Beyond Structured Settlements

NASP 2015 Annual Conference

Patricia LaBorde, President of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP), opened her association's 2015 Annual Conference last week in Las Vegas with a provocative description of its prior 12 months: "a year of unimaginable successes and challenges".

Founded in 2004, NASP identifies itself as "a leader in setting standards and implementing best practices for the structured settlement purchasing industry. Our association safeguards the rights of settlement recipients to readily access their funds through an efficient, fair and transparent judicial process."

NASP Presidential Panel

Subsequent conference presentations detailed NASP's successes and challenges including an historic President's Panel, moderated by Robin Shapiro, and featuring LaBorde and Michael Goodman, the first sitting President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) to attend a NASP conference.

Goodman has identified "growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry" as his number one goal as NSSTA President. He also characterized his remarks and opinions as personal and not representative of official NSSTA policy or positions.

Goodman highlighted the need for "responsible factoring" and mentioned the consumer protections that have been put in place in Wisconsin, Maryland and Illinois. Based upon his own professional experience, Goodman gave multiple examples of what he considered appropriate and inappropriate transfer activities.

Among Goodman's other noteworthy comments:

• "Factoring is not a zero sum game. What is bad for the secondary market is not necessarily good for the primary market."
• "Both NSSTA and NASP need to improve/correct the branding of "structured settlements". Confusing the primary and secondary markets is not beneficial for either association."
• "I am proud we have been able to create more consumer protections for injured annuitants. I am hopeful that by the end of this year, we will have improved the Structured Settlement Protections Acts (SSPAs) in five states.”

Both LaBorde and Goodman acknowledged business practices within their own markets that have created problems for the structured settlement brand. Some of the worst of the secondary market business practices were publicized nationally in an August 25, 2015 Washington Post front page article (featuring a non-NASP company) which more than one industry observer called "a perfect storm" for the factoring industry.

Legislative Collaboration

Even before the Washington Post article, however, and as a direct result of the 2013 Brenston case, which temporarily shut down the secondary market in Illinois, NASP and NSSTA initiated a proactive and collaborative legislative strategy to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes:

• No forum shopping.
• Payee required to attend hearing.
• Stricter application of approval requirements.
• Advanced notice of transfer.
• Required disclosure of prior transfers.

The first success of NSSTA and NASP's legislative collaboration resulted in amendments to the Illinois statute. The Brentson case propelled the two organizations to negotiate and work a compromise that improved the Illinois SSPA. From the perspective of LaBorde and NASP, the result in Illinois represented "the biggest victory since the Model Act".

To memorialize the success in Illinois, NASP honored Illinois State Representative Michael Zalewski as recipient of its 2015 Alexander Hamilton Award. Representative Zaleweski, who sponsored the new Illinois structured settlement legislation, praised its "clarity and protection" compared with the "ambiguity" of the prior law.

NASP has bestowed its Alexander Hamilton Award eight 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.

Further highlighting the success of NSSTA and NASP's legislative collaboration, LaBorde and Goodman jointly announced that Governor Scott Walker had signed, just prior to their panel discussion, Wisconsin's first Structured Settlement Protection Act - thereby becoming the 49th state (all except New Hampshire) to have enacted such protective legislation.

During his Legislative and Regulatory Update, NASP lobbyist Jack Kelly, who serves as point person for the NSSTA / NASP collaborative state legislative strategy, provided additional details concerning both the political aftermath of the Washington Post article and the collaborative state legislative strategy.

Without dismissing the negative public relations impact of the Post article, Kelly does not see any immediate Congressional threat despite letters making headlines. "NASP's primary federal concern is the tax bill," Kelly stated, "and it's not on the calendar."

As for state legislation, "good planning has made the difference", according to Kelly. He spoke about "mutual respect" for NSSTA and identified Florida, Maryland and Virginia among priority states for joint future lobbying to improve consumer protection.

Additional Conference Highlights

In his Litigation Update, NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt summarized recent court decisions addressing statutory "no-split" payment provisions, judicial "best interest" standards and various lawsuits involving Rapid Settlements.

