Once the rate of requests has dropped below the threshold for 10 minutes, the user may resume accessing content on SEC.gov. If a user or application submits more than 10 requests per second, further requests from the IP address(es) may be limited for a brief period. Current guidelines limit users to a total of no more than 10 requests per second, regardless of the number of machines used to submit requests. We reserve the right to block IP addresses that submit excessive requests. To ensure our website performs well for all users, the SEC monitors the frequency of requests for SEC.gov content to ensure automated searches do not impact the ability of others to access SEC.gov content. Unauthorized attempts to upload information and/or change information on any portion of this site are strictly prohibited and are subject to prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996 (see Title 18 U.S.C. For security purposes, and to ensure that the public service remains available to users, this government computer system employs programs to monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information or to otherwise cause damage, including attempts to deny service to users. More Information Internet Security Policyīy using this site, you are agreeing to security monitoring and auditing. For more information, contact more information, please see the SEC’s Web Site Privacy and Security Policy. You can also sign up for email updates on the SEC open data program, including best practices that make it more efficient to download data, and SEC.gov enhancements that may impact scripted downloading processes. Please declare your traffic by updating your user agent to include company specific information.įor best practices on efficiently downloading information from SEC.gov, including the latest EDGAR filings, visit sec.gov/developer. Your request has been identified as part of a network of automated tools outside of the acceptable policy and will be managed until action is taken to declare your traffic. To allow for equitable access to all users, SEC reserves the right to limit requests originating from undeclared automated tools. Penn Mutual is required to pay the benefits “automatically,” and there is no need for class members to “file a claim or take any other steps to receive the payments due to them under the Proposed Settlement.Your Request Originates from an Undeclared Automated Tool For policies terminated “by lapse or surrender” before : “A pro rata share of a $13 million Terminal Dividend.”.For policies in force as of : “A Terminal Dividend in an amount equal to 1.8% of the total Cash Surrender Value upon termination of each In Force Settlement Policy (whether by surrender or upon death of the insured).” This is expected to amount to $97 million in payouts.Per information provided, the proposed settlement will include participating policies “in force at any time from Januthrough December 31, 2015.” The settlement amounts were as follows: The case wound its way through the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and last month reached a settlement in a Stipulation of Settlement filed on the 25th of April. Pennsylvania Mutual Life Insurance Company) grew out of Pennsylvania law that requires mutual carriers domiciled in that state to “provide for the payment of dividends from surplus (or profits) on an annual basis,” and include in that dividend “all surplus that exceeds a maximum annual “safety fund” limit (i.e., all surplus in excess of 10% of its reserves, and not including the excess market value of its securities over their book value) (the “Safety Fund Limit”).” (1) Last week we reported on on a $37.5 million settlement paid by Mass Mutual Life Insurance Company for a lawsuit that alleged the carrier “was obligated to pay additional dividends on its participating policies.” Recently, a similar lawsuit settled for a much higher sum. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company settled a suit for $110 million that alleged that the carrier failed “to pay the full amount of annual policy dividends out of divisible surplus that are due.” The suit was initially filed in November of 2012 by a husband and wife who together owned 5 Penn Mutual participating whole life contracts, on behalf of them and “all persons similarly situated.” (1)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |