Beyond Structured Settlements

Jeremy Babener Interview

Jeremy Babener , a third year Juris Doctor candidate at New York University has completed a seminal structured settlement paper a copy of which is available for download online in pdf format.

S2KM introduced, summarized and reviewed Jeremy Babener's paper, titled "Justifying the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy: The Use of Lump Sum Settlements", in two prior S2KM blog posts:

• Dissipation Studies; and
• Jeremy Babener's Dissipation Paper.

This S2KM post features an exclusive interview with Jeremy Babener about his dissipation paper.

S2KM: Jeremy, what are the principle conclusions of your paper?

Jeremy Babener: The structured settlement subsidy, or tax exclusion, is premised upon the belief that claimants prematurely dissipate lump sum settlements. This belief has long been held within the structured settlement industry, and is frequently cited as a proven fact. Anecdotal evidence from industry practitioners, representing a broad cross-section of interests, certainly suggests the belief to be true. However, the article explores the available empirical data. It concludes that the frequency of the dissipating claimant has yet to be proven, and that citations relied upon as evidence lack applicability, or sometimes any substance at all.

S2KM: What surprised you the most about your findings?

Jeremy Babener: The thesis itself is surprising. The use and citation of an unproven statistic by so many in an industry exposes how reliant we are on others’ accurate reporting. It also exemplifies how assertions consistent with one’s previous experiences can bypass criticism.

S2KM: How did you become aware of, and interested in, structured settlements?

Jeremy Babener: I clerked for the U.S. Department of Justice, in the Federal Tort Claims Act Section during the Summer of 2008. As some of the cases moved toward settlement, I was introduced to the concept of the structured settlement. Some commentators call it “a benefit to both sides.” I wanted to learn more.

S2KM: Why did you focus your first structured settlement paper on dissipation studies?

Jeremy Babener: Writing this paper was not planned. In my research for a different article on the single claimant qualified settlement fund issue, I repeatedly read that “90% of lump sum claimants squander their award within five years.” Though I attempted to track down the source of the statistic, I was most surprised to find that I could not. I thought it important for the structured settlement industry to know. Of course, nearly all those I spoke to in the industry believe that most lump sum claimants do prematurely dissipate their settlement, based on personal and anecdotal experience.

S2KM: Did you write the paper for a specific class or seminar?

Jeremy Babener: I wrote the paper during my year in the NYU Journal of Law & Business’ note-writing program, and also for a law course entitled “Tax and Social Policy.”

S2KM: Where and when do you expect to publish your paper and who is your intended audience?

Jeremy Babener: I will be submitting my article to an array of journals and law reviews in August. I wrote the article with those in the structured settlement and factoring industries in mind. However, I think it pertains to many areas where long-term care and financial stability are important, including Medicare.

S2KM: How can interested persons obtain a copy of your paper?

Jeremy Babener: The abstract and draft of the article are available on SSRN. I will also be launching a website with Patrick Hindert. It will provide ongoing posts addressing structured settlement issues, including those introduced by this article.

S2KM: How many dissipation studies did you review as part of this project?

Jeremy Babener: The article reviews twelve studies. Four are American, published between 1936 and 1971. The eight others come from Britain, Canada, Australia, and Scotland, between 1973 and 1994. The article also reviews reports by the Canadian Manitoba Law Commission (1987) and the Law Reform Commission of Ireland (1996).

S2KM: What additional sources did you utilize in your research?

Jeremy Babener: I learned the most about the industry by speaking with those that populate it, including settlement planners, attorneys, and insurance company representatives. The treatises and articles on structured settlements provided an invaluable list of references. I was also fortunate that inquiries to foreign libraries and governments resulted in the requested reports, enabling me to track down nearly every citation I came across.

S2KM: How does the secondary market for structured settlements impact your paper and your view of structured settlement dissipation?

Jeremy Babener: The ability of structured settlement payees to sell their future stream of income for a lump sum amount undermines the purpose of the tax subsidy (i.e. preventing premature dissipation of settlement monies). On the other hand, the flexibility inherent in the ability to factor encourages personal injury claimants to structure their settlements in the first place, which may decrease total settlement dissipation. The factoring industry has produced statistics suggesting that those payees who factor do so responsibly. The sources of such statistics should be analyzed. A modern study on structured settlement factoring may be needed to appreciate the nuances of the issue.

S2KM: What are the earliest and most recent references you located for the statistic that 90% of lump sum injury recipients dissipate their recoveries in 5 years?

Jeremy Babener: The Journal of Commerce reported the 90%-5-year statistic in 1978, quoting T.V. Mangelsdorf, a life insurance underwriter. Today, some commentators, like Paul Lesti, discuss the statistic without reporting it as fact. However, the statistic is cited as proven in articles, on broker websites, and even in Negotiating and Settling Tort Cases, a treatise available on Westlaw.

S2KM: Based upon your research, is the term "squander" an accurate or fair characterization of injury victims?

Jeremy Babener; Where lump sum recipients exhaust their settlement monies in a shorter time than the monies are meant to last, I believe a more accurate characterization would be "premature dissipation". the term "squander" carries a particularly derogatory tone. Though I am not sure I would put it in such strong terms, Washington & Lee School of Law Professor Adam Scales argues quite convincingly, "What is objectionable in the rhetoric of structured settlement enthusiasts is the unsubtle attribution to tort claimants of characteristics, values and habits that are generally held in contempt in American political discourse: a lack of self-control, and the concomitent propensity to wind up om welfare."

S2KM: Did you locate any evidence that injury victims have a greater propensity than other persons to spend money wastefully or foolishly?

Jeremy Babener: The strongest evidence of lump sum recipients’ propensity to prematurely dissipate their settlement comes from anecdotal evidence throughout the industry. A few studies make conclusions that lump sum recipients spend money irresponsibly. However, such studies often have substantial flaws, lack applicability, or provide conclusions based on subjective judgments. For example, some studies criticize the use of lump sum settlement monies on ordinary living expenses.

S2KM: Assuming injury victims do dissipate lump sums, what other explanations, besides a propensity to squander, might explain this occurrence?

Jeremy Babener: The “propensity to squander” addresses the post-settlement decisions of lump sum claimants. However, the settlement amount itself cannot be overlooked. It is important to note the fact that where claimants accept settlements they receive less than the value of their original claim. Once legal and other fees are subtracted, the leftover sum may simply be inadequate. Thus, the money will not last as long as originally intended. For example, a 1984 Australian study of 86 accident claimants found many examples of inadequate settlements, but only seven examples of mismanagement.

S2KM: Did you find any evidence that injury victims manage lump sums responsibly?

Jeremy Babener: Yes, though the studies are either old or foreign. The famed 1971 American “Widows Study,” which some cite to as the source of the 90%-5-year statistic, actually found unwise spending “very much the exception.” Foreign studies also suggest that lump sum recipients can and often do act responsibly, including studies from Scotland (1993), Australia (1992), and Canada (1983). Foreign law commission reports have made similar conclusions.

S2KM: In your opinion, why haven't there been any recent and relevant dissipation studies in the U.S.?

Jeremy Babener: The industry considered performing such a study in the mid-1990s. Then, a few years ago, at least one insurance company was contemplating the idea. Some believe the study would be very difficult to perform; others believe the industry is concerned that the results might not be entirely favorable. I think that there has been little need to prove the contention because so many in the industry, based on personal and anecdotal experience, believe it to be true.

S2KM: Are you planning to write any additional papers related to structured settlements?

Jeremy Babener: I have drafted an article on the use of qualified settlement funds by single party claimants. I will be sharing it with those in the industry prior to submitting it to the NYU Journal of Law and Business this Fall.

Thank you, Jeremy for this interview and for sharing your dissipation paper which has been long overdue in the structured settlement industry. Good luck and future success with your studies, your writing and your professional career.

For related S2KM blog posts, see:

• Dissipation Studies;
• Jeremy Babener Dissipation Paper;
• Structured Settlement 2009 Strategic Analysis;
  
• Structured Settlement Surveys;
• J.G. Wentworth Survey;
• Settlement Consulting;
• Structured Settlement Credo.

Jeremy Babener's Dissipation Paper

Jeremy Babener, a third year Juris Doctor candidate at New York University School of Law, has completed a seminal research paper titled "Justifying the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy: The Use of Lump Sum Settlements" which identifies and analyzes 12 historical dissipation studies plus two law commission dissipation reports.

This S2KM blog post summarizes and reviews Babener's dissipation paper. A prior S2KM post introduced dissipation studies and "claimant centric" business models as strategically important for structured settlements and settlement planning. A subsequent post will feature an interview with Jeremy Babener about his dissipation paper.

Babener's conclusions about injury victim dissipation studies:

• No existing published dissipation study supports either of two structured settlement industry claims:
  • Injury victims "squander" lump sum awards;
  • Nine out of 10 lump sum injury victim recipients dissipate their awards within five years - the "90% - five year" statistic.
• Dissipation studies exist which reach the opposite conclusion - injury victims have no more propensity to dissipate lump sums than non-injury victims.

Scope: Although Babener's dissipation paper is comprehensive, it focuses on a specific topic - the 90% - five year statistic.

Babener's dissipation paper does not:

• Contend that claimants spend money responsibly. Instead, it "exposes as industry allegory the frequently stated belief that studies have proven [injury victim squandering] to be true." Babener recommends a new United States study to develop "empirical and substantiated" dissipation statistics for injury victims because the United States tax subsidy for structured settlements is premised on this belief.
• Address possible explanations for injury victim dissipation besides "squandering". Other commentators, however, have identified two explanations which deserve greater consideration and analysis:
  • Alternative # 1 - Asset and income qualification requirements for certain government benefits (including Medicaid and SSI) which:
    • Force and re-enforce recipients into poverty; and,
    • For many persons, require asset spend down strategies (dissipation) to qualify.
  • Alternative # 2 - Inadequate funds - where the proposed settlement plans:
    • Don't exist; or
    • Make inaccurate or unrealistic assumptions; or they are:
    • Under-funded; or
    • Improperly implemented; or
    • Badly administered.
• Characterize the secondary market as either proving or disproving claimant dissipation characteristics.

Babener's paper contains six sections - each of which S2KM separately summarizes below.

• Section I - Introduction. Babener focuses on the linkage between the structured settlement tax subsidy and dissipation studies.
• Section II - An Empty Statistic? Babener attempts, but fails, to locate any source supporting the 90%- five year statistic.
• Section III - Other Evidence of Lump Sum Use. Babener reviews other studies casting light on claimants' financial responsibility.
• Section IV - The Informed Conclusions of Others. Babener examines why the unproven 90%-five year assertion endures.
• Section V - Rhetoric of the Dissipating Claimant. Babener addresses the rhetoric of the enduring assertion, calling for a modern American study to answer the question long thought answered.
• Section VI - Conclusion:
  • Appendices (the surveys);
  • The lack of evidence for the 90%-5 year statistic;
  • Other evidence of lump sum dissipation;
  • Evidence of responsible lump sum usage.

Section 1 - Introduction

Babener's paper does not contend that personal injury claimants responsibly expend lump sum settlement monies. Instead, the paper exposes as industry allegory the frequently stated (but unsubstantiated and largely unanalyzed) belief that studies prove injury victims prematurely dissipate lump sums. Babener's paper highlights the federal income tax subsidy for structured settlements and estimates the annual subsidy to total between $360 and $840 million per year assuming $6 billion of annual structured settlement annuity sales. Babener's paper incorporates and builds upon the findings of two other authors who have studied dissipation, Ellen S. Pryor and Adam F. Scales. Babener's paper also reviews and relies upon 12 studies and two law commission reports - most of which are from non-United States countries. Babener also conducted extensive interviews with structured settlement practitioners.

Section 2 - An Empty Statistic?

Babener identifies and traces historic references from 1978 to 2009 citing "insurance studies" which allegedly support the 90% - five year statistic. In every case, Babener finds the reference either lacks any citation or cites to a study that does not support the 90%-5 year statistic. Although articles, treatises and practitioners continue to cite the statistic as proven, Babener's research does not discover any study that supports the 90%-5 year statistic. That statistic, which Professor Scales characterized as "the most consistently repeated 'fact'" in structured settlement law and lore, appears to be a mythical falsehood. Babener does not explore the consequences of this industry myth which extend beyond the scope of his paper.

Section 3 - Other Evidence

Babener summarizes his findings after reviewing 12 dissipation studies plus two law commission reports and references his more detailed analyses of these sources in his paper's Appendices. None of the dissipation studies or reports support the 90% - five year statistic. According to Babener's analysis, seven of these studies, plus two law commission reports support an opposite conclusion: lump sum recipients do not spend their recoveries unwisely.

The law commission reports Babener analyzes are by the Law Reform Commission in Ireland in 1996 and the Canadian Manitoba Law Commission in 1987. The Law Reform Commission of Ireland found "studies recently conducted by the Law Commission and the Disability Management Group of the University of Edinburgh have shown that the risk of dissipation is less than was widely believed and that those awarded very high damages are least likely to fritter away their compensation".

The 12 dissipation studies Babener reviews in his paper are listed here chronologically:

• 1947 U.S. Retirement Railroad Board Compensation study;
• 1959 University of Michigan study;
• 1973 British Personal Injury study;
• 1983 Australian Accident Compensation study;
• 1983 Canadian Auto Accident Compensation study;
• 1984 British Personal Injury study;
• 1984 Australian Traffic Accident study;
• 1987 Canadian Manitoba Law Commission study;
• 1992 Australian Auto Accident study;
• 1993 Scottish PersonaI Injury Compensation study;
• 1994 British Personal Injury Compensation study;
• 1996 Law Reform Commission of Ireland study.

Section 4 - Informed Conclusions of Others

Babener acknowledges that none of the studies he cites and analyzes is directly analogous to 21st century United States injury victims. Babener calls for a modern American study of injury victim dissipation to support the structured settlement tax subsidy.

Section 5 - Rhetoric of the Dissipating Claimant

In discussing and analyzing the continuing rhetoric within the structured settlement industry, especially the pejorative and unproven characterization of injury victims as "squanderers", Babener quotes from Adam Scales' 2002 paper. Scales argues that the image of the dissipating claimant has "intuitive appeal". According to Scales, “What is objectionable in the rhetoric of structured settlement enthusiasts is the unsubtle attribution to tort claimants of characteristics, values, and habits that are generally held in contempt in American political discourse: a lack of self-control, and the concomitant propensity to wind up on welfare." Scales continues, “An essential element of the discussion has been the assumption that successful tort claimants simply cannot be trusted with large sums of money."

Section 6 - Conclusion and Appendices - Babener concludes his paper by calling for a modern American dissipation study. In his paper's Appendices, Babener analyzes existing dissipation studies under three categories:

• Appendix A - frequently cited dissipation studies which do not support the 90%-five year statistic;
• Appendix B - other studies suggesting lump sum settlement recipients dissipate;
• Appendix C - studies offering evidence of responsible money management by injury victims.

For related S2KM blog posts, see:

• Dissipation Studies;
• Jeremy Babener Interview;
• Structured Settlement 2009 Strategic Analysis;
  
• Structured Settlement Surveys;
• J.G. Wentworth Survey;
• Settlement Consulting;
• Structured Settlement Credo.

Dissipation Studies

The United States structured settlement industry has drifted into an era of unprecedented transition and change with stagnant annuity growth and without any articulated industry strategic plan or strategic planning process.

Forces causing structured settlement transition and change:

• Financial service regulatory reform - with consumer protections;
• Tax reform - with reviews of existing subsidies plus potential new tax-subsidized products for disabled persons;
• Health care reform - with expected new rules for Medicaid (special needs trusts) and Medicare (set-aside arrangements);
• Internet-based business models - with improved performance standards and metrics for communication; planning; marketing; learning; product development and work processes;
• Class action lawsuits - exposing bad structured settlement business practices regardless of whether these practices are illegal under current laws;
• Growth of affiliated business markets - special needs planning; lien resolution; the secondary market; Medicare secondary payer practice; life care planning; settlement trusts; and money management of settlement proceeds;
• Retirement and/or death of first generation structured settlement industry leaders.

To recognize strategic change and successfully transition to settlement planning, a larger, more complex business, the structured settlement industry needs new focus, new vision, new leaders, and new "claimant centric" business models.

To better understand and grow their market, the new structured settlement leaders should begin by re-examining industry myths about their customers (injury victims). Where the myths are wrong and misguided, these new industry leaders should reject the historical myths and re-invent structured settlements based upon truth not fiction.

Among structured settlement industry myths, two are especially pernicious, long-standing and related:

• Myth #1: injury victims squander lump sums. Nine out of 10 lump sum recipients dissipate the entire amount within five years.
• Myth #2: structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance.

What have been the consequences of these industry myths for the structured settlements?

• Inefficient and anti-claimant business models;
• Product sales instead of settlement solutions;
• Bad business practices - whether or not illegal;
• Lack of market research and product development;
• Selectively incomplete education;
• Defensive and anti-growth political strategies;
• Abandonment of injury victim customers to the secondary market;
• Stagnant structured settlement annuity growth.

What if both myths are false?

