Beyond Structured Settlements

Achieving a Better Life Experience Act (ABLE Act)

Some personal injury victims and their families will have a new tax-preferenced funding option following enactment of the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act (ABLE Act) of 2014 which was signed into law last month by President Barack Obama.

The ABLE Act will allow eligible, disabled individuals and their families to establish ABLE savings accounts with tax-exempt earnings that will not affect their eligibility for SSI, Medicaid and other public benefits. Individuals with $2000 or more in assets currently are not eligible for SSI or Medicaid. Although ABLE accounts may be used to supplement special needs and/or pooled income trusts, their anticipated cost will be considerably less. They will also provide more control for beneficiaries and their families.

Qualification will require proof of onset of a disability prior to age 26. Recipients of SSI and/or SSDI who meet this criteria will be automatically eligible. Non-recipients of SSI and/or SSDI who meet the age 26 criteria must also prove their blindness or disability meets Social Security Act definitions. Treasury Department regulations are expected to provide additional explanations concerning standard of proof and required medical documentation.

The ABLE Act was promoted by numerous disability organizations and advocates including the American Association for People with Disabilities (AAPD). “The ABLE Act unlocks the doors of financial freedom for many Americans with disabilities,” according to Mark Perriello, president and CEO of AAPD. “It allows people with disabilities to start saving for their future.”

ABLE accounts, which will not be available until the Treasury Department publishes regulations, are expected to resemble qualified college savings programs (“529 accounts”) available under IRC section 529 since 1996. Qualifying Individuals will be limited to one ABLE account. Total annual contributions by all individuals (including family and friends) to any one account for each year cannot exceed the gift tax annual exclusion ($14,000 in 2015).

Although ABLE account investment income will be tax exempt, contributors will not receive any tax deductions for their deposits. Similar to (d)(4)(A) special needs trusts, ABLE accounts will be required to repay any funds remaining in the account to the Federal government or the state upon the death of the disabled beneficiary.

Distributions from ABLE accounts must be used for “qualified disability expenses,” including higher education expenses, a primary residence, transportation, obtaining and maintaining employment, and certain other health, wellness and personal support expenses. Any non-qualifying distribution will cause an ABLE account to lose its exempt Medicaid status and subject the account to a 10 percent income tax penalty.

Individual states will be responsible for setting up and managing their own ABLE programs. Individual states will also determine the total amount of lifetime contributions to an ABLE account consistent with their limits for education-related 529 accounts. Many states currently have established 529 account limits of $300,000 or more.

Similar to 529 accounts, states are expected to offer multiple investment options for ABLE accounts. The ABLE Act limits changes to the types of account investments to two times per year. For disabled individuals who receive SSI and/or Medicaid, the ABLE Act imposes additional limitations. If a state decides not to establish an ABLE program, it has the option of contracting with another state to allow qualifying residents the opportunity to open an ABLE account.

It remains to be determined who will promote ABLE accounts and what impact they will have upon various markets including settlement planning, special needs planning and structured settlements. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the ABLE Act will increase the number of beneficiaries of means-tested programs and federal spending from such programs.

For additional S2KM reporting about settlement planning and government benefits, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements 2014 - ELNY and Reliance

The Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation, which occurred on April 16, 2012 represented the dominant structured settlement story of 2011, 2012 and 2013 and one of the most important developments in the history of the United States structured settlement industry.

Related follow-up litigation continued during 2014. Individual ELNY shortfall payees filed class action lawsuits against various structured settlement brokers. Other ELNY shortfall payees and their attorneys lost their appeal of a Contempt Order.

Class Action Lawsuits

Separate (but nearly identical) class action lawsuits were filed in Florida and Oregon during 2014 on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims against named and unnamed structured settlement brokers. In the Florida case, against EPS Settlement Group (EPS) and various brokers, a federal judge granted defendants' Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice on December 17, 2014. The Oregon case, which remains unresolved, names Ringler Associates Incorporated (Ringler), Paul Hoffman (as the individual agent who brokered structured settlement annuities for the named plaintiffs) and John Does 1-100 as defendants.

Note: A prior and separate class action lawsuit filed in New York in 2012 by ELNY shortfall victims against Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse) as defendants was voluntarily dismissed in 2013 without prejudice.

Oregon Class Action

The 2014 Oregon class action Complaint was filed in U.S. District Court and alleges Ringler, Hoffman and John Does 1-100 violated state statutes and their alleged duty of care to ELNY shortfall victims whose structured settlements were funded with qualified assignments and who resided in states where ELNY was not licensed to sell insurance when their settlements were consummated.

The John Does 1-100 "represent those individual insurance brokers who, as employees and/or agents of Ringler, its affiliates, or predecessor companies, brokered the sales of the SSAs at issue in this case, of which members of the proposed class were beneficiaries." The complaint further states "that with proper discovery into the matter these Defendants can be identified, and the complaint can be amended at a later date to include the individual names of these Defendants."

The Complaint against defendants Ringler et al. (Defendants) identifies two causes of action:

• Negligence - failing to disclose facts about ELNY's deteriorating financial condition.
• State statutory violation - prohibiting persons from assisting unlicensed insurers transact business.

Although the negligence counts do not state specific amounts of damages, the statutory violation counts claim "Plaintiffs and Statutory Subclass members are entitled to damages for the fulI amount of their unpaid claims pursuant to the State Statutes."

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 26, 2014 plus a subsequent Request for Judicial Notice in Support of their Motion. On December 5, 2014 a Magistrate issued:

• Opinion and Order - granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice.
• Findings and Recommendations (to be referred under advisement to a district judge) - that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted in part as to Defendants’ alleged continuing duty to inform plaintiffs that their coverage may be threatened due to ELNY’s declining financial condition and otherwise should be denied. Note: Although the Magistrates' Findings and Recommendations identifies December 22, 2014 as the due date for any objections, S2KM has been informed that Defendants requested and received a scheduling extension.

ELNY Contempt Order

In response to the 2012 New York class action lawsuit, Judge John Galasso issued a Contempt Order on January 25, 2013. He also imposed a $5000 fine and threatened additional fines plus imprisonment of legal counsel if the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees did not dismiss their Federal action which they did (without prejudice) on February 7, 2013.

The ELNY shortfall payees who filed the New York class action and their attorneys appealed Judge Galasso's Contempt Order which was argued before the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Second Judicial Department on October 3, 2014. On November 5, 2014, the Court issued an Order dismissing the appeal by the shortfall payees and affirming the Contempt Order as to their attorneys.

Reliance Liquidation

Reliance Insurance Company was declared insolvent in 2001 and the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner was appointed as Liquidator. The Reliance Estate, however, remained open and its assets, until November 4, 2013, included approximately 3,400 structured settlements of which approximately 3093 involved annuities issued by United Pacific Life Insurance Company, a former Reliance subsidiary which Reliance sold in 1993 and which is now known as Genworth Life Insurance Company.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter signed an Order on November 4, 2013 approving a Transfer and Assumption Agreement whereby Reliance will transfer all Reliance-owned structured settlement annuity contracts and corresponding payment obligations issued by Genworth Life Insurance Company to a new corporation, the Genworth Annuity Service Corporation.

At one time a major provider of structured settlement annuities, Genworth and its life insurance affiliates have subsequently received financial downgrades by various rating agencies. As of this blog posting, for example, Standard & Poors rates Genworth Life Insurance Company as BBB+ which qualifies as "high yield" or "non-investment grade" - the same "junk bond" category that characterized ELNY's investments before it entered rehabilitation in 1991.

Conclusion

In its recent SEC filings, JGWPT Holdings, Inc. warns potential investors for its structured settlement securitizations about investment risks including "the insolvency or downgrade of a material number of structured settlement issuers".

Should structured settlement recipients receive similar warnings about the potential (or actual) financial deterioration of their structured settlement funding entity(s)?

