Beyond Structured Settlements

SSP 2017 Annual Conference

Although the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) was founded in 2000, the term "settlement planner" is still viewed by many structured settlement stakeholders as an inflated synonym for "plaintiff broker". Current SSP President Joseph Tombs agrees.

"Until recently," Tombs stated in an S2KM interview, "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."

Just as significant, under Tombs' leadership, SSP has made a dramatic policy shift: "to pull back completely from structured settlement politics". Tombs quickly adds, however: "Our refusal to take a position should not be misunderstood to imply anything about our individual members." For example: "[t]he 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."

The changes in SSP, as well as the growing maturation of settlement planning, were evident during SSP's recent 2017 Annual Conference which occurred March 1-3 in Las Vegas. Perhaps the most provocative statement of change, at least from a structured settlement perspective, was a panel discussion titled "Comprehensive Settlement Planning in a Post Structure-Centric World" featuring Tombs; Jack Meligan; Charly Schell; and Joseph DiGangi.

Each of these panelists has been a settlement planning leader and proponent for many years. Meligan and Schell are former SSP Presidents. DiGangi is the newly-elected SSP Vice-President. As panelists, each offered settlement planning "tips" including:

• Meligan - Dive into Medicare; study and understand the power of QSFs; expand your vision beyond structured settlement annuities.
• Schell - Prioritize planning over products; pay attention to compliance in the planning process.
• DiGangi - Obtain relevant credentials (RSP; CSSC; MCSSC; CFP; RIA; CFA; CPA; JD); charge fees for your expertise.
• Tombs - structure into trusts; consider equity-indexed annuities; embrace comprehensive services (financial planning; asset management; trust services; legal services; insurance products; lien resolution; MSP compliance; MSA allocations or management; factoring assistance; economic witness).

SSP did not ignore structured settlements during its 2017 Annual Conference. On the contrary,. the conference included a 90 minute panel discussion titled "Structured Settlement Industry Developments" featuring "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) co-authors Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert (S2KM's Managing Director) as panelists. Topics discussed included S2P2J Release 61 highlights; renewed structured settlement sales growth ; the current AIG class action ; and the current ELNY class action . The SSP conference audience included National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Board members, NSSTA brokers and NSSTA annuity provider representatives. Multiple NSSTA members were featured as speakers.

The SSP conference also included an informative panel discussion about the structured settlement secondary market titled "Bad Practices in the Secondary Market" featuring John Darer, Eddie Stone and moderated by Rhonda Bentzen. The presentation provided a detailed, professional critique, with examples, of false advertising by some primary market participants who sell products consisting of "re-cycled" or "derivative" structured settlement payment rights as "annuities" or "structured settlements" as well as the risks and dangers of such products.

Just as SSP as an association is transitioning, the relative role and importance of structured settlements (from SSP's perspective) is also changing - and this poses a challenge for NSSTA and the structured settlement industry generally. For examples:

• Although most of the SSP members who produce structured settlements are also NSSTA members, according to Tombs, he also maintains that most SSP members, sponsors and seminar attendees do not sell structured settlement annuities.
• SSP has developed a new set of "Practice Standards" which it introduced during its 2017 Annual Conference because, according to Tombs, "professionalism requires a set of common standards recognized by those calling themselves settlement planners as well as the consuming public."
• Tombs also announced that a committee of the SSP Board will be "modernizing" SSP's existing "Standards of Professional Conduct" because this current ethical code is "too structured settlement centric".
• Tombs, as well as other SSP members, believes that settlement planning represents a uniquely superior business model compared with traditional structured settlements. Most structured settlement annuity providers, according to Tombs, "[don't] understand the significance of settlement planning - or how it differs and/or relates to structured settlements."
• From a plaintiff or plaintiff attorney perspective, Tombs characterizes settlement planners vs. structured settlement brokers as "unfair competition". "My experience has shown," Tombs states, "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 as a solution for a client's comprehensive needs."

From an historic and strategic perspective, Tombs' message, indeed the message of the SSP 2017 conference more generally, appeared to S2KM to echo and amplify Joseph DiGangi's presentation during the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting which DiGangi termed "a wake up call for the [structured settlement] industry". At that time (2009), DiGangi proposed a "consultant" model for NSSTA members, with multiple products and services, as an alternative to the "annuity broker" structured settlement business model.

Characteristics of consulting model DiGangi proposed in 2009, not unlike SSP's current settlement planning model, included: planning orientation; solutions before products; blended products and services; product neutrality; compensation disclosure; professional training and designations; comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base.

Significantly, in 2009, DiGangi characterized structured settlement annuities as the "foundation product" for what DiGangi at that time termed "settlement consulting" - and settlement consulting as the new business model for structured settlement growth. For structured settlement consultants who lack the expertise, licensing or infrastructure to offer comprehensive solutions, DiGangi recommended teaming up with other professionals. DiGangi highlighted several transitional issues: licensing; conflicts of interest; collaboration models; and work process infrastructure.

Although NSSTA has not yet formerly embraced "settlement planning", NSSTA has formed a "Special Needs Attorney Task Force" and its 2017 Annual Educational Conference will feature an unprecedented (for NSSTA) number of special needs attorneys as speakers. Special needs attorneys play an increasingly important number of roles in personal injury settlement planning. Ringler, a founding NSSTA member and historically the largest structured settlement broker, recently re-branded itself as "Objective Settlement Advisors" and now claims to be "the largest settlement planning company in the nation."

