Beyond Structured Settlements

Structured Settlements in 2009 - 2

This S2KM post follows "Structured Settlements in 2009 - 1" and features topical links to S2KM 2009 blog reports.

For 2010 industry updates, please continue to visit S2KM's blog as well as S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Prior S2KM annual industry reports:

• Structured settlements in 2008
• Structured settlements in 2007
• Structured settlements in 2006

Professional Association Meetings

• NSSTA - National Structured Settlement Trade Association
  • Winter meeting
  • Annual meeting
  • Fall meeting
• SSP - Society of Settlement Planners
  • Preview
  • Annual meeting
• NASP - National Association of Settlement Purchasers
  • Part 1
  • Part 2
  • Part 3
• ASNP - Academy of Special Needs Planners
  • Annual meeting
  • Tim Nay interview

Settlement Consulting

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

Spencer v. Hartford

• Report 1
• Report 2
• Report 3
• Report 4

IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds

• Single Claimant 468B QSF Update
• IRC 468B and 5891
• Robert Wood's QSF Book
  • Summary and Review
  • Robert Wood Interview
• Jeremy Babener's QSF Paper
  • Summary
    
  • Review
    • Part 1
    • Part 2
  • Jeremy Babener Interview
• US Treasury Priority Guidance Plan 2009-2010

Dissipation Studies

• Introduction
• Jeremy Babener's Dissipation Paper
  • Summary and Review
  • Jeremy Babener Interview
  • Jeremy Babener Responds

Structured Settlement Credo

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5

Rapid Settlements

• Pacific Life v. Rapid Settlements
• Allstate v. Rapid Settlements

Fresno County Factoring Cases

• Report 1
• Report 2
• Report 3

Additional S2KM Analysis

• Re-Thinking Structured Settlements
• Structured Settlement 2009 Mid-Year Update
• Structured Settlement 2009 Strategic Analysis
• Structured Settlements and Government Benefits
• Settlement Trust Due Diligence

Additional Primary Market Developments

• Forge Purchases TSSG
• Richard Halpern

Additional Secondary Market Developments

• S&P Withdraws JG Wentworth Credit Ratings
• Structured Settlement Securitizations

"Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments"

• S2P2J Release 45
• S2P2J Release 46

Richard Halpern

Richard Halpern, founder and President of The Halpern Group , died December 14, 2009 at age 64.

Halpern was one of the most important and controversial pioneers, critics and contrarian thinkers in the history of the structured settlement industry.

Halpern's education and training included electrical and computer engineering. Halpern started his professional practice in 1973 as a financial planner. At one time his insurance brokerage company was one of the largest in New Jersey.

Halpern entered the structured settlement industry in 1982 and subsequently clashed with the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the traditional NSSTA structured settlement business model. The Halpern Group business model focuses on plaintiff attorneys (especially the American Association for Justice) and their clients instead of defendants and their insurers.

Risa Lower, who worked with Halpern for 31 years and now serves as Acting President of the Halpern Group, offered this assessment of Halpern's contribution to the structured settlement industry: "Rich believed in the civil justice system and helping plaintiffs. Rich introduced products other than annuities. He gave plaintiffs a choice and changed how plaintiffs and plaintiff attorneys look at structured settlements."

Structured Settlement Securitizations - 1

Standard & Poor's Rating Services (S&P) has announced a refinement of its methodology and assumptions for rating structured settlement payment securitizations. The revised criteria, effective December 2, 2009 for all new and outstanding structured settlement securitizations, incorporate:

• New corporate default targets and supplemental stress tests to access insurance carrier default targets; and
• Supplemental stress tests to access insurance carrier default risk in structured settlement transactions.

S&P's new criteria for structured settlement securitizations appear in an S&P article titled "Update to Methodology And Assumptions And New Supplemental Tests for U.S. Structured Settlement Payment Securitizations".

