We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • 5 Class Action Suits Target ‘Shadow Insurance’

    April 14, 2015 by Arthur D. Postal, arthur.postal@innfeedback.com

    WASHINGTON – The use of captives as part of the capital underlying life insurance and variable annuity (VA) policies is the subject of five class action lawsuits filed against insurers. This is another sign that the spotlight on insurance capital issues continues to intensify.

    Two lawsuits have been filed against MetLife, two against AXA Equitable and another against Lincoln National. Four of the lawsuits have been filed in U.S. District Court in New York state and the fifth was filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey. But all of the suits are related to policies issued by insurance companies chartered in New York. One named plaintiff is the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15; the other named plaintiffs are individuals.

    All the lawsuits relate to concerns regarding so-called shadow insurance. These concerns have been voiced by the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) in a June 2013 report, as well as in studies by the Minneapolis and Boston Federal Reserve Banks, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO).

    An article, “Risky Moves in the Game of Life Insurance,” published in Sunday’s New York Times business section, described the insurance regulation that led to the lawsuits.

    The suit against Lincoln says that the “typical shadow insurance transaction involves the following: A life insurance company decides (1) that the reserve requirements under New York law are too high and (2) that it has better uses for its assets than supporting large reserves.”

    For example, the suit says, “rather than preserving assets as required by law to pay life insurance claims, (the carrier) may use some or all that money to pay its executives higher salaries, to help it purchase other life insurance companies, to pay its stockholders higher dividends, or to invest in riskier securities or other investments.”

    The Lincoln suit cites the 2012 New York DFS report on “shadow insurance.” That report alleges that some insurers, including Lincoln, took shadow insurance a step further by using a practice the DFS calls “two-step transactions,” which allows New York-based insurers to conceal the existence of certain shadow insurance practices.

    In a two-step transaction, the lawsuit continued, the New York-based insurer cedes risk to a non-New York-based affiliate. The affiliate then reinsures again (or “retrocedes”) that risk to a company-affiliated captive reinsurer of the original New York insurer, often collateralizing the retrocession with a parental guarantee. The end result of this complex arrangement is that the New York-based insurer reports no direct transaction between it and a company-affiliated captive reinsurer. This is despite the presence of the parental guarantee backing the letter of credit collateralizing the retrocession.

    The DFS report explained that two-step transactions are “particularly problematic,” according to the lawsuit, because the New York-domiciled insurer “is still ultimately on the hook for losses through a parental guarantee,” even though the New York-based insurer reports no direct shadow insurance activity.

    “In other words, two-step transactions obscure the risks that (New York-based) insurers are taking on through shadow insurance,” the suit claims.

    One suit against AXA relates to life insurance. It alleges that AXA violated New York insurance law by “engaging in various ‘shadow insurance’ transactions in connection with its life insurance business, which were not reported on its mandatory statutory annual statement and not properly disclosed to its principal regulator, to its credit rating agencies, or to its customers.”

    “As a result, AXA’s representations concerning its own financial condition were materially misleading,” the suit alleged.

    The lawsuit against AXA regarding VAs alleges that when marketing its guaranteed benefits insurance riders and other life insurance products, “AXA touts its credit and insurance ratings, as well as the insurance company’s assurances of financial strength.”

    “These marketing efforts and references confirm that AXA’s representations about its financial condition, insurance ratings and overall financial health are material to its business,” the complaint read, but “AXA’s use of shadow insurance constituted a misrepresentation of the financial condition of AXA, and the adequacy of the reserves and reserve system upon which AXA operates.”

    The suit dealing with VAs seeks a penalty against AXA in the amount of the premiums received by AXA during the class period in connection with guaranteed benefit riders.

    One of the suits against MetLife cites the carrier’s challenge to its designation last fall as a Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI) by the FSOC.

    In designating MetLife a SIFI, the complaint read, “The FSOC issued an ominous warning: As history has shown, including in 2008, financial crises can be hard to predict and can have consequences that are both far reaching and unanticipated …There may be scenarios in which material financial distress at MetLife would not pose a threat to U.S. financial stability, but there is a range of possible alternatives in which it could do so.”

    The complaint went on to read that the lawsuit ultimately is about how MetLife “is engaging in conduct that imperils the financial future of (it’s) policyholders, their beneficiaries, and the public at large.”

    If MetLife were domiciled in certain states, the suit alleged, there might be little that its policyholders could do about the company’s conduct.

    “Over the past several decades, some states have been in a race to the bottom in terms of regulating insurers,” the complaint read. MetLife, however is domiciled in New York, authorized to sell insurance there, and required to file non-misleading Statutory Annual Statements with the New York DFS.

    A MetLife spokesman, citing the company’s securities filing, said, “MetLife intends to defend these actions vigorously.” An AXA spokesman said the company would have no comment, and Lincoln National officials were not available to comment.

    The suits were filed over the period Feb. 13 through April 3.

    Lawyers at Perkins Coie with offices in Madison, Wis., and New York City, represent plaintiffs in four of the lawsuits. Lawyers at Berger & Montague in Philadelphia, are among the firms representing the plaintiffs in the Lincoln lawsuit.

    In addition to the New York DFS, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is looking into this issue. The NAIC is forming task forces to evaluate the use of captive reinsurance for guaranteed elements in VAs and the hedging risks associated with such products.

    At the NAIC’s spring meeting in Phoenix, Joseph Torti III, who chairs the NAIC’s Financial Condition Committee, discussed VA captives reinsurance reserve and capital issues in detail. He also named Iowa Commissioner Nick Gerhart to lead a new working group to deal with the issue.

    In a Legal Alert last week, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan said the NAIC’s Variable Annuities Issues Working Group will attempt to reach a better understanding of why insurers use VA captives.

    Originally Posted at InsuranceNewsNet on April 13, 2015 by Arthur D. Postal, arthur.postal@innfeedback.com.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency