BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C.

INSURANCE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE GROUP 2008

INSURANCE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE GROUP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CLASS ACTION DEFENSE OVERVIEW

SECTION I

EXPERIENCE

SECTION II

CURRENT INSURANCE CLASS ACTION CASES

SECTION III

PAST DISPOSITION OF INSURANCE CLASS ACTIONS

SECTION IV

PUBLICATIONS

SECTION V

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

SECTION VI

INSURANCE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE GROUP MEMBERS

SECTION VII

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Joel S. Feldman, Chair, Insurance Class Action Defense Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603 PHONE: 312.853.2030 FAX: 312.853.7036 EMAIL: [email protected]

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

SECTION I: CLASS ACTION DEFENSE OVERVIEW The Sidley Austin LLP Insurance Class Action Defense Group is dedicated to defending the insurance industry against the expanding array of class actions that challenge the insurance industry’s products, methodologies and procedures. We have served as lead counsel in over fifty insurance class actions in over thirty jurisdictions across the United States. Our team of 21 lawyers includes counsel at Sidley’s offices in Chicago, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Our insurance class action defense clients include: • United of Omaha • AXA Equitable Insurance • Principal Financial Group • Transamerica Insurance • Hartford Insurance • Jackson National Insurance • American United Life Insurance

• Mutual of New York (MONY) • Principal Life Insurance Co. • Monumental Life Insurance • Lincoln Benefit Insurance • Commonwealth Life Insurance • Life Investors Insurance • Resource Life Insurance

OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS INCLUDE ¾ Winning, in Florida federal court, on behalf of Transamerica Life, the denial of class certification in annuity class action after predecessor counsel had recommended a $60,000,000 settlement. ¾ Winning, in Pennsylvania federal court, summary judgment on behalf of Creditor Resources, Inc. in a Fair Credit Reporting Act class action. ¾ Winning (twice) in Louisiana federal court, the denial of class certification in multi-district proceedings in a precedent setting case defining when an injunctive class can be certified, In re Industrial Life Insurance Litigation, MDL No. 1371, 208 F.R.D. 571 (E.D. La. 2002; class certification denied second time January 12, 2006.) ¾ Winning, in Illinois state court, on behalf of Allstate Insurance, the enforcement of an arbitration provision that precluded class certification, thereby ending a class action via motion practice. ¾ Winning, in Michigan federal court, on behalf of Jackson National Life, one of the first denials of class certification in multi-district consolidated proceedings in vanishing premium litigation, In Re Jackson National Life Insurance Co. Premium Litigation, 183 F.R.D. 217 (W.D. Mich. 1998). ¾ Winning, in Kentucky state court, on behalf of Monumental Life Insurance, the dismissal with prejudice of a market conduct class action complaint. ¾ Winning, in South Carolina state court, on behalf of Jackson National Life, the granting of summary judgment against a South Carolina class.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

1

CLASS ACTION DEFENSE OVERVIEW

Key items that differentiate our Insurance Class Action Defense Group include: KNOWLEDGE OF THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY Because we dedicate our efforts to defending the insurance industry in class actions, we know and understand the insurance industry, its culture, its service orientation and actuarial foundations. Our knowledge of insurance products and practices is extensive. We have or currently are defending insurance class actions involving credit insurance, disability insurance, ERISA benefit plans, automobile loan insurance, modal premium payment practices, interest crediting practices, annuity product differentiation, annuity interest crediting practices, annuity disclosures, universal life, long term care insurance, med-pay payment practices, vanishing premium litigation, race based premium practices, industrial life insurance, DAC tax, premium gap litigation, and preferred versus standard disclosures. INTEGRATED, NATIONAL CLIENT SERVICE Our clients benefit from the close integration of our insurance class action defense lawyers with lawyers in other practice areas of the firm, including ERISA, regulatory, and appellate practices. Sidley’s extensive, sixty lawyer Insurance Practice Group provides invaluable support and interdisciplinary benefit on insurance related issues that arise in insurance class actions. Sidley’s multi-office approach, with significant presences in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and Washington, DC, provides a springboard for defense of class actions on a nationwide basis. VALUE ADDED THROUGH EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE Our extensive experience in defending the insurance industry in class actions allows us to provide cost-effective methodologies to successfully resolve these complex, high stakes cases. Our team of lawyers are thoroughly trained in class action defense and the procedural aspects and issues that arise in defending class actions for the insurance industry. Our insurance class action defense electronic brief bank provides value added through easy access of key legal issues that occur on a repetitive basis. Our knowledge of the insurance industry, its products and actuarial foundations also fosters efficiency in the defense of insurance class actions. SUCCESSFUL, PROVEN TRACK RECORD Having defended over sixty insurance class actions across the nation, our successful track record in obtaining cost-effective, successful dispositions speaks for itself. Winning through voluntary non-suits and motion practice requires exacting strategy beginning with the initial retention. We have innumerable times achieved voluntary non-suits of class action claims. We have also, on numerous occasions, achieved dismissal with prejudice or summary judgment against a class. Our record in defeating class certification is well known in the industry. Because settlement can, at times, be cost effective, we have devised creative settlements that advanced our clients’ interests.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

