Koken v. Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance

907 A.2d 1149, 2006 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 494
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedAugust 29, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 907 A.2d 1149 (Koken v. Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Koken v. Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance, 907 A.2d 1149, 2006 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 494 (Pa. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

ORDER

OPINION BY

President Judge COLINS.

The Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (“FML”) was placed in rehabilitation by order of this Court dated November 6, 1992, with the consent of FML’s then board of directors. In the ensuing years, several plans of rehabilitation were proposed and submitted to the Court but subsequently withdrawn for various reasons. On May 22, 2002, the Rehabilitator’s Third Amended Plan of Rehabilitation was, with modifications, approved by this Court. 803 A.2d 807 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). However, due to the inability to attract sufficient bids from qualified bidders for the proposed stock life insurance corporation ere-[1150]*1150ated under that plan, it was eventually abandoned.

On October 25, 2005, the Rehabilitator filed with this Court a petition seeking preliminary approval of the Fourth Amended Plan for the Rehabilitation of the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (the “Plan” or “Fourth Amended Plan”). The Plan and its attachments were revised and corrected on November 23, 2005, December 20, 2005, and February 24, 2006 before the Plan was made available to policyholders.1

On December 2, 2005, the Rehabilitator filed a petition for approval of the form and scope of the notice of the Rehabili-tator’s Petition. The Policyholders’ Committee objected to the scope of service of the notice. On January 18, 2006, this Court entered an Order approving the proposed form of notice and modifying the proposed scope of service to include all persons having FML policies as of the date of this Court’s original order of rehabilitation. The January 18, 2006 Order was amended on January 23 and January 31, 2006 (Notice Order).

Notice of the Plan, as approved by the Court, was published on three dates in the following papers: The Patriot News, Harrisburg; The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia; U.S.A. Today (National Edition); and The Wall Street Journal (National Edition).

Notice of the Plan was also mailed on March 1, 2 and 3, 2006, pursuant to our Notice Order, by first class mail to all persons who were contraetholders as of November 6, 1992; to all other claimants whose claims had not been settled or paid to the insurance regulatory authorities; to the life insurance guaranty associations and the taxing authorities of the various states where FML has contracts in force at the time of mailing the notice; to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty; and to the Policyholders’ Committee.

This Court set April 5, 2006 as the date for mailing any written objections to the Plan and set April 19, 2006 as the date for the hearing on any objections. In its Notice Order, the Court caused notice to be issued that oral objections to the Fourth Amended Plan could be made by appearing at the April 19, 2006 hearing. At the April 19, 2006 hearing, all persons having interests affected by the Plan were afforded an opportunity to be heard regarding the Plan. No oral objections were raised at the hearing, and no written objections to the Plan had been filed prior to the hearing.

At the hearing, counsel for the Rehabili-tator requested the opportunity to submit affidavits in support of the Plan, and this Court continued the hearing until June 1, 2006. On June 1, 2006, this Court resumed the hearing on the Rehabilitator’s petition for preliminary approval of the Plan, at which counsel for the Rehabili-tator and counsel for Policyholders’ Committee were present. On the motion of the [1151]*1151Rehabilitator’s counsel, and hearing no objections, this Court accepted in evidence the affidavits and exhibits proffered by the Rehabilitator, finding the affiants’ factual statements credible and their opinions persuasive. This Court also questioned Deputy Insurance Commissioner Joseph DiMemmo concerning the Plan.

The following findings are taken from the accepted affidavits and exhibits and are distilled with modification from the proposed findings of fact submitted by re-habilitator’s counsel at the invitation of the Court.2 The findings describe salient features of the Fourth Amended Plan.

Disposition of FML Business

The Fourth Amended Plan, as proposed, provides for the disposition of FML or its insurance business by either of two alternative transactions: (1) FML may demutu-alize and convert to a stock life insurance company and then transfer 100% of its common stock to a Purchaser for cash or a combination of case and Purchaser Stock, by means of a stock purchase transaction or a merger transaction; or (2) FML may sell 100% of its insurance business by transferring the policy contracts (and the assets required to support the contracts) to an assuming insurer for cash pursuant to an assumption reinsurance agreement, after which FML will eventually be dissolved.

Bid Procedures and Bidder Criteria

Following preliminary approval of the Plan, the Rehabilitator will seek bids for 100% of the common stock of Converted FML from potential purchasers or for 100% of FML’s insurance business irom potential assuming reinsurers, pursuant to the Bid Procedures attached to the Plan. Under the Bid Procedures, all potential bidders will have access to the same information, be subject to the same criteria, and submit bids in a specified format. All bids will be opened at the same time and evaluated by the Rehabilitator and her advisors.

Only institutions (including insurance companies) that meet the bidder criteria set forth in the Bid Procedures may submit bids. A bidder that is an insurance company must have an A.M. Best rating of at least “A-” and capital and surplus of at least $300 million reported on a statutory basis. A bidder that is not an insurance company must have (or be eligible for) and investment grade debt or credit rating from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s or Fitch IBCA, and minimum capital and retained earnings of $300 million reported on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). A bidder that is an investment company or investment fund must have minimum capital and retained earnings of $300 million on a GAAP basis, and $300 million of available equity. If a bidder is a partnership or joint venture, then each of the owners of such partnership or joint venture must satisfy the criteria that apply to insurers, non-insurance companies or investment companies; otherwise, a general partner having at least 51% of the voting and equity interest must do so. Any bidder that chooses to use Purchaser Stock as part of the consideration must have a market capitalization of at least $1 billion and be listed on the NASDAQ Global Market System or the New York Stock Exchange.

The Rehabilitator will evaluate conforming bids based on various factors, includ[1152]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ario v. Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance
935 A.2d 55 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
907 A.2d 1149, 2006 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koken-v-fidelity-mutual-life-insurance-pacommwct-2006.