S&P's revised ratings for structured settlement securitizations will:

• Use the latest version of CDO Evaluator (version 5.0) when analyzing structured settlement securitizations. The CDO Evaluator is S&P's analytical tool for estimating the defaults and losses of collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions at different rating levels.
• Typically apply:
  • the largest-obligor default test to tranches at all rating levels to access a given tranche's ability to withstand specified combinations of insurance company defaults, assuming an immediate flat rate of 50%;
  • the largest-industry default test or the alternative-industry default test, which ever is applicable, to tranches at the 'AAA', 'AA+', 'AA', and 'AA-' rating levels, assuming an immediate flat recovery of 60%.
• Use the results of the two supplemental tests without running cash flows to assess whether the tranche in question is likely to have sufficient credit enhancement to absorb the losses at each rating level.

To achieve an S&P rating, a structured settlement transaction tranche:

• must have sufficient credit enhancement to withstand the level of defaults the CDO Evaluator generates in relation to the asset portfolio under the associated cash flow stresses, and
• must also pass the two supplemental tests applicable at the given rating level.

The complete S&P article is available on RatingsDirect and S&P's website.

This is the first post for a new S2KM series about structured settlement securitizations. For additional information about the secondary structured settlement market, see:

• Wikipedia's entry for "structured settlement factoring transaction"
• S2KM's reports about the NASP 2009 Annual Meeting
• "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" - Release 47.
  

U.S. Treasury Priority Guidance Plan 2009-2010

The tax treatment of single-claimant 468B qualified settlement funds (QSF) has been eliminated from the Priority Guidance Plan for 2009-2010 announced jointly on November 24, 2009 by the United States Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service.

Neither the Treasury-IRS announcement nor the 2009-2010 Priority Guidance Plan explain why the single claimant 468B tax issue was omitted following five years during which the controversial structured settlement issue has appeared on the Priority Guidance Plan - without ever being addressed.

The purpose of the Priority Guidance Plan is to focus United States government resources "on guidance items that are most important to taxpayers and tax administration." According to the announcement, the 2009-2010 Priority Guidance Plan contains 315 projects to be completed during the twelve months beginning July 2009. The Priority Guidance Plan also lists more routine tax guidance that is published each year.

Both the announcement and the Priority Guidance Plan state generally:

• "We intend to update and republish the Priority Guidance Plan during the plan year to reflect additional guidance that we intend to publish during the plan year. The periodic updates allow us flexibility throughout the plan year to consider comments received from taxpayers and tax practitioners relating to additional projects and to respond to developments arising during the plan year" and
• "The published guidance process can be fully successful only if we have the benefit of the insight and experience of taxpayers and practitioners who must apply the rules. Therefore, we invite the public to continue to provide us with their comments and suggestions as we write guidance throughout the plan year. "

A 468B QSF is a temporary fund into which defendants in certain cases can deposit settlement monies and receive an immediate tax deduction. QSFs represent an alternative for a defendant paying settlement monies directly to the plaintiff(s). QSFs allow time for plaintiffs and their advisers to organize and fund a settlement plan with a settlement sum certain and judicial approval - without negotiation and sales pressures from defendants and their insurers.

Despite "one or more" qualification language in the 468B regulations, various stakeholders within the structured settlement industry dispute:

• Whether single claimants qualify for 468B QSFs and
• What constitutes a single claimant for purposes of IRC 468B.

Jeremy Babener, a QSF analyst and author, summarized the primary tax dispute:

• "Legal arguments have revolved around whether economic benefit is incurred where defendant monies are transferred to a single-claimant QSF.
  
• "Where multiple claimants, and thus possibly competing interests are not involved, some have argued that the transfer to a QSF represents an unconditional and irrevocable transfer to the single-claimant.
• " If the existing QSF regulatory structure does not prevent this from being the case (a hotly contested fact), transfers to single-claimant QSFs would withhold eligibility to the structured settlement tax subsidy for any structured settlement between single-claimants and QSFs."

Richard Risk, an attorney who advocates for single claimant QSFs, interprets the decision to remove the single claimant 468B project from the Priority Guidance Plan as evidence that sufficient guidance favoring single claimant 468B QSFs already exists. Risk points to I.R.C. § 7805(d) which requires the Treasury Secretary to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of [the Internal Revenue Code].” Risk concludes that Treasury’s decision is an acknowledgment that additional guidance is not “needful.”