Among several other interesting and educational SSP presentations (listed below), the following two related discussions were especially important for the future of SSP and settlement planning - again, from S2KM's perspective:

• "Turning Settlement Planning Into a Profession" - Kent Hansen presenter.
• "Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) Designation Update" - Joseph Tombs presenter.

Hansen's presentation was notable for several reasons. First, he acknowledged that "settlement planning" remains an emerging profession that has not yet achieved professional status. Second, he identified four SSP-related steps to elevate settlement planning to professional status: 1) the current re-focus of SSP; 2) updating SSP's (structured-centric) Standards of Professional Conduct; 3) renewing and upgrading the RSP Designation program; 4) adopting and embracing the proposed SSP Practice Standards.

Hansen also reviewed the proposed new SSP Practice Standards, which address the following issues, and which the SSP Board of Directors' Practice Standards Committee has approved and sent to the SSP membership for their input and consideration before the SSP Board meets to discuss, modify and most likely approve the Practice Standards at its upcoming April meeting :

• Practice Standard #1 - Identifying/acknowledging "client" as individual (potentially) receiving settlement proceeds.
• Practice Standard #2 - Defining the scope of the engagement including making required disclosures of material conflicts of interest and details of the planner's compensation.
• Practice Standard #3 - Defining the client's goals, needs and priorities relevant to scope of engagement.
• Practice Standard #4 - Obtaining information and documents.
• Practice Standard #5 - Analyzing information to match client's goals, needs and priorities with resources.
• Practice Standard #6 - Considering options and developing recommendations.
• Practice Standard #7 - Communicating recommendations to enable client to make informed decisions.
• Practice Standard #8 - Mutually agreeing on implementation responsibilities consistent with scope of assignment.
• Practice Standard #9 - Recommending appropriate products and services.
• Practice Standard #10 - Mutually defining monitoring responsibilities.

Finally, Hansen reviewed the settlement planning process which S2KM summarizes as follows: 1) identify the client; 2) establish the engagement; 3) define goals; 4) gather data; 5) analyze data; 6) develop options; 7) present options; 8) agree on implementation; 9) implement plan; 10) monitor plan. Hansen acknowledged the CFP Board's current Practice Standards as the source for these processes.

Tombs provided an RSP update which is newly organized and updated within a "Settlement Planning Education Center" (SPEC) website. SPEC, "an online education provider" for the settlement planning profession, is owned and operated by a public charity ("Friends of Settlement Recipients, Inc."), according to Tombs. An RSP Board, Tombs stated, owns and awards the RSP designation and approves, administers and promotes the program. Although the RSP is "independent" of the SSP, according to the SPEC website, SSP helped start RSP and supplied initial funding. The Missions of the RSP and the SSP are "congruent".

The SPEC website provides additional information about the RSP courses and the SPEC faculty and includes a detailed list of Frequently Asked Questions (with Answers) plus multiple "How-To" Videos. The RSP program is entirely online and self-paced. The total cost of the program will be "about $4750" per person. Additional contact information is available on the SPEC website.

The remaining SSP educational programs were topically diversified, well-organized and professionally delivered - easily matching the high standards of past SSP Annual Conferences. Additional topics and speakers:

• Settlement Taxation Update and Commonly Missed Savings - Jeremy Babener
• Are MSAs Required on Liability Cases? - Josh Pettingill; Joe Anderson; Patrick Hindert (moderator)
• The ACA's Impact on Special Needs Trusts - Pi-Yi Mayo
• ERISA, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Refunds - David Place
• Life Insurance in Settlement Planning - Michael Sharpe
• Trust-Based Comprehensive Settlement Planning - Beth Wheeler
• The ABLE Act - Tom Stanley
• Settlement Strategies for Cases Involving Public Benefits - Will Lindahl
• Using MoneyGuidePro in Settlement Planning - Larry Peterson; Cam Bowen; Joseph Tombs

Congratulations to SSP, especially Conference Chairs Steve Halterbeck and Rhonda Bentzen, for an outstanding 2017 SSP program and educational experience. For S2KM's reports on past SSP conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP/ASNP 2016 Annual Conferences

Joint overlapping educational conferences hosted by the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) March 9-12, 2016 in Tucson, Arizona provided S2KM and other attendees an opportunity to evaluate the current status of structured settlements within the larger, more complex personal injury settlement planning market. The SSP conference also transferred association leadership from Neil Johnson to Joe Tombs with Tombs promising to maintain Johnson's leadership direction and to "pull SSP back completely from structured settlement politics."

Among S2KM's conference conclusions: Many personal injury settlement planners characterize structured settlements as a strategic product, and recognize new marketing opportunities for structured settlements resulting from recent legislation such as the Affordable Care Act and the ABLE Act . The traditional and collective structured settlement industry should similarly embrace an important opportunity to grow its premium volume in this larger, more complex, more dynamic market than it has in the past by more effectively:

• Analyzing the evolving personal injury settlement and special needs planning markets;
• Addressing concerns and issues about structured settlements identified by plaintiff and special needs attorneys; and
• Re-positioning structured settlements from a single product sale to the core component of an integrated settlement solution.

