Outrage or Solutions?

Responding to S2KM's prior blog post titled "New York Transfer Orders Falsified", one primary market structured settlement leader has written to S2KM asking "where is the outrage?"

The initial answer is likely "almost everywhere" within both the primary and secondary structured settlement markets - recognizing, of course, that this story has just recently been made public most significantly in JGWPT Holdings Inc.'s Amended S-1 Statement, filed October 28, 2013 prior to its November 8, 2013 public offering of common stock.

Until the facts of this apparent fraud become public (possibly through subsequent lawsuits), many key questions remain unanswered for most industry participants. Among those questions:

• Who was responsible?
• Why did they falsify the orders?
• How many cases are involved?
• Among collateral case participants, who knew, or should have known, what and when?
• What will be the consequences?
• Will the Internal Revenue Service impose IRC 5891 excise taxes?

Although outrage may seem justifiable as an appropriate industry response:

• Who should be the target of the outrage?
• What possible and realistic solutions exist?

Robin Shapiro's NASP Presentation

S2KM first learned about the falsified transfer orders at last week's NASP conference . During a luncheon presentation, former NASP President Robin Shapiro expressed his personal outrage about "troubling reports concerning the structured settlement factoring business." In addition to falsified transfer orders, Shapiro also highlighted and criticized other secondary market business practices:

• Inter-state Forum Shopping - "It has been reported that some factoring companies are signing up out-of state sellers to do deals in jurisdictions where judicial scrutiny is known to be limited -- listing what turns out to be a PO Box as their residence address."
• Short-cutting Waiting Periods and Disclosure Requirements - Some factoring companies require sellers to "sign contracts and backdate [Shapiro's emphasis] disclosures so as to make it appear, at least in a paper file, that the seller was afforded the statutory 10 day wait between disclosure and signing."
• Expediting Hearing Dates Before Preferred Judges - "Counsel for originators file multiple 'John Doe' court petitions as place-holders in a busy court, amending later with specific names and amounts, to secure an expedited hearing date and perhaps a hearing before a preferred judge."
• "Competing Bids" from the Same Company - Consumers "get what appear to be 'competing bids' from two brands that are really one and the same company. The consumer thinks they've shopped around. Later, when the consumer discovers the truth, they feel tricked. And they complain - online and elsewhere."

"Perhaps most disturbing", Shapiro stated, is the public disclosure in JGWPT Holdings Inc.'s Amended S-1 Statement. "Think about that", Shapiro stated. "There may have been and may be "an unknown number of court orders that are "INVALID."' (Shapiro's emphasis).

Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston

Shapiro did not address Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston during his NASP presentation. NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt, however, provided conference attendees with a detailed report about this high profile and controversial case during his NASP conference case law update. Currently subject to a petition for review by the Illinois Supreme Court, this case (which also involves a J.G. Wentworth affiliate) concerns "invalid transfers" but not "falsified transfers"

In the Brenston case, a 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, previously held that because Brenston’s settlement agreement contained an enforceable anti-assignment provision, the transfer court had a duty to enforce that provision and “it had no authority under the Act to approve” the transfer petitions. If upheld, the Brenston decision could prove more damaging to the structured settlement industry than the New York falsified transfers.

Shapiro's Proposed Solution

"If not addressed," Shapiro stated, "this kind of stuff is going to provoke a regulator and investor reaction that none of us is going to like. The answer is not simply making speeches here or making 'representations' that the rules are being followed. We're past that."

At his own factoring company, Shapiro has retained independent third party due diligence firms to sample and audit its receivable files and to provide independent third party verification of its compliance - "going forward AND back."

"As independent reviewers," Shapiro stated, "these auditors will be able to look where they want and test whatever they want. We don't have anything to hide. But we intend to let them know where to look and what to look for to expose corner-cutting."

Business Practices and Models

Bad business practices can destroy the structured settlement industry - whether they occur in the primary or secondary market.

Although outrage may seem appropriate, solutions are needed.

As industry leaders inevitably renew their advocacy for improved business practices and business models, they might benefit by reading (or re-reading) "Getting to Yes" which at one time represented a guidebook of sorts for the primary structured settlement market.

Perhaps the "Getting to Yes" method can be useful to help a divided structured settlement industry address problems that impact all industry stakeholders:

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

For additional information about secondary market business practices, see section 16.02[2] of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) and the structured settlement wiki.