Robert Wood, a leading tax attorney and author of the recently released treatise Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B, has recommended that the use of single-claimant QSFs be avoided without additional clarification, though he believes that the regulations “seem to allow the possibility of the single claimant QSF.”

Most recent S2KM analysis of QSFs:

• "Single Claimant 468B QSF Update" featuring Jeremy Babener's QSF paper; and
• "Robert Wood and 468B Funds" featuring Wood's new QSF book.

Spencer v. Hartford - 4

During the recent NASP 2009 Annual Meeting, a panel of primary and secondary market experts identified the civil RICO allegations in the Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit as a textbook example of some of the worst structured settlement business practices - regardless of whether such business practices are determined to be legal or illegal under existing laws.

S2KM summarized the plaintiffs' class action RICO allegations and recommended alternative structured settlement business models and practices in a prior post titled "Spencer v. Hartford - 3".

This S2KM post reports recent Spencer v. Hartford case developments.

On October 14, 2009, the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Hartford's petition which challenged an order by United States District Court Judge Janet C. Hall granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification "because the class certification was within the district court's discretion". The Second Circuit Court of Appeals further denied all of Hartford's additional motions as "moot".

On November 6, 2009, Judge Hall ordered the following schedule of further proceedings in Spencer v. Hartford:

• November 23, 2009 - plaintiffs supplement expert reports related to liability, damage formula;
• November 30, 2009 - plaintiffs submit proposed class notice;
• December 8, 2009 - defendants deadline to object to proposed class notice;
• December 31, 2009 - defendants provide contact information in electronic format for all potential class members;
• January 11, 2010 - defendants complete depositions of plaintiff experts;
• January 29, 2010 - defendants identify experts and provide expert reports;
• February 26, 2010 - plaintiffs complete depositions of defendants' experts;
• March 1, 2010 - deadline for class notice to all potential class members;
• March 19, 2010 - plaintiffs identify rebuttal experts and provide rebuttal reports;
• April 1, 2010 - deadline for dispositive motions (including Daubert motions) if no rebuttal experts disclosed;
• April 9, 2010 - defendants complete deposition of plaintiffs rebuttal experts;
• May 3, 2010 - deadline for class members to opt-out (or appear);
• May 7, 2010 - deadline for dispositive motions (including Daubert motions) if rebuttal experts disclosed;
• 30 days after ruling on summary judgment - joint trial memorandum and motions in limine due;
• September 7 or 8, 2010 - jury selection;
• September 20-October 7, 2010 - jury trial on liability and damage formula.

NASP 2009 Annual Meeting - 3

This blog post continues S2KM's summary and analysis of the NASP 2009 Annual Meeting. Prior S2KM blog posts about NASP are accessible on S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

NASP's 2009 strategic educational analysis occurred primarily during a two-hour panel discussion titled "Re-thinking Structured Settlements". S2KM assisted NASP in organizing this panel discussion. Jeremy Babener's NASP presentation titled "Factoring and the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy" preceded and contributed to NASP's strategic discussions.

NASP Panel Discussion: "Re-thinking Structured Settlements".

Moderator: Earl Nesbitt, Executive Director of NASP.

Panelists: Jeremy Babener; Matthew Bracy; Daniel Hindert; Richard Risk; Andrew Savysky; Robin Shapiro; Michael Upchurch.

Format: S2KM identified and submitted to NASP a preliminary list of strategic structured settlement questions. NASP encouraged the panelists to identify and address S2KM questions that most interested them. NASP allocated time for audience questions and participation.

Primary S2KM questions addressed by the NASP panel:

• Which 2009 events and developments (legal; financial; political) will most significantly impact the future of structured settlements?
• What are the best and worst structured settlement business practices?
• Are factoring transactions good or bad for structured settlements?
• Does public policy support state court ordered structured settlement factoring transactions?
• How has the financial crisis changed the structured settlement market? Note: although NASP's strategic panel acknowledged the importance of this issue, the panel also recognized the related comprehensive discussion by the NASP "Capital Markets" panel.

