Beyond Structured Settlements

PFAC 2016 Annual Conference

Fiduciary standards, as they relate to product suitability specifically, and to business practices generally, can be expected to become more significant factors in product sales for the traditional structured settlement market as it continues to expand into, and interact with, the larger, more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

Multiple developments support this prediction. They include the expanding role of fiduciaries as settlement planning stakeholders and decision makers. In that context, fiduciaries most often serve as trustees, but also as guardians, conservators and/or executors.

Any person acting in a fiduciary capacity has an obligation to act in the "best interest" of another party. A fiduciary duty requires a high standard of honesty and full disclosure including any potential conflicts of interests. A fiduciary must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of his or her client.

Regardless of who sells/provides a financial or insurance product to a settlement trust, and what independent duties that product provider might have to a trust beneficiary (i.e. injury victim), the settlement trustee's own fiduciary duties arguably should require the settlement trustee to evaluate specific trust products, trust product providers and their related business conduct utilizing that same fiduciary standard which requires honesty, full disclosure, and best interest.

In personal injury settlement planning, several types of trusts are utilized - any of which may be funded with, or utilized to fund, structured settlements: qualified government bond trusts; reversionary grantor trusts; settlement preservation trusts; special needs trusts including pooled trusts; Medicare set-aside trusts; and IRC 468B Settlement Funds.

As one related result of the expanding use of settlement trusts, a unique settlement trust market is evolving in the United States characterized by:

• Specialized knowledge about government benefits required to serve "special needs" beneficiaries and their families.
• Willingness to consider structured settlements as trust assets and knowledge related thereto.
• Willingness to accept corpus amounts less than minimum requirements of traditional corporate trustees.
• Professional individual trustees as well as corporate trustees.

To S2KM's knowledge there does not yet exist any national association of settlement trustees. Instead, settlement trustees participate as members, speakers, sponsors and/or exhibitors at various structured settlement, settlement planning and special needs national conferences such as: NSSTA, SSP, NAMSAP, NAELA, ASNP, SN Alliance, Stetson SNT, University of Texas SNT among others.

PFAC Conference

There exist, however, state fiduciary associations the largest of which is the Professional Fiduciary Association of California (PFAC). To learn more about fiduciaries and fiduciary standards, from a structured settlement perspective, S2KM attended the 21st Annual PFAC Conference, which occurred June 1-4, 2016 in Indian Wells, California and featured 74 exhibitors, more than 600 attendees plus four days of speakers and breakout sessions covering a multitude of topics.

PFAC is an affiliate of the National Guardianship Association (NGA). California Court Rules define education and qualification requirements to serve as guardian, conservator or trustee in California. Attorneys and CPAs with current, active licenses to practice in California automatically qualify. To retain their license, professional fiduciaries must also meet continuing education requirements. Approximately 680 professional fiduciaries are currently licensed in California.

Not all professional fiduciaries, of course, work in personal injury settlement planning. In fact, relatively few of the PFAC Conference presentations and/or exhibits were even relevant to structured settlement and/or settlement planning professionals.

Uniform Prudent Investor Act

Perhaps the most important and relevant lessons S2KM learned during the PFAC conference concerned the duties of care and the investment considerations imposed upon trustees by the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA). Understanding these UPIA trustee duties and investment considerations will almost certainly help structured settlement and settlement planning professionals improve their sales success when personal injury cases include settlement trusts.

The UPIA , which was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) in 1994, has been enacted, with some state-specific modifications, by 44 states and the District of Columbia. In those states, the UPIA, external to the trust document itself, serves as the most important reference defining a trustee's investment responsibilities.

Prior to the UPIA, courts applied the "prudent man rule" when evaluating trustee investment performance. The UPIA, by contrast, adopts "modern portfolio theory" as a different and more appropriate standard for trustees. Compared with the prudent man rule, modern portfolio theory promotes a holistic view of trust assets by focusing on the total return generated by a trust as opposed to viewing a trust's income and principal separately. This newer standard allows for greater investment diversification so long as the risk/reward ratio matches the purposes and terms of the trust instrument.

In his PFAC conference presentation titled "A Trustee's Duty of Care Under the UPIA", Josh Yager addressed how a trustee can demonstrate prudence and good faith, and thereby avoid a lawsuit, by fulfilling six trustee duties required under the UPIA:

• Duty to have a plan.
• Duty to monitor risk/return.
• Duty to diversify.
• Duty to pay only fair fees.
• Duty to prudently delegate.
• Duty to monitor agent's activities.

Yager never mentioned structured settlements or personal injury settlement planning during his discussion. Within the context of his presentation, however, here are some follow-up questions worth considering at future educational conferences:

• How should life contingent structured settlements be compared with other investment alternatives when trustees calculate rates of return needed to accomplish trust objectives?
• How can structured settlement and settlement planning professionals better anticipate and address trustee risk objections that many structured settlements include too much concentration, as well as a lack of liquidity?
• What are "asset classes" - and should structured settlements be promoted/evaluated as a distinct and necessary "asset class" within settlement trusts?
• Assuming trustees have a duty to evaluate compensation arrangements related to trust assets, should structured settlement professionals be required to disclose their case-specific compensation, including compensation sharing agreements? To whom? When?
• How do "industry standard" four (4%) percent structured settlement commissions compare with commissions and fees charged by other financial product providers? Are these commissions "fair" or "excessive"?
• Why was a given structured settlement design and/or settlement professional selected in a specific case? Does he/she possess appropriate licenses and credentials? Is he/she subject to any undisclosed conflicts of interest? Has he/she been the subject of any prior lawsuits or client complaints? Does he/she understand the trustee's duties under the UPIA? Has he/she accomplished what they promised?
• What legal options does a trustee have when confronted with a structured settlement or structured settlement consultant that the trustee believes violates a fiduciary standard or duty for a specific settlement trust under the UPIA?

Although not specifically discussed in any of the PFAC presentations S2KM attended, Section 2(c) of the UPIA identifies eight additional factors a trustee should consider when making any investment:

• General economic conditions.
• The possible effect of inflation or deflation.
• The expected tax consequences of investment decisions or strategies.
• The role that each investment or course of action plays within the overall trust portfolio.
• The expected total return from income and appreciation of capital.
• Other resources of the beneficiaries.
• Needs for liquidity, regularity of income, and preservation or appreciation of capital; and
• An asset’s relationship of special value, if any, to the purposes of the trust or to one or more of the beneficiaries.

When settlement trusts play a role in a personal injury settlement, structured settlement and settlement planning professionals should be prepared to address these factors as part of their sales strategy. Significant for structured settlements, the UPIA's list of investment considerations fails to mention mental or physical disabilities of a trust beneficiary. From a settlement planning perspective, injuries or diseases that create special needs or reduce an individual's normal life expectancy arguably should receive important consideration when a trustee makes investment decisions.

Comparative Business Standards

How do current business standards of structured settlement and settlement planning professionals measure up to the "best interest" standards required of trustees and other fiduciaries? Although various members of both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) are appointed as independent agents representing many of the same structured settlement annuity providers, the two associations address the issue of product suitability differently.