Nesbitt allocated significant time to In re: Rains, a Texas case in which the appellate court determined the trial court: 1) could not force MetLife into a contract with the transfer company, directly or indirectly, by imposing a servicing arrangement on account of the Texas statutory "no-split" provision; and 2) abused its discretion in approving the transfer citing a "severe discount rate" among other factors.

The Rains case featured an extensive "best interest" analysis establishing a new judicial precedent in Texas. This analysis requires a judge to consider a "penumbra" of information including "future yet foreseeable liabilities; domestic, economic, physical, medical and educational needs of payee and dependents." Also at issue: how much and what type of evidence is required to place into the court record to justify a transfer.

Matt Bracy reprised his role as moderator of NASP's popular Judicial Panel - this year featuring Judges Daniel Buckley (California); Laura Inveen (Washington); and Jeremy Warren (Texas). The two hour program included questions to and from the judges addressing such transfer topics as:

• Interpreting the best interest standard;
• Common mistakes at transfer hearings by attorneys, factoring companies and sellers;
• How to best present a transfer;
• How judges consider objections to transfers;
• What documentation judges want to see at transfer hearings;
• How to best protect the seller's privacy;
• Information judges are not seeing presented that should be;
• Significance of the origin (type of personal injury) to the judge's analysis;
• Impact of prior transfers on assessments.

Two separate NASP presentations addressed unprecedented and changing perspectives of risk. Discussing Privacy Issues in Structured Settlement Transfers, Shawn Tuma spoke about risks due to cyber attacks. Citing the FBI, Tuma divided corporate America into two company types: those that have been hacked and those that will be - including many that have but don't realize it.

Health records, according to Tuma, are more valuable than financial records because they are rarely modified. Regardless of how you obtain health information, Tuma emphasized, you are obligated to protect it. These obligations include: stewardship, legal and public relations.

Tuma reported that both the SEC and the FTC have developed legal requirements that encompass prevention, detection, response, training, and third party access - and companies cannot insulate officers and directors from personal liability for related damages.

The lessons to be learned, according to Tuma: 1) document a record of compliance; 2) you will be breached; 3) Its not the breach, its your diligence, that matters most. Steven Fox supplemented Tuma's presentation with a discussion of ID Theft and Domicile Determination.

As secondary market transfers have expanded to include life contingent annuity components, mortality underwriting has become a critical skill set. Michael Fasano focused his presentation about Mortality Review / Process in Life Contingent Underwriting on unhedged life contingent secondary market structured settlement transactions.

Fasano emphasized that traditional medical underwriting practices utilized for life settlements or normal life insurance and/or annuities won't work for this class of individuals. Reasons include a high frequency of:

• Low income demographics. Most are unemployed.
• Rx and illicit drug issues.
• Incarceration and other behavior issues.
• Anti-selection and/or lying.

Fasano approximates that, as a class, mortality impairment of life contingent structured settlements results from: accident and behavioral (55%) vs. medical (45%). In addition to medical reports, Fasano utilizes targeted questionnaires to obtain underwriting information and makes adjustments for lack of candor and non-disclosure.

Completing NASP educational program: Jason Sutherland moderated a Servicing Panel featuring Melissa Bolling and John Enyart. Additional Breakout Sessions offered the following topics and speakers:

• Successfully Managing Difficult Payee Issues - Brian Dear; Duane West.
• Strategies for Securing Approval From Tough Judges - Samuel Cortes; Abagail Adams.
• Primer on Special Needs Trusts and Medicare Set-Asides - Patrick Hindert.
• Spousal Consent Issues in Transfers - Elyse Strickland; Shannon Harvey.

Congratulations to NASP, especially Conference Chairman Doyle Chisholm and Association Administrator Susan Barnes, for organizing such an informative and well-attended conference.

For additional, related S2KM reporting, see the structured settlement wiki plus these prior S2KM blog posts, see:

• Structured Settlements 2014 - Secondary Market
• NASP 2014 Annual Conference
• Michael Goodman Interview

Structured Settlement Update - 2014 Annuity Sales

Structured settlement primary market annuity sales increased by $115,881,836 (approximately 2%) to $5,250,262,691 in 2014 compared with $5,134,380,855 in 2013 according to industry estimates compiled and recently distributed by Melissa Evola Price. Total 2014 structured settlement cases also increased to 26,572 from 26,533 a year earlier for an average case premium of $197,586.

