Beyond Structured Settlements

S2P2J Release 61

The United States structured settlement industry has been in existence for more than 40 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning. The industry consists of both a primary and secondary market and includes "off-shore" funding products. Certain structured settlement products utilizing periodic payments provide tax advantages. With increasing frequency, structured settlement products are being integrated with other financial and insurance products and government benefits into personal injury settlement plans utilizing 468B Qualified Settlement Funds and consisting of settlement trusts, special needs trusts, and Medicare set-aside arrangements.

Since it was first published in 1986, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), has provided professionals and other stakeholders involved with structured settlements 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 features an online version as well as the traditional hardcopy. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability plus link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a March 2017 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 61 with online S2P2J subscribers 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 61 Highlights - Release 61 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics among others:

• Ezell v. Lexington Ins. Co. - Although the Complaint in this class action lawsuit was only recently filed, Release 61summarizes the Complaint and considers the plaintiffs' allegations from the perspective of "the best protection for the defense against the risk of future claims by claimants that they were misled in understanding how the 'cost' was calculated..." S2P2J's recommendation (with sample Appendix documentation): "[D]isclose the material elements of how the agreed amount will be allocated to acquire the funding vehicle and put a long-term obigor in place. Full disclosure of such elements would eliminate any basis for a later claim that a settling claimant was misled when agreeing to a structured settlement."
• Special Needs Trust (SNT) Fairness Act - Among NSSTA's strategies for growing the structured settlement market, the importance of special needs (SN) attorneys is receiving greater recognition and priority. With the enactment of the SNT Fairness Act in December 2016, the growth potential for both SNTs and structured settlements has expanded. Prior to December 2016, an injured person who received settlement funds could not create his/her own SNT. Only a parent, grandparent, guardian or court could establish a first party SNT. With this new legislation, persons with disabilities can create their own SNT unless they are mentally or legally incompetent to do so. Release 61 integrates coverage of the SNT Fairness Act into S2P2J's broader coverage of structured settlements and government benefits including Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Benefits, Federally Assisted Housing, the Affordable Care Act and ABLE Accounts.
• Contract Rights - Although a structured settlement results in a contractual obligation to make periodic payments, a party that is released from liability need not become contractually obligated for the future payments. Release 61 summarizes and discusses Nutt v. United States, a 2016 case brought by an ELNY shortfall victim. The case provides an example of how the wording of a structured settlement agreement determines whether a claimant has enforceable rights against a specific defendant, separate from the life insurance company that issued the annuity. The Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's holding finding the language of the 1985 settlement agreement required the United States only to purchase annuities to fund future periodic payments and did not require the Government to make or guarantee the payments.
• Off-Shore Companies - The increase in popularity of non-qualified assignments has resulted in efforts by some companies to offer what appear to be qualified assignments funded by companies located outside the United States. They sometimes purchase factoring rights to structured settlement payments and use these rights to offer higher effective interest rates than traditional annuity-financed structured settlements. Sales materials supporting these transactions sometimes maintain that these arrangements offer the same level of benefits and protection as traditional structured settlements. Release 61 expands prior S2P2J discussions of the substantial risks to parties entering into such agreements with offshore companies including risks for the professionals who recommend such transactions.
• Settlement Documentation - Once the terms of a structured settlement have been determined, all required closing documents must be drafted in a manner which fulfills each client's financial expectations and protects each client's legal interests. Skill is required to avoid mistakes and to anticipate potential future issues that could impact periodic payments. S2P2J devotes an entire chapter to "case closing" including issues arising after case closing. Release 61 highlights recent cases detailing the consequences of problematic settlement documentation followed by a divorce, bankruptcy, unanticipated death sequences or disputed estates.
• ELNY Class Action - Release 61 includes a summary update for a class action (Kelly v. Ringler) brought on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims which remains unresolved after a Federal District Court in Oregon denied dismissal of claims based on negligence and on certain Oregon and Alaskan statutory provisions, while granting dismissal of a claim that defendants had a continuing duty to inform the plaintiffs that their annuity stream from ELNY was threatened because of its declining financial condition. A similar class action against structured settlement broker EPS was settled in 2015. Note: this paragraph was edited on February 16, 2017.
• Secondary Market Updates - Until 2016, almost all secondary market case law developments related to transfers under state protection statutes. In 2016, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed Complaints against two structured settlement factoring companies, J.G. Wentworth and Access Funding. Release 61 updates and extends S2P2J earlier coverage of CFPB involvement in these cases and its potential jurisdiction to protect recipients of factoring transactions. Additional secondary market topics addressed in Release 61 include: Brenston case follow-up; anti-assignment provisions; commutations vs. transfers; case law defining "best interest" and proscription of split payments under some state protection statutes; continuing litigation involving arbitration clauses; plus expanded discussion of securitization including risks and issues with "re-cycled" structured settlements.