NSSTA, whose members include defense and plaintiff brokers, has adopted a "Statement of Ethics and Professional Responsibility" (Code of Ethics) with "guiding principles" for its members and member organizations. The Preamble provides: "Implicit in the acceptance of this Statement is an obligation to act in a professionally responsible and ethical manner when providing structured settlement services." Although Principle VI directs NSSTA members to:"…comply with all material federal and state laws and regulations applicable to the structured settlement services that are provided", NSSTA's Code of Ethics does not specifically address either fiduciary or product suitability standards.

By comparison with NSSTA, SSP's Mission Statement provides, in relevant part, that "[m]embership is open to all individuals with a genuine interest in the profession of settlement planning." However, "[c]andidates for membership must attest to their .......striving to ensure plans are consummated to a fiduciary standard." (emphasis added). Unlike NSSTA, almost all of SSP's members represent injury victims and their families and attorneys as opposed to defendants and liability insurers. Many SSP members also sell financial products as well as structured settlement annuities.

Plaintiff structured settlement brokers generally, and SSP members more specifically, regularly face direct competition from non-structured settlement financial advisors. Currently some financial advisors (Certified Financial Planners and Investment Advisors) are held to a fiduciary ("best interest") standard while other financial advisors (broker-dealers) provide services under a “suitability standard” which requires only a reasonable belief that any recommended product is suitable for a client.

Consumer protection concerns appear to be favoring broader application of the fiduciary standard. Acting under authority of Dodd-Frank, the SEC submitted a "fiduciary standard" study to Congress in 2011 recommending the adoption of a uniform fiduciary standard for investment advisers and broker-dealers when providing investment advice to retail customers. Congress has not yet adopted this uniform standard. More recently the U.S. Department of Labor has proposed a rule requiring fiduciary accountability for all investment advice related to retirement assets.

CONCLUSION

For most of its history, the primary structured settlement market has developed its business standards and practices based upon a "claim management" model which limits the scope of its representatives' duties of care toward injury victims - the ultimate customers for its products. Within the larger "settlement planning" market, which encompasses structured settlements, fiduciaries and other participating professionals are superimposing a more demanding "best interest" duty of care. To successfully compete in the settlement planning market place, therefore, structured settlement professionals need to acquire a better understanding of fiduciary and UPIA duties and requirements - and learn to re-shape their product sales accordingly.

AAJ 2014 Annual Meeting

Increasing use of structured settlements by plaintiff attorneys and their clients requires a more "unified marketing strategy" by stakeholders according to multiple brokers who exhibited at the recent American Association for Justice (AAJ) 2014 Annual Conference in Baltimore.

Seven primary market brokers, one structured settlement annuity provider and two secondary market companies were prominent among the 141 sponsors and exhibitors at the AAJ conference which also included as exhibitors multiple companies offering lien resolution, MSA compliance, life care planning, legal finance and economic consulting services.

Other marketing advice from AAJ structured settlement exhibitors offering insights into how to grow the primary market:

• "Our industry needs more educational marketing.
• "The secondary market has stolen our brand and we need to get it back.
• "Many plaintiff attorneys do not discuss structured settlements with their clients.
• "We need to educate plaintiff attorneys to stop thinking of their clients as 'investors' and to recognize the benefits of structured settlements.
• "Most plaintiff structured settlement brokers are too narrowly focused on product.
• "Future success requires 'full service' not just annuities - financial planning, settlement trusts and lien resolution.
• "Plaintiff brokers need to be more holistic and offer plaintiff attorneys a 'brain trust' of strategic relationships.
• Offering non-structured settlement products and services to plaintiff attorneys 'has taken the lid off' our company's original view of the size of the settlement planning market."

Underperforming Market

Many industry observers view the United States structured settlement primary market as a strategic, underperforming segment of the larger personal injury settlement planning market:

• Primary market structured settlement annuity premium increased approximately seven (7%) percent to $5.134,380,855 in 2013 (compared with $4,819,124,617 in 2012) according to industry estimates compiled by Melissa Evola.
• Total structured settlement cases in 2013 also increased to 26,533 from 25,038 a year earlier for an average case premium of $193,495.
• The 2013 annual premium totals, however, fell 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.
• Evola's 2013 compilation also reported an annual decrease in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlements (from $170.1 million in 2012 to $164.9 million in 2013) despite earlier industry projections of a large and growing market .
• Non-qualified structured settlements represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(1) or (2) including deferred plaintiff attorney fees.
• Independent industry sources further report a substantial shift in recent structured settlement premium with increasing sales to fund workers compensation Medicare set-aside arrangements (WCMSAs).

For comparison, based upon Towers Watson's 2011 Annual Study of "United States Tort Cost Trends" and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM estimates that more than $170 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys. The Towers Watson study excluded: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs.

Structured Settlement Marketing - to Defendant Insurers

Although primary market structured settlement participants have successfully marketed their products and services to defendants and their insurers, they have been less successful marketing to plaintiff attorneys and their clients.

A 2011 National Litigation Management study, commissioned by the Council on Litigation Management (CLM) and conducted by Revere Advisory, identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.

The success of structured settlement marketing to defense insurers was further evidenced by a 2014 study of "how senior claims executives perceive the value of structured settlements and the value that structured settlement consultants bring to the table" commissioned by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and conducted by CLM Advisors. Among the findings - ninety percent of respondents:

• Indicated their organizations maintain a “formalized structured settlement program”; and
• Reported their belief that, when a structured settlement consultant is involved, claims are “more likely to settle.”

 Structured Settlement Marketing - to Plaintiff Attorneys and Injury Victims

Earlier in 2006 (before interest rates crashed), NSSTA sponsored a survey of plaintiff attorneys involved in structured settlements (43 telephone surveys) and structured settlement recipients (1275 telephone and Internet surveys) titled: "A Study of the Structured Settlement Process Conducted on behalf of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association." Among the results, as reported at NSSTA's 2007 Winter and Annual meetings:

• Structured settlement recipients:
  • 65% said they had not heard about structured settlements prior to settlement.
  • Most were uncertain whether a structured settlement consultant was involved with their case.
  • 34% recalled receiving educational information while 75% of this 34% said the information was helpful.
  • 66% first learned about structured settlements from their trial attorney.
  • 75% said they were very happy their settlement included structured settlement annuities.
  • 75% said they would recommend a structured settlement.
• Plaintiff attorneys involved in structured settlements:
  • 95% said they are proponents of structured settlements.
  • 70% said they retain a structured settlement consultant at least for some cases.
  • When asked: "Whom do you prefer to use for purposes of financial planning for your clients?", the attorneys responded:
    • 30% - Trust company/department.
    • 28% - Financial planner.
    • 23% - Structured settlement consultant.
    • 19% - No response.

Based upon the 2006 survey results, however, NSSTA estimated only 7% of personal injury settlements between $75,000 and $200,000 include structured settlements; and only 30% of personal injury settlements above $1 million include structured settlements.