SSP TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• Introduction - Neil Johnson
• Comprehensive Settlement Planning - Joe Tombs; Charly Schell; Joe DiGangi; Tim Denehy
• Rules that Apply to Insurance Brokers - David Childers; Jeremy Babener
• The Grillo Case - Craig and Josephine (Grillo) Sullivan
• The Mraz Case - Mark Wilson and Patrick Hindert
• Sudden Money - John Darer
• Alternative Products - Martha Hunt; John Arendt; James Creel; Chris Shumate; Michael Upchurch; Rick Miller.
• Medicare Compliance, Entitlement Planning and Lien Resolution Issues - Anthony Prieto
• Joint ASNP/SSP Session - Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts - Frank Johns; Joe Tombs; Jack Meligan.
• ELNY and Factoring Industry Lawsuits - Edward Stone
• Small Business Legal Strategies - Paul Valentine
• Missed Tax Opportunities at Settlement - Jeremy Babener
• Foreign Assignment Companies - Jeremy Babener
• NSSTA's Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys - Patrick Hindert
• SSP President's Statement - Joe Tombs

ASNP TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• ABCs of Public Benefits - David Lillesand
• ABCs of Special Needs and Settlement Planning - Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller
• Keynote: "Raising Special Kids" - Maureen Beyers & Michael Farrell
• SSI Update - David Lillesand
• SNTs and Retirement Benefits - Melanie Marmion
• Recent Trends in Special Needs Planning - Blaine Brockman
• Joint ASNP/SSP Session - Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts - Frank Johns; Joe Tombs; Jack Meligan.
• "Tricky Issues" in SNT Administration - Travis Finchum; Herb Thomas and Daniel Cutter.
• Ask the Experts Panel - Kevin Urbatsch (Moderator)

DISCLAIMERS: Because of overlapping conference schedules, S2KM was able to attend only three ASNP presentations but did receive and has reviewed all ASNP conference handouts. S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, testified as an expert witness in the Mraz case concerning structured settlement and QSF issues on behalf of Adriana and Addison Mraz.

S2KM COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SSP Leadership

• In his closing message as SSP President, Neil Johnson continued to emphasize several positive themes including industry unification and increasing collaboration between SSP and NSSTA. Among Johnson's proposed solutions for industry unity: 1) recognizing and accepting product diversity; 2) focusing on client and customer service; 3) identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues; 4) engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues; 5) improving relationships among stakeholder groups; 6) promoting and practicing settlement planning not settlement selling.
• Newly elected SSP President Joe Tombs promised to "maintain the direction of Neil Johnson's leadership and even accelerate it in every way possible." He identified the following "main themes" for SSP going forward: "to pull completely back from structured settlement “politics”, redouble our efforts at educating our members and promoting a Code of Ethics, and a membership push to quadruple our high water mark for number of members. We intend to actively encourage our members who sell structured settlement to join and to become actively engaged in NSSTA. We will continue to offer a hand of friendship and cooperation in their agenda although we will be decidedly apolitical. We will also make no attempt no manage our member’s opinions or their expressions of their opinions."
• As for structured settlements, Tombs stated: "we intend to emphasize comprehensive settlement planning which will have the natural result of de-emphasizing structured settlement annuities to some extent as we move alternatives including trusts, taxable annuities, investment accounts, etc. closer to the forefront. We will be increasingly product-neutral and more advice-driven and client-need-focused in the future." Note: despite Tombs' assertion, and perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, multiple SSP conference speakers maintained that settlement trust sales, in particular, have actually increased their sales of structured settlement annuities.
• Tombs also promised "to intensify [SSP's] efforts to stave off any further “infiltration" of our society by factoring companies and their employees. We will want to remain abreast of the goings on in that market as we have always attempted, but as a practical matter we are cutting off any new members or sponsors from that side of things."

Marketing Feedback - NSSTA Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys

• During 2014, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) commissioned a three-part Structured Settlement Survey project, conducted by CLM Advisors, and previously reviewed by S2KM, of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3).
• Although NSSTA has made reports of all three surveys available to its members, and featured presentations about Part 1 and Part 2 at previous NSSTA educational conferences, NSSTA has not yet featured its Part 3 survey of plaintiff attorneys as an educational conference presentation. NSSTA has also prioritized "rejuvenating defense programs" as one of three preliminary "Growth Initiatives" with no equivalent current Growth Initiative focused specifically on plaintiff attorneys or personal injury settlement planning.
• As one SSP conference presentation, S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, discussed S2KM's analysis of NSSTA's Part 3 Structured Settlement Survey which, in S2KM's opinion, provides valuable insights for improving structured settlement marketing and expanding and accelerating structured settlement premium growth. For example:
  1. Only 4% of the responding plaintiff attorneys viewed structured settlement consultants as adding value for negotiations and/or case evaluations separate from, or in addition to, their knowledge of structured settlements.
  2. 35% stated that structured settlement consultants fail to deliver value because they are concerned with structuring as much of a settlement as possible.
  3. 52% contact a structured settlement broker one week (possibly less) prior to a mediation.
  4. 38% make contact only after a case settles.
  5. Less than 25% are likely to have a client sign a letter acknowledging that they were exposed to the opportunity to structure a portion of their settlement before opting for an all cash settlement.
  6. Although 89% believe they "have adequate knowledge of structured settlements so that [they are] able to recognize when they would be in the best interest of an injured party...", only 28% said they suggest a structured settlement for cases involving Medicare set-asides (MSAs).
  7. Only 26% have ever structured their fees.