Previous recent S2P2J releases have highlighted and addressed the following structured settlement related developments and market growth opportunities:

• Updated Structured Settlement History Chart.
• Updated analysis of changes impacting primary market structured settlement business practices.
• Background coverage of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's civil investigation of J.G. Wentworth.
• Historical context for Washington Post reporting about abusive secondary market business practices in Maryland.
• Case examples for various tax concepts, provided by Professor Ken Melani of the University of Notre Dame, who teaches the tax section of NSSTA's CSSC program.
• Duties of settlement trustees under the Uniform Prudent Investors Act plus factors settlement trustees must consider when making investments.
• Analysis of NSSTA's recent marketing surveys of claims executives, claims professionals and plaintiff attorneys.
• Summary of a recent California lawsuit warning of potential malpractice dangers for plaintiff attorneys who are: 1) uninformed; 2) lack competent advisors; and/or 3) act carelessly; with regards to structured settlement issues.
• Expanded discussion of "product suitability" and how it impacts structured settlement and settlement planning professionals.
• Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act of 2015.
• Court decisions analyzing "safe harbor" annuity rules under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 when annuities are used to preserve Medicaid eligibility.
• New cases where courts have identified questions to help judges determine whether proposed transfers of future payment rights meet the "best interest" test under various state Structured Settlement Protection Acts.
• Non-qualified assignment issues - including tax and security issues raised by off-shore assignment companies.
• Expanded coverage of Workers Compensation and Liability MSAs.
• Summary and discussion of recent PLR for indexed annuities and commutation riders.
• Introduction to ABLE Accounts.
• 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.

Also Note: all three S2P2J co-authors will appear on the same panel March 2 at the SSP 2017 Annual Conference in Las Vegas to lead a discussion titled "Current Developments in the Structured Settlement Industry."

Interview with SSP President Joe Tombs

Joe Tombs is currently completing the first year of a two-year term as President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP). SSP's 2017 Annual Conference is scheduled for March 1-3 in Las Vegas. As Tombs prepares for this event, he agreed to answer a few S2KM questions about SSP's current status and future direction. In a prior S2KM blog post, Tombs responded to the AIG Class Action Lawsuit - stating SSP is "neutral" and that SSP, as an association, has decided as a matter of policy to abandon taking any “political” positions.

S2KM: Joe, thank you for agreeing to this interview. To further clarify SSP's new "no political positions" policy, you have also stated that SSP is now neutral about single-claimant 468B Qualified Settlement Funds - one of the most contentious issues within the primary structured settlement market during the past several years. Just to confirm, are you saying the SSP, as an association, no longer supports and/or will no longer advocate for single-claimant 468B QSFs?

TOMBS: That is correct. Our refusal to take a position should not be misunderstood to imply anything about our individual members. The SSP has been a zealous advocate of the single-claimant QSF in the past and I doubt any of our members have changed their opinions on the subject. We are not asking our members to suppress or to modify their own beliefs.

S2KM: What about factoring which arguably represents the most divisive political issue within the structured settlement market? If SSP is neutral, how do you explain SSP's current membership policy which to use your own words "is open to anyone interested in comprehensive settlement planning as long as they are not engaged in factoring". Doesn't SSP's membership policy itself represent a "political position"?

TOMBS: The SSP does not have an opinion on factoring. Several years ago, we held a conference in which many participants from factoring companies attended and participated. Their presence at our meeting annoyed some SSP members and a special meeting of members was called to address this issue. At that meeting, the membership voted almost unanimously to close off new membership to those applicants who were active in the factoring industry. We also decided not to expel the very few of our members who had drifted into factoring. Our individual members' views on factoring are varied and generally quite negative, but the reason factoring representatives are excluded from membership centers on the fact that we want to focus on planning at the time of settlement. (Tombs' emphasis). My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with a person who ethically engages in factoring, but that the world would be a net better place if factoring did not exist.