Expert commentators have already challenged both myths:

• Adam Scales - When Professor Adam Scales first questioned the myth of squandering injury victims in his remarkable 2002 University of Wisconsin Law Review article titled: "Against Settlement Factoring? The Market in Tort Claims has Arrived", he was reviled by leaders of the primary structured settlement market. Seven years following the publication of Professor Scales' article, structured settlement and settlement planning leaders continue to quote false dissipation statistics and mis-characterize existing dissipation studies to promote a negative and false psychological and financial profile of injury victims.
• David Lillesand - David Lillesand, a leading social security and special needs attorney, has spoken and written about the critical need for serious injury victims to qualify for Medicaid. According to Lillesand, Medicaid is a "life or death" matter for such individuals. Structured settlements do not enable serious injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance. To the contrary, unless the annuities are paid into a special needs trust, structured settlement annuity payments disqualify injury victims from receiving Medicaid. Even when structured settlement annuities are paid into a special needs trust, the legal rules for structured settlements are either unaddressed by current legislation and regulations and/or uncertain in their application and requirements.

Meet Jeremy Babener , part of a new generation of structured settlement knowledge leaders, and a third year law student at New York University. Babener has accomplished something no one in the structured settlement industry has attempted - a comprehensive review of historic dissipation studies involving injury victims. Babener's new legal research paper, titled "Justifying the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy: The Use of Lump Sum Settlements," includes extensive Appendices with detailed analysis of 12 dissipation studies relevant to U.S structured settlements.

Babener's paper, which examines and challenges the myth of the squandering injury victim:

• Refutes the existence of any published study supporting the statistic that "90% of lump sum recipients dissipate their recoveries within five years".
• Identifies existing dissipation studies that reach a contradictory conclusion: injury victims have no greater propensity to dissipate money than non-injury victims.
• Incorporates interviews from a cross-section of structured settlement industry practitioners who support the assertion of common lump sum dissipation based on personal and anecdotal experience.
• Calls for a modern study to ground the structured settlement subsidy in proven data.

S2KM begins its public 2009 strategic re-evaluation of structured settlements with a blog series about dissipation studies featuring Jeremy Babener's research. In subsequent posts, S2KM will summarize and review Babener's new dissipation paper and interview Babener about his dissipation research.

For related S2KM blog posts, see:

• Jeremy Babener Dissipation Paper;
• Jeremy Babener Interview;
• Jeremy Babener Responds;
• Settlement Consulting;
• Structured Settlement Credo.

Settlement Consulting - 3

In prior posts about settlement consulting, S2KM:

• Reviewed Joseph DiGangi's discussion at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting titled: "Comprehensive Settlement Consulting in the 21st Century". See: "Settlement Consulting".
• Continued DiGangi's discussion by asking questions and offering comments about "settlement consulting" definitions and scope. See: "Settlement Consulting - 2".

This S2KM post outlines settlement consulting history - from a structured settlement perspective.

S2KM's structured settlement history diagram (developed with graphic artist Keith Burtoft) concludes with the founding of the National Association of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) in 2005.

Beginning in 2005, S2KM has continued to monitor structured settlement history by attending and reporting about settlement consulting conferences addressing structured settlements.

For the past three years, S2KM has also published annual reports about structured settlement developments:

• Structured Settlements in 2008;
  
• Structured Settlements in 2007;
• Structured Settlements in 2006.

Using the same categories as S2KM's structured settlement history diagram, here are some of the more recent settlement consulting highlights:

Social Security

• Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA);
• The Ahlborn Case (2006) - see John Campbell's analysis of the Eighth Circuit's decision which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
• Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA);
• Additional MSA rules for structured settlements (2008);
• New POMS for Special Needs Trusts (2009) - see David Lillesand's report;

Taxation - see related articles on the Wood & Porter website:

• Banks and Banaitis cases (2005) - attorney fees;
• Murphy case (2007);
• IRS Letter Ruling 200836019 (2008) - Non-qualified 130 assignments and attorney fees.

State Legislation (2005-2008) - see Release 45 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

• Structured settlement protection statutes;
• Uniform Trust Code;
• UCC Article 9 anti-assignment provisions;
• Medicaid annuity rules.

Other Developments

• Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) founded (2007);
• AIG receives $150 billion U.S. Government bailout (2008);
• Joseph Ricci replaces Randy Dyer as NSSTA Executive Director (2008);
• SSP publishes its "Standards of Professional Conduct" (2008) and begins its Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification (2008);
• American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners (AANLCP) founded (2008);
• Several annuity providers depart the structured settlement market (2005-2008);
• Structured settlement annuity premium remains level at $6 billion per year (2001-2008);
  
• Structured settlement surveys identify a larger market (2006-2008);
• Settlement consulting bloggers and podcast providers emerge (2004-2009).

For reasons why S2KM views 1982, 2001 and 2008 as strategically important for structured settlements, see "Structured Settlements in 2008 - 1".

Structured Settlements in 2008 - 3

This S2KM blog post, the third of three analyzing structured settlements in 2008, highlights the challenges facing the structured settlement industry as it enters 2009.

Two prior S2KM blog posts evaluated 2008 from an historical perspective (Structured Settlements in 2008 -1) and summarized the conferences S2KM attended throughout the year (Structured Settlements in 2008 - 2).

Who does your client trust? The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) spotlighted the "trust issue" during its 2007 Winter meeting when NSSTA also reported the results of its structured settlement survey of injury victims and attorneys. Structured settlements require trust by injury victims and their attorneys that:

• Structured settlement consultants are qualified professional financial advisers; and
• Annuity providers will pay promised future periodic payments.

Traditionally important to structured settlements, issues of trust have been magnified in 2008 by the widespread financial collapse that required a federal bailout of AIG and called into question the reliability of financial rating assessments as well as the protection afforded consumers and investors by government regulators. A corollary issue for structured settlement consultants is "professionalism" - one of four strategic priorities NSSTA President Chris Diamantis identified during the NSSTA 2008 Annual Meeting.

• Should injury victims and their attorneys trust structured settlement consultants and engage them as financial advisers?
• What are the professional qualifications and services of individual structured settlement consultants?
• Are structured settlement consultants problem solvers or product pushers?
• Do they understand their own product - an increasingly complex transaction as visualized in this structured settlement diagram ?
• Are structured settlement consultants capable of objectively and comprehensively advising injury victims and their attorneys about such fundamental structured settlement issues as:
  • IRC 468B;
  • IRC 5891;
  • State-specific structured settlement protection statutes;
  • The Medicare Secondary Payer Statute; and
  • The Deficit Reduction Act?
• Are individual structured settlement consultants licensed and educated to sell non-insurance investment products?
• Are they professionally capable of recognizing, and do they proactively communicate, their own conflicts of interest?
• Do they proactively disclose their structured settlement compensation arrangements and obtain an injury victim's informed consent for such compensation?

How strong are structured settlements? The structured settlement industry should expect injury victims and their attorneys to demand additional assurances in 2009 about the financial security of structured settlement annuities. If "sophisticated" investors and financial institutions are hoarding cash and/or buying U.S. government securities, why should injury victims and their attorneys accept long term financial promises with limited or no liquidity? Will these traditional industry arguments continue to successfully drive structured settlement annuity sales in 2009:

• Except for United States treasury obligations, life insurance annuities are among the most secure long term investments.
• Fixed annuities are especially secure because they do not depend upon the vagaries of interest rates and securities markets.
• Fixed annuities, however, require the obligating party(s) to remain in business for the duration of the annuity obligation.
• The 30 year performance record of structured settlement annuities (to date) has been close to perfection.
• With strong support from legislators, regulators and judges, the structured settlement industry has survived its worst potential disasters.
• These potential disasters include the failures of AIG, Executive Life; Confederation Life; Capital Life; and Monarch Capital.
• By contrast, the most spectacular structured settlement failures have not involved annuities.
• These failures, which include SBU and Stanwich, involved IRC 130 structured settlement treasury bond trusts - i.e. (poorly or criminally) managed assets.
• Life insurance companies that issue structured settlement annuities are regulated by state insurance departments.
• State insurance guarantee funds provide a safety net for individual company failures.
• Life insurance companies that issue structured settlement annuities, therefore, are among the strongest of the financially strong.
• If injury victims want income tax-free periodic payments with lifetime security, they should include a structured settlement annuity as part of their settlement plan.

Competing business models - two alternative business models will continue to compete in 2009 for the future of structured settlements:

• The traditional claim management (defense-controlled) business model characterized by:
  • IRC 130 as a funding model;
  • Single product (annuity) orientation;
  • Defendant "approved" structured settlement agents;
  • Defendant "approved" structured settlement annuity providers;
  • Defendant "right of last refusal" to match funding alternatives;
  • Defendant "right" to deny structured settlements to injury victims;
  • Opposition to single claimant 468B;
  • Failure to fully inform injury victims about settlement transfers;
  • Failure to promote full disclosure and informed consent of structured settlement compensation.
• The emerging settlement planning (plaintiff-controlled) business model characterized by:
  • IRC 468B and 130 as a two-step, court-approved funding model;
  • Multiple product (annuity and trust) alternatives;
  • Integration of structured settlements with other government benefits;
  • Claimant selection of structured settlement consultants;
  • Claimant selection of structured settlement annuity providers;
  • Claimant's right to a structured settlement;
  • Claimant's right to information about the secondary market prior to settlement;
  • Claimant's right to full disclosure and informed consent about structured settlement compensation.