2009 structured settlement developments - as sequentially identified and discussed by the NASP panel:

• Financial and credit crisis - addressing both primary and secondary market consequences;
• Election of President Obama - highlighting anticipated legislation including health care reform and tax reform;
• J.G. Wentworth bankruptcy - what it means for traditional secondary market business models;
• Primary market departures - why leading structured settlement annuity providers continue to leave the market;
• Diminishing annuity sales - why structured settlement annuity sales are down when fixed annuity sales generally are way up;
• Spencer v. Hartford - how the recent United States Second Circuit Court decision (denying Hartford's appeal) impacts the Hartford class action lawsuit and which other structured settlement programs are now at risk for potential RICO class action lawsuits?
• Revised California protection statute - viewed by the panel as a legislative victory for the structured settlement industry and featuring specific "best interest" criteria for state judges to consider in California settlement transfer cases.
• Fresno County cases - viewed by the panel as a judicial victory for the structured settlement industry with an appellate court ruling that public policy supports state court approved structured settlement factoring transactions.
• Rapid Settlement cases - viewed by the panel as a victory for the structured settlement industry with continuing judicial denial of arbitration alternatives to state court approved transfers pursuant to IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes.
• Scott Rothstein ponzi scheme - identified as a legal and public relations reminder that all participants in settlements featuring periodic payments with potential subsequent payment transfers would benefit from applicable legislation (protection statutes) and required state court approvals.

Best and worst business standards and practices - as identified and discussed by the NASP panel:

• Primary market
  • Best practices
    • SSP's "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" - including Rule 9 titled "Factoring Structured Settlements";
    • IRC 468B qualified settlement funds;
    • Full market quoting surveys;
    • Multiple (blended) product offerings, licensing and expertise.
  • Worst practices
    • Alleged RICO violations in the Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit;
    • Over-structuring the wrong cases and with the wrong periodic payments;
    • Lack of disclosure to injury victims - about compensation sharing; conflicts of interest; IRC 5891; and state protection statutes;
    • No applicable "best interest" legislation or standards;
    • Mischaracterization by and of "agents" (loyal to annuity providers) as "brokers" (loyal to injury victims);
    • Defendant "approved lists" of agents and funding companies;
    • Affiliated company funding programs;
    • "Pay for play" endorsements by professional associations.
• Secondary market
  • Best practices
    • Business practices required by IRC 5891 and NCOIL's model state structured settlement protection statute - including judicial approval; best interest standard; disclosure; notification;
    • Standards and business practices endorsed by NASP;
    • Competitive bidding fostered by the Internet.
  • Worst practices
    • "Cash now" advertising;
    • Non-competitive bidding fostered by television advertising;
    • Failure to fund (or delayed funding) of court ordered settlement transfers.

Is the secondary market good or bad for structured settlements? This question was discussed in detail during the NASP 2008 Annual Meeting with Jack Meligan and Michael Upchurch providing a primary market critique of the secondary market. NASP's 2009 Annual Meeting featured two published critics of secondary market business behavior: Judge Edward Burke of Arizona and attorney Daniel Hindert of Utah. In addition, Michael Upchurch participated on the NASP strategic analysis panel. If the NASP program reached any conclusion for this issue, it was: the secondary structured settlement market is a reality. Whether the secondary market is good or bad for structured settlements depends upon business behavior and business results in both the primary and secondary markets.

Does public policy support state court ordered structured settlement factoring transactions? Jeremy Babener discussed the public policy arguments for and against factoring transactions. Babener concluded that more information is needed to make a comprehensive public policy declaration. The recent California appellate court decision in Henderson v. Scioteco holds that public policy supports state court approved factoring transactions. Babener, acknowledged the importance of the decision, but disagreed with the California court's characterization of IRC 5891 as an "express sanction" of factoring. Richard Risk agreed with Babener that IRC 5891 does not contain a clear statement of public policy about factoring. Risk, however, pointed to examples of IRC 5891 legislative history that contradict any claim that public policy is against structured settlement factoring. As one example, Risk cited the Joint Committee on Taxation’s report released on March 18, 1999, “Tax Treatment of Structured Settlement Arrangements,” which Risk interprets as public policy support that structured settlements can co-exist with factoring.

