Court Schedules Annuity Case Hearing

by GarySpicuzza » Mon Feb 23, 2009 01:55 am

Christopher Cox and the rest of the Certified Clueless Clowns at the SEC are about to have a can of legal WhoopAzz opened on their sorry jack assterisks due to the SEC's illegal adoption of SEC Rule 151A.

For those of you who don't know...for the past three (3) years Christopher Cox the former SEC chairman has been obsessing over Fixed Indexed Annuities where not one (1) dime of a client's principal is at risk with the Broker-Dealer Bernard Madoff types of Wall St. because the Certified Clueless Clown so-called "Financial Advisors" AKA, Registered Representatives have been crying about how Life Insurance Agents have been protecting client's life savings with actuarially sound products causing them to lose their TRAIL COMMISSION on their fraud products...such as "derivatives of mortgage backed securities" AND "Variable Annuities."

These are the brain dead hockey pucks who HAD to obtain an insurance license to be able to sell the infamous bloated pig with lipstick Variable Annuity with little or NO INSURANCE TRAINING OR EXPERIENCE.

This case will over, in my humble opinion, on May 8th 2009.

See THIS LINK.


A federal appeals court in Washington will hear oral arguments May 8 on a suit challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's move to adopt Rule 151A, a regulation that classifies some indexed annuities as securities.

The SEC is calling the annuities “equity indexed annuities.”

The lawyers for the petitioners that filed the suit, American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al, vs. SEC, Number. 09-1021, are calling the products “fixed indexed annuities,” or FIAs.

The petitioners filed their first brief in the case Tuesday, telling the court that, under the plain meaning of a provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, fixed indexed annuities are exempt from SEC regulation.

The court has permitted the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Kansas City, Mo., to join the case as a petitioner, and the NAIC also has filed a brief.

The National Conference of Insurance Legislators, Troy, N.Y., which initially had joined with the NAIC as a petitioner, says it will not try to be a petitioner and instead will submit a friend-of-the-court brief.

“It is really a legal matter involving where NCOIL fits in,” says Susan Nolan, executive director of NCOIL.

“Our objective is to support the NAIC and oppose the SEC regulation, but our attorneys advised us to do an amicus brief, which is consistent with what NCOIL has done in previous cases,” Nolan says.

NCOIL will file a supporting brief, rather than serving as a petitioner, because of a “technical legal issue involving standing,” Nolan says.

The main brief for the petitioners was submitted by Eugene Scalia, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher L.L.P., Washington.

“It was only through an analysis that defies Supreme Court precedent, common parlance, and prior pronouncements of the SEC itself that the agency was able to arrogate to itself the power to regulate” fixed indexed annuities as securities, the petitioners write in their brief.

The SEC wrongly classified the annuities as securities, the petitioners write.

“The Commission admitted [in its rule] that a contract with de minimis securities-linked gains would be covered by the regulation,” the petitioners write in a footnote.

The SEC indicated that it “would be prepared to consider a request for relief, if appropriate” in such circumstances, the petitioners write. But “this is little comfort to insurers and agents, who must ensure securities compliance in advance, and the Commission's acknowledgement merely confirms the arbitrariness of the rule.”

The SEC contends in the regulation that some indexed annuities are securities because “[i]ndexed annuities are similar in many ways to mutual funds, variable annuities, and other securities,” and that the purchaser of an indexed annuity “assumes many of the same risks that investors assume when investing in mutual funds, variable annuities, and other securities,” the petitioners write.

The SEC contention is “incorrect, obviously” because FIA premiums are invested in an insurer's general account—which are subject to special state investment requirements—and contract values are not based on the insurer's investment management, the petitioners write.

“Investment risk is fundamentally risk of loss to one's investment—the risk borne by purchasers of mutual funds and variable annuities that their capital will be lost or plummet in value with a decline in the underlying securities,” the petitioners write.

Fixed income annuities, however, “are subject to the full panoply of state insurance laws whose function is to protect against risk of loss, guaranteeing that a contract owner receives no less than 87.535% of premiums even if the contract is surrendered in the first year, and assuring that the minimum contract value will increase at a rate of at least 1% to 3% annually for the life of the contract,” the petitioners write.

The FIA guarantees are identical to the guarantees that traditional fixed annuities offer, the petitioners write.

“For such reasons, the American Academy of Actuaries—in a comment the Commission ignored—said the ‘the risk profiles for FIAs and traditional annuities are similar,'” petitioners argue.

“The decisions of other courts confirm that FIAs are annuities,” and “squarely held that the issuer of an FIA assumed as much or more investment risk than the purchaser,” the petitioners write.

Total Comments: 2

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 03:45 pm Post Subject:

Gary !! what is your prediction about the case? Are FIA are going to get more popularized if court gives verdict in support of SEC?

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:57 pm Post Subject:

Gary !! what is your prediction about the case?


The Court will either overturn SEC rule 151A or they will suspend implementation until final judgment, even then if not resolved this case will go up to the Supreme Court.

The 151A ruling was nothing more than bureaucratic government employees attempting to legislate by way of administrative decree.

An agency of the USA Federal Government doesn't have the power to legislate and grant themselves power.

The SEC is going to get a legal beating over this one.

Christopher Cox Attorney Eugene Scalia

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.