Beyond Structured Settlements

Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning

Selected video presentations from the Risk Settlement Planning Practicum are now posted online including Patrick Hindert's "History of Structured Settlements".  The conference, hosted April 13-14, 2012 by the University of Tulsa College of Law and attended by attorneys and law students, is believed to be the first law school conference about settlement planning.

Additional practicum presenters and topics - with online video links when available:

• Richard Risk - Introduction
• Joseph Tombs - Overview of Settlement Planning
• Professor Carl Pierce - Standards of Professional Conduct
• Jack Meligan - Pitfalls in Settlement Planning
• Jeremy Babener - Taxation in Personal Injury Cases
• Mark Popolizio - How Medicare Impacts Settlement Planning

Hindert, Managing Director of The Settlement Services Group (TSSG), primary author of "Beyond Structured Settlements" and co-author of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) provided a 75 minute discussion explaining the historical and evolutionary relationship between structured settlements and settlement planning. The discussion featured  diagrams by Timothy Morbach:

• Traditional Structured Settlement Funding
• Structured Settlement History
• Settlement Planning - with Structured Settlement Funding
• Structured Settlement Transfer

Hindert's discussion:

• Portrayed settlement planning as an emergent system with structured settlements as a core component.
• Highlighted increasing complexity and variations within the structured settlement life cycle.
• Emphasized the concomitant need for compliance and accountability to satisfy changing legislative and regulatory requirements.
• Specifically addressed: qualified settlement funds; special needs trusts; structured settlement transfers; and the ELNY liquidation.

Alternative Business Models

The future of structured settlements depends upon which of two alternative business models ultimately prevails - the traditional (defense-controlled) claim management model or the emerging (claimant centric) settlement planning model. (Note: see Addendum).

The Claim Management Model

The claim management business model was developed by members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), which is hosting its 2012 Annual Meeting this week in Washington, D.C. The claim management model has dominated the United States structured settlement industry since the enactment of the Periodic Payment Settlement Act in 1982. Its general characteristics:

• Defense control resulting from defense funding;
• Defense-approved lists of annuity providers and brokers;
• Proactive case identification and negotiation participation by defendants designed to sell structured settlements;
• De minimus regulation of sales conduct resulting in a lack of:
  • Disclosure - of compensation sharing and/or conflicts of interest;
  • Product suitability standards; and/or
  • Informed written consent by structured settlement recipients.
• Political and case-specific opposition to single claimant 468B qualified settlement funds (QSFs);
• A hostile view of the secondary structured settlement market.

The business justification for the claim management business model for defendants and liability insurers:

• Reduce claim costs by utilizing structured settlements; and
• Protect themselves from future risks by utilizing qualified assignments.

The traditional cost/risk analysis of the claim management model, however, does not adequately consider the impact on defendants of:

• Negotiating and defending damages using structured settlements funded with historically low interest rates;
• The added claim management costs specifically resulting from review of structured settlement-related file documentation;
• Potential accountability and liability resulting from:
  • Increasing legislative and regulatory protection for consumers and investors;
  • Defendant status as deep pocket originators of long-term payment promises with complex life-cycles;
  • Sales activities by defendant employees, attorneys and agents without qualified compliance supervision.

The Settlement Planning Model

As defendants and liability insurers re-think the traditional claim management structured settlement model, they should also investigate (for their own self-interest) an emerging, alternative structured settlement business model - the settlement planning model.

What is settlement planning? Joseph Tombs, a former President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and co-founder of the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) program, defines settlement planning as "... a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life."

What is a settlement planner? The SSP Standards of Professional Conduct define "settlement planner" as "... a representative who provides advice and other services to a person participating in the design, negotiation or implementation of a settlement or satisfaction of judgment for the benefit of a person claiming a legal entitlement to an award of damages or other compensation."

Although:

• The SSP Standards recognizes that "a settlement planners may represent a plaintiff, a defendant, an insurer, a guardian ad litem, an heir of the claimant, an attorney or another person participating in the settlement services", settlement planning is more "claimant centric" than the claim management model and involves a commensurate reallocation of responsibilities and risks away from defendants and liability insurers.
• Not dependent upon QSFs, the settlement planning model recognizes that QSFs provide important advantages and protections for plaintiffs and defendants.
• Product neutral, the settlement planning model recognizes structured settlement represents a core settlement planning tool that combines relatively low investment and dissipation risks.

The basic characteristics of the settlement planning model and professional, as outlined by Joseph DiGangi at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting:

• Planning orientation
• Solutions before products
• Blended products and services
• Product neutrality
• Disclosure and informed consent
• Professional training and designations
• Comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base

From a claimant centric perspective, the settlement planning process includes five stages:

• Needs assessment
• Design
• Negotiation
• Implementation
• Monitoring

 Multiple professional associations and 2012 conferences are now studying various components and issues related to the settlement planning business model:

• The Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) - S2KM attended and reviewed the ASNP 2012 Annual Meeting.
• Risk Settlement Planning Practicum - Hosted by the University of Tulsa Law School, S2KM reviewed this settlement planning conference whose presenters included Patrick Hindert, S2KM's primary blog author. Hindert spoke about the "History of Structured Settlements" and provided a schematic analysis of the structured settlement business cycle.
• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) - S2KM will attend and review the SSP 2012 Annual Meeting April 30 - May 1 in Las Vegas. Among the presenters, Hindert will address "Settlement Planning Business Models: the Defense Perspective"

ADDENDUM (April 26, 2012): After reading S2KM's blog post, Charles Schell, President-Elect of SSP, asked the following question (which Schell promised to address at the SSP Annual Meeting): "Is it necessary for one or the other business model to prevail or could each side benefit by recognizing the role of the other?"

For additional information about settlement planning (aka settlement consulting or special needs settlement planning), see the structured settlement wiki.

Risk Settlement Planning Practicum

Sheltered from the violent storms that unleashed dozens of tornadoes across Oklahoma and the plains states on April 13-14, 2012, the University of Tulsa College of Law hosted the Richard B. Risk Jr. Settlement Planning Practicum which organizers believe was the first time any law school has sponsored a settlement planning educational conference.

