Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page1of19 PageID #:18067 EXHIBIT D Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:18068 Jeanette T. Barzelay From: Lux, James [James.Lux@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:52 AM To: Charles N. Freiberg; Robinson, Andrea; Shapiro, Jonathan Ce: Fleming, Joel; Brian P. Brosnahan; Jacob N. Foster; Jeanette T. Barzelay; Baltodano, Latricia; Perla, Timothy Subject: RE: Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest Attachments: Blackline -- Notice (distributing questionnaire) (106486067) (1).docx; Blackline -- Notice (member of class and sub-class) (106485879) (1).docx; Blackline -- Notice (member of class only) (106485647) _(1).docx; Draft Class Questionnaire_(105540852)_ (1) (3).doc All, Attached please find drafts of our current thinking on the notices (which are still subject to our client’s approval), which for clarity | have black-lined against the version that you initially sent. Per Jonathan’s voicemail to Brian, we’re available on Monday to discuss some outstanding questions we have. Jim From: Charles N. Freiberg [mailto:CFreiberg@kasowitz.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:23 PM To: Robinson, Andrea; Shapiro, Jonathan Cc: Lux, James; Fleming, Joel; Brian P. Brosnahan; Jacob N. Foster; Jeanette T. Barzelay; Baltodano, Latricia; Perla, Timothy Subject: RE: Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest Andrea and Jonathan, One answer (there may be others) quickly comes to mind here. The policyholders who are in the Class and the subclass only have a single opt-out because their choice is to pursue all of their claims independent of the class action (opt out) or all of their claims in the class action. This is so because of the effect of res judicata. See Judge Selna’s November 9, 2012 decision, 4" paragraph commencing on page 34 and ending on page 35. Charlie Charles N. Freiberg Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP 101 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94111 Tel. (415) 655-4326 Fax (415) 358-5926 CFreiberg @kasowitz.com From: Robinson, Andrea [mailto:Andrea.Robinson@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:45 PM To: Charles N. Freiberg; Perla, Timothy; Shapiro, Jonathan Cc: Lux, James; Fleming, Joel; Brian P. Brosnahan; Jacob N. Foster; Jeanette T. Barzelay; Baltodano, Latricia Subject: RE: Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 o0f19 Page ID #:18069 Charles — just looking for your thinking on a single opt-out for folks in the class regardless of whether they are also in the sub-class Andrea J. Robinson | WilmerHale 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 USA +1 617 526 6360 (t) +1 617 526 5000 (f) andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. This email message and any attachments are being sent by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately—by replying to this message or by sending an email to postmaster@wilmerhale.com—and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you. For more information about WilmerHale, please visit us at http://www.wilmerhale.com. From: Charles N. Freiberg [mailto:CFreiberg@kasowitz.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:53 PM To: Perla, Timothy; Shapiro, Jonathan Cc: Lux, James; Robinson, Andrea; Fleming, Joel; Brian P. Brosnahan; Jacob N. Foster; Jeanette T. Barzelay; Baltodano, Latricia Subject: RE: Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest Jonathan, We do not understand the question raised in your email. Please clarify the different treatment to which you refer. Charlie Charles N. Freiberg Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP 101 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94111 Tel. (415) 655-4326 Fax (415) 358-5926 CFreiberg @kasowitz.com From: Shapiro, Jonathan [mailto:JonathanShapiro@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:11 PM To: Norma Ortega; Perla, Timothy Cc: Lux, James; Robinson, Andrea; Fleming, Joel; Brian P. Brosnahan; Jacob N. Foster; Jeanette T. Barzelay; Charles N. Freiberg; Baltodano, Latricia; Shapiro, Jonathan Subject: Re: Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest Brian, | owe you an update. We're working through a host of issues on the notices. There is one in particular that I'm hoping you may be able to help us with, dealing with the illustration class. Do you have any case law (either way) for the proposition that the illustration class can be treated differently for notice/opt-out purposes than the larger class? 2 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 4o0f19 Page ID #:18070 We have other issues, but broadly speaking that key question/topic is where we are getting bogged down. Thanks, Jonathan Jonathan A. Shapiro | WilmerHale 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA +1 650 858 61011 (t) +1 650 858 6100 (f) jonathan.shapiro@wilmerhale.