Growing the Primary Market

What explains the apparent differences in marketing success by the primary structured settlement industry to 1) defense insurers; and 2) plaintiff attorneys and personal injury victims?

Several explanations are possible. They deserve and require greater analysis by the primary market. As one example, while defense brokers essentially sell a singular structured settlement product to their clients without direct competition from other financial/insurance product providers, plaintiff brokers must compete with settlement trustees, financial planners and other providers of asset management services.

As a result, plaintiff structured settlement brokers increasingly are evolving into alternative business models that offer structured settlement annuities as one of multiple products and more fully participate in a larger, more complex business (personal injury settlement planning) than structured settlement defense brokers.

Growing the primary structured settlement market therefore requires its proponents to ask themselves these fundamental questions: "what business are we in?", or, stated somewhat differently, "in what markets do we, or should we, participate?"

Failure to sufficiently address these issues has perpetuated both "inside-the-box" strategic thinking and traditional marketing strategies responsible, in part, for recent sales declines of the structured settlement product - a product which offers multiple, unique advantages and benefits from public policy endorsement, multiple tax preferences and statutory consumer protection.

The Settlement Planning Market

Despite an abundance of related professional associations, participants and conferences, as well as legislative and regulatory developments, personal injury settlement planning remains an evolving concept and market with competing definitions, standards and business models and many unanswered questions.

Many recent and continuing legislative and regulatory developments impact personal injury settlement planning, including:

• Affordable Care Act
• CMS WCMSA Reference Guide
• The SMART Act
• Defense of Marriage Act
• Dodd-Frank Uniform Fiduciary Standard
• Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013

Settlement planners consist, or represent a blend, of several professionals in addition to traditional personal injury litigation participants. These professionals include: tax attorneys, special needs attorneys, trustees, financial planners, structured settlement specialists, life care planners, economists, Medicare set-aside (MSA) specialists and damage allocators.

Professional associations, in addition to AAJ, whose members engage in settlement planning include: NSSTA, SSP, NAELA, ASNP, SNA, NAMSAP, AANLCP - and NASP assuming the definition of settlement planning includes adjustments during an injury victim's lifetime.

To grow the primary market, structured settlement proponents must learn how to better market the benefits and applications of structured settlements to plaintiff attorneys and these other professional groups and associations in the context of evolving settlement planning marketing, work product, business standards and educational priorities.

This educational and marketing challenge requires all structured settlement participants to fundamentally "re-think" structured settlements and their own roles in personal injury settlement planning. One result should be consideration of a more unified marketing strategy to plaintiff attorneys and their clients among heretofore competing professional associations such as NSSTA, SSP and NASP.

Conversations with structured settlement exhibitors at the AAJ 2014 Annual Meeting indicate some primary market plaintiff brokers already understand this message and are transitioning their business models accordingly.

For S2KM's report about the AAJ 2014 Winter Meeting, see this prior blog post.

Dodd-Frank and Structured Settlements

What impact will the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and related international regulatory developments, have on structured settlement annuity providers?

Proposed Amendment to Dodd-Frank

That issue was indirectly spotlighted this week when Senator Susan Collins (R., Maine) announced progress on a bill that would amend Dodd-Frank to permit the Federal Reserve to exempt insurers from new capital rules for banks.

Although the Federal Reserve has not yet published capital rules for insurers, "the Fed maintains it is required to set minimum capital requirements for insurance companies similar to the standards banks face," according to a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article (subscription required).

Enacting legislation to reopen Dodd-Frank will be difficult, the WSJ article states, because many Senate Democrats fear such a bill would include broader changes and the Obama administration has opposed legislation that reopens Dodd-Frank before it has been fully implemented by regulators.

Many insurers believe "bank-centric" capital rules supervised by the Federal Reserve would require them to increase capital and product prices thereby creating a competitive disadvantage. Structured settlement annuity providers MetLife, Prudential, New York Life, and Mutual of Omaha have joined a lobbying coalition of insurers seeking separate capital requirements that take into account their business model, according to various new sources.

A recent LifeHealthPRO article , however, confirms life insurer expectations for increasing federal and international regulatory supervision quoting Gary Hughes, executive vice president and general counsel of the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) as stating: “In the very near future, a major segment of the U.S. insurance business will have material aspects of its capital structure dictated or influenced by someone other than a state insurance regulator.”

Hughes added: "life insurance regulation in the U.S. can no longer be viewed as a purely domestic matter” and highlighted the importance of regulatory cooperation, according to the LifeHealthPRO article.

"If the capital standards of the states, the Federal Reserve (FSB), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) and the European Union are not generally consistent," he stated, "the resulting competitive disparities mainly involving the relative cost of capital will significantly disrupt the U.S. and the global life insurance markets.”

BACKGROUND - Insurance Regulation, Capital Requirements and Structured Settlements

The United States insurance industry historically has been regulated by the states whose regulatory responsibility was reaffirmed in 1945 when Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act .

Following the collapse of First Executive Corporation and its two Executive Life subsidiaries in 1991, which had invested heavily in "junk bonds" and had sold a substantial number of structured settlement annuities, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms including risk based capital (RBC) requirements. RBC requires insurance companies with higher amounts of risk to retain higher amounts of capital and surplus.

Prior to the Executive Life collapse, state insurance regulators had used fixed capital standards to monitor the financial solvency of insurance companies. Under fixed capital standards, depending upon the state and its line of business, insurance companies were required to maintain the same minimum amount of capital, regardless of the financial condition of the company.

Enacted in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, Dodd-Frank created changes in the United States financial regulatory system that impact all aspects of the financial services industry including insurance.

Among those changes, Dodd-Frank established the U.S. Treasury's Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and "vested FIO with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sector ... and to represent the United States on prudential aspects of international insurance matters, including at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors [IAIS]".

Established in 1994, IAIS is "the international standard setting body responsible for developing and assisting in the implementation of principles, standards and other supporting material for the supervision of the insurance sector", according to its website.

IAIS' mission is "to promote effective and globally consistent supervision of the insurance industry in order to develop and maintain fair, safe and stable insurance markets for the benefit and protection of policyholders and to contribute to global financial stability."

The IAIS, whose members constitute nearly all of the world's insurance supervisors including the FIO and the NAIC, has committed to develop by 2016 and implement by 2019 the first-ever risk based global insurance capital standard (ICS).

The FIO published a report December 12, 2013 about "how to modernize and improve the system of insurance regulation in the United States." The report concludes:

• "[I]n some circumstances, policy goals of uniformity, efficiency, and consumer protection make continued federal involvement necessary to improve insurance regulation."
• However, "insurance regulation in the United States is best viewed in terms of a hybrid model, where state and federal oversight play complementary roles and where the roles are defined in terms of the strengths and opportunities that each brings to improving solvency and market conduct regulation."

Dodd-Frank also requires the Federal Reserve to regulate and establish capital levels for nonbank companies designated as "systemically important". The Financial Stability Board (FSB),an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system, published a list of nine insurers on July 18, 2013 that it identified as “global systemically important”. The FSB list includes three United States insurers, AIG, MetLife and Prudential - each of which currently sells structured settlement annuities in the U.S. market.

