Beyond Structured Settlements

Settlement Planning 2012 Conferences

During the past two months, S2KM attended and reviewed three national conferences that featured settlement planning issues:

• ASNP 2012 Annual Meeting
• Risk Settlement Planning Practicum - see also: Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning
• SSP 2012 Annual Meeting
  • Part 1
  • Part 2

 In addition to many technical and product presentations (identified and/or summarized in the above links), what did attendees learn about fundamental settlement planning issues?  And what fundamental issues still need to be addressed more directly at future conferences before settlement planning becomes a recognized profession?

Definitions - Three conference participants offered definitions for "settlement planning" and/or "settlement planner":

• Joseph Tombs - "Settlement planning is a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life. Settlement planners represent a blend of several professionals: part tax lawyer, trial lawyer, special needs lawyer, financial planner, annuity specialist, social worker, and medical case worker."
• Timothy Morbach - "Settlement planning requires due diligence and informed consent. In that context, settlement planning provides a framework within which settlement stakeholders are able to craft case-specific terms and conditions, legal documents, financial instruments, plus related work product, to resolve claims and achieve safe harbor reflecting their respective best interests."
• Patrick Hindert - "The primary difference between special needs planning and settlement planning is that special needs planning includes clients whose disabilities result from many causes including but not limited to personal injury or workers compensation accidents."
• Note - "Rule 1: Terminology" in the SSP Standards of Professional Conduct provides multiple definitions related to settlement planning including the following for "settlement planner": "a representative who provides advice and other services to a person participating in the design, negotiation or implementation of a settlement or satisfaction of judgment for the benefit of a person claiming a legal entitlement to an award of damages or other compensation. A settlement planner may represent a plaintiff, a defendant, an insurer, a guardian ad litem, an heir of a claimant, an attorney or another person participating in the settlement process."

Emergent Profession - Several conference speakers who discussed settlement planning from a structured settlement perspective described settlement planning as a larger and more complex successor business and profession:

• Joseph DiGangi - "Today we find our industry at a crossroad. In order to move forward, our only choice is to build great business models around the planning first approach. Settlement planning represents a needs-based consultative business model based on benefits, not products."
• Joseph Tombs - "Selling structures is easy. Expectations are low. Any primate can run quote software. A fixed annuity is one of the most simple financial products in the world. We are building a new profession that requires constant education and practice standards. Settlement planning increases expectations and potential liabilities. The more we study and practice settlement planning, the more we realize its complexity and understand its challenges."
• Charles Schell - "The Claims Management model benefits the settlement planning industry and Settlement Planners should acknowledge the benefits which include product marketing and continued protection of IRC sections 104(a)(2) and 130. Concurrently, defense brokers should recognize the benefits of collaborating, rather than competing, with Settlement Planners. These benefits include access to and trust of the customer, an awareness of financial needs and family issues plus multi-product financial solutions that feature structured settlements and enhance their sale."
• Jack Meligan - "SSP and its members have been promoting the practice of Settlement Planning as a more comprehensive solution for the financial issues facing personal injury victims and their families, and the profession of Settlement Planning as the next evolutionary step for members of the financial and legal communities that serve these injured Americans."
• Patrick Hindert - "The structured settlement business models that seem "normal" today began with a choice that made sense in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They have survived despite changes impacting the justification for that choice. Settlement planning is an emergent system in which many different elements interact. Settlement planning is producing a new business model that is influencing all of its constituent elements including structured settlements."

Multi-Professional - The professional backgrounds of conference participants provides some indication of an emerging community of professional practice and its collective knowledge base:

• Special Needs Attorneys - Michele Fuller, David Lillisand; Kevin Urbatsch; Rene Reixach; Jason Lazarus; Annette Hines; Linda Brown; Vincent Russo; Michael Amoruso; Harry Margolis.
• Tax attorneys - Robert Wood; Jeremy Babener; David Higgins.
• Miscellaneous attorneys - Professor Carl Pierce; Richard Risk; Daniel Hindert; Patrick Hindert; Karen Meyers; Mark Popolizio; Steve Riley.
• Settlement Trustees - Travis Finchum; Frank Maguire; Christi Fried; Wesley Cosgriff; James Creel.
• Financial and insurance professionals - Jack Meligan; Charles Schell; Joseph Tombs; Joseph DiGangi; Mark Wahlstrom; Mal Deener; Timothy Morbach; John Woolway; Robert Noack; Paul Hansen; Major General James W. Comstock; Anthony Prieto; Robert Birney; Jerry Hulick.
• Medicare Set-Aside Specialist - Douglas Shaw.
• Lien Resolution Specialist - Daniel Alverez.
• Note: none of the conferences featured guardian ad litems, life care planners or damage allocators as speakers.