S2KM: What do you consider to be your most significant accomplishments during your first term as SSP President?

TOMBS: Recognizing we still have more than six weeks left to achieve first year objectives, I am especially proud of four accomplishments: 1) SSP has substantially expanded its membership; 2) we have re-focused on professional settlement planning as our primary Mission and purpose; 3) we have pretty much put to bed the idea that we oppose the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA); and 4) we have developed a new set of Professional Practice Standards which we will introduce during our 2017 Annual Conference.

S2KM: How large is SSP and where are you finding new members?

TOMBS: I anticipate we will meet our goal of having 300 members by the time of our 2017 Annual Meeting. Many of our new members are trust officers, financial planners, special needs trust attorneys and staff from settlement planning practices. The new face of the SSP is truly the new faces at the SSP and the different perspectives they bring are propelling us forward in an exciting new direction.

S2KM: Have structured settlement annuity providers supported the concept of "comprehensive settlement planning"? If not, why not?

TOMBS: I don't think most structured settlement annuity providers understand the significance of settlement planning - or how it differs and/or relates to structured settlements. They are just beginning to wake up to the concept and realize how important and how effective the settlement planning model can be. My experience has shown that whenever a plaintiff attorney sees and understands the settlement planning model, they will never again be satisfied with a structured settlement broker who only offers one product. Think about what happened to flip phone providers when smart phones hit the market. I predict the same thing will happen with settlement planning. If structured settlement annuity providers wait too long to transition, trust companies will have captured first mover advantage.

S2KM: At one time, the term "settlement planner" was viewed by many structured settlement stakeholders as an inflated synonym for "plaintiff broker". How would you differentiate a professional settlement planner from a structured settlement consultant?

TOMBS: Until recently, that view was entirely accurate. A plaintiff broker would simply order new business cards with the new title ("Settlement Planner") proudly displayed. Today, however, that transition creates changes in expectations, applicable standards of care, and required levels of disclosure. A structured settlement consultant approaches an engagement with a product in mind. By comparison, a settlement planner (with access to multiple products) first gathers information about the goals of the injury victims and his/her family, analyzes the data, works out a written plan, and implements the plan. A settlement planner does not play the role of a structured settlement broker, if at all, until the last step.

S2KM: What is a "comprehensive settlement plan" and how does it differ from a "structured settlement"?

TOMBS: A structured settlement is a product. A "comprehensive settlement plan" is a blueprint. It is a written document that contains a summary of the detailed analysis of the client's situation, capacities, goals, priorities, needs, and resources - and the strategies and products that will best help that client use the settlement proceeds to successfully transition into a post-settlement life in a way that allows them to accomplish their highest priority goals. The settlement planner uses the plan to guide the injury victim through the settlement process. Many of my settlement plans do not include structured settlements, but most do.

S2KM: What role(s) do you see for structured settlement annuities in settlement planning?

TOMBS: Structured settlements provide tax-free guaranteed cash flows that can be matched to the exact time that the cash flow is projected to be needed. It is a valuable tool in a settlement planner's toolbox. Carpenters love their hammers, but I would never hire a carpenter who showed up to work with only a hammer.

S2KM: What is SSP's current relationship with NSSTA and what would you like it to be?

TOMBS: Most of the SSP members who produce structured settlements are also members of NSSTA. The SSP's past opposition to a few of NSSTA's political positions has frayed the relationship despite great strides to mend the fences by both sides. Today, the SSP leadership fully supports NSSTA and its Mission to preserve and protect structured settlements. I believe the two organizations are symbiotic - if one does better, so does the other.

S2KM: How are SSP and NSSTA different from SSP's perspective? Do we need two associations or should their efforts be combined?

TOMBS: SSP and NSSTA are two very different organizations with completely different Missions. We share a common ancestry, but we have evolved into separate species. The difference, which is evident in our names, is not subtle, semantic, or political. Today, most of our members, sponsors and seminar attendees do not even sell structured settlement annuities. Let that fact settle in for a minute and you will begin to comprehend the extent to which the SSP and settlement planning have evolved.

S2KM: What is the scope of SSP's new "Professional Practice Standards"? Will they Replace SSP's current "Standards of Professional Conduct"? If not, how are they different?

