Beyond Structured Settlements

2008 NSSTA Annual Meeting - 1

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) hosted its 2008 Annual Meeting at the Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines Resort April 16-19. Approximately 250 persons attended.

This S2KM blog post summarizes the 2008 NSSTA Annual Meeting.  A subsequent S2KM blog post will provide observations and commentary.

The 2008 NSSTA Annual Meeting lacked a specific theme and keynote speaker. However, in his brief introductory comments to NSSTA members, newly-named NSSTA Executive Director Joseph Ricci set the meeting tone when he characterized structured settlements as a "transitional industry". Ricci, representing SmithBucklin, NSSTA's new management company, succeeds Randy Dyer as Executive Director.  In La Jolla, NSSTA honored and thanked Elvie Lou Luetge, Dyer's longtime assistant, "for her many years of dedicated service to NSSTA".

Additional Highlights from the NSSTA Annual Meeting:

• Retiring NSSTA President Henry Strong introduced Chris Diamantis as NSSTA's 22nd President. Speaking on behalf of the NSSTA Board of Directors, Strong had earlier identified the following management priorities for NSSTA and SmithBucklin at the NSSTA 2007 Fall Meeting:
  • Expand the structured settlement market;
  • Recapture the structured settlement brand;
  • Improve NSSTA's Internet technology competences;
  • Increase NSSTA's financial strength and accountability.
• Diamantis confirmed a "New Age" for NSSTA with Ricci and SmithBucklin.  He also summarized the results from NSSTA's most recent strategic plan. To better "define and confront its challenges", Diamantis identified the following strategic issues as prioritized by NSSTA's Board of Directors:
  • Factoring
  • Advocacy and marketing
  • Professionalism
  • Governance and communication
• Diamantis introduced the following new Directors, elected by NSSTA's voting members, to replace retiring NSSTA Board members Jeff Bowers, John Roeser, and J.P. Steele:
  • Dan Durbin
  • Jim Logan
  • Larry Niemi
• Steele announced the results of a Structured Settlements Survey Report sponsored by AIG and conducted in September 2007 by Esearch.com, Inc. The results of the survey, which appear on the AIG website, highlight the need to better educate plaintiff attorneys and injury victims about structured settlements.
• NSSTA Lobbyist Eric Vaughn delivered an informative "Washington Report". Vaughn's report:
  • Analyzed the upcoming 2008 election from a structured settlement perspective;
  • Summarized current structured settlement legislative and regulatory issues;
  • Highlighted federal IRA-like proposals for "Disability Savings Accounts" as "the most critical legislative issue" confronting the structured settlement industry;
  • Announced NSSTA's intention to expand its legislative alliances with other trade associations;
  • Further reported:
    
    • A communication from a recent White House meeting where one participant predicted the structured settlement market could grow to $12 to $18 billion per year - if structured settlements can successfully be integrated with other government benefits including Medicare and Medicaid;
    • Congress has pushed back enforcement of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Regulations are expected.
  • CMS is not yet enforcing or requiring MSAs in liability cases.  Regulations are expected. 

• As part of a NSSTA Legal Committee educational report that also featured Vaughn and tax expert Tom Ronce, Committee Chairman Michael Miller: 
  
  • Echoed the theme of industry change by highlighting the growing number and complexity of structured settlement legal cases;
  • Summarized recent NSSTA Legal Committee education topics including:
    • Agent responsibilities and exposures;
    • Settlement documentation. 

• Provided only the second educational presentation about structured settlement factoring for NSSTA members since 2001 - the previous NSSTA presentation about factoring occurred at the 2007 NSSTA Winter Meeting. In addition to his historical overview of factoring, Miller also summarized results from 100 factoring cases in which his law firm, Drinker Biddle, has participated since January 2008.
  • Of the 100 cases:
    • State judges approved 88 cases and denied 2 cases;      
      
    • 10 cases were withdrawn prior to a judicial decision.      
      
  • Miller listed the discount rates for each case and characterized the discount rates as generally excessive. 