Risk, a national authority on structured settlement law and one of the founders of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), endowed the settlement planning practicum which is expected to become an annual event for attorneys and law students. Risk invited and introduced the practicum presenters in the following speaking order: Joseph Tombs, Patrick Hindert, Mark Popolizio, Jeremy Babener, Jack Meligan and Professor Carl Pierce.

Joseph Tombs

Tombs, a lawyer, certified financial planner and former SSP President who, working with Risk, helped organize the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification program, addressed "Common Issues Attorneys Face When Settling Cases". As part of his presentation, Tombs contrasted settlement planning and financial planning. One primary difference, according to Tombs, is the relative importance in settlement planning of "dissipation risk". Other differentiating factors identified by Tombs include the importance of: government benefits, medical forecasting and special needs legal issues. Tombs discussed structured settlements as a core settlement planning tool that combines relatively low investment and dissipation risks.

Tombs emphasized the multi-professional skill sets settlement planning requires and described settlement planning as an evolving profession stating: "The more we study and practice settlement planning, the more we realize its complexity and understand its challenges." He offered the following definition for settlement planning: "a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life."

Patrick Hindert

In his presentation titled "The History of Structured Settlements", Hindert (co-author of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" and author of S2KM's blog) provided a visual analysis featuring schematic diagrams to explain how structured settlement has evolved from a claim management tool into a core component of the larger and more complex settlement planning profession - and how competing business models have restricted the growth of the structured settlement annuity market.

Hindert stated key structured settlement stakeholders have succumbed to "path dependence" by failing to strategically study and analyze continuing industry changes. Structured settlement business models and practices that once made sense and represented "industry standards", according to Hindert, have survived despite the eclipse of their justification, benefit and/or better alternatives.

Hindert described settlement planning as an "emergent system" and quoted John McWhorter, a linguist at Columbia University, to help explain the significance for structured settlements:

"Emergent systems [settlement planning] are ones in which many different elements interact. The pattern of interaction then produces a new element [settlement planning] that is greater than the sum of the parts, which then exercises a top-down influence on the constituent elements [including structured settlements]."

To improve and grow the structured settlement market, Hindert recommended more detailed and comprehensive study of alternative structured settlement payment models and life cycles within the broader context of settlement planning as an important and necessary first step.

Mark Popolizio

A nationally recognized legal authority in Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance and a current board member of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), Popolizio addressed how Medicare impacts settlement planning. Starting with an introductory Medicare road map, he next discussed CMS' reimbursement rights for conditional Medicare payments - who is at risk; what is Medicare's recovery amount; how to challenge conditional payments; how to obtain information; CMS' most recently announced policies and payment options; and recent case law developments.

Popolizio also discussed Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs), in the context of both workers compensation and liability cases, as CMS' recommended method for protecting Medicare's future interests under the MSP Act. For liability cases, he began by emphasizing why the key issue is not: "Are liability MSAs required?" Instead, Popolizio reviewed two recent CMS memoranda providing informal information about how CMS looks at liability MSAs. Finally, Popolizio offered his own recommendations (a three-step process) for approaching the liability MSA issue and also reviewed recent related case law.

Jeremy Babener

Babener, a rising star among structured settlement legal and tax experts, offered a comprehensive overview of "Taxation in Personal Injury Cases". He began by outlining sources for tax authority, the variables for tax liability and the character of income. Next, he discussed the exclusion for personal injury damages and explained the language of IRC 104(a)(2) before addressing other damages in personal injury cases - past and future medical expenses; punitive damages; and pre and post-judgment interest.

Babener explained the importance of documentation, including the complaint and the settlement agreement, to maximize the exclusion for personal injury damages. He highlighted specific facts that frequently create problems with the IRS and conversely how to encourage the IRS to respect the documents so as to obtain the preferred tax result. Babener concluded by addressing these additional settlement tax considerations: legal expenses; structured settlements; qualified settlement funds; and transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Jack Meligan

Meligan, a founder and current President of the SSP, discussed "Pitfalls in Settlement Planning and How to Avoid Malpractice"; offered reasons why personal injury claimants and their attorneys need settlement planning advice from a qualified professional or team of professionals; and reviewed an example of a settlement plan. In addition, Meligan:

• Summarized three cases (Grillo; Lyons; and Spencer) to demonstrate why structured settlements need to be considered and risks associated with certain business behavior;
• Cited statistics from American Bar Association studies to underscore the frequency and risk of malpractice cases against personal injury attorneys;
• Spotlighted danger areas for plaintiff attorneys: MSP compliance; deductability of attorney fees; and documentation of confidentiality clauses; and
• Cautioned plaintiff attorneys against failing to retain an independent settlement advisor; or to advise their clients about all settlement options (including the pros and cons of structured settlements); or to completely document their files as proof of their best practices.

Professor Carl Pierce

Professor Pierce is the W. Allen Separk Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Howard Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy at the University of Tennessee. Among his professional activities, Professor Pierce has served as Reporter for the Tennessee Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism and as Associate Reporter for the American Bar Association Special Commission on Evaluation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. During 2007-2008, Professor Pierce served as Consultant to the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and helped review and draft the SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners (SSP Standards).

Professor Pierce provided a summary comparative analysis of both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Statement of Ethics and Professional Responsibility (NSSTA Code of Ethics) and the SSP Standards. Despite substantial experience working with litigators, Professor Pierce acknowledged surprise by the degree of hostility between some plaintiff and defense structured settlement consultants. Professor Pierce:

• Observed that all law school graduates need some exposure to structured settlements and settlement planning;
• Suggested that the business collaboration models among insurance companies, plaintiff attorneys and settlement planners could look very different in the future; and
• Recommended that representatives of NSSTA and SSP meet to discuss and compare their respective statements of ethics and standards.

Congratulations to Richard Risk, the University of Tulsa College of Law and the guest speakers who participated in the Settlement Planning Practicum. S2KM understands that Tulsa College of Law will publish a video compilation of the practicum speaker presentations on YouTube.