Unanswered Questions - From S2KM's perspective, future settlement planning conferences need to more directly address the following issues:

• How large is the United States settlement planning market?
• Who comprises (and selects) the settlement planning team?
• What criteria and process (e.g. request for proposal) are appropriate for selecting members of the settlement planning team?
• What professional licenses and certifications are applicable?
• What primary laws and regulations apply to settlement planning?
• What work product does each settlement planning team member provide?
• Who integrates their individual work product into a settlement plan - and how?
• When is a settlement plan appropriate?
• What are the standard components of a settlement plan?
• What are the product suitability and disclosure standards for settlement planning?
• What does a settlement plan cost?
• What other metrics (besides cost) are appropriate for evaluating the success of a settlement plan?
• How are settlement planning team members compensated?
• What alternative compensation methods and/or business models would allow settlement planning to become more efficient and/or reduce costs?
• Once implemented, who has responsibility to monitor and/or amend the settlement plan?
• What are the Defendant’s responsibilities and duties in settlement planning?

For professionals and product providers interested in learning more about settlement planning, see:

• The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) website.
• The Registry of Settlement Planners (RSP) website
• The structured settlement wiki - settlement planning page

ELNY Liquidation Order

S2KM's summary of Judge John M. Galasso's Memorandum Decision for Executive Life of New York (ELNY) left open the question of whether Judge Galasso had granted judicial immunity to the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as ELNY's Receiver.

Immunity Issue

The corresponding Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement signed by Judge on April 16, 2012 confirms the grant of immunity as follows:

"Judicial immunity is extended to the Receiver and his successors in office, the New York Liquidation Bureau, and their respective attorneys, agents and employees, and such immunity is extended to them for any cause of action of any nature against them, individually or jointly, for any action or omission by any one or more of them when acting in good faith, in accordance with this Order, or in the performance of their duties pursuant to Insurance Law Article 74 ..."

A copy of both Judge Galasso's ELNY Decision and the ELNY Liquidation Order are posted on the structured settlement wiki.

Although expected, this judicial grant of immunity is controversial because, according to some legal experts:

• New York insurance laws do not specifically grant legal immunity to the Superintendent, as Receiver.
• ELNY was not judicially determined to be insolvent until Judge Galasso signed the April 16, 2012 Order.
• The Superintendent and its agents, including the NYLB, have "managed" ELNY since it first entered Rehabilitation in 1991.

For background about the immunity issue, see "The Trouble with ELNY", S2KM's review of an article by Peter Bickford.

Factoring Companies

Neither the ELNY Memorandum Decision nor the Liquidation Order address another controversial ELNY issue: whether participating state guaranty associations (PGAs) will provide coverage for ELNY structured settlement annuities where payment rights have been transferred to factoring companies and subsequently sold to investors as securities.

One result of protecting factoring companies and ELNY structured settlement payment right investors could be a reduction in funds available to other ELNY shortfall victims. Some industry experts have estimated that payment rights from as many as 1000 of ELNY's 4168 structured settlement annuities (SSAs) have been transferred to factoring companies and their investors.

According to Schedule 1.15 of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement, 1459 SSAs will experience shortfalls ("uncovered amounts") as a result of ELNY's liquidation and restructuring even assuming state guaranty association contributions and enhancements.

No Closing Date Set

Neither the ELNY Memorandum Decision nor the Liquidation Order identify a closing date for the ELNY Restructuring Agreement. Until that date, the Receiver is directed to continue full payment of all benefits for all ELNY contracts. The Court will retain subject matter jurisdiction over the Restructuring Agreement and ELNY successor company, Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC).

The ELNY Liquidation Order requires that all claims against ELNY must be presented to the Receiver within four months of ELNY's Liquidation Date. However, all ELNY policyholders and "holders of Claim-Overs" who appear on ELNY's books and records as of Liquidation Date are deemed to have satisfied this requirement.

The ELNY Liquidation Order requires the Receiver to provide notice of the Order to all ELNY creditors, policyholders and other interested parties and provides a Notice Form as an Exhibit.

ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 7

Day 10 of the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Hearing was consumed by the closing summations of attorneys representing Objectors to the ELNY Restructuring Agreement proposed by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), as Receiver for ELNY. The Objectors included: ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees, ELNY policyholders and at least one structured settlement factoring company.

Attorney Megha Charalambides, speaking on behalf of her shortfall victim clients, proposed to presiding Judge John M. Galasso that he appoint a "Special Master" to meet with representatives of all parties for the purpose of considering possible alternatives to the Superintendent's proposed plan. If an alternative plan materialized by a specified deadline, the Judge could consider it. Otherwise, he could approve the Superintendent's plan. Judge Galasso did not immediately respond to Charalambides' proposal.

Representing Travelers, attorney Craig Ulman confirmed his client was prepared to make whole any ELNY-related structured settlement payment obligations funded on a "buy and hold" basis and that Travelers had already sent out notices to payees under such ELNY annuity contracts. On "cross-summation" attorney Edward Stone pointed out that Travelers is already legally obligated to make those payments and that Travelers' offer apparently does not apply to ELNY structured settlement payment obligations Travelers funded using a "Qualified Assignment".

Note: This prior S2KM blog post explains the difference between buy and hold and Qualified Assignment structured settlement funding. The problem for most, if not all, of the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims with Qualified Assignment funding is that First Executive Corporation (FEC), the assignee/owner, collapsed in 1991 and no longer exists. This prior S2KM blog post provides a background summary of FEC's history.

Judge Galasso denied two motions by attorney Stone during his closing summation without offering explanations:

• Stone moved for a mistrial (which Judge Galasso re-characterized as a motion for a misorder) on the grounds that his clients' property was being taken without due process.
• Stone also moved for a 30 day stay of hearing to allow structured settlement shortfall victims to develop and present an alternative ELNY restructuring plan.

Closing summations continue on Thursday. For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY Liquidation Hearing, see the structured settlement wiki.

New ELNY Website Documents

On March 15, 2012, the Supreme Court of Nassau County New York is scheduled to consider a Petition by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent) for an Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY).

According to Schedule 1.15 for the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement, 4168 of ELNY remaining 9694 annuities are structured settlement annuities of which 1459 will experience shortfalls even assuming proposed state guaranty association contributions and enhancements. For the 1459 ELNY SSAs with anticipated shortfalls:

• 156 SSAs are identified as having been factored - although some industry sources believe the actual number of current ELNY SSAs previously factored is considerably higher.
• 1100 SSAs have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $100,000 each on a present value (PV) basis including
• 237 SSAs which have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $1,000,000 PV each including
• 17 SSAs which have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $5,000,000 PV each.
• The largest ELNY SSA has an "uncovered amount" of $25,692,377 PV.

During the past two weeks, five new documents have been added to the ELNY website:

• Affidavit of Jonathan L. Bing,
• Reply Memorandum in Response to Objections to the Proposed Liquidation of ELNY
• Expert Report of Jack L. Gibson
• Exhibit 6.1.1 - Revised Reinsurance and Participation Agreement
• Exhibit 6.1.2 - Supplemental Benefits Reinsurance and Participation Agreement

Bing's Affidavit

Bing was appointed Special Deputy Superintendent of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) in 2011. Created in 1909 by the New York State Legislature, the NYLB "carries out the responsibilities of the Superintendent of Insurance as Receiver, and acts on his behalf in the discharging of his statutorily defined duties to protect the interests of the policyholders and creditors of insurance companies that have been declared impaired or insolvent." The NYLB has been responsible for the day to day management of ELNY since it entered rehabilitation in 1991.

Filed with the Court on March 1, 2012, Bing's ELNY Affidavit supports the Superintendent's Petition for Liquidation, the proposed Restructuring Agreement and the Reply Memorandum referenced above and summarized below. Bing's Affidavit summarizes the history of the ELNY rehabilitation and acknowledges "[t]he Superintendent or his representatives received a number of requests for additional information concerning the proposed liquidation." In response, Bing's Affidavit states:

• "[C]oncerning the Restructuring Agreement, on February 17, 2012 the Superintendent filed with the Court a revised form of Reinsurance and Participation Agreement (which is Exhibit 6.1.1 to the Restructuring Agreement) and the form of Supplemental Benefits Reinsurance and Participation Agreement (which is Exhibit 6.1.2 to the Restructuring Agreement), which both contained details concerning certain benefits and guarantees provided by a consortium of life insurance companies."
• "[C]oncerning the Guaranty Association Benefits Company (“GABC”), on February 27, 2012 the Superintendent filed and served the expert report of Jack L. Gibson, a Managing Director of Towers Watson, concerning the financial viability of GABC, which was also posted to the ELNY.org website."

