Beyond Structured Settlements

SSP 2012 Annual Meeting - 2

Charles Schell, incoming President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), concluded the SSP 2012 Annual Meeting by communicating his thoughts for improving the settlement planning market and expanding its core structured settlement annuity product. In his remarks, Schell addressed alternative business models and challenged participants in both models to collaborate to improve business standards and practices.

What follows is a summary of Schell's SSP comments.

Alternative business models

"Structure brokers under the traditional Claims Management model have the advantage of access to claims adjusters. However, their single-product sale is frequently dismissed by injury victims and their families for many reasons including low interest rates, lack of liquidity and the defense brokers' ties to the defendant. As a result, many injury victims and their families make uninformed decisions or resent the limited financial options presented at the time of settlement.

"In contrast, injury victims and their families generally welcome Settlement Planners into their homes as trusted advisers because they are recommended by plaintiffs' attorneys. By introducing a menu of insurance and financial products and providers, Settlement Planners promote education and information sharing. They encourage the injury victim and his/her family to actively participate in the planning process. From my personal experience, more information equals more structured settlement annuities because the product is generally right in every case at some level of participation as one asset class.

"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.

Business standards and practices

"To grow the structured settlement market, both Settlement Planners and traditional Claim Management structured settlement practitioners must improve their business standards and practices. To do so, we must understand, embrace and promote full disclosure, product suitability standards and written, informed consent. Our disclosure practices should include compensation and conflicts of interest. Our product suitability standards should satisfy a fiduciary and/or "best interest" test. We should insist that our customers understand, and acknowledge their understanding of, our proposed products and settlement plans by signing a written informed consent form.

"Rather than complain about secondary market business practices, primary market stakeholders should take direct actions to improve the secondary market. First, by adopting our own "best interest" or fiduciary suitability standards, the primary structured settlement market can improve settlement planning. The result will be fewer cases that are "over-structured" and subsequently require structured settlement recipients to sell payment rights to obtain needed liquidity.

"Second, we can improve the secondary market by promoting one simple, best practice from the primary market - multiple quotes. Unfortunately, single quote transfers remain a common practice within the structured settlement secondary market resulting in unnecessarily high discount rates. By educating and encouraging judges to require multiple quotes as a necessary condition for meeting the "best interest" test, the primary market can help produce an important and immediate secondary market improvement.

"To summarize: my proposed strategy to improve and grow both the structured settlement and settlement planning markets:

• "Study and improve our business standards and practices.
• "Develop "customer centric" solutions that help injury victims.
• "Build collaborative business models by focusing on shared interests."

Acknowledgement: In addition to serving as SSP's President, Charles Schell is a founding partner of Forge Consulting. Forge is also an owner of The Settlement Service Group (TSSG) for which Patrick Hindert, S2KM's blog author, serves as Managing Director.

For additional S2KM reporting about the Society of Settlement Planners, 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?

NASP 2011 Annual Meeting - 2

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

Among the private criticisms S2KM has received:

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

Bias Toward the Secondary Market

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

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

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

Criticizing Business Conduct

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

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

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

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

Positive Voice for Change vs. Muckraker

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

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

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

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

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

NASP 2011 Annual Meeting

Highlighting a year during which the secondary structured settlement market is exceeding previous annual transfer totals, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) cautiously celebrated its seventh Annual Meeting November 9-11, 2011 in Las Vegas with record conference attendance including member company representatives, affiliate attorneys and invited guests.

Recognizing its legislative successes, NASP honored its Executive Director Earl Nesbitt for his past lobbying efforts by awarding him with NASP's 2011 Alexander Hamilton Award. Nesbitt represented NASP in helping to enact Internal Revenue Code section 5891 and the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act upon which are based most of the related state structured settlement protection statutes.

NASP President Matthew Bracy additionally praised NASP's founders stating: "Through their vision, guts and determination, we have not only persevered but flourished. Today NASP celebrates the fact that structured settlement recipients, in compliance with federal and state laws, have the right to sell their asset when needed."

NASP Educational Program

Maintaining its tradition of inviting judges representing different states to speak, NASP's 2011 educational program featured a panel discussion of judges from New York (Honorable Judith McMahon), Texas (Honorable Alexandra Smoots-Hogan) and Mississippi (Honorable Denise Owens) moderated by Patricia LaBorde. Among other issues, the judges discussed how they interpret the "best interest" standard as well as their expectations for transfer company counsel, transfer documentation, disclosure of prior transfers and levels of proof in transfer cases.

Another highlight of NASP's 2011 educational program was NASP's decision to organize smaller breakout group discussions consisting primarily of NASP member general counsel and affiliate NASP member attorneys to discuss:

• Issues in Obtaining Court Approval of the Transaction; and
• Issues in Underwriting Structured Settlement Transactions.

Other Speaker and Topics

Robin Shapiro - Shapiro, Chairman of NASP's Legal Committee, summarized historical and 2011 secondary structured settlement legislative and case law developments. Among the specific cases and issues:

• Symetra v. Rapid - This ongoing litigation appears likely to be completed in 2011 with injunctions 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.
• Conflicts between "incumbents" and "insurgents" in the secondary structured settlement market with a substantial portion of new transfers including individual investors not just institutional investors.
• Confusion between transfers of structured settlement payment rights and "settlement liquidity" businesses involving other asset classes such as the increasing sale of veterans' benefits.
• At least one (unnamed) annuity provider that refuses to release guaranteed payments to investors when a payee dies resulting in delays and legal costs for transfer companies.

Leonard Bernstein - Bernstein, a financial services regulatory attorney, presented separate discussions about how 1) Dodd-Frank and 2) advertising laws impact structured settlements. Although both discussions were directed toward a secondary market audience, each also contained valuable information for primary market participants.

• Dodd-Frank - Bernstein's Dodd-Frank update focused on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a new federal agency . CFPB's central mission is "to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans ....." Among its core functions are to take consumer complaints and to restrict unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices under the Federal consumer financial laws. Dodd-Frank provides CFPB with authorities that go beyond the existing consumer protection statutes. CFPB has broad authority to ask questions and demand information including consumer complaints. Dodd-Frank also establishes the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry.
• Advertising - Bernstein's advertising discussion referenced sections of the Better Business Bureau's Code of Advertising that could impact structured settlement purchasing transactions (or primary market transactions) by prohibiting advertisements which are untrue, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, falsely disparaging of competitiors, or insincere offers including deception through omission. As one strategy to protect against false advertising, Bernstein recommended using disclaimers whose effectiveness depends upon their prominence and location.

Elizabeth Yingling - Yingling, a securities attorney, discussed how federal and state securities laws can impact structured settlements. In defining what constitutes a "security", Yingling focused on the meaning of an "investment contract" as that term was defined in SEC v. Howey, a 1946 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Yingling offered several practical tips for transfer companies to avoid the mine fields of the securities laws when marketing to individual investors and also emphasized the serious risks involved when dealing with unsophisticated investors.

Earl Nesbitt - Nesbitt discussed the concepts of "discount rate" and "discounted present value" both of which play an important role in court hearings to evaluate structured settlement transfer proposals. The Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act defines "discounted present value" to mean: "the present value of future payments determined by discounting such payments to the present using the most recently published Applicable Federal Rate for determining the present value of an annuity, as issued by the United States Internal Revenue Service." In addition to identifying many factors that can determine the discount rate for a specific case, Nesbitt summarized the results of a recent survey he conducted of the discount rates approved by judges in Harris County Texas. Results:

• The average discount rate: 15.8 percent;
• The weighted average (i.e. taking into consideration the relative case size): 12.96 percent;
• The lowest discount rate: 7.4 percent; and
• The highest discount rate ($3494 paid for $7282 due in less than one year): 61.3 percent.

Patrick Hindert - Hindert (author of S2KM's blog "Beyond Structured Settlements") provided a "Primary Market Report" addressing current industry challenges and issues. In addition to explaining why primary market annuity premium could fall below $5 billion for 2011, Hindert summarized the historical background and current status of Executive Life of New York (ELNY). The impact of the secondary structured settlement market on the ELNY liquidation has been underestimated in most ELNY reporting by primary market sources. According to reliable secondary market sources, however, payment rights from as many as 1000 of ELNY's remaining structured settlements are currently owned by secondary market companies and/or investors.

Joe Feltes - Feltes, an attorney whose clients include health care providers and whose legal expertise includes social media, e-mail and Internet use, spoke about privacy issues in structured settlement transactions. Based upon his research, Feltes expressed surprised at the paucity of information available about structured settlements and privacy issues. As one example, Feltes pointed out the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act does not address privacy. Before seeking and transmitting private medical information about structured settlement candidates and/or recipients, Feltes recommended obtaining purpose-specific written authorization including a waiver and release. In addition to HIPAA, Feltes discussed the privacy provisions contain in Graham Leach Bliley.

Congratulations to NASP for continuing its high educational standards with an outstanding 2011 Annual Meeting. Conference Chairperson Patricia LaBorde prepared helpful and related handout summaries for several of the presentations.

For S2KM reporting about prior NASP annual meetings plus additional analysis about the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

S2P2J Release 50

Publisher Law Journal Press is currently distributing hardcopy supplements for Release 50 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). Online S2P2J was also updated as of October 21, 2011 to include Release 50 materials.

First published in 1986, S2P2J is co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) utilize S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

S2P2J Release 50 Highlights

Release 50 for Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments reviews the history of the receivership of Executive Life of New York ("ELNY"), tracks the status of its receivership and impending liquidation, updates discussion of the operation and role of U.S. life and health guaranty associations (“GAs”), and provides a comprehensive new chart summarizing coverage limits under the enabling statutes for all GAs in each of the U.S. states and territories.

This Release also expands and updates the discussions of several topics, including:

• Understanding the scope and meaning of “physical” as that crucial term is used in IRC § 104(a)(2) for claimants who receive damages on account of personal injuries that are not “physical” per se, such as wrongful incarceration and PTSD.
• Negotiating the important issue whether and pursuant to what terms a settlement payor will issue an IRS 1099-MISC form in cases where the tax treatment of agreed damages appears to be neither fully excludable under IRC § 104(a)(2) nor fully includable as income to the claimant.
• Determining choice of forum for establishing a 468B fund when one or more claimants against the 468B fund is a protected person.

In addition, Release 50 includes an extensive discussion of the IRS’s Structured Settlement Factoring Audit Technique Guide used to assist its examiners in determining taxability of structured settlement factoring transactions. The Guide describes the interplay between state law requirements and federal tax sanctions and presents a simplified conceptual framework to be used for determining taxability.

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 5

One of three fundamental transitions reshaping the structured settlement industry is the change from a singular, illiquid and non-assignable product to multiple products with greater flexibility to address changing needs and circumstances of injury victims. This transition includes the potential of greater product liquidity for traditional structured settlements provided by IRC section 5891 and the state protection statutes.

During their 2011 annual meetings and educational conferences, both the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) addressed this structured settlement industry transition.

NSSTA's Legal Committee organized two educational programs featuring secondary market structured settlement issues:

• Peter Vodola, Katherine Scanlon and Amy Ravitz - "Legal Committee Update on Developments in the Law"; and
• Judge Edward Burke and Judge Steven Denton (moderated by Vodola) - "Judicial Perspective" (on structured settlements).

The Legal Committee Update approached "factoring" from the perspective of "what is it and why should we [NSSTA] care?" Their "what is it" segment:

• Introduced NSSTA members to IRC section 5891;
• Highlighted the "best interest" test and disclosure requirements of state protection statutes; and
• Summarized the Ceron v. Henderson case which S2KM previously reported as part of S2KM's "business standards and practices" series.

NSSTA's "why should we care" (about factoring) comments focused upon:

• How factoring companies are "adversely defining" the term "structured settlement" with aggressive television and internet advertising;
• How structured settlement factoring cases have inundated many state court dockets; and
• How NSSTA members should respond to plaintiff attorneys and judges who resist structured settlements because of proliferating factoring transactions.

The theme of NSSTA's "Judicial Perspective", as stated by participating Judge Denton, might have been: "don't presume that judges understand structured settlements". Previously a plaintiff attorney, Judge Denton claimed a familiarity with structured settlements but acknowledged he had never been asked to approve a structured settlement transfer application. Conversely, Judge Burke stated that his structured settlement experience was limited to reviewing and approving transfer applications.

Among his NSSTA comments, Judge Burke identified his "heroes" to include the superior court judges involved in the California Fresno County factoring cases. Judge Burke's judicial praise is both noteworthy and difficult to understand. In Henderson v. Scieteco (one of the Fresno County factoring cases) , a California appellate court subsequently reversed the entire consolidated order from the Fresno County Superior Court because of "multiple prejudicial errors in making its factual findings and in reaching legal conclusions" (emphasis added).

Also in Henderson v. Scieteco, the California appellate court held that public policy supports state court approved structured factoring transactions (emphasis added). NSSTA's Legal Committee representatives failed to mention this case when they discussed "public policy" and factoring during their structured settlement legal update.

Some judges not only understand structured settlements, but also have experience with both primary and secondary market structured settlement cases and publish local court rules for structured settlements. See, for example, Rule 68.2 and Rule 68.3 of the Local Rules for the Hamilton County, Ohio Probate Court.

SSP offered three presentations about non-traditional structured settlement products as part of its educational program segment titled "Practice Improvement: Marketing and New Products",

• Anthony Prieto and Tim Denehy - "The Use of Structured Settlement Annuity Payment Rights";
• Brian Michaels - "Expanded Use of Non-Qualified Assignments"; and
• Rick Miller - "Equity Indexed Annuities and Settlement Planning".

Prieto and Denehy introduced a product called "The Settlement Asset Management Trust (SAM trust) with Enhanced Structured Income (ESI)" which is essentially an irrevocable spendthrift trust generating level monthly income payments for durations of 10-30 years plus access to discretionary distributions.

The ESI component, according to Prieto and Denehy, consists of payment rights previously sold (i.e., transferred or factored) by a structured settlement recipient to a third party purchaser (factoring company) with an approved court order pursuant to a state protection statute. The SAM trust product managers purchase the payment rights from one or more factoring companies and transfer the payment rights to the SAM trust.

According to Prieto and Denehy, the resulting SAM trust can produce a taxable interest rate that is "typically three (3%) percent higher than comparable fixed products with similar guarantees and safety." Their explanation for the enhanced interest rate: the ESI does not have the same high internal costs as a typical annuity during the first few years of the annuity policy.

Although the flow of structured settlement payment rights purchased from various factoring companies is typically uneven, Prieto and Denehy maintain the SAM trustee can consolidate selected payment rights to create an even payment flow to the SAM trust beneficiary who might be an injury victim or a plaintiff attorney.

In addition to an interest rate risk, Prieto and Denehy acknowledge the ESI has an insurance company insolvency risk similar to a traditional structured settlement. According to Prieto and Denehy, however, a typical SAM trust will include between two and ten separate payment rights purchases thereby diversifying the insolvency risk.

Although some secondary market brokers and factoring companies have previously sold "re-cycled" structured settlement payment rights to individuals, Prieto and Denehy believe their product is different because the SAM trust integrates multiple streams of separate payment rights and also includes a cash allocation permitting discretionary distributions.

For additional S2KM reporting about the SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings, see the structured settlement wiki.

See "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) for additional information about:

• Non-qualified (under IRC section 130) assignments and products - Section 3.08A; and
• Judicial review of transfer applications - Section 16.05

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 4

One of the notable features of the 2011 educational conferences sponsored by the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) was how relatively few speakers focused on traditional structured settlement issues.

Of those who did, some offered external perspectives on structured settlements (attorneys, judges, financial planners, unions). In addition, NSSTA's Legal Committee provided an update on structured settlement legal issues.

Most of the other SSP and NSSTA 2011 educational speakers addressed structured settlements in the context of either:

• Peripheral topics such as: strength of life companies; state guaranty associations; Executive Life of New York (ELNY); internet marketing; certification programs; and the sale of structured settlement payment rights; or
• Settlement planning topics such as: Medicare set-asides (MSAs); special needs trusts (SNTs); 468B qualified settlement funds (QSFs); taxation (income and estate) of damages; lien resolution; non-qualified products; and allocation of medical expenses.

Two SSP presentations were also noteworthy for providing both a general understanding of settlement planning and the role of structured settlements as a core component of settlement planning:

• Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller - "Working with a Special Needs Attorney";
• Jack Meligan - "Dissecting a Settlement Plan".

Urbatsch and Fuller, special needs attorneys and members of the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), addressed a variety of settlement planning topics:

• What is a settlement plan?
• What types of injury victims require settlement planning?
• What professionals should comprise a settlement planning team?
• What special needs issues should a settlement plan address?
• In addition to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, what government programs should a settlement plan consider?
• What benefits do these various government programs provide?
• Why are damage allocations important for settlement planning?
• Who is, and who is not, qualified to make damage allocations?
• What are the disadvantages of, and alternatives to, special needs trusts (SNTs)?
• How does health care reform impact settlement planning, Medicaid and SNTs?
• Why are 468B Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) important for settlement planning?

Meligan's discussion focused on a case-specific settlement plan. Meligan's recommended planning considerations included: "better quality of life"; new care facility; medications and therapy; estate planning; whether an SNT is appropriate; and whether a Medicare set-aside (MSA) is necessary. His proposed settlement plan recommended specific products and product and service providers for:

• A structured settlement payable into a SNT.
• An MSA funded in part with a structured settlement.
• Resolution of Medicaid and Medicare liens.
• A Treasury bill money market account.
• A "laddered" certificate of deposit portfolio.
• Investment in silver coins to address inflation.
• A will plus consideration of estate taxes.
• Prescription medications.
• Family evaluation to assist with life style changes.

S2KM comments about structured settlements and settlement planning:

• The future of structured settlements depends upon whether, how, when and by whom structured settlements are integrated into settlement planning.
• Settlement planning requires and deserves greater educational attention - by SSP and NSSTA as well as by special needs attorney associations.
• The SSP discussions led by Urbatsch, Fuller and Meligan provided a good introduction to many settlement planning issues.
• If NSSTA continues to study settlement planning (or settlement consulting), it might be valuable to review and compare:
  • SSP's "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" with NSSTA's "Code of Ethics";
  • SSP's "Registered Settlement Planner" (RSP) certification program with NSSTA's "Certified Structured Settlement Consultant" (CSSC) program;
  • SSP's 2011 educational agenda with NSSTA's 2011 educational agenda.
• New settlement planning standards need to be identified and established. For example: definitions and vocabulary; knowledge requirements; professional planning team composition; roles and responsibilities; individual and integrated work product; product recommendation criteria; licensing and certification; business practices including compensation disclosure, conflicts of interest and informed consent; documentation; and financing products and mechanisms.
• QSFs and structured settlements can improve settlement planning and therefore should be considered in every complex personal injury case.

S2KM comments about Meligan's sample settlement plan:

• At least until someone else presents a personal injury settlement plan featuring structured settlements in an educational forum, Meligan's plan represents the industry standard.
• It would be valuable to study and compare settlement plans developed by different professionals (trustees, special needs attorneys, and financial planners) for the same case example.
• Every settlement plan recommending a structured settlement should:
  • Justify why structured settlements are appropriate (product suitability) and more appropriate than comparable alternatives products - for example: SPIAs and indexed annuities.
  • Include some tax analysis to determine whether "tax-free" products are needed or justified.
  • Justify recommended amounts allocated to purchase structured settlements. Among the most frequent and severe settlement planning criticisms of structured settlements:
    • Single product structured settlement agents have an inherent conflict of interest that should disqualify them from allocating settlement proceeds;
    • Structured settlement agents invariably over-structure cases which limits planning options and increases the likelihood of future factoring transactions.
  • Disclose compensation (including shared compensation) from all recommended products subject to the recipient's informed consent.
  • Reference IRC section 5891 and the applicable state structured settlement protection statute(s).
  • Include a comparison of projected revenues from all sources and projected expenses.

For additional S2KM reporting about:

• SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - see the structured settlement wiki;
• Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning - see this earlier S2KM blog post.

 

Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning

The purpose of this blog post is to compare structured settlements and personal injury settlement planning. As noted in an earlier S2KM blog post, the transition from structured settlements to settlement planning is one of three fundamental transitions reshaping the structured settlement industry. The other two fundamental transitions:

• From a singular, illiquid, and non-assignable product to multiple products with greater flexibility to address changing needs and circumstances of injury victims;
• From traditional (pre-Internet) to web-based business models, processes and skill sets.

Among statutory definitions, "structured settlement" is defined in IRC 5891 (c)(1) and Section 2(m) of the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act. Wikipedia offers an additional definition for "structured settlement". Financing diagrams provide a visual perspective for understanding traditional structured settlement financing alternatives and methodologies.

As summarized in this history diagram, structured settlements and the structured settlement industry have experienced significant changes since structured settlements were first utilized in the United States during the late 1970s including:

• The secondary market;
• 468B qualified settlement funds;
• Integration with Medicare and Medicaid; and
• Integration with settlement trusts.

This transaction diagram demonstrates how, as an integrated product, structured settlements have become increasingly complex legally and financially with multiple stakeholders and documents.

One result of this increased integration and complexity has been the evolution of structured settlements from a stand alone product into a core product for a more comprehensive profession called "settlement planning" - which some participants refer to alternatively as "settlement consulting" or "special needs settlement planning".

Although no statutory or standard definitions exist for settlement planning, leading practitioners and advocates, including Jack Meligan and Joseph DiGangi, have offered their own definitions and explanations. In addition, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has adopted the "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" and offers a Registered Settlement Planner  (RSP) certification program.

Here is how Meligan, SSP's President, explains settlement planning:

• "Settlement Planning is the modern day [holistic] approach to assisting personal injury (and other types of) claimants with the personal, and highly unique, financial planning decisions surrounding the settlement of their claim.
• "Settlement Planning starts from the premise that structured settlements are not the answer to everything that everyone needs or wants to do with their settlement dollars.
• "Using that as a starting point, the first in a long line of questions for any personal injury claimant to answer is: 'What do you want this settlement to accomplish for you? What is the most important thing? Then, what is the, second most important, third most important, etc'.
• "Only after you, as the claimant, answer the question above should you really begin to craft a plan to help you reach those goals."

DiGangi spoke about "settlement consulting" at the 2009 Winter Meeting of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA).

• In what he termed "a wake up call for the industry", DiGangi criticized the traditional structured settlement business model and knowledge standards.
• He also outlined his vision for industry transition, improvement and growth which he termed "comprehensive settlement consulting".

DiGangi characterized the current structured settlement industry as "a stagnant market" based upon an outdated "annuity broker" business model. Structured settlement clients and competitors, according to DiGangi, share negative perceptions about structured settlement consultants. As examples of negative perceptions, DiGangi cited the industry's single product offering and limited knowledge base.

As an alternative to the "annuity broker" structured settlement business model, DiGangi proposed a "consultant" model with multiple products and services providing added value for, and with, other settlement stakeholders.

Characteristics of DiGangi's settlement consulting model:

• Planning orientation;
• Solutions before products;
• Blended products and services;
• Product neutrality;
• Compensation disclosure;
• Professional training and designations;
• Comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base.

During his 2009 NSSTA presentation, DiGangi also highlighted several transitional issues: licensing; conflicts of interest; collaboration models; and work process infrastructure.

S2KM will summarize and evaluate how SSP and NSSTA addressed "settlement planning" during their 2011 Annual Meeting educational conferences in a subsequent and related blog post.

Timothy Morbach of The Settlement Services Group (TSSG) developed the linked diagrams in this blog post. TSSG is an affiliate and strategic partner of S2KM Limited. Viewers can enlarge the diagrams to improve their visibility.

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 3

Whether and when personal injury settlements are taxable to their recipients represents one of the most important structured settlement legal issues. Both the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) featured multiple tax presentations during their 2011 educational conferences.

At the SSP conference, Robert Wood and Jeremy Babener each separately addressed multiple settlement tax issues. Wood discussed: "468B Qualified Settlement Funds" (QSFs) and "Common Settlement Tax Mistakes and How to Fix Them". Babener's SSP presentation addressed three topics:

• Maximizing the medical expense deduction;
• Emotional distress and the medical care exception; and
• Inheritance of personal injury proceeds.

The NSSTA conference also featured a QSF presentation by Martin Jacobson titled "The Ins and Outs of 468B Funds". In addition, NSSTA's Legal Committee Update included a summary of a 2011 tax case, Espinoza v. Commissioner, plus an introduction to IRC Section 5891 as part of a discussion about the secondary structured settlement market.

Wood, who has written both a textbook and a Tax Management portfolio about QSFs, utilized case examples to explain several QSF issues: when is a QSF available; formation of a QSF; who should serve as QSF administrator; what are the QSF administrator's responsibilities; determining QSF income and deductions; information reporting responsibilities; amounts to report and forms to use; reporting of structured settlements; and terminating a QSF.

In his presentation about identifying and fixing settlement tax mistakes, Wood highlighted several issues: the need for professional tax computations; interest is always taxable; punitive damages; attorney fees; tax allocations; miscellaneous itemized deductions; above-the-line deductions; the unclear scope of section 104; sex abuse and wrongful imprisonment cases; the Murphy case; constructive receipt; employment disputes; Form 1099; as well as qualified and non-qualified structured settlements. For related writing by Wood, see the Wood & Porter website as well as S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.

Like Wood, Babener is both a prolific writer about settlement tax issues, as evidenced by Babener's website and related commentary appearing on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki, and a frequent speaker at educational conferences sponsored by SSP and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP). Also similar to Wood, Babener's SSP presentation and handouts utilized case examples (as well as tables) to help communicate his analysis. Equally appropriate for their audience, both Wood and Babener emphasized settlement tax planning and incorporated structured settlements into their discussions.

Jacobson's QSF discussion at the NSSTA conference specifically addressed the single claimant issue. Jacobson focused his analysis on the statutory language of IRC 468B, related Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c) and related Revenue Procedure 93-34.

• Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c) requires and permits a QSF to be "established to resolve or satisfy one or more contested or uncontested claims that have resulted or may result from an event (or related series of events) that has occurred and that has given rise to at least one claim asserting liability ..." (emphasis added).
• Revenue Procedure 93-34 sets forth the rules under which a QSF will be considered a "party to the suit or agreement" for purposes of Section 130 and includes a stipulation that all Section 130 requirements still apply (emphasis added).

Jacobson highlighted the issue of whether Revenue Procedure 93-34 means that constructive receipt and economic benefit apply to single claimant QSF-funded Section 130 Qualified Assignments. For purposes of the single claimant QSF issue, Jacobson identified what he termed "the real questions":

• Does a single claimant have economic benefit of the funds placed in the QSF?
• Does the single claimant have "unqualified availability" of those funds?
• Has IRC Section 130(c) been satisfied?
• Is there going to be an IRS ruling applicable to single claimant QSFs?
• In the continuing absence of such an IRS ruling, Jacobson quoted Robert Wood's recommendation to "avoid the single claimant controversy" by establishing QSFs with multiple claimants.

With deference to Martin Jacobson for his valuable presentation and gratitude that NSSTA's educational programs have begun to address important and controversial industry issues, S2KM suggests these additional "real questions" concerning single claimant QSFs:

• Why haven't any NSSTA or SSP members applied for one or more IRS rulings applicable to single claimant QSFs?
• For example, what constitutes "multiple claimants" for purposes of QSFs - multiple family members as claimants? government liens? a plaintiff attorney's compensation claim?
• Does public policy favor or not favor single claimant QSFs? If not, why not?
• As Jeremy Babener addresses in his important QSF paper, how far has existing federal legislation eroded the applicability of the constructive receipt and economic benefit tax doctrines to structured settlements:
  • Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 - allowing "secured creditor status"; and
  • Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001 - allowing transfers of payment rights ("factoring") pursuant to state protection statutes.

For additional information about:

• Structured settlement tax issues - see Chapter 2 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J);
• Single claimant 468B QSFs - see S2KM's blog post "Single Claimant QSF Update"
• SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.