The ELNY Due Process Issue

Assuming presiding Judge John M. Galasso signs the Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life of New York (ELNY) as proposed by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as ELNY's Receiver, a critical issue arises:

Will the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees have been afforded "due process" before being deprived of a percentage of their payment rights?

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide in part:

• Fifth Amendment - "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
• Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 - "No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted these clauses as creating two doctrines: substantive due process and procedural due process.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process addresses whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person's life, liberty or property. The most obvious, and presumably adequate, reason why the ELNY liquidation hearing could result in some persons (shortfall payees) being deprived of property (percentage of their annuity payments) is that ELNY is insolvent.

ELNY does not have sufficient assets to meet all of its future payment liabilities. Because of variations in state guaranty association laws (primarily coverage caps) as well as individual ELNY contracts (size of annuities), approximately 15 percent of ELNY's annuity payees (mostly structured settlement payees) anticipate shortfalls while the other 85 percent expect to receive 100 percent of their promised future payments from ELNY's successor company, Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC).

Alternative Legal Recourse

Some of the structured settlement shortfall payees should have recourse against defendants and/or liability insurers who funded their structured settlement using a "buy and hold" methodology. Other structured settlement payees, whose structured settlements were funded with qualified assignments, likely would not have similar secondary payment options because First Executive Corporation (FEC), the purchaser and owner of their annuities, declared bankruptcy in 1991 and no longer exists. For an explanation of the difference between "buy and hold" funding and qualified assignments, see this prior S2KM blog post.

Although ELNY shortfall victims (including both policyholders and payees) might have a legal claim against the Superintendent, as Receiver, and his agents, including the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), the Superientent's proposed Liquidation Order includes an immunity clause intended to protect the Superintendent and his agents from any legal claims that they mismanaged the ELNY Rehabilitation and are responsible for ELNY's insolvency. For additional information about the ELNY immunity issue, see this prior S2KM blog post.

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process addresses whether the government has followed adequate procedures in taking away a person's life, liberty or property. A denial of procedural due process occurs only when there is a denial of life, liberty or property without adequate procedures. For many ELNY structured settlement payees, the probable result of the ELNY Liquidation Order and Restructuring Agreement will be to deny them of a portion of their future structured settlement payment rights. The key question for purposes of procedural due process is whether the procedures that could result in this loss of property have been "adequate".

Structured settlement payees who anticipate shortfalls and their attorneys have argued "no" - the procedures have not been adequate and therefore they anticipate suffering an unconstitutional taking of their property because of:

• Inadequate notice - ELNY's financial records indicate ELNY became insolvent as early as 2002. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer held a press conference in 2007 announcing "an agreement in principle" that all future ELNY payments would be paid in full and on time. The NYLB mailed letters to individual ELNY annuity payees on December 7, 2011: 1)  notifying them about the proposed ELNY Liquidation and Restructuring Agreement; and 2) alerting them of anticipated shortfalls for specific ELNY annuity contracts and a January 16, 2012 deadline for filing written objections. Responding to objections of inadequate notice, the Superintendent has argued the ELNY notice and briefing schedule balanced the need for a prompt resolution of ELNY’s deepening insolvency against the ability of affected parties to review and object to the proposed liquidation and Restructuring Agreement.
• Denial of information - ELNY shortfall victims and their attorneys claim they have received inadequate information to properly evaluate the proposed Restructuring Agreement in order to propose possible improvements and/or alternatives. The Superintendent's response: this objection does not constitute grounds for rejecting the Restructuring Agreement because the information sought has been provided or is premature and unnecessary for the Court’s consideration and approval of the Restructuring Agreement. The Superintendent further points out the objectors have not offered a competing plan. During the ELNY hearing, Judge John Galasso denied a motion by attorneys for the structured settlement shortfall victims to gain access to source materials utilized by Jack Gibson, the Superintendent's expert, who testified: 1) GABC is "financially viable"; 2) the Superintendent's proposed plan was "the best plan"; and 3) all ELNY shortfall victims will be better off under the proposed Restructuring Agreement than under a straight liquidation.
• Denial of witnesses - Judge Galasso refused to allow attorneys for ELNY shortfall payees to introduce several expert witnesses stating "they wouldn't help". Among the witnesses not permitted to testify:
  • A former Chief Executive Officer of ELNY.
  • Two expert actuaries.
  • Two forensic accountants one of whom is also an insurance fraud investigator.

In an article published in the Touro Law Review (Vol 16 page 871), titled "Procedural Due Process Claims", constitutional legal expert Erwin Chemerinsky highlights the following three-part balancing test the United States Supreme Court articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) to determine whether an individual has been denied procedural due process:

• The more important the interest to the individual, the more procedural protections the reviewing court is going to require.
• The reviewing court must balance the ability of additional procedures to increase the accuracy of the fact finding; how likely is it that the additional procedures will reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation?
• Whether the government's interest in administrative efficiency is such that the more expensive the procedures would be, the less likely it would be that the reviewing court would require them.

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY Liquidation Hearing, see the structured settlement wiki.

SNTs and Structured Settlements

With declining annuity premium and historically low interest rates, structured settlement stakeholders should be discussing how to improve and grow their business. By substantially expanding Medicaid, Federal health care reform potentially increases the market for structured settlement annuities used to fund special needs trusts (SNTs).

Congress created special needs trusts (self-settled; pooled; and third party) as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. When properly designed and administered, special needs trusts can receive settlement proceeds, including structured settlement payments, without disqualifying the trust beneficiary from SSI or Medicaid.

Whether a special needs trust is advisable in a specific case requires analysis of many factors including the extent of disability, the availability of government benefits, as well as the nature and amount of available personal and family assets. One complicating factor is shared regulatory authority. Medicaid is a joint federal state program. In addition to two federal agencies (SSA and CMS), state Medicaid agencies and state Medicaid plans also provide state-specific rules for special needs trusts. State and county Medicaid case workers interpret and apply federal and state Medicaid laws to individual cases.