TOMBS: At our 2017 Annual Meeting, we will announce and release practice standards that will define settlement planning and authoritatively set out the scope of the practice of settlement planning. Don't expect something complicated. SSP's Professional Practice Standards will be simple, profound statements. They will be different from a Code of Ethics or our Code of Professional Conduct. Our current Code of Professional Conduct is too structured settlement centric and is currently under review by an SSP committee. I suspect it will receive major modifications soon.

S2KM: What is the current status of the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) Program? How many professionals currently possess the RSP designation?

TOMBS: The RSP designation is administered by a separate Board. The number of RSP designees is small - probably just over twenty. The program was dormant for a long time and has now been freshly updated with several students enrolled.

S2KM: Looking ahead to your second term as SSP President, what are SSP's greatest challenges?

TOMBS: We can't grow the number of professional settlement planners fast enough to keep up with market demand. This forces us to focus on two goals - increasing our membership and increasing the professionalism of our craft. We are making progress on both fronts, but we simply cannot go far enough or fast enough to meet the demand. Another great challenge is that we face resistance from entrenched businesses that actively try to slow us down to allow them to catch up.

S2KM: Joe, thank you for taking time to participate in this interview. Congratulations for your progress with SSP and best of luck for another outstanding SSP educational conference March 1-3 in Las Vegas.

SSP President Responds to AIG Class Action Lawsuit

Based upon the history of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), and the role of Richard Risk (an SSP founder and member) as one of the plaintiff attorneys, structured settlement industry participants might assume that SSP, as an association, supports the recently filed AIG Class Action Lawsuit. When asked by S2KM, however, SSP President Joe Tombs provided an unexpected response. Tombs' detailed response appears below. For context, however, S2KM first provides a brief background summary plus a summary of the AIG Class Action allegations.

Historic Industry Divisions

Although some structured settlement industry pioneers, including the late David Ringler, the first President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) envisioned NSSTA as "a place where everyone and anyone [could] sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs", that utopian environment never fully materialized as multiple divisions developed within both the structured settlement market and the larger personal injury settlement consulting market. Examples include:

• Plaintiff vs. defense structured settlement brokers.
• Primary vs. secondary structured settlement markets.
• Structured settlements vs. settlement planning.
• Settlement annuities vs. settlement trusts.
• Settlement planning vs. special needs planning.

Among other results, the structured settlement industry now has both a primary and a secondary market and structured settlement industry participants with alternative issues, viewpoints, beliefs and educational interests have formed two national associations in addition to NSSTA: the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and SSP. Although numerous and divisive issues have created serious political conflicts among these associations historically, leaders of all three associations have increasingly recognized and addressed the problems created by these conflicts.

During his three successive one year terms as SSP President, Immediate Past President Neil Johnson served as a powerful advocate for structured settlement industry unity. For example, as a guest speaker during NSSTA's 2014 Fall Conference, Johnson condemned lack of structured settlement industry unity as "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

At the same time, Johnson proposed a "solution" for achieving structured settlement industry unity including these core elements:

• Recognizing and accepting product and professional diversity.
• Identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues.
• Engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues.
• Promoting and practicing settlement planning with the structured settlement annuity as a core strategic product.

Among other highlights and milestones, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) 2016 Annual Conference transferred association leadership from Johnson to Joe Tombs with Tombs promising to maintain Johnson's leadership direction, which focused on structured settlement "industry unity", and also, in a dramatic policy shift, to "pull SSP back completely from structured settlement politics."

AIG Class Action Lawsuit

Earlier this month, three plaintiff attorneys, including SSP founder and current SSP member Richard Risk, filed a Class Action Complaint in United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Among its allegations, the Class Action Lawsuit accuses Defendant American International Group, Inc. (AIG), a NSSTA member, and several of its affiliates of: 1) RICO violations; 2) fraudulent conduct; and 3) unjust enrichment.

Although not named as Defendants, the Class Action Complaint also identifies multiple structured settlement brokers (most, if not all, members of NSSTA) who, according to the Complaint, are "known as 'Agency Partners' [and] have been on the AIG Approved Broker List within periods relevant to this Complaint, and are part of the racketeering enterprise at issue..."