Although these insurers insist they are nothing like banks in terms of insolvency risks, "regulators are more worried by non-insurance activities carried out by insurance groups than by their core activities", according to a July 27, 2013 article in The Economist titled "Global Systemic Insurers".

"But it is not clear", The Economist article adds, "which activities the FSB considers core and which it thinks are too racy for insurers. Regulators (and others) worry about some annuities, savings-like products which offer guaranteed returns to customers."

Dodd-Frank and Product Suitability Standards

In addition to the insurance regulatory and capital requirement changes discussed above, Dodd-Frank directed the SEC to study the need for a new, uniform fiduciary standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers and to apply such a uniform standard if it deemed necessary.

This study is potentially important for structured settlements and personal injury settlement planning because:

• Both of these related markets currently lack uniform product suitability standards.
• By comparison, structured settlement protection acts impose a "best interest" standard on the secondary market.
• Broker-dealers and investment advisers increasingly participate in settlement planning.
• Settlement planning increasing integrates structured settlement annuities with other insurance and financial products ("blended products") in settlement trusts subject to "best interest" fiduciary standards.

Although the SEC published a fiduciary standard study in January 2011, it has not yet published any related regulations. S2KM reviewed settlement planning product suitability standards in a four-part 2012 blog series.

Structured Settlements 2013 - Settlement Planning

Despite an abundance of related professional associations, participants and conferences, as well as legislative and regulatory developments, personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) remains an evolving concept with competing definitions, standards and business models and many unanswered questions.

Professional associations whose members engage in settlement planning include: NSSTA, SSP, NAELA, ASNP, SNA, NAMSAP, AANLCP - and NASP assuming the definition of settlement planning includes adjustments during an injury victim's lifetime.

Settlement planners consist, or represent a blend, of several professionals in addition to traditional personal injury litigation participants. These professionals include: tax attorneys, special needs attorneys, trustees, financial planners, structured settlement specialists, life care planners, economists, Medicare set-aside (MSA) specialists and damage allocators.

Settlement planning topics are featured not only at national conferences sponsored by professional associations but also at conferences entirely focused on specific settlement planning products and issues (e.g. Qualified Settlement Funds [QSFs]; MSAs; special needs trusts [SNTs]; structured settlement annuities; structured settlement transfers).

Described alternatively by advocates as 1) a profession, 2) a process, 3) a community of practice and/or 4) a market, fundamental settlement planning issues exist which industry leaders have not yet adequately addressed:

• How large is the U.S. personal injury settlement planning market and its various sub-markets?
• What laws define and which regulators oversee personal injury settlement planning?
• What generally accepted settlement planning industry standards exist - and what is their source:
  • Definitions?
  • Documents?
  • Processes?
  • Product suitability?
  • Educational resources?
  • Certification programs?
  • Licensing requirements?
• What is a settlement plan?
• Have any professional associations attempted to define or develop a "standard" settlement plan?
• If such a standard settlement plan exists, what general and/or case specific reports and documents are required?

Settlement Planning 2013 Legislative and Regulatory Developments

• Affordable Care Act - Consisting of two laws enacted in March of 2010 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010), the Affordable Care Act (ACA) promises to have a profound, though still uncertain, impact on settlement planning once its primary features (including the individual mandate and protections against pre-existing conditions) become effective January 1, 2014. S2KM published four blog reviews during 2013 examining various ACA-related settlement planning issues:
  • Part 1 - The ACA's impact on future medical damages in personal injury cases.
  • Part 2 - The ACA's impact on the collateral source rule.
  • Part 3 - The ACA's Medicare cost-saving components.
  • Part 4 - Reactions to the California Exchange report announcing premium rates.
• CMS WCMSA Reference Guide - Workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs) represent a strategic and growing settlement planning sub-market in which structured settlement annuities have been granted an inherent cost advantage over lump sum funding alternatives as a result of a 2004 CMS policy memorandum. During 2013, CMS first published, then subsequently updated, a WCMSA Reference Guide. S2KM's published two blog posts summarizing the initial 88 page WCMSA Reference Guide:
  • Part 1 - Non-structured settlement issues.
  • Part 2 - Structured settlement issues.
  • For highlights of the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide Version 2.0, see this blog post written by Douglas Shaw.
• SMART Act - Signed into law on January 10, 2013, the “Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act” (SMART Act) is intended to improve the efficiency of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) system by requiring CMS to simplify its review process and to eliminate uncertainty and delays. CMS published related regulations in September thereby committing to:
  • Implement a web portal by January 1, 2016 to enable beneficiaries, their attorneys, other representatives or applicable plans to obtain important MSA information; and
  • Enhance the functionality of the MSA web portal to insure disputes and discrepancies are addressed within 11 business days following receipt of dispute documentation.
• Defense of Marriage Act - The United States v. Windsor case, decided June 26, 2013 by the United States Supreme Court, held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment. Among its many consequences, the Windsor decision will impact settlement planning for cases involving same-gender couples. For additional analysis, see this S2KM blog post.
• Dodd-Frank Uniform Fiduciary Standard - Among many other provisions, the "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" (Dodd-Frank) directed the SEC to study the need for a new, uniform fiduciary standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers and to apply such a uniform standard if it deemed necessary. This study is potentially important for settlement planning because the market currently lacks a uniform product suitability standard. Although the SEC published a fiduciary standard study in January 2011, it has not yet published any related regulations. S2KM reviewed settlement planning product suitability standards in a four-part 2012 blog series.
• Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (added January 7, 2014) - Section 202(b) of this statute, which will take effect October 1, 2014, modifies the federal Medicaid Secondary Payer statute and permits recovery for “any payments by such third party.” It overturns two prior Supreme Court decisions (Arkansas v. Ahlborn and Wos v. E.M.A.) and, according to some experts, will significantly complicate personal injury settlements involving Medicaid recipients and make them more expensive.
• Potentially important for settlement planning:
  • New federal legislative proposals:
    • H.R. 1982 - “Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreements Act of 2013″.
    • S.B. 1672 - "Special Needs Trust Fairness Act".
  • FASB Topic 834 - proposed new accounting standards for insurance contracts.
  • Global Insurance Capital Standard - IAIS has committed to develop and implement the first-ever risk based global insurance capital standard.

For additional S2KM annual reporting of structured settlement industry developments during 2013 and for prior years, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements in 2012 - 2

Settlement Planning

Compared with the structured settlement primary market, which was characterized by continuing sales declines in 2012, the related settlement planning market appears to have experienced growth and vitality in 2012.

The primary evidence of this growth and vitality consisted of the increasing number of educational conferences addressing settlement planning topics during 2012. These included:

• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) Annual Meeting
• Risk Settlement Planning Practicum
• Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) Annual Meeting
• Qualified Settlement Fund Symposium
• Various National Academy of Elder Law Attorney (NAELA) Conferences - of which S2KM attended the 2012 Ohio NAELA Unprogram.