The growth of special needs trusts has coincided with a corresponding increase in the number of special needs attorneys. Three national professional associations (ASNP, SNA and NAELA) now exist for special needs attorneys and several legal textbooks have been written about special needs trusts. Most of these textbooks, however, are generic and do not provide detailed state-specific analysis. One exception is a two volume treatise published in 2008 (with updates) by the California CEB titled "Special Needs Trusts: Planning, Drafting and Administration" (CEB SNT). Edited by Kevin Urbatsch, CEB SNT features 17 chapters separately written by leading California special needs attorneys plus detailed appendices with applicable legal forms plus federal and state statutes, regulations, case citations and other references.

Because California represents a large and strategically important state for both structured settlements and special needs trusts, S2KM recently reviewed CEB SNT to evaluate how this legal treatise addresses structured settlements and what opportunities it suggests for improving and growing the national structured settlement market. Most of the structured settlement discussion in CEB SNT appears under a Chapter 8 section titled "Use of Structured Settlements with First Party SNTs" authored by Donna Bradshaw and Leslie Ann Barnett.

Settlement Planning Team

For personal injury cases involving a special needs trust, Bradshaw and Barnett propose a collaborative settlement planning team consisting of a special needs attorney, a structured settlement broker, a SNT trustee, an independent financial planner and a life care planner. Neither Bradshaw and Barnett, nor other CEB SNT authors discuss this proposed planning team in detail. Arguably, such a discussion goes beyond the scope of this CEB SNT treatise.

The concept of a collaborative professional team, however, is critical for settlement planning and the future of structured settlements. Unfortunately, with only a few exceptions (most notably the ASNP 2009 and the SSP 2011 Annual Conferences both of which featured CEB SNT editor Kevin Urbatsch as a speaker), the following issues have to date received insufficient industry discussion:

• What is a settlement plan?
• Who are the necessary team members and what issues should they address?
• What is the settlement planning role, if any, for the plaintiff trial attorney? for the defense structured settlement broker?
• What work product(s) do each of the team members contribute?
• How are the various work products consolidated and by whom?
• How are conflicting recommendations reconciled and by whom?
• What does a settlement plan cost?
• How are the team members compensated and by whom?
• What disclosures should be made to the injury victim?
• What metrics are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of a settlement plan?
• How important are 468B qualified settlement funds for settlement planning?
• Who is liable, and how are damages apportioned, for settlement planning errors and omissions?

Structured Settlements

In the two volume CEB SNT treatise, structured settlements are the only SNT "funding product" that receives detailed coverage. Chapter 8 authors Bradshaw and Barnett justify devoting 12 CEB SNT subsections to "structured settlements" by stating: "special needs planners need to understand how structured settlements work with first party SNTs to best advise personal injury attorneys, persons with disabilities, and their families."

Acknowledging the need to understand how structured settlements work, however, does not mean Bradshaw and Barnett fully endorse structured settlements. To the contrary, they provide several warnings and cautionary notes:

• "Plaintiff's trial attorney may mistakenly believe (or be misled into believing) that a structured settlement annuity is the only effective tool for the major part of the settlement funds."
• "At times a structured settlement is funded for a person with a disability without consideration of the unique needs to that individual."
• "The most common issue is too much cash in the structured settlement and not enough cash outside the structure."
• "It is insufficient to retain just enough cash to purchase a home and a van; there also must be a financial plan to maintain the home and van and consider replacement costs"
• "When a settlement has been funded primarily in a structured settlement annuity, there is little protection from inflation."
• "Annuities purchased in a time of low interest rates are likely to grossly under perform when compared to a well-balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds."
• "If the SNT beneficiary has an emergency or needs cash quickly, the settlement annuity will not advance payments."
• "It is imperative that practitioners insist on a commutation rider whenever there is a possible estate tax situation."
• "Once the structure is funded, [the structured settlement broker's] job is done. It is then left to the SNT trustee and special needs practitioner to work with the structured settlement for the rest of the person with the disability's life."

Without explicitly criticizing structured settlement business standards and practices, these warnings and cautionary notes highlight structured settlement issues S2KM discussed in a recent blog series about "product suitability standards" including the need for full disclosure and informed consent.

Despite 12 CEB SNT subsections discussing structured settlements, Bradshaw and Barnett barely mention three structured settlement-related topics that are important for special needs attorneys:

• Periodic Payment of Judgments - California was the first state to make periodic payment mandatory in certain (medical malpractice) judgments "at the request of either party". Because California's medical malpractice periodic payment statute also influences settlements that include special needs trusts, California special needs attorneys should be familiar with its provisions.
• Structured Settlement Transfers - Structured settlement transfers represent a strategy option for SNT trustees and special needs attorneys to consider if and when they confront some of the potential structured settlement problems Bradshaw and Barnett identify above. California amended its state structured settlement protection statute in 2010 adding factors for the court to consider when determining whether a proposed transfer is fair, reasonable and in the payee's best interest.
• Qualified Settlement Funds (QFS) - Similar to structured settlement transfers, QSFs are controversial within the structured settlement industry. Arguably underused in single event cases, QSFs provide a valuable settlement planning tool that all special needs attorneys should understand and promote.

Conclusion

For a regressive structured settlement industry, first party special needs trusts represent a growing market segment and special needs attorneys provide expanding networks of potential professional allies. Although CEB SNT focuses on California special needs trusts, the subsections discussing structured settlements offer a useful learning resource for all structured settlement stakeholders. Bottom line: the structured settlement industry needs to expand its strategic dialogue with special needs attorneys. The objectives should include better marketing and product feedback plus improved educational programs, business models and business practices.