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Shapiro, Jonathan Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 08:01 PM Eastern Standard Time To: 'NOrtega@kasowitz.com'’ ; Perla, Timothy Cc: Lux, James; Robinson, Andrea; Fleming, Joel; 'bbrosnahan@kasowitz.com' ; ‘jfoster@kasowitz.com' ; 'JBarzelay@kasowitz.com' ; 'cfreiberg@kasowitz.com' ; Shapiro, Jonathan; Baltodano, Latricia Subject: Re: Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest Brian We'll try to get our marked up notice to you by cob. I'm not sure it makes sense to discuss it in the abstract. Thanks, Jonathan Jonathan A. Shapiro | WilmerHale 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA +1 650 858 61011 (t) +1 650 858 6100 (f) jonathan.shapiro@wilmerhale.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Norma Ortega [mailto: NOrtega@kasowitz.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 06:55 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Perla, Timothy; Shapiro, Jonathan Cc: Lux, James; Robinson, Andrea; Fleming, Joel; Brian P. Brosnahan ; Jacob N. Foster ; Jeanette T. Barzelay ; Charles N. Freiberg <(CFreiberg@kasowitz.com> Subject: Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest Original to follow via U.S. Mail. Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 5of19 Page ID #:18071 Norma Ortega Legal Secretary Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP 101 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94111 Tel. (415) 655-4318 Fax (415) 520-5360 NOrtega@kasowitz.com This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. Use or disclosure of this e-mail or any such files by anyone other than a designated addressee is unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete this e-mail without making a copy. Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 6of19 PageID #:18072 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | If you were or are a California resident who purchased one or both of the following from Life Insurance Company of the Southwest (“LSW’’): e SecurePlus Provider universal life insurance policy e SecurePlus Paragon universal life insurance policy a class action lawsuit may affect your rights. Please read this notice carefully. A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. e Individuals who purchased a SecurePlus Provider Policy or a SecurePlus Paragon Policy (“the Policies’’) have sued LSW, alleging that LSW engaged in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices and committed fraud, by allegedly marketing the Policies as secure retirement or investment plans while allegedly concealing important facts and risks regarding the Policies._ LSW responds that these allegations are baseless, and that no important facts or risks regarding the Policies were concealed. The United States District Court for the Central District of California (“the Court’) has ruled that the case may proceed as a class action on behalf of all individuals who purchased a SecurePlus Provider or a SecurePlus Paragon Policy from LSW on or after September 24, 2006 and who resided in California at the time the Policy was issued to them. The Court is currently in the process of determining who may be a member of an additional, sub-Class that is also a part of this lawsuit. e The Court has not decided whether LSW did anything wrong. There is no money available now, and soe guarantee-there wiltmay never be. e The primary purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the lawsuit sethat+yexu-canmake-an informed decision as-and to obtain information from you to determine whether or not you wantte+emain-may be a member of the sub-Class-creschitle-vonssel tease. e This lawsuit has_not_ changed the terms _of your insurance policy if it is in_force, and all contractual guarantees remain in place and are not at risk. If you have any questions about your insurance policy other than about this Class—_Action, you should contact LSW or your insurance agent as usual (contact information below). RESPONSE TO LAWSUIFNOTICE 1 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW. __ .COM ACTEVEUS 1064854855-LACTIVEUS 106486067v.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 7 of19 PageID #:18073 You will remain-receive another notice following the Court’s determination of sub-Class membership. The Court is currently in the process of determining who may be a member of the Class-and_be-_part of this tawsuit.—sub-Class. Your answers on the attached questionnaire will provide the Court with information that may be important in determining whether you are a member. Once the Court determines membership in the sub-Class, you will receive another notice with additional information about this lawsuit. COMPLETE THE ATTACHED QUESTIONNAIREDS LOS By doing nothing. you keep the possibility of getting money or benefits that may come froma trial ora settlement. But, you give up any rights to sue LSW separately about the same legal claims in this lawsuit. You would-get-out of this lawsuit, cet noe-benefits will receive another notice but you may be prevented from it,and_keep-yeur_rights te-sueLS W. separately.membership in the sub-Class. If you askdo not respond to this questionnaire, the Court may be unable to be exchided,and money-or benefits-determine whether you are later-awardedyou witta member of the sub-Class, which means that you may not share in these- But—you-keep-any rightsrecovery that may be provided to sue-LSW. separatelythe sub-Class in the future. Once the Court determines membership in the sub-Class, you will receive another notice with additional information about the-sametecal claims inthis lawsuit. Do NOTHINGASK Fo BE EXCLUDED e These rights and options — and the deadlines to exercise them — are explained in this notice. To be exeludedensure that your questionnaire is considered, you must acetcomplete and return it by ____ [6975 days from date of notice]. e Lawyers for the Class and sub-Class must still prove their claims against LSW in a trial or the case must settle. The trial is set for___———S™,« 2013. 1: money-or-benefits-are-obtained from LSW, you will be notified about how _to-ask fora share. e Any questions? Read on and visit [insert website address]. z QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW. __ .COM ACTEVEUS 1064854855-LA CTIVEUS 106486067V.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 #:18074 Page 8o0f 19 PageID | [UPDATE] BASIC INFORMATION ............0.cccsccssccescecscccceecccsscecccusceusccuscceecease 1. Why did I get this notice package? 2. What is this lawsuit about? 3. What is aclass action and who is involved? 4. Why is this a class action? THE CLAIMS IN THIS LAWSUIT .................cccceseccescceeccsccesccnsccacenes What does the lawsuit complain about? How does LSW answer? Has the Court decided who is right? What are the Plaintiffs asking for? Is there any money available now? SO COON WHO IS IN THE CLASS 00.00... ccc cece ccc cecccceeccceeccceeecccuccceusceueecsenenceeees 10. Am I part of this Class? cen PAGE 8 11. Are any SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon policyholders specifically excluded from the Class? 12. Do beneficiaries of deceased policyholders have rights in this lawsuit? 13. I’m still not sure if I’m included. YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS. ................cccccecccscccescecccusccucccnsceuscenes 14. What happens if I do nothing at all? 15. Why would I ask to be excluded? 16. How do I ask the Court to exclude me from the Class? THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU 0.00... ..cc. cece ceccceeeeceeeeceeee scons 17. Do Ihave a lawyer in the case? 18. Should I get my own lawyer? 19. How will the lawyers be paid? 20. How and when will the Court decide who is right? 21. Do I have to come to the trial? 21. Will I get money after the trial? GETTING MORE INFORMATION.............cccccecccseccesccecccsccesccnsccascenes 23. How do I get more information? 3 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW. __ ACFEUS 4064854854-4A CTIVEUS 106486067V.1 sheane PAGE 10 wena: PAGE 11 neon PAGE 11 sue PAGE 12 .COM Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 9of19 PageID #:18075 BASIC INFORMATION You are listed in LSW’s records as beisg—a current or former owner of a SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon indexed universal life insurance policy, who purchased theyour Policy from LSW on or after September 24, 2006, and who resided in California at the time the your Policy was issued to you. The Court directed that the parties send you this notice because the Court has allowed, or “certified,” a class action lawsuit that may affect your rights. You have legal rights and options that you may exercise before the Court holds a trial. The trial istewill decide whether the claims being made against LSW, on your behalf, are correct_or incorrect, and whether you or anyone else is or is not entitled to receive any relief. This package explains the lawsuit; and your legal rights—and-your-options. The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Santa Ana, California, and the case is known as Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No. CV-10-9198-JVS (RNBx). This lawsuit relates to life insurance policies marketed-and-seldissued by LSW, known as the SecurePlus Provider Policy and the SecurePlus Paragon Policy (“the Policies”). Plaintiffs claim that LSW marketed the Policies as safe and secure retirement or investment plans that would purportedly provide the policyholder with significant retirement income, when in fact the structure of the Policies allegedly created a high-risk that the Policy will “lapse--Gneaning+un—out-of money—andterminate) or suffer reduced Policy value and that-the, if a Policy lapses, it will not deliver any tax advantages. Plaintiffs also contend that illustrations used in selling the Policies concealed substantial—Policy fees and misrepresented guaranteed earnings and guaranteed caps on certain Policy fees. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of LSW’s misrepresentations and omissions, policyholders wereinducedto—invest-substantiat assetsinthepurchased Policies which they weretater-anabletotake-out ofthe Policiescannot now cancel due to the-very-high fees charged for surrendering (giving up) the policy. Plaintiffs seek damages and an order prohibiting LSW from continuing to-engagemengaging in what they allege are unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Plaintiffs also seek to enable policyholders to undo (or “rescind”’) the Policies (including insurance coverage under those Policies) and seek refunds_of a portion of the premiums paid for the rescinded Policies. LSW disputes all of these claims and denies that it did anything wrong in its marketing and disclosures to-peheyhelders. LSW disputes all of these claims and denies that it did anything wrong in its marketing and disclosures to policyholders. Specifically, LSW contends that the Policies are high-quality life insurance products that provide LSW’s policyholders and their beneficiaries with substantial death benefits. In addition, 4 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW.____.COM AcHYyEUS-106485485¥.LA CTIVEUS 106486067V.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 10o0f19 Page ID #:18076 LSW contends that there is nothing in the structure of the Policies that create any particular risk of lapse or reduced policy value, and that all fees and guarantees were disclosed to you and other policyholders (including because all fees and guarantees were incorporated into illustrated values, and were otherwise conveyed by agents, brochures, and/or in the Policy itself). In fact, LSW’s contends that its policyholders (such as yourself) have fared very well, with policy values that have grown at a rate better than the contractual guarantee despite a serious downturn in the stock market over the past several years. 3. What is a class action and who is involved? In a class action lawsuit, one or more persons, called Class Representatives (in this case Joyce Walker, Kim Bruce Howlett, and Muriel Spooner), sue on behalf of people (called “Class Members”) who have similar claims. The Class Representatives who sued — and all of the Class Members like them — are called the Plaintiffs. The company they sued (in this case LSW) is called a Defendant. One court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class. 4. Why is this a class action? United States District Judge James V. Selna of the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Judge—Selnaor—“the-Court)His in charge of this case, and he has certified it as a class action. Judge-SelnaThe Court decided that this lawsuit can be a class action and move towards a trial because it meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions in federal courts. Specifically, the Court found that: | e LSW seldissued approximately 3742,000 SecurePlus Paragon or SecurePlus Provider Policies to individuals in California on or after September 24, 2006; | e There are-many legal questions and facts that are common to each of these individuals; The claims of Class Representatives Walker, Howlett, and Spooner are typical of the claims of the rest of the Class; e Walker, Howlett, and Spooner, and the lawyers representing the Class will fairly and adequately represent the Class’ interests; e The common legal questions and facts predominate over any questions that affect only individuals; and e This class action will be more efficient than having many individual lawsuits. More information about why the Court is allowing this lawsuit to be a class action is available at http://www. 5 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW.__ -COM ACTHVEUS 106485485s-,ACTIVEUS 106486067V.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 11of19 PageID #:18077 THE CLAIMS IN THIS LAWSUIT The SecurePlus Provider Policy and the SecurePlus Paragon Policy (“the Policies”) are indexed universal life insurance policies which are seld-and—marketedissued by LSW-as—beth-aife insurance poley-and aninvestment.. In this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs claim that LSW erngaged+nanfasanlawful and fraudulent business-practices-and-committed fraud by -misrepresentinemisrepresented the Policies as safe and secure retirement and investment plans, while concealing-+mportant information about the Policies, including fees charged against the Policy value, how guaranteed interest is calculated on the Policy, and the significantrisks of lapse or reduced Policy value because of how the Policies are structured. The Policies provide a death benefit if the policyholder dies while the Policy is in force. While the policyholder is alive, the Policy value can earn interest that is based on the performance of the S&P 500 Stock Index. This interest, along with premiums paid by the policyholder, becomes part of the cash value of the Policy. Nemerous-Fees are charged against the Policy by LSW, which the Plaintiffs claim are not adequately disclosed; some fees are deducted directly from each premium deHarspentpayment, and additional fees are deducted from the accumulated value of the Policy everyeach month. SientficantDecreasing surrender charges apply to the Policies in the event a policyholder wants to surrender the Policy prierte-deathwithin the first ten years. The Plaintiffs contend that LSW deceptelh—conceals the significantisksrisk that the Policies will decrease instead of increase in value and that the policyholder will not be able to realize any tax advantages from the Policy. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend: 1) that the internal structure of the Policy, combined with the natural volatility of the stock market, creates a very-hiehtisk that the Policy value will decrease substantialy-or even cause the Policy to lapse and thyus—terminate without any—value. Plaintiffs allege that this risk is due to the interaction between natural S&P 500 Steck Index-volatility and the Policy-design, including the existence-of certain_tlapse-acceleratine features of the Policy. Fhis-is-caHedThey call this the “Volatility Defeet Claim”; and 2) that although the Policy is-desienedtemay enable the policyholder to earn “tax free~ retirement income through Policy loans, LSW does not disclose that the Policies aremay lapse-prene and that it s-bebb—akebtheat the policyholder willmay not be able to obtain any actual tax benefits —ticharitd rete thi death-oHtheinsured person-. If the Policy were to lapse with a loan outstanding, the policyholder would ee Ne income taxes on and oe eee that were es from the Policy—an a WOU i Na Tennent ie ie earn Ra EP when it lapsed. They call this the “Tax Defeet-Claim.” Plaintiffs also contend that the Peley—HWustration-documents_prepared by_Ls W_andillustrations used by agents and brokers in the marketimgsale of the Policies are also misleading and deceptive, because they: 6 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW. __ .COM ACTEVEUS 1064854855-LACTIVEUS 106486067V.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 12o0f19 PageID #:18078 1) represent that the Policy has only “One Policy Fee” while in fact numerous fees are deducted from the policy value. Fhiss-caHedThey call this the “Undisclosed Fees Claim”; 2) represent that the Policy provides an annual interest guarantee of 2% (for Provider) and 2.5% (for | Paragon}), when in fact LSW prevides-ne—such—guarantees—Fhis+s—eaHed_that this interest increase will happen retrospectively after_a_ period of years. They call this the “Minimum Guarantee Claim’’; and 3) represent that a—futureone policy fee reduction—that—is—deseribed—in_the—Hustration—is guaranteedwill reduce after ten years, when in fact #that reduction is not guaranteed. hiss eaHedThey call this the “No Guaranteed Fee Reduction Claim.” The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of LSW’s misrepresentations and nondisclosures regarding the Policies, purchasers of the Policies suffered money damages, including that they bought a Policy that | was worth signifieantly-less than the amount they paid for the Policy. You can read Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint at [ . You can also read LSW’s response (Answer) to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint at [ address]. 6. How does LSW answer? LSW denies that it did anything wrong. finserttextfrom-LSW4 Specifically, LSW stands by the quality of its Policies, and believes that the terms and features of its Policies are fully disclosed and set forth in a variety of materials and settings, including in conversations between policyholders and their agents or brokers and written materials (including the Policy itself, marketing materials, buyers’ guides, and illustrations). LSW also does not believe it is responsible for the decisions by the Class Representatives and others not to pay the premiums required to keep the Policies in force. 7. Has the Court decided who is right? The Court has not decided whether LSW or the Plaintiffs are correct. By establishing the Class and issuing this Notice, the Court is not suggesting that the Plaintiffs will win or lose this case. The Plaintiffs must prove their claims and that they have incurred damages as a result of the conduct alleged at a trial in order to win unless the case is settled. (See “The Trial” below on page __.) 8. What are the Plaintiffs asking for? The Plaintiffs want money damages including the amount LSW overcharged SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon policyholders, with interest on those amounts (even if the Policy lapsed or was surrendered). In the alternative, Plaintiffs alse-seek the right to undo (“rescind’’) the purchase of the Policy (in which case the insurance coverage would cease) and get_a portion of their premiums back 7 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW. __ .COM | ACFEUS 10648548544A CTIVEUS 106486067V.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 130f19 PageID #:18079 without being subjected to a surrender charge if their Policy is still in force. Plaintiffs also want an award of punitive or exemplary damages against LSW to punish it for its misconduct, and an order | prohibiting LSW from contHuineto-ensageengaging in the unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices alleged by the Plaintiffs. | No money or benefits are available now-beeause. The Court has not yet decided whether LSW did anything wrong and the two sides have not settled the case. There is no guarantee that money or benefits ever will be obtained. If money or other benefits become available, you are a member of the Class and/or the sub-Class, and you do not opt out of the Class, you will be notified about how to ask for a share of the money or benefits obtained. WHOIS IN THE CLASS | Aum Who is a | Fhe-CourtIn this case, there is one over-arching Class and a sub-Class. The Court has decided that you are part of the Class if you are a current or former SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon policyholder who resided in California at the time of Policy issuance and you purchased the Policy on or after September 24, 2006. The Court is currently deciding membership in the sub-Class. In order to do this, the Court has appointed a so-called “Special Master” to_assist the Court in its review of materials from LSW’s policy files in order to determine what materials, if any, potential Class Members received. In addition, the Court has directed that the attached questionnaire be distributed to potential Class Members to assist the Special Master in determining whether you and other policyholders are members of the sub-Class. AH -Class-MempbersAll current or former SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon policyholders who resided in California at the time of Policy issuance and purchased the Policy on or after September 24, 2006 (the Class) are asserting claims under the California Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code Section 17200) for LSW’s unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business acts and practices with respect to the Policies, specifically the Volatility Defeet-Claim and the Tax-Defeet Claim described above. Class Members who purchased one of the Policies on or after September 24, 2007 are also asserting a fraud claim against LSW based on these allegations. Class-MembersAll current or former SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon policyholders who resided in California at the time of Policy issuance, purchased the Policy on or after September 24, 2006, and who received a Policy Illustration decument-from LS W at or before the time they applied for one-of their Policy (the Pekeiessub-Class) are asserting additional claims against LSW under the California Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code Section 17200) based on misrepresentations and omissions contained in the Policy Illustration documents, specifically the Undisclosed Fees Claim, Minimum Guarantee Claim, and the No Guaranteed Fee Reduction Claim described above. Class Members who purchased one of the Policies on or after September 24, 2007 are also asserting a fraud claim against LSW, based on these allegations. 8 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW. __ .COM ACTEVEUS 1064854855-LACTIVEUS 106486067v.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 14o0f19 Page ID #:18080 11. Are any SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon policyholders specifically excluded from the Class? Yes. The following persons are not included in the Class for Subelasses}:the sub-Class: past or present officers, directors, agents, brokers, or employees of LSW, or its parent or subsidiary corporations; any agents, brokers, or others who sold the SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon policies for LSW, or for its parent or subsidiary corporations; any entity in which LSW has a controlling interest; the affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys or assigns of LSW or its parent or subsidiary corporations; any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the staff and immediate family of any such judge, justice, or judicial officer; persons who previously had settled disputes with LSW with respect to their SecurePlus Provider or SecurePlus Paragon policies and signed releases; and any person who submits a valid request to be excluded-fromthe-Class.. 12. Do beneficiaries of deceased policyholders have rights in this lawsuit? Beneficiaries of deceased policyholders may be entitled to rights and benefits under this class action lawsuit. If you are not ste whether you are included in the Class. call the Information Center at |-SO0-XxXx-XXXX for further information or visit the website at ; 9 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW. __ -COM ACTHVEUS 106485485444 CTIVEUS 106486067V.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 15o0f19 PageID #:18081 YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS H-yeu meet the definition of a Class Member,you haveto decide whether to-stayThe Court is currently in the Class-or-askte-be-exelidedtromprocess of determining membership in the sub-Class through the Class-use of a Court-appointed Special Master. You have to decide this-on-or-before {6Owhether to complete the attached questionnaire, which the Special Master will use to determine if you are a member of the sub-Class. To ensure that your questionnaire is considered, you must complete and return it b Whether or not the Court determines that you are a member of the sub-Class, you will receive another notice from the Court explaining your rights and options as a Class Member. If the Court decides that you are a member of the sub-Class, this additional notice will include additional information pertinent to members of the sub-Class. 14. What happens if I do nothing at all? You do not have to do anything now. You are still a member of the Class, and the Court may still determine that you are a member of the sub-Class. However, the information sought by the attached questionnaire may be important to the Court in determining whether you are a member of the sub-Class, which means that if you do not respond you may not share in any recovery that may be provided to the sub-Class in the future. 10 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW. __ -COM ACEYEUS-1064854855-4A CTIVEUS 106486067V.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 16o0f19 Page ID #:18082 | THe LAWYERS REPRESENTING You-do-not-haveto-do-anything now if you-wantto_keep-the possibility of geting money or benefits from this lawsuit. By doing nothing you are staying in the Class. H-yeu-stay in and the Plaintiffs_obtain money_or benefits, either as_a_result of the tral ora settlement, you will be notified about how to apply for a share (or how to ask to be excluded from any settlement). Keepunind that +? you de nothing new, recardiess_of whether the Plamtiffs—win-ortese the tak you adtasthechletose ot eontinae toe LS i pad et est ae he se testiel claims that are the subject of this lawsuit. You also will be legally bound by all of the rulings that the Courtinakes this class-action: CLASS MEMBERS [_ wives tastes ietestorchsmbas H-you-already_have-your-own lawsuit against Ls W_based_on the subject oH this tawsuit and want to conunue wilh it, you need to ask to be excluded from the Class. H you exclude which means to remove yoursel! from the Class. and is sometimes called “opting-out” of the Class you-will not get any-money_or benefits from this tawsuit even tf the Plaintiffs obtain them as—a result of the trial or from any setUement Gf there is a settlement) between LSW and the Plainults. However if-you exchide-yourself from the Class-you may then be able to sue-or continue to-sue-Ls Wf you exclude yourself, you will not be legally bound by the Court’s rulings in this class action. If you start your own lawsuit against LSW after you exclude yoursell, you will have to hire and pay your own lawyer for that lawsuit, and you wil have to prove your claims. Tf you do exclude yourself so you can start or continue your own lawsuit against LSW, you should talk to your own lawyer soon, because yourclaims-may be subject t+o-a time tmit, knows as-a statute of hmitations. Fo-asktobe-exchidedyou must send an—“Exehision Request_in the form of atetter sent bymait stating that-yeu-wanttebe-exehidedtrom _Welker+LSW_Be suretoinehide-your name and _address_and sign the letter. You must mail your Exclusion Request postmarked by _ . to: Walker v. LSW Exehistens, P-O- Box : —You-may-alse getan Exehision Request form at the-website, 11 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW.____.COM ACTEVEUS 1064854855-LACTIVEUS 106486067V.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 17o0f19 PageID #:18083 FHE-LAWYERS-REPRESENFNG- YOU Yes—The Court decided that the attorneys at two law firms — as Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, & Friedman LLP, and Law Offices of Craig A. Miller— are qualified to represent you—and—all Class Members. Together, the lawyers are called Class Counsel. They are experienced in handling similar cases. Information about either law firm can be found by visiting the websites listed below: Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP | Law Offices of Craig A. Miller www. kasowitz.com www.craigmillerlaw.com Charles N. Freiberg Craig A. Miller Brian P. Brosnahan 225 Broadway, Suite 1310 101 California Street, Suite 2300 San Diego, CA 92101 San Francisco, CA 94111 (619) 231-9449 (415) 421-6140 YeuClass Members will not be charged for these lawyers. If you_are_ a Class Member and want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. LSW is also represented by counsel. LSW’s counsel do not represent you or any other Class Members. Information about LSW’s counsel can be found by visiting the website listed below: 48.Sheuldt cetiny-owntawyer? Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP www.wilmerhale.com Andrea J. Robinson Jonathan A. Shapiro 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 If the Court determines that you are a Class Member, you do not need to hire your own lawyer because Class Counsel is working on yeurbehalf_of all Class Members. But, if you want your own lawyer, you will have to pay that lawyer. For example, you can ask him or her to appear in Court for you if you want someone other than Class Counsel to speak for you. | . How will the Class Counsel lawyers be paid? YeuClass Members will not be charged personally for these lawyers. Class Counsel are working on behalf of the Class on a contingency basis and will only be paid if a benefit is obtained for the Class and the Court approves the fees and expenses requested by Class Counsel. If the Court grants Class 12 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW. __ -COM ACFHEUS 106485485¥.LA CTIVEUS 106486067V.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 180f19 Page ID #:18084 Counsel’s request, the fees and expenses would either be paid by LSW or deducted, in whole or in part, | from monies obtained for the Class_and the sub-Class, in an amount to be determined by the Court. THE TRIAL . How and when will the Court decide who is right? If the case is not resolved by a settlement or otherwise, it will be up to Class Counsel wit-have-to prove the Plaintiffs’ claims and any damages at a trial. LSW_ will defend itself at trial. , In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Ronald Reagan Federal Building, 411 West Fourth Street, Courtroom 10C, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516. During the trial, a jury or the judge will hear all of the evidence to help them reach a decision about whether the Plaintiffs or LSW is right about the claims in the lawsuit. There is no guarantee that the Plaintiffs will win or that they will get any money for the Class. | If you de-netrequestexeluisionfromare a member of the Class and/or sub-Class, you will be notified of any proposed settlement or any recovery by Plaintiffs at trial. Be sure to report any changes to your address following receipt of this Notice to: [address] | . Do I have to come to the trial? You do not need to attend the trial unless you choose to do so. Class Counsel will present the case for the Class, and LSW will present its defenses. You and/or your own lawyer are welcome to come at your own expense. Ifthe Plainuills obtain money or benefits as a result of the trial or a settlement, you will be noufied about how to participate. We do not know how long this will take. Court orders and other important information about the case will be posted on the website, .as they become avatlable. Gcabeeess the website te oe ip-cupren infer HHH ease hether yor stay the tee stot erexchideyourself GETTING MORE INFORMATION 13 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW.__ COM ACTEVEUS 1064854855-LACTIVEUS 106486067v.1 Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-RNB Document 406-5 Filed 03/18/13 Page 19o0f19 PageID #:18085 | . How do I get more information? This Notice serves only as a summary of the Class Action. For additional information about the Class Action, you can call 1-800 toll free; write to ; or visit the website at Please do not call the Court or the Court Clerk. For any information about your Policy other than about the Class Action, you can contact LSW or your insurance agent by calling 1-800-732-8939; write to LifeCustomerService @NationalLife.com; or visit the website at www.nationallifegroup.com. 14 QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-XXX-XXXX OR VISIT WWW.__ -COM ACTHVEUS 106485485y 1 ACTIVEUS 106486067V.1