2

SECTION II: EXPERIENCE CLASS CERTIFICATION DEFENSE Contesting the class certification issue requires exacting strategy as well as strategic partnering with our clients. We have successfully defended or resolved some of the largest and most complex class actions brought against the insurance industry. We have won or successfully resolved the class certification issue in cases involving vanishing premium, industrial life insurance, annuity interest crediting practices, state consumer fraud acts, proposed foreign nationals class, preferred rating, and universal life insurance, among other areas. These successful defenses of the class certification issue have typically resulted in ending the complex, high exposure litigation. EARLY FAVORABLE RESOLUTION OF CLASS ACTIONS THROUGH MOTION PRACTICE We have successfully resolved numerous insurance class actions through motion practice, resulting in a quick, successful end to the class action litigation. This includes the dismissal with prejudice of a universal life class action in Louisville, Kentucky state court; the voluntary dismissal of an annuity class action brought in Bessemer County, Alabama; the voluntary nonsuit of class claims involving alleged juvenile smoker rates brought in the Southern District of New York; the voluntary dismissal of an annuity class action filed in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas; the voluntary dismissal of a premium gap class action brought in Madison County, Illinois; and the voluntary dismissal of a vanishing premium class action brought in New Orleans Parish, Louisiana. We have also won summary judgment against a national class action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act in Pennsylvania federal court; won summary judgment against South Carolina class in market conduct litigation in South Carolina state court and succeeded in obtaining the grant of summary judgment against a class in an annuity class action in Rhode Island state court. MULTI-DISTRICT PROCEEDINGS AND REMOVAL/REMAND We are highly experienced in multi-district procedure and multi-district proceedings, having appeared numerous times before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. We obtained one of the first consolidations of the vanishing premium litigation, In Re Jackson National Life Insurance Co. Premium Litigation, and obtained the first consolidation in the industrial life class actions, In Re Monumental Insurance Litigation. We have litigated on a repetitive basis removal/remand issues, and have been highly successful in winning contested tag along consolidation motions. ERISA CLASS ACTIONS We have or currently have served as lead defense counsel in a number of ERISA class actions asserted against the insurance industry. These include, among other retentions: the defense of a national class action against an insurance company asserting allegedly improper revenue sharing for 401(k) plan provider services; the defense of a national class action against an SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

3

EXPERIENCE

insurance company alleging steering of plan participants into certain classifications of mutual funds; and defense of a national class action against an insurance company alleging that certain benefits were not tax deductible under a multiple employer welfare benefit plan. CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTIONS We have or currently are serving as lead counsel in the defense of numerous class actions venued in San Diego, California and San Francisco, including the defense of annuity class actions, cost of insurance class actions, and elder care class actions. In addition, our San Francisco and Los Angeles based attorneys who are part of the Insurance Class Action Defense Group have litigated some of the larger and more well known 17200 class actions in California. In addition, our 150 lawyer Los Angeles office and 50 lawyer San Francisco office have some of the most extensive 17200 experience in the United States. CONSUMER FRAUD ACT INSURANCE CLASS ACTIONS We have defended insurance class actions asserting claims under the Consumer Fraud Acts of Illinois, Texas, California, Kentucky, South Carolina, Michigan, Alabama, and Rhode Island, among others. We have also obtained the denial of class certification of market conduct class actions under the Texas Consumer Fraud Act and separately obtained the denial of class certification under the Michigan Consumer Fraud Act. CREATIVE SETTLEMENTS We recognize that settlement is always an option towards obtaining a cost-effective resolution of a class action. We strive to implement the least costly settlement that obtains the broadest potential relief. We have effectuated creative broad based national settlements in a credit insurance case in Miami federal court, a blast fax case in Los Angeles federal court, a cost of insurance class action in Illinois state court, and an interest crediting national class action in Michigan federal court. CONCURRENT REGULATORY DEFENSE Sidley’s extensive SEC and insurance regulatory practices provide powerful support for concurrent SEC or insurance market conduct exams that often accompany insurance class actions. We have worked with our SEC and regulatory practices, as well as independent regulatory counsel, in successfully resolving administrative inquiries and coordinating those defenses as part of our ongoing class action defense. APPELLATE PRACTICE Sidley’s renowned appellate practice provides additional value in litigating insurance class action defense cases. We have litigated appeals in numerous state and federal appellate courts on behalf of our insurance class action defense clients. In addition, we are currently serving as lead counsel in petitioning the United States Supreme Court on the class certification issue in the industrial life class actions.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