For additional information about special needs trusts and structured settlements, see the structured settlement wiki and Section 15.04[7] of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Product Suitability Standards - 4

With declining annuity premium and historically low interest rates, structured settlement stakeholders should be discussing how to improve and grow their business. To help promote this discussion, S2KM's current blog series about "product suitability standards" highlights two fundamental issues rarely addressed during industry educational conferences:

• When is a structured settlement annuity appropriate for a specific physical personal injury claimant?
• What standards exist to help judges, guardians, trustees, mediators, attorneys, settlement planners, structured settlement consultants and other structured settlement stakeholders make this determination?

Potential sources for structured settlement product suitability standards discussed in prior S2KM blog posts:

• Part 1 - NSSTA's Code of Ethics; SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct; and the NAIC's Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation.
• Part 2 - State minors' statutes and state structured settlement protection statutes.
• Part 3 - The Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank)

Fiduciary Standard

Among other findings, S2KM's prior review points out a general legislative trend to protect investors and consumers with a more uniform fiduciary, and/or "best interest", standard of care. In general, a fiduciary standard is viewed as the highest legal standard of customer care requiring both a duty of care and a duty of loyalty. A fiduciary is required to act in the best interest of the investor and/or customer and to fully disclose all material facts plus any conflicts of interest. Trustees and investment advisers currently are held to a fiduciary standard which may soon also apply to financial planners and broker dealers. Many state minors' statutes and all state structured settlement protection statutes incorporate "best interest" standards.

Model Annuity Regulations

For some but not all annuity products, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has created a "Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation". Significantly, the NAIC Model Suitability Regulation exempts structured settlements and provides less consumer protection than the fiduciary, and/or "best interest" standard. The NAIC has also promulgated an "Annuity Disclosure Model Regulation" "to provide standards for the disclosure of certain minimum information about annuity contracts to protect consumers and foster consumer education." It also exempts structured settlements. The legislative history of the NAIC Model Disclosure Regulation indicates that "[i]nterested parties spoke in favor of an exemption for sophisticated transactions such as ..... structured settlements."

A Hall Pass?

Do these NAIC exemptions mean that structured settlements have been given a "hall pass" for purposes of product suitability requirements? No. If structured structured stakeholders want to improve and grow their business, there are many reasons why they should: 1) understand the meaning and requirements of all three standards (fiduciary duty, best interest, and suitability); and 2) adopt better business practices that address and incorporate one or more of these product standards. Reasons include:

• Blended products - Structured settlement annuities increasingly are paid into trusts (UPIA standard) that also include financial products (Dodd-Frank standard).
• Multiple licenses - In addition to structured settlement annuities, settlement planners increasingly sell securities as well as multiple life insurance and annuity products.
• Competition - To successfully compete in today's economic and legal environment, structured settlement sales persons must adjust upward to match the higher product suitability standards and best business practices of their competitors.
• Clients and Stakeholders - As a matter of self-protection as well as consumer protection, many structured settlement clients (defendants; plaintiff attorneys) and stakeholders ( judges; mediators) will increasingly demand higher product and sales standards for injury victims.
• Lawsuits - In this era of accountability and compliance, all structured settlement participants are likely to be held to higher legal standards.

Three-Card Monte

Why do product suitability standards create issues for the structured settlement industry? At their worst, especially from the perspective of an unrepresented injury victim, some traditional structured settlement business practices not only fall far short of the fiduciary standard - they can resemble a game of "Three-card Monte" .

Misrepresentations or omission of material facts

• Cost or Value - From a claimant's perspective, a core strategy for traditional structured settlements often appears "to make a little money look like a lot of money". The Spencer v. Hartford class action allegations outline one "sophisticated" variation of this strategy which often depends on hiding or misrepresenting annuity "cost" and/or settlement "value".
• Guaranteed payments - Many structured settlement sales brochures continue to promise "guaranteed payments" without specifying who guarantees what if and when an annuity provider like Executive Life of New York (ELNY) becomes insolvent.
• Managed account - Many structured settlement recipients do not understand important product details when their case is settled including how structured settlements differ from managed accounts and why they cannot access funds without court approval pursuant to state structured settlement protection acts.
• Structured settlement myths- historically used to promote sales such as:
  • Studies show that nine out of 10 lump sum recipients squander the entire amount within five years.
  • Structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance.

Conflicts of interest - without written, informed client and/or customer consent

• Single product - The danger of single product structured settlement sales persons is not limited to whether his or her product is "suitable" or in the "best interest" of a particular claimant/customer. The danger is also that single product sales persons are inherently conflicted in recommending how much of any settlement should be allocated to their product.
• Multiple roles - A structured settlement sales person introduced into a case by a defendant or liability insurer frequently plays four separate roles each of which potentially conflicts with the other roles: agent for the annuity provider; broker for the defendant; broker for the plaintiff; and agent for the defendant in helping to negotiate and settle the case.
• Compensation sharing - Unless all parties to a settlement are informed about whether and how structured settlement annuity commissions are shared, a structured settlement creates a variety of potential conflicts of interest.
• Funding alternatives - Based upon traditional structured settlement business and compensation models, the potential availability and applicability of 468B qualified settlement funds for "appropriate cases" creates inherent conflicts of interest between defendants and their structured settlement brokers.

Recommendations

• Education - Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) should devote more educational resources to understanding product suitability standards applicable directly and indirectly to structured settlements including standards applicable to their clients and competitors.
• Business standards - SSP's "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" represents an important industry document that has received less attention among structured settlement stakeholders than it deserves. As a result of Dodd-Frank, SSP should review and re-consider the product suitability standards proposed in its current Standards of Conduct.
• Business model - Without violating anti-trust laws, both NSSTA and SSP should encourage their members to continue studying and discussing how transitional settlement planning business models impact traditional structured settlement broker roles, compensation models and business standards.
• Documentation - In the context of transitional business models and standards, structured settlement stakeholders should review and improve core case documents including client requests for proposals, sales materials, settlement agreements, broker of record letters, and commission sharing agreements.

For additional S2KM reporting and commentary about structured settlement business standards and practices, see the structured settlement wiki.

Treasury Publishes New IRC 104(a)(2) Regs

The United States Treasury has published new regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2) relating to the exclusion from gross income for amounts received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness.

