A Missed Deadline Lets AXA Equitable Evade Allegations of Nationwide Consumer Fraud

The Human Story: A Nationwide Betrayal of Trust

For countless consumers across the nation, a life insurance policy represents a promise—a bedrock of financial security for their loved ones in the face of tragedy. Joel J. Malek was one of these consumers. He, along with a nationwide class of others, placed his trust in AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, a financial giant, to honor that promise. Instead, according to allegations in a federal complaint, that trust was shattered by a “deceptive marketing conspiracy” designed to trick them.

The lawsuit alleged that these consumers were systematically targeted and manipulated into giving up their existing life insurance policies. They were allegedly coaxed into replacing them with new policies from Equitable that were more expensive, offered less value, and were significantly riskier. This is about families potentially left with less security, paying more for a lesser promise, all because they believed the marketing of a trusted institution.

The Corporate Playbook: How the Harm Was Done

The mechanism for this alleged deception has a name: “twisting”. According to the complaint, Equitable and its agent, Leonard Feigenbaum, engineered a scheme using marketing materials that were fundamentally dishonest. These materials would “deceptively ‘compare’ the existing insurance with the replacement insurance”.

The playbook was simple but effective: present a skewed picture that hid the real value of the policies people already owned. By offering an “incomplete disclosure of the benefits of maintaining existing insurance,” the company could make its new, more profitable products look like a better deal. Consumers, believing they were making a sound financial decision based on a fair comparison, were allegedly led into a classic bait-and-switch, leaving them financially worse off.

The allegations pointed to a violation of not only New York state laws but also the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).

A Cascade of Consequences: The Real-World Impact

Economic Ruin

The direct consequence of this alleged “twisting” scheme is clear: economic harm on a massive scale. For every family that was allegedly convinced to switch policies, the result was a drain on their resources for a product that was inferior.

This represents a direct transfer of wealth from ordinary policyholders to a major insurance corporation, allegedly built on a foundation of deceit. The lawsuit sought to represent a “nationwide class” of these consumers, indicating the potential for widespread financial damage.

A System Designed for This: Profit, Deregulation, and Power

Analysis

The allegations against AXA Equitable are not an isolated incident but a symptom of a larger economic system. Neoliberal capitalism prioritizes profit maximization above all else, creating powerful incentives for corporations to push the boundaries of ethical and legal conduct. In the financial services industry, this manifests as a drive to sell increasingly complex and opaque products where the seller’s advantage is information.

The alleged practice of “twisting” is a textbook example. It preys on information asymmetry—the corporation knows the intricate details and downsides of its products, while the consumer is given a simplified, “deceptive” comparison. A deregulated environment fosters this behavior, as complex rules are often replaced by a “buyer beware” ethos that overwhelmingly favors sophisticated corporate actors over individuals. The relentless pursuit of growth and shareholder value in this system can create a corporate culture where misleading a customer into a more expensive, less valuable product is seen not as a betrayal of trust, but as a successful sales strategy.

Dodging Accountability: How the Powerful Evade Justice

The story of Joel Malek’s case is a chilling lesson in how justice can be denied without a single fact of the alleged fraud ever being debated in court. The case was not actually lost persay; it would be more accurate to say it was never truly heard.

First, a district court dismissed the entire complaint, stating that the New York claims were “time-barred”—filed too late under the statute of limitations—and that the RICO allegations were not properly pleaded.

But the true travesty of accountability came next. When Malek attempted to appeal this dismissal, his appeal was also thrown out. The reason was not a lack of merit, but a procedural technicality. His lawyers served the motion for reconsideration on time, but they filed the fully-briefed motion with the court 37 days after the dismissal order, missing the strict 28-day filing deadline by a matter of days. This delay occurred while attempting to follow a judge’s individual rule “requesting” that parties “refrain from filing motion papers until the motion has been fully briefed”.

Even though the judge’s own rule sheet contained a warning that it wouldn’t excuse missing federal deadlines, this “bundling” courtesy created the exact procedural trap that ultimately killed the appeal. AXA Equitable and Feigenbaum won.

They did not have to prove the “twisting” allegations were false. They simply had to wait for their opponent to make a procedural misstep in the labyrinthine legal system. The outcome is a stark example of procedure triumphing over substance, where a corporation accused of harming consumers nationwide walks away because of a missed deadline, a perfect shield afforded by a system too complex and rigid for its own good.

Reclaiming Power: Pathways to Real Change

Analysis

When the courts fail to deliver substantive justice due to procedural snares, the fight for accountability must move to other arenas. Preventing future “twisting” schemes requires systemic reform that goes far beyond a single lawsuit.

First, financial regulations must be strengthened to protect consumers. This includes mandating radically simplified, standardized comparison documents for financial products like life insurance, eliminating the jargon and fine print that allow for “incomplete disclosure”. Regulators must be empowered with greater enforcement authority and the ability to levy fines that are genuinely painful, not just a line-item cost of doing business.

Second, the legal system itself needs to be more accessible. The “mandatory claim-processing rules” that make deadlines so unforgiving, as seen in this case, often serve to bar the courthouse doors to those with legitimate grievances. While rules are necessary, the system should have more flexibility to prevent procedural errors from extinguishing potentially meritorious claims of widespread harm. True accountability requires a justice system focused on discovering the truth, not just enforcing deadlines.

Conclusion: A Story of a System, Not an Exception

The legal document detailing Joel Malek’s procedural defeat is more than a record of a single failed appeal. It is a window into an economic and legal system that is functioning as designed. It shows how a powerful corporation, faced with serious allegations of deceiving a “nationwide class” of consumers , can leverage the complexity of the justice system to avoid accountability entirely.

This outcome is the logical result of late-stage capitalism. It’s a system that incentivizes profit-seeking behavior that harms individuals and then provides a legal framework so rigid and unforgiving that challenging that harm becomes a near-impossible task.

The story of Joel Malek and AXA Equitable is not the exception; it is the rule. It’s a depressing reminder that in the battle between individual consumers and corporate giants, the playing field is not level, and the rules themselves are often the most powerful weapon in the corporate arsenal.

All factual claims in this article regarding the case of Malek v. Feigenbaum were derived from the attached court document from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 23-992.