Plaintiffs characterize the primary AIG business practice they allege is illegal as a "short-changing scheme" which they describe as follows: "Defendants’ practice to fail to disclose to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class numerous material facts concerning how AIG conducted its Structured Settlement Program including, among other things, that:

• "Defendants participated in a short-changing scheme designed to allow them to recover the cost of their own structured settlement brokers, by deducting the brokers’ fees from that portion of the settlement that the settling parties had previously agreed would be one hundred percent (100%) invested in future payments;
• "Defendants accomplished this “short-change” by bundling the amount of the broker’s commission—namely, four percent (4%)—into the illustrated annuity cost;
• "Even when the broker’s fee was not 4%, AIG would keep for itself whatever portion of the commission was not paid to the broker; and,
• "As a result of the scheme undertaken by Defendants, the actual financial value of the settlement was materially lower than the value represented to injury claimants since four percent (4%) of the full amount of cash to be invested in annuity was, in fact, diverted by AIG to pay for its own Approved Brokers and In-House Brokers."

Other Plaintiff allegations:

• "AIG uses a structured settlement annuity software and quoting system that is represented by it and the Approved Brokers (and In-House Brokers) as illustrating future projected payments based on the amount of funds previously agreed between the settling parties to be invested in the annuity. But this representation is not true, because it does not reflect the commission that is paid to the broker, which is hidden in the cost or present value of the annuity communicated to the claimant or claimant’s attorney."
• "In fact, AIG trains its employees in the Structured Settlement Program, as well as its Approved Brokers and In-House Brokers, not to disclose to claimants (or their attorneys when retained) the fact that the broker’s fee is bundled into the represented annuity investment cost."
• "AIG’s employees, its Approved Brokers, and In-House Brokers are also trained to conceal this scheme, in the event of claimant inquiries about the payment of commissions, by avoiding a direct answer to the question or, sometimes, by indicating that payment of annuity premiums from the defendant’s AIG-affiliated liability insurer to American General avoids commission as a cost to claimant."
• "The AIG Approved Brokers are also required to fund periodic payments with an American General or other AIG-related annuity, if at all possible. This requirement is called the 'first and last right of refusal'.”

The Complaint includes a footnote #1 (page 1) explaining/alleging that: 1) most structured settlement "producers" are inappropriately referred to as "brokers" when in fact they are "agents" appointed by life insurance companies; 2) Use of the term "broker" is misleading and communicates a false duty of loyalty to the consumer/injury victim; 3) although a producer may hold a life agent's license, he/she cannot bind the life company when writing an annuity application; and 4) this distinction becomes important for defining a racketeering "enterprise" under the RICO Act when considering the relationship of structured settlement producers to issuers.

SSP President Joe Tombs Responds

Based upon the political history of the SSP, and role of Risk as plaintiff attorney, the AIG Class Action Lawsuit appears to present a significant test for SSP - especially in light of Immediate Past President Neil Johnson's advocacy for structured settlement unity and current President Joe Tombs' promise for SSP to avoid structured settlement politics. When asked by S2KM whether or not SSP supports the AIG Class Action Lawsuit, however, Tombs provided the following response (with S2KM emphasis):

• "We are neutral – SSP has no position at all and we will not take one in the future. A year ago, we decided to abandon taking “political” positions. Advocacy for victim’s financial rights had been a central mission of the SSP since its founding and so it was hard to let that go. A pillar of the “old” SSP’s advocacy mission was opposition to many of the features of some of the casualty company programs. Therefore, many people are confused that we don’t have a dog in this fight. Everyone expects the SSP to rush out and take its normal spot in the circular firing squad and start blastng away or at least provide the forum for a mob to form. I’m sorry to disappoint people but we are neutral - on the AIG Class Action Lawsuit or any political issue such as single claimant 468B Qualified Settlement Funds. Individual SSP members have the option to support or oppose specific political issues. SSP, as an association, however, will not. Our priorities are growth and the promotion of professionalism in the practice of settlement planning - both of which we are accomplishing successfully.
• "Dick Risk is a founding member and we once honored him with a lifetime achievement award at which time we granted him lifelong membership. The SSP makes no attempts to muzzle or restrain our members. They are free to think, say, or do what they wish. We used to carefully guard our roll and membership was open only to plaintiff-only structured settlement brokers. Today, membership is open to anyone interested in comprehensive settlement planning as long as they are not engaged in factoring. Our membership includes a diverse group of structure brokers from most of the larger groups, trust company officers, financial planners, special needs trust attorneys, plaintiff attorneys and many others.
• "Separate from my role as President of SSP, I have my own opinion about the AIG Class Action Lawsuit. Part of my opinion is based upon a lunch I was honored to have in 1997 or 1998 with Hank Greenberg (then CEO of AIG) and Ernie Stempel (then President of North American Operations for AIG Life & Annuity). I remember Mr. Greenberg talking about a huge high-rise building with several floors full of nothing but lawyers. He then informed me AIG spent millions on outside counsel and had other AIG lawyers scattered across the globe. In my opinion, if AIG is right, they are more than adequately equipped to handle this case without help from me or anyone else.
• "Another part of my personal opinion is that I hate structured settlement politics and I am not smart enough or educated enough to know which side is right in this lawsuit. It is a fact, however, that many of my clients cannot chose from a full selection of structured settlement products or product providers - and another fact that my market quotes include fewer companies than they did a few years ago. I wish I could still quote Hartford, for example, but we know what happened after their class action settlement. So, although I can see the AIG battle lines forming, I don't have time for the fight myself. I have an appointment with a widow this afternoon and I only wish I could offer her and her freshly fatherless children a greater assortment of structured settlement options. And if a lawsuit against AIG should ever cause American General to withdraw from the structured settlement market, I would have a still shorter list of companies to offer my clients."