Primary vs. secondary structured settlement markets

• The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) cooperated in 2000 and 2001 to draft the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act and to help enact IRC section 5891.
• Relatively limited educational, marketing and transactional interaction, however, has occurred historically between the primary and secondary markets.
• S2KM's 2006 concept map ("How the Primary Market Views Factoring") highlights the generally hostile attitude many primary market participants continue to express toward the secondary market and factoring companies.
• Among other results, the primary market's attitude has limited:
  • The education structured settlement stakeholders have received about settlement transfers;
  • The advice and assistance structured settlement consultants offer their customers about settlement transfers.
• One of the continuing industry challenges in 2009 will be whether various factions within the primary and secondary markets are able to work collaboratively to improve and expand structured settlements.
• As a positive developments:
  
  • NSSTA, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) each offered educational programs about settlement transfers during 2008;
  • Representatives of the primary and secondary markets jointly addressed improving structured settlement business practices at both the SSP and NASP 2008 Annual Meetings as well as the 2008 Structured Settlement Thought Leadership Conference.

Structured Settlements and Government Benefits

• A traditional structured settlement industry argument, promoted by defenders of the claim management business model, proclaims "structured settlements enable injured victims to live free of reliance on government assistance".
• This promotional statement is false and misleading. Many, if not most, structured settlement recipients depend upon government benefits in addition to structured settlements to address basic financial needs.
• These government benefits include: Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Benefits and Federally Assisted Housing.
• As David Lillesand, a leading social security and special needs attorney, stated at the SSP 2008 Annual Meeting: Medicaid alone represents a "life or death issue" for disabled persons including structured settlement recipients.
• The challenges of maximizing and successfully integrating government benefits are more complicated with a structured settlement than with a lump sum benefit in part because of a lack of legal authority.
• With anticipated budget cuts and reforms for Medicaid and Medicare in 2009, the structured settlement industry must improve and expand its educational and lobbying strategies if it expects structured settlements to play a vital role in this changing legislative and regulatory landscape.

Growing the structured settlement market

• As evidenced by annuity premium, the primary structured settlement market has not grown since 2001.
• Several structured settlement annuity providers have left the market since 2006. Concurrently, the number of individual structured settlement consultants remains relatively constant while their average age continues to increase.
• Recent structured settlement surveys and market studies by NSSTA, AIG, J.G. Wentworth and Towers Perrin confirm opportunities exist to grow the structured settlement market and suggest the structured settlement market is underperforming.
• Some of the important issues related to structured settlement market growth:
  
  • Managing transition and change
  • Structured settlement advocacy
  • Marketing to plaintiff attorneys
  • Problem solving vs. product sales
  • Building settlement planning teams
  • 468B as a standard funding model
  • Integrating structured settlements with settlement trusts
  • Improving industry Internet applications and skill sets
  • Continuing market research
• In a 2008 S2KM interview, paralympic champion Randy Snow offered the following advice for successfully transitioning and growing the structured settlement industry: listen to the customer; design the best products; surround yourself with the best people; have fun.

Thank you and best holiday wishes to all structured settlement stakeholders who followed S2KM's blog reports during 2008. The New Year should be interesting and challenging for the financial markets generally and the structured settlement industry more specifically.

Structured Settlements in 2008 - 2

This S2KM blog post, the second of three analyzing structured settlements in 2008, summarizes conferences S2KM attended throughout the year. A prior post evaluated 2008 from an historical structured settlement perspective. A subsequent post will discuss challenges facing the structured settlement industry in 2009. Conferences and associations are listed alphabetically. For more detailed reports about these conferences, check the parenthetical links for related S2KM blog posts. For S2KM's complete historical review of professional associations and conferences, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) - The second annual ASNP conference underscored the strategic nexus that exists between special needs planning, settlement planning and structured settlements. ASNP's "extra-curricular" program featured a social service project where 30 ASNP conference attendees assisted Families Helping Families of Southeast Louisiana repair and improve its office headquarters. The ASNP conference confirmed for this author why special needs attorneys and financial planners, as opposed to former life insurance salesmen and claim managers, represent the future of structured settlements and settlement planning. Although several NSSTA and SSP members attended and/or participated as speakers, most of the structured settlement industry missed this valuable conference.

American Association for Persons with Disabilities (AAPD) - Structured settlement leaders from both NSSTA and SSP attended the 2008 AAPD Leadership Gala dinner in Washington, D.C. - in addition to many Congressional and Disability leaders. NSSTA was one of the event sponsors and had earlier featured Andrew J. Imparato, AAPD President and CEO, as a speaker at NSSTA's 2007 Fall Meeting. Imparato, a visionary and inspirational leader, is dedicated to transitioning disabled persons from poverty to economic self-sufficiency. AAPD's strategy includes uniting disabled persons as a political block and business market. AAPD's political priorities include changing the social security statutory definition of "disability" from "unable to work" to address "barriers to work" for disabled persons. Imparato's message for structured settlement professionals: involve yourselves at the local level with independent living centers.

National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) - NAELA's Mission is "is to establish NAELA members as the premier providers of legal advocacy, guidance and services to enhance the lives of seniors and people with disabilities". NAELA's membership consists of 4400 attorneys in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. Most of the members of ASNP and the Special Needs Alliance (SNA) are members of NAELA including many NAELA founders and former Presidents and Directors. S2KM developed a "Web 2.0 for Lawyers" wiki for the NAELA 2008 Symposium which was also featured in a Legal Broadcast Network (LBN) podcast interview by Scott Drake with S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert. S2KM also published a 2008 blog post analyzing NAELA and NAELA's CELA certification program from a knowledge management and web 2.0 perspective.

National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) - Founded in 2005, NAMSAP is a non-profit organization devoted to improving Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) and to facilitating compliance with Medicare conditional payment recovery.

• Background - MSAs are administrative and funding mechanisms utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute. Although the MSP rules were enacted by Congress in 1980, CMS did not begin to enforce the MSP statute until 2001 based upon a series of CMS policy memoranda for workers compensation cases, several of which address structured settlement issues.
• MMSEA - On December 29, 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the "Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007" (MMSEA). Beginning July 1, 2009, MMSEA requires liability insurers (including self-insurers, no-fault insurers and workers compensation insurers) to determine Medicare status for all claimants and report all claims involving a Medicare beneficiary to CMS when those claims are resolved. If the reporting for any claimant is not done in a timely manner, MMSEA authorizes CMS to enforce a civil penalty against liability insurers of $1000 per day per claimant. These information requirements and penalty provisions provide the basis for expanded enforcement by CMS of the MSP statute.
• MARC - One of the featured presenters at the NAMSAP 2008 Annual meeting was Roy Franco, Director of Safeway's Risk Management Strategies and Chairman of the Medicare Advocacy Recovery Coalition (MARC).
  • In discussing the MMSEA requirements for liability cases, Franco said "the issue is not just about reporting" and predicted a "claim freeze" as liability insurers and self-insureds wait for resolution and approval before they pay claims.
  • Franco characterized the MMSEA MSP rules as an attack on traditional best practices for liability claim management. He predicted legal challenges and criticized MMSEA rules.
  • Franco outlined MARC's priorities for MMSEA which include changing the law or, alternatively, obtaining an injunction to stop its July 1, 2009 implementation.
• S2KM reporting - S2KM published seven blog posts in 2008 highlighting recent MSA and MMSEA developments that impact structured settlements including several developments that have occured during 2008.
• S2P2J analysis - S2P2J Release 44 features an extensive update of MSA rules for structured settlements as well as a summary of MMSEA.

National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) - At the NASP 2008 Annual Meeting, Patrick Hindert, S2KM's blog author, moderated a panel discussion titled "How to Improve and Grow the Structured Settlement Market". Participants included: Jack Meligan, Michael Upchurch and Matthew Bracy. As settlement planners, both Meligan and Upchurch described their view of the secondary market as a "mixed-bag" of bad and good. The "bad" part of factoring results from non-professional ("cash now") advertisements promoted by many factoring companies.

Not only do plaintiff attorneys dislike "cash now" advertisements, according to Meligan and Upchurch, they are also less likely to recommend structured settlements if they believe their clients will eventually sell their payment rights.