Published January 20, 2012, the new section 104(a)(2) regulations make two primary changes to the current regulations. First, they incorporate amendments to 104(a)(2) made in Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (1996 Act). Second, they eliminate the previous regulatory requirement that damages must be based upon “tort or tort type rights” to qualify for the tax exclusion.

The 1996 Act included two legislative amendments narrowing the applicability of the 104(a)(2) exclusion. The first amendment prevents any punitive damages from qualifying for the tax exclusion in the personal injury context. The second amendment requires that injury or sickness damages must result from “physical” origins to be excluded. Although emotional distress is not considered a physical injury or physical illness, the new regulations confirm that damages for emotional distress attributable to a physical injury or physical sickness are excluded from income under section 104(a)(2).

The new section 104(a)(2) regulations also eliminate the previous regulatory requirement that damages must be “based on tort or tort type rights” to qualify for exclusion. In a 1995 case (Commissioner v. Schleier), the United States Supreme Court interpreted this requirement to disallow the exclusion of damages where the relevant law (a "no-fault" statute) provided a contractual remedy even though the claimant suffered a personal physical injury or physical sickness as a result of a breach of contract. The new regulations eliminate this prior requirement and allow the tax exclusion to apply even when the physical injury or sickness does not constitute a tort under state or common law.

The new, final regulations for section 104(a)(2) are essentially the same as the proposed regulations the United States Treasury issued in 2009 and which were the subject of a public hearing on February 23, 2010. The final regulations did not adopt any of the recommendations offered by commentators at the public hearing. These recommendations included:

•  Requests by Richard Risk and Jack Meligan that the final regulations address whether a claimant has constructive receipt or the current economic benefit of a damage award that is set aside for the claimant’s benefit in a section 468B qualified settlement fund;

• Requests by John McCulloch and David Higgins that the final regulations confirm several specific types of damages are "physical" and therefore tax-exempt.

For background information about the new section 104(a)(2) regulations and their application to structured settlements, including commentary and analysis by Jeremy Babener, see these prior S2KM blog posts:

• Treasury Hearing on IRC 104(a)(2) Regs
• A Common Cause at the Treasury Regulation Hearing
• Treasury Hearing Commentary
• Voices at the Treasury Hearing
• Speaker Comments at the Treasury Hearing
• Legislation to Expand the Structured Settlement Industry
• Babener Proposes Expanded S2 Tax Subsidy

For a copy of the new section 104(a)(2) regulations, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements in 2011 - 2

In a prior blog post, S2KM highlighted the historic significance of the ELNY liquidation as the dominant 2011 structured settlement industry development. This blog post offers a strategic perspective of the industry's status in 2011 focusing in part on the industry's three national associations and also providing a broader perspective for ELNY.

Strategic Overview - Primary Market

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2011. Among its 2011 accomplishments, NSSTA noticeably improved its marketing and educational programs while focusing substantial resources to help minimize problems related to the ELNY liquidation. NSSTA has attempted to balance the need to inform its members (not the public) about ELNY's status with the need to promote the strength of its life insurance markets and the state guaranty fund system.

Speaking at NSSTA's 2011 Annual Meeting, Thomas Ronce, Chairman of NOLHGA, described the current life and health guaranty system in the United States as experienced, well-financed and armed with a multitude of optional legal and financial tools. Applied to ELNY, this state guaranty system will substantially improve the recovery for many ELNY structured settlement recipients. The state guaranty system, however, will not make whole every ELNY structured settlement recipient. Unfortunately, even with guaranty fund payments and additional enhancements, many ELNY structured settlement recipients are expected to experience shortfalls.

NSSTA's 2011 Annual Meeting and Fall Educational Conference also showcased the current strength of the structured settlement market and its product providers.

• Jim Morris, President, Chairman and CEO of Pacific Life Insurance Company, accentuated the current financial strength of U.S. life insurance companies generally and explained why structured settlement annuities represent an excellent strategic product for life companies. Confirming Morris' assessment, three new product providers (Mutual of Omaha, National Indemnity and Hartford) entered (or re-entered) the structured settlement marketplace during 2011.
• William T. Robinson III, President of the American Bar Association (ABA) strongly endorsed structured settlements as "professional and dignified solutions" for injury victims based upon his first-hand experience as a litigation attorney. Robinson also suggested the ABA and NSSTA should identify shared interests and lobbying opportunities.
• American General Life President Mary Jane Fortin described AIG, a structured settlement product provider that received more than $180 billion of loans and investments from the United States government in 2008, as "a strong, stable and resilient company dedicated to keeping our promises". Fortin also dispelled several "myths" about AIG, summarized AIG's recovery from the 2008 financial crisis and expressed optimism about the future of life insurance industry and structured settlements.

Despite these positive assurances, however, primary market structured settlement annuity sales have continued to trend downward for the past three years, arguably because of the 2008 financial crisis and historically low interest rates which many experts predict will continue for the foreseeable future. What has been missing from NSSTA's leadership during 2011 has been a positive vision for NSSTA's own future and the future of structured settlements.

David Ringler, NSSTA's first President, spoke during the NSSTA 2011 Annual Meeting. Ringler stated the most important reason for creating NSSTA was "having a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs."  Sometime during the past 25 years, NSSTA lost sight of this original vision and now generally excludes industry voices and perspectives that challenge traditional structured settlement business models and practices.

As one result, two additional professional associations have formed with alternative structured settlement perspectives:

• The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) - SSP espouses the claimant's right to select his or her own structured settlement adviser and funding company. SSP promotes structured settlement annuities as a core product for special needs settlement planning and favors greater utilization of IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs).
• The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) - NASP promotes the right of structured settlement recipients, in compliance with federal and state laws, to sell their payment rights provided a state judge approves the sale in advance as being in the "best interest" of the transferor/payee taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents.

To its credit, NSSTA expanded the scope of its educational programs in 2011 to discuss QSFs and to provide its members with more detailed information about structured settlement secondary market. The perspective for these NSSTA discussions, however, remains defensive and protective without any attempt to envision or discuss new business opportunities or product improvements.

