Coventry pushes to make Abacus documents public
The legal battle between Abacus Global Management and Coventry First has moved to a fight over what the public gets to see.
Last week, Coventry First and chairman Alan Buerger filed three counterclaims against Abacus, alleging that the company used systematically short life expectancy estimates from the now-defunct Lapetus Solutions to inflate policy values and generate gains through sales to affiliated funds.
Coventry initially filed its answer, counterclaims, and supporting exhibits under seal based on confidentiality designations made by Abacus and third parties. The court denied Coventry’s first motion to seal, finding that reliance on the parties’ confidentiality agreement was not enough to justify withholding the documents from the public.
Coventry has now returned with a narrower request. In a renewed motion filed July 17, the defendants argue that most of the materials marked “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” do not warrant protection.
Coventry is asking the court to permit redactions limited to insureds’ names, life insurance policy identification numbers, and confidential terms tied to specific business negotiations or policy transactions. It wants the remainder of its answer, counterclaims, and exhibits placed on the public docket.
The documents Coventry wants disclosed include emails in which it says Abacus CEO Jay Jackson discussed efforts to influence Lapetus; an internal email addressing how switching from Lapetus to another life expectancy provider would affect Abacus’s portfolio valuation; Lapetus statements concerning its actual-to-expected mortality ratio; and a document showing Jackson’s revisions to an Abacus press release about an actuarial valuation conducted by Lewis & Ellis.
“These documents do not contain trade secrets or proprietary information that would warrant protection,” Coventry stated. “They contain evidence of fraudulent business practices that go to the heart of this case.”
Coventry argues that the documents relate directly to public representations Abacus made about its operations and to the issues Abacus placed before the court by filing its lawsuit.
“Abacus’s attempt to hide these facts from the public conflates embarrassment with truly confidential business information,” Coventry stated.
The motion concludes that Abacus should not be permitted to keep the evidence confidential “while making public filings and issuing press releases that are inconsistent with the evidence produced in this action.”
Abacus opposes Coventry’s requested relief. Lapetus has deferred to Abacus’s position and indicated that Abacus plans to submit a separate motion concerning Lapetus documents. Grant Thornton took no position, while Morpheus Research declined to consent but does not plan to file its own motion.
The court has not yet ruled on Coventry’s renewed request. All claims concerning Abacus’s conduct remain allegations.