The 2014 annual premium totals, however, still fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6,226,578,725 in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

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

• Total annuity premium: $144.75 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 828,600
• Average annuity premium: $174,700.

Berkshire Hathaway, which re-entered the structured settlement market in 2011 following a multi-year hiatus, continued its recent primary market leadership in 2014 by generating $1.424 billion of structured settlement annuity premium (28% of the industry total) during 2014. Evola Price's report did not indicate how much of Berkshire Hathaway's premium was attributable to reinsurance and/or non-qualified structured settlement sales.

The U.S. structured settlement market now consists of eight annuity providers which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA). 2014 sales results (rounded in millions) for the seven other structured settlement annuity providers (per Evola Price's report) plus the rounded percentage increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2013 results:

• MetLife: $868 MM (+20%)
• Pacific Life: $773 MM (-9%)
• Prudential: $712 MM (+30%)
• Liberty Life $608 MM (+9%)
• Amgen: $477 MM (-19%)
• New York Life: $312 MM (+13%)
• Mutual of Omaha: $46 MM (-47%)

Evola Price's 2014 compilation also reports an annual increase in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlement assignments (from $164.9 million in 2013 to $182.3 million in 2014) as a portion of the overall structured settlement numbers. Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(1) or (2) including deferred attorney fees.

Although Evola Price's report does not indicate the percentage of structured settlement premium and/or annuities attributable to workers compensation Medicare set-aside (WCMSA) cases, WCMSAs have become an increasingly important submarket for structured settlements. S2KM has previously estimated that as much as eight (8%) percent of recent structured settlement premium and 24 percent of recent structured settlement annuities are attributable to WCMSAs.

Evola Price's reports do not provide information about the structured settlement secondary market. Based upon interviews with secondary market experts in 2012, S2KM previously estimated 2012 structured settlement secondary market 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.

Industry opinions differ as to secondary market sales growth during 2013 and 2014 ranging from no growth to 7% growth per year.

Accepting those 2012 secondary market estimates and assuming level secondary market sales during 2013 and 2014, S2KM estimates historical 1986-2014 structured settlement secondary market metrics as follows:

• Approximately 160,000 structured settlement transfers have occurred since 1986;
• Involving approximately 80,000 recipients - many of whom have made multiple transfers;
• With approximately $5.1 billion PV in aggregate sums paid to those recipients.
• For an average of approximately $32,000 per transfer.

For related S2KM reporting about structured settlement 2014 developments, see:

• Primary market
• Secondary market
• Settlement planning
• ELNY and Reliance

S2P2J Release 57 Highlights

The United States structured settlement market has been in existence for more than 35 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning.

Since it was first published in 1986, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), has provided structured settlement stakeholders with an authoritative reference guide, consisting of 16 chapters with extensive footnotes and Appendix documents, to help them understand issues and fashion settlements and judgments utilizing periodic payments. 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.

Co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert, S2P2J now features an online version as well as the traditional hardcopy. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability as well as link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a March 2015 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 57 with online S2P2J subcribers receiving their update simultaneously with no additional subscription charge. Competent professionals confronted by structured settlement issues should have access to an up-to-date copy (or the online version) of this indispensable source book.

Release 57 Highlights - Release 57 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:

