Beyond Structured Settlements

SEC Bulletin Addresses Structured Settlement Transfers

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has issued an Investor Bulletin titled "Pension or Settlement Income Streams: What You Need to Know Before Buying or Selling Them". 

Although the SEC Investor Bulletin "is neither a legal interpretation nor a statement of SEC policy" it provides advice for individuals who are contemplating selling or purchasing (as investors) structured settlement payment rights and/or future pension payments.

The Investor Bulletin highlights questions potential sellers and investors should ask before proceeding with proposed transactions.

For sellers:

• "Is the transaction legal?"
• "Is the transaction worth the cost?"
• "What is the reputation of the company offering the lump sum?"
• "Will the factoring company require life insurance?"
• "What are the tax consequences?"
• "Does the sale fit your longer term financial goals?"

For investors:

• "Is the financial professional selling the product registered with a state or federal regulator or with FINRA?"
• "How is the salesperson being compensated?"
• "Is the salesperson authorized to sell this product?"
• "What is the reputation of the company selling the product to me?"
• "What are the tax consequences?"
• "What organization is ultimately paying you?"
• "Who is sending the check?"

To check the registration status of a salesperson, the SEC Bulletin recommends investors check these resources:

• The SEC's Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website.
• FINRA's BrokerCheck or telephone number (800-289-9999).
• Your state securities regulator.
• The NAIC's website or telephone number (866-470-6242) for your state's insurance commission.

The SEC's Investor Bulletin includes a number of additional warnings and resource links and concludes with the following admonition:

"Whether you are thinking about selling a pension or structured settlement, or buying one from someone else, remember that the risks in doing so are substantial and the safety net if things go wrong may not be very strong. Don’t shy away from asking probing questions—and shop around. there may be less risky alternatives to help you achieve your financial objectives."

Also note: The SEC Investor Bulletin provides a generic definition for a structured settlement plus an indirect reference to state structured settlement protection statutes. It does not, however, specifically reference or discuss the definitions, requirements and protections for structured settlement transfers provided in:

• Internal Revenue Code section 5891; and
• The state structured settlement protection statutes.

For a detailed analysis of transfers of structured settlement payment rights, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

For S2KM's complete reporting about the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.

Secondary Market Update

DBRS 2013 Outlook

DBRS, a rating agency that covers various structured finance product groups including structured settlement payment rights, has published its 2013 Outlook for commercial asset-backed securities. Among DBRS' observations and projections for the structured settlement secondary market:

• "From the structural and rating perspective, implementation of the restructuring plan for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York provides a rare and valuable glimpse into the insurer liquidation process and adds evidence to the expected recovery proceeds assumptions in case of default by an insurer in the future."
• "Based on the estimated 15% increase in issuance in 2012 to $630 million, DBRS expects further 10%+ increase in issuance in 2013 amid the continuing popularity of the asset class among certain investors."
• "Expected steady collateral performance in 2013 will be supported by low delinquencies and improving condition of the insurance industry."

Based upon interviews with industry experts, S2KM previously estimated total 2012 structured settlement secondary market profit of $120 million calculated as follows:

• $1 billion received from investors;
• Less: $360 million paid to transferors;
• Equals: $640 million of revenue;
• Less: $520 million of expenses;
• Equals: $120 million of profits.

The difference between S2KM's estimated "$1 billion received from investors" and DBRS' estimated $630 million of "issuance" (meaning presumably "total face amount of structured settlement collateral debt obligations sold to investors") can be explained by two factors according to industry experts:

• Except for J.G. Wentworth (JGW) and Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree), most structured settlement factoring companies and brokers currently do not obtain financial ratings when they re-sell structured settlement payment rights.
• JGW, Peachtree and other issuers of rated bonds backed by structured settlement payment rights in 2012 may receive as much as $50 million of additional income from investors in the form of residuals, servicing rights and other income over time.

Drinker Biddle Structured Settlement Alert 

Drinker Biddle's website features summaries of two recent cases where state court judges in Florida and California have denied proposed transfers of structured settlement payments rights paid pursuant to awards under the Longshore Act and the California workers compensation statute, respectively.

In each case, the objecting structured settlement annuity issuer was represented by Drinker Biddle attorneys.

In the Florida case (In Re: Approval for Transfer of Structured Settlement Proceeds by Derrick Robotham), Circuit Court Judge Michelle Morley held the proposed transfer would contravene Federal law which prohibits assignment of Longshore Act payments. It would not, therefore, satisfy the requirements of the Florida structured settlement protection act which prohibits transfers that would violate or conflict with any applicable law.

In the California case (In Re Rudy Andrade), Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue applied similar reasoning in denying a petition seeking court approval for the transfer of a payee’s rights to payments under a workers’ compensation settlement. Among other findings, Judge Hogue held that the California structured settlement statute does not apply to transfers of workers' compensation payments. In addition, according to the Judge, the proposed transfer contravened: 1) the California Labor Code which prohibits assignment of workers' compensation payments; 2) California common law because the release agreement signed by the payee prohibited assignment of payments; and 3) a prior order of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that also expressly prohibited assignment of the payments.

Additional Resources

For S2KM's complete reporting about the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.

For more comprehensive legal analysis about transfers of structured settlement payment rights, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Structured Settlements in 2012 - 3

Secondary Market

In contrast to anticipated 2012 sales declines in the U.S structured settlement primary market, industry experts interviewed by S2KM agree the U.S. structured settlement secondary market achieved record sales and profits in 2012. 

S2KM secondary market estimates for 2012 - based on interviews with industry experts:

• 12,000 secondary market transfers - with less than 120 contested by annuity owners and/or providers.
• $360 million of total secondary market purchases (money paid to transferors).
• $30,000 average individual transfer.
• Average discount rates in the low double digits - with the lowest average discount rates (high single digits) provided by AllState's commutations.
• Total industry profit of $120 million calculated as follows:
  • $1 billion received from investors;
  • Less: $360 million paid to transferors;
  • Equals: $640 million of revenue;
  • Less: $520 million of expenses;
  • Equals: $120 million of profits.

Discount Rates

• As explained by Earl Nesbitt, Executive Director of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP), during his presentation at the NASP 2011 Annual Meeting: the concepts of "discount rate" and "discounted present value" both 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."

• Secondary market experts interviewed by S2KM agree generally that discount rates for structured settlement transfers were "low" during 2012 compared with prior years - especially when compared with 2009 when discount rates were exceptionally "high" as a result of the 2008 financial crisis.
• "Average" discount rates are difficult to define because many factors determine the discount rate for a specific case. For examples: cost and availability of funds; single vs. multiple bid transactions; duration and amount of payments; and whether payments are certain or life contingent.
• During his 2011 NASP presentation, Nesbitt summarized these results from a 2011 survey he conducted of the discount rates approved by judges in Harris County Texas:
  • 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.

Market Shares

• Industry experts interviewed by S2KM disagree on who controls what percentages of the structured settlement secondary market.
• Estimates of the post-merger 2012 market share (revenue and sales) of the now-combined J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Financial Solutions (JGW/Peachtree) vary from a low of 50% to a high of 75%.
• The remaining 2012 market shares (revenue and number of transfers) are believed to be split relatively evenly among other NASP members and non-NASP members including re-sellers.
• Not all secondary market participants, however, share equally in industry profits.
• Some industry experts believe JGW/Peachtree's share of the estimated 2012 industry profits of $120 million was $100 million, or 83%.
• Many new secondary market participants, including re-sellers, who began entering the market in 2009, are experiencing lower profits (or losses) in 2012 according to industry experts interviewed by S2KM. In addition, attorneys representing insurance companies report these newer (non-NASP member) factoring companies and re-sellers frequently lack legal and transactional knowledge ("don't know what they are doing") and cause an inordinate number of transfer problems.

Primary Market Response

As S2KM previously reported, continuing secondary market sales growth has occurred despite restrictive actions by primary structured settlement participants. Examples:

• The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) continues to prohibit its members from "actively soliciting and promoting structured settlement factoring transactions to individuals who are receiving periodic payments under structured settlements?"
• In Stone Street Capital v. McClendon, a Louisiana state court ruled that Travelers Insurance, as owner of structured settlement annuities, had no right to order structured settlement annuity issuers (in this case MetLife) to stop making payments to transfer companies following the death of the original annuitant/payees because of the existing court orders approving those transfers.

Historic Metrics

Based upon interviews with industry experts and DBRS' June 8, 2011 Pre-Sale Report for J.G. Wentworth's Fixed Rate Asset-Backed Notes Series 2011-1, S2KM estimates the following historic (1986-2012) structured settlement secondary market metrics:

• 136,000 transfers - involving 68,000 structured settlement recipients.
• $4 billion - aggregate sums paid to transferor structured settlement recipients. For comparison, S2KM estimates the primary market has sold $134 billion of structured settlement annuities since 1975.
• $10.4 billion - aggregate periodic payments purchased by secondary market companies.

2012 Secondary Market Developments

• Vermont became the 48th state to enact a structured settlement protection statute. The new Vermont statute is generally based upon the NCOIL Model Act with some variations related to independent professional advisors, notice requirements for certain state agencies and the required court appearance by the structured settlement payee.
• JLL Partners, owners of J.G. Wentworth, are reportedly attempting to sell the company for $1 billion with several private-equity firms identified as potential purchasers.

For additional S2KM structured settlement secondary market reporting and resources, see the structured settlement wiki.

Additional post in S2KM's blog series: "Structured Settlements in 2012":

• Part 1 - Primary market

• Part 2 - Settlement planning

• Part 3 - Secondary market

• Part 4 - Executive Life of New York

Stone Street Capital v. McClendon

A Louisiana state court has ruled in Stone Street Capital v. McClendon that MetLife and Travelers had no right to withhold a structured settlement payment from Stone Street Capital which Stone Street had previously purchased, with court approval pursuant to the Louisiana structured settlement protection act, despite the original annuitant/payee's death prior to the payment date.

This 2012 case, which was featured in a presentation by Earl Nesbitt at the NASP 2012 Annual Conference, reinforces the finality of settlement transfer orders. According to Nesbitt, it also calls into question other cases where Travelers, as owner of structured settlement annuities, has ordered structured settlement annuity issuers to stop making payments to transfer companies following the death of the original annuitant/payees despite existing court orders approving those transfers.

Background

• In 1990, Shelia McClendon entered into a structured settlement in which Travelers Insurance Company, as assignee, purchased an annuity from Travelers Life and Annuity Company, which later became MetLife Annuity Company of Connecticut in 2006.
• On July 27, 2007, Shelia McClendon entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Stone Street Capital to sell her right to a $51,800.51 payment due October 15, 2010.
• On September 20, 2007 the same court which subsequently heard the Stone Street v. McClendon case signed an order approving the transfer.
• In the 2007 transfer proceeding, Stone Street gave proper notice to MetLife (as annuity issuer) and Travelers (as annuity owner) neither of whom raised any objections.
• MetLife subsequently sent a letter to Stone Street advising that MetLife would make the assigned payment to Stone Street in compliance with the order.
• The transfer order provided an indemnity, allegedly requested by Travelers and MetLife, to protect them from any further suit by any party asserting an ownership claim or a right to the assigned payment.
• Shelia McClendon died in 2008.
• Pursuant to instructions from Travelers, MetLife did not pay Stone Street the October 15, 2010 payment when due.
• Following Stone Street's inquiry, MetLife and Travelers informed Stone Street that other persons had competing demands for the October 15, 2010 payment and, to resolve the conflict, Stone Street must file a declaratory judgment action which Stone Street did file.
• On July 15, 2011, Travelers filed a preemptory exception of nonjoinder of indispensable parties.
• Travelers' exception claimed Shelia McClendon had passed away and that both her estate and the estate of Peatrice Jackson, whom Travelers claimed was the annuity beneficiary, were indispensable parties to Stone Street's declaratory judgment lawsuit.
• On August 4, 2011 MetLife answered Stone Street's petition and included a reconventional demand for consursus (a form of interpleader).
• None of the parties disputed, either at the time of the 2007 transfer hearing or at the time of the subsequent declaratory judgment suit, that Stone Street properly complied with Louisiana's structured settlement protection act.

Stone Street's Argument

• The declaratory judgment action was filed against MetLife and Travelers and also against the parties Travelers told Stone Street to file against.
• Stone Street subsequently asserted, however, that MetLife was the only party against whom Stone Street needed a judgment in this lawsuit.
• Therefore, Stone Street asked that everyone else be dismissed from Stone Street's motion for summary judgment.
• According to Stone Street, the declaratory judgment proceeding should not have been necessary.
• Stone Street fully complied with the Louisiana structured settlement protection act and a transfer order was previously entered without objections from MetLife or Travelers.
• The 2007 transfer order required MetLife to make the October 15, 2010 payment to Stone Street.
• MetLife ignored their own prior letter wherein MetLife stated it received the order and agreed to comply.
• The principle of res judicata should prevent MetLife from pleading concursus because its claim was previously prosecuted to judgment.
• Traveler's request for a declaratory judgment and MetLife's consursus proceeding represented "improper accumulations of actions".
• Although some state structured settlement protection statutes require a change of annuity beneficiary, the Louisiana statute does not because beneficiaries are not required to receive notice or be named parties.
• Louisiana law further holds:
  • Until a person dies that person has the right to sell assets that person owns.
  • Except for irrevocable beneficiaries, no one has a vested right to the status of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract if the death of the insured has not occurred.

MetLife's Argument

• Neither MetLife nor Travelers were parties to the 2007 transfer order so that order had no res judicata effect on MetLife.
• Travelers, the annuity owner, told MetLife not to make the October 15, 2010 payment to Stone Street.
• Nothing in the 2007 transfer order addressed what would happen to the October 15, 2010 payment if Shelia McClendon died prior to that date.
• When Shelia McClendon died, her named beneficiary in the annuity contract was Peatrice Jackson who predeceased McClendon.
• Peatrice Jackson's heirs filed a competing claim for the October 15, 2010 payment.
• Although Stone Street alleges Shelia McClendon filed a request to change her annuity beneficiary, neither MetLife nor Travelers had any record of receiving this request.
• Because a discrepancy existed among the documents submitted to MetLife, a concursus proceeding became necessary and appropriate.

Travelers' Argument

• The Louisiana structured settlement protection act did not impact Shelia McClendon's settlement agreement.
• The settlement agreement remained valid even following the transfer agreement.
• The transfer agreement did not change either the settlement agreement or the annuity contract beneficiary designation.
• The settlement agreement and the annuity contract both provide that Peatrice Jackson, the named beneficiary, would receive the future payments in the event of Shelia McClendon's death.
• If Stone Street and Shelia McClendon had followed through on their request to name Stone Street the annuity beneficiary, this declaratory judgment lawsuit would not have been necessary.
• Travelers had no proof that Shelia McClendon made any attempt to initiate a beneficiary change.
• Therefore, material issues of fact existed concerning: 1) who was Shelia McClendon's rightful beneficiary; and 2) who was entitled to the October 15, 2010 payment.

Judgment - Louisiana District Court Judge Kay Bates:

• Dismissed MetLife's concursus with prejudice and costs payable by MetLife.
• Denied Travelers' exception of failure to join indispensable parties with costs payable by Travelers.
• Granted Stone Street's motion for summary judgment with costs payable by MetLife.
• Granted Stone Street's motion to dismiss the other defendants without prejudice.
• Ordered MetLife to remit the October 15, 2010 payment to Stone Street within 15 days of the mailing of the judgment.

Judge Bates' Reasoning

• In the 2007 transfer proceeding, Shelia McClendon and Stone Street were parties, and MetLife and Travelers were properly notified and served with the petition and order.
• Under the Louisiana structured settlement protection act, Shelia McClendon was clearly entitled to sell the October 15, 2010 payment.
• The 2007 transfer order was valid, final, and not subject to appeal as all delays had passed.
• MetLife's claims against Stone Street arose out of the same subject matter as the 2007 transfer proceeding.
• MetLife's issues existed when the 2007 transfer order was signed and neither MetLife nor Travelers objected at that time.
• Therefore, MetLife's concursus is barred by res judicata.
• Neither MetLife, nor Travelers, nor any of the other claimants had any continuing interest in the October 15, 2010 payment.
• Because Stone Street established it was entitled to the October 15, 2010 payment as a matter of law, no genuine issue of material fact remained.

Additional Resources

• For a 2009 California appellate case addressing the finality of structured settlement transfer orders, see Henderson v. Ramos reported in "Fresno County Factoring Cases" - Part 1 and Part 2 .
• For S2KM's complete reporting about the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.
• For a more comprehensive and updated analysis of structured settlement transfers, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgements" (S2P2J).

NASP 2012 Annual Conference - 3

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) hosted its 8th annual educational conference October 16-19, 2012 in New Orleans with a record number of attendees consisting of transfer company executives and staff, in-house and outside legal counsel, investors, service providers and, for the first time, primary market participants.

NASP President Matthew Bracy set the conference theme by challenging speakers and attendees to continue to improve the structured settlement secondary market: "We have some of the brightest minds in the country assembled here to discuss the status of this industry and how to improve what we do. And, as is our habit, we have invited people who might have critical things to say about how we are doing and what we can do better. Improvement can only come from the honest and sometimes harsh assessment of outside critics."

One of those critics was keynote speaker Jan Schlictmann who called out "cash now" advertizing as a "primitive denomination". Schlichtmann's broader message echoed Bracy's theme of bettering oneself through self-criticism and the need for higher industry goals. "It is not just who we serve that matters, but how we serve", Schlictmann stated. Schlictmann reviewed his client experience with structured settlements and acknowledged a personal paradigm shift resulting from recent industry developments including low interest rates and the ELNY liquidation.

The Judges Panel has become a regular and popular feature of NASP educational conferences. Moderator Earl Nesbitt encouraged this year's panel members, Judge Patricia Wise, Chancery Court Judge, Hinds County, Mississippi and Judge Dean Lum, Superior Court for King County, Washington, to share their concerns about structured settlement transfers and their advice for transfer company representatives and attorneys. Selected highlights:

• Judge Wise: "We (Mississippi judges) have a good relationship with transfer attorneys. I don't look at transfers as inherently good or bad. I don't have any preconceived notion whether to approve or disapprove."
• Judge Lum: "It is not my job to talk someone into or out of a transfer. Judges, however, think about the worst case scenario - a recipient who has just turned 18. The closer to this worst case scenario, the more scrutiny a person receives."
• Judge Wise: "What judges are looking for is credibility and what structured settlement payees say they will do with the funds. We do focus on whether prior transfers have occurred. Also, the older the payee, the more likely they have the ability to make a good decision."
• Judge Lum: "Attorneys should prepare the structured settlement payee for his or her court appearance - how to dress and behave; how the best interest test applies; what the impact will be on dependents."
• Judge Lum: "We have a saying in King County: 'there is no party like ex parte'. In unopposed cases, people try to run things by you. Its kind of like the wild west. In unopposed cases, it is important for attorneys to go the extra mile. Your reputation matters. There are two degrees of separation in the legal profession."

Another regular and popular feature of NASP educational conferences are the small group break out sessions. The individual breakout sessions S2KM attended addressed participants' state-specific experience with:

• Court Approval Issues - judicial negotiation of discount rates; the meaning of full disclosure; statutory history of the "best interest" test; independent professional advisor qualifications and fees; transfer application exhibits; and the importance of judicial education.
• Underwriting Issues - annuity provider transfer requirements; "applicable state laws" requirements; judgment creditor issues including bankruptcy and child support; annuity provider administrative fees; and problems related to incompetent payees, identity theft and relatives or friends coercing payees.

The NASP conference doubled down on underwriting issues with an informative presentation about "Life Contingent Transactions" by NASP President-elect Patricia LaBorde. LaBorde, who also served as Chairperson for the 2012 NASP conference and was credited with upgrading the NASP website, discussed the two paths for funding life contingent transactions:

• Purchasing a life insurance policy to hedge against the risk of an early annuitant death; or
• Evaluating the risk and pricing the risk into the transaction.

Jack Kelly, a federal lobbyist who assisted NASP in securing enactment of IRC 5891 in 2002, provided a Legislative Update. Kelly summarized NASP's 2012 involvement with legislative proposals in Vermont, Minnesota and New Hampshire. Vermont, in 2012, became the 48th state to enact a structured settlement protection statute. The new Vermont statute is generally based upon the NCOIL Model Act with some variations related to independent professional advisors, notice requirements for certain state agencies and the required court appearance by the structured settlement payee.

Earl Nesbitt, NASP's Executive Director and General Counsel, presented the 2012 Litigation Update. Among several important court decisions, Nesbitt highlighted the Stone Street v. McClendon case which he characterized as an "important victory" for NASP and the structured settlement industry in general. In McClendon, a Louisiana state court found that Travelers Insurance and MetLife had no grounds for withholding payments following a valid transfer of payment rights pursuant to the Louisiana structured settlement protection statute. The court ordered MetLife to pay interest from the date the payments were originally due. Note: S2KM will publish a more detailed review of the McClendon case in a subsequent blog post.

Attorney Joseph Feltes' 2012 NASP presentation titled "Privacy Issues in Structured Settlement Transactions (Part 2)" supplemented his 2011 NASP presentation on the use and disclosure of confidential information by transfer companies. This year, Feltes discussed privacy issues related to electronic and digital communications, especially Internet-based communications. Among other issues, Feltes highlighted: cyber-bullying; the increase in defamation cases; the blurred boundaries between public and private communications; FTC blog rules requiring disclosures of paid endorsements; social media policy and practices; limits on constitutional rights; cloud technology issues; and the importance of company Internet policies.

In his "Primary Market Update", Mark Wahlstrom emphasized why the primary and secondary structured settlement markets are part of the same business. He called the primary market "the secondary market's best friend" despite the primary market's criticism of, and "needless obstacles" for, the secondary market. As one example of "needless obstacles", Wahlstrom mentioned Chartis for aggressively promoting an anti-factoring pledge among its structured settlement brokers.

Wahlstrom described 2012 as "another bad year for the primary market". He characterized declines in primary market annuity premium as a "negative trend that will eventually impact the secondary market" and identified the following causes:

• The structured settlement is an insular, closed community with aging leadership and a shrinking sales force.
• Structured settlement annuity providers, and most brokers, lack marketing and innovation skills.
• Primary market participants are intimidated by the Internet.
• Instead of offering customer solutions, the primary market continues to sell a single product.
• With historically low interest rates, that product produces a zero return when you consider inflation.
• The primary market has not responded strategically to tort reform and increasing competition from other professionals.
• By continuing their "factoring wars", the primary market has missed opportunities to cooperate with the secondary market.
• The ELNY liquidation means the primary market can no longer claim all structured settlement recipients have received 100% of their payments.

Kira Brereton, an attorney who specializes in asset-backed securitizations, provided a comprehensive introduction to "Financing Structured Settlements". Her presentation: reviewed a typical transaction structure; provided a market overview including legal and regulatory developments; summarized rating agency considerations; discussed split payment issues; addressed the creditworthiness of insurers backing the collateral pools; considered bankruptcy and receivership issues; and highlighted relevant securities laws and regulations including the Investment Company Act of 1940, private placements, Dodd-Frank and Regulation AB 2.0.

Elizabeth Yingling, a securities law expert, discussed "Implications of Federal and States Securities Laws on Structured Settlements". She addressed fundamental issues such as: What statutes govern securities? What is a "security"? What is an "investment contract"? and How do promotional materials impact the analysis? In addition, Yingling offered a detailed analysis of the "Howey test" and provided practical tips.

Alexander Hamilton Award

NASP also named S2KM blog author, Patrick Hindert, as the 2012 recipient of its Alexander Hamilton Award. NASP has bestowed this award five times "to distinguished individuals who have supported and defended the right to free alienability of property rights. This right is the corner stone of NASP and the foundation of the structured settlement factoring business." Previous Alexander Hamilton Award recipients:

• State Senator Alan Sanborn of Michigan.
• U.S. Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia.
• State Representative Van Tran of California.
• Earl S. Nesbitt, Esq., of Texas.

In announcing the 2012 award, NASP President Matt Bracy stated: "Hindert was chosen to receive this award based upon his longstanding support of the factoring business and option. In particular, his position as a founder and leader in the primary structured settlement business, who early on recognized the legitimacy and value of the secondary market, led to this honor."

For complete S2KM reporting on NASP conferences plus other structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

NASP 2012 Annual Conference - 2

Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the enactment of IRC 5891, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) hosted its 2012 Annual Conference last week in New Orleans.

The conference featured an ambitious and successful educational program highlighting prior NASP accomplishments and focusing on emerging issues that impact both the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. For the first time in NASP's history, conference attendance was open to primary market participants.

S2KM previously published an introductory blog post identifying NASP 2012 conference speakers and topics and providing links to S2KM reports from previous NASP conferences. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will recap speaker presentations.

This blog post offers S2KM's general observations and impressions of some of the broader structured settlement industry issues based upon NASP's 2012 conference.

Why Has Factoring Flourished?

Compared with the primary structured settlement market, both NASP and the secondary market appear to be flourishing. What explains this paradoxical success?

The groundwork for secondary structured settlement market success began in 1997 when NASP launched a strategic lobbying initiative resulting in the enactment of IRC 5891 and NCOIL's Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Act).

Although neither legislative development would have been possible without support from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the lobbying agendas of the two associations were markedly different. Ultimately NASP prevailed on several critical issues including:

• "Best interest" standard vs. NSSTA's preferred "financial hardship" standard.
• Denying annuity owners and providers the right to veto proposed transfers.
• Eliminating maximum discount rates.

In addition to NASP's lobbying success, NASP's members have achieved considerable, and controversial, marketing success utilizing aggressive television advertizing and sophisticated Internet techniques. As one measure of this marketing success, the primary market now claims the secondary market has "stolen the structured settlement brand".

Both the primary and the secondary structured settlement markets were devastated by the 2008 financial crisis which:

• Temporarily shut down asset-backed securities markets including securities backed by structured settlement payment rights.
• Created an industry liquidity crisis which resulted in:
  • J.G. Wentworth, the largest secondary market company, entering bankruptcy in 2009.
  • AIG, the largest primary market company, receiving a financial bailout from the U.S. government in 2008 and 2009.
  • Both Wentworth and AIG have subsequently recovered and regained their respective market leadership roles.
• Reduced interest rates to historic low levels causing a substantial reduction in primary market sales beginning in 2009.

As of the 2012 second calendar quarter, the secondary structured settlement market appears to have fully recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. The primary market has not yet recovered. Part of the reason is that interest rates, whether high or low, affect the primary and secondary structured settlement markets differently.

Other reasons, however, also help explain the growing success of the secondary structured settlement market.

• Structured settlement transfers improve the structured settlement product by addressing a critical need for many structured settlement recipients - a liquidity need that was not properly addressed in the original settlement plan or, alternatively, resulted from unanticipated developments.
• Continuing strong demand exists among some institutional and individual investors for recycled structured settlement payment rights.

Linked Markets - Same Customers

Having failed politically to end structured settlement factoring, NSSTA, and many annuity providers, have adopted alternative strategies which appear to be misguided attempts to create obstacles and impede the growth of the secondary structured settlement market.

NSSTA's 2006 bylaw amendments represent one such example. As NSSTA explained to its members: "because [the secondary market] activities [prohibited by the amendments] are inconsistent with the membership qualifications, engaging in those activities can lead to suspension or expulsion from membership and to denial of new membership applications." (emphasis added).

The increasing "administrative fees" annuity providers charge factoring companies, either as a condition to avoid "opposed transfers" or to allow transfers of life contingent payment rights, represents another example. Ultimately, the structured settlement recipients who transfer payment rights pay for those administrative fees which, for some annuity providers, now represent a new profit center.

How do these types of actions help the structured settlement customer or improve the structured settlement industry?

Both NSSTA and NASP, and their members, share a common existential interest in IRC 104(a)(2) and 130. Both NSSTA and NASP recognize the anticipated re-writing of the U.S. tax code expected to begin following the 2012 Presidential election represents a threat to those tax sections.

Arguably, the existence of IRC 5891, which not only links to IRC 104(a)(2) and 130, but also to the 48 state structured settlement protection statutes, has both expanded and strengthened the U.S. structured settlement legislative framework.

Having collaborated to help enact IRC 5891 and the NCOIL Model Act, shouldn't NSSTA and NASP also collaborate to defend and maintain IRC 104(a)(2) and 130 - and to identify additional shared interests for structured settlement industry improvement and growth?

Improving Industry Education

In his opening comments at the NASP 2012 conference, outgoing NASP President Matthew Bracy challenged attendees to make the structured settlement transfer business better: "better in the marketplace, better in the courts, and above all better for the customers who so need the service this industry provides."

One way NASP "walks the walk" of secondary market improvement is by inviting its critics to speak at NASP conferences. NASP challenges these critics not only to address secondary market problems but also to recommend improvements.

Critics who have spoken at past NASP conferences include: Jack Meligan, Stephen Harris, Peter Vodola, John Darer, and Richard Risk. Other critics, including NSSTA leaders, have been invited but have declined to participate.

Jan Schlichtmann, keynote speaker for the 2012 NASP conference, began by stating: "I don't like your advertizing". He then praised NASP for inviting and encouraging criticism to better itself and the secondary structured settlement market.

NSSTA also has permitted criticism as part of its educational programs. Examples include: Joseph DiGangi (see: "Settlement Consulting") and Dan Clark (see: "SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings"). Whenever NSSTA has addressed strategically important and/or controversial issues (egs. IRC 468B and IRC 5891), however, NSSTA members generally hear only "politically correct" speakers and perspectives.

Because of the importance of issues such as qualified settlement funds (QSFs) and the secondary market for the future of structured settlements, NSSTA members increasingly must rely upon non-NSSTA educational programs and educational resources to interact with the people and ideas challenging and changing the structured settlement industry.

During 2012, these educational programs have included: the SSP conference, the ASNP conference, the Risk settlement planning practicum and the QSF symposium.

Fortunately for NSSTA members, as well as members of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), NASP has now opened an entirely new educational forum to challenge and expand their understanding of structured settlements.

NASP 2012 Annual Conference - 1

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) will host its 2012 Annual Conference October 16-19 in New Orleans. For the first time in NASP's history, conference registration will be open to persons who are not NASP members or affiliated attorneys.

Speakers and Topics

• Matt Bracy - Welcoming Remarks
• Jack Kelley - Legislative and Regulatory Developments at State and Federal Level
• Earl Nesbitt - Litigation Update
• Joseph Feltes - Privacy Issues in Structured Settlement Transactions
• Jan Schlictmann - Keynote Address
• Mark Wahlstrom - Executive Life of New York Rehabilitation and Other Issues Facing the Primary Structured Settlement Market
• Kira Brereton - Financing Structured Settlement Transactions
• Patricia LaBorde - Issues in Life Contingent Transactions
• Elizabeth L. Yingling - The Application of the Securities Laws to the Sale of Structured Settlement Purchasing Transactions
• The Judges' Panel - How Judges Interpret the Best Interest Standard and Other Concerns in Structured Settlement Transfers
  

  • Judge Patricia D. Wise, Chancery Court Judge, Hinds County Mississippi

  • Judge Dean S. Lum, Superior Court for King County, Washington

• Breakout Session One - Practical and Ethical Issues Facing Transfer in Obtaining Court Approval of Structured Settlement Transactions
• Breakout Session Two - Issues in Underwriting Structured Settlement Transactions

S2KM Reporting for Prior NASP Conferences

• 2011 NASP Conference
  
  • Part 1 - speakers and topics
  • Part 2 - S2KM's primary and secondary market perspective
• NSSTA and NASP 2010 Educational Conferences
  • Part 1 - industry issues
  • Part 2 - discussion topics
  • Part 3 - "protect and preserve" vs. "improve and grow"
  • Part 4 - strategic questions
• 2009 NASP Conference
  
  • Part 1 - a listing of educational issues and participants
  • Part 2 - a summary of the educational discussions
  • Part 3 - a closer look at the strategic discussions
• 2008 NASP Conference
  
  • Part 1 - Speakers and topics
  • Part 2 - Panel discussion: structured settlement industry issues
  • Part 3 - Panel discussion: how to improve and grow the structured settlement market
• 2007 NASP Conference - see related NASP 2007 educational wiki
• 2006 NASP Conference
  
  • Part 1 - Speakers and Highlights
  • Part 2 - Primary and Secondary Market Introductions
  • Overview of the Structured Settlement Market
  • How the Primary Market Views Factoring

"Only Half the Story"

In an August 2, 2012 blog post titled "Uniform Fiduciary Standards Only Half the Story", John Darer offers the following critique of this earlier S2KM blog post: "It's a pity that an otherwise well written blog post by Patrick Hindert about Uniform Fiduciary Standards, unexplainably omits standards for the secondary market."

S2KM's blog post addressed the following issue: "What impact will a new uniform fiduciary standard, being developed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as one result of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), have upon existing structured settlement and settlement planning business models and practices?"

Without any discussion of the secondary market, S2KM's blog post also highlighted certain traditional primary market structured settlement business practices that fail to meet any fiduciary standard:

• Misrepresentations or omission of material facts; and
• Conflicts of interest - without written, informed client and/or customer consent.

John's blog post makes two valid points. First, that S2KM's blog post ignored secondary market standards. Second, despite enactment of IRC section 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes, bad business practices continue to exist in the secondary market. John's blog post identifies several such practices.

By "setting aside the good players", however, John's blog post spotlights existing bad business practices but does not identify or address secondary structured settlement market business standards. What are those secondary market standards - and how do (or should) these standards impact the primary market?

Looking specifically at the "uniform fiduciary standard" (the subject of the S2KM blog post in question), the related secondary market standard is the "best interest" test. There are three sources that establish and/or address this secondary market standard: 1) IRC section 5891; 2) the state structured settlement protection statutes; and 3) judicial interpretations of the "best interest" standard.

IRC Section 5891

IRC section 5891 imposes a 40 percent excise tax on any person who acquires structured settlement payment rights in a factoring transaction. The excise tax, however, does not apply if the transfer is approved in advance in a "qualified order" issued under an applicable state statute by an applicable state court.

IRC section 5891(b)(2) defines a qualified order as “a final order, judgment or decree” that satisfies two requirements: a qualified order must find the transfer of the structured settlement payment rights:

• does not contravene:
  • Any Federal or State statute or
  • The order of any court or responsible administrative authority; and
• Is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents.

State Structured Settlement Protection Acts

Forty-seven states have enacted some form of structured settlement protection act. While the various state SSPAs lack uniformity, most adopt the same terminology and share the same basic legislative scheme as the Model SSPA. Echoing IRC section 5891, the state SSPAs provide that structured settlement payment rights transfers are not effective unless they receive advance court approval. Under each of the state SSPAs, key terms are defined, procedures for obtaining court approval are spelled out, and required notices, disclosures and findings are established.

Although all of the state SSPAs incorporate the "best interest" test, the California statute is the only SSPA that defines best interest. Section 10139.5 (b) of the California Insurance Code lists 15 factors that judges should consider "[w]hen determining whether the proposed transfer should be approved, including whether the transfer is fair, reasonable, and in the payee’s best interest, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents" including:

“(1) The reasonable preference and desire of the payee to complete the proposed transaction, taking into account the payee’s age, mental capacity, legal knowledge, and apparent maturity level"; and

“(15) 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.”

Judicial Interpretations

In the absence of a state SSPA "best interest" standard, state courts have applied differing determination standards and have been reluctant to provide their own definitions. For example, here is a statement from a 2003 New York trial court opinion (In re Petition of Settlement Capital Corp.):

"Although the [New York] statute does not define the best interests of the Payee, developing case law and the intent of the statute suggest the Court should consider: (1) the Payee’s age, mental capacity, physical capacity, maturity level, independent income, and ability to support dependents; (2) purpose of the intended use of the funds; (3) potential need for future medical treatment; (4) the financial acumen of the Payee; (5) whether the Payee is in a hardship situation to the extent that he or she is in “dire straits”; (6) the ability of the payee to appreciate financial consequences based on independent legal and financial advice; [and] (7) the timing of the application."

Conclusion

What relevance, if any, therefore, does the secondary structured settlement market "best interest" standard have as primary market stakeholders contemplate the potential impact of a uniform fiduciary standard under the Dodd-Frank legislation?

Neither IRC 5891 nor any of state SSPAs apply their "best interest" test to primary market structured settlement sales. Only four of the state SSPAs (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 or fiduciary standard apply to the original structured settlement sale?

Thank you, John Darer, for pointing out the importance of this issue.

For additional discussion and analysis of secondary market business practices and the "best interest" test, see:

• Sections 16.02 ("History of Structured Settlement Transfers") and 16.05 ("Judicial Review of Transfer Applications") in "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J); and
• The structured settlement wiki:
  • Secondary market blog posts
  • S2KM reports about Professional Association Meetings including the National Association of Settlement Professionals (NASP).

For S2KM's 2006 analysis of "How the Primary Market Views Factoring", see this concept map. 

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.

SNTs and Structured Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

Settlement Planning Team

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

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

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

Structured Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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