Bing's Affidavit further states the Superintendent has received "approximately" 130 objections to the proposed ELNY liquidation and restructuring agreement. Bing's response: "[n]otwithstanding the objections, it is clear that approval of the Restructuring Agreement as part of a comprehensive plan of liquidation is in the best interest of policyholders, creditors, and the public."

Reply Memorandum

Also filed with the Court on March 1, 2012, the Reply Memorandum is fully titled "Omnibus Reply Memorandum of Law in Response to the Objections to the Proposed Liquidation of ELNY and Distribution of ELNY's Assets Pursuant to the Restructuring Agreement." It is signed by Ralph Pernick, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York and Attorney for the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York.

The Reply Memorandum consists of 56 pages plus an Exhibit A titled "List of Objections". Exhibit A identifies individual objectors (presumably ELNY annuity payees) by contract number and liability insurers (presumably ELNY "buy and hold" annuity owners) by name. Exhibit A also identifies a couple of structured settlement factoring companies as objectors.

The contents of the Reply Memorandum are organized as follows:

• Preliminary Statement
• Factual Background
• Argument
• Conclusion
• Exhibit A

The Preliminary Statement confirms that "130 objectors have raised several types of issues that the Superintendent has organized into categories, which this single, omnibus response addresses for the Court’s convenience." The Superintendent's categories of objections:

• Objections to benefit reductions by individual policyholders, including objections that ELNY Contracts cannot be modified pursuant to their contractual terms or a prior court order;
• Objections requesting additional disclosure;
• Objections relating to notice issues;
• Objections arguing that the Restructuring Agreement contravenes applicable New York law and/or is not fair and equitable;
• Objections to the calculation, amount, and timing of participation and funding by the PGAs;
• Objections to the immunity provisions of the proposed liquidation order and requests for the appointment of an independent investigator or expert; and
• Miscellaneous other objections.

The Preliminary Statement concludes:

• "No interested person has come forward with a viable alternative or proposed statutorily compliant changes to the Restructuring Agreement that would increase benefit payments to ELNY Contract policyholders and payees above those already provided for and guaranteed under the Restructuring Agreement."
• "The Court should overrule the objections submitted and issue an order declaring ELNY to be insolvent and directing the liquidation of ELNY on the terms set forth in the Restructuring Agreement."

In addition to providing factual background about the ELNY rehabilitation, the second section states: "[t]he Superintendent continues to believe that obtaining approval of the Restructuring Agreement as part of a comprehensive plan of liquidation is in the best interest of ELNY’s creditors, ELNY Contract policyholders, and the public because it:

• "Adds substantial additional value from state guaranty associations and voluntary insurance industry participants that will result in the full coverage of approximately 85 percent of ELNY Contracts,
• "Minimizes the risk of disruption in annuity benefit payments,
• "Provides guaranty association coverage without disruption of benefits and without requiring ELNY Contract policyholders and payees from having affirmatively to seek guaranty association coverage to which they are entitled under state statutes,
• "Provides for an optimal transition for ELNY from rehabilitation to liquidation,
• "Does not impermissibly discriminate against any class of ELNY creditors, and
• "Treats ELNY creditors and all other interested parties fairly and equitably in accordance with the requirements and intent of Insurance Law Section 7435."

The Factual Background section concludes: "if the Restructuring Agreement is not approved, benefit payments for the more than 9,500 non-objecting ELNY Contract policyholders and payees will be placed at risk of disruption, there will be no guarantee for future payments, and orphan contracts (those not covered by a state guaranty association) would suffer a reduction in benefits to a level supported only by ELNY’s current assets. Such a result is inconsistent with the best interest of ELNY creditors, ELNY Contract policyholders and payees, and the public."

In the Argument section, the Reply Memorandum considers and rejects each of the categories of objections outlined above. S2KM will summarize and discuss the Reply Memorandum arguments in a subsequent blog post.