• WCMSAs - Release 57 re-positions and expands S2P2J's extensive summary of the new CMS rules for workers compensation Medicare set-asides, the fastest growing segment of the structured settlement primary market. Regulatory rules for liability MSAs remain essentially unchanged following the withdrawl by CMS on August 8, 2014 of it the liability MSA-related NPRM it had earlier submitted to the Office of Management and Budget.
• Indexed Annuities - PLR 143928-13 highlights the potential importance of indexed annuities and annuity riders as structured settlement funding alternatives. Release 57 features a new section explaining indexed annuities, differentiating variable annuities and summarizing the related PLR.
• Commutation Riders - PLR 143928-13 also provided favorable tax treatment for a commutation rider pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion as a potential alternative to factoring transactions. This PLR justified an expansion in Release 57 of S2P2J's current section discussing commutations.
• Non-qualified Assignments - Most non-qualified assignments depend upon off-shore assignment companies which raise tax and security issues for participants. Release 57 expands S2P2P's analysis of non-qualified assignments to address these issues.
• CLM Advisors Surveys - Release 57 summarizes results from two surveys commissioned by NSSTA to determine the value claims executives and adjustors place on structured settlements and structured settlement consultants. The results and related metrics are generally favorable and arguably provide a valuable marketing blueprint for defense brokers.
• ABLE Accounts - Release 57 features a new section describing ABLE Accounts, a tax-preferenced funding option authorized by the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act (ABLE Act) of 2014. Although some structured settlement consultants view ABLE Accounts as a competitive product, others see opportunities to fund ABLE accounts using structured settlements.
• Insurance Regulation - States historically have regulated insurance in the United States. As a result of the 2008 global financial crisis, however, new federal and international insurance regulatory agencies now exist which are targeting some of the largest structured settlement annuity providers among other financial and insurance companies. Release 57 adds a new section to introduce and explain these new regulatory developments and entities.
• ELNY and Reliance - The recent ELNY and Reliance liquidations have each impacted thousands of structured settlement recipients. Although judicial solutions have been fashioned, litigation continues - as least involving some ELNY shortfall payees. Release 57 updates S2P2J's extensive coverage of the ELNY and Reliance liquidations.
• Role of Plaintiff Attorneys - As structure settlements and personal injury settlement planning have become more complex, and plaintiff attorneys increasingly require the services of other settlement planning professionals, plaintiff attorneys should continue to perform certain essential structured settlement and settlement planning roles. Release 57 identifies and discusses those roles and provides additional related advice for plaintiff attorneys.
• Secondary Market Update - The continuing expansion of the secondary market has generated controversy and litigation as well as legislative reform and changing business practices. S2P2J continues to track these developments in expanding chapter 16 titled "Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights". Release 57 highlights include "anti-assignment" issues in Illinois originating with the Brenston case and the market "chaos" some secondary market participant see occurring as the result of the Washington Square v. RSL Funding case.
• IRC 104(a)(2) Treasury Regulations - Recent U.S. Treasury Regulations for IRC 104(a)(2) relating to the exclusion from gross income for amounts received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness make two primary changes to the current regulations which Release 57 summarizes in the context of S2P2J more extensive analysis in Chapter 2 of "Taxation of Damages Received by the Claimant".

For related S2KM blog reporting about structured settlement 2014 developments, see:

• Primary market
• Secondary market
• Settlement planning
• ELNY and Reliance

 

NAMSAP 2015 Winter Regional Conference

Medicare compliance continues to create "confusion, misinformation and disagreement" among defendants, their insurers and advisors according to speakers at the 2015 Winter Regional Conference hosted by the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) January 29 in Orlando.

NAMSAP is "the only non-profit association exclusively addressing the issues and challenges of the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute and its impact on workers’ compensation and liability settlements".

NAMSAP's membership is the most professionally diverse of any U.S. settlement planning association and includes a mix of attorneys, Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) consultants, CPAs, claims adjustors, structured settlement consultants, guardians, nurses, pharmacists, rehabilitation professionals, and life care planners.

The claims environment has changed dramatically and become much more complex, according to multiple NAMSAP speakers who focused their presentations on issues that arise when Medicare is involved in a case.

Medicare issues are complicated for defendants by adjustor turnover, the need for Medicare education and the comprehensive liability defendants face if Medicare is not protected. Medicare compliance, therefore, is not just about preparing a good Medicare set-aside (MSA). It is about complying with the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute.

The MSP statute, as amended by the SMART Act in 2013, has three compliance components (past reimbursement; present reporting; and future protecting) which one of the NAMSAP panels succinctly summarized. The greatest confusion for plaintiffs and defendants relates to protecting Medicare's interest in the future. One speaker compared the current situation to the "wild west" and several speakers emphasized "it is all about the data".

Focusing most of its compact program on MSP compliance, NAMSAP's Educational Committee successfully presented multiple complex topics and developments effectively utilizing a case study methodology to advise attendees on issues they can expect to confront in their own case files.

