2002 Lawrence R. Buchalter Alaska Trust v. Phila. Fin. Life Assurance Co.
Decision Date | 31 March 2015 |
Docket Number | Case No. 12–CV–6808 KMK. |
Citation | 96 F.Supp.3d 182 |
Parties | The 2002 LAWRENCE R. BUCHALTER ALASKA TRUST, Alaska Trust Company, and Stephen C. Harris, trustees, Plaintiffs, v. PHILADELPHIA FINANCIAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a AGL Life Assurance Company, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Eric Donovan Dowell, Esq., Jonathan Thomas Shepard, Esq., Pryor Cashman LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
William Robert Connelly, Esq., Law Offices of William R. Connelly, LLC, Mendham, NJ, for Plaintiffs.
Kendall Johan Burr, Esq., Thomas F.A. Hetherington, Esq., Aaron Christopher Storm, Esq., Hutson Brit Smelley, Esq. Edison, McDowell & Hetherington, LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs The 2002 Lawrence R. Buchalter Alaska Trust (“the Trust”), Alaska Trust Company, and Stephen C. Harris (“Harris”) assert seven causes of action against Defendant Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance Company (“PFLAC”), formerly known as AGL Life Assurance Company, from which the Trust purchased a variable universal life insurance policy. Defendant moves to dismiss all seven causes of action. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion To Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are taken from the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), as well as the exhibits attached thereto. Lawrence Buchalter (“Buchalter”) “created and funded the Trust for his and his family's benefit” in November 2002. (SAC ¶ 30 (Dkt. No. 42).) The Trust is an asset protection trust, created under Alaska law. Under the terms of the Trust Instrument, payments of the Trust's principal and income to the Trust's beneficiaries were to be made at the discretion of the Trustee. (Id. at I–11–12, II–12–13.) On or about November 1, 2002, Buchalter appointed the Alaska Trust Company as an Independent Trustee, meaning that, pursuant to the terms of the Trust Instrument, Buchalter “transferred all of his ‘right, title and interest in and to the property’ ... to the Trustee.” (SAC ¶ 31 (quoting Trust Instrument I–1).) The Alaska Trust Company has a “place of business in Anchorage, Alaska.” (Id. ¶ 23.) “On or about June 25, 2012, Buchalter appointed Harris as an additional Independent Trustee.” (Id. ¶ 31 n. 2.) Harris has a place of residence in New Rochelle, New York. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs assert that Jeffrey Brown (“Brown”) was the Trust's appointed investment advisor, and that “the parties understood” that Buchalter was also an investment advisor, (id. ¶ 2 n. 1), despite the fact that the Trust Instrument provided that the investment advisor was Brown, or anyone else later appointed pursuant to the appointer article, (Trust Instrument I–8).
“The Trust is the Owner and Beneficiary under a variable universal life insurance policy known as the Flexible Premium Survivorship Variable Life Insurance Contract, policy number VL300397, issued in or about December 2002” by Defendant (the “Policy”). (SAC ¶ 32.) The Policy issued to the Trust is not a widely available, off-the-shelf product. Rather, the “Policy is offered only to qualified investors, including individuals, trusts[,] and other entities that satisfy certain suitability standards.” (SAC Ex. C (Private Placement not registered with the SEC under the 1940 Act as an investment company, and therefore the “SEC does not supervise the management or the investment practices or policies of the Variable Account or of the Company.” (Id. at 16.)
In exchange for Defendant maintaining the tax integrity of the insurance coverage and maintaining and administering the Policy's optional investment accounts, the Trust paid Defendant upfront and annual fees for the life of the Policy. (See SAC ¶ 36.) In total, Plaintiffs allege that the Trust paid more than $345,000 in fees to Defendant in connection with the Policy. (Id. ¶ 145; see also id. ¶ 20.) Policies such as the one at issue in this case “are designed to allow policy holders, such as the Trust, to invest a portion of their premiums in optional investment accounts that are offered under the policy.” (Id. ¶ 29.) Such policies have certain tax benefits, including that investment gains and the payout upon death are non-taxable and that policy holders “are able to access account balances during their lifetime by borrowing funds, tax free, from the policies.” (Id. ) As such, the policies are “essentially a combination of life insurance and a tax-advantaged investment vehicle.” (Id. ) Plaintiffs allege that the Trust has made a total of $4.5 million in premium payments for the Policy. (Id. ¶ 35.)
Defendant provided Buchalter and the Trustee with the PPM “in order to allow them to select investment alternatives under the Policy.” (Id. ¶ 37.) “The pre-approved list that [Defendant] presented was a group of private hedge fund partnerships and fund-of-hedge-fund partnerships that created investment vehicles designed specifically for insurance company investment, and [were] designed to be in compliance with relevant tax and insurance regulations.” (Id. ) Furthermore, while the investments were held by the Policy, (see id. ¶ 40 ( )), the Trust had some degree of control over how the Policy invested the funds. In particular, “the Policy provides that the Trust is permitted to change the direction of the investments.”
(Id. ¶ 43; see also SAC Ex. B (“Second Dec. 20, 2002 Letter Agreement”),1 at 3 (); PPM 13 ().)
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Israel
...contradicts the facts set forth in his original complaint," id. at 1361 n.1 (quoting 2002 Lawrence R. Buchalter Alaska Tr. v. Phila. Fin. Life Assur. Co. , 96 F. Supp. 3d 182, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ). If that law applied here, then we'd have yet another reason to dismiss Johnson's unlawful-st......
-
Rajaratnam v. Motley Rice, LLC
...control and the [c]ourt need not accept as true the allegations in the complaint." 2002 Lawrence R. Buchalter Alaska Tr. v. Philadelphia Fin. Life Assurance Co. , 96 F. Supp. 3d 182, 199 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Bill Diodato Photography LLC v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. 12-CV-847, 2012 WL 43351......
-
In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.
...choice of law analysis is generally done separately for each claim and defense." 2002 Lawrence R. Buchalter Alaska Tr. v. Phila. Fin. Life Assur. Co. ("Buchalter Trust"), 96 F.Supp.3d 182, 200 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). "Some controversy appears to exist as to whether a claim for unjust enrichment is......
-
Adyb Engineered for Life, Inc. v. Edan Admin. Servs. Ltd.
...related to "conduct which is not covered by any of the underlying agreements"); cf. 2002 Lawrence R. Buchalter Alaska Trust v. Phila. Fin. Life Assur. Co., 96 F. Supp. 3d 182, 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (dismissing unjust enrichment claim because plaintiff did not allege that payments were outside......