Joe Tombs is currently completing the first year of a two-year term as SSP President. SSP's 2017 Annual Educational Conference is scheduled for March 1-3 in Las Vegas. As Tombs is preparing for this event, he agreed to answer a few additional S2KM questions about SSP's current status and future direction. That interview will appear in a follow-up S2KM blog post.

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

ELNY Class Actions vs. Brokers

Two years after Judge John Galasso signed an Order of Liquidation and approved the Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life of New York (ELNY), separate (but nearly identical) class action lawsuits have been filed in Florida and Oregon on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims against named and unnamed structured settlement brokers.

The complaints allege these brokers 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 Florida case names EPS Settlement Group (EPS), John Cantwell and John Does 1-100 as defendants. The Oregon case names Ringler Associates Incorporated (Ringler), Paul Hoffman and John Does 1-100 as defendants. The respective complaints identify Cantwell and Hoffman as the individual agents who brokered structured settlement annuities for the named plaintiffs.

In each case, the John Does 1-100 "represent those individual insurance brokers who, as employees and/or agents of [the named brokerage company], 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."

Each 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 complaints in both cases identify as plaintiff attorneys Taus, Cebulash & Landau and Berger & Montague.  The Florida complaint also names Scott R. Shepherd and the Oregon complaint also names Arthur C. Johnson as plaintiff attorneys.

Each complaint 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."

As one state statutory example, the Oregon complaint cites Alaska Statute 2l -33.037:

• "A person may not directly or indirectly act as agent for, or otherwise represent, assist, or aid on behalf of another, a nonadmitted insurer in the transaction of insurance in this state.
• "If the nonadmitted insurer fails to pay a claim or loss within the provisions of the insurance contract, a person who assisted or in any manner aided directly or indirectly in the procurement of the insurance contract, shall be liable to the insured for the full amount under the provisions of the insurance contract."

The complaints allege that ELNY was never authorized to transact insurance in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

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, in his non-regulatory capacity as ELNY's Receiver, including predecessor ELNY Receivers (Rehabilitator), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse) as defendants was voluntarily dismissed in 2013 without prejudice.

For S2KM's complete ELNY reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings

A new Class Action lawsuit has escalated the legal battle in Illinois concerning the impact of "anti-assignment" restrictions on transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiff Valerio Sanders seeks to represent the following class: "Those individuals who sold part or all of their structured settlement annuities under the provisions of the Illinois [Structured] Settlement Protection Act, where the original structured settlement contract contained a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause."

Filed February 11, 2014 in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court St. Clair County, Illinois, the Class Action Complaint accuses Defendants JGWPT Holdings, Inc., several affiliate companies including J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Settlement Funding (JGWPT entities), and Illinois attorney Brian P. Mack of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA).

The Class Action Complaint alleges "the JGWPT entities ... intentionally failed to inform potential sellers that a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause prohibited the sale of deferred payment annuities because the JGWPT entity intended to defraud the seller and the Illinois courts by filing false pleadings under the Illinois [Structured] Settlement Protection Act in order to obtain large amounts of deferred cash payments for discounted present lump sum amounts and reap the tax benefits of the same in violation of federal law."