S2KM applauds NASP for:

• Focusing much of its 2009 educational program on strategic structured settlement industry issues; and also for
• Inviting and featuring  structured settlement industry experts with diverse viewpoints and opinions.

NASP 2009 Annual Meeting - 2

The purpose of this S2KM blog post is to summarize educational discussions which occurred at the NASP 2009 Annual Meeting. In a prior post (NASP 2009 Annual Meeting-1), S2KM listed the discussion topics, moderators, speakers and panelists and also identified Van Tran as the winner of the NASP 2009 Alexander Hamilton award. In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will provide analysis and feature interviews with selected NASP educational program participants.

2009 Legislative Developments - Matthew Bracy summarized California Senate Bill 510 which Governor Arnold Swarzenegger signed into law October 11, 2009 and which becomes effective January 1, 2010. Among changes to the California structured settlement protection statute, SB 510 adds factors for the court to consider when determining whether a proposed transfer is fair, reasonable and in the payee's best interest. These factors now include the reasonable preference of the payee considering age and mental capacity. Bracy also summarized the new North Dakota structured settlement protection statute which generally follows the NCOIL Model Act. North Dakota becomes the 47th state to enact structured settlement protection legislation.

Legal Case Update - Tricia Laborde's legal case update focused primarily on the Fresno County cases and Rapid Settlement cases. Among other holdings in Scioteco v. Henderson, a California appellate court ruled that public policy supports state court approved structured settlement factoring transactions. In Allstate v. Rapid Settlements, which denied Rapid's appeal, U.S. Third Circuit Judge Joseph F. Weis, Jr. noted: "We are one of the many courts to face Rapid Settlements' transparent attempt to use this arbitration scheme to evade the legislatures' intentions to protect the recipients of structured settlement payments".

What Happened in California? - A panel of legal and political experts provided background and analysis of SB 510 and the Fresno County cases. NASP lobbyist Carl London summarized the collaboration between NASP and Consumer Attorneys of California (formerly the California Trial Lawyers), plus the role of California legislator Van Tran, in securing enactment of SB 510. Linda Morris, General Counsel for J.G. Wentworth, provided background information and strategic commentary about appellate decisions for the Fresno County cases which she characterized as an important victory for the structured settlement industry.

Transactional Structured Settlement Issues - A panel of attorneys discussed practical problems in securing judicial approval for proposed structured settlement transfers. Some of the issues discussed: difficulties in determining the domicile of transient payees; privacy issues including the impact of Pennsylvania Rule 229.2; difficulties in finding independent professional advisers; and what happens when judges attempt to re-negotiate agreed upon transfers.

Structured Settlement Capital Markets - A panel of factoring company executives discussed how the 2008-2009 capital market upheaval has changed the secondary structured settlement market.
The changes:

• The cost of funds today for factoring companies (8 to 9%) equals the best discount rates offered for transfers two years ago;
• Bundling purchases of individual payment rights into a security is financially less efficient and/or available today;
• Marketing and court costs for factoring companies remain high;
• Perceived financial risks for potential insurer failure have increased;
• The impact of a potential ELNY liquidation remains uncertain.

Structured Settlement Court Practices and Issues - Judges Edward Burke of Arizona and Christopher Marshall of Oregon joined a panel of attorneys in discussing settlement transfer court practices and issues including: prior transfers by the same payee; the roles of transfer attorneys and independent professional advisers; privacy concerns for transferring payees; the advantages of utilizing a single state judge for all transfer requests; plus other problems which cause continuing judicial concerns about factoring and factoring companies.

Factoring and the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy - Jeremy Babener addressed the important role IRC 130 and 104 tax subsidies have played in the growth of structured settlements. He summarized the political and public policy attacks against, and defenses for, structured settlement factoring transactions and questioned whether:

• The tax subsidy prevents dissipation?
• The tax subsidy discourages factoring?
• Factoring undermines the tax subsidy?

Babener challenged NASP to develop better information about who actually sells structured settlement payment rights and why.