The potential liquidity provided by settlement transfers improves the structured settlement annuity product. Lives change. Unexpected events occur. Even the best personal injury settlement plans need to be reviewed post-settlement and sometimes adjusted. Settlement transfers, which must be reviewed and approved by state judges, are appropriate in some cases.

Bracy emphasized the need for well-educated plaintiffs and plaintiff attorneys - as well as judges. He noted that many primary market participants have ignored the settlement transfer business. Bracy acknowledged that good and bad business practices exist in the secondary market as well as the primary market. According to Bracy, the potential secondary structured settlement represents between 5% and 7% of the total primary market. Most structured settlement cases, according to Bracy, neither require nor qualify for a settlement transfer.

National Settlement Consultants (NSC) - Patrick Hindert, S2KM's Managing Director and blog author, was privileged to speak at the NSC 2008 Annual Meeting and also to attend NSC presentations and social functions. In addition to Michael and William Goodman, NSC founders and principals, the NSC presenters included representatives from ten (10) structured settlement annuity providers as well as several national settlement planning experts. In retrospect, the "not-for-publication" May 2008 NSC presentations by some of the annuity providers now seem especially interesting and important. Among other topics, these presentations addressed investment exposure to real estate mortgages plus one annuity provider's study of settlement transfers by its own structured settlement recipients. Randy Snow's NSC keynote presentation about change and growth was humorous and thought-provoking. Randy subsequently participated in a series of S2KM blog interviews about change and growth in the structured settlement industry. Hindert provided a structured settlement Medicaid update as part of the NSC educational program.

National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) - Founded in 1985, NSSTA is the oldest and largest structured settlement professional trade association. NSSTA's members are primarily structured settlement consultants and annuity providers. In addition to providing education and certification, NSSTA historically has served as the legislative and lobbying voice of the primary structured settlement market. NSSTA's committees, especially NSSTA's legal committee, are among the most valuable sources of information about the structured settlement industry.

• Winter Meeting - Prominent educational themes and presentations at the NSSTA 2008 Winter Meeting included: trial attorneys; disabled persons and disability associations; government benefits; structured settlement legal documentation; legislative and regulatory developments; Internet marketing; and professionalism.
• Annual Meeting - Chris Diamantis, NSSTA's 2008 President, introduced Joseph Ricci as NSSTA's new Executive Director, and identified NSSTA's strategic priorities for 2008: factoring; advocacy and marketing; professionalism; and governance and communication. J.P. Steele announced the results of a Structured Settlement Survey Report sponsored by AIG which S2KM summarized in a November 23, 2008 blog post. Eric Vaughn, NSSTA's lobbyist, provided a "Washington Report" analyzing the then-upcoming federal election from a structured settlement perspective. Legal committee co-chairman, Michael Miller, summarized results from 100 factoring cases in which his law firm, Drinker Biddle, had participated since January 2008. Craig Ulman, NSSTA's General Legal Counsel, provided a State Guarantee Funds primer. Bradley Frigon spoke about special needs trusts. Among other topics, two actuarial presentations discussed structured settlement pricing.
• Fall Meeting - Although S2KM participated in four committee meetings at NSSTA's 2008 Fall Meeting, S2KM did not attend NSSTA's educational program because of a scheduling conflict. S2KM's blog coverage of this meeting therefore was limited to editorial commentary.

Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) - Founded in 2001, SSP is a national nonprofit educational and public policy association of professional structured settlement producers and others who assist injured claimants in the settlement process. At its 2008 Annual meeting, the SSP adopted its "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners", a multi-year SSP project initiated and managed by SSP Director and attorney Richard Risk.

Carl A. Pierce, distinguished professor of law at the University of Tennessee, assisted SSP with this ethics project. Pierce served as a reporter for the latest revision of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Frank Johns, a leading special needs attorney and settlement planning ethicist, also advised SSP on its Standards of Professional Conduct. Johns' 2008 SSP presentation introduced a proposed Request for Proposal (RFP) for settlement planners.

Risk organized and moderated SSP's tax panel that featured Jody Brewster, Glenn Mackies and Michael Montemurro.

SSP devoted three presentations to government benefits, the highlight being David Lillesand, a national leader among social security and special needs trust attorneys. Based upon his discussions with the Social Security Administration (SSA), Lillesand stated that Nancy Veillon's January 31, 2006 letters to attorneys Roger Bernstein and Jay Sangerman representing NSSTA are "inoperative" - a statement Lillesand repeated during his presentation with SSA executive attorney Ken Brown at the ASNP 2008 Annual Meeting.

SSP's panel discussion about the secondary markets included NASP Executive Earl Nesbitt, Stephen Harris and Rhonda Bentzen. Other SSP educational presentations included a legislation and litigation update, settlement planning case studies, and advice about Internet marketing.

Stetson Special Needs Trust X (SSNTX) - Throughout its 10 year history, the Stetson Conference has been recognized as the leading special needs trust (SNT) knowledge forum in the United States. Most of the speakers are members of either the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) or the Special Needs Alliance (SNA). For structured settlement professionals, the 2008 Stetson program titled "The Basics of Special Needs Trusts" offered analyses of several important settlement planning topics and included two presentations specifically focusing on structured settlements:

• Texas Attorney Pi-Yi Mayo spoke about the January 31, 2006 Social Security Administration (SSA) letters to attorneys Roger Bernstein and Jay Sangerman as well as the application of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) to structured settlements used to fund special needs trusts; and
• Leo Govoni provided "An Economic Analysis of Structured Settlements".

Structured Settlement Knowledge Leadership Conference (SSKLC) - Focusing on the "needs and best interests of consumers", the first Structured Settlement Thought Leadership Conference, sponsored by J.G. Wentworth, was designed to bring together knowledge leaders who are "redefining structured settlement roles and processes". The Leadership Conference objective was to provide an educational platform and open forum dedicated to growing and improving the structured settlement market. In addition to four panel discussions and two individual presentations, the Leadership Conference featured a brainstorming session to improve the structured settlement process for plaintiffs based upon the subjects discussed in prior sessions. The panel discussions addressed the economic life cycle of a personal injury claim identified by Adam Scales in his 2002 Wisconsin Law Review article titled "Against Settlement Factoring? The Market in Tort Claims has Arrived". One result of the Leadership Conference was the subsequent 2008 structured settlement survey conducted by J.G. Wentworth.

Special Needs Trusts X

Stetson Law School hosted the 10th Annual Special Needs Trust (SNT) Conference October 16-17, 2008 at the Don CeSar Beach Resort in St. Pete Beach, Florida. More than 300 attorneys, trustees, care planners and structured settlement consultants attended one or both of the basic and advanced educational programs.

Throughout its 10 year history, the Stetson Conference has been recognized as the leading SNT knowledge forum in the United States. Most of the speakers are members of either the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) or the Special Needs Alliance (SNA) and each of these associations schedule members-only meetings in conjunction with the Stetson Conference.

For structured settlement professionals, the Stetson program titled "The Basics of Special Needs Trusts" offered analyses of several important settlement planning topics and included two presentations specifically focusing on structured settlements:

• Texas Attorney Pi-Yi Mayo spoke about the January 31, 2006 Social Security Administration (SSA) letters to attorneys Roger Bernstein and Jay Sangerman ("Bernstein letter") as well as the application of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) to structured settlements used to fund special needs trusts; and
• Leo Govoni, Director of the Center for Special Needs Trust Administration, provided "An Economic Analysis of Structured Settlements".

In addition, Bradley Frigon ("Basics of Special Needs Trusts") and Bernard Krooks ("Taxation of Special Needs Trusts") each addressed structured settlement issues in their conference presentations.

Mayo's discussion about the Bernstein letter and the DRA highlighted two controversial issues that have not received sufficient attention by either the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) or the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP). For backgound about these issues, see these prior S2KM blog posts:

• The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
• Inconvenient Questions - summarizing a paper by Sylvius von Saucken.
• SSP 2008 Annual Meeting - 2: specifically David Lillesand's comments that the SSA letters to Bernstein and Sangerman are "inoperative" based upon his discussions with SSA officials including Ken Brown.
• NSSTA 2007 Winter Meeting - 3: specifically Jay Sangerman's statement that the DRA "does not apply to structured settlements" used to fund special needs trusts.

Citing Texas law, Mayo stated that the DRA annuity rules do apply to structured settlements used to fund SNTs - at least in Texas. According to Mayo, the Texas interpretations of the DRA are especially relevant because the DRA annuity rules adopted pre-existing Texas rules almost verbatim. Mayo warned that other states are likely to interpret the DRA annuity rules in a similar fashion - especially because (as other Stetson speakers confirmed): 1) state Medicaid agencies are making a concerted effort to limit SNT uses, flexibility and availability; and 2) many state Medicaid agencies continue to view annuities generally as abusive SNT planning techniques.