WCMSAs - Structured Settlements

For workers compensation (WC) cases, CMS (the responsible administrative agency) has published both a WCMSA Reference Guide and a WCMSA Self-Administration Toolkit - each of which features extensive rules for structured settlements.

WCMSAs have become an increasingly important submarket for structured settlements. S2KM has previously estimated that as much as eight (8%) percent of recent structured settlement premium and 24 percent of recent structured settlement annuities are attributable to WCMSAs.

In the WCMSA context, structured settlements have one primary advantage (lower cost), which (from a defense perspective) outweighs their one primary disadvantage (administrative complexity), compared with cash. The cost advantage results from one CMS policy memorandum (dated: October 15, 2004) which sets forth the CMS "set-off" approach for calculating present value.

The CMS "set-off" approach ignores inflation and discount rates. Annuities, however, incorporate their own discount rates and therefore produce an inherently lower comparable cost for funding future periodic payments. The CMS WCMSA Reference Guide specifically "follows all" of CMS' previously published memoranda and thereby (apparently) maintains the WCMSA pricing advantage for structured settlements.

Following NAMSAP's previous "Take the Hill" Washington D.C. lobbying success, NAMSAP's 2015 political agenda seeks federal legislation to address perceived CMS WCMSA deficiencies:

• Thresholds result in incomplete protection.
• No direct right of appeal exists.
• Review time-lines are uncertain.
• CMS rules ignore state workers compensation laws.
• CMS assumes all settlements are “commutations”.

NAMSAP anticipates two alternative MSP legislative proposals will be re-introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 1982) and Senate (S. 2731) in 2015

Liability MSAs - CMS-6047-ANPRM

Unlike WCMSAs, almost no regulatory authority exists for MSAs in third party liability settlements. In 2012, pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, CMS sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and published in the Federal Register seeking public comment an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) for liability MSAs.

In CMS-6047-ANPRM (titled: "Medicare Program; Medicare Secondary Payer and "Future Medicals"), CMS offered seven options for dealing with future medicals in liability cases. NAMSAP conference speaker Douglas Shaw reviewed the CMS options and summarized the 107 comments submitted by interested parties.

Virtually all of the comments, according to Shaw, opposed the ANPRM in whole of in part. The primary objections concerned CMS' concept of "equitable apportionment" and the CMS failure to recognize differences between liability and workers compensation cases.

CMS followed up its ANPRM by sending a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to OMB on August 1, 2013, then withdrew the NPRM without explanation on August 8, 2014. Shaw stated that OMB (which reviews NPRM for cost and benefits, duplications, economic impact, effect on stakeholders) rejected the CMS NPRM and no one knows why except OMB and OMB is prohibited from providing explanations.

Shaw cautioned against groups (such as the AAJ) claiming a regulatory victory. He expects CMS to resubmit another NPRM for liability MSAs in the near future. Multiple NAMSAP speakers pointed out the obvious - since the enactment of MMSEA in 2007, CMS has been collecting data for all claims involving Medicare beneficiaries. This Medicare-related claims data is creating a potential tax-free source of revenue for the U.S. government - billions of Medicare dollars not yet collected to fund Medicare.

As for current liability cases and liability MSAs, Shaw advised that "nothing has changed so we should stay the course and do whatever we thought best before this ANPRN/NPRM."

ICD-10

Adding to claim management and settlement planning complexity in 2015, the United States compliance date for the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) is October 15, 2015.

Although most of the NAMSAP audience appeared ICD-10 conversant, Marci Moorehead provided an informative overview of this World Health Organization (WHO) medical classification coding system which many other countries have already implemented. Moorehead predicted the migration to ICD-10 will have a significant impact on business intelligence tools which means life care plans, MSAs and settlement plans likely will be affected.

NAMSAP's 2015 Annual Meeting will take place September 29-October 2 at the Royal Sonesta Hotel in New Orleans.