The Reply Memorandum concludes: "For the reasons set forth above, this Court should grant the relief requested in the Verified Petition and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Jack Gibson Expert Report

Jack Gibson's Expert Report is dated February 27, 2012. It consists of 18 pages, 33 Exhibits and 3 Appendices. According to Gibson, he has been retained as an expert witness by Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, on behalf of its client, NOLHGA, and Sidley Austin LLP, on behalf of its client, the Superintendent of Financial Services of New York, as Receiver for ELNY. Gibson's clients have asked him to review the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement and to assess the financial viability of the resulting special purpose entity (GABC).

Among his qualifications, Gibson states he is a Managing Director of Towers Watson. He previously supported NOLHGA related to Executive Life of California. He has been engaged by NOLHGA since February 2006 as consulting actuary for the NOLHGA ELNY Task Force. In connection with Gibson's ELNY consulting services, his clients are compensating Towers Watson at an hourly billing rate of $525.

Among the information and materials Gibson reviewed for his ELNY analysis, several appear not to have been made available to ELNY annuity payees, their representatives or the general public:

• ELNY 2002-2010 Mortality Experience Study, developed by Towers Watson under Gibson's direct supervision and direction;
• MetLife/ELNY Administration Agreement 2011-2013, dated May 12, 2011;
• Investment asset data provided by the investment managers for ELNY, Wellington Management Company and Goldman Sachs Asset Management, as of July 31, 2011 and December 31, 2011;
• ELNY Contract administrative record detail from MetLife as of September 30, 2002, September 30, 2003, September 30, 2004, September 30, 2005, September 30, 2006, March 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, December 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2011; and
• March 31, 2011 estimates for every ELNY contract, showing Guaranty Association coverage state (if any), GA coverage amount (if any), and Article 75 allocations (if any), provided by NOLHGA.

Based upon his analysis, Gibson concludes:

• "GABC is financially viable and provides a combination of significant initial funding of assets, along with an array of guarantees that together provide significant security and protection to enable GABC to meet all future financial obligations; and
• "For every one (100%) of the 9,000 scenarios tested and summarized in this report, the assets of GABC were sufficient to pay all future GABC benefit payments."

For complete S2KM reporting and analysis about ELNY, including an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

SNTs and Structured Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

Settlement Planning Team

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

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

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

Structured Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Product Suitability Standards - 4

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

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

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

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

Fiduciary Standard

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

Model Annuity Regulations

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

A Hall Pass?

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

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

Three-Card Monte

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

Misrepresentations or omission of material facts

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

"The Trouble with ELNY"

In an article titled "The Trouble with ELNY" and published this week on his website, New York attorney Peter Bickford describes "how the receivership process has failed Executive Life Insurance Company of New York [ELNY], its policyholders and annuitants." Bickford calls for a review of the "flawed receivership process" in New York that he claims has resulted in ELNY's proposed liquidation and restructuring.

On its ELNY web page, the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), the entity responsible for day to day management of ELNY's rehabilitation, blames ELNY's failure on "adverse economic conditions" including the financial and stock market collapse of 2008. However, as Bickford points out:

• Neither the 1991 ELNY rehabilitation order nor the 1992 order approving the ELNY rehabilitation plan declared ELNY to be insolvent; and
• Based on ELNY financial reports (including unaudited reports prior to 2006 that Bickford obtained through Freedom of Information Law requests), ELNY was "de facto insolvent" long before the 2008 economic downturn.  
• Note: Bickford's article features a chart that shows ELNY's surplus turned into a deficit in 2002, ten years following ELNY's plan of rehabilitation was approved and six years prior to the 2008 economic downturn.

According to Bickford, "[t]he 1992 ELNY rehabilitation Plan, like the Titanic, was doomed the moment it left port..." (emphasis added) How was it doomed? Bickford points out ELNY's original rehabilitation plan "stripped out all the traditional life and annuity business and transferred it to Met Life with the supporting, statutory reserve assets. These contract holders received an equivalent policy from Met Life and suffered no material financial consequences..... [F]or whatever reason the most volatile, long-tailed book of ELNY business [single premium immediate annuities (SPIAs) including all structured settlements] was left in ELNY together with its weakest assets."