As a counterpoint on the DRA, Mayo recommended John Campbell's 2008 NAELA Journal article titled "The Use of Qualified Settlement Funds, Qualified Assignments and Special Needs Trusts in Physical Injury Settlements" in which Campbell argues that the DRA should not apply to structured settlements used to fund a SNT because the funds used to purchase the structured settlement annuities never belong to the SNT beneficiary. For S2KM's review and analysis of Campbell's article, see S2KM's earlier blog posts titled "IRC 468B Funds Revisited" featuring comments by Campbell.
 
As for the SSA's letters to Bernstein and Sangerman, Mayo did not directly address whether he supported Lillesand's assertion that the letters are "inoperative". Instead he cited the following authority to support his opinion that: 1) payments from a structured settlement annuity that are irrevocably assigned to a SNT are not income to the trust beneficiary when paid directly into the trust; and 2) that such annuity payments paid into a SNT after a beneficiary reaches age 65 should be treated the same as annuity payments received before age 65:

• POMS SI 01120.201J.1D which states in part: "a legally assignable payment ... that is assigned to a [SNT] is income for SSI purposes unless the assignment is irrevocable"; and
• CMS' position that additions to a SNT made after the beneficiary reaches age 65 should not be treated differently from prior additions where there has been an irrevocable assignment of structured settlement payments to a properly established SNT.

Mayo emphasized the importance of reciting the irrevocable nature of the structured settlement assignment in settlement documentation and court orders establishing the SNT.  He also agreed with Lillesand about the importance of obtaining SSA POMS that specifically address structured settlements used to fund SNTs. For S2KM's most recent status report about SSA POMS for structured settlements, see Ken Brown's comments under "SSI Rules for Trust Administration" in S2KM's blog post about the 2008 ASNP Annual Meeting.

In the context of the current financial crisis, Govoni's presentation titled "An Economic Analysis of Structured Settlements" appeared to be an important and timely subject. For this author, however, the analysis fell short of expectations for several reasons:

• Govoni was the only presenter at the conference who did not provide handout materials. With some exceptions, in this author's experience, structured settlement handout materials at national conferences repeatedly fall below the highest standards of other settlement planning professionals.
• Although Govoni briefly referenced the current financial crisis, he did not mention AIG, did not discuss financial ratings and did not address the impact of the financial crisis on structured settlements and/or managed assets as funding alternatives for SNTs.
• Govoni focused much of his analysis on relative rates of return and age ratings but never mentioned after-tax investment comparisons or Monte Carlo analysis.
  
• Govoni recommended annuity commutation riders as a strategy to pay potential estate tax obligations but failed to mention the secondary market as a potential source of structured settlement liquidity.

With the exception of a single reference by Mayo to "the grey market", none of speakers who addressed structured settlements discussed the secondary market, IRC 5891 or the 46 state structured settlement protection statutes. This educational neglect mirrors the continuing failure of NSSTA and SSP to educate their members about how to sell structured settlements (and grow the structured settlement market) in the context of IRC 5891 and the 46 state structured settlement protection statutes.

In this author's private discussions with Stetson conference attendees, several mentioned the secondary market as a valuable settlement planning resource. Three attendees informed this author of SNT beneficiaries and trustees who had been forced into the secondary market almost immediately following settlement because their SNTs had been "over-structured". In each instance, the settlement plan contained insufficient cash to permit the SNT trustee to purchase a needed house and/or a vehicle. In one case, the SNT beneficiary and his family have brought a lawsuit against the plaintiff attorney. These attendees each said the over-structuring resulted from defense pressure during settlement negotiations and could have been avoided if a 468B Qualified Settlement Fund had been utilized.

While it was encouraging to see leaders from both NSSTA and SSP attend the Stetson SNT seminar, more educational interaction and legislative collaboration is needed between the structured settlement industry (both the primary and secondary markets) and related professional associations including special needs planners and Medicare set-aide professionals. As NSSTA and the National Association of Settlement Planners (NASP) prepare for their association meetings next week in San Francisco and Las Vegas respectively, such increased interaction and collaboration should represent priorities and opportunities to improve and grow the structured settlement market.

Congratulations to Stetson Law School for continuing its SNT educational leadership and also for focusing increased attention on structured settlement issues that impact SNTs and special needs planning.

Web 2.0 Update

S2KM's blog encourages collaborative thinking and commentary about the impact of the Internet on four overlapping markets:

• Structured settlements;
• Personal injury settlement planning;
• Special needs planning; and
• The secondary insurance markets.

S2KM's coverage includes information and observations about industry leaders and trade associations as they transition to the Internet - especially their use of web 2.0 tools to communicate, learn and collaborate.

Several notable web 2.0 developments have occurred in 2008 within the vertical markets and topics S2KM follows.

Special Needs Blogs - From a web 2.0 perspective, S2KM views elder law and special needs attorneys as advanced knowledge workers using outdated tools. Their traditional knowledge training (examples: law schools; CELA); values (example: sharing knowledge) and tools (examples: hardcopy textbooks; F2F conferences; digital publishing; listservs) are strong and positive for web 2.0.  To date, however, these lawyers and their associations have created almost no web 2.0 imprint or impact. Transition indicators exist - especially web 2.0 conference discussions and industry leaders emerging as bloggers.  The special needs bloggers are important for several markets because they address issues and laws for disabled persons. S2KM subscribes to four special needs legal blogs (as of July 7, 2008) each of which is new and/or revised in 2008:

• David Lillesand - Lillesand was a featured speaker at the SSP and ASNP 2008 Annual Meetings where he addressed structured settlement Medicaid issues. Recent Lillesand blog posts:
  • New POMS for special needs trusts - Atlanta
  • Relationship of SSDI, SSI, Medicare and Medicaid
  • How SSA decides and processes a disability claim
  • Lillesand's ASNP presentation
  • Special needs trust Q and A booklet
• Patti Dudek - Dudek is member and frequent speaker at NAELA and ASNP. Dudek participates in NAELA's member-only listserv. From a web 2.0 perspective, a listserv is a good tool to pre-launch and link wikis, blogs, podcasts and concept maps. Recent Dudek blog posts:
  • The Case for Inclusion 2008 community rankings
  • Proposed changes to the Social Security appeals process
  • The ADA Amendments Act
  • Long-term care case
• Diedre Wachbrit - With Harry Margolis and Vincent Russo, Wachbrit is a founder of, and featured speaker at, the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP). Recent Wachbrit blog posts:
  • New special needs treatise
  • Government services harder to get
  • Autism studies
  • MetLife survey - assisted living costs

• Frank Johns (added July 7, 2008) - Johns is a leading writer and speaker about elder law, special needs and settlement planning issues. Johns also serves as the current editor of the NAELA Journal.  Recent Johns' blog posts:
  • Freedom and independence with a twist
  • New Medicaid restrictions
  • Divorce among the elderly
  • Four core values

• John Campbell (added July 14, 2008) - John Campbell, a leading special needs attorney who writes about structured settlement and settlement planning issues, has published a new blog.    John has also added valuable commentary to other blogs.  See, for example, John's comments about S2KM's January 16, 2008 blog post titled "Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007". Congratulations and good luck to John and other special needs bloggers.

LBN Developments

• The Legal Broadcast Network (LBN) has introduced Tim Butler as its new CEO and announced a successful LBN venture capital funding.
• According to LBN Chairman Mark Wahlstrom: "You are going to see a major expansion in our shows, channels, commentators and offerings, not the least of which is going to be a substantial build out of The Settlement Channel and it's content and sponsors".
• Wahlstrom also announced LBN's formation of Speaking of Settlements, which Wahlstrom characterizes as "a complete professional network in which any settlement professional, lawyer or legal professional can fill out a profile for free, start a blog, post video or audio content or create discussion boards and rooms".

Luis Suarez' Article

• Luis Suarez, a Knowledge Management (KM) consultant in the IBM Global Business Services division, is a leading KM blogger and commentator. In 2006, S2KM reported on Suarez'  visit to Cincinnati and the resulting KM discussions with Denham Grey.
• Earlier this week, a Suarez article, titled "I Freed Myself from Email's Grip", was featured in the New York Times.
• Suarez' blog provides commentary and links to the article.
  • Suarez' conclusion: "As a communication tool e-mail can be a good thing; however, as a collaboration tool it lacks some of the most significant elements from any kind of collaboration: openness, transparency, taking responsibility & ownership, co-authorship, co-llaborate ..." (Suarez' emphasis).
  • Suarez' alternative: Instead of individual email responses, Suarez has substituted instant messages, blogs, wikis - and telephones including skype.

S2KM 2008 Wikis - S2KM recommends wikis (public and private) as powerful, simple and inexpensive web 2.0 tools for Internet-based knowledge workers. S2KM has continued to publish and update public wikis during 2008 including:

• Web 2.0 for Lawyers - S2KM's Web 2.0 for Lawyers Wiki was updated for the 2008 NAELA Symposium - and featured in a 2008 LBN podcast interview with Scott Drake.
• Structured Settlement - S2KM published the Structured Settlement Wiki on March 24, 2008. 

Selected S2KM blog posts (2004-2008) about other KM and web 2.0 topics:

• KM and Law
• Legal Blogs and Taxonomies
• Web 2.0 for Lawyers
• Web 2.0 for Lawyers Concept Map
• KM and Structured Settlements
• Concept Maps
• Social Networks
• Introduction to Podcasting

IRC 468B Funds Revisited - 2

S2KM's earlier blog post (IRC 468B Funds Revisited) refocuses S2KM and S2KM's readership on 468B Funds as the single most important strategic issue for the settlement planning and structured settlement industries. S2KM's earlier blog post also recommends educational resources and provides online learning resource links for 468B Funds.

This S2KM blog post summarizes a new article by John J. Campbell titled "The Use of Qualified Settlement Funds, Qualified Assignments and Special Needs Trusts in Physical Injury Settlements" which appears in the most recent issue of the NAELA Journal . A subsequent S2KM blog post (IRC 468B Funds Revisited-3) will provide S2KM's analysis of Campbell's article.

Campbell's article is especially valuable for these reasons:

• Campbell supports Richard B. Risk Jr.'s 2004 468B analysis which
  • Appears in Risk's article titled "A Case for the Urgent Need to Clarify Tax Treatment for a Qualified Settlement Fund Created for a Single Claimant"; and
  • Is accessable on Risk's website. 
• Risk's thesis: Congress does not intend for the traditional judicial doctrine of economic benefit to apply to a Designated Settlement Fund (DSF) or a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) created for the benefit of a single claimant.
• Campbell's article will help educate elder law and special needs attorneys about the:
  • Strategic importance of IRC Section 468B Funds;
  • Legal controversy and business significance of single claimant 468B Funds;
  • Settlement planning business opportunities for elder law and special needs attorneys;
  • Need for Treasury and/or the IRS to issue positive legal confirmation and clarification for single claimant 468B Funds.
• Campbell's article expands traditional 468B fund analysis beyond structured settlements to include government benefits - specifically SSI, Medicaid, special needs trusts and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Campbell's Conclusions:

• Richard B. Risk, Jr. is correct. Congress, the United States Department of Treasury and the IRS have already endorsed single claimant 468B funds.
• Defendant structured settlement participants have argued for years that Qualified Settlement Funds (QSF) cannot be used in single claimant cases because of the economic benefit doctrine.
• Defendant arguments are:
  • Based upon self-interest - as opposed to the claimant's and society's best interest.; as well as
  • Technically incorrect based upon existing law.
• According to Campbell and Risk, legal analysis of IRC section 130, IRC section 468B and Revenue Procedure 93-34 supports the opposite conclusion: the traditional economic benefit doctrine is not applicable to qualified assignments in personal injury settlements.
• Also agreeing with Risk: Campbell asserts no legal basis exists to support any distinction by Treasury or the IRS between single claimant and multi-claimant 468B Funds.
• According to Campbell, 468B QSFs and 130 Qualified Assignments represent strategic and potentially cost-efficient settlement planning tools for all parties and stakeholders - including the U.S. government, state governments and taxpayers.
• With 468B, personal injury victims can and should be able to:
  • Achieve advantageous tax treatment;
  • Preserve SSI and Medicaid; and
  • Organize a special needs trust; without
  • Needlessly delaying the settlement.
• The rules defining the interplay of various 468B-related statutes and regulations (tax and government benefits), however, remain complex and require special legal knowledge.

Summary of Campbell's Analysis

• Periodic Payment Act of 1982
  • Campbell begins his analysis by summarizing the Periodic Payment Act of 1982 which created IRC section 130 and added "periodic payments" to IRC section 104(a)(2).
  • IRC section 130 allows a qualified assignment to be made by a "party to the suit or agreement" having liability to the plaintiff;
  • According to Campbell, plaintiffs and their advisors are increasingly upset with traditional defense-controlled structured settlements;
• Campbell confirms SSI and Medicaid as injury victim settlement planning priorities (as earlier espoused and explained by David Lillesand), the need to link structured settlements to SSI and Medicaid and the importance of special needs trusts for accomplishing that link.
• Campbell's article analyzes the role of 468B QSFs as an alternative to traditional defense-controlled structured settlements.
  • Qualified Settlement Funds under IRC 468B
    • Campbell summarizes the requirements for:
      • A "designated settlement fund" (DSF) as defined in IRC 468B which was enacted in 1986;
      • A "qualified settlement fund" (QSF) as defined in regulations issued by the Treasury in 1992;
      • Federal income taxation of 468B Funds.
    • Campbell notes:
      • IRC section 468B "contains no language that restricts the use of DSFs to the settlement of suits or claims involving multiple plaintiffs"; and
      • "The [468B] regulations state specifically that a QSF can be used to settle 'one or more' claims".
    • Qualified Assignments and Qualified Funding Assets under IRC 130
      • Campbell lists the requirements for a "qualified assignment" in IRC 130(a);
      • Summarizes the requirements for annuities as "qualified funding assets" in IRC 130(d);
      • Introduces and summarizes the concept of constructive receipt.
    • QSFs and Qualified Assignments in Single-Plaintiff PI Settlements
      • Campbell restates his primary issue: "whether a QSF holding funds from a PI settlement involving a single plaintiff can accomplish a qualified assignment under IRC 130"?
      • Introduces the concept of "economic benefit" citing and summarizing Sproull v. Commissioner.
      • Summarizes the economic benefit argument against allowing single claimant 468B funds
      • Argues that by amending IRC (c)(2)(C) in 1988 and dropping the "greater than a general creditor" language, Congress made the economic benefit doctrine inapplicable to qualified assignments in PI settlements.
      • Further argues that, so long as a plaintiff is not in constructive receipt of settlement proceeds, any party to a suit or agreement with liability to the plaintiff can accomplish a valid qualified assignment regardless of whether:
        • The settlement proceeds are placed irrevocably with a third party; or
        • The plaintiff has an unconditional vested right in the fund.
      • Lists the requirements under Revenue Procedure 93-34, issued by the IRS in 1993, for a qualified settlement fund to be treated as "a party to the suit or agreement" within the meaning of IRC 130(c)(1);
      • Concludes that IRC 130 and 468B and related regulations, as interpreted by the IRS, permit QSFs in single-plaintiff PI settlements to make qualified assignments under IRC 130 so long as the QSF is made a "party to the suit or agreement" in compliance with Revenue Procedure 93-34.
  • Strategies for Using Qualified Settlement Funds
    • How does a QSF make a valid Qualified Assignment?
      • Campbell recommends a "novation" in which the plaintiff, defendant, insurance carriers and the QSF trustee agree to assign defendant's liabilities to the plaintiff to the QSF.
      • As consideration, the defendant or its insurance carrier would pay the QSF an agreed upon lump sum to be used only to fund a qualified assignment.
      • Prior to the novation, the parties could petition the court to create the QSF, appoint an independent trustee and maintain jurisdiction until the QSF terminates.
      • The plaintiff would not have any rights to revoke, modify or compel distributions except to fund the qualified assignment.
      • The QSF could be substituted for the original defendant as a party to the case and ultimately enter into a final, court approved settlement with the plaintiff
      • The settlement would extinguish all liabilities assumed from the original defendant and require payment of all QSF proceeds into the QSF.
    • QFSs and Special Needs Trusts
      • Campbell recommends QSFs as "particularly useful" to allow planning for plaintiff's SSI or Medicaid eligibility.
      • Campbell reviews the requirements for self-settled special needs trusts provided in OBRA 93, FCIA, and the SSA POMS.
      • Campbell cites Ramey v. Rizzuto, a 1999 US District Court case in Colorado, as holding that, in SSI states, Medicaid agencies cannot employ methodologies or criteria more restrictive than SSI when evaluating trusts because an SSI recipient automatically qualifies for Medicaid.
  • Special Funding Issues
    • Medicaid Annuities under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
      • Campbell summarizes the DRA transfer requirements for annuities as an "either/or" proposition. According to Campbell, the annuity must be either:
        • "Irrevocable, non-assignable, actuarially sound and provides for substantially equal payments over the life of the annuity with no deferral or balloon payments; or
        • Name the state as death beneficiary up to the amount of Medicaid payments paid on behalf of the annuitant;
      • Campbell argues that the DRA should not apply for an IRC section 130 annuity funding a special needs trust because a PI settlement is purchased with assets of the party with liability to the plaintiff and not with assets that could be considered "available" to the plaintiff/Medicaid recipient.
    • Use of Annuities to Fund SSI and Medicaid Special Needs Trusts
      • Campbell states that "SSI and Medicaid do not prohibit the use of either deferred or balloon payments to fund exempt Special Needs Trusts if the annuities comply with IRC 130".
      • He further states "the Special Needs Trust should also be funded initially with a lump sum sufficient to provide immediate liquid funds for unexpected costs".
    • Naming the Trust as the Annuitant
      • Campbell recommends, for purposes of special needs trusts, that the annuity payee should be the trust and not the plaintiff/beneficiary.
      • According to Campbell, if the annuity is funded using a qualified assignment, the annuitant will not be able to amend the annuity at a later time to redirect payments into a Medicaid or SSI exempt trust.

