYDFS sent Schedule Gs for life insurance companies, and the Health Bureau of NYDFS sent Schedule Gs for health insurance companies. Both bureaus provided the Schedule Gs by email without charge. The Schedule Gs for life insurance companies differ significantly from the Schedule Gs for health insurance companies.

The Schedules Gs for life insurance companies show 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."

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 names of individuals are sometimes redacted, so that the Schedule Gs sometimes show only 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 Gs for health insurance companies show 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, which is the sum of the first two figures.

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.

NYDFS Data for 2019
Life Insurance Companies
4 Ever Life Ins Co
Howard F Beacham III	$21,435,850
Aetna Life Ins Co
(Acquired by CVS Health)
Shawn Guertin	13,932,726
Karen S Lynch	10,378,329
Francis S Soistman	9,715,997
Rick M Jelinek	8,901,756
Gary Loveman	8,241,026
Harold L Paz	7,721,889
EVP, Ops & Technology	7,654,564
EVP Transformtn Prod&Svcs	5,226,206
American Progressive L&H NY
Kenneth Alan Burdick	30,591,021
Andrew Lynn Asher	7,569,905
Michael Polen	5,688,238
Kelly Munson	5,681,238
AXA Equitable Life Ins Co
Mark Pearson	6,295,388
First Health Life & Health Ins Co
Richard M Jelinek	9,658,380
Karen S Lynch	8,673,924
Globe Life Ins Co of New York
Frank Martin Svoboda	9,359,904
William Michael Pressley	6,474,615
Bill E Leavell	5,400,498
Guardian Life Ins Co of America
Deanna Mulligan	8,606,700
Tracy L Rich	6,418,359
Lincoln Life Assur Co of Boston
Dennis R Glass	28,328,586
Randal J Freitag	7,747,825
Wilford H Fuller	7,332,269
Ellen G Cooper	6,073,150
Lincoln Life & Annuity Co of NY
Dennis R Glass	28,328,586
Randal J Freitag	7,747,825
Ellen G Cooper	6,073,150
Lisa M Buckingham	5,169,731
Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins Co
Roger Crandall	14,962,537
Michel Fanning	6,353,541
Metropolitan Life Ins Co
Michel Abbas Khalaf	6,505,805
President & CEO	6,505,805
EVP & Chief Inv Officer	6,338,392
National Life Ins Co
Mehran Assadi	7,788,000
New York Life Insurance Co
Theodore A Mathas	24,007,290
John T Fleurant	7,399,533
Craig L Desanto	5,452,283
Anthony R Malloy	5,246,200
Northwestern Mutual Life Ins Co
John E Schlifske	13,692,772
Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co
Eileen McDonnell	5,596,160
Principal Life Insurance Co
Karl W Nolin	7,113,249
Daniel Joseph Houston	7,000,237
Mustafa Sagun	5,232,118
Prudential Ins Co of America
Charles Lowrey	5,165,400
Teachers Ins & Annuity Assn
Roger Ferguson	6,252,325
Unimerica Life Ins Co of NY
Treasurer	5,200,218
Voya Retirement Ins & Annuity Co
Charles Patrick Nelson	5,427,369
Health Insurance Companies
Anthem Ins Cos Inc
Gail A Koziara Boudreaux	$15,140,012
Felicia Farr Norwood	7,477,529
Joseph R Swedish	5,741,268
Gloria M McCarthy	5,176,605
John E Gallina	5,145,205
Hallmark Life Insurance Co
Michael Frederic Neidorff	39,986,323
Jeffrey Alan Schwaneke	9,176,387
Jesse Nathan Hunter	8,151,558
Keith Harvey Williamson	5,372,460
Mutual of Omaha Ins Co
James T Blackledge	7,846,887
MVP Health Insurance Co
Denise Gomick	5,683,195
UnitedHealthcare Ins Co of NY
Peter Marshall Gill	5,200,218
WellCare Health Ins of NY Inc
Kenneth A Burdick	30,591,020
Andrew Lynn Asher	7,569,904
Mike Polen	5,688,239
KellyAnn Munson	5,681,239

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

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. 

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

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.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

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.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

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:

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html

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

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

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.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com