Settlement Planning - A Special Needs Perspective

• Most presentations by special needs attorneys at structured settlement conferences focus exclusively on special needs trusts. As one result, many structured settlement professionals fail to understand the broad and expanding scope of special needs planning - or how it impacts, overlaps with and differs from personal injury settlement planning. A similar misconception exists among special needs attorneys many of whom identify financial and insurance settlement planners exclusively with structured settlements. The title of the one joint SSP/ASNP presentation in Tucson ("Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts") re-enforced this misconception. Fortunately and positively, the actual presentation discussion, moderated my Jack Meligan and featuring Frank Johns and Joe Tombs, addressed a broader agenda.
• Separately, both the ASNP and SSP conferences featured multiple presentations which captured the expanding expertise of their respective members. For structured settlement professionals, S2KM found ASNP's two "Pre-Session" presentations ("The ABCs of Public Benefits" by David Lillesand and "The ABCs of Special Needs and Settlement Planning" by Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller) especially informative. Also recommended for structured settlement professionals seeking a more comprehensive understanding of special needs planning: Blaine Brockman's presentation ("Recent Trends in Special Needs Planning"),
• Urbatsch and Fuller speak and write frequently about personal injury settlement planning and are recognized as leading national settlement planning experts among special needs attorneys. Their settlement planning presentations frequently discuss structured settlement "issues" - often with negative connotations and without rebuttal or explanations from structured settlement experts. What follows are structured settlement "issues" Urbatsch and Fuller identified in Tucson. In S2KM's experience: 1) many special needs attorneys agree with these issues; and 2) structured settlement proponents need to proactively respond to these issues - or risk continuing/increasing loss of potential annuity premium:
  • "Income stream is inflexible and cannot respond to emergency or major cash needs;
  • "High initial fees;
  • "Investment returns nearly always lower than what a diversified portolio would produce;
  • "Big ticket items, such as a home, cannot be easily acquired;
  • "Unscrupulous settlement planning brokers over-structuring because of high commission;
  • "Little regulatory oversight over industry – no fiduciary responsibility or licensing required to sell;
  • "Misleading statements about flexibility;
  • "How it fits into Plaintiff’s overall financial plan?

The Grillo Case

• The Grillo case, which establishes potential legal liability for plaintiff attorneys who do not advise their clients about structured settlements, was the subject of an SSP conference presentation by Craig and Josephine (Grillo) Sullivan. The Sullivans shared the remarkable life story of their daughter, Christina, the Foundation she inspired and the Texas State Statutory amendment her case helped to enact.
• For structured settlement brokers and settlement planners, the Grillo case provides a logical starting point for discussing structured settlements with plaintiff attorneys. As a point of comparison, consider response #5 above under "Marketing Feedback - NSSTA Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys."
• Another important settlement planning "takeaway" from the Sullivans' SSP presentation: both Craig and Josephine emphasized the value of Christina's original life care plan which served as a care management "roadmap" throughout Christina's life accurately predicting future needs and developments which the Sullivans would not otherwise have anticipated.
• This important observation, provided by the only care givers to appear as speakers at the combined SSP/ASNP conferences highlights an important settlement planning issue: Why do other settlement planning professionals ignore life care planners - especially considering their strategic role defining "future needs" for personal injury damage analysis, as well as future expense allocations for Medicare set-asides and Affordable Care Act coverage? For examples:
  • As leading nurse life care planner Wendie Howland stated in this 2014 S2KM interview: "I have never been asked to review a settlement plan to see how well it matches my recommendations."
  • The Urbatsch/Fuller presentation summarized above which identified multiple professionals for the "Settlement Planning Team", omitted life care planners.
  • "Comprehensive" settlement plans S2KM has reviewed typically don't include any life care plan, or other document, providing a detailed "needs analysis".
  • With the exception of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), a majority of whose members are life care planners, none of the many structured settlement or settlement planning conferences S2KM has attended during the past several years has offered specific presentations addressing the topic of "needs analysis" - or, with rare exceptions, featured a life care planner as presenter.
  • Key related issues: 1) what does "needs analysis" mean in the settlement planning context? Who is qualified, if not life care planners, to provide "needs analysis" for settlement planning? What is the relationship between a life care plan prepared for trial (damage analysis) and a life care plan for settlement planning? Who, besides a life care planner, is qualified to transpose one to the other?