4

SECTION III: CURRENT INSURANCE CLASS ACTION CASES PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Ruppert v. Principal Life Insurance Company, Civil No. 4:07-CV-344-JAJ-TJS (S.D. Iowa) (ERISA alleged revenue sharing plan provider class action) MUTUAL OF NEW YORK (MONY) Rabin v. MONY Life Insurance Co., No. EC CV 0775 (S.D.N.Y.) (retained asset accounts) PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP Young v. Principal Financial, Case No. 4:07-cv-00386 (S.D. Iowa) (ERISA class action concerning proprietary mutual funds) UNITED OF OMAHA Dean v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., No. CV05-6067 (C.D. Cal.) (universal life cost of insurance) CHINA LIFE In re China Life Insurance Company Limited Securities Litigation, 04 Civ. 2112 (S.D.N.Y.) (securities fraud stock drop class action related to $3.7 billion initial public offering in 2003). LINCOLN BENEFIT Dickinson v. Lincoln Benefit Life, Case No. 01 L 001837, Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois (automobile loan insurance) THE HARTFORD Daniels v. Hartford et al., Case No. 03-CV-1550, (N.D. Ill.) (ERISA benefit plan) COMMONWEALTH Allen v. Commonwealth Life Insur. Co., Case No. 66368 T.D. Div. 1, Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee (burial insurance) JACKSON NATIONAL Kennedy v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., No. 07-CV-00371, United States District Court for Northern District of California (elder care annuity sales) Berry v. Jackson National, Case No. D0101 CV 2000 2603, Santa Fe County, New Mexico (modal premium allegations) Farmer v. Jackson National, Case No. 02 L 433, St. Clair County, Illinois (annuity interest crediting)

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

5

CURRENT INSURANCE CLASS ACTION CASES

Tench v. Jackson National, et al., Case No. 99 L 7352, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (vanishing premium) CREDITOR RESOURCES, INC. Myers v. Freedom Credit Union v. Creditor Resources, Inc., No. CA #05-3526 (E.D. Pa.) (Fair Credit Reporting Act) AMERICAN UNITED Douglas v. American United Life Insur. Co., Case No. 29D03-9810-CP568, Hamilton County, Indiana (annuity sales practices) MONUMENTAL Hansen v. Monumental Life Insur. Co., Case No. 3:05 CV 1905 (D. Conn.) (credit insurance) Rudin v. Monumental Life Insur. Co., Case No. 03-CI-00255, Kenton Circuit Court, Kentucky (burial insurance) RESOURCE LIFE INSURANCE Buckner v. Resource Life Insur. Co., Case No. SU04CV241-7, Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia (credit insurance refunds) LIFE INVESTORS Lee v. Life Investors Insur. Co. of America, Case No. 03-15180, District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota (credit insurance refunds) Parker v. Life Investors Insur. Co. of America, Case No. SU-04-CV-3687-6, Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia (credit insurance refunds)