Settlement Trusts Revisited

Introduction

S2KM previously published blog posts in 2004 about:

• Settlement trusts
• Selecting a settlement trustee

The Spring 2008 issue of "The Brief", a publication of the Tort, Trial and Litigation section of the American Bar Association (ABA), features an article written by Henry L. Strong and David M. Cordell, titled "Fiduciary Focus - The Prudent Integration of Structured Settlements and Post-Settlement Trusts".

Strong, the immediate past-president of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), and Cordell, Director of Finance Programs at the University of Texas in Dallas, would appear to be well-qualified to analyze the relationship of annuities and trusts in personal injury settlement planning.

Summary of Article

The authors identify the following objectives for their article:

• Outline key distinctions between "structured settlements" and "post-settlement trusts";
• Articulate how these differences affect returns on a risk-adjusted basis;
• Demonstrate how a thoughtful integration can deliver "vastly superior results" compared with results of either alternative alone;
• Clear up the confusion over how to allocate settlement proceeds thereby assisting attorneys, judges and injured claimants;
• Offer practice tips to avoid problems.

Their article sets forth many premises and assertions including:

• Because attorneys and judges are not trained in "modern finance", they risk liability for failing to:
  • Meet "prudent standards" of care, skill and caution; or
  • Determine the risk and return of a settlement plan.
• Although "settlement fiduciaries" may analyze proposed settlements from a legal perspective, they rarely pay attention to "economic sufficiency" - which the authors define as "the prudent process by which recovery assets are actually conveyed to the injured party and then invested and managed over time".
• The core dynamic in the structured settlement vs. post-settlement trust debate parallels modern portfolio theory;
• Beyond risk and return, the most important investment decision-making considerations "by far" for personal injury settlements are diversification, taxation, fees and liquidity. According to Strong and Cordell, "all other considerations pale in comparison".

Following a one paragraph summary of "modern portfolio theory", Strong and Cordell propose a definition for "modern settlement theory": "the discovery that blending dissimilar distribution methods not only reduces risk but also increases returns for injured claimants".

The authors compare the relative merits of structured settlement annuities and post-settlement trusts in the context of the following "allocation strategy considerations":

• Taxability
• Conditionality of payments
• Liquidity
• Trust/custodial fees
• Investment options
• Longevity risk hedge
• Medical underwriting

The authors conclude their article by addressing:

• Liability exposure
• Destructive receipt
• Informed consent
• Involvement of qualified experts.

Analysis of Article

The interaction of structured settlement annuities and settlement trusts represents an important, timely and complex subject. Instead of offering settlement solutions, the structured settlement industry historically has sold a single product (annuities) and viewed settlement trusts and trustees as competitors. From that perspective, the article by Strong and Cordell is a positive step forward. Their proposed "modern settlement theory" should serve as a catalyst for additional industry analysis and discussion.

Unfortunately, the article by Strong and Cordell contains serious omissions and flaws which call into question some of their assertions and conclusions. Here are some of the problems with their article:

• Definitions - The authors fail to define some of the most basic and important terms they are discussing. Examples:
  • "Post-settlement trusts" - What are "post-settlement trusts"? What types of settlement trusts are the authors discussing (and not discussing) in their article?  They never say.  Are they including or excluding settlement trusts which are established concurrently with (not following) a personal injury settlement? Most settlement trusts are part of the settlement. These include:
    • Settlement preservation trusts
      
    • Blended trusts
    • Medical reversionary trusts
    • IRC section 468B trusts
    • Special needs trusts
    • Medicare set-aside trusts
    • IRC section 130 government obligation trusts
  • "Settlement fiduciary" - Who exactly is a "settlement fiduciary"? The authors never define this term.  They assert ,without offering authority, that judges and plaintiff attorneys owe a financial fiduciary responsibility to injured claimants. Compared with recent discussions and papers by attorneys Frank Johns and William Browning at the 2008 ASNP Annual Meeting , Strong and Cordell's discussion of fiduciary responsibilities, the Uniform Prudent Investor Act and ethical considerations under the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct is incomplete. Strong and Cordell never specifically address the fiduciary responsibilities of settlement trustees, their attorneys, settlement planners or structured settlement consultants. They fail to reference either NAELA's Aspirational Standards or the SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct.
  • "Structured settlement" - Strong and Cordell never define "structured settlement". They fail to adequately explain or compare annuities and U.S. government obligations as alternative Qualified Funding Assets under IRC section 130. By ignoring the IRC section 5891(c)(1) definition of structured settlement, Strong and Cordell help to perpetuate an outdated industry perspective about structured settlement and settlement planning. Consistent with this outdated perspective, Strong and Cordell state: "structured settlements are not liquid because the recipient cannot exercise control over the funding assets". A related footnote references "certain finance companies" that "have begun" to offer "cash now" in exchange for a claimant's rights to receive future payments. Structured settlement transfers began in 1987 (21 years ago) and were legally sanctioned by IRC 5891 in 2002 (6 years ago). 46 states have enacted structured settlement protection statutes. Strong and Cordell fail to address how the secondary market impacts structured settlement liquidity and/or the interaction of structured settlement annuities, settlement trusts and settlement planning.
• Government benefits - With the exception of two minor references (one a footnote), Strong and Cordell ignore the impact of government benefits in settlement planning "distribution decisions". They never explain this omission. The importance of government benefit rules as "investment decision-making considerations" contradicts several of Strong and Cordell's assertions. These assertions include their priority of diversification, taxation, fees and liquidity as "by far" the most important considerations. To the contrary, government benefit issues frequently represent the single most important consideration in personal injury distribution decisions.  As David Lillesand highlighted at the 2008 Annual Meetings of both the Society of Settlement Planners and the Academy of Special Needs Planners, qualification for Medicaid is a "life or death" issue for many personal injury victims. Analysis of structured settlement annuities and settlement trusts should consider their interaction with Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans benefits, Section 8 Housing rules, special needs trusts, Medicare set-aside trusts, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007.  So why do Strong and Cordell ignore government benefits? Perhaps, incorrectly, they consider government benefits to be merely a legal consideration and not an investment consideration. Alternatively, they may actually believe NSSTA's historic and continuing message to Congress: "structured settlements enable injured victims to live ...free of reliance on government assistance".
• Settlement planning and special needs planning - The authors never reference or acknowledge settlement planning or special needs planning as existing and growing professional specialties. Both of these overlapping professions address the legal and financial interaction of annuities and trusts in personal injury settlements. The following professional associations and conferences feature experts and offer educational programs about issues that are fundamental to Strong and Cordell's ABA article and analysis:
  • The Society of Settlement Planners
  • National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys
  • Academy of Special Needs Planners
  • Special Needs Alliance
  • National Alliance of Medicare Set-aside Professional
  • Stetson Law School Special Needs Trust Seminars
  • National Alliance of Medicare-Set Aside Professionals

Conclusions: Strong and Cordell's ABA article highlights:

• An important topic that requires more and better analysis - the interaction of annuities (including the secondary market) and trusts in personal injury settlement planning;
• The knowledge gaps that currently exist between the structured settlement industry (and most personal financial planners) with:
  • Personal injury settlement planning;
  • Special needs planning;
  • Settlement trusts;
  • Government benefits;
  • Secondary life and annuity markets.
• The need for
  • Strategic thinking - The structured settlement industry, as a "transitional industry", needs to engage a new generation of leaders in strategic thinking that encompasses settlement trusts, government benefits and the secondary markets. For additional and related S2KM analysis, see 2008 NSSTA Annual Meeting-2.
  • Professionalism - The structured settlement industry needs to upgrade its professionalism  to understand and solve settlement problems instead of simply selling annuities. To achieve these objectives, SSP's educational programs, professional certification, and Standards for Professional Conduct currently offer the best industry resources and roadmap.
  • New trade association - Settlement trust companies should consider forming their own trade association to provide education, standards and lobbying complementary to NSSTA and SSP.