The Mraz Case

• The traditional objective and responsibility for plaintiff attorneys in personal injury cases has been to obtain the largest amount of compensation for their clients whether by judgment or settlement. By this standard, the law firm Lief, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein was notably successful in obtaining a $55 million verdict and subsequent $24 million settlement in 2009 against Chrysler in the Mraz wrongful death case.
• Settlement planning, in general, and structured settlements, more specifically, however, prioritize an additional set of objectives and responsibilities for plaintiff attorneys. As a result, when the Lief, Cabraser law firm failed to obtain a structured settlement for Addison Mraz, the minor daughter of the deceased, after her mother, Adriana Mraz, allegedly requested Lief, Cabraser to obtain a structured settlement on Addison's behalf, Adriana brought a lawsuit alleging Lief, Cabraser attorneys breached the duty of care they owed to Addison.
• On December 22, 2015, among other findings, a California trial court jury determined Lief, Cabraser attorneys did not breach the standard of care or any fiduciary duty they owed Addison Mraz. Nevertheless, unrelated to damages associated to the loss of the structured settlement, the jury awarded Addison Mraz $400,000 of fees and costs she previously paid to Lief, Cabraser. The case is currently on appeal.
• Mark Wilson, the attorney who represented Adriana and Addison Mraz in their lawsuit against Lief, Cabraser, was a featured speaker at the SSP conference. Based upon the Marz case, and regardless of what occurs on appeal, Wilson highlighted the following structured settlement responsibilities as potential duties of care for plaintiff attorneys and recommended that structured settlement professionals and settlement planners utilize CLE programs to educate plaintiff attorneys about their potential liabilities. Plaintiff attorneys should:
  • Educate themselves about structured settlement issues including how to avoid constructive receipt as well as the appropriate utilization of QSFs and non-qualified assignments.
  • Recommend competent structured settlement professionals to clients (and retain them for advice) prior to settlement negotiations.
  • Insert appropriate language in term sheets and/or settlement agreements to preserve clients' structured settlement options.
  • If and when necessary, know how to correct mistakes to preserve or re-establish their clients' structured settlement options.

Plaintiff Broker Diversification

• The most successful plaintiff structured settlement brokers appear to be diversifying their products and services. It works, according to SSP speaker Anthony Prieto, "because it changes the conversation from a marketing perspective. There are a lot more people who want to talk to me about updates in MSP compliance or lien resolution than structured settlements. You see more cases when you offer other services. You become a problem solver as opposed to a problem identifier."
• Prieto identified multiple sources of alternative revenue now available to settlement planners in 2016: alternative products (retail annuities, life insurance, managed money); trust company fees or referrals; lien resolution or verification fees or referrals; MSP compliance fees or referrals; attorney fee deferral programs; QSF referrals and administration fees.
• Although one SSP panel, discussing "Comprehensive Settlement Planning", emphasized the importance of "planning before products", another SSP panel spoke specifically about expanding opportunities for alternative (non-traditional structured settlement) settlement planning products: Martha Hunt (equity-indexed annuity riders); John Arendt (reinsurance); James Creel (settlement trusts); Michael Upchurch (rehabilitation facilities); Rick Miller (indexed annuities).
• Consistent with the themes of "diversification" and "changing the conversation", John Darer made a convincing case for "transition expertise" as a critical settlement planning skill.
• What potential professional liability issues accompany plaintiff broker product and service diversification? The SSP conference did not directly address this issue comprehensively.
  • Speaking about "ELNY and Factoring Industry Lawsuits", attorney Edward Stone asserted that the "New Normal" (i.e. personal injury settlement planning) will not work if the core product (i.e. structured settlements) does not work. Focusing specifically on structured settlements, Stone asked whether a broker (plaintiff and/or defendant) owed any duty of care - and to whom? Also whether split commission arrangements changed the analysis? Based upon ELNY, he offered several related lessons for settlement planners.
  • Insurance law expert David Childers provided SSP conference attendees with a traditional analysis of standards of care and duties of care for insurance brokers, agents and producers under Arizona law.

CONCLUSION: Personal injury settlement planning is a large, complex, dynamic marketplace within which structured settlements historically has represented a strategic, if arguably under performing, product. The traditional structured settlement industry has heretofore avoided the educational analysis and strategic association relationships necessary to help its "New Generation" membership successfully transition to the "New Normal". It remains to be seen whether, when and how successfully future industry leadership will figure out how to put old wine in new bottles. Based upon this year's joint SSP/ASNP conference (and mixing metaphors), it appears the "New Normal" train is already leaving the station with a diversified cargo of blended products and services.

For additional S2KM analysis about personal injury settlement planning, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP 2015 Annual Conference - 1

The U.S. structured settlement industry consists of three national professional associations - the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) - whose political differences frequently obscure their shared existential interests and, until recently, have restricted their opportunities for mutually-beneficial collaborative education.

NSSTA's 2014 Fall Educational Conference highlighted the issues of "generational change and challenges" and served as a precursor for improved association relationships by featuring SSP President Neil Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde as guest speakers.

The SSP 2015 Annual Conference, to be held March 29-31 in Las Vegas will substantially expand this new educational chapter of industry dialogue by hosting an unprecedented number of association leaders as speakers. Among the highlights will be a repeat engagement of NSSTA's 2014 "Presidents' Panel" featuring current NSSTA President Kevin Silo and SSP President Johnson. Titled "Collaboration for the Greater Good", and moderated by Patrick Hindert, this panel promises to "doubledown" on solutions for achieving industry unity.