By comparison, SSP's vision for the the future of structured settlements is defined and supported by its "Standards of Professional Conduct". SSP views structured settlements as a core product for personal injury settlement planning. SSP's vision agrees with and encompasses the business model Joseph DiGangi introduced to NSSTA in 2009 as "Settlement Consulting" which he characterized as "a wake up call for the industry." SSP's educational conferences continue to push structured settlement industry thinking beyond its historic boundaries and the inevitability of its path dependence.

In addition to SSP, three national legal associations are developing special needs business practices and models that expand the framework and opportunities for structured settlements:

• Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)
• National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)
• Special Needs Alliance (SNA).

Faced with the ELNY crisis, declining annuity sales and the continuing prospect of low interest rates, some primary market structured settlement stakeholders now recognize that business practices and models that made sense in the past may have survived despite the eclipse of their earlier justification.  S2KM believes more primary market stakeholders should expand their strategic perspectives and re-think structured settlements in the context of the changing legal and financial landscape.

For example, here are four 2010 developments with important consequences for structured settlement stakeholders that have heretofore received inadequate primary market educational attention:

• Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act - how does health care reform impact injury victims and what opportunities does it create for structured settlements?
• Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - how will the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) address structured settlement complaints?
• NAIC Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation - what does "suitability" mean for structured settlement annuities and how does "suitability" differ from the "best interest" standard applicable to trustees, investment advisers and structured settlement transfers?
• Spencer v. Hartford class action settlement - what are the lessons learned and resulting new best practices for structured settlements?

Strategic Overview - Secondary Market

The ELNY liquidation is also having a negative impact on the secondary structured settlement market. Some industry experts have estimated that as many as 1000 of ELNY structured settlement annuities (out of the 4168 total) have undergone transfers of some or all payment rights. Investors who have purchased ELNY annuity payment rights may not be eligible to receive contributions from state guaranty funds which historically protect "consumers". The NYLB's December 7, 2011 letters warned ELNY payees "if you have transferred any part of your right to receive ELNY SSA benefits to a third party, you may not be eligible to receive benefits from CABC related to the benefits you transferred."

Although the financial crisis of 2008 had a devastating short term impact on the structured settlement secondary market, the market has experienced robust sales in 2011 as institutional investors continue to be attracted to the relatively high rates of returns generated by restructured (post transfer) payment right obligations. More individual investors, including personal injury claimants and their attorneys, have also begun purchasing restructured payment rights although some industry experts caution against potential tax and securities law uncertainties.

The structured settlement secondary market changed dramatically in 2011 with the announced merger of  J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Settlement Funding. The merger combined the two largest purchasers of structured settlement payment rights with an estimated 80-85 percent of the market.

The merger highlights a remarkable turnaround for Wentworth whose shareholders control the majority of the combined companies. In 2009, Wentworth and two affiliated companies entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the company "encountered liquidity problems amid a tightening credit market". Wentworth laid off 120 of its 200 employees and closed its office in Las Vegas. Its general corporate bonds were "almost worthless" and were trading, if at all, for pennies on the dollar. Less than six months later, Wentworth emerged from bankruptcy with an announcement that JLL Partners (Wentworth's owners) had invested an additional $100 million in the firm.

In a significant case (Symetra v. Rapid Settlements) highlighting controversial business practices which were opposed by NASP as well as structured settlement annuity providers, a Texas court issued injunctions during 2011 prohibiting Rapid Settlement's prior business practices of using arbitration to by-pass state structured settlement protection statutes and taking security interests to gain rights of first refusal for future transfers.

Check the structured settlement wiki for additional S2KM structured settlement reporting:

• ELNY liquidation
• Annual industry reports
• Professional association meetings

ADDENDUM (12/12/2011) - S2KM's report above omits at least one important 2011 strategic structured settlement development. NSSTA and its product provider members launched the first-ever industry metrics study during 2011. For more information about metrics, see S2KM's "Structured Settlement Metrics" series featured on the structured settlement wiki.

NASP 2011 Annual Meeting - 2

S2KM has received both positive and negative private feedback about S2KM's coverage of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) 2011 Annual Meeting. Although S2KM welcomes any feedback, private or public, negative feedback generally provides greater focus and incentive for afterthoughts.

Among the private criticisms S2KM has received:

• S2KM is biased toward (or has an affinity for) the secondary market at the expense of the primary market.
• S2KM criticizes primary market business conduct without reporting secondary market bad business behavior.
• S2KM should be more of a positive voice for change and not a muckraker.

Bias Toward the Secondary Market

S2KM believes that IRC 5891 and the state protection statutes have radically changed and improved both the structured settlement product and the structured settlement market. To paraphrase NASP President Matt Bracy: structured settlement recipients, in compliance with federal and state laws, now have the right to sell their asset (payment rights) provided a state judge approves the sale in advance as being in the "best interest" of the transferor/payee taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents. Instead of the "grey" secondary structured market that existed from 1986 to 2000, the secondary market is now regulated by state judges and the Internal Revenue Service with substantial penalties for transfer companies who do not comply with federal and state statutes.

Many primary market participants will disagree with portions of the above paragraph. They do not view structured settlements transfers either as a product improvement or as a recipient's "right" however that right may be qualified by statute. In S2KM's opinion, the primary market's general attitude toward and perspective of the secondary market since 2001 represent a serious strategic mistake that has caused considerable harm to the primary structured settlement market. Instead of improving their own products by adding commutation or transfer features, and re-learning how to sell their product in a statutorily re-defined market, the primary market continues to criticize and shun the secondary market.

By comparison, NASP regularly invites and welcomes critics to speak at its educational conferences. These critics have included blogger John Darer, two current co-chairpersons of the NSSTA Legal Committee Peter Vodola and Stephen Harris, and current SSP President Jack Meligan, as well as judges from states where structured settlement transfers are viewed most negatively. Among NASP presentations by S2KM author Patrick Hindert (Hindert), see "How the Primary Market Views Factoring".