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

6

SECTION IV: PAST DISPOSITION OF INSURANCE CLASS ACTIONS CLASS CERTIFICATION DENIALS In re Industrial Life Insurance Litigation, MDL No. 1371 and consolidated MDLs (E.D. La.) We represented Monumental Life Insurance Company. In a major victory for our Insurance Class Action Defense Practice, on January 12, 2006 a federal judge in New Orleans denied class certification in the consolidated Industrial Life Insurance Multi-District Litigation. The closely watched case set precedent on the scope of when and how an injunctive (as opposed to a monetary) claim can be certified. It is particularly significant because the entire industry settled the litigation on a class-wide basis, except for our client, Monumental Life Insurance Company, and one other company. The ruling comes after more than six years of strongly contested litigation, with the Fifth Circuit having vacated a prior denial of class certification. Note that recently the exact same case was certified against John Hancock, which reinforces the noteworthy nature of our class cert denial, in addition to making new law under Federal Rule 23(b)(2). Barbara Rudin, et al. v. Kentucky Funeral Directors Burial Association, Inc. and Monumental Life Insurance Co.; Sara Townsend, et al. v. Kentucky Funeral Directors Burial Association, Inc., and Monumental Life Insurance Co.; Circuit Court of Kenton, Kentucky, consolidated as Case No. 03CI-00255, class certification denied on August 2, 2005. While filed prior to the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act, the Rudin and Townsend complaints - single state breach of contract class action - are a good example of the new wave of post-CAFA class action filings. Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract with respect to policy terms for burial insurance. In a very well reasoned and scholarly opinion, the Court explains how single state breach of contract class claims under (b)(2) and (b)(3) can, indeed, be defeated at a class certification level. Hill v. Transamerica Life, No. 8:01-CV-1841 (M.D. Florida, class certification denied May 20, 2003). In this annuity sales practices case, predecessor counsel had entered a stay of proceedings, discussed settlement, and had recommended a $60,000,000 settlement. We were brought in as successor counsel, engaged in class certification discovery, class certification briefing and argued the class certification issue. We succeeded in obtaining the denial of class certification and the case ended with a minimal, but confidential payment to the named plaintiffs. In re Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Premium Litig., 193 F.R.D. 505 (W.D. Michigan, class certification denied 2000). After discovery, class certification briefing, and a contested hearing, we achieved class certification denial of a vanishing premium claim brought as a single-state Texas class. Plaintiffs brought the case under the Texas Insurance Code and the Texas Business and Commerce Code.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

7

PAST DISPOSITION OF INSURANCE CLASS ACTIONS

In re Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Premium Litig., 183 F.R.D. 217 (W.D. Michigan, class certification denied 1998). Over plaintiffs’ objection, we consolidated three class actions through a favorable ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. After extensive motion practice and discovery, we won the denial of class certification. The case subsequently settled with a minimal, but confidential payment to the named plaintiffs. Sullivan v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 97-548796 CP, slip op. (Oakland County, Michigan, class certification denied 1999). We were retained to defend a State of Michigan putative class action brought in Oakland County, Michigan state court. Plaintiffs asserted a cause of action under the Michigan Consumer Fraud Act. We succeeded in denying class certification in this vanishing premium case. Carfagno v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co., No. 5:99-CV-118 (W.D. Michigan, class certification denied June 6, 2002). Plaintiffs filed suit in state court in Texas seeking certification of a class of policyholders residing in Mexico who allegedly were sold unlicensed insurance policies. We succeeded in removing over plaintiffs’ objection and also succeeded in consolidating the case with ongoing multi-district proceedings. After discovery, briefing and a contested hearing, we achieved denial of class certification. The case ended with a minimal, but confidential payment to the named plaintiffs. CONTESTED DISMISSALS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS Myers v. Freedom Credit Union v. Creditor Resources Inc., C.A. No. 05-3526 (E.D. Pa.; summary judgment granted on June 23, 2008). Plaintiff brought class action under Fair Credit Reporting Act. In one of the first rulings interpreting the Supreme Court’s Safeco ruling, the court granted summary judgment for our client. In re Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Premium Litig., 107 F. Supp. 2d 841 (W.D. Michigan, 2000). After we achieved denial of class certification, plaintiffs insisted on merits discovery. We responded, after the completion of discovery, with an extensive summary judgment memorandum. We won the grant of summary judgment against 5 of the 6 named plaintiffs. In re Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Premium Litig., No. 96-MD-1122, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10745, (W.D. Michigan, July 26, 2001). A federal court, in this consolidated proceeding, ruled in our favor dismissing breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claims in a market conduct class action. Bradshaw v. Monumental Life Insurance, No. 01-CI-03332 (Circ. Ct. Jefferson County, Kentucky, November 25, 2002). We were retained to defend an alleged Kentucky class in a universal life class action. We succeeded in initially dismissing the complaint and then, after a second round of briefing and contested dismissal hearing, we won dismissal with prejudice of this class action.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