Additional association leaders scheduled to speak at the SSP Conference:

• Eric Vaughn - NSSTA's Executive Director is expected to emphasize the shared interests of all structured settlement professionals including plaintiff and defense representatives as well primary and secondary market participants. These shared interests being the protection and preservation of IRC sections 104(a)(2) and 130 plus the future growth of the primary market.
• Earl Nesbitt - NASP's Executive Director will be joined by Rhonda Bentzen, SSP 2015 Conference Chairperson and secondary market expert, to follow-up SSP's groundbreaking 2014 secondary market panel which first opened educational dialogue between primary and secondary structured settlement professional associations.
• Jack Kelly - NASP's lobbyist, who also spoke at last year's SSP conference, will provide his perspective on political changes taking place in Washington D.C. and how they might impact structured settlements.
• Kevin Urbatsch - The National Director of the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) recently introduced and helped organize ASNP 12-part "Settlement Planning" webinar series. In Las Vegas, Urbatsch will address recent attacks by the Social Security Administration on litigation-generated special needs trusts.
• Wendie Howland - Editor of the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planning (AANLCP) Journal, Ms. Howland will discuss settlement planning from a life care planning perspective. She will highlight the increasing role of life care planners in allocating damages for Medicare set-asides (MSAs) and as a result of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, she will advise structured settlement consultants and settlement planners how to better utilize life care plans to improve their own work product.

Additional SSP speakers and topics:

• Joseph Dehner - A prominent international attorney and co-author of the legal textbook "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payments", Dehner will discuss "Off-Shore Funding Companies" and their increasing role in the structured settlement market.
• Joseph DiGangi, Shannon Fitzgerald and Phillip Kruse - this panel of experts, moderated by Patrick Hindert, will analyze the application of "fiduciary standards" to settlement planning and settlement planners. Their presentation will feature a case study, review SSP's Standards of Practice, discuss NAIC Model Regulations, consider the 2006 Saltzburg/Chemerinsky memos, and suggest best practices.
• Edward Stone - A legal representative for many Executive Life of New York short-fall victims who continues to seek restitution for his clients, Stone will offer his opinion as to whether some settlement planners remain at risk in the ongoing ELNY litigation.
• Joseph Tombs - A lawyer, certified financial planner and former SSP President who helped organize SSP's Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification program, Tombs will outline his recommended process for developing a settlement plan.
• Jack Meligan - Also a former SSP President as well as a recognized settlement planning expert, Meligan will provide an MSA update with his perspective on how MSAs fit into settlement planning.
• Jeremy Babener - A prodigious structured settlement author and industry tax expert who also serves as Chairman of SSP's Legal Committee, Babener will introduce SSP's new website and discuss new SSP Legal Committee initiatives.
• Bryn Poland - A leading Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) expert, who has served as attorney, trustee and/or administrator for numerous QSFs, Ms Poland will explain how and why the multi-claimant QSF market is growing rapidly despite the single claimant pullback within the structured settlement market.

For S2KM's reporting about prior structured settlement and settlement planning professional conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP 2014 Annual Meeting

"Unification not polarization!" Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) President Neil Johnson espoused this principle in his keynote address as the theme for SSP's 2014 Annual Meeting and Educational Conference.

Current industry polarization as identified by Johnson, and discussed by other SSP conference speakers, arguably encompasses:

• 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.

Johnson's SSP keynote speech also highlighted and proposed solutions for industry polarization: 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.

Johnson, and subsequent SSP speakers, addressed one of the most diverse gatherings ever of structured settlement and settlement planning industry leaders. Speakers and attendees included members of NSSTA, NASP, NAMSAP, ASNP, SNA, NAELA and SSP as well as lien resolution experts, mass tort administrators, life care planners, settlement trustees, annuity providers and bloggers.

Except for Johnson as SSP's President, speakers expressed personal opinions and did not appear as representatives of other professional associations.

SPEAKERS - By Category and Listed Alphabetically

• Settlement Planners / Structured Settlement Broker/Agents - Michael Goodman; Donald McNay; Joseph Tombs.
• Structured Settlement Attorneys - Jeremy Babener; Stephen Harris; Patrick Hindert; Earl Nesbitt; Edward Stone.
• Product Providers - Daniel Durbin; David Hickey.
• Special Needs Attorneys - Michele Fuller; Kevin Urbatsch.
• Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) Experts - Christine Melancon; Sally Stalcup.
• Lobbyist - Jack Kelly.
• Social Media - Megan Hargroder.
• Customer Service - Bruce Loeffler.

S2KM Comments

Settlement Planning - S2KM has written previously (see: AAJ 2014 Winter Meeting) about expanding products and services offered by plaintiff structured settlement brokers. Joe Tombs' SSP presentation expanded this list and proposed a "fiduciary standard" for settlement planners. For personal injury settlement planning to emerge as a recognized profession, however, SSP (and/or other settlement planning participants) needs to address these fundamental questions:

• Which professionals and professional skill sets are needed to construct a settlement plan?
• What professional work product results in a settlement plan?
• What are the standard components of, and documentation for, a settlement plan?
• How much does it cost (professional fees, commissions, etc) to produce a settlement plan?
• What would a settlement planning "fiduciary standard" mean in terms of: "best interest", "full disclosure" and "informed consent"?
• What settlement planning licensing and e&o coverage are necessary and applicable to protect customers?
• Which professional associations include "settlement planners" and what certification programs do they offer?
• What settlement planning business models currently exist?

Industry Unification - SSP's 2014 conference represents a strategic milestone and challenge for future educational programs sponsored by structured settlement and settlement planning professional associations.

• SSP spotlighted structured settlement and settlement planning polarization as the foremost industry problem.
• SSP President Neil Johnson proposed sensible solutions which other SSP speakers echoed and effectively endorsed.
• Without endorsing specific speakers or topics, SSP's conference agenda addressed critical and divisive industry issues - and featured speakers offering alternative perspectives.
• SSP conference speakers and attendees represented an unprecedented gathering of settlement planning industry leaders.