Structured Settlement Bankruptcies - Bruce Akerly summarized his recent paper titled "The Impact of an Annuity Servicer's Bankruptcy on the Annuitant and Structured Settlement Purchaser". Akerly's conclusions:

• "The annuity payments received by a structured settlement servicing company, as well as the servicing agreement itself, become property of the bankrupt estate"; and
• "It may be possible to draft provisions in the servicing agreement to anticipate some of the consequences of the servicing company entering bankruptcy and perhaps lessen the impact on all parties."

Re-thinking Structured Settlements - a multi-disciplinary panel of industry experts addressed strategic structured settlement issues:

• What developments in 2009 will most impact the future of structured settlements?
• What are the best (and worst) structured settlement standards and business practices?
• Which structured settlement myths are most out-of-line with reality?
• How will commutations change the structured settlement market?
• What knowledge and skill sets are most important for future success in the structured settlement industry?

For S2KM reports about prior NASP meetings, see the structured settlement wiki.

NASP 2009 Annual Meeting - 1

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) hosted its 2009 Annual Meeting at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas November 12-13 almost one month following  NSSTA and SSP 2009 Fall meetings at the same location.

In comparison with traditional NSSTA and SSP meetings, the NASP 2009 educational program featured:

• More insightful and comprehensive strategic discussions;
• Broader perspectives from industry experts;
• Better analysis of legal and financial developments;
• Better analysis of structured settlement public policy;
• Better criticism of business standards and practices;
• Better recognition of industry leaders who are contributing to the growth and improvement of structured settlements.

Structured Settlement Wiki - for S2KM reports about prior NASP meetings, see the structured settlement wiki.

This S2KM blog post, the first in a series about the NASP 2009 meeting, highlights the NASP Alexander Hamilton honoree plus educational topics and speakers. Subsequent S2KM posts will summarize and analyze NASP discussions and provide interviews with some of the industry experts who spoke at the NASP meeting.

Alexander Hamilton Award - Van Tran was named 2009 recipient of NASP's Alexander Hamilton award. Van Tran is the California legislator who led the enactment of California SB 510 which amends and improves California's structured settlement protection statute.

NASP 2009 Educational Conference - Topics and participants:

• 2009 Legislative Developments - Matthew Bracy.
• Legal Case Update - Tricia Laborde.
• What Happened in California? - Michael Damore; Carl London; John Shafhi; Matt Eason; Linda Morris; Matt Bracy.
• Transactional Structured Settlement Issues - Tricia Laborde; Ken Barnett; Michael Green; Jim Klohn; David Barfield; Scott Topoloski; Kevin Mack; Joe Siegel.
• Structured Settlement Capital Markets - Jason Sutherland; Burt Kroner; John Ryan; Robin Shapiro; Josh Tobin.
• Structured Settlement Court Practices and Issues - Earl Nesbitt; Judge Edward Burke; Judge Christopher Marshall; Thomas Dixon; Roger Dunaway; Tricia Laborde; Amy Schwartz.
• Factoring and the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy - Jeremy Babener.
• Structured Settlement Bankruptcies - Bruce Akerly.
• Re-thinking Structured Settlements - Earl Nesbitt; Jeremy Babener; Matthew Bracy; Daniel Hindert; Richard Risk; Andrew Savysky; Robin Shapiro; Michael Upchurch.

For additional information about structured settlements, see:

• "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) co-authored by Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert;
• Wikipedia definitions for:
  • Structured settlement;
  • Structured settlement factoring transaction.

NSSTA 2009 Fall Educational Conference

Meeting at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas on October 15 and 16, the NSSTA 2009 Fall Educational Conference provided a potpourri of perspectives on the central topic of structured settlements.

Although lacking a unifying theme and failing to provide noteworthy handout materials, the conference did offer a general industry overview and did address several important industry developments without encouraging or generating meaningful discussion or detailed inquiry.

The general overview featured structured settlement perspectives from selected industry stakeholders:

• Plaintiff attorneys - Neil Galatz and Jeffrey Mitchell;
• Defense attorney - Steve Jaffe;
• Special needs attorney - James O'Reilly (with NSSTA member Thomas Spratt);
• Life company executive - Joseph Barnet;
• Annuity agents (discussing mediation) - Tony Robinson; Alice Frisbee; Kathleen Osler; and Traci Kaas;
• Attorney and annuity agent (discussing history, myths and opportunities) - Karen Meyers;
• Congresswoman Shelley Berkley.