Various ELNY lawsuits, including the Oregon class action case summarized above, suggest (at least indirectly) these types of related questions:

• What is the scope of post-settlement responsibilities, if any, for structured settlement brokers and/or settlement planners?
• Should a structured settlement broker (defense or plaintiff) or settlement planner be legally responsible for warning structured settlement recipients if and when an annuity provider or assignee experiences a deteriorating financial condition?
• What about the annuity provider or assignee itself?
• If any such legal responsibilities exist, what criteria would define a deteriorating financial condition?

For prior S2KM summaries of ELNY and Reliance with additional informational links, see:

• Structured Settlements 2013 - ELNY and Reliance.
• Structured Settlements 2012 - Executive Life of New York.
• Structured Settlements 2011 - Executive Life of New York

For additional S2KM blog posts summarizing 2014 structured settlement developments (primary market; secondary market; settlement planning), see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements 2014 - Settlement Planning

During the late 1970s, and throughout the 1980s, when defendants retained exclusive control of structured settlements, many brokers and their liability insurance company clients referred to unsuccessful sales as "cash outs". Their professional interests and curiosity were narrowly defined and focused upon their own product to the exclusion of other settlement related products and services.

With the advent of plaintiff structured settlement brokers, continuing legislative and regulatory developments, plus an expanding array of settlement planning professionals, products and product providers, structured settlements are now viewed by most stakeholders as a subset of the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

For future success, a new generation of structured settlement leaders must look beyond structured settlements and learn to re-position their product as a fundamental and catalytic settlement planning component. This strategic adjustment requires a more comprehensive understanding of, and interaction with, other professional associations whose members also provide settlement planning products and services.

During 2014, S2KM attended 13 national educational conferences sponsored by such professional associations. What follows are 2014 summaries, from a settlement planning perspective, of the educational programs offered by these professional associations plus links to related S2KM reporting. Prior S2KM blog posts provide 2014 summaries of the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. A subsequent S2KM blog post will summarize continuing 2014 developments related to ELNY and Reliance.

American Association for Justice (AAJ)

The role of personal injury attorneys historically has encompassed settlement planning and negotiation as well as litigation. As settlement planning has become increasingly complex, however, personal injury attorneys now require the services of other settlement planning professionals including: tax attorneys, special needs attorneys, settlement trustees, financial planners, structured settlement specialists, life care planners, case managers, economists, Medicare set-aside (MSA) specialists and damage allocators.

Regardless of case complexity, plaintiff attorneys continue to perform the following essential settlement planning roles:

• Recognizing settlement planning issues which impact their clients;
• Recommending appropriate settlement planning professional resources to their clients; and
• Retaining ultimate responsibility for effectuating settlements.

As one result, plaintiff attorneys represent the primary marketing target for for companies and professionals offering settlement planning services. Seven primary market brokers, one structured settlement annuity provider and one factoring company were among the 141 sponsors and exhibitors at the AAJ 2014 Annual Conference which also included companies offering lien resolution, MSA compliance, life care planning, legal finance and economic consulting services.

Notable features of the 2014 AAJ conferences:

• AAJ's educational programs focused on litigation issues with no structured settlement, no Affordable Care Act (ACA) and almost no settlement planning presentations.
• Exhibiting structured settlement brokers shared one distinguishing characteristic - their product and service offerings extended far beyond traditional structured settlements.

Related Resources:

• AAJ 2014 Winter Meeting
• AAJ 2014 Annual Meeting

Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)

SSP is a professional association most of whose members are plaintiff structured settlement brokers. SSP's 2014 Annual Conference provided three important contributions to settlement planning.

First, SSP President Neil Johnson's SSP keynote speech, which he repeated at NSSTA's Fall Conference, highlighted continuing polarization among structured settlement professionals and proposed the following solutions: 1) recognizing and accepting product diversity; 2) focusing on client and customer service; 3) identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues; 4) engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues; 5) improving relationships among stakeholder groups; 6) promoting and practicing settlement planning not settlement selling.

Second, consistent with Johnson's proposed unification solutions, SSP's Secondary Market Panel featured two leading structured settlement transfer experts whose clients typically oppose each other in secondary market cases: NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt and Stephen Harris, former co-Chairman of NSSTA's legal committee.

Third, SSP speaker Michele Fuller identified her list of 2014 settlement planning "game changers" as a baseline for industry discussion:

1. Affordable Care Act.
2. Lien resolution statutory and regulatory developments.
3. Federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
4. Wrongful death caps determined unconstitutional.
5. State and federal tax reform.
6. Potential reductions in social security benefits.
7. MSAs in liability cases.
8. Settlement planning goes cyber.
9. Increasing need for Qualified Settlement Funds.
10. Increasing number of persons with disabilities.

Related Resources - SSP 2014 Annual Conference

• Part 1 - Secondary market panel.
• Part 2 - Conference summary.

National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA)

By inviting NASP President Patricia LaBorde and SSP President Neil Johnson to speak at its members-only 2014 Fall Educational Conference, NSSTA took a symbolic step toward restoring its original vision as articulated by David Ringler, NSSTA's first president: "a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs is the most important reason for NSSTA."

For the past several years, NSSTA's leadership has superimposed a political litmus test for membership, as well as for topics and speakers at its educational conferences. NSSTA's near-sighted strategy has limited the potential growth of structured settlements within the larger and more complex settlement planning market and created multiple challenges for the next generation of structured settlement leaders.

Structured settlements, however, represent a core settlement planning product with emerging product improvements and nontraditional products demonstrating the potential for settlement planning market expansion. In addition, NSSTA's Fall conference underscored, and re-enforced, NSSTA's and NSSTA members' strategic settlement planning relationship knowledge about and with: 1) plaintiff attorneys; 2) insurance associations; 3) insurance claims adjustors; 4) national consumer associations; 5) U.S. Congressional members; and 6) MSA administrators - as well as with SSP and NASP.

Related Resources:

• NSSTA 2014 Fall Educational Conference
• Potential "Game Changing" Structured Settlement PLR
• Structured Settlements 2014 - Primary Market

National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)

Assuming settlement planning includes adjustments during an injury victim's lifetime, structured settlement transfer (factoring) companies should be included among settlement planning participants. Like NSSTA, its primary market counterpart, NASP and its members face serious challenges which NASP president Patricia LaBorde acknowledged during NASP's 2014 Annual Conference.

"There are some forces working against us right now" Laborde stated, "and we need to remain diligent so our customers (structured settlement recipients who sell payment rights to NASP member companies) continue to have access to liquidity." These "negative" forces include predicted secondary market "chaos" resulting from the Washington Square v. RSL case as well as market restrictions resulting from anti-assignment lawsuits.

Shared educational dialogue among representatives of NASP, NSSTA and SSP during 2014 appear to support the possibility of increasing primary and secondary market integration as predicted by Peter Arnold during his NASP conference presentation.

Related Resources:

• NASP 2014 Annual Conference
• Structured Settlements 2014 - Secondary Market

Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)

ASNP is one of three national associations of attorneys whose members practice special needs (SN) planning. SN planning encompasses individuals with congenital and developmental defects, as well as personal injury victims, and therefore represents a parallel market which overlaps with personal injury settlement planning.

For the past eight years, ASNP has sponsored some of the best educational programs addressing settlement planning topics including such fundamental issues as: "know your client", "needs analysis", "best practices", "industry standards" and "product suitability", as well as "professional responsibility, qualifications and liability".

Among other topics, the ASNP 2014 Conference expanded previous ASNP educational programs about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA aka "Obamacare") including a multi-professional "ACA Panel" consisting of: David Lillesand (attorney); Ann Koerner (life care planner); and Scott MacDonald (investment adviser).