Industry Game Changers - Speaker Michele Fuller's list of settlement planning "game changers" did not mention Executive Life of New York (ELNY) or the structured settlement secondary market - two divisive issues of continuing importance addressed by other SSP speakers (Edward Stone and the secondary market panel, respectively). Her Top-10 list, however, provides a baseline for future discussions among industry associations and participants:

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.

Congratulations to SSP, and especially conference chairperson Rhonda Bentzen, for maintaining SSP's noteworthy quality standards for its annual educational programs.

For S2KM reporting about prior educational conferences sponsored by SSP and other structured settlement and settlement planning associations, see the structured settlement wiki.

NASP 2013 Annual Conference - 2

Primary market representatives attending their first National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) Annual Conference are typically surprised - both by the exceptional quality of the educational experience and NASP's encouragement of diverse perspectives on controversial issues which have historically divided the primary and secondary structured settlement markets.

NASP President Patricia LaBorde's keynote remarks at NASP's 2013 Annual Conference last week in Las Vegas re-inforced NASP's policy of politically unobstructed learning. "We want to hear from all structured settlement stakeholders - even if they disagree with us or don't like who we are," LaBorde stated. "We are here to listen. We are here to improve."

Consistent with these educational objectives, previous NASP speakers have included critics from the primary market such as John Darer and Jack Meligan as well as attorneys who represent annuity providers in transfer hearings such as Stephen Harris and Peter Vodola. Regular NASP educational program features also include both a Primary Market Panel and a Judicial Panel.

In addition to other speakers who highlighted and criticized specific secondary market business practices during this year's NASP conference, former NASP President Robin Shapiro provided the most comprehensive and unanticipated assessment. Shapiro's unannounced critique, which preceded, but was unrelated to, his introduction of NASP's 2013 Hamilton Award recipient Jack Kelly, will be summarized and discussed in subsequent S2KM blog posts.

NASP 2013 Speakers and Topics

• Jack Kelly - State and Federal Legislative and Regulatory Developments.
• Earl Nesbitt - Litigation Update and the Impacts of Unethical Conduct.
• Rajiv Goel - Capacity Issues in Structured Settlement Transactions.
• Boris Ziser - Financing Structured Settlement Transactions.
• Break Out Sessions
  • Avoiding Pitfalls with the Problem Payees.
  • Non-Traditional Financing of Secondary Market Transactions.
  • Maximizing Results in Front of a Tough Judge.
  • Marketing: Reaching Your Audience Without Breaking Ethical or Legal Standards.
• Edward Stone - The ELNY Saga.
• Brian Robinson and Erik Friedman - Issues in Life Contingent Transactions.
• Patrick Hindert (Moderator) and Daniel Hindert, Anthony Prieto, Jr., William Schemmel - Primary Market Panel.
• Matthew Bracy (Moderator) and Judges Nancy Allf, Carter Bise, James McCarthy - Judicial Panel.

