Life Assurance policies are for the benefits of the people.Life Assurance Ireland
By Chris Lane
By Jeff Balke
By Aaron Reiss
By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
Plowing on, Shaunessy had to deal with a multitude of downright strange replies from Judah. Take, for example, the following exchange, in which Judah seems to be trying to explain his belief that a 1911 opinion by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that life insurance policies were transferable property somehow justified NLS's claims that investors' returns were "guaranteed":
Q: The [investment] returns were guaranteed because you-all represented to the investors that you were going to go out and acquire life settlements that guaranteed that their money would get paid back, right?
A: I didn't guarantee them. The Supreme Court of the United States guaranteed them, and that was — a decision was handed down — because this is the one I did my research. You asked me why I didn't get a lawyer. When I read that the chief justice of the United States — who is that — Oliver Wendell Holmes, handed down a decision that the — with the insurance — You got to remember insurance companies were started for — for people that started in this country, we had little farms, they wanted to hand them down and everything.
In the deposition, Judah also reiterated his claim that he was at one time the head of Ford Motor Credit.
"Why would a man with [an] extremely successful background in auto sales feel compelled to exaggerate his background," Judah's attorney John LaGrappe told the Press in an e-mail. "Would it really make a difference to a potential investor if he was a Ford Executive or one of the biggest car dealers in America at one time?"
LaGrappe also offered the following: "Let me ask you this: how are you going to know or not going to know if Howard Judah was a senior executive with Ford in the 1960s? Can you go get those records?"
The answer to the question is "Yes." Receiver Janet Mortenson told the Press in an e-mail that "I subpoenaed Ford Motor Credit's records and their response was that they maintain their employment for decades, and no one with Mr. Judah's Social Security Number has ever been employed at Ford Motor Credit."
LaGrappe is fiercely protective of Judah, pointing to Judah's military record and proficiency in Le Car sales as evidence that Judah has been nothing but a decent, productive citizen. But he concedes that, when it comes to NLS, "negligence and [incompetence] were definitely a problem. They were very inexperienced in the investment business."
As for why Judah never Googled, or directed anyone to Google, "Yohannes Riyadi," LaGrappe explained in an e-mail that "You see the world through your experience. I had never sent [an] email until January of 2009. I had never googled anyone until November of 2009. They call it 'old school.'"
Moreover, LaGrappe wrote of documents claiming that a man in Indonesia no one ever heard of had $35 trillion sitting in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, "the documents appear legitimate on [their] face."
Besides, LaGrappe wrote, Park Beeler vouched for their authenticity, and "Would you not agree that Park Beeler seems legitimate."
Dominguez, Judah's former attorney, thinks otherwise. He says he was bowled over when, in 2009, Judah arranged a conference call with Park Beeler and Beeler's London associate, who also vouched for the Riyadi papers. Two seconds into the call, Dominguez realized Judah was dealing with crackpots and actually had to walk out of the room. When he came back in, he told Judah that there was no way he could use those papers as a defense.
While Dominguez doesn't think Judah's a liar, he, unlike LaGrappe, believes the man may have a tendency to exaggerate.
"The common observation of Judah is he's a smart man, he's got very good social graces...it's very common [among] people who want to be important...there's an inclination to exaggerate. And that is what got Judah in trouble, I think," Dominguez says. If a person, say, inferred from Judah that he was tight with Warren Buffet, Judah wouldn't rush to clarify. As Dominguez puts it: "He created the illusion without correcting the illusion."
There's a chance Judah and Jablonski might not have run into as much of a problem with state officials, or maybe at least not so quickly, had they actually invested the bulk of clients' money in life settlements. But authorities say they didn't. Officials say the whole thing was simply a smokescreen Judah and Jablonski could use to line their own pockets.
In a 2009 court hearing, Mortenson, the receiver, testified that the two co-founders "used investor money as a personal ATM. There were debits in the hundreds for restaurants, even $4.44 for a Jack in the Box. There were tanning salons, limousines, Las Vegas, pages of expenditures at Wal-Mart, at Home Depot. Mr. Jablonski acknowledged that they used investor funds for their personal living."
In their depositions, Judah and Jablonski testified otherwise. The hundreds of thousands they took from the NLS till, they said, were simply "loans."
One of the most striking aspects of the NLS debacle is that investors never had any clue their money was being siphoned off.
Life Assurance policies are for the benefits of the people.Life Assurance Ireland
Less than half of population has private health insurance. life assurance
Good news: this website (======= http://www.yessoso.com/ =======) we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. Accept cash or credit card payments, free transport. You can try oh, will make you satis.
The old saying "If it seems too good to be true, then it probably is (too good to be true)" still holds true.
You guys are 2 in a row with solid cover stories this month. Keep up the good work, Malisow.
Note to the Editor-in-Chief: Can you see how this type of story is more useful than uninspired "top five lists" and vanity blogs about "The 1980s softcore cable porn I jerked off to when I was a kid?"
Good article about strange companies in the business of trying to guess when folks are going to die.
I think we are talking about Life Partner Holdings, Inc. out of Waco, Texas ...NOW.