8

PAST DISPOSITION OF INSURANCE CLASS ACTIONS

Pitts v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 2002 WL 31641848 (South Carolina Ct. App., November 25, 2002). We were retained to serve as lead counsel to defend an alleged national class asserting a claim of improper processing of applicants who arguably qualified for preferred status but were sold standard policies. The court initially ruled in our favor, denying class certification of a national class, but entered provisional certification of a state of South Carolina class. Two years later, on our motion for summary judgment, we succeeded in obtaining summary judgment against the certified class. We subsequently won affirmance of summary judgment by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. VOLUNTARY DISMISSALS Richards v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co., 06-CV-03744 (S.D.N.Y., class claims voluntarily dismissed July, 2008). Putative national class action alleged that juveniles were charged smoker rates. Plaintiff agreed to non-suit the class claims. Parton Revocable Family Trust v. Linsco/Private Ledger Corp., No. 05-CV0159 (S.D. California) (voluntarily dismissed June 2005). We were retained by LPL Financial to serve as lead counsel in the defense of a national class action brought against it in federal court in San Diego. The case alleged improper contingent commissions in the sale of annuities. After filing our dismissal briefs, plaintiffs voluntarily non-suited the case with no settlement payment of any kind. Farris v. Transamerica Occidental Life, CA No. CV-02-1291, Circuit Court of Shelby County, Alabama (voluntarily dismissed May 2005). Transamerica retained us to defend their interests in a putative national class action filed in Alabama. The case alleged improper payouts on long term care insurance. After two years of litigation, plaintiffs voluntarily nonsuited the class and we settled with nominal plaintiff only. Rieger v. Aegon Direct Marketing Services, Case No. RG03134105, Alameda Superior Court, California (voluntarily dismissed November 3, 2004). Thomas v. Aegon Direct Marketing Services, Case No. 04 00718, Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida (voluntarily dismissed April 25, 2005). Plaintiffs filed, pre-CAFA, two national class actions, one in state court in Oakland and the other in Tampa state court. The suits alleged charges for unauthorized club memberships. After minimal discovery, we succeeded in persuading plaintiffs to voluntarily nonsuit both cases with no settlement of any kind. Shugrue v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., CV 99-1225, Jefferson County, Alabama (voluntarily dismissed August 26, 2003). Jackson National retained us to defend their interests in a putative national class action brought in Alabama state court. The class action alleged impropriety with respect to annuity product differentiation. After plaintiffs took several depositions and we deposed the named plaintiff, plaintiffs approached us and we were able to achieve voluntary dismissal of the class claims with a minimal payment to the named plaintiff.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

9

PAST DISPOSITION OF INSURANCE CLASS ACTIONS

Finch v. Physicians Mutual Life Ins., Case No. 02 CH 08659, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (voluntarily dismissed July 11, 2003). Physicians Mutual retained us to defend their interests in a national class action brought against it in state court in Chicago. Plaintiffs’ counsel had sued numerous defendants. Without any discovery, we were able to approach plaintiffs’ counsel and persuade them that Physicians Mutual did not belong in the case, thereby achieving a voluntary dismissal at a very early stage. Duke v. Peoples Benefit Life Ins. Co., Case No. 03 L 575, Madison County Circuit Court, Illinois (voluntarily dismissed September 15, 2003). Plaintiffs sued Peoples Benefit, in a putative national class action, in downstate Illinois in Madison County Circuit Court. After filing the dismissal brief, plaintiffs agreed to a voluntary non-suit of the case without any costs or payment to the named plaintiff. Dwayne T. Rickert v. Safeco Life Ins. Co., Case No. 03 L 476 (In The Circuit Court For The Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois) (voluntarily dismissed October 10, 2003). Plaintiffs sued Safeco, in a putative national class action, in downstate Illinois in Madison County Circuit Court. After filing the dismissal brief, plaintiffs agreed to a voluntary non-suit of the case without any costs or payment to the named plaintiff. Finch v. Monumental Life Insur. Co., Case No. 02 CH 3987, U.S.D.C., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (voluntarily dismissed June 15, 2004). Plaintiff sued Monumental Life Insurance in a national class action in Chicago state court. The action challenged the legitimacy of all small face amount life insurance policies. After three rounds of dismissal briefing, plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case with no payments to any named plaintiff. Caamano v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., Case No. 97-11509, Parish of Orleans, Louisiana (voluntarily dismissed May 2, 2002). This case sought national class certification of whole life insurance policies for alleged market conduct violations. Plaintiffs pursued the case in state court in New Orleans. After dismissal briefing, plaintiffs agreed to a voluntary non-suit of the class claims with a minimal, but confidential payment to the named plaintiff. Gadd v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., Case No. M-01-CV-120, S.D. Tex. (voluntarily dismissed January 17, 2003). This annuity interest crediting practices case was initially filed in Texas state court and, over plaintiff’s objection, we succeeded in removal to federal court. After discovery, plaintiff approached us and we negotiated a voluntary non-suit of the class claims with a minimal, but confidential payment to the named plaintiff. Breland v. Monumental Life Insur. Co., Case No. 32270, Parish of LaSalle, Louisiana (voluntarily dismissed February 20, 2003). This single state class action alleged breach of contract in honoring policy benefits. Plaintiffs settled on a named plaintiff basis only, dismissing out the class claims. SETTLEMENTS