NAMSAP 2015 Winter Conference - Topics and Speakers

• 3 Parts of Compliance and the SMART Act in 2015
  • Moderator - Katie Fox
  • Monika Boswein
  • Brian Chance
  • Roy Franco
• ANPRM Update - Doug Shaw
• ICD-10 - Marci Moorehead
• Advocacy - Take the Hill and Other Issues
  • Katie Fox
  • Roy Franco
  • Doug Shaw
• Private Cause of Action and False Claims
  • Rasa Fumagalli
  • William Delaney
  • Mark Poplizio
• Working Lunch with Case Studies - Moderator - Thomas Spratt
• Protecting the Client
  • Daniel Hayes - Moderator
  • Ray Alverez
  • Anita Hunt
  • Tracey Jones

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 - 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.

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.

Potential "Game Changing" S2 PLR

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued a Private Letter Ruling (PLR-143928-13) dated August 29, 2014 approving favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity with annual payment adjustments based on the performance of the Standard & Poors 500 Index which also includes the possibility of a commutation by the Claimant pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion. A copy of the PLR is posted on the structured settlement wiki.

Although PLRs do not identify requesting taxpayers, knowledgeable industry sources have identified Pacific Life as the product provider. A PLR is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it and may not be used or cited as precedent.

Pacific Life previously announced its Index-Linked Structured Settlement Adjustment Rider and has published a product brochure describing its features and benefits. The PLR describes the following three step formula by which Pacific Life adjusts applicable periodic payments on each annual payment anniversary:

• "Step 1 determines the index return, which equals the ending S&P 500 Index Price minus the starting S&P 500 Index Price divided by the starting S&P 500 Index Price.
• "Step 2 determines the adjustment, which is the lesser of the Index Return or [a percentage cap]. If the Index Return is less than or equal to zero, the adjustment will be zero.
• "Step 3 determines the annuity payment amount."

As to the Index-Linked feature, the PLR concludes:

• The periodic payments "are fixed and determinable as to amount and time of payment within the meaning of § 130(c)(2)(A) even though they are calculated pursuant to an objective formula based on the performance of the S&P 500 Index"; and
• The structured settlement indexed annuity "will not fail to qualify as a qualified funding asset under § 130(d) solely by reason of annuity’s variable payments."

For additional information about equity-indexed annuities and the Pacific Life Index-Linked Adjustment Rider, see this prior S2KM blog post.

Hardship Conversion Feature

The Hardship Conversion feature potentially represents a structured settlement industry "game changing" development. With the exception of Allstate and Symetra, each of which has exited the structured settlement primary market, no annuity provider, to S2KM's knowledge, offers its structured settlement annuitants a secondary market option.

Correction (9/3/2014) - S2KM has confirmed, subsequent to publication of this blog post, that Berkshire Hathaway does on occasion "accelerate" periodic payments under a court order upon request by Berkshire Hathaway structured settlement payees.

Although Pacific Life has not previously announced or offered a structured settlement Hardship Conversion, industry sources have informed S2KM they anticipate Pacific Life will begin offering a Hardship Conversion for all of its structured settlement annuities beginning in 2015.

The PLR describes the Hardship Conversion feature 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."

As to the Hardship Conversion feature, the PLR concludes:

• "The possibility of a commutation by Claimant pursuant to the Notice of Hardship Conversion will not affect whether the structured settlement assignment satisfies the requirements of a qualified assignment under § 130(c);" and
• "The annuity purchased by Assignee will not fail to be a qualified funding asset under § 130(d) by reason of the Notice of Hardship Conversion."

ADDENDUM (added 9/3/2014): Following publication of this blog post, multiple readers have asked S2KM to further explain why PLR-143928-13 might prove to be a structured settlement "game changing" development. 

• As to the equity indexed-linked feature, see S2KM's prior blog post titled "Equity-Indexed Structured Settlements" which concludes: "The moribund U.S. structured settlement primary market needs a jump-start. Pacific Life's new equity-indexed structured settlement rider represents a welcome innovation and hopefully will become one catalyst for future market growth."
• As to the "Hardship Conversion" feature, see:
• Robert Wood's 2006 article: "Structured Settlements: Factor vs. Commute?" which helps to explain why most structured settlement annuity providers, prior to PLR-143928-13, have not offered factoring or commutation products and services. 
• S2KM's review of Robert Wood's article.