One of the challenges for measuring the growth of the settlement planning market is the lack of market metrics. For example, despite continuing market inquiries, S2KM has been unable to identify reliable national market metrics for qualified settlement funds, special needs trusts, settlement trusts, or Medicare set-aside arrangements.

Towers Watson Studies

The most valuable market research for settlement planning S2KM has identified has been the Annual Studies of United States Tort Costs published by Towers Watson (formerly Towers Perrin) since 1985. These studies:

• Calculate tort costs resulting from five insured plus uninsured business lines: 1) commercial multi-peril; 2) medical malpractice; 3) product liability; 4) other liability; and 5) commercial auto.
• Exclude: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs.
• In 2002, Towers Watson also translated overall tort costs for 2001 into the following categories and percentages: 1) administrative costs (21%); 2) defense costs (14%); plaintiff attorneys (19%); economic loss (22%) and non-economic loss (24%). Towers Perrin discontinued this portion of its analysis in 2002. It was "devilishly difficult" according to Russ Sutter, a Towers Watson principal and actuary who directs their annual tort cost studies, "primarily because we lack reliable information from plaintiff attorneys". These percentages therefore represented Tower Watson's "best estimate" in 2002.

Based upon Towers Watson's most recent 2011 Annual Study and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM estimates, that at least since 2006, more than $160 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys.

Settlement Planning Issues

Among many settlement planning issues, S2KM viewed the following as the most strategically important during 2012:

• The evolutionary relationship between structured settlements and settlement planning;
• Comparing these two business models;
• Improving settlement planning by expanding structured settlements;
• What we have learned about the settlement planning market;
• Settlement planning tax challenges - including stress-induced physical ailments;
• How the Affordable Care Act (ACA) impacts settlement planning;
• How states are reforming Medicaid programs to address budgetary shortfalls and the ACA;
• Whether a standard of practice exists for using Medicare set-aside arrangements in liability cases;
• The application of product suitability standards to settlement plans funded with structured settlements;
• The impact of Dodd-Frank's uniform fiduciary standard on settlement planning.

Additional post in S2KM's blog series: "Structured Settlements in 2012":

• Part 1 - Primary market

• Part 2 - Settlement planning

• Part 3 - Secondary market

• Part 4 - Executive Life of New York

Need for Reform?

In a companion article to the National Underwriter's recent comprehensive analysis of the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation ("The Complete ELNY Saga"), writer Warren Hersch asks: "is the structured settlement process in need of reform"?

The Hersch article highlights a "potpourri" of structured settlement issues:

• Business practices - including disclosure and suitability issues
• Structured settlement regulation - or lack thereof
• Industry lobbying
• Industry education
• Broker compensation
• Structured settlement transfers
• IRC 468B qualified settlement funds
• Declining annuity sales
• Increasing case complexity - including annuity/trust blended products
• An evolving settlement planning profession
• Responsibilities of plaintiff attorneys
• Financial strength of annuity providers

In addition to industry criticism, the article features diverse individual perspectives demonstrating a foundation for industry consensus:

• Len Blonder
  • “No other option today can match the structure’s mix of tax-free income and guaranteed security.”
  • "A casualty company should ... be allowed to vet their own representatives of choice.”
  • "Plaintiffs are free to hire any financial professional from among the tens of thousands that are available to them."
• Joseph Dehner
  • "A personal injury attorney for claimants who isn’t even considering a structured settlement in high damage cases is bordering on malpractice."
  • “Structured settlements have become both more flexible and complicated because of the advanced planning that now accompanies these transactions.”
  • "Continuing low interest rates on the fixed annuities used to satisfy settlement claims [is] the key factor" in explaining the recent declines in structured settlement annuity sales.
• Jeremy Babener
  • “The qualified settlement fund (QSF) allows for a significant increase in the amount of time that payees have to make necessary determinations.”
  • "But for the single plaintiff, use of the vehicle comes with uncertainty. That’s because it is unclear whether a single plaintiff is treated for tax purposes as receiving funds deposited into a QSF."
• Timothy Morbach: “More should be done to recognize that the field of settlement planning is highly specialized and that [claimants] should make efforts to retain separate and qualified financial and legal counsel with respect to the strategies they wish to implement.”
• Charles Schell: “If the plaintiff's attorney engages a settlement planner, then .... , more likely than not, the product or plan recommended will be suitable.”
• Peter Gallanis: "The rate of insolvencies among life and health insurers, now at an all-time low, are but a fraction of the hundreds of failures within the commercial and investment banking and thrift sectors during the financial crisis."
• Eric Vaughn: "IRC Section 5891 has effectively prevented many abuses ... that commonly occurred in prior decades."

Perhaps this National Underwriter article will help motivate the structured settlement industry to undertake its own strategic analysis about whether and how to reform the structured settlement process. Immediate existential challenges certainly exist. In addition to the ELNY liquidation, these challenges include:

• Declining primary market annuity premium
• Historically low interest rates
• Potential reforms to the tax code and the tort system
• Implementation and impact of Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act
• Transitioning business skills, relationships and processes to the Internet.

Assuming Charles Darwin was correct: It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

The primary strategic issues for the structured settlement industry are whether, when, how and to what degree it will become "responsive to change"?

Can industry leaders:

• Be honest ? - Acknowledge the problems. Study the changes. Abandon political correctness. Question traditional assumptions, business models and business practices.
• Be inclusive ? - David Ringler, NSSTA's first president, re-stated NSSTA's original vision during NSSTA's 2011 annual conference: "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. ... If we can continue this tradition, there is no problem we cannot overcome."
• Be open ? - The late James Corman insisted promoters of structured settlements were "on the side of the angels". Does that statement remain true today? To regain public trust, empower stakeholders and expand the customer base, structured settlement strategic planning needs to re-emerge from behind closed doors. Important industry issues need to be articulated and discussed openly.
• Listen to customers ? - The profiles of ELNY structured settlement victims featured in "The Complete ELNY Saga" provide a valuable introduction. Prior market surveys should be re-visited, updated and expanded. The traditional "one and done" structured settlement customer model needs to be re-evaluated.
• Engage critics ? - and challenge/encourage critics to be part of an industry solution by incorporating their relevant issues and best ideas into a strategic thinking process? These critics include legal and financial professionals who view the structured settlement product and market as core components of a larger and more complex settlement planning industry.

For related S2KM reporting and analysis, see the structured settlement wiki:

• Re-thinking Structured Settlements
• Growing the Market
• Business Standards and Practices
• Settlement Planning
• Structured Settlements and Knowledge Management

NASP 2012 Annual Conference - 3

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) hosted its 8th annual educational conference October 16-19, 2012 in New Orleans with a record number of attendees consisting of transfer company executives and staff, in-house and outside legal counsel, investors, service providers and, for the first time, primary market participants.

NASP President Matthew Bracy set the conference theme by challenging speakers and attendees to continue to improve the structured settlement secondary market: "We have some of the brightest minds in the country assembled here to discuss the status of this industry and how to improve what we do. And, as is our habit, we have invited people who might have critical things to say about how we are doing and what we can do better. Improvement can only come from the honest and sometimes harsh assessment of outside critics."