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

10

PAST DISPOSITION OF INSURANCE CLASS ACTIONS

Gibson v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., No. CV 06-5342 DSF (SHx) (C.D. Cal.). Jackson National Life retained us to defend a national blast fax class action. The case alleged that certain faxes did not conform to national legislation regarding ability to opt out of being a recipient. The case settled for a fraction of the contingent statutory liability. Lee v. Allstate Insurance Co., Case No. 03-LK-127 (Circuit Court of Kane County, Illinois). Plaintiff brought a national class action alleging wrongful increase of cost of insurance for universal life policies. The case settled through the use of increased death benefits with no direct cash payments. Fabricant v. Allstate, No. 98-CV-1281 (S.D. Fla.). Allstate retained us on this case after the entry of class certification. We then negotiated a national settlement entered by the federal court in Miami on September 17, 2002. The case alleged improper disclosures with respect to the sale of insurance covering credit card accounts. The settlement consisted primarily of coupons for shopping at Sears, the co-defendant in the case. Jones v. Jackson National Life; Wood v. Jackson National Life; MDL Docket No. 1122, W.D. Michigan. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed these cases as state only class actions for the states of South Carolina and Mississippi. The complaints alleged that Jackson National improperly credited interest on whole life policies. We negotiated a national settlement on behalf of Jackson National that included annuity coupons and restating interest crediting on a prospective basis.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

11

SECTION V: PUBLICATIONS ¾ "Class Certification Issues for Non-Federal Question Class Actions-Defense Perspective," 777 PLI/Lit 35 (Westlaw, July 2008). ¾ “Adequacy and Typicality Under Rule 23(a): Courts Turn Back to the Basics to Deny Class Certification,” 777 PLI/Lit 127 (Westlaw, July 2008). ¾ "The Class Action Fairness Act: The Struggle Over the Commencement Requirement," ABA Tort Trial Insurance News, Summer 2006. ¾ “Class Action Defense: A Practical Guide With Ethics in Mind,” Litigation, Vol. 31, No. 4, Summer, 2005. ¾ “Attempting to Manufacture Predominance: Practical and Legal Concerns with Issue Certification Under Rule 23(c)(4),” Practising L. Inst., Litig. & Admin. Practice Course Handbook Series, Class Action Litigation 2007: Prosecution and Defense Strategies, no. 761, p. 55 (2007). Cited in In re St. Judge Products Liability Litigation (U.S. Ct. Ap. 8 Cir). ¾ "The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: The Early Decisions on ‘Commencement’ of Actions and Removal," 2006 Sidley Austin LLP Reinsurance Law Report, Vol. 12, No. 1, Winter 2006. ¾ “Current Issues and Developments in Life Insurance Class Actions,” American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Committee Newsletter, Summer 2004. ¾ “Class Certification Issues for Non-Federal Question Class Actions-Defense Perspective,” 695 PLI/Lit 85 (Westlaw July, 2003). ¾ “Preventing Class Actions Through Arbitration Clauses: Cases, Questions and Drafting Issues,” 2003 Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Reinsurance Law Report, Vol. 10, No. 2, Winter 2003. ¾ “Consumer Fraud Act Class Actions in State Courts,” ALI/ABA Conference on Life and Health Insurance Litigation, Washington, D.C., May 2002. ¾ “Attorneys’ Fees in Class Action Coupon Settlements,” Annual ABA Business Law Convention, Boston, April 4, 2002. ¾ “Commercial Borrowers Beware: A Cautionary Tale of the Impact of the Illinois Credit Agreements Act,” Chicago Bar Record, September 2001. ¾ “Where to Litigate a Mass Tort Class Action,” The National Law Journal, Vol. 23, No. 34, at B9 (April 16, 2001). ¾ “Expert Witnesses in Complex and Class-Action Litigation: Less is More,” The Trial Lawyer, Vol. 23, 130-158 (May-June 2000). SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

12

PUBLICATIONS

¾ “Consumer Class Actions: Director and Officer Liability Insurance Issues,” Bank and Corporate Governance Law Reporter, Vol. 22, No. 4, June 1999. ¾ “Internet Securities Fraud,” Journal of Corporate Accounting, Winter, 1999. ¾ “Class Action Litigation: Manageability Issues in Class Certification Analysis,” National Law Journal, August 31, 1998. ¾ “Hidden Director Liability Reforms,” The Corporate Board, July/August 1995. ¾ “Control Person Securities Fraud Liability,” American Bar Association National Publication, December 1994.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