Industry developments featured:

• NSSTA General Counsel Craig Ulman;
• NSSTA lobbyist Eric Vaughn;
• NSSTA Legal Committee representatives - Peter Vodola; Ilana Hanau; Michael Miller; and Mark Alpert.

The most important industry developments discussed in Las Vegas:

• Warnings from Vaughn and Congresswoman Berkley about anticipated federal tax reform in 2010;
• Vaughn's report that some federal health care reform proposals include tort reform and periodic payment of judgments;
• Ulman's update about the increasingly precarious financial condition of Executive Life of New York;
• Alpert's summary of PLR 121876-08 permitting a tax-free "restructuring" of periodic payments;
• Hanau's summary of the Henderson v. Sioteco case where a California appellate court reversed earlier Fresno County trial court decisions and declared that public policy now supports state court approved factoring transactions.
• Vodola's summary of California's new structured settlement protection statute (SB 510) which includes a detailed definition for "best interest".

From a critical perspective, NSSTA's 2009 Fall Educational Conference represented a series of "missed opportunities".

Missed opportunity #1 - Karen Meyers, who co-developed and annually presents NSSTA's "Certified Structured Settlement Consultant" (CSSC) program, addressed a NSSTA educational program for the first time in several years - and didn't talk about the CSSC program.

Missed opportunity #2 - Meyers spoke instead about structured settlement myths - yet failed to address the most fundamental and controversial NSSTA myths including "squandering injury victims" (see: "Dissipation Studies") and "how structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance" (see: "Structured Settlement Credo")

Missed opportunity #3 - NSSTA's educational program failed to acknowledge, respond to, or apparently understand, two recent strategic challenges which question the focus and scope of NSSTA education:

• Internal challenge - Joseph DiGangi's "Settlement Consulting" presentation at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting;
• External challenge - The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) Registered Settlement Planner Certification Program.

Missed opportunity #4 - related to missed opportunity #3: NSSTA's educational programs continue to ignore the strategic relationship among structured settlements, financial planning and life care planning.

Missed opportunity #5 - although NSSTA's legal committee has successfully expanded the scope of NSSTA's structured settlement legal education (from "Tax Posse" to "All Things Considered"), their programs tend to be repetitive (e.g. "Contracts 101") and fail to translate current legal developments into broader topical presentations.

Suggested future legal committee educational topics:

• What NSSTA members need to know (and tell their clients) about IRC 5891, state protection statutes and structured settlement factoring transactions;
• What NSSTA members need to know (and tell their clients) about IRC 468B qualified settlement funds;
• Comparative business standards and practices for various structured settlement stakeholders and "competitors" - insurance agents; financial securities salespersons; attorneys; trustees.
• Transactional analysis - what does a structured settlement look like in the context of 468B qualified settlement funds; special needs trusts; Medicare set-aside arrangements; and secondary market transfers?
• Integrating annuities with settlement trusts - how do integrated products impact traditional structured settlement planning, documentation and education?

Many structured settlement leaders no longer attend NSSTA educational conferences - especially those leaders who are defining the future of the structured settlement industry. When those industry leaders do attend NSSTA conferences, they attend primarily for networking opportunities or committee meetings - not for the educational programs.

With some exceptions, NSSTA's educational programs are no longer educational. They are mundane, repetitive and suitable primarily for persons new to the industry. Controversial subjects do not appear on the program - or they are circumscribed to avoid controversy. Debate is discouraged. Speakers rarely face tough questions - or provide handout materials.

Perhaps it is time for NSSTA to re-think structured settlements and structured settlement education. What will it take to attract a new generation of structured settlement leaders to join and participate in NSSTA? What will it take to re-engage the industry's best and brightest professionals in NSSTA's educational programs? The NSSTA Fall 2009 educational conference in Las Vegas highlighted those issues without providing any answers.

For prior S2KM reports about NSSTA educational programs, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.