One of those critics was keynote speaker Jan Schlictmann who called out "cash now" advertizing as a "primitive denomination". Schlichtmann's broader message echoed Bracy's theme of bettering oneself through self-criticism and the need for higher industry goals. "It is not just who we serve that matters, but how we serve", Schlictmann stated. Schlictmann reviewed his client experience with structured settlements and acknowledged a personal paradigm shift resulting from recent industry developments including low interest rates and the ELNY liquidation.

The Judges Panel has become a regular and popular feature of NASP educational conferences. Moderator Earl Nesbitt encouraged this year's panel members, Judge Patricia Wise, Chancery Court Judge, Hinds County, Mississippi and Judge Dean Lum, Superior Court for King County, Washington, to share their concerns about structured settlement transfers and their advice for transfer company representatives and attorneys. Selected highlights:

• Judge Wise: "We (Mississippi judges) have a good relationship with transfer attorneys. I don't look at transfers as inherently good or bad. I don't have any preconceived notion whether to approve or disapprove."
• Judge Lum: "It is not my job to talk someone into or out of a transfer. Judges, however, think about the worst case scenario - a recipient who has just turned 18. The closer to this worst case scenario, the more scrutiny a person receives."
• Judge Wise: "What judges are looking for is credibility and what structured settlement payees say they will do with the funds. We do focus on whether prior transfers have occurred. Also, the older the payee, the more likely they have the ability to make a good decision."
• Judge Lum: "Attorneys should prepare the structured settlement payee for his or her court appearance - how to dress and behave; how the best interest test applies; what the impact will be on dependents."
• Judge Lum: "We have a saying in King County: 'there is no party like ex parte'. In unopposed cases, people try to run things by you. Its kind of like the wild west. In unopposed cases, it is important for attorneys to go the extra mile. Your reputation matters. There are two degrees of separation in the legal profession."

Another regular and popular feature of NASP educational conferences are the small group break out sessions. The individual breakout sessions S2KM attended addressed participants' state-specific experience with:

• Court Approval Issues - judicial negotiation of discount rates; the meaning of full disclosure; statutory history of the "best interest" test; independent professional advisor qualifications and fees; transfer application exhibits; and the importance of judicial education.
• Underwriting Issues - annuity provider transfer requirements; "applicable state laws" requirements; judgment creditor issues including bankruptcy and child support; annuity provider administrative fees; and problems related to incompetent payees, identity theft and relatives or friends coercing payees.

The NASP conference doubled down on underwriting issues with an informative presentation about "Life Contingent Transactions" by NASP President-elect Patricia LaBorde. LaBorde, who also served as Chairperson for the 2012 NASP conference and was credited with upgrading the NASP website, discussed the two paths for funding life contingent transactions:

• Purchasing a life insurance policy to hedge against the risk of an early annuitant death; or
• Evaluating the risk and pricing the risk into the transaction.

Jack Kelly, a federal lobbyist who assisted NASP in securing enactment of IRC 5891 in 2002, provided a Legislative Update. Kelly summarized NASP's 2012 involvement with legislative proposals in Vermont, Minnesota and New Hampshire. Vermont, in 2012, became the 48th state to enact a structured settlement protection statute. The new Vermont statute is generally based upon the NCOIL Model Act with some variations related to independent professional advisors, notice requirements for certain state agencies and the required court appearance by the structured settlement payee.

Earl Nesbitt, NASP's Executive Director and General Counsel, presented the 2012 Litigation Update. Among several important court decisions, Nesbitt highlighted the Stone Street v. McClendon case which he characterized as an "important victory" for NASP and the structured settlement industry in general. In McClendon, a Louisiana state court found that Travelers Insurance and MetLife had no grounds for withholding payments following a valid transfer of payment rights pursuant to the Louisiana structured settlement protection statute. The court ordered MetLife to pay interest from the date the payments were originally due. Note: S2KM will publish a more detailed review of the McClendon case in a subsequent blog post.

Attorney Joseph Feltes' 2012 NASP presentation titled "Privacy Issues in Structured Settlement Transactions (Part 2)" supplemented his 2011 NASP presentation on the use and disclosure of confidential information by transfer companies. This year, Feltes discussed privacy issues related to electronic and digital communications, especially Internet-based communications. Among other issues, Feltes highlighted: cyber-bullying; the increase in defamation cases; the blurred boundaries between public and private communications; FTC blog rules requiring disclosures of paid endorsements; social media policy and practices; limits on constitutional rights; cloud technology issues; and the importance of company Internet policies.

In his "Primary Market Update", Mark Wahlstrom emphasized why the primary and secondary structured settlement markets are part of the same business. He called the primary market "the secondary market's best friend" despite the primary market's criticism of, and "needless obstacles" for, the secondary market. As one example of "needless obstacles", Wahlstrom mentioned Chartis for aggressively promoting an anti-factoring pledge among its structured settlement brokers.

Wahlstrom described 2012 as "another bad year for the primary market". He characterized declines in primary market annuity premium as a "negative trend that will eventually impact the secondary market" and identified the following causes:

• The structured settlement is an insular, closed community with aging leadership and a shrinking sales force.
• Structured settlement annuity providers, and most brokers, lack marketing and innovation skills.
• Primary market participants are intimidated by the Internet.
• Instead of offering customer solutions, the primary market continues to sell a single product.
• With historically low interest rates, that product produces a zero return when you consider inflation.
• The primary market has not responded strategically to tort reform and increasing competition from other professionals.
• By continuing their "factoring wars", the primary market has missed opportunities to cooperate with the secondary market.
• The ELNY liquidation means the primary market can no longer claim all structured settlement recipients have received 100% of their payments.

Kira Brereton, an attorney who specializes in asset-backed securitizations, provided a comprehensive introduction to "Financing Structured Settlements". Her presentation: reviewed a typical transaction structure; provided a market overview including legal and regulatory developments; summarized rating agency considerations; discussed split payment issues; addressed the creditworthiness of insurers backing the collateral pools; considered bankruptcy and receivership issues; and highlighted relevant securities laws and regulations including the Investment Company Act of 1940, private placements, Dodd-Frank and Regulation AB 2.0.

Elizabeth Yingling, a securities law expert, discussed "Implications of Federal and States Securities Laws on Structured Settlements". She addressed fundamental issues such as: What statutes govern securities? What is a "security"? What is an "investment contract"? and How do promotional materials impact the analysis? In addition, Yingling offered a detailed analysis of the "Howey test" and provided practical tips.

Alexander Hamilton Award

NASP also named S2KM blog author, Patrick Hindert, as the 2012 recipient of its Alexander Hamilton Award. NASP has bestowed this award five times "to distinguished individuals who have supported and defended the right to free alienability of property rights. This right is the corner stone of NASP and the foundation of the structured settlement factoring business." Previous Alexander Hamilton Award recipients:

• State Senator Alan Sanborn of Michigan.
• U.S. Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia.
• State Representative Van Tran of California.
• Earl S. Nesbitt, Esq., of Texas.