And their stock (Life Partner Holdings) closed out today at about $8.00 per share
And today, March 9, 2011 Attorneys are attempting to communicate with investors.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Reminds Investors of Upcoming Deadline In Class Action Lawsuits Against Life Partners Holdings, Inc. (April 4, 2011)
Again, the deadline is April 4, 2011 and investors need to be aware of that deadline so we can all watch the stock price move down to $7, $6, $5, $4, $3, $2, $1 and then one penny.
Not a timely or well-informed article, and you gotta love folks throwing in their opinion into these articles, as well. NLS was shut down 2 freaking years ago, and mainly for non-disclosure of ownership. ie. They were the owners and beneficiaries of the policies. Hell, 2 others were shut down last year. You couldn't write-up on at least a more recent one?
Secondly, You did know annuity companies have been using mortality rates (ie. life expectancies) to determine a payout, right? Right? No, of course you didn't. Please tell me your outrage there. These are 80-90 year olds, typically. Nobody is betting on a 20 year old getting run over by a car.
Thirdly, The State of Texas has determined this not to be a security. Links are below.
If you want to be a serious journalist, keep your opinions to yourself, and be better informed. It took 15 minutes to shred every ounce of credibility regarding this article.
That would primarily be in response to the WSJ article from Dec. that claimed that Life Partners was tossing out valid life expectancies and replacing them with an "in-house" doctor who only took a few minutes to review each and significally shortened the LE's making them look more favorable than they really were.
And, yes. THAT story would've been a tad better as far as timeliness.
Instead we get a story that was written in the Chron when it actually occured. 2 years ago.
Look into Retirement Value and AGAP, as well for at least some that happened in the last 12 months.
Thanks for posting your thoughts, and I just wanted to briefly respond.
1.) The reason we felt this was a timely article was that there are currently criminal charges pending. Although the company went into receivership in 2009, the story wasn't over. But of course, it's all up to the amount of interest a person has in a story. There are plenty of 600-word summaries of the NLS receivership, but if a person wants to dive deeper and get to know the people involved, and their histories, then they may enjoy an in-depth look. Different strokes, I suppose.
2.) Yes, life expectancy is calculated in both annuities and life settlements, but they are different products. Of course, my characterization of life settlements as "repugnant" is an opinion, and I understand that other people may not feel the same way. However, I hardly feel that a difference of opinion is a "credibility" factor.
3.) I think the point is that the State Securities Board defines life settlements as securities, and Judah and Jablonski are being charged with securities fraud. We'll be following the proceedings, and if a trial or appellate court rules in this case that NLS was not peddling securities, then we'll report that.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts,Craig Malisow
1.) There have been in-depth articles written in both Forbes and the Wall Street Journal about these. I'll be more than happy to provide links if you would like.
2.) Did you know that Social Security uses these LE's, also! How repugnant to think our Gov. uses tables to determine when people will die? If you want to really be offended, then look no further than the Insurance Companies. The "Cash Value" on policies is so laughably bad that it created this market in the first place. Imagine if you put away $10,000 a year for a $1,000,000 insurance policy for 30 years and then your significant other passes, or you need extra cash, etc. and the insurance company decides that they will give you $100,000 for it?!? The whole reason this exists is so folks can get additional funding and has been around since 1911... But I'll assume you didn't know that, either.
Life Settlements have been used as investments by institutions for years, including Berkshire Hathaway, Wells Fargo, and the like.
3.) NO. You obviously didn't look at the link I provided. It is NOT defined that way by the State of Texas. They are being charged by the SEC because they worked in several States and are therefore subject to Federal law, which at this point does seem to regard these as a security.
The first point is that typically investors are buying a bundle of policies with the full understanding that the estimates are just that: estimates. Some will pass earlier than others. The main issue is the knowledge that folks in their 80s tend to die sooner rather than later.
And if the TSSB had determined these to be securities, Life Partners would have been shut down years ago. They are located in Waco, after all.
If and when they are determined to be securities, I promise I'll be the first to let you know.
I don't want to prolong this exchange indefinitely, but, if you read closely, my characterization of life settlements as repugnant is not based on the mere fact that LE's are used. LE's themselves are completely benign. My opinion -- and again, it's only my opinion -- was based on third parties literally profiting from someone else's death. The fact that LE's are a factor is a non-issue. Investors are not making money off pork bellies or a better mousetrap; they are literally getting a payout upon a complete stranger's death. Was that person going to die anyway? Absolutely -- we all are. So therefore, some people might say, "Look, this old bag is gonna kick the bucket anyway; I might as well make some money off it," and sleep peacefully. You might feel that, since the seller of a policy gets cash they might need right away, then everyone benefits. Totally valid point. It's also a valid point that some people might find that idea ghastly. Again, different strokes.
And again: the State Securities Board believes life settlements are securities, regardless of what the court ruling says in the link you provided. Now, you might believe the Board to be foolhardy and quixotic in their stance against life settlements, but nevertheless, they are the ones who believe they had jurisdiction, and they are the ones who got the ball rolling. Again, you can disagree with them, and hey, maybe they'll change their minds in the future, but right now, they believe life settlements are securities. (The SEC is still undecided on the matter and recently convened a task force to look into it; the task force recommended that they be defined as securities).
I'm sure you'll again point out the error of my ways, and I truly appreciate your input, but I think I've addressed everything.