• Other topics and speakers at the 2008 NSSTA Annual included:
  • An Actuary's Perspective on Structured Settlement Pricing - Joel Cohn
  • State Guaranty Funds Primer - Craig Ulman
  • How to Educate Attorneys on Special Needs Trusts - Bradley Frigon
  • Etiquette Through the Eyes of the Mediator - Bill Burrow, Troy Roe, Andrew Albert, Pat Farber       
  • The Cost of Rating It Wrong - Robert Michael Shavelle, Vinaya Sharma
  • Mass Tort Insiders - Thomas Girardi, Pat Farber, Walter Lack      
  • Personal Branding - Peter Montoya
  • The Next Frontier - James Logan, Leah Jamison

For S2KM's most recent coverage of NSSTA see:

• 2008 NSSTA Winter Meeting
  
• 2007 NSSTA Fall Meeting
   

Structured Settlement Transfers in Rhode Island

During the past three weeks, The Providence Journal has published two articles by Staff Writer Edward Fitzpatrick about structured settlement transfers (aka factoring) in Rhode Island.  The articles feature State Superior Court Judges who express strong negative opinions about factoring companies as well as concerns that existing laws and judicial procedures in Rhode Island may not adequately protect structured settlement recipients.

Under the Rhode Island structured settlement protection statute, enacted in 2001, state judges must determine whether a proposed transfer of the payment rights "is in the best interest of the payee taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents." Judges must also ensure that persons attempting to sell structured settlement payment rights have been advised to speak with a lawyer.

According to The Providence Journal articles, these judicial concerns have already resulted in two changes for transfer transactions in Rhode Island:

• Superior Court Presiding Justice Joseph F. Rodgers, Jr. has announced new court procedures under which Rodgers will personally hear all structured settlement transfer applications to determine the number of transfers and to establish uniform procedures for filing and handling transfers; and
• Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, responding to a request from Rodgers, has agreed to make available attorneys from the attorney general's consumer protection unit to advise individuals who are seeking to sell structured settlement payment rights to help ensure that people are making informed decisions.

Both of these changes appear to be positive steps for structured settlement recipients. They also highlight and reinforce some important features and safeguards included in most state structured settlement protection acts (SSPAs):

• The requirement of advanced court approval is a cornerstone of each of the SSPAs, as well as IRC section 5891;
• Since 2001, structured settlement transfers are not effective and are subject to a 40 percent excise tax unless approved in advance by a state court.
• Although the SSPAs are not uniform, most are derived from the Model Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Act);
• Since 2000, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) have jointly promoted the Model Act to state legislatures with considerable success including support from state attorneys general, state bar associations and the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL);
• Under each of the SSPAs, factoring companies ("transferees") are required to make written disclosures to structured settlement recipients ("payees");
• These disclosures are designed to highlight the value of the payments to be transferred and to contrast the value with the amount of money the payee will actually receive;
• In most states, the transferee must disclose the "discounted present value" of the payments determined by using the "Applicable Federal Rate" most recently published by the Internal Revenue Service for purposes of valuing annuities;
• At least some aspects of the Model Act's procedural requirements are spelled out under each of the SSPAs;
• Most of the SSPAs include supplemental protections for payees and their dependents as well as for structured settlement obligors and annuity issuers;
• In most states, these supplemental protections include notice requirements for interested parties plus a finding by the court that payees have either received independent professional advice or have knowingly waived their right to receive it;
• Similar to Rhode Island, the standard for judicial approval in most states is the "best interest" test: is the proposed transfer in the best interest of the payee taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents?
• As judges become more experienced and knowledgeable about structured settlement transfers, some states can be expected to set additional requirements under their SSPAs: for example, New Pennsylvania Rule 229.2, a state rule of civil procedure promulgated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2007.
• According to R. Stanton Wettick, Jr., an Allegheny County Judge who serves as Chairman of the Pennsylvania Civil Procedural Rules Committee: "New Rule 229.2 is intended to provide the additional information necessary for a trial court to determine whether a petition to transfer structured settlement payment rights meets the best interest standard".
• In addition, some states can be expected to propose amendments to their structured settlement protection statutes: for example, West Virginia House Bill 4380, currently under consideration by the West Virginia legislature.