Section 2 of the ICFA provides in part: "[U]nfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression of omission of any material fact .... in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful ..."

The Class Action Complaint alleges Defendants used their advertising and solicitations to cause Plaintiff Valerio Sanders and other sellers to believe they could obtain cash for their structured settlement payment rights, "but intentionally failed to inform the potential sellers that if there was a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause in the settlement contract, no lump sum payment could be received in exchange for the seller assignment the deferred payments because any such "order" issued by an Illinois court approving such a transfer would be void. Moreover, the legal proceeding would violate federal law."

The Class Action Complaint further alleges:

• When a potential seller had a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause, the JGWPT entities would routinely hire Brian P. Mack to obtain a "Qualified Order" pursuant to the Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act so that the deferred payments could be purchased at a deeply discounted rate, and without any tax consequences.
• Attorney Mack "would personally counsel the seller ... on how to create Illinois jurisdiction and venue, how to find a 'friendly court', how to avoid appearing in court, how to obtain the services of 'independent counsel', ..... or inform them they could waive the right, and how to finalize the details to obtain the lump sum payment."
• Valerio Sanders' "Settlement Agreement and Release" included an anti-assignment clause which provided: "The periodic payments to be received by the Payee(s) pursuant to paragraphs 2B are not subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation, sale or transfer, assignment, pledge or encumbrance by Payee(s)."
• The Petition filed by Mack claimed: "That the assignment does not contravene any federal or state statutes or the order of any court or responsible administrative authority."
• "Mack knew that this allegation was false and misleading as Plaintiff's settlement contract had a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause."
• "....[F]ailure to inform Plaintiff that the order obtained from the court was in violation of Illinois and federal law was fraudulent and a material omission under the ICFA and a violation of the ICFA."
• In a subsequent transfer involving Plaintiff Sanders and the Defendants, Mack's representation that jurisdiction and venue were proper was also a fraudulent misrepresentation because the action was filed in Madison County and the Plaintiff never lived in Madison County and the underlying action did not accrue there.
• Plaintiff and putative class members relied on materials misrepresentations made by JGWPT entities and attorney Mack and sold payment rights under circumstances where the sale was contrary to Illinois law as well as the laws of various other states, "thus rendering the alleged transfers void, and were a fraud on the Internal Revenue Service of the United States government under 26 U.S. Code section 130."

The Complaint requests the court for an Order awarding both Plaintiff Sanders and the Class compensatory and punitive damages plus injunctive relief against Defendants to prohibit them from continuing to defraud the Class and the courts of Illinois plus attorney fees and costs.

Brenston Case

To support their legal arguments in the Sanders Class Action, Plaintiff attorneys: Cates Mahoney, LLC and Brad L. Badgley, P.C. cite six Illinois Appellate Court decisions (including Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston) upholding the enforceability of an anti-assignment clause in a structured settlement contract. The Complaint alleges Mack was attorney of record in Brenston plus three of the additional cited cases.

In Brenston, an Illinois 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, held that an Illinois state court, which had previously approved transfers requested by Brenston:

• Had a duty to enforce anti-assignment provisions in Brenston's original structured settlement documentation; and
• Had no authority under the Illinois protection act to approve the transfer petitions - even though all of the relevant parties had waived the anti-assignment provisions.

The Illinois Supreme Court subsequently denied Peachtree's petition for appeal of this decision leaving both primary and secondary structured settlement market participants uncertain about the case's precedential meaning and scope. In an Amicus curiae brief, NASP asserted the Appellate Court decision could render the Illinois transfer statute "a practical nullity"

A companion case involving Peachtree and Brenston remains on appeal in the 3rd District Illinois Court of Appeals and will be argued February 27, 2014. The parties had previously stayed their appeal waiting for the Illinois Supreme Court to rule on the 4th District case.

In a recent Florida case, summarized in this Drinker Biddle Structured Settlement Alert, a Sumter County Circuit Court Judge cited the Brenston case as authority in ruling that an April 2011 transfer order was void ab initio, and that resulting arbitration awards were “impotent and without substance.”

For additional recent developments impacting the structured settlement secondary market, see:

• Structured Settlements 2013 - Secondary Market
• Secondary Market Update