Beyond Structured Settlements

Alternative Business Models

The future of structured settlements depends upon which of two alternative business models ultimately prevails - the traditional (defense-controlled) claim management model or the emerging (claimant centric) settlement planning model. (Note: see Addendum).

The Claim Management Model

The claim management business model was developed by members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), which is hosting its 2012 Annual Meeting this week in Washington, D.C. The claim management model has dominated the United States structured settlement industry since the enactment of the Periodic Payment Settlement Act in 1982. Its general characteristics:

• Defense control resulting from defense funding;
• Defense-approved lists of annuity providers and brokers;
• Proactive case identification and negotiation participation by defendants designed to sell structured settlements;
• De minimus regulation of sales conduct resulting in a lack of:
  • Disclosure - of compensation sharing and/or conflicts of interest;
  • Product suitability standards; and/or
  • Informed written consent by structured settlement recipients.
• Political and case-specific opposition to single claimant 468B qualified settlement funds (QSFs);
• A hostile view of the secondary structured settlement market.

The business justification for the claim management business model for defendants and liability insurers:

• Reduce claim costs by utilizing structured settlements; and
• Protect themselves from future risks by utilizing qualified assignments.

The traditional cost/risk analysis of the claim management model, however, does not adequately consider the impact on defendants of:

• Negotiating and defending damages using structured settlements funded with historically low interest rates;
• The added claim management costs specifically resulting from review of structured settlement-related file documentation;
• Potential accountability and liability resulting from:
  • Increasing legislative and regulatory protection for consumers and investors;
  • Defendant status as deep pocket originators of long-term payment promises with complex life-cycles;
  • Sales activities by defendant employees, attorneys and agents without qualified compliance supervision.

The Settlement Planning Model

As defendants and liability insurers re-think the traditional claim management structured settlement model, they should also investigate (for their own self-interest) an emerging, alternative structured settlement business model - the settlement planning model.

What is settlement planning? Joseph Tombs, a former President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and co-founder of the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) program, defines settlement planning as "... a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life."

What is a settlement planner? The SSP Standards of Professional Conduct define "settlement planner" as "... a representative who provides advice and other services to a person participating in the design, negotiation or implementation of a settlement or satisfaction of judgment for the benefit of a person claiming a legal entitlement to an award of damages or other compensation."

Although:

• The SSP Standards recognizes that "a settlement planners may represent a plaintiff, a defendant, an insurer, a guardian ad litem, an heir of the claimant, an attorney or another person participating in the settlement services", settlement planning is more "claimant centric" than the claim management model and involves a commensurate reallocation of responsibilities and risks away from defendants and liability insurers.
• Not dependent upon QSFs, the settlement planning model recognizes that QSFs provide important advantages and protections for plaintiffs and defendants.
• Product neutral, the settlement planning model recognizes structured settlement represents a core settlement planning tool that combines relatively low investment and dissipation risks.

The basic characteristics of the settlement planning model and professional, as outlined by Joseph DiGangi at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting:

• Planning orientation
• Solutions before products
• Blended products and services
• Product neutrality
• Disclosure and informed consent
• Professional training and designations
• Comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base

From a claimant centric perspective, the settlement planning process includes five stages:

• Needs assessment
• Design
• Negotiation
• Implementation
• Monitoring

 Multiple professional associations and 2012 conferences are now studying various components and issues related to the settlement planning business model:

• The Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) - S2KM attended and reviewed the ASNP 2012 Annual Meeting.
• Risk Settlement Planning Practicum - Hosted by the University of Tulsa Law School, S2KM reviewed this settlement planning conference whose presenters included Patrick Hindert, S2KM's primary blog author. Hindert spoke about the "History of Structured Settlements" and provided a schematic analysis of the structured settlement business cycle.
• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) - S2KM will attend and review the SSP 2012 Annual Meeting April 30 - May 1 in Las Vegas. Among the presenters, Hindert will address "Settlement Planning Business Models: the Defense Perspective"

ADDENDUM (April 26, 2012): After reading S2KM's blog post, Charles Schell, President-Elect of SSP, asked the following question (which Schell promised to address at the SSP Annual Meeting): "Is it necessary for one or the other business model to prevail or could each side benefit by recognizing the role of the other?"

For additional information about settlement planning (aka settlement consulting or special needs settlement planning), see the structured settlement wiki.

Mixed ELNY Reactions

In an article titled "Loss for Policyholders", written by James Campbell and published April 17, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Executive Life of New York (ELNY) stakeholders expressed contrasting reactions to Judge John M. Galasso's decisions to:

• Approve the ELNY Restructuring Agreement proposed by the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent); and
• Grant judicial immunity to the Superintendent, as ELNY's Receiver, and the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) "for any action or omission by any one or more of them when acting in good faith, in accordance with this Order, or in the performance of their duties pursuant to Insurance Law Article 74 ..."

Shortfall Payee

Eric Rabinowitz, a 43-year-old Manhattan man, who received an ELNY-funded structured settlement in 1983 after being blinded in his right eye during a cataract operation, told the WSJ: "They hung us out to dry and they knew for years that this thing didn't get properly protected and yet they gave us a few weeks to lawyer-up in holiday season."

Shortfall Payee Attorney

Connecticut attorney Edward Stone represents 12 payees whose combined ELNY benefits, according to the WSJ article, will be cut by $20 million under the approved plan. The article quotes Stone as saying: "Their benefits are being cut by more than 50%. One of my clients is being cut by 58%. This will mean major changes, and it may impact their ability to get medical care. One of my clients will have to file bankruptcy because the guarantees they were promised are not really guarantees at all."

According to Schedule 1.15 of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement, 1459 structured settlement payees will experience shortfalls ("uncovered amounts") as a result of ELNY's liquidation and restructuring even after state guaranty association contributions and voluntary enhancements by life insurance companies.

Stone also informed the WSJ: "the judge rejected his bid to call a number of witnesses to probe the [NYLB's] management of the company, including a former ELNY president, an actuary, a forensic accountant and a fraud expert."

Spokesman for Superintendent

David Neustadt, a spokesman for the Superintendent, disagreed with Stone's suggestion that the Superintendent and the NYLB might be guilty of mismanaging ELNY during the 20 plus years they supervised ELNY's Rehabilitation. "This is an absurd and baseless suggestion from a small-group of self-interested plaintiff's lawyers seeking to enrich themselves," Neustadt said.

Structured Settlement Industry Spokesman

Eric Vaughn, Executive Director of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) "defended the structured-settlement industry, amid the failure of the ELNY rehabilitation" according to the WSJ article. Vaughn stated: "The Executive Life insolvency remains the only instance where any insurer of structured-settlement annuity has not made all payments in full and on time." In addition, according to Vaughn, "several hundred of the structured-settlement recipients might be able 'to recover shortfalls from the original insurers and other parties that have continuing responsibility under settlement agreements.'"

For S2KM's complete and continuing reporting about the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki - and more specifically related to this blog post:

• The ELNY Due Process Issue - have anticipated shortfall victims received due process?
• The ELNY Immunity Issue - including and featuring Peter Bickford's analysis.
• ELNY Objections and Replies - summarizing arguments in the Superintendent's Reply Memorandum.

Risk Settlement Planning Practicum

Sheltered from the violent storms that unleashed dozens of tornadoes across Oklahoma and the plains states on April 13-14, 2012, the University of Tulsa College of Law hosted the Richard B. Risk Jr. Settlement Planning Practicum which organizers believe was the first time any law school has sponsored a settlement planning educational conference.

Risk, a national authority on structured settlement law and one of the founders of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), endowed the settlement planning practicum which is expected to become an annual event for attorneys and law students. Risk invited and introduced the practicum presenters in the following speaking order: Joseph Tombs, Patrick Hindert, Mark Popolizio, Jeremy Babener, Jack Meligan and Professor Carl Pierce.

Joseph Tombs

Tombs, a lawyer, certified financial planner and former SSP President who, working with Risk, helped organize the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification program, addressed "Common Issues Attorneys Face When Settling Cases". As part of his presentation, Tombs contrasted settlement planning and financial planning. One primary difference, according to Tombs, is the relative importance in settlement planning of "dissipation risk". Other differentiating factors identified by Tombs include the importance of: government benefits, medical forecasting and special needs legal issues. Tombs discussed structured settlements as a core settlement planning tool that combines relatively low investment and dissipation risks.

Tombs emphasized the multi-professional skill sets settlement planning requires and described settlement planning as an evolving profession stating: "The more we study and practice settlement planning, the more we realize its complexity and understand its challenges." He offered the following definition for settlement planning: "a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life."

Patrick Hindert

In his presentation titled "The History of Structured Settlements", Hindert (co-author of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" and author of S2KM's blog) provided a visual analysis featuring schematic diagrams to explain how structured settlement has evolved from a claim management tool into a core component of the larger and more complex settlement planning profession - and how competing business models have restricted the growth of the structured settlement annuity market.

Hindert stated key structured settlement stakeholders have succumbed to "path dependence" by failing to strategically study and analyze continuing industry changes. Structured settlement business models and practices that once made sense and represented "industry standards", according to Hindert, have survived despite the eclipse of their justification, benefit and/or better alternatives.

Hindert described settlement planning as an "emergent system" and quoted John McWhorter, a linguist at Columbia University, to help explain the significance for structured settlements:

"Emergent systems [settlement planning] are ones in which many different elements interact. The pattern of interaction then produces a new element [settlement planning] that is greater than the sum of the parts, which then exercises a top-down influence on the constituent elements [including structured settlements]."

To improve and grow the structured settlement market, Hindert recommended more detailed and comprehensive study of alternative structured settlement payment models and life cycles within the broader context of settlement planning as an important and necessary first step.

Mark Popolizio

A nationally recognized legal authority in Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) compliance and a current board member of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), Popolizio addressed how Medicare impacts settlement planning. Starting with an introductory Medicare road map, he next discussed CMS' reimbursement rights for conditional Medicare payments - who is at risk; what is Medicare's recovery amount; how to challenge conditional payments; how to obtain information; CMS' most recently announced policies and payment options; and recent case law developments.

Popolizio also discussed Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs), in the context of both workers compensation and liability cases, as CMS' recommended method for protecting Medicare's future interests under the MSP Act. For liability cases, he began by emphasizing why the key issue is not: "Are liability MSAs required?" Instead, Popolizio reviewed two recent CMS memoranda providing informal information about how CMS looks at liability MSAs. Finally, Popolizio offered his own recommendations (a three-step process) for approaching the liability MSA issue and also reviewed recent related case law.

Jeremy Babener

Babener, a rising star among structured settlement legal and tax experts, offered a comprehensive overview of "Taxation in Personal Injury Cases". He began by outlining sources for tax authority, the variables for tax liability and the character of income. Next, he discussed the exclusion for personal injury damages and explained the language of IRC 104(a)(2) before addressing other damages in personal injury cases - past and future medical expenses; punitive damages; and pre and post-judgment interest.

Babener explained the importance of documentation, including the complaint and the settlement agreement, to maximize the exclusion for personal injury damages. He highlighted specific facts that frequently create problems with the IRS and conversely how to encourage the IRS to respect the documents so as to obtain the preferred tax result. Babener concluded by addressing these additional settlement tax considerations: legal expenses; structured settlements; qualified settlement funds; and transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Jack Meligan

Meligan, a founder and current President of the SSP, discussed "Pitfalls in Settlement Planning and How to Avoid Malpractice"; offered reasons why personal injury claimants and their attorneys need settlement planning advice from a qualified professional or team of professionals; and reviewed an example of a settlement plan. In addition, Meligan:

• Summarized three cases (Grillo; Lyons; and Spencer) to demonstrate why structured settlements need to be considered and risks associated with certain business behavior;
• Cited statistics from American Bar Association studies to underscore the frequency and risk of malpractice cases against personal injury attorneys;
• Spotlighted danger areas for plaintiff attorneys: MSP compliance; deductability of attorney fees; and documentation of confidentiality clauses; and
• Cautioned plaintiff attorneys against failing to retain an independent settlement advisor; or to advise their clients about all settlement options (including the pros and cons of structured settlements); or to completely document their files as proof of their best practices.

Professor Carl Pierce

Professor Pierce is the W. Allen Separk Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Howard Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy at the University of Tennessee. Among his professional activities, Professor Pierce has served as Reporter for the Tennessee Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism and as Associate Reporter for the American Bar Association Special Commission on Evaluation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. During 2007-2008, Professor Pierce served as Consultant to the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and helped review and draft the SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners (SSP Standards).

Professor Pierce provided a summary comparative analysis of both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Statement of Ethics and Professional Responsibility (NSSTA Code of Ethics) and the SSP Standards. Despite substantial experience working with litigators, Professor Pierce acknowledged surprise by the degree of hostility between some plaintiff and defense structured settlement consultants. Professor Pierce:

• Observed that all law school graduates need some exposure to structured settlements and settlement planning;
• Suggested that the business collaboration models among insurance companies, plaintiff attorneys and settlement planners could look very different in the future; and
• Recommended that representatives of NSSTA and SSP meet to discuss and compare their respective statements of ethics and standards.

Congratulations to Richard Risk, the University of Tulsa College of Law and the guest speakers who participated in the Settlement Planning Practicum. S2KM understands that Tulsa College of Law will publish a video compilation of the practicum speaker presentations on YouTube.

Spring 2012 Conferences

During the next four weeks, S2KM will attend and review three professional educational conferences addressing structured settlement and settlement planning issues:

• Richard B. Risk Jr. Settlement Planning Practicum
• National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Annual Meeting
• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) Annual Meeting

Risk Practicum

A national authority on structured settlement law, Richard Risk has endowed a series of annual settlement planning "practicums" at his law school alma mater, The University of Tulsa College of Law. Risk believes the 2012 practicum, scheduled for April 13-14, will represent the first time any law school in the country has formally recognized settlement planning as a topic of legal education. Speakers: Joseph Tombs; Patrick Hindert; Mark Popolizio; Jeremy Babener; Jack Meligan; Carl Pierce.

NSSTA Annual Meeting

NSSTA's Annual Meeting, scheduled for April 25-27 in Washington, D.C., will feature a mixed agenda of business and political meetings; NSSTA "Takes the Hill" meetings with Members of Congress and senior Congressional Staffers; plus an educational program headlined by Senator Max Baucus, Congressman Richard Neal, NOLHGA Chairman Thomas Ronce and President Peter Gallanis, Mike Montemurro of the IRS, a Congressional Chiefs of Staff panel, plus various NSSTA leaders and property & casualty insurance representatives.

SSP Annual Meeting

SSP will host its Annual Meeting April 29-May 1 in Las Vegas. The SSP educational program will feature 27 speakers discussing strategies to improve and grow the settlement planning market. Some of the SSP presentation categories:

• Revitalizing and reinventing structured settlements
• New NAIC annuity regulations
• Insurance, investment and administrative options
• Tax developments, strategies and legislative proposals
• Medicare (MSA) and Medicaid (SNT) updates
• What ELNY means for settlement planners

In addition to these three 2012 conferences, S2KM previously attended and reviewed the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) 2012 Annual Meeting. For S2KM's complete reporting about professional associations whose members participate in structured settlements and settlement planning, see the structured settlement wiki.

S2P2J Release 51

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates an April 2012 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for Release 51 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). Online S2P2J will also be updated April 2012 to include Release 51 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.

Release 51 Highlights

Release 51 for "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" features a comprehensive Executive Life update including expanded and updated coverage for the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation proceedings now in progress. In related reporting, Release 51 also:

• Expands and updates prior reporting for life insurance insolvency procedures and state guaranty association laws;
• Offers advice to plaintiff attorneys about how to address the risk of non-payment by annuity providers; and
• Summarizes recent case developments impacting Aurora, the successor company to Executive Life Insurance Company of California (ELIC),

Release 51 also updates Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) developments and conditional Medicare payment requirements. Contributing author Peter H. Wayne IV provides current analysis and advice about Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) arrangements in liability cases discussing new and related case law, new CMS pronouncements and new CMS field office guidance with practice tips for structured settlement and settlement planning consultants, attorneys and claim supervisors.

Release 51 expands existing coverage of structured settlement business standards and practices including analysis of the following legislation impacting settlement planners:

• The NAIC Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation;
• The NAIC Annuity Disclosure Model Regulation;
• Dodd-Frank's impact on fiduciary and suitability standards; and
• The Uniform Prudent Investor Act.

Other topics addressed in Release 51:

• Structured settlement metrics for defendants and liability insurers.
• The Treasury's final regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2) incorporating amendments resulting from the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996.
• The new IRS Lawsuits, Awards and Settlements Audit Techniques Guide.

"Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" is now available in both hardcopy and online versions. For summaries of prior Release Highlights, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 4

The Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Hearing enters its seventh day today before Judge John M. Galasso in Room 35 of the Nassau County State Supreme Court Building in Mineola, New York. This blog post provides a summary update for S2KM readers. Note: see also the Addendum.

Days 1 and 2 - Attorneys for ELNY's Receiver, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), and the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) present their case for ELNY's liquidation and approval of a proposed Restructuring Agreement to create successor company Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC). They present two witnesses: Jonathan Bing, Special Deputy Superintendent of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), and expert witness Jack Gibson, a Managing Director of Towers Watson.

Attorneys for ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims cross examine Bing and begin their cross-examination of Gibson. Before the Superintendent's attorneys complete their case, Judge Galasso allows ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims attending the hearing to offer oral testimony as an accommodation to their travel schedules.

Day 3 - Attorneys for ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims continue their cross examination of Gibson. Judge Galasso denies their motion to compel immediate disclosure of source materials relied upon by Gibson as well as copies of all objections filed in connection with the Petition to liquidate and restructure ELNY.

Attorneys for the shortfall victims had argued that claims of confidentiality by the Superintendent intentionally deprived their clients of full and fair access to important and relevant information and, accordingly, a full and fair opportunity to challenge the Superintendent's proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement. They also claimed it is "extremely prejudicial" to require them to cross-examine Gibson ("a highly skilled actuary") without access to the source data and assumptions he used to perform his calculations.

Day 4 - Attorneys representing ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims continue cross-examining Gibson. Judge Galasso agrees to two of their requests: a reservation of rights to call a witness representing NOLHGA to testify about participating Guaranty Association (PGA) coverage amounts and issues; and a Microsoft Excel version of Schedule 1.15 of the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement. In addition to Day 2 testimony from ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims, their attorneys have also entered documents into the Court record including:

• Written and oral statements by ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims;
• A Society of Actuaries Structured Settlement Mortality Study;
• An article titled "The Trouble with ELNY" written by Peter Bickford.

Day 5 - Attorneys from Hogan Lovells, representing Travelers Insurance Company as an "Objector", use their opportunity to cross-examine Gibson to show their support for the proposed Restructuring Agreement. Note: Hogan Lovells also serves as General Counsel for the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA).

Cynthia Lindsey, an attorney representing a Michigan structured settlement shortfall victim, reaches the opposite conclusion during her cross examination of Gibson. After quoting dictionary definitions for "fair" and "just", Lindsey characterizes the proposed Restructuring Agreement as "a bunch of bull" telling Gibson: "You are asking this Honorable Court to approve this plan based upon your assumptions. You don't have facts." After repeated questioning by Lindsey, Gibson acknowledges NOLHGA has paid Gibson's employer, Towers Watson, "more than $3 million" since 2006 for their ELNY consulting work.

On re-direct examination, attorneys for the Superintendent (Sidley Austin) and NOLHGA (Faegre Baker Daniels) encourage Gibson to repeat claims from his earlier testimony that the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement represents the "best plan" and that none of the ELNY payees will be worse off compared with a straight liquidation.

Day 6 - Edward Stone, an attorney representing several structured settlement shortfall victims, continues questioning Gibson on re-cross examination. Stone questions whether all shortfall victims will be better off under the proposed Restructuring Agreement compared with a straight liquidation. In a straight liquidation, ELNY shortfall victims could receive full coverage payments from PGAs instead of net payments under the proposed Restructuring Agreement. Stone also introduces the idea of an alternative restructuring plan for ELNY and asks Gibson whether he considered various plan options.

Among Stone's suggested alternatives: 1) discounting ELNY's future deferred lump sum obligations to reduce ELNY's future liabilities and provide immediate cash for ELNY payees; and 2) selling ELNY to an existing life insurance company that could benefit from (and pay a premium for) ELNY's net operating loss carryforwards. Note: in an earlier interview with the Courthouse News Service, Stone stated he could develop a more "fair and equitable" alternative ELNY restructuring plan if he had access to the same information provided NOLHGA and Gibson since 2006.

When Gibson finally steps down (after six days of testimony and cross-examination), attorneys for the Superintendent and NOLHGA call NOLHGA's President, Peter Gallanis as a witness. On cross-examination, Carrie Tendler, an attorney representing multiple structured settlement shortfall victims, gets Gallanis to confirm that PGA contributions under the Superintendent's proposed Restructuring Agreement will be "net amounts" - i.e. their full coverage caps minus credits for current ELNY assets.

The ELNY Liquidation Hearing resumes Friday March 23, 2012 with Tendler continuing her cross-examination of Gallanis. For S2KM's complete reporting about ELNY, see the structured settlement wiki.

Day 7 ADDENDUM - Testimony by, and cross-examination of, NOLHGA's President Peter Gallanis continued on Friday March 23 eliciting the following information: Gallanis acknowleged GABC has not yet selected an investment manager or developed an investment strategy. Attorneys for structured settlement shortfall victims raised two issues related to the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement:

• Orphan contract enhancements create a potential public policy issue because they shift available funds that could be paid to other ELNY shortfall payees.
• If an ELNY structured settlement payee with life contingent payments dies, that payee could receive less than the present value posted on Schedule 1.15 creating a potential legal claim for his/her estate.

The ELNY Hearing continues on Monday March 26 with attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims expected to present witnesses.

Product Suitability Standards - 4

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

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

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

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

Fiduciary Standard

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

Model Annuity Regulations

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

A Hall Pass?

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

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

Three-Card Monte

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

Misrepresentations or omission of material facts

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

Product Suitability Standards - 3

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

In two prior blog posts, S2KM has addressed these issues in the context of:

• Part 1 - NSSTA's Code of Ethics; SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct; and the NAIC's Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation.
• Part 2 - Minors' statutes and state structured settlement protection statutes.

This blog post discusses product suitability standards created by the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) and highlights a general trend to create a more uniform fiduciary, and/or "best interest", standard of care to protect investors.

UPIA

When investing and managing assets (including settlement proceeds and structured settlement annuity payments), trustees historically have been held to a fiduciary standard. According to uslegal.com, "[A] fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party..... A person acting in a fiduciary capacity is held to a high standard of honesty and full disclosure in regard to the client and must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of the client." (emphasis added)

More recently and comprehensively, a trustee's investment responsibilities have been re-defined legislatively by the UPIA which was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) in 1994 and approved by the American Bar Association in 1995. The UPIA now serves as the most important reference, external to the trust document itself, for trustees to determine what fiduciary duties their position requires. With some state-specific modifications, 41 states, U.S. Virgin Island, and the District of Columbia have adopted the UPIA.

Prior to the UPIA, courts applied the "prudent man rule" when evaluating trustee investment performance. The prudent man rule required trustees “to observe how men of prudence, discretion and intelligence manage their own affairs, not in regard to speculation, but in regard to the permanent disposition of their funds, considering probable income, as well as the probable safety of the capital to be invested.”

The UPIA, by contrast, adopts "modern portfolio theory" as a different and more appropriate standard for trustees. Compared with the prudent man rule, modern portfolio theory promotes a holistic view of trust assets by focusing on the total return generated by a trust as opposed to viewing a trust's income and principal separately. By viewing all investments comprehensively, modern portfolio theory and the UPIA hold that a trustee (or other investor) can achieve a positive overall investment return despite the poor performance of specific investments. This new standard allows for greater investment diversification so long as the risk/reward ratio matches the purposes and terms of the trust instrument.

Section 2(c) of the UPIA identifies eight factors a trustee should consider when making any investment:

• General economic conditions;
• The possible effect of inflation or deflation;
• The expected tax consequences of investment decisions or strategies;
• The role that each investment or course of action plays within the overall trust portfolio;
• The expected total return from income and appreciation of capital;
• Other resources of the beneficiaries;
• Needs for liquidity, regularity of income, and preservation or appreciation of capital; and
• An asset’s relationship of special value, if any, to the purposes of the trust or to one or more of the beneficiaries.

Significant for structured settlement annuities, the UPIA's list of investment considerations fails to mention mental or physical disabilities of a trust beneficiary. From a settlement planning and/or special needs perspective, injuries or diseases that reduce an individual's normal life expectancy arguably should receive important consideration when a trustee makes investment decisions.

Dodd-Frank

President Obama signed Dodd-Frank into law on July 21, 2010. Among other reforms, this sweeping legislation created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO). CFPB's central mission is "to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans ....." Among its core functions are addressing consumer complaints and restricting unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices under the Federal consumer financial laws. Dodd-Frank provides the CFPB with significant authority that goes beyond existing consumer protection statutes. CFPB has broad authority to ask questions and demand information including consumer complaints. The FIO is part of the U.S. Department of Treasury and has authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry.

In addition to creating the CFPB and the FIO, Dodd-Frank directed the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to study the need for a new, uniform, federal fiduciary standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers and to apply such a uniform standard if it deemed necessary. The SEC's assignment also required determining the existence of any gaps, shortcomings, or overlaps in legal or regulatory standards for the protection of retail customers.

Historically, investment advisers and broker-dealers have been subject to differing standards of care. Investment advisers are defined under Federal law as persons who “engage in the business of advising others. . .as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities. . .” [15 U.S.C. § 80b-2] They are regulated under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and owe a fiduciary duty to their clients.

Broker-dealers are defined under Federal law as persons who engage in “the business of offering, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing or trading in securities. . .” [15 U.S.C. § 78b(12)] and may provide a variety of related services. Broker-dealers generally are not subject to any fiduciary duty under the federal securities laws. They do, however, have a duty of fair dealing which includes a “suitability” standard - i.e. broker-dealers must make recommendations that are consistent with the interests of their customers.

Adding further uncertainty for investors, the existing legislative and regulatory system, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), also "leaves states free to develop their own often conflicting definitions of fiduciary standards. This can confuse investors and lead to inconsistent definitions and interpretations under existing state law." SIFMA has recommended adoption of a uniform definition of "fiduciary duty" applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers that includes both a duty of care and a duty of loyalty. These duties, according to SIFMA, should require both broker-dealers and investment advisers "to act in the best interest of the customer, and to provide full and fair disclosure of material facts and conflicts of interest."

In January 2011, the SEC submitted its "fiduciary standard" study to Congress recommending the adoption of a uniform fiduciary standard for investment advisers and broker-dealers when providing investment advice to retail customers. The SEC's proposed standard would be “no less stringent” than the standard currently applicable to investment advisers, and would include the duty to act in the "best interest" of the customer.

Structured Settlement Annuities

Why are the UPIA and Dodd-Frank relevant and important for structured settlement stakeholders?

• Structured settlement annuities increasingly are paid into trusts (UPIA) that also include financial securities (Dodd-Frank).
• Settlement planners, as opposed to traditional structured settlement sales persons, are increasingly licensed to sell financial securities as well as insurance products.
• The UPIA (settlement trustees) and Dodd-Frank (financial planners; investment advisers; broker-dealers) directly impact structured settlement competitors.
• To be successful in the changing financial and insurance environment, anyone selling structured settlement annuities must understand and compete against the highest product suitability standards and best business practices.

Given the diversity, uncertainty and transition of various product suitability standards, how should structured settlement stakeholders address the issue of whether a structured settlement is appropriate for individual physical personal injury claimants? S2KM will offer practical case-specific advice and strategic industry advice in its next blog post.

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

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).

Product Suitability Standards - 1

To what professional "product suitability standards", if any, should structured settlement "consultants" be held responsible when they recommend structured settlement annuities for claimants in the context of personal injury settlements? And where should they look for guidance?

Should it matter:

• Whether the structured settlement consultant is working on behalf of the defendant or the plaintiff?
• Whether the structured settlement consultant is also a:
  • Registered Settlement Planner (RSP); or a,
  • Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC); or a,
  • Registered Representative (RR); or a,
  • Certified Financial Planner (CFP); or a,
  • Registered Investment Adviser (RIA)?
• Whether the proposed structured settlement annuity will be paid into a trust set up for the claimant as opposed to the claimant directly?

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) is the largest national structured settlement professional association in the United States.  NSSTA has adopted a "Statement of Ethics and Professional Responsibility" (Code of Ethics) to provide "guiding principles" to its members and member organizations.  The Preamble to NSSTA's Code of Ethics provides:

"Implicit in the acceptance of this Statement is an obligation to act in a professionally responsible and ethical manner when providing structured settlement services."

Although Principle VI directs NSSTA members to:

"…comply with all material federal and state laws and regulations applicable to the structured settlement services that are provided",

NSSTA's Code of Ethics does not directly address product suitability standards. Nor does NSSTA's Code of Ethics include any penalties or enforcement procedures for member violations.

By comparison, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), whose members also sell structured settlement annuities, has adopted the "Standards of Professional Conduct For Settlement Planners" (Standards of Conduct).  Related to product suitability, Rule 5 (Conflict of Interest and Loyalty) of SSP's Standards of Conduct states in part:

"A settlement planner shall make and implement only recommendations that are appropriate for the client and consistent with the client’s objectives" (emphasis added).

In the event of a conflict between SSP's Standards of Conduct and any:

"laws, court rules, licensure requirements or other standards imposed on any regulated profession such as law, accounting, financial planning, securities trading or insurance", the SSP's members "should abide by the laws or professional standards imposed on the members discipline (emphasis added) ..."

Rule 5 also requires SSP members to obtain their client's "informed consent" which their Standards of Conduct define as:

"…agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the settlement planner has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct."

The Preamble to SSP's Standards of Conduct addresses enforcement, stating in part:

"Compliance with these Rules depends upon voluntary adherence and, secondarily, upon reinforcement by peer and public opinion.....Although it is not intended that a violation of these Rules will, in itself, subject a settlement planner to civil liability to a person injured by such a violation, it is expected that these rules may be used as evidence of the conduct expected of reasonable settlement planners."

What does "appropriate" mean under the SSP Standards of Conduct? And what "laws or professional standards" could impact whether a structured settlement is appropriate for a particular injury victim?

One potential source for answers is the "Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation" (Suitability Regulation) promulgated and most recently revised in 2010 by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and subsequently enacted by several states.  The purpose of the NAIC Suitability Regulation is:

“…to require insurers to establish a system to supervise recommendations and to set forth standards and procedures for recommendations to consumers that result in transactions involving annuity products so that the insurance needs and financial objectives of consumers at the time of the transaction are appropriately addressed."  However, the NAIC Suitability Regulation adds:  "Nothing herein shall be construed to create or imply a private cause of action for a violation of this regulation."

Section 6A of the NAIC Suitability Regulation provides in part:

"In recommending to a consumer the purchase of an annuity or the exchange of an annuity that results in another insurance transaction or series of insurance transactions, the insurance producer, or the insurer where no producer is involved, shall have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable for the consumer on the basis of the facts disclosed by the consumer as to his or her investments or other insurance products and as to his or her financial situation and needs, including the consumer's suitability information ..."

The NAIC Suitability Regulation defines "suitability information" to include: age; annual income; financial situation and needs, including financial resources used for the funding of the annuity; financial experience; financial objectives; intended use of the annuity; financial time horizon; existing assets, including investment and life insurance holdings; liquidity needs; liquid net worth; risk tolerance; and tax status; prescribes duties and penalties for insurers and insurance producers.

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 where no producer is involved, that results in the purchase, exchange or replacement recommended."

Significantly for structured settlements, however, Section 4 of the NAIC Suitability Regulation exempts "settlements of or assumptions of liabilities associated with personal injury litigation or any dispute or claim resolution process".

Does this exemption encompass structured settlements?

By way of explanation, the legislative history of the NAIC Suitability Regulation specifically references "structured settlements" and adds:

"A regulator pointed out that this type of contract did not generally result from a recommendation by an insurer or producer but agreed that it did not hurt to have the exemption there."

If the NAIC Suitability Regulation exempts structured settlements, why is it relevant to structured settlement consultants and/or settlement planners?

• First, some structured settlement consultants and most settlement planners also sell annuity products (example SPIAs) that are covered by the NAIC Suitability Regulation.
• Second, some states now require all licensed insurance agents to complete a one-time annuity suitability training program as a condition for selling any annuity products. NSSTA already offers qualifying training programs for its members.

• Third, some structured settlement consultants may also be licensed to sell financial securities in addition to annuity products and may therefore be held to a higher product suitability standard by their broker-dealer.

• Fourth, some structured settlement consultants and/or annuity providers may proactively decide to adopt product suitability standards regardless of legal requirements. See, for example, the SSP "appropriate" standard highlighted above. Also note: under Section 8 of the NAIC Suitability Regulation, insurers are responsible for compliance and subject to penalties for non-compliance.
• Fifth, many structured settlement competitors (examples: financial planners and settlement trustees) are held to higher, more specific product suitability standards. To improve their sales success, structured settlement consultants should understand their competitors' product suitability standards including "fiduciary" and "best interest" standards in addition to, and in contrast with, the NAIC annuity suitability standard.

In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will identify and discuss product suitability legislation and regulations, in addition to the NAIC Suitability Regulation, that could impact structured settlement consultants and settlement planners.

For additional S2KM blog posts concerning structured settlement business standards and practices, see the structured settlement wiki and Section 6.02 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).