The February 3, 2008 Providence Journal article (headlined "Judge Warns of Financial 'Vultures'") focuses on a single proposed factoring transaction.  The article highlights harsh comments about factoring companies from the reviewing Superior Court Judge Netti C. Vogel and other Rhode Island superior court judges. Their primary complaints about factoring companies include: excessive late night advertising and high discount rates; plus the lack of independent advice for payees. 

The simplicity of the immediate solution for these judicial concerns in Rhode Island is noteworthy:

• Superior Court Judge Vogel determined the proposed transfer in the McNeil case was not in McNeil's "best interest" and therefore denied the transfer.  Under the SSPAs, judges are the gatekeepers. They are assigned the responsibility for protecting payees under state structured settlement protection statutes.   
• With support from Rhode Island Attorney General Lynch, Presiding Superior Court Judge Rodgers has addressed three important issues:
  • Tracking the number of transfer requests;
  • Creating uniform procedures for transfer applications;
  • Making available state consumer protection attorneys "to see how the law is being applied, whether the law needs to change, and to provide people with some measure of representation."

Additional S2KM recommendations:

• Both the primary and secondary structured settlement markets need to improve their educational marketing for judges and other structured settlement stakeholders;
• Primary market professionals who want to improve the secondary market should change their strategy. Instead of merely attacking and complaining about factoring companies, they should: 
  
  • Educate themselves about the secondary markets;   
    
  • Assume a more proactive advisory role about settlement transfers;
  • Re-learn how to sell structured settlements and how to grow the structured settlement market in a changing legal environment.   
    
• All structured settlement participants should encourage the development of "best practices" for secondary market transactions including competitive bidding for all proposed transfers.

For additional information about structured settlement transfers, see:

• Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments";
• Online resources provided in this S2KM blog post.
  

Addendum (posted February 20, 2008) - More descriptive recommendations for two settlement transfer resources:

• ABA Article – Co-authored by Daniel Hindert and Craig Ulman, the 2005 ABA article titled “Tranfers of Structure Settlement Payments: What Judges Should Know About Structured Settlement Protection Acts” is the definitive analysis for judges as well as for professionals who want to understand the role of judges in settlement transfers.
• “Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments” – Originally published in 1986, this hardcopy textbook is co-authored by Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert.  Release 39 originated, and subsequent releases have updated, a new chapter titled “Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights”.

West Virginia House Bill 4380

The 2000 agreement between the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) to support the Model Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Act) appears to be in jeopardy this week in West Virginia.

Since 2000, NSSTA and NASP have jointly promoted the Model Act to state legislatures with considerable success including support from state attorneys general, state bar associations and the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL). Forty-eight states have enacted structured settlement protection statutes many of which are patterned after the Model Act.  Recent amendments to these state protection statutes, such as Pennsylvania Rule 229.2, have generally received favorable reviews from both NSSTA and NASP.

NASP representatives, however, are accusing NSSTA of violating their legislative agreement by failing to oppose West Virginia House Bill 4380. Currently under consideration by the West Virginia House Banking and Insurance Committee, House Bill 4380 would amend and reenact Section 46A-6H-3 of the Code of West Virginia titled "Transfers of Right to Receive Future Payments".

The stated purpose of House Bill 4380 is "to increase protection of beneficiaries to structured settlements as they relate to settlement transfers". In its current form, House Bill 4380 contains three controversial provisions not included in the Model Act:

• A requirement for a court to approve a guardian ad litem for the consumer in all transfer cases;
• A "clear and convincing evidence...of financial hardship" standard in addition to the Model Act's "best interest" standard;
• A maximum discount rate not to exceed "the current annual average percentage rate of interest on twenty year residual mortgages offered in this state, as determined by the banking commissioner."

Representatives of NASP, which opposes House Bill 4380, claim the above provisions violate the Model Act and, if enacted, could effectively end structured settlement transfers in West Virginia. NASP representatives have called upon NSSTA to honor its agreement to support the Model Act by opposing House Bill 4380. NASP contends that NSSTA's failure to oppose House Bill 4380 is a de facto violation of their 2000 legislative agreement and threatens future cooperation between the two trade associations. In addition, they point out that Ronald N. Walters, one of legislative sponsors of House Bill 4380, also manages the Charleston, West Virginia office of Structured Financial Associates, Inc. (SFA).  SFA is a NSSTA member.

According to a NSSTA source, however, "NSSTA has had nothing to do with introducing House Bill 4380.  Although NSSTA does not intend to oppose House Bill 4380, NSSTA still approves the Model Act."

For additional information about state protection laws, see Section 16.04 ("Structured Settlement Protection Acts") in "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments".

SSP 2008 Annual Meeting - 1

The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has announced the educational program schedule for its 2008 Annual Meeting to take place March 5-7 in Washington, D.C. at the Marriott Hotel at Metro Center. Registration forms and online registration are available on the SSP website.

Patrick Hindert, S2KM's blog author, will moderate two of the SSP seminar discussions:

• "Why We Are Losing the Medicaid Annuity War - and the Surge Needed for Victory" - featuring David J. Lillesand; and
• "The Secondary Markets - What Settlement Planners Need to Know" - featuring Stephen R. Harris; Earl S. Nesbitt; and Rhonda Bentzen.

More detailed descriptions for these programs:

Medicaid Annuities

Medicaid annuities, including structured settlement annuities used to fund special needs trusts, are under attack by federal and state legislators and regulators.  The Deficit Reduction Act and the secondary annuity markets create new issues and challenges for settlement planners and special needs planners.  In a discussion titled "Why We are Losing the Medicaid Annuity War - and the Surge Needed for Victory", David J. Lillesand, a national special needs expert, will provide a provocative review of current Medicaid annuity issues and propose a strategy to address these challenges.

Lillesand's presentation will address:

• Medicaid’s continuing attack on annuities used for nursing home planning and the spill-over impact on structured settlements;
• The SSA’s recent Appeals’ Council decision to cut more than one-third of the tax-free SSI benefits for a special needs trust with a properly assigned structured settlement - what REALLY happened in Pensacola and why the ruling still stands;
• SSA’s massive failure to understand annuities - the “Bernstein letter” notwithstanding;
• How the SSA's misunderstanding of annuities impacts the willingness of attorneys and clients to use structured settlements;
• When we might expect “relief” and/or "clarification" in the form of new SSA POMS or federal regulations;
• The need for the SSA to change deeming rules and/or resource rules so structured settlements can be utilized for spousal and parental personal injury derivative claims - which currently disqualify seriously ill children and spouses for Medicaid;
• How repeated, unannounced political cuts in Medicaid services are impacting structured settlements by creating uncertainty for future care options and, therefore, the demand for greater cash reserves to meet sudden cuts in services;
• And most importantly, how the insurance industry in general, and the structured settlement industry in particular, can benefit by joining with disabled families to stabilize and standardize across states Medicaid services for the seriously ill and disabled who are not insurable through private health insurance plans.

Secondary Markets

The secondary life and annuity markets are revolutionizing all financial and estate planning including structured settlements, settlement planning and special needs planning.  This discussion, titled "The Secondary Markets - What Settlement Planners Need to Know", will feature three national secondary market experts - Stephen R. Harris, a partner at Drinker Biddle; Earl S. Nesbitt, a partner at Nesbitt & Vassar who also serves as Executive Director of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP); and Rhonda Bentzen of Bentzen Funding Solutions.  This secondary market discussion will serve as an important introduction and update for settlement planners with special attention on how IRC section 5891 and the state structured settlement protection statutes have changed the structured settlement business.

Secondary issues to be addressed:

• What does a settlement planner need to know about the secondary markets?
• What laws apply - and what are the critical issues under those laws?
• What happens in a specific settlement transfer transaction - beginning to end?
• Who are the key players in a settlement transfer transaction?
• What is the settlement transfer documentation and work product?
• What are the responsibilities and potential roles for settlement planners?
• What issues and potential conflicts exist for settlement planners?
• What should settlement planners tell their clients about the secondary markets:
  • Prior to settlement?
  • Following settlement?   
    
• Who are the major secondary market participants?
• What are the critical issues and current industry developments?
• Where can a special needs planner obtain more information about the secondary markets?

For prior S2KM blog posts about the Society of Settlement Planners, see SSP 2007 Fall Meeting and the incorporated links.

Structured Settlements in 2007

Happy holidays from S2KM Limited. Thank you for reading S2KM's blog during 2007. This final 2007 S2KM blog post highlights some of this year's important structured settlement developments and issues.  For additional background information, see:

• S2KM Mid-2007 Structured Settlement Report
• Structured Settlements in 2006

Industry Growth and Development

• Industry insiders are predicting final 2007 structured settlement annuity sales (qualified and non-qualified) will match or slightly exceed total 2006 production of $6.1 billion.
• Membership growth in 2007 for the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), the primary structured settlement trade associations, also appears flat. Neither of these associations has articulated a strategy for growing the structured settlement industry.
• NSSTA replaced long-time Executive Director Randy Dyer in 2007 with association management company Smith Bucklin. NSSTA has announced it will continue a business relationship with Dyer. However, NSSTA has not yet announced Dyer's new role or responsibilities.
• Annuity provider Mass Mutual exited the structured settlement industry in 2007 joining other recent industry departures such as Genworth, Travelers and Aegon. No new annuity providers entered the structured settlement market in 2007.
• The secondary life and annuity markets continued to be controversial within the structured settlement industry in 2007. Semetra resigned from NSSTA in 2007 based in part on their disagreement with NSSTA's Bylaw Amendments related to structured settlement factoring. Neither NSSTA nor SSP allows factoring companies to join their associations.
• Although the secondary structured settlement market continues to grow in 2007, the overall pace of its growth appears to have leveled off for many, but not all, participants.
• Preliminary strategic recognition and some consolidation continued during 2007 within these overlapping markets:
  
  • Structured settlements;
  • Personal injury settlement planning;
  • Litigation funding;
  • Special needs planning;
  • Secondary insurance and annuity markets.

Legislation and Regulations    

• New York Governor Eliot Spitzer announced a $750 million "agreement in principle" for Executive Life of New York in 2007. The agreement is designed to continue paying all ELNY annuitants 100% of their benefits. The announcement represents a public relations victory for the structured settlement industry. Many questions about the agreement, however, remain unanswered. For example: the amount of contributions from indemnity (casualty) insurers who own or have assigned structured settlement annuities.
• State Medicaid Agencies are continuing to adopt annuity provisions from the Deficit Reduction Act into their state Medicaid Plans. Interpretations and applications of these new annuity rules remain inconsistent creating process bottlenecks and denials. The impact of the secondary annuity markets on Medicaid qualification remains unclear in 2007. The Social Security Administration (SSA) announced in 2007 that it will draft POMS for annuities in 2008. For additional information about the Deficit Reduction Act, see:
  • Release 41 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments";
  • Inconvenient Questions; and
  • NAELA Annuity Policy White Paper.
• 48 states have enacted structured settlement protection statutes. Overall, these statutes appear to be accomplishing their purposes and functioning with increasing certainty and efficiency. Pennsylvania's judiciary adopted Pennsyvania Rule 229.2 in 2007 tightening some rules and processes within that state's protection statute.
• The U.S. Treasury has not ruled on single claimant 468B funds in 2007.

Case Law - some of the significant 2007 cases:    

• DOJ Sovereign Immunity Defense - see "Drinker Biddle's Structured Settlement Update" for analysis of two DOJ sovereign immunity cases: Transamerica v. Settlement Capital and Continental Casualty v. United States.
• Primary Market Disclosure Case - "Pullman & Comley's Structured Settlement Insights" provided the first Internet analysis of Joseph v. The City of New York which Pullman & Comley characterizes as ""the first court opinion to analyze the requirements in structured settlement protection acts that disclosures be made when negotiating a structured settlement."
• Rapid Settlements cases challenging secondary market laws and business practices including:
  
  • Rapid v. Symetra; and
  • CNA v. Rapid Settlements

• Murphy v. IRS - Eleven months after ruling that taxing damage awards for nonphysical compensatory damages violated the United States Constitution, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has reversed itself in Murphy v. IRS by holding that the United States can tax awards for emotional distress and injury to reputation.
• Macomber v. Travelers - the parties agreed to a confidential settlement in 2007.  It is unclear what legal precedents, if any, the earlier Connecticut State Supreme Court rulings in this case will hold for current or future structured settlement litigation.
  

Educational Programs and Resources

• Both NSSTA and SSP offered certification programs in 2007.    
• S2KM attended educational programs for the following trade associations in 2007 and wrote blog posts (see links) evaluating their structured settlement educational programs:          
  
  • National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA).          
  • Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)          
  • American Association for Justice (AAJ)          
  • National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)          
  • Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)          
  • National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)    
• The structured settlement industry continued to offer various additional educational resources in 2007:          
  
  • Blogs, podcasts, wikis and concept maps;          
    
  • Digital and hardcopy newsletters;          
    
  • Hardcopy legal textbooks.

Business Standards and Practices

• 2007 developments
  
  • Broker Relations Initiative - status report provided in this S2KM blog post.
  • SSP Ethics Project - status report provided in this S2KM blog post.
• 2007 issues:
  
  • Structured settlement public policy
  • Claim management vs. settlement planning
  • Consumer and investor protection including:
    
    • Compensation disclosure;
    • Informed consent;
    • Single claimant 468B funds;
    • Unfair claim practice legislation;
    • Fiduciary responsibilities for professional advisors.

• Additional compensation issues:
  • Rebating
  • Affinity programs
  • Secondary market transactions
• Unauthorized practice of law.

SSPA Non-Contravention Standards

State courts play an important "gatekeeper" role for structured settlement factoring transactions. IRC section 5891 imposes a 40 percent federal excise tax if a factoring transaction does not receive required state court approval. State structured settlement protection acts (SSPAs) make factoring transactions ineffective unless such transfers receive court approval.

When evaluating a proposed transfer, state courts must address these issues:

• Payee's best interest - taking into account the welfare of the payee's dependents;
• Compliance with SSPA requirements - including notice, disclosure and independent professional advice; and
• Non-contravention of applicable laws - including other statutes and court orders.

In the lead article of its Fall 2007 edition of "Structured Settlement Insights", Pullman & Comley summarizes growing judicial authority for what constitutes non-contravention of a statute or order - as well as the related issue of what information is required for a court to make a non-contravention finding.  The article distinguishes these types of non-contravention issues from contractual anti-assignment restrictions.

The Pullman & Comley newsletter article highlights:

• New Pennsylvania Rule 229.2.  Among other provisions, this judicial rule requires the "transferee" (factoring company attorney) to certify to the court "to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, that the transfer will comply with the requirements of the [Pennsylvania] Act and will not contravene any other applicable federal or state statute or regulation or the order of any court or administrative authority."
• Different standards established by courts in other states including Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana and Florida.
• Workers compensation laws.  Although most state workers compensation statutes prohibit or restrict assignments, both IRC sections 5891 and 130 reference and incorporate workers compensation cases.
  

For additional information:

• SSPA non-contravention standards: see Section 16.05 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments".
• Pullman & Comley: see this earlier S2KM blog post.
• Pennsylvania Rule 229.2: see this earlier S2KM blog post.

Secondary Life and Annuity Markets - 1

Recent developments related to the secondary life insurance and annuity markets should encourage several professional associations to learn more about these markets - and to provide improved education in 2008 for their members about these markets.

Responsible professional associations include:

• The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA)
• The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)
• The National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)
• The American Association for Justice (AAJ)
• The Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)
• The Special Needs Alliance (SNA)

Recent secondary market developments include:

• Mealey's Conference: "Life Insurance in the Secondary Market" - Mealey's in-person conference, developed in collaboration with Drinker Biddle, is occuring December 11-12, 2007 at the Harvard Club of New York City.
• Deal Flow Media (DFM) - DFM, a publisher and educator focusing on specialty financial markets including life settlements, has announced it will enter the structured settlement market in 2008.
• A.M. Best - A.M. Best recently introduced "Best's Structured Finance Center", a web portal for the insurance-linked securities market.
• NCOIL - The National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) adopted a Model Life Settlements Act at its most recent meeting.
  

For additional information about life settlements, see:

• Wikipedia's "life settlement" entry
  
• New York Insurance Department's "Life Settlements: Top Ten Questions".
• Deal Flow Media's "The Life Settlements Report"

For additional and related S2KM commentary, see:

• Structured Settlement Secondary Market
  • Structured Settlement Transfers
  • Settlement Transfer Update
  • Settlement Transfers - Release 39
  • How the Primary Market Views Factoring
  • NSSTA Bylaw Amendments
  • J.G. Wentworth v. Peachtree Settlement Funding
  • Settlement Transfers: Wentworth and Symetra
  • Rapid v. Symetra
  • Review of Robert Wood's article: "Structured Settlements: Factor vs.Commute".
  • See also: Chapter 16 in hardcopy "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" written by Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert.
• National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)
  
  • 2007 Annual Meeting
  • 2006 Annual Meeting
  • NASP Wiki
• Deal Flow Media
  • Deal Flow Media structured settlement webinar
• Drinker Biddle
  • Drinker Biddle's "Structured Settlement Update"

Executive Life Of New York - 1

Was it merely coincidental that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer announced an "agreement in principle" for Executive Life of New York (ELNY) the same week "agreements in principle" unraveled for multiple high profile college football coaches? 

As college football fans are learning, "agreements in principle" are not always agreements in fact - and the devil is frequently in the details.

Governor Spitzer's publicly announced ELNY "agreement in principle" did not include many details:

• The proposed ELNY plan:
  • Is designed to continue paying all ELNY annuitants 100% of their benefits;
  • Provides protection for approximately 11,000 ELNY annuity recipients including structured settlement recipients;
  • Requires and anticipates future approval by the New York Nassau County State Supreme Court.
• Various insurers and guarantee associations have agreed to pay $650 to $750 million to fund approximately $2 billion of future ELNY payments;
• The insurers include several named liability (casualty) insurers.

Some of many unanswered questions:

• Exactly what are ELNY's current problems?
  
• What factors caused these problems?
• Who was aware of these problems and when?
  
• What issues will the ELNY plan address?
• Who will be the contributors?
  
• How much will they contribute?
• How many liability insurers will ultimately contribute?
• How much will they contribute?
• Why are the liability insurers contributing?
• What potential issues do the liability insurers' contributions create for:
  • Reinsurers;
  • Intermediaries;
  • Product providers;
    
  • Trade associations?   
    
• Will the total contributions be enough to pay ELNY's obligations?
• What are the key assumptions underlying future payment predictions?
  
• When will the ELNY plan be approved?
• Who are the parties in interest?
  
• What issues are involved in the plan approval process?
• How many of ELNY's annuities are structured settlement annuities?
• How many of ELNY's structured settlement annuities were assigned?
• Who were the assignees?
• How many ELNY annuities have already been transferred in the secondary market?
• Of these annuity transfers, how many involve structured settlement annuities?
• Will the ELNY plan honor annuity payment rights that have already been transferred in the secondary market?
• What limitations, if any, will the ELNY plan impose on the future transfer of ELNY annuity payment rights?
• What legal precedents will the ELNY plan establish for future insolvencies involving structured settlement annuities?
• What lessons should the structured settlement industry learn from ELNY?
• Is this the last chapter of the Executive Life structured settlement saga?

For historical background about Executive Life Insurance Company from a structured settlement perspective, see Section 3.05 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments".

Deal Flow Media Webinar

Deal Flow Media publishes reports, and also sponsors webinars and conferences, about specialized financial markets.

Deal Flow Media's markets include:

• Life Settlements
• Private Investments in Public Equity (PIPEs)
• Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)
• Reverse Mortgages
• Distressed Debt

On November 29, 2007, Deal Flow Media will enter the structured settlement market by sponsoring its first structured settlement webinar.  Please note the Postcript at the end of this post. Deal Flow Media will be rescheduling and expanding this structured settlement webinar.

In addition to Brett Goetschius, Karen Meyers and Dan Finn, this author will be one of the featured speakers. My topic will be "The Structured Settlement Secondary Market".  Some of the questions my presentation will address:

• What is a structured settlement?   
• What is a structured settlement factoring transaction?
• What are structured settlement payment rights?
• What is the secondary structured settlement market?
• How do the primary and secondary markets interact?
• Why do payees sell structured settlement payment rights?
• What definitions and legal rules apply to this secondary market?
• How large is the structured settlement secondary market?
• Who are the leading secondary market participants - and why are they successful?
• What does an investor in structured settlement payment rights actually purchase?
• What are the business and investment risks?

Additional S2KM online resources about the structured settlement primary and secondary markets:

• Structured Settlements
  • Overview of the Structured Settlement Market
  • History of Structured Settlements
  • Future of Structured Settlements
  • Structured Settlement Transaction Diagram
  • Structured Settlement Public Policy Wiki
  • Structured Settlements and Government Benefits
  • Blog posts featuring Robert Wood's podcasts
    • Structured Attorney Fees
    • Single Claimant 468B Funds
• Structured Settlement Secondary Market
  • Structured Settlement Transfers
  • Settlement Transfer Update
  • Settlement Transfers - Release 39
  • How the Primary Market Views Factoring
  • NSSTA Bylaw Amendments
  • J.G. Wentworth v. Peachtree Settlement Funding
  • Settlement Transfers: Wentworth and Symetra
  • Rapid v. Symetra
  • Review of Robert Wood's article: "Structured Settlements: Factor vs.Commute".
• National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)
  
  • 2007 Annual Meeting
  • 2006 Annual Meeting
  • NASP Wiki

Postcript - added November 28, 2007

• Deal Flow Media has decided to reschedule and expand its structured structured webinar.  Deal Flow Media will announce new dates and details for its expanded webinar on Deal Flow Media's website.   This author will appear as a participant in Deal Flow Media's structured settlement webinars- and will also provide continuing S2KM blog coverage of Deal Flow Media's structured settlement publications.
• S2KM has added corrected links for the following concept maps developed by Dr. Barbara Bowen of Sound Knowledge Strategies.  Each concept map includes embedded submaps and links.
  • Overview of Structured Settlement Markets
• How the Primary Market Views Factoring

For additional information about S2KM's collaboration with Barbara Bowen, see "Web 2.0 for Lawyers Concept Map".

NASP 2007 Annual Meeting - 3

This blog post concludes S2KM's coverage of the NASP 2007 Annual Meeting held October 18-19 at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. and highlights selected comments from the NASP panel discussion about the Structured Settlement Market addressing:

• Structured settlement brand;
• Settlement transfer market;
• Factoring discount rates.

S2KM has added a summary of selected panel comments about the structured settlement market to the nasp wiki.

For prior S2KM coverage of NASP's 2007 Annual Meeting, see NASP-1 and NASP-2.