In announcing the 2012 award, NASP President Matt Bracy stated: "Hindert was chosen to receive this award based upon his longstanding support of the factoring business and option. In particular, his position as a founder and leader in the primary structured settlement business, who early on recognized the legitimacy and value of the secondary market, led to this honor."

For complete S2KM reporting on NASP conferences plus other structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

AIG Bailout Paid Back

With the sale last week of 636.9 million shares of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) common stock for $20.7 billion, the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve have now recovered a combined total of $197.4 billion from their $182.3 billion bailout of the once-troubled insurer.

The sale reduces U.S. government ownership of AIG to about 15.9%, down from a high of 92%. And, according to Best's Insurance News, the U.S. government expects to gain another $8.1 billion when it sells its last remaining shares in AIG.

Now that the U.S. government is a minority shareholder, AIG could face additional regulation as a savings and loan holding company, Best's Insurance News adds in its September 14, 2012 article. Some of the new regulations are still being finalized as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

AIG, through its insurance subsidiaries, has been an important participant in the U.S. structured settlement market for many years both as a purchaser and as a provider of structured settlement annuities.

Industry estimates of structured settlement annuity premium sold by AIG subsidiaries during the past 10 years provide one perspective of AIG's significant role in the U.S. structured settlement market as well as the impact of the U.S. government bailout on AIG's structured settlement annuity production. AIG's estimated annual share of the U.S. structured settlement annuity market appears in parentheses. Source: annual compilation of U.S. structured settlement annuity premium compiled by Melissa Evola.

• 2002 - $1.179 billion (19%)
• 2003 - $1.195 billion (20%)
• 2004 - $1.221 billion (20%)
• 2005 - $1.316 billion (21%)
• 2006 - $1.463 billion (24%)
• 2007 - $1.468 billion (24%)
• 2008 - $1.454 billion (23%)
• 2009 - $0.429 billion (8%)
• 2010 - $0.499 billion (9%)
• 2011 - $0.395 billion (11%)

"Only Half the Story"

In an August 2, 2012 blog post titled "Uniform Fiduciary Standards Only Half the Story", John Darer offers the following critique of this earlier S2KM blog post: "It's a pity that an otherwise well written blog post by Patrick Hindert about Uniform Fiduciary Standards, unexplainably omits standards for the secondary market."

S2KM's blog post addressed the following issue: "What impact will a new uniform fiduciary standard, being developed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as one result of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), have upon existing structured settlement and settlement planning business models and practices?"

Without any discussion of the secondary market, S2KM's blog post also highlighted certain traditional primary market structured settlement business practices that fail to meet any fiduciary standard:

• Misrepresentations or omission of material facts; and
• Conflicts of interest - without written, informed client and/or customer consent.

John's blog post makes two valid points. First, that S2KM's blog post ignored secondary market standards. Second, despite enactment of IRC section 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes, bad business practices continue to exist in the secondary market. John's blog post identifies several such practices.

By "setting aside the good players", however, John's blog post spotlights existing bad business practices but does not identify or address secondary structured settlement market business standards. What are those secondary market standards - and how do (or should) these standards impact the primary market?

Looking specifically at the "uniform fiduciary standard" (the subject of the S2KM blog post in question), the related secondary market standard is the "best interest" test. There are three sources that establish and/or address this secondary market standard: 1) IRC section 5891; 2) the state structured settlement protection statutes; and 3) judicial interpretations of the "best interest" standard.

IRC Section 5891

IRC section 5891 imposes a 40 percent excise tax on any person who acquires structured settlement payment rights in a factoring transaction. The excise tax, however, does not apply if the transfer is approved in advance in a "qualified order" issued under an applicable state statute by an applicable state court.

IRC section 5891(b)(2) defines a qualified order as “a final order, judgment or decree” that satisfies two requirements: a qualified order must find the transfer of the structured settlement payment rights:

• does not contravene:
  • Any Federal or State statute or
  • The order of any court or responsible administrative authority; and
• Is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents.

State Structured Settlement Protection Acts

Forty-seven states have enacted some form of structured settlement protection act. While the various state SSPAs lack uniformity, most adopt the same terminology and share the same basic legislative scheme as the Model SSPA. Echoing IRC section 5891, the state SSPAs provide that structured settlement payment rights transfers are not effective unless they receive advance court approval. Under each of the state SSPAs, key terms are defined, procedures for obtaining court approval are spelled out, and required notices, disclosures and findings are established.

Although all of the state SSPAs incorporate the "best interest" test, the California statute is the only SSPA that defines best interest. Section 10139.5 (b) of the California Insurance Code lists 15 factors that judges should consider "[w]hen determining whether the proposed transfer should be approved, including whether the transfer is fair, reasonable, and in the payee’s best interest, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents" including:

“(1) The reasonable preference and desire of the payee to complete the proposed transaction, taking into account the payee’s age, mental capacity, legal knowledge, and apparent maturity level"; and

“(15) Any other factors or facts that the payee, the transferee, or any other interested party calls to the attention of the reviewing court or that the court determines should be considered in reviewing the transfer.”

Judicial Interpretations

In the absence of a state SSPA "best interest" standard, state courts have applied differing determination standards and have been reluctant to provide their own definitions. For example, here is a statement from a 2003 New York trial court opinion (In re Petition of Settlement Capital Corp.):

"Although the [New York] statute does not define the best interests of the Payee, developing case law and the intent of the statute suggest the Court should consider: (1) the Payee’s age, mental capacity, physical capacity, maturity level, independent income, and ability to support dependents; (2) purpose of the intended use of the funds; (3) potential need for future medical treatment; (4) the financial acumen of the Payee; (5) whether the Payee is in a hardship situation to the extent that he or she is in “dire straits”; (6) the ability of the payee to appreciate financial consequences based on independent legal and financial advice; [and] (7) the timing of the application."

Conclusion

What relevance, if any, therefore, does the secondary structured settlement market "best interest" standard have as primary market stakeholders contemplate the potential impact of a uniform fiduciary standard under the Dodd-Frank legislation?

Neither IRC 5891 nor any of state SSPAs apply their "best interest" test to primary market structured settlement sales. Only four of the state SSPAs (New York, Florida, Massachusetts and Minnesota) establish any primary market sales standards, each requiring certain mandatory written disclosures.

The secondary market "best interest" test, however, does raise important issues for the primary structured settlement markets. Most importantly, If structured settlement transfers are required to be in "the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents", why shouldn't a "best interest" test or fiduciary standard apply to the original structured settlement sale?

Thank you, John Darer, for pointing out the importance of this issue.

For additional discussion and analysis of secondary market business practices and the "best interest" test, see:

• Sections 16.02 ("History of Structured Settlement Transfers") and 16.05 ("Judicial Review of Transfer Applications") in "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J); and
• The structured settlement wiki:
  • Secondary market blog posts
  • S2KM reports about Professional Association Meetings including the National Association of Settlement Professionals (NASP).