ELNY's 1992 rehabilitation plan included an assessment that projected ELNY's bond investments and common stock dividends would "be sufficient to cover current SPIA payouts for at least ten years" which turned out to be accurate until ELNY's started running deficits in 2002. Given the fact that ELNY was not declared insolvent in 1992 and was not subsequently audited until 2006, Bickford asks why proper accounting and reserve levels were not maintained? Even before ELNY's first external audit in 2006 (resulting in a substantial increase in reserves), the NYLB, according to Bickford, acknowledged that the reserve standard used in its annual statements “substantially understate[d] reserves when compared to reserves that would be required to satisfy regulatory requirements for a going concern insurance carrier.”

To explain how ELNY was allowed to pay full annuity benefits for a decade after becoming de facto insolvent in 2002, Bickford blames the receivership process in New York. Counter intuitively, according to Bickford, when an insurance company enters rehabilitation in New York, it ceases to be regulated. "The rigorous statutory requirements for filings, reports or certifications imposed on other licensed companies are no longer imposed on estates in rehabilitation; there are no periodic regulatory reviews, examinations or communications; there is no regulatory oversight of the operations, assets or finances; and there is no mechanism for regulatory oversight of financial condition or compliance with the insurance law or regulations."

If ELNY had never entered rehabilitation, and had been required to continue to file statutory financial statements, annual independent accountings and actuarial certifications, Bickford argues:

• Insurance regulators would never have allowed ELNY to reach its current status;
• ELNY's management might have proposed a recovery plan and been allowed to correct its financial problems; and/or
• ELNY's officers, directors, independent auditors, actuaries and other agents, could have potentially been held accountable for their actions or inactions contributing to ELNY failure.

Bickford points out, however, with ELNY in rehabilitation, the New York Superintendent of Insurance (Superintendent) and the NYLB (the same parties charged with managing ELNY since 1991) are also the proponents and overseers of ELNY's proposed liquidation and restructuring plan. To add insult to injury, they are also seeking court-ordered immunity for their past actions and omissions even though, according to Bickford, no statutory immunity exists for the New York Superintendent or his agents in their roles as ELNY's receiver.

Note: New York Governor Cuomo merged the New York State Department of Insurance with the New York State Banking Department to create the New York State Department of Financial Services as part of the 2011-2012 State Budget.

As an additional source of recovery, the NYLB has suggested that ELNY structured settlement annuity recipients may have recourse against the owners of ELNY annuity policies or others who may still be liable under the original settlements. But even if true, Bickford asks: why should ELNY structured settlement annuitants have the burden of pursuing litigation to recover their loses for a second time? And why is there no recourse against the parties responsible for ELNY's insolvency?

Bickford also argues that the logic behind the state insurance guaranty fund caps is "upside down" in the ELNY scenario. Instead of fully protecting annuitants with the greatest need (structured settlement recipients who have the largest annuities), the guaranty funds are more likely to fully protect investors with relatively smaller ELNY annuities. In this respect, however, Bickford's argument is incomplete, if not partially incorrect, because he does not address the uncertain status in ELNY's proposed liquidation and restructuring of investors who have purchased ELNY's structured settlement payment rights via factoring transactions.

Addendum (February 15, 2012): apologies to Peter Bickford for comments in the concluding paragraph above. S2KM overlooked footnote 12 in Bickford's article which states: "Many of these [structured settlement] claims have been sold by SPIA beneficiaries to factoring companies, which raises a whole other set of issues that are not covered by this article."

For additional ELNY reporting, including links to other ELNY articles by Peter Bickford plus an ELNY timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

 

Product Suitability Standards - 2

Should structured settlement "consultants" be held to some "product suitability standard" when they recommend structured settlement annuities to resolve personal injury lawsuits? If the answer is "yes", to what standard should they be held accountable and by whom?

A prior S2KM blog post discussed these issues in the context of the Code of Ethics of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the Standards of Professional Conduct of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the Suitability in Annuity Transaction Model Regulation promulgated by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).

NSSTA's Code of Ethics does not directly address product suitability standards. It does, however, direct NSSTA members to: "…comply with all material federal and state laws and regulations applicable to the structured settlement services that are provided."

SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct utilizes the words "appropriate" and "informed consent". In the event of a conflict between SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct and any "laws, court rules, licensure requirements or other standards imposed on any regulated profession", SSP's members are directed to "abide by the laws or professional standards imposed on the members discipline."

Although the NAIC Suitability Regulation applies "to any recommendation to purchase, exchange or replace an annuity made to a consumer by an insurance producer, or an insurer ...", the Model Regulation exempts "settlements of or assumptions of liabilities associated with personal injury litigation or any dispute or claim resolution process" which presumably encompass structured settlement annuities.

What other legislation or regulations could impact whether a structured settlement annuity is suitable for a specific personal physical injury claimant - and why should it matter?

Several additional laws and regulations could be relevant to these questions including:

• Minors' Statutes
• State Structured Settlement Protection Statutes
• The Uniform Prudent Investors Act
• Dodd Frank Legislation

This blog post considers minor statutes and state protection statutes. A subsequent S2KM blog post will discuss the Prudent Investors Act and Dodd Frank.

Texas attorney Phillip McCrury addressed the topic "What Judges Look for When Approving a Minor's Settlement" during the SSP 2009 Annual Meeting. McCrury surveyed existing state legislation and concluded that most state minors' statutes require court approval but few, if any, specifically address structured settlements. Various states have adopted two alternative standards for judicial approval of minors' settlements: the "best interest" standard and the "fair and reasonable" standard. McCrury, however, did not identify a single state minors' statute that defined either "best interest" or "fair and reasonable".

Both McCrury's SSP presentation and the 2011 Hancock v. Share case highlight the potential for conflicting judicial interpretations when structured settlement annuities are part of a proposed minor's settlement. Assuming a structured settlement "binds the assets" of a minor beyond the age of majority:

• Under what circumstances is a structured settlement in a minor's best interest - or fair and reasonable under some state minors' statutes?
• Should it matter whether or not a minor has a debilitating injury?
• What justification should be required from a guardian who recommends a structured settlement for a minor?
• When a judge evaluates whether a proposed structured settlement transfer meets the "best interest" test, what importance should be given to the fact that a proposed transferor was a minor when he/she received the structured settlement and therefore never personally approved or consented to the structured settlement?

In addition to minors' statutes, the state structured settlement protection statutes provide an application of the "best interest" and "fair and reasonable" standards with which structured settlement consultants and settlement planners should be familiar. Both IRC section 5891 and the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Protection Act) require a transfer to be in "the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents" as a condition for judicial approval.

Some state protection statutes require that structured settlement transfers also meet an additional "fair and reasonable" test. For example, under New York's structured settlement protection act, a judge must "determine whether the transaction, including the discount rate used to determine the gross advance amount and the fees and expenses used to determine the net advance amount, are fair and reasonable" (emphasis added) in addition to meeting the "best interest" test.

Neither IRC 5891 nor the Model Protection Act, however, define "best interest". California's revised structured settlement protection act, however, includes the following list of factors that California judges "shall consider" when deciding whether to approve a proposed transfer:

• The payee's age, mental capacity, legal knowledge, and apparent maturity level;
• The stated purpose for the proposed transfer;
• The payee's financial and economic situation;
• The terms of the proposed transfer, including the discount rate and transaction fees;
• Whether the payments are intended to pay for future medical care related to the payee's original injuries;
• Whether the payments are intended to pay for necessary living expenses;
• Whether the payee is likely to require future medical care for the payee's original injuries, and, if yes, whether the payee has other resources, including insurance, to pay for those expenses;
• Whether the payee has other income to meet his/her obligations to support dependents;
• Whether the payee has any court-ordered child support obligations;
• Whether the payee has attempted or completed prior transfers;
• Whether the payee or his/her family is facing any financial hardship;
• Whether the payee has received or should receive independent professional advice about the transfer; plus
• "Any other factors or facts that the payee, the transferee, or any other interested party calls to the attention of the reviewing court or that the court determines should be considered in reviewing the transfer."

Various courts have also identified factors to be considered when determining whether a proposed structured settlement transfer meets the "best interest" test. For example, a New York Supreme Court considered the following factors before denying a proposed 2003 transfer: the payee’s age; mental and physical capacity; maturity level; ability to show sufficient income that is independent of the payments sought for transfer; capacity to provide for the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents; the need for medical treatment; the stated purpose for the transfer; and the demonstrated ability of the payee to appreciate the financial terms and consequences of the proposed transfer based upon truly independent legal and financial advice. (In re Settlement Capital Corp.)

What relevance, if any, do state structured settlement protection statutes have for primary structured settlement product suitability standards?

Neither IRC 5891 nor any of state structured settlement protection statutes apply their "best interest" test to primary market structured settlement sales. Only four of the state statutes (New York, Florida, Massachusetts and Minnesota) establish any primary market sales standards, each requiring certain mandatory written disclosures.

The secondary market "best interest" test, however, does raise important issues for the primary structured settlement markets. Most importantly, If structured settlement transfers are required to be in "the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents", why shouldn't a "best interest" test apply to the original structured settlement sale? And, what impact would a "best interest" test have on primary market business standards and practices?

In a subsequent blog post, S2KM will consider whether, when and how the Uniform Prudent Investors Act and Dodd Frank require primary structured settlement sales to meet a "best interest" test and/or otherwise impact structured settlement business standards and practices.

For additional commentary and analysis of structured settlement business standards and practices, see the structured settlement wiki and Section 6.02 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

NSSTA Membership Qualifications

Is the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) guilty of hypocrisy when it prohibits its members from "actively soliciting and promoting structured settlement factoring transactions to individuals who are receiving periodic payments under structured settlements?"

NSSTA repeated its prohibition this week in a letter to members which NSSTA first distributed in 2006. NSSTA justifies its prohibition because NSSTA's Board of Directors consider structured settlement factoring transactions incompatible with NSSTA's mission. The primary mission of NSSTA, which appears in the NSSTA bylaws but not on the NSSTA website, is "to promote the establishment and preservation of structured settlements in order to provide long-term financial security to personal injury claimants and their families through periodic payment of compensation."

How could NSSTA's prohibition against promoting structured settlement factoring transactions be considered hypocrisy?

NSSTA's letter to its members identifies some of the types of factoring-related activities its Board of Directors has identified as incompatible with its mission. Conspicuous by their absence are: 1) purchasing structured settlement payment rights; 2) lobbying to enact structured settlement factoring legislation; and 3) amending model industry documents to facilitate factoring transactions.

It is common knowledge within the industry that multiple structured settlement annuity providers (NSSTA members), or their affiliates, are active purchasers of structured settlement payment rights after those payment rights have been securitized by structured settlement factoring companies. NSSTA, however, has made no apparent attempt to investigate and/or punish members who promote structured settlement factoring as purchasers thereby helping to generate demand.

NSSTA itself helped to legitimize and promote the growth of the structured settlement secondary market when it collaborated with the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) to draft and lobby in favor of IRC section 5891 and the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act. Coincidentally, both the primary structured settlement market and the secondary structured settlement factoring market experienced rapid growth following the 2001 enactment of these enabling laws.

NSSTA further supported and facilitated structured settlement factoring transactions following the enactment of IRC section 5891 when it amended its Model Qualified Assignment and Release form. Paragraph 7 of NSSTA's model form, which represents an important industry standard for structured settlement documentation, now reads in relevant part:

"Acceleration, Transfer of Payment Rights. None of the Periodic Payments and no rights to or interest in any of the Periodic Payments ... can be ....
ii. Sold, assigned, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred or encumbered, either directly or indirectly unless such sale, assignment, pledge, hypothication or other transfer or encumbrance .... has been approved in advance in a "Qualified Order" as defined in Section 5891(b)(2) of the Code (a "Qualified Order") and otherwise complies with applicable state law, including without limitation any applicable state structured settlement protection statute."

Having recognized and facilitated an historic change in structured settlement law, that NSSTA itself helped to enact, by amending a key section of NSSTA's core model settlement document, NSSTA's Board of Directors consciously and strategically failed to take one more critical step. They failed to reconcile NSSTA's mission with a legislative change that fundamentally redefined the structured settlement business.

As a consequence of continuing to promote a mission no longer in sync with existing laws, NSSTA has trapped itself and its members in a strategic dilemma of its own creation. NSSTA should be encouraging its members to utilize the new laws to improve their products and grow their market. Instead, NSSTA selectively proscribes legal activities and restricts innovation that cross an artificial behavioral line of NSSTA's own design. And for what strategic purpose?

So, as primary structured settlement sales plummet and secondary market structured settlement sales soar, is the attitude of NSSTA's Board of Directors toward structured settlement factoring stubbornly hypocritical or strategically challenged or both?

Structured Settlements in 2011 - 2

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

Strategic Overview - Primary Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Overview - Secondary Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

• ELNY liquidation
• Annual industry reports
• Professional association meetings

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