Other settlement planning topics addressed during ASNP's 2014 Annual Conference:

• Blaine Brockman and Patricia Kefalas Dudek spoke about "Housing, Food Assistance, Employment Benefits" - critical topics for many people with disabilities which are rarely addressed at structured settlement and settlement planning educational conferences.
• Cynthia Barrett discussed "Post-Windsor Issues for LGBT Couples & Children" - another settlement planning subject other settlement planning conferences failed to encompass.

Expanding its settlement planning educational programs, ASNP is currently sponsoring a 12-part settlement planning webinar series which demonstrates both the growing importance of settlement planning for SN attorneys as well as the broad scope of settlement planning topics.

Related Resources:

• ASNP 2014 Annual Conference
• ASNP Settlement Planning Webinar Series
• ACA and Future Medical Expenses

National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP)

NAMSAP is the only national professional association whose singular focus is Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) arrangements. NAMSAP's growth has paralleled the expansion of workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs) to satisfy the requirements of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act. Enacted in 1980, the MSP Act requires certain insurers, including liability, automobile, no-fault and workers compensation insurers, to make payment first for services to Medicare beneficiaries regarding claimed injuries, with Medicare responsible only as a “secondary payer.”

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a WCMSA Reference Guide (WCRG) on March 29, 2013 plus a WCRG Version 2.0 on November 7, 2013. Both address structured settlement issues and provide guidelines for their utilization. WCMSAs represent one of the few submarkets where structured settlements sales have increased since 2008 - in large part because the method CMS requires for calculating WCMSA present values provides an inherent cost advantage for annuities compared with lump sum alternatives.

CMS withdrew its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to liability MSAs in October 2014 because it failed to gain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Therefore, settlement planners must continue to analyze each liability case individually to determine whether and how to protect Medicare's interests.

During NAMSAP's 2014 Regional Conference, Roy Franco predicted the following settlement planning changes likely to result from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, implementation of the ACA and the still anticipated CMS rules for liability MSAs: "workers' compensation, liability and no-fault insurers will all become primary payers vis a vis Medicare, Medicaid and ACA health providers" as part of integrated settlement planning models similar to WCMSAs." Franco added, however, that different state models are likely to develop as a result of both state-specific collateral source rules and the new Medicaid reimbursement rules promulgated by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

Related Resources

• NAMSAP 2014 Regional Conference
  • Part 1
  • Part 2
• NAMSAP 2014 Annual Meeting
• Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013

Evolve Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) Symposium

Organized "to provide a forum for open dialogue that helps shape industry developments", the 2014 Evolve QSF Symposium avoided the single claimant controversy and focused instead on other important QSF and settlement planning issues including:

• How QSFs reconfigure the traditional settlement planning process.
• QSF-related compensation issues for administrators and structured settlement brokers.
• The increasingly important settlement planning roles for life care planners and case managers.
• QSF-related tax issues such as state taxation, foreign structured settlement assignment companies and structured attorney fees.

Related Resources

• Evolve 2014 QSF Symposium
• Single Claimant QSFs Revisited
• "How the ACA Affects Nurse Life Care Planners"
• Wendie Howland Interview

National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)

NAELA was the first and remains the largest U.S. professional association focused on the needs of elder and special needs law attorneys. Responding to its own strategic challenges, NAELA organized its 2014 Annual Conference to address what it perceives to be its two primary strategic issues: 1) the future needs of persons with disabilities; and 2) the future of elder law.

Compared with ASNP, however, NAELA's educational programs rarely address settlement planning or structured settlements. When NAELA members discuss special needs planning, many tend to think about developmental (as opposed to personal injury) disabilities. Unfortunately, many NAELA members view structured settlements negatively despite familiarity with the concept and a general affinity for annuities.

Related Resources

• NAELA 2014 Annual Conference
• Person-Centered Planning
• Cornell Disability Studies, Research, Statistics

Structured Settlements 2014 - Secondary Market

Is the bloom finally off the rose for structured settlement secondary market leader JGWPT Holdings, Inc. (JGWPT) whose subsidiaries include J.G. Wentworth (JGW) and Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree)?

Despite strong sales since 2010, punctuated by the November 25, 2014 announcement that it had issued $207,501,000 of Fixed Rate Asset Backed Notes collateralized primarily by payment rights rights arising under court ordered structured settlement payment purchase contracts, JGWPT's NYSE per share price closed at $8.65 on December 12, 2014, down drastically from its 2014 high of $19.88 on March 4.

When JGWPT's Holdings IPO occurred November 8, 2013, with an initial offering price of $14.00 per share, one analyst opined the stock was worth at least $20 per share based upon JGW's "dominant franchise", access to securitization markets, low costs relative to competitors and "incalculable returns on capital", among other factors.

After JGW consolidated its 2011 merger with Peachtree, various industry experts estimated the combined combined company's structured settlement secondary market share totaled somewhere between 50% and 75%, and its share of industry profits exceeded 80%.

What happened?

Zacks Investment Research published two reports earlier this month on December 2 ("JG Wentworth - Bear of the Day") and December 9 ("What Falling Estimates & Price Mean for J.G. Wentworth").

Zacks' conclusion: "A key reason for this [downward stock price] move has been the negative trend in earnings estimate revisions. For the full year, we have seen four estimates moving down in the past 30 days, compared with no upward revision. This trend has caused the consensus estimate to trend lower, going from $1.71 a share a month ago to its current level of $1.45."

What has caused JGW's negative trend in earnings estimates?

As summarized in S2KM's 2013 annual report about the structured settlement secondary market, JGWPT faced a multitude of problems and controversies prior to 2014. New and/or expanded problems have occurred during the past 12 months - in particular:

• Brenston case law "progeny"; and
• Washington Square v. RSL.

Brenston Case Law "Progeny"

In the Brenston case, the Illinois Supreme Court in December 2013 denied Peachtree's petition for review of an Illinois Appellate Court decision which found multiple Peachtree-Brenston transfer orders, previously approved in accordance with the Illinois transfer statute, to be void ab initio because:

• Peachtree did not file all settlement documents with the transfer court.
• Peachtree concealed "by omission" the existence of anti-assignment provisions which the Appellate Court found "material".
• The conduct of Peachtree and it's attorney amounted to an "affirmative falsehood and a fraud upon the trial court".

The denial of Peachtree's petition for review has substantially reduced the secondary structured settlement market in Illinois according to industry sources. Some annuity providers reportedly have refused to waive anti-assignment provisions in Illinois cases while others evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. In addition, some annuity providers are citing Brenston to challenge transfers in other states.

The Brenston case was also quickly followed by Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, a class action lawsuit, accusing JGWPT Holdings, Inc., several affiliate companies including JGW and Peachtree, and Illinois attorney Brian Mack, of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA). The case has since been removed to the Federal Court in the Southern District of Illinois with that court expected to rule on various motions and petitions in February 2015.

Washington Square v. RSL

In this case, transfer company Washington Square (aka Imperial) sued transfer company RSL Funding in Texas for tortious interference with a transfer agreement that had not yet been approved in a final court order. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, held:

• RSL was “justified” in interfering with Imperial’s proposed transfer agreement prior to court approval because obtaining a better price was in the seller's "best interest".
• Transfer agreements that have not received court approval are not enforceable on public policy grounds and therefore cannot justify legal actions for tortious interference with existing contracts.

As a result of this case, a strategic marketing shift appears to be occurring within the structured settlement secondary market as rival transfer companies increasingly search court records and seek to outbid other transfer companies who are awaiting court approvals. This marketing shift may provide lower discount rates for some structured settlement recipients when they sell their payment rights. The impact on the secondary market, however, will be "chaos", according to some participants, including extra "informational" demands on the judicial system responsible for administering the state protection acts.

For JGW and Peachtree, who have invested millions of dollars to build their TV and Internet brands, this strategic marketing shift promises new, much less-well financed competitors. Like pilot fish, these competitors can be expected to offer competitive bids based upon public court filings of not-yet-approved transfers proposed by JGW and Peachtree (as well as other established transfer companies) rather than based upon their own independent marketing. Assuming this occurs, the likely per case results for JGW and Peachtree will be lower success ratios and higher costs.

ADDENDUM (added December 15, 2014) - JGWPT's September 10, 2014 Form S-1/A filing with the SEC identifies multiple "Risk Factors" at least two of which could impact other structured settlement stakeholders:

• "[T]he insolvency or downgrade of a material number of structured settlement issuers." S2KM will discuss these rating downgrades, which include Genworth, Hartford and Aviva, in a subsequent 2014 annual report about ELNY and Reliance.

• "[T]he impact of the March 2014 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau inquiry and any findings or regulations it issues as related to us, our industries, our products or in general." (emphasis added)

Change of Directions for JGWPT?

One apparent result of JGWPT's continuing problems and controversies has been a change of CEOs with Stewart Stockdale replacing David Miller in July 2014. Another result appears to be a more diversified strategy away from structured settlements.

In a November 13, 2014 press release, Stockdale stated: "We are in the early stages of transforming J.G. Wentworth and are excited about the groundwork we have laid to achieve the three key strategic pillars -- Grow the Core, Become an Information-Based Company, and Diversify." To date, this proposed transformation does not appear to have impressed investment analysts or positively impacted JGWPT's common stock.

Other 2014 Secondary Market Developments

• Educational Dialogue - For the first time, educational programs sponsored by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) featured representatives of the National Association of Settlement Planners (NASP) as participants in secondary market panel discussions. For the ninth consecutive year, NASP featured primary market representatives speaking about primary market issues at their annual educational conference. For summaries of these conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.
• Case Law - In addition to the Washington Square and Brenston-related cases summarized above, noteworthy 2014 case law developments occurred in Texas and New York related to split payments and servicing arrangements. Two Texas cases required JGW to continue servicing arrangements under prior court approved orders and also to service subsequent assignments by the same payees to another transfer company. Multiple New York judges expressed their concerns about servicing arrangements while approving structured settlement transfers. At least 27 state structured settlement protection acts prohibit partial transfers. During 2013, MetLife began actively opposing transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements. Under such servicing arrangements, structured settlement annuity providers remit the entirety of specific periodic payments to transfer companies to administer even when the original recipient/transferor only assigns a portion of the payments.
• State Legislation - Although structured settlement protection act (SSPA) activities occurred in Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Mississippi during 2014, only Minnesota enacted a legislative amendment. Minnesota amended its SSPA to require notice of the date and judicial district of any prior application for transfer filed by the transferee relating to a prior proposed transfer with the payee including whether the proposed transfer was approved or denied. If granted, such notice must provide the amount and due dates of transferred structured settlement payments, the aggregate amount, the discounted present value and the gross amount payable to the payee.
• PLR-143928-13 - Issued by the Internal Revenue Service in August, this two-part private letter ruling approves favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity which includes the possibility of a commutation by the recipient pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion. In a prior blog post, S2KM described this PLR as potentially "game changing" because it overcomes an industry concern (enunciated in a 2006 Robert Wood article) that commutations do not qualify for favorable tax treatment afforded third party factoring transactions under IRC 5891.
• Re-cycled payment rights - Representing a small fraction of secondary market sales, the resale to personal injury victims and their attorneys of payment rights previously acquired in a structured settlement factoring transaction (sometimes misleadingly referred to as "recycled structured settlements") continues to cause serious concern among most primary market participants. NSSTA considers engaging in or promoting the marketing or distribution of re-cycled payment rights to be risky, confusing and unregulated investment activity and inconsistent with its Mission.
• Discount rates - Discount rates for structured settlement transfers vary widely depending upon multiple factors including: single vs. multiple bids; fixed vs. life contingent payments; size of payments purchased; length of payment deferral; perceived financial strength of the annuity provider; and/or state law (eg. North Carolina rate cap). The NCOIL State Structured Settlement Protection Model Act, which NSSTA and NASP have agreed to support, contains a definition for "discounted present value" which is generally higher than, and unrelated to, the discount rate actually incorporated into most structured settlement transfers. Regardless of discount rates, judges continue to deny proposed transfers that do not otherwise satisfy the "best interest" test. Reasons include: funds from prior transfer(s) were not used for stated purposes; stated purposes do not justify approval.
• Secondary market sales
  • Based on interviews with industry experts in 2012, S2KM estimated 2012 structured settlement activity to be:
    • 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.
  • Opinions differ as to secondary market sales growth during 2013 and 2014 ranging from no growth to 7% growth per year.

S2KM will address 2014 developments related to personal injury settlement planning and the ELNY liquidation in subsequent blog posts,

For additional related S2KM reporting, see:

• NASP 2014 Annual Conference.
• Primary Market 2014 Report
• Prior Year Annual Reports

Structured Settlements 2014 - Primary Market

The United States structured settlement primary market has continued to slowly recover from its 2012 nadir during 2014 with first nine months annuity sales of approximately $3.9 billion resulting from 19,778 cases (as reported by Melissa Evola) a premium increase of 3% compared to $3.73 billion for the same period in 2013.

Total projected 2014 annual premium of $5.28 billion, however, is expected to fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry apogee ($6.2 billion in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007. For estimated annual structured settlement annuity sales since 1976, see the structured settlement wiki.

Adding these 2014 third quarter results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru September 30, 2014:

• Total annuity premium: $143 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 822,000
• Average annuity premium: $174,000.

Nine month 2014 sales results for individual structured settlement annuity providers (per Evola's report) which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) plus the rounded increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2013 results:

• Berkshire Hathaway - $1.113 billion (+ $79 million)
• MetLife - $678 million (+ $114 million)
• Pacific Life - $553 million (- $47 million)
• Prudential Life - $463 million (+ $90 million)
• Liberty Life - $430 million (+ $21 million)
• Amgen/USL - $378 million (- $57 million)
• New York Life - $206 million (+ $14 million)
• Mutual of Omaha - $40 million (- $10 million)

Notes

• Allstate and John Hancock, which have departed the structured settlement market, sold a combined $79 million of structured settlement annuities during the first nine months of 2013.
• To better understand their clients' "perceptions, utilization and understanding of the value of structured settlement consultants" (and presumably to improve industry sales), NSSTA has retained CLM Advisors to conduct separate marketing surveys of property & casualty 1) senior claims executives and 2) claims adjustors as well as 3) plaintiff attorneys. The results of Phases 1 and 2 were presented at NSSTA 2014 educational conferences.

Low Interest Rates

Many structured settlement industry participants attribute decreased sales to low interest rates. Market yields on U.S. Treasury securities at 30 year constant maturity peaked at 13.45 percent in 1981. Here are several historic average annual rates for 30 year Treasury securities (source: U.S. Department of the Treasury):

• 2014 (as of December 5) - 2.97%
• 2013 - 3.96%
• 2012 - 2.95%
• 2011 - 3.91%
• 2010 - 4.25%
• 2009 - 4.08%
• 2008 - 4.28%
• 2007 - 4.84%
• 2000 - 5.94%
• 1990 - 8.61%
• 1980 - 11.27%

Submarkets - Two noteworthy submarkets are incorporated within the structured settlement annuity production numbers set forth above:

• Non-Qualified Assignments
  • Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC section 130.
  • Unlike qualified assignees, U.S.-based, non-qualified assignees are subject to income tax on the amount they receive from whatever entity assigns (or more accurately "delegates") periodic payment obligations for claimants who do not qualify for tax exclusions under IRC section 104(a)(1) or (2) - such as employment discrimination cases or deferred attorney fees.
  • Despite the promise of a large potential "non-qualified assignment" market, reported sales on non-qualified structured settlement annuities by NSSTA members have declined since 2012.
  • Reported nine month 2014 non-qualified structured settlement sales totaled $113.2 million compared with $124.3 million in 2013.
• Medicare Set-Asides
• A Medicare set-aside (MSA) is an administrative and funding mechanism utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute.
• Although Federal law does not define MSAs, or mandate specific types of MSA funding mechanisms, CMS (the responsible federal agency) has established certain basic requirements for workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs).
• No similar rules exist for liability MSAs. In October 2014, CMS withdrew a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which was expected to address liability MSAs.
• Under current CMS rules, structured settlement annuities have an inherent cost advantage over lump sum alternatives for funding WCMSAs resulting from the method CMS prescribes for calculating present values.
• Based upon industry sources, S2KM has previously estimated that eight (8%) percent of 2013 structured settlement premium and 24 percent of 2013 structured settlement annuities were attributable to WCMSAs. Under current CMS rules, these numbers could increase in 2014.

Product Developments - Significant structured settlement product developments occurred during 2014 including:

• Equity-indexed Annuity Rider - Pacific Life has obtained a Private Letter Ruling (PLR-143928-13) from the IRS approving favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity with annual payment adjustments based on the performance of the Standard & Poors 500 Index. Although life insurance companies first offered equity-indexed annuities during the mid-1990's to compete with indexed mutual funds, Pacific Life's ILAAPR represents the first U.S. equity-indexed structured settlement option. To achieve market success, structured settlement consultants must convince settlement recipients that potentially higher long-term ILAAPR payouts (based upon S&P 500 performance) will offset lower starting payments compared with traditional structured settlement annuities.
• Hardship Conversion Feature - PLR-143928-13 also approves favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity with a commutation pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion which the PLR describes as follows: "The Notice of Hardship Conversion provides that the Assignee will consider a request from Claimant to convert future guaranteed structured settlement payments to an immediate lump sum payment, in certain qualifying hardship circumstances, if the request is approved by a court or applicable administrative authority pursuant to a qualified order under § 5891(b)(2). The qualifying hardship circumstances are financial hardship due to medical expenses, expenses related to a terminal illness, home improvement expenses for handicap accessibility, job loss, loss of home, and the same type of expense for the payee’s dependents. Assignee expressly represents that it reserves the right to decline any hardship conversion request and that it will consider each hardship conversion request on a case-by-case basis. In addition, Assignee represents that it will not allow any hardship conversion in the first year after a qualified assignment."
• Periodic Payment Reinsurance - Although first offered in 1982, Berkshire Hathaway re-introduced its periodic payment reinsurance product during 2014.  Issued by National Indemnity Company, a Berkshire property and casualty company, this product is available for both tax-free periodic payments [under IRC 104(a)(1) and/or (2)] and non-IRC 130 tax-deferred periodic payments. In many respects analogous to traditional structured settlements, Berkshire asserts multiple advantages for its reinsurance product. These include greater financial strength than other structured settlement product providers plus higher interest rates because, unlike life insurers, National Indemnity's investments are not concentrated in bonds. Unlike traditional structured settlements, however, periodic payment reinsurance does not qualify for guarantee fund coverage and cannot be used by self-insureds. For more detailed analysis of periodic payment reinsurance as well as other structured settlement financing alternatives, see Chapter 3 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Primary Market Challenges - Reporting on NSSTA's 2014 Fall Educational Conference, S2KM summarized the following challenges currently facing the structured settlement primary market:

• Generational transition
• Stagnant growth
• Polarized and complex overlapping market(s)
• Alternative business models
• Increasing competition
• Changing success factors

In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will address 2014 structured settlement developments related to the secondary market, personal injury settlement planning and the ELNY liquidation. For prior S2KM annual reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

Evolve 2014 QSF Symposium

Despite unresolved issues, utilization of IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) in "single event" cases, as well as class action and mass tort cases, is expanding, and increasingly represents the preferred method for resolving complex personal injury claims, according to participants at the Third Annual QSF Symposium sponsored by Evolve Bank and Trust on November 14, 2014 in Memphis, Tennessee.

Various speakers estimated the number of QSF cases annually currently exceeds 2500, equally split between single event cases and class action/mass tort cases, increasing by 25% per year. This expansion has occurred as more settlement planning stakeholders learn about the advantages of QSFs - and despite single claimant QSF tax uncertainty.

Although Rev. Proc. 93-34 permits QSFs to make IRC 130 qualified assignments, and no tax authority exists prohibiting single claimant QSFs, structured settlement annuity providers currently refuse to accept single claimant QSFs which they broadly define to encompass claims by family members, plaintiff attorneys, lien holders and creditors.

Organized "to provide a forum for open dialogue that helps shape industry developments", the 2014 QSF Symposium completely avoided the single claimant controversy and focused instead on other important QSF and settlement planning issues.

Topics and Speakers

• Introduction and Welcome - Andrew Cook
• QSF Administrator Control Systems and Fraud Protection - Brian Berning
• QSF State Tax Issues - Mike May
• Tax Issues for Foreign Structured Settlement Assignment Companies - Jeremy Babener
• Calculating Settlement Awards - Chris Lordan
• QSF Settlement Planning Panel - Patrick Hindert (Moderator), Andrew Cook, Wendie Howland, Pi-Yi Mayo, Bryn Poland, Joseph Tombs.
• How New SEC Rules Impact QSF Money Market Fund Investments - John Rush.
• How Plaintiff Attorneys View QSFs - William Burns
• QSF Administrator Compensation Issues - Paige Balnum; Pi-Yi Mayo; Bryn Poland.
• QSF Attorney Fee Programs - Chris Shumate.

QSF Objectives and Benefits

In his legal treatise, "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B", published in 2009, Robert Wood explains QSFs as follows: "Their primary objective is to gather and administer cash or assets and determine the amounts and exact nature of payments that the plaintiffs, attorneys, and other claimants will receive..... QSFs benefit both plaintiffs and defendants alike. They are separate entities for federal income tax purposes and are flexible and easy to establish."

Section 3.08B of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) summarizes the benefits of QSFs in more detail: "defendants obtain a binding release from liability by making a currently-deductible payment into a court or government-approved Fund; while claimants, who have no tax consequence as a result of this payment into a Fund, are then afforded as much time as they need to sort out important issues of their own, such as allocating settlement shares, obtaining court approvals for minors or other legally-disabled claimants, resolving liens (which sometimes involve complex pay-back and set-aside issues as to Medicaid and Medicare), and deciding on forms of distribution (whether cash, structured settlements, or special needs trusts that may be used to preserve eligibility for certain government benefits)."

QSFs reconfigure the traditional (ready; shoot; aim) settlement planning process:

1. Needs assessment
2. Design
3. Negotiation
4. Implementation
5. Monitoring

so that needs assessment and settlement design follow the negotiation (and funding) steps rather than precede them.

Highlighted Issues

• QSF Administrator - The QSF Symposium emphasized the important role of the QSF administrator as well as the services he or she may provide and/or require including: investment, expense and distribution management; tax reporting and filing; legal and regulatory compliance; and fraud control. The QSF administer appears best positioned to quarterback the QSF settlement planning team. An apparent need exists for more (and better qualified) QSF administrators.
• Life Care Planners and Case Managers - Life care planners and case managers are frequently overlooked in traditional settlement planning. Life care planners are rarely asked to revise their pre-trial and trial-focused life care plans to account for collateral sources or the actual amount of settlement funding. Case managers (who are separately certified) increasingly are retained to "monitor" settlement plans by providing post-settlement medical advice and services for serious personal injury victims.
• Compensation Issues - For QSFs to achieve their potential improvements for single event settlement planning, multiple compensation issues must still be addressed and resolved:
  • Administrators - The QSF Symposium devoted one of its panels to administrator compensation issues, including: who pays their fee? what fee is appropriate for what services? and how should the fee be calculated (flat fee; per claimant fee; or fee based on QSF earnings)? Complicating these issues, many attorney QSF administrators play multiple roles (trustee; administrator) in addition to drafting QSF documents and making court appearances.
  • Structured settlement brokers - In many single event QSFs, the plaintiff structured settlement broker plays key roles: 1) selecting and paying the QSF administrator; 2) performing "value added" settlement planning services as part of his/her contingent commission compensation. Not only do these arrangements create potential conflicts of interest ("needs based" selling determined by the needs of the broker and administrator), they also increase a broker's risk of loss in the the event of an unsuccessful structured settlement sale.
  • Additional compensation issues arise when: 1) a case settles with no allowance for QSF expenses; 2) a case involves minors or incompetents requiring a guardian and court to approve QSF expenses; and also because 3) in the current low interest rate environment, QSF fees often exceed investment yields. Although not discussed during the Symposium, defense structured settlement brokers have opposed QSFs fearing a reduction or the elimination of their contingent commission compensation.
• Tax topics - The QSF Symposium featured three tax topics:
  • State taxation - State taxation of QSFs is inconsistent with little guidance. Many states have not yet addressed QSF taxation. Potential penalties exist for failure to file including interest on any unpaid liability without any statute of limitations. QSF administrators are advised to follow a two step analysis: 1) can a specific state tax a QSF based upon the situs of the court or the administrator or the bank where funds are deposited? 2) assuming a filing obligation exists, how will a state tax a QSF - as a corporation or a trust?
  • Foreign structured settlement assignment companies - Potential tax issues exist for defendants, plaintiffs and the foreign assignment company. Can a defendant deduct its payment to a foreign assignment company? When does a plaintiff receive payments for tax purposes and what is the character of those payments? Does the foreign assignment company recognize income when it receives an assignment payment? If yes, will it be considered active or passive income or does a treaty override exist?
  • Structured attorney fees - When properly arranged, structured attorney fees allow a contingently-compensated attorney to defer portions of his or her compensation and pay tax upon receipt regardless of the type of case or whether the client receives a lump sum or periodic payments.
• Education issues - Single event QSF education is needed for plaintiff attorneys and judges who are still unfamiliar with the QSF concept. Among the most likely education providers are special needs attorneys who serve as QSF administrators or trustees and structured settlement brokers. In addition to litigating attorneys and judges, QSF educational targets should include other settlement planning stakeholders such as: liability insurers; settlement trustees, guardians; mediators; and life care planners.

Conclusion - Evolve's QSF Symposium offers a valuable and unique addition to the growing number of personal injury settlement planning conferences and educational resources. When Robert Wood's QSF legal treatise was published in 2009, he acknowledged his analysis "clearly enters unchartered ground". Congratulations to Chairman Andy Cook and Evolve Bank and Trust for helping to survey this unchartered QSF terrain by sponsoring an educational event specifically designed to promote discussion and exchange of ideas about QSF issues, standards and best practices.

For S2KM's complete coverage of 2014 structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

NASP 2014 Annual Conference

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) celebrated its 10th annual conference November 5-6, 2014 in San Antonio, Texas with record attendance, recognition of past accomplishments and a clear existential message from its president Patricia LaBorde: "NASP exists to insure there will be a secondary structured settlement market for at least the NEXT 10 years".

NASP's 2014 educational conference followed by one week an historic NSSTA conference, which featured, for the first time, the presidents of NASP (LaBorde) and SSP (Neil Johnson) as speakers. LaBorde acknowledged this development in her opening NASP remarks stating: "we want to hear NSSTA's criticism and for the first time, they appear to want to hear ours." She expressed surprise and concern, however, about how little NSSTA members appear to understand about the secondary market including several basic misconceptions.

To underscore both NASP's "survival" theme and the need for improved education about the secondary market, LaBorde added: "there are some forces working against us right now and we need to remain diligent so our customers (structured settlement recipients who sell payment rights to NASP member companies) continue to have access to liquidity."

NASP lobbyist Jack Kelly and Executive Director Earl Nesbitt addressed some of NASP's challenges in their presentations providing legislative and case law updates respectively.

Legislative Update

Kelly reviewed structured settlement protection statute activities in Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Mississippi and declared NASP's 2014 state legislative lobbying a success. Kelly highlighted Florida and Wisconsin as states where NASP and NSSTA could collaborate to improve existing legislation. At the federal level, Kelly addressed H.R. 3897 and the July 23, 2014 "Consumer Protection for People with Disabilities" Congressional symposium which included a panel discussion about "factoring structured settlements".

Echoing LaBorde's comments about NSSTA, Kelly expressed his concern about "fact vs fiction" as to what happens and what benefits transfers provide for structured settlement recipients who experience unexpected or unaddressed financial needs. Emphasizing "no secondary market transaction can occur without a primary market transaction", Kelly criticized any development or activity that causes Congress to relook at IRC 130 and 104(a)(2). Speaking the morning after the 2014 election, Kelly labeled the Republican victory a political "tsunami" and the odds on new tax legislation in 2015 as a "toss up".

Case Law Update

For the uninitiated, Nesbitt prefaced his secondary market case law summary with several applicable "lessons": if you don't pay a seller the agreed amount, you will have trouble; courts take the "best interest" standard seriously; sometimes the prudent action is to dismiss a proposed transfer and move on; if you don't get what you want, don't move to another court or arbitration; words in a contract matter and words in a court order matter more; although rare in Texas, sometimes it rains (it did in San Antonio) and sometimes RSL Funding (formerly Rapid Settlements) wins cases.

Washington Square v. RSL

Among several significant cases, Nesbitt gave top billing to Washington Square v. RSL Funding wherein transfer company Washington Square (aka Imperial) sued transfer company RSL Funding in Texas for tortious interference with a transfer agreement that had not yet been approved in a final court order. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, held:

• RSL was “justified” in interfering with Imperial’s proposed transfer agreement prior to court approval because obtaining a better price was in the seller's "best interest".
• Transfer agreements that have not received court approval are not enforceable on public policy grounds and therefore cannot justify legal actions for tortious interference with existing contracts.

Acknowledging this case represents a "big win" for RSL, Nesbitt also predicted "chaos" for the secondary market as rival transfer companies increasingly search court records and seek to outbid other transfer companies who are awaiting court approvals. Subsequent NASP panels of transfer attorneys and judges, as well as sidebar discussions with angry representatives of companies outbid by competitors, confirmed Nesbitt prediction and suggested a strategic marketing shift is already occurring among transfer companies.

Brenston Case

In a separate presentation, Nesbitt reviewed the Peachtree Settlement Funding v. Brenston case and its case law "progeny". In the Brenston case, the Illinois Supreme Court in December 2013 denied Peachtree's petition for review of an Illinois Appellate Court decision which found multiple Peachtree-Brenston transfer orders, which Illinois Circuit Courts had approved in accordance with the Illinois transfer statute, to be void ab initio because:

• Peachtree did not file all settlement documents with the transfer court.
• Peachtree concealed "by omission" the existence of anti-assignment provisions which the Appellate Court found "material".
• The conduct of Peachtree and it's attorney amounted to an "affirmative falsehood and a fraud upon the trial court".

An Amicus curiae brief filed by NASP with the Illinois Supreme Court stated: "Without the certainty and finality of a court order, there is no viable secondary market.... Because every structured settlement contains boilerplate language that purports to limit or restrict assignability, every Illinois court approved transfer could be subject to challenge at any time."

As NASP predicted, the denial of Peachtree's petition for review was quickly followed by Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, a class action lawsuit, accusing JGWPT Holdings, Inc., several affiliate companies including J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Settlement Funding, and Illinois attorney Brian Mack, of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA). The case has since been removed to the Federal Court in the Southern District of Illinois with that court expected to rule on various motions and petitions in February 2015.