13

SECTION VI: SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS ¾ Chair of PLI National Seminar on Class Action Litigation, New York, July 2008, July 2007, July 2006, July 2005, July 2004, July 2003, August 2002, August 2001, August 2000, August 1999. ¾ “Non-Federal Question Class Actions,” PLI National Class Action Insurance, New York, July 10, 2008. ¾ “Current and Emerging Class Action Issues,” National Association of Variable Annuity (NAVA) Annual Convention, Washington, D.C., June 25, 2007. ¾ “The Credit Life Class Actions – Light at the End of the Tunnel,” Consumer Credit Industry Association Conference, Destin, Florida, April 30, 2007. ¾ “Consumer Litigation Against Insurance Companies,” PLI Consumer Financial Services Litigation Institute, Chicago, April 19, 2007. ¾ “Pre-Trial Defense Tactics in FCRA/FACTA Class Actions,” ACI Consumer Financial Class Action Conference, New York, September 27, 2006. ¾ “2(b) Or Not 2(b): When Can a 23(b)(2) Injunctive Class Be Certified?” PLI Seminar on Class Action Litigation: Prosecution and Defense Strategies, New York, July 28, 2006. ¾ “Current Developments in Class Action Litigation: The Class Action Fairness Act One Year Later,” PLI Seminar on Class Action Litigation: Prosecution and Defense Strategies, New York, July 27, 2006. ¾ "Recent Developments in Injunctive Class Actions;" ALI-ABA Conference on Insurance Industry and Financial Services Litigation, Washington, D.C., March 31, 2006. ¾ "The Class Action Fairness Act: One Year Later, "American Conference Institute National InHouse Counsel Conference on "Defending & Managing Complex Litigation," Atlanta, March 30, 2006. ¾ “Class Action Fairness Act: Impact and Implications,” Quebec Bar Association Class Action Conference, Montreal, Canada, October 21, 2005. ¾ “Recent Amendments to Federal Rule 23,” American Conference Institute Consumer Finance Class Action Conference, New York, September 30, 2004. ¾ Moderator and Speaker: “Class Action Fairness Act: Preparing for its Impact,” American Conference Institute Consumer Finance Class Action Conference, New York, September 27, 2005.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

14

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

¾ “Current Issues and Recent Developments in Life Insurance Class Actions,” ABA/Tort and Insurance Committee Annual Convention, Orlando, January 16, 2004. ¾ Chair and Moderator, Chicago Bar Association Seminar on Federal Court Trials, November 3, 2003. ¾ “The New Life Insurance Class Actions: Adjust or Left In the Dust,” American Council of Life Insurers Annual Convention, Miami, October 14, 2003. ¾ “Lessons to be Learned from United States Class Actions,” Canadian Institute Class Action Conference, Montreal, March 2003. ¾ “Consumer Fraud Act Class Action in State Courts,” ALI/ABA Annual Insurance Litigation Seminar, Washington, D.C., May 2002. ¾ “Class Action Settlements: Attorneys’ Fee Issues,” ABA Business Law Section Annual Convention, Boston, April 2002. ¾ “Litigation Du Jour: Plaintiffs Dish Up More Creative Cases,” Association of Life Insurance Counsel Annual Convention, Green Briar, West Virginia, May 2001. ¾ “Class Action Litigation: Coming Soon to a Courtroom Near You,” Defense Research Institute Life and Health Seminar, Chicago, May 2001. ¾ “Insurance Class Action Expert Witness Issues,” ALI/ABA Annual Insurance Litigation Seminar, San Francisco, August 2000. ¾ “Litigating the Class Action Lawsuit,” National Business Institute, Chicago, July 2000. ¾ “Cutting-Edge Class Certification Issues,” PLI National Seminar on Class Action Litigation, New York, August 1999. ¾ “Non-Federal Question Class Actions: Growth Industry or Fated to Doom?,” Chicago Bar Association Class Litigation Committee, November 1998. ¾ “Minimizing Exposure to Insider Trading Liability,” Executive Enterprises National Conference on Financial Reporting, Washington, D.C., November 1998. ¾ “Projections and Forward Looking Statements: How to Avoid Liability,” Chicago Bar Association Securities Law Conference, March 1997. ¾ “Establishing and Maintaining a Party’s Credibility During Trial,” Lorman National Business Institute on Complex Trials, December 1996.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

15

SECTION VII: INSURANCE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE GROUP MEMBERS Joel S. Feldman

[email protected]