Criticizing Business Conduct

Beginning in 2004, S2KM has reported and discussed both primary and secondary structured settlement market business practices and business models. For compilations of S2KM's reporting about secondary market business practices (good and bad), see the Secondary Market page on the structured settlement wiki. For detailed information about pre-2001 secondary market business practices and issues, see section 16.02[2] of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) of which Hindert is a co-author.

For S2KM reporting and commentary about primary market business standards and practices, see also the structured settlement wiki:

• Business Standards and Practices .
• Primary Market - includes IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds.
• Spencer v. Hartford .

Readers can judge for themselves whether S2KM criticizes primary market business conduct without reporting secondary market bad business behavior.

Positive Voice for Change vs. Muckraker

Wikipedia defines the contemporary use of the term "muckraker" to mean "a journalist who writes in the adversarial or alternative tradition or a non-journalist whose purpose in publication is to advocate reform and change." When S2KM began publishing in 2004, social media (including blogs, wikis and podcasts) represented an "alternative" to traditional print media and educational conferences. Social media provides an opportunity for unpopular or minority ideas and viewpoints to gain an audience not otherwise available. Unfortunately, social media also has a dark side which can include personal attacks and bullying.

In advocating for improved structured settlement business practices and business models, S2KM has attempted (with a few exceptions which S2KM regrets), to follow the lessons taught in "Getting to Yes" which at one time represented a guidebook of sorts for the primary structured settlement market. Perhaps the "Getting to Yes" method can still be useful to help a divided structured settlement industry improve and grow:

• Separate the people from the problem.
• Focus on interests not positions.
• Invent options for mutual gain.
• Insist on using objective criteria.

Without more strategic conversations that include all structured settlement stakeholders and perspectives, the structured settlement industry will never achieve its full potential. To the extent possible, S2KM intends to encourage and to be part of those strategic industry conversations. Some of S2KM's preliminary contributions appear on the following pages of the structured settlement wiki:

• Re-thinking Structured Settlements .
• Growing the Market .

NSSTA 2011 Education Meeting

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) hosted one of its best-ever educational programs November 2-4, 2011 in Austin, Texas. The conference primarily showcased NSSTA members and NSSTA member executives and encompassed a variety of important industry topics.

Speakers and topics:

NSSTA President Dan Finn - Finn summarized NSSTA's current projects, emphasized NSSTA's improved structured settlement marketing and announced the 2012 NSSTA Annual Meeting which will take place in Washington, D.C. and feature Congressmen Dave Camp and Paul Ryan as Keynote Speakers.

NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn - In addition to reviewing the 112th Congress and Super Committee, Vaughn discussed the following NSSTA challenges and priorities:

• Protect IRC sections 104(a)(2) and 130.
• Defend structured settlements.
• Promote the expanded use of structured settlements.
• Expand the markets for structured settlements.
• Enhance the CSSC designation.
• Provide state court judicial education about structured settlements.

AIG Chief Economist Ardanvan Mobasheri - Mobasheri's economic overview highlighted China's emerging leadership, outlined a "very healthy non-financial business world" and predicted low interest rates for the foreseeable future.

American General Life President Mary Jane Fortin - Describing AIG as "a strong, stable and resilient company dedicated to keeping our promises", Fortin dispelled several "myths" about AIG, summarized AIG's recovery and expressed optimism about the future of life insurance industry and structured settlements.

John McCulloch and Michael Miller - Reprising NSSTA "Tax Posse", McCulloch and Miller introduced the new IRS audit guide for lawsuits, awards and settlements and reviewed recent tax cases addressing employment, factoring and Qualified Settlement Fund issues.

Peter Vodola, Stephen Harris and Amy Ravitz - The co-chairpersons of NSSTA's Legal Committee participated in two separate panels moderated by James Ebel and Michael Kelly and discussed non-tax cases and issues including state structured settlement protection statutes, issues arising from transfer petitions and minors statutes and settlements.

Len Blonder and NSSTA General Counsel Craig Ulman - Blonder and Ulman reported the status of the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation, discussed the consequences for structured settlements and reviewed hypothetical case examples from the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement.

Karen Meyers, LeAnne Sprague, Doug Brand and Kathy Moghadas - In addition to discussing changes to the CSSC designation that will require annual CE credits, NSSTA sponsored a special four hour annuity education session designed to meet the requirements of the new state annuity transaction suitability laws.

CNA Commercial Liability Claims Vice President James Martin - Championing structured settlements as an "important competitive advantage" for liability insurers, Martin also emphasized the importance of linking structured settlements and structured settlement sales to claim department goals and metrics.

Ringler Radio Broadcaster Larry Cohen - When announced co-interviwer Mark Wahlstrom proved a "no show", Cohen glibly volleyed Eric Vaughn toughest questions. Three memorable Cohen quotes: "a lot of a little is a lot"; "vision without execution is hallucination"; and (applying his grandfather's wisdom to Executive Life's annuity rates ) "there is something wrong with this tuna fish."

Liberty Life Chief Underwriter Kevin Smith - Speaking about "Life Company Operating Metrics", Smith pointed out the dearth of structured settlement metrics and announced a collaborative project among multiple NSSTA life company members to develop a preliminary set of structured settlement operating metrics.

Attorney William C Chriss - Author of the new book "The Noble Lawyer", Chriss discussed legal and structured settlement ethics. Among his observations while discussing NSSTA's Code of Ethics:

• "We cultivate beliefs that justify our behaviors, not the other way around.
• "Unconscious bias, as opposed to intentional venality, cannot be deterred by criminal laws or post hoc sanctions.
• "The more people involved, the easier it is to defuse moral responsibility."

Congratulations to NSSTA's speakers and leaders (especially Education Chairpersons Toni Warbington and Don Engels as well as Finn, Vaughn and Associate Director Peter Arnold) for substantially upgrading NSSTA's educational program.

For S2KM reports about prior conferences of NSSTA and other structured settlement and settlement planning professional associations, see the structured settlement wiki.