For S2KM's 2006 analysis of "How the Primary Market Views Factoring", see this concept map. 

Uniform Fiduciary Standard

What impact will a new uniform fiduciary standard, being developed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as one result of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), have upon existing structured settlement and settlement planning business models and practices?

Dodd-Frank

Among other reforms, Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau  (CRPB) and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO). CFPB's central mission is "to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans ....."

In addition to creating the CFPB and the FIO, Dodd-Frank directed the SEC to study the need for a new, uniform, federal fiduciary standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers and to apply such a uniform standard if it deemed necessary. The SEC:

• Released its fiduciary standard study in January 2011.
• Concluded that a uniform standard of care “at least as stringent” as the fiduciary standard currently applied to investment advisors should extend to all brokers, dealers and investment advisors.
• Is expected to release its proposed regulation for a uniform fiduciary standard this year.

Historically, brokers, dealers and insurance producers have been held to a "product suitability" standard which is less stringent than a fiduciary standard. As defined at uslegal.com, "[A] fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party..... A person acting in a fiduciary capacity is held to a high standard of honesty and full disclosure in regard to the client and must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of the client." (emphasis added)

NAIC Annuity Suitability Regulation

For comparison purposes, the NAIC "Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation" (Suitability Regulation) provides: "In recommending to a consumer the purchase of an annuity or the exchange of an annuity that results in another insurance transaction or series of insurance transactions, the insurance producer, or the insurer where no producer is involved, shall have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable for the consumer on the basis of the facts disclosed by the consumer as to his or her investments or other insurance products and as to his or her financial situation and needs, including the consumer's suitability information ..." (emphasis added)

The NAIC Suitability Regulation defines "suitability information" to include: age; annual income; financial situation and needs, including financial resources used for the funding of the annuity; financial experience; financial objectives; intended use of the annuity; financial time horizon; existing assets, including investment and life insurance holdings; liquidity needs; liquid net worth; risk tolerance; and tax status.

Significantly for structured settlements, however, the NAIC Suitability Regulation exempts "settlements of or assumptions of liabilities associated with personal injury litigation or any dispute or claim resolution process". By way of explanation, the legislative history of the NAIC Suitability Regulation specifically references "structured settlements" and adds: "[a] regulator pointed out that this type of contract did not generally result from a recommendation by an insurer or producer but agreed that it did not hurt to have the exemption there."

Impact on Insurance Professionals

Although the SEC's anticipated uniform fiduciary standard has received limited publicity within the structured settlement and settlement planning industries, it has generated significant controversy and disagreement among financial planners, broker dealers and life insurance professionals.

A recent article by Brian Anderson titled "Impact of a Universal Fiduciary Standard" looks at the related issues from the perspective of "insurance producers". Part of a series of articles about threats to the independent life insurance distribution channel, Anderson's article includes the following summary of arguments for and against a universal fiduciary standard:

• "Proponents of a universal fiduciary standard — including many financial planner and consumer groups — claim consumers who rely on the financial advice of experts are confused by the different standards of care. These consumers are at an information disadvantage, they say, and vulnerable to exploitation by advisors who are not required to make recommendations in the best interest of the customer."
• "Opponents of a fiduciary standard — including many life insurance industry trade associations — say a universal fiduciary standard is unnecessary because the current suitability standard is effective. Opponents also say the imposition of a universal fiduciary standard would result in higher costs and reduced choices and service for consumers."

Some life insurance representatives have expressed concern, according to Anderson's article, that the anticipated SEC fiduciary standard could potentially ban commission-based compensation for insurance product sales and thereby destroy the traditional life insurance business model.

Others disagree. Anderson quotes Jill Hoffman, NAIFA assistant vice president of federal government relations, as stating: “The language of Dodd-Frank specifically says that a fiduciary standard can be met, and a person can still receive commissions, and a person can still sell proprietary products. In other words, the language says you cannot violate a fiduciary standard just because you sell proprietary products and get paid commission.”

Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning

Will the SEC uniform fiduciary standard impact settlement planners and structured settlement professionals? Here are some reasons why leading settlement planners and structured settlement professionals should study, and anticipate the need to adopt, whatever uniform fiduciary standard the SEC ultimately adopts:

• Blended products - Structured settlement annuities increasingly are paid into trusts that also include financial products.
• Multiple licenses - In addition to structured settlement annuities, settlement planners increasingly sell securities as well as multiple life insurance and annuity products.
• Competition - To successfully compete in today's economic and legal environment, structured settlement sales persons must adjust upward to match the higher product suitability standards and best business practices of their competitors including settlement planners, financial planners and trustees.
• Clients and Stakeholders - As a matter of self-protection as well as consumer protection, many structured settlement clients (defendants; plaintiff attorneys) and stakeholders ( judges; mediators) will increasingly demand higher product and sales standards for injury victims.
• Lawsuits - In this era of accountability and compliance, all structured settlement participants are likely to be held to higher legal standards.

What issues might a uniform fiduciary standard create for structured settlement and settlement planning professionals? At their worst, as S2KM has previously observed, certain traditional structured settlement business practices fail to meet any fiduciary standard. For example:

• Misrepresentations or omission of material facts
  • Cost or Value - From a claimant's perspective, a core strategy for traditional structured settlements often appears "to make a little money look like a lot of money". The Spencer v. Hartford class action allegations outline one "sophisticated" variation of this strategy which often depends on hiding or misrepresenting annuity "cost" and/or settlement "value".
  • Guaranteed payments - Many structured settlement sales brochures continue to promise "guaranteed payments" without specifying who guarantees what if and when an annuity provider like Executive Life of New York (ELNY) becomes insolvent.
  • Managed account - Many structured settlement recipients do not understand important product details when their case is settled including how structured settlements differ from managed accounts and why they cannot access funds without court approval pursuant to state structured settlement protection acts.
  • Structured settlement myths- historically used to promote sales such as:
    • Studies show that nine out of 10 lump sum recipients squander the entire amount within five years.
    • Structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance.
• Conflicts of interest - without written, informed client and/or customer consent
  • Single product - The danger of single product structured settlement sales persons is not limited to whether his or her product is in the "best interest" of a particular claimant/customer. The danger is also that single product sales persons are inherently conflicted in recommending how much of any settlement should be allocated to their product.
  • Multiple roles - A structured settlement sales person introduced into a case by a defendant or liability insurer frequently plays four separate roles each of which potentially conflicts with the other roles: agent for the annuity provider; broker for the defendant; broker for the plaintiff; and agent for the defendant in helping to negotiate and settle the case.
  • Compensation sharing - Unless all parties to a settlement are informed about whether and how structured settlement annuity commissions are shared, a structured settlement creates a variety of potential conflicts of interest.
  • Funding alternatives - Based upon traditional structured settlement business and compensation models, the potential availability and applicability of 468B qualified settlement funds for "appropriate cases" creates inherent conflicts of interest between defendants and their structured settlement brokers.

For additional S2KM reporting about structured settlement business standards and practices, see the structured settlement wiki.