312.853.2030

Chicago

Richard J. Grad

[email protected]

213.896.6630

Los Angeles

Gerald L. Angst

[email protected]

312.853.7757

Chicago

Robert Pietrzak

[email protected]

212.839.5537

New York

Geoffrey M. Ezgar

[email protected]

415.772.1292

San Francisco

T. Robert Scarborough

[email protected]

312.853.2236

Chicago

Eric S. Mattson

[email protected]

312.853.4716

Chicago

Ronie M. Schmelz

[email protected]

213.895.6658

Los Angeles

Bruce Braverman

[email protected]

312.853.2661

Chicago

Jeffrey E. Crane

[email protected]

312.853.0460

Chicago

Melanie Jo Triebel

[email protected]

312.853.7469

Chicago

Hannah R. Ruehlman

[email protected]

312.853.2087

Chicago

David R. Carpenter

[email protected]

213.896.6679

Los Angeles

Peter M. Flanagan

[email protected]

312.853.7664

Chicago

Ashwin Janakiram

[email protected]

312.853.7288

Chicago

Winston G. Collier

[email protected]

312.853.0736

Chicago

Sarah H. Newman

[email protected]

312.853.3412

Chicago

Ryan M. Sandrock

[email protected]

415.772.1219

San Francisco

Anna C. Schumaker

[email protected]

312.853.0324

Chicago

Rachel W. Petty

[email protected]

312.853.0320

Chicago

William D. Patterson

[email protected]

312.853.3463

Chicago

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

16

WORLD OFFICES BEIJING

GENEVA

SHANGHAI

Suite 608, Tower C2 Oriental Plaza No. 1 East Chang An Avenue Dong Cheng District Beijing 100738 China T: 86.10.6505.5359 F: 86.10.6505.5360

Rue de Lausanne 139 Sixth Floor 1202 Geneva Switzerland T: 41.22.308.00.00 F: 41.22.308.00.01

Suite 1901 Shui On Plaza 333 Middle Huai Hai Road Shanghai 200021 China T: 86.21.2322.9322 F: 86.21.5306.8966

HONG KONG Level 39 Two Int’l Finance Centre 8 Finance Street Central, Hong Kong T: 852.2509.7888 F: 852.2509.3110

SINGAPORE

LONDON

SYDNEY

Woolgate Exchange 25 Basinghall Street London, EC2V 5HA United Kingdom T: 44.20.7360.3600 F: 44.20.7626.7937

Level 10, 7 Macquarie Place Sydney NSW 2000 Australia T: 61.2.8214.2200 F: 61.2.8214.2211

717 North Harwood Suite 3400 Dallas, Texas 75201 T: 214.981.3300 F: 214.981.3400

LOS ANGELES

Sidley Austin Nishikawa Foreign Law Joint Enterprise

FRANKFURT

NEW YORK

Taunusanlage 1 60329 Frankfurt am Main Germany T: 49.69.22.22.1.4000 F: 49.69.22.22.1.4001

787 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10019 T: 212.839.5300 F: 212.839.5599

BRUSSELS Square de Meeûs, 35 B-1000 Brussels Belgium T: 32.2.504.6400 F: 32.2.504.6401

CHICAGO One South Dearborn Chicago, Illinois 60603 T: 312.853.7000 F: 312.853.7036

DALLAS

555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, California 90013 T: 213.896.6000 F: 213.896.6600

SAN FRANCISCO 555 California Street San Francisco, California 94104 T: 415.772.1200 F: 415.772.7400

6 Battery Road Suite 40-01 Singapore 049909 T: 65.6230.3900 F: 65.6230.3939

TOKYO

Marunouchi Building 23F 4-1, Marunouchi 2-chome Chiyoda-Ku, Tokyo 100-6323 Japan T: 81.3.3218.5900 F: 81.3.3218.5922

WASHINGTON, D.C. 1501 K Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 T: 202.736.8000 F: 202.736.8711

www.sidley.com Sidley Austin LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership which operates at the firm’s offices other than Chicago, London, Hong Kong, and Sydney, is affiliated with other partnerships, including Sidley Austin LLP, an Illinois limited liability partnership (Chicago); Sidley Austin LLP, a separate Delaware limited liability partnership (London); Sidley Austin, a New York general partnership (Hong Kong); Sidley Austin, a Delaware general partnership of registered foreign lawyers restricted to practicing foreign law (Sydney); and Sidley Austin Nishikawa Foreign Law Joint Enterprise (Tokyo). The affiliated partnerships are referred to herein collectively as Sidley Austin, Sidley, or the firm.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP