Structured settlement transfers (aka factoring) continue as a
prominent and contentious issue within the structured settlement industry. The most recent evidence is a January 23, 2006
article in the Philadelphia Inquirer written by Todd Mason titled “Wentworth
gains in growing industry”.
Wentworth - On its website, J.G.Wentworth describes itself as “the
undisputed leader in the structured settlement industry” and further states: “this
claim is substantiated by our longevity, the dollar volume of our transactions,
the AAA Ratings on our financings, and the contribution we have made to the
legal framework that regulates the funding of structured settlements.”
However, not everyone views Wentworth as a “leader”. According to Joseph J. Hoffman Jr., a New Jersey attorney
quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer article: Wentworth “preys on the
unsophisticated”. Hoffman adds: “it is a
sad commentary on how low companies will go to make money.” Randy Dyer,
Executive Director of NSSTA, the leading structured settlement trade
association, observes: Wentworth “seems to be a business that exists on
lawsuits”.
Symetra - So what does (or should) the structured settlement industry
think about Symetra Financial, a traditional annuity provider and member
of NSSTA, who recently announced the
formation of Clearscape Funding Corporation to compete with Wentworth in the
transfer business?
The immediate answer appears to be confusion – and
anger. For one example of the anger, see
John Darer’s recent weblog post about Symetra as well as John’s prior weblog posts
about transfers.
The confusion about transfers results, in part, from the history
of settlement transfers including political and legal battles between NSSTA
(and its members) and NASP, a transfer company trade association (and its
members). The continuing results for many NSSTA
members include simplistic and anachronistic thinking – structured settlements
are good; settlement transfer companies behave badly; therefore, settlement
transfers are bad – and somehow remain separate from structured settlements.
The confusion about transfers within the traditional
structured settlement industry also results from two industry failures: one
educational and the other strategic.
The education failure - To date, the two leading
structured settlement trade associations, NSSTA and SSP, have done a remarkably
poor job in educating their members about settlement transfers. With the exception of annuity providers (like
Symetra) who self-fund transfers, NSSTA does not permit transfer companies to
join their organization or participate in their educational programs. Unlike NSSTA,
SSP does include transfer companies as members.
Hopefully, beginning in 2006, both NSSTA and SSP will organize and
promote improved education and public discussion about settlement
transfers. In the Philadelphia Inquirer
article, NSSTA General Counsel Craig Ulman states that “insurers are offering education” about transfers. Unfortunately, none of that education is occuring at the NSSTA educational
meetings. Ulman, a partner at Hogan & Hartson, and Daniel Hindert, a partner at Parsons, Behle & Latimer, have recently co-authored an ABA article about settlement transfers for judges.
SSP recently announced the educational program for its
2006 Annual Meeting (March 9-10 in Washington D.C.) will include a presentation
about settlement transfers. The SSP presentation is titled “Are Settlement
Transfers Good or Bad” with a “cross-fire” type format featuring two leading
settlement transfer commentators: Adam Scales
and Patrick Hindert, author of this weblog. Scales is an associate professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law and author of an
inciteful and controversial 2002 law review article: “Against
Settlement Factoring? The Market in Tort
Claims has Arrived”. Hindert is Managing Director of S2KM Limited and co-author with Daniel Hindert and Joseph Dehner of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments". Ward Zimmerman will moderate.
The strategic failure – Confusion about transfers also
results from the failure of the traditional structured settlement industry to
strategically re-align itself with the legal realities of Stage 3 structured
settlements. The issues that need to be
addressed include public policy as well as how the new federal and state
transfer laws impact traditional structured settlement business practices and
products. At the recent NSSTA Winter
Regional Meeting, one structured settlement veteran offered this prescription
for industry growth: “we need to spend more time selling instead of servicing
structured settlements”. How about some
strategic thinking and analysis as a prelude to sales and growth? For additional information about Stage 3
Structured Settlements see S2KM’s weblog post entitled: “The Future of
Structured Settlements”.
Recent Comments