As a result of Brenston, according to Nesbitt:

• Many Illinois structured settlement recipients lack liquidity options because many transfer companies are avoiding the state.
• Some transfers continue to be completed in Illinois when all interested parties agree to waive existing anti-assignment language.
• Some annuity providers, however, will not waive anti-assignment provisions in Illinois cases while others evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.
• Attorneys for some annuity providers are citing Brenston to challenge transfers in other states.

Discounted PV and Applicable Federal Rate

The NCOIL State Structured Settlement Protection Model Act, which NSSTA and NASP have agreed to support, contains a definition for "discounted present value" linked to "the most recently published Applicable Federal Rate for determining the present value of an annuity, as issued by the United States Internal Revenue Service." This rate is generally higher than, and unrelated to, the discount rate actually incorporated into most structured settlement transfers. Nesbitt concluded his conference presentations with a detailed critique of NCOIL's discounted PV definition and explained why NASP believes this definition confuses rather than informs state judges.

Additional Presentations

NASP's conference featured two additional individual presentations.

Former NSSTA Deputy Executive Director Peter Arnold predicted future integration of the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. To support his prediction, Arnold reviewed NSSTA's historic attitude toward "factoring transactions." Arnold also highlighted NSSTA membership qualifications which currently prohibit members from "actively soliciting and promoting structured settlement factoring transactions to individuals who are receiving periodic payments under structured settlements."

Pery Krinsky, an ethics-based defense attorney who serves as Chairman of the Committee on Professional Discipline of the N.Y. County Lawyers' Association, spoke about legal ethics issues. He did not mention Paris & Chaiken, a New York law firm accused of falsifying court orders approving structured settlement transfers, which has reportedly retained Krinsky as outside ethics counsel for assistance with these cases.

Panel Discussions and Breakout Sessions

NASP's 2014 conference included four panel discussions and four breakout sessions (see listings below). Panel highlights and issues addressed:

• Drafting Transfer Agreements - Assigned payments vs. assigned payment rights; clients vs. sellers or annuitants relating to transfer company fiduciary responsibilities; representations and warranties; holdbacks and deductions; limited powers of attorney; testamentary agreements; arbitration provisions.
• Primary Market - NSSTA Fall conference; MSA market; primary market surveys; impact of Affordable Care Act; ELNY update; PLR-143928-13 and "hardship conversions"; settlement planning developments; re-cycled structured settlements; Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013; provider company departures; primary/secondary cooperation opportunities; best and worst business practices; annuity provider issues with transfer companies.
• Responding to Insurer Transfer Objections - Confirming his company's "good relationship" with transfer companies, Madis Smit of State Farm highlighted several insurer issues: unanticipated costs of reviewing 15 to 20 transfers per week; inadequate notice (need at least seven days); difficulty in locating some requested settlement documents; split payment problems resulting from insurer technology limitations; "three touches" constitute an insurer ideal (petition; order; notice of approval). Additional issues discussed: proposed documents from insurers that do not meet state-specific requirements; protecting public information in case filings.
• Judicial Panel - "Best interest" considerations; multiple transactions; common mistakes by petitioners; privacy issues; discount rates; independent professional advisors. The judges also were encouraged to identify questions for the audience - and did so. All three judges expressed a need and interest for additional education about the secondary market.

Alexander Hamilton Award

NASP honored James Lokey as the 2014 recipient of its Alexander Hamilton Award. Lokey completed the first transfer of structured settlement payment rights in 1986 thereby launching the secondary market. NASP has bestowed its Alexander Hamilton Award seven times "to distinguished individuals who have supported and defended the right to free alienability of property rights." NASP considers this right to be its own cornerstone and the foundation of the structured settlement factoring business.

Topics and Speakers

• Welcome Remarks - Patricia LaBorde.
• Legislative and Regulatory Developments - Jack Kelly.
• Legislative Update - Earl Nesbitt.
• Drafting Transfer Agreements - Jason Sutherland and Brian Mack.
• Hamilton Award - James Lokey.
• Integration of Primary and Secondary Markets - Peter Arnold.
• Primary Market Panel - Patrick Hindert (Moderator), Daniel Durbin, Medora Marisseau, Mark Wahlstrom.
• Ethics Issues - Pery Krinsky.
• Responding to Insurer Transfer Objections - Michael Damore (Moderator), John Shafai, John Mott, Michael Green, Steven Mastrantonio, Madis Smit.
• Break Out Sessions
  • Preparing vs.Coaching a Problem Payee - Laryssa Korduba and Elyse Strickland.
  • Addressing Judicial Concerns - Roger Dunaway and Andrew Hillman.
  • Life Contingent Issues - Michael Fasano and Dan Bonner.
  • Bankruptcy Issues - Michael Damore and Adam Zoldessy.
• Illinois Litigation and Discounted Present Value - Earl Nesbitt.
• Judicial Panel - Matthew Bracy (Moderator), Judges Lynne Parker, Patricia Summe, Travis Francis.

For S2KM reports of additional 2014 educational conferences plus eight of the nine prior NASP conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2014 Fall Educational Conference

Although David Ringler was unable to attend the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 2014 Fall Educational Conference October 29-30 in La Jolla, California, he had an apparent impact. Ringler, NSSTA's first president, previously re-stated his original vision for NSSTA during NSSTA's 25th anniversary celebration in 2011:

"Although we do need to constantly be on the watch for legislative change, I still believe having a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs is the most important reason for NSSTA. I have called it a common “talk table”, although I agree that is not exactly a very elegant term. If we can continue this tradition, there is no problem we cannot overcome."

Many industry participants, including some NSSTA members, have questioned whether NSSTA has lost sight of this original purpose and tradition. For the past several years, NSSTA's leadership has superimposed a political litmus test for membership, as well as for topics and speakers at its educational conferences. As one result, structured settlement industry participants with alternative issues, viewpoints, beliefs and educational interests have founded two other national structured settlement associations: the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) in 1996 and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) in 2000.

NASP and SSP Participation

Perhaps responding to Ringler's clarion call, NSSTA opened its members-only educational program in La Jolla by inviting NASP President Patricia LaBorde and SSP President Neil Johnson to speak.

LaBorde was featured on a Secondary Market Panel, moderated by John McCulloch, which also included Stephen Harris and Patrick Hindert as panelists. McCulloch's questions targeted primary market concerns such as the prevalence of secondary market transfers, consequences of transfer company advertising and secondary market discount rates. The resulting discussion captured the audience's undivided attention and hopefully will result in expanded educational dialogue between NSSTA and NASP to include shared political and business interests.

Johnson and current NSSTA President Kevin Silo jointly addressed "Industry Challenges", a panel discussion moderated by NSSTA President-elect Michael Goodman. Repeating portions of his SSP 2014 keynote speech, Johnson proposed the following solutions for achieving industry unity: 1) recognizing and accepting product diversity; 2) focusing on client and customer service; 3) identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues; 4) engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues; 5) improving relationships among stakeholder groups; 6) promoting and practicing settlement planning not settlement selling.

Generational Change and Challenges

NSSTA and the primary structured settlement market face multiple challenges (see below) - perhaps none greater than succession. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), will emerge (and when) to replace and build upon the accomplishments of the pioneering generation (now in their 60s and 70s) who originated the structured settlement market in the late 1970s?

In addition to generating more than $140 billion of annuity premium, the legacy of NSSTA's retiring generation includes enactment of the existing structured settlement legislative framework: current IRC sections 104(a)(1) and (2) and 130 plus multiple state periodic payment of judgment statutes and (with NASP) enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection statutes. More recently, however, NSSTA's aging leadership has focused on defense - with "protect and preserve" its principle mantra.

NSSTA attempted to addressed this generational succession issue at its Fall conference by juxtaposing panels featuring past NSSTA Presidents and "Next Generation" brokers. The impression that emerged: NSSTA and the primary market have reached an historic crossroads - with multiple stakeholders, issues and options, but no clear future direction.

Whatever next generation of NSSTA leaders emerges will face several challenges:

• Stagnant growth - Since achieving $6 billion of annual annuity sales in 2001, structured settlement premium growth has stagnated with 2013 sales totaling $5.1 billion.
• Polarized market(s) - NSSTA's leaders have been unable, and/or unwilling, to unify the structured settlement market(s) around such shared interests as: primary market growth; preservation of existing legislation; and consumer protection - which prioritizes maintaining promised periodic payments.
• Alternative business models - Can alternative structured settlement models (traditional defense vs. emerging plaintiff) continue to co-exist and collaborate?
• Complexity - Structured settlements represent a strategic product within the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) market.
• Product features - Will Pacific Life's recent private letter ruling encourage structured settlement annuity providers to expand their product offerings to include "equity-indexed" annuities and "hardship conversions"?
• Competition. Within the settlement planning market, the growth and leadership of other product and service providers has increasingly exceeded the growth and leadership of structured settlement participants.
• Success factors. To expand sales within the evolving settlement planning market, NSSTA's leaders must re-think and re-engineer historical success factors - backgrounds and skill sets; educational programs; business models; product enhancements; sales and marketing strategies.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

The settlement planning market is knowledge-intense and increasingly Internet-based. To continue, and increase, their historical success within the evolving settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members must improve their knowledge management capabilities. One preliminary step is to identify and evaluate existing strategic knowledge. NSSTA and its members possess three primary types of strategic knowledge:

• Product knowledge - The "Tax Posse", the ACA summary, and even the Non-traditional Products presentation at NSSTA's Fall conference represent good examples of NSSTA's product knowledge. Perhaps more important, and more valuable, than explicit product knowledge, NSSTA members possess tacit (intuitive, experiential) knowledge of how structured settlements work. In the context of the secondary market, however, NSSTA member knowledge of its own product is arguably much weaker, and, therefore, incomplete and less valuable.
• Relationship knowledge - Much of NSSTA's Fall conference related to, and re-enforced, NSSTA's and NSSTA members' settlement planning relationship knowledge about and with: 1) plaintiff attorneys; 2) insurance associations; 3) insurance claims adjustors; 4) national consumer associations; 5) U.S. Congressional members; 6) MSA administrators; 7) SSP; and 8) NASP. In settlement planning, as in life more generally, it is not what you know but who you know that counts the most.
• Market knowledge - Compared with other settlement planning market segments, NSSTA (and NASP) appear to have developed and maintained more accurate market metrics including quarterly and annual premium and cases in total and for each member product provider. To further expand structured settlements into the settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members might begin to track additional metrics. For examples: what percentage of structured settlements are utilized to fund MSAs, SNTs and settlement trusts more generally. Which categories of structured settlement recipients are most likely to sell payment rights and why?

MARKETING INITIATIVES

NSSTA conference speakers introduced multiple new marketing initiatives including:

• "NSSTA University" - NSSTA's Debbie Sink announced a new "NSSTA University" service whereby NSSTA will partner with any member to secure CE credits for member-sponsored educational seminars or insurance claims departments or law firms.
• CLM Survey Part II - In partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA's Marketing Committee summarized CLM Survey Part II (claims adjustors) of an eventual three part survey project. Part I surveyed claims executives. Part III will survey plaintiff attorneys. These surveys provide NSSTA members with valuable marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• Introduction and Welcome - Eric Vaughn.
• Industry Challenges - Michael Goodman (Moderator), Kevin Silo, Neil Johnson.
• Next Gen Brokers - Louis Masry (Moderator), Kristen Chess, Ryan Garrison, Tony Robinson.
• Financial Issues for People with Disabilities - Sally Greenberg and Mark Perriello.
• AAJ Treasurer Elect - Elise Sanguinetti.
• MSA Professional Administration - Tom Adams (Moderator), Marques Torbert, Joe Anderson.
• Affordable Care Act - Jordan Bossler.
• Past NSSTA Presidents - Moderators (Kevin Silo; Eric Vaughn); Jeff Bowers, Len Blonder, Joe Costello, Mal Deener, Dan Durbin, Randy Dyer, Dan Finn, Patrick Hindert, John Machir, Henry Strong.
• Factoring Panel - John McCulloch (Moderator), Stephen Harris, Patrick Hindert, Patricia LaBorde.
• Non-Traditional Products - Erin Muller (Moderator), John Arendt, Ryan Jandreau, Jeff Reinhold, Chris Shumate, Ravi Vaswani.
• American Insurance Association - Peter Foley.
• CLM Survey Part II - Taylor Smith, Susan Clark, Jeff Livingston.
• Tax Posse - John McCulloch, Timothy O'Driscoll, Tom Ronce.
• NSSTA CE News - Erin Muller and Debbie Sink.

Congratulations to NSSTA and conference chairperson Erin Muller for re-establishing NSSTA's tradition of educational programs featuring speakers with multiple viewpoints on industry issues "regardless of beliefs". David Ringler and other structured settlement pioneers should feel gratified - and hopeful for NSSTA's future success.

For S2KM's reports about prior NSSTA educational conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

S2P2J Release 56

Publisher Law Journal Press will be distributing hard copy supplements for Release 56 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) later this month with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update automatically and simultaneously. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability as well as link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

First published in 1986 and updated semi-annually, S2P2J is co-authored by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert (S2KM's Managing Director). Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Highlights from Recent S2P2J Updates

Release 56 

• Practice tips for minimizing the risk of an IRS settlement challenge.
• Updated summary of lessons learned from the Executive Life Insurance of New York (ELNY) insolvency.
• Periodic payment reinsurance as an alternative means of funding structured settlements.

Release 55 

• Risks of using off-shore companies to fund qualified assignments.
• Meeting professional responsibilities for product disclosures.
• Subrogation rights impacting structured settlements.
• Choice of law provisions for attorney compensation.
• Medicaid liens and the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act.
• How the Brenston case impacts transfer applications.
• Document drafting for anti-assignment restrictions.
• Vermont's structured settlement protection act amendments.

Release 54 

• New considerations for negotiating structured settlements vs. cashing out.
• Defendant disclosure issues.
• Business practice update for consultants.
• Insurance company insolvencies - ELNY and Reliance.
• Medicare set-aside developments.
• Re-cycled structured settlement payment rights.
• Securitization of structured settlement payment rights.
• Australia structured settlement update.

Fall 2014 Educational Resources

During this transitional era for both settlement planning and the primary and secondary structured settlement markets, participating professionals are fortunate to have multiple educational opportunities this Fall to update and expand their knowledge.

Conferences

• Stetson SNT Conference - October 15-17 in St. Petersburg, Florida.
• AANLCP Annual Conference - October 24-27 in Atlanta.
• NSSTA Fall Meeting - October 28-30 - La Jolla, California.
• NASP Annual Conference - November 4-6 in San Antonio, Texas.
• Evolve QSF Symposium - November 13-14 in Memphis.

Webinar - ASNP's 12-part Settlement Planning webinar series beginning October 1 and ending March 18, 2015.

Certification Program - NSSTA's 2014 Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) Professional Certification Program - October 15-19 at the University of Notre Dame.

ACA Seminar - NBI's Affordable Care Act (ACA): Impact on Injury Settlements seminar - offered in multiple cities on alternative dates.

Journals

• NAELA Journal Fall 2014 - focuses on Guardianship issues.
• AANLCP Journal Fall 2014 - includes a survey and study of nurse life care planner roles.

Book Update - Release 56 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) will be published latter this Fall.

S2KM will provide subsequent blog reports summarizing many of these programs and written materials.

For past S2KM reporting about professional educational conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.