S2KM Comments and Observations

• Sponsors - NASP conferences invariably attract more sponsors than any other conferences S2KM attends. NASP sponsors this year included Google and NBC.
• Legislation and Regulation - Secondary market legislative and regulatory developments have decreased considerably during the past couple of years. 48 states have now enacted protection acts with Oregon amending its statute during 2013.
• Case Law - Several cases decided in 2013 have the potential to significantly impact secondary market business standards and practices. "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) will report on the following cases discussed during the NASP conference in upcoming Release 55:
  • Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston
  • Symetra v. Rapid Settlements
  • Hartford Life v. Estate of Solomon
  • In re: Porter
  • J.G. Wentworth Originations v. Mobley
• Brenston Case - S2KM will discuss the Brenston case, which is currently subject to a petition for review by the Illinois Supreme Court, in subsequent blog posts. A 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, previously held that because Brenston’s settlement agreement contained an enforceable anti-assignment provision, the transfer court had a duty to enforce that provision and “it had no authority under the Act to approve” the transfer petitions.
• Special Needs Attorneys - Rajiv Goel, addressing capacity issues, was the first special needs attorney to speak at a NASP conference. At prior special needs conferences S2KM has attended, attorneys frequently criticize primary market consultants for "over structuring" and for opposing single claimant qualified settlement funds. In addition, several state Medicaid agencies are attempting to disqualify structured settlement funded special needs trusts because of the potential liquidity (resources) available via the secondary market. Primary and secondary structured settlement market participants appear to have shared interests in improving their special needs public relations and lobbying strategy.
• Marketing Restrictions - In addition to promoting the Better Business Bureau Code of Advertising, NASP's Marketing Break Out discussions highlighted compliance requirements for:
  • New Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
  • The CAN-SPAM Act.
  • Truth in Caller ID Act.
  • Section 43(A) of the Lanham Act.
• Financing Transactions - Boris Ziser's overview of secondary market financing transactions explained: 1) the changing landscape of capital markets; 2) why lenders and investors like structured settlements; 3) what is needed for a successful transaction; 4) current lender challenges; and 5) various types of lending facilities - among other topics.
• Expanding Market Segments - Separate presentations about 1) life contingent transfers and 2) the sale of structured settlement payment rights to individual investors including personal injury victims indicate both market segments are growing.
• ELNY Saga - Among ongoing ELNY developments reported by Edward Stone:
  • Although a final Schedule 1.15 has not yet been published, benefit reductions for ELNY structured settlement recipients may be 3-4% greater than originally predicted.
  • Guarantee Association Benefit Company (GABC), ELNY's D.C.- based successor insurer under NOLHGA's control, has not yet disclosed any information about the expenses association with ELNY's liquidation or the investment performance of ELNY's assets during and/or following ELNY's liquidation.
  • Despite shortfalls experienced by more than 1400 ELNY structured settlement recipients, none of the participating state Guarantee Associations paid out their full coverage amounts.
  • GABC is flagging factoring transactions which are not receiving supplemental benefits.
  • The ELNY class action lawsuit remains on hold while the appeal of Judge Galasso's contempt order is pending.
• Judicial Panel - NASP's Judicial Panel provided opportunities for both the judges and conference attendees to ask each other questions and to communicate problems they have experienced during transfer proceedings. Speaking for the panelists, Judge Bise, who attended the entire conference, stated "I have learned a lot. We would appreciate NASP continuing to educate us on transfer issues."
• Primary Market Panel - Panelist William Schemmel, legal counsel for the Western & Southern Financial Group, which owns Integrity Life among other affiliates, was one of two representatives of former primary market annuity providers attending the NASP conference. Similar to the judicial panel, Schemmel's discussion of transfer issues and problems was practical and productive without the political invective which frequently and unfortunately characterizes transfer discussions at primary market conferences.
• METLife's New Transfer Policies - Despite IRC 5891 and state protections acts, structured settlement annuity providers retain the ability to prevent payment right transfers by enforcing anti-assignment clauses in applicable settlement documents. Generally, however, for the cost of an administrative fee, structured settlement annuity providers have cooperated with factoring companies and payee/transferors since 2002 to enable court-approved transfers. During his case law update, NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt reported METLife has now reversed course and has begun challenging this cooperative spirit with new transfer policies prohibiting two previously existing industry standards: 1) transfers of partial payments; and 2) factoring companies assuming administrative responsibility for post-transfer payments.

Congratulations to NASP - especially NASP President Patricia LaBorde, conference chairman Ken Barnett, conference administrators Susan Barnes and Leslie Wren, and conference speakers - for continuing and upgrading the quality of NASP's annual educational conference.

For S2KM reporting about prior NASP conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

Brief Filed in ELNY Contempt Order Appeal - 1

"People should know when they are conquered." - Quintus in "Gladiator"

"It ain't over till it's over." - Yogi Berra

Following 22 years of "Rehabilitation" supervised by various New York State Superintendents of Insurance and Financial Services, as Receivers, Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) was officially liquidated August 8, 2013 pursuant to an Order of Liquidation signed by Nassau County New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

As part of his Liquidation Order, Judge Galasso also approved a Restructuring Agreement, as proposed by ELNY's Receiver and NOLHGA, whereby ELNY's remaining assets and ongoing liabilities have now been transferred to a successor company, Guaranty Associations Benefit Company (GABC), a not-for-profit Washington D.C.-based captive insurance company.

As a result of ELNY's liquidation and restructuring, approximately 1456 structured settlement payees will experience payment shortfalls totaling approximately $920 million (present value) following contributions from state life and health insurance guaranty associations and various life insurance companies.

ELNY Receivers' Responsibilities 

Significantly, ELNY's 1991 Rehabilitation Order did not result because of ELNY's insolvency. Instead, then New York Insurance Superintendent Salvatore Curiale's stated concern was a "run" on ELNY assets by policyholders.

Beginning with ELNY's 1991 Rehabilitation Order and continuing to ELNY's August 8, 2013 liquidation date, Superintendent Curiale and his successor New York Superintendents of Insurance and Financial Services managed ELNY's Rehabilitation (in their capacity as Receivers not regulators) with day-to-day management responsibilities assigned to their agent, the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB).

As ELNY's Receiver, these Superintendents undertook fiduciary responsibilities toward ELNY's policyholders and payees. Their duties, pursuant to Article 74 of New York's Insurance law, included: conducting ELNY's business, safeguarding ELNY's assets, and removing the causes and conditions that made ELNY's rehabilitation necessary.

Until December 17, 2010, however, when Judge Galasso issued an ex parte Order to Show Cause seeking an ELNY liquidation plan, ELNY's Receivers had not filed a single report with the court or made any efforts to inform policyholder or payees about ELNY's declining financial position. As of December 31, 2010, ELNY's audited financial statements show ELNY had assets of $905,945,200 compared with liabilities of $2,474,317,342, resulting in a negative surplus of $1,568,372,142.

During ELNY's March 2012 Liquidation Hearing, Judge Galasso ruled against ELNY shortfall payees' attempts to determine how and why ELNY had suffered such losses reasoning such issues were beyond the scope of the hearing. To further protect the Receiver, Judge Galasso's April 16, 2012 ELNY Liquidation Order contained immunity and injunction provisions proposed by ELNY's Receiver.

Although the Receiver represented these provisions did not immunize him from liability outside his Article 74 duties, structured settlement shortfall payees expressed concern the broad language of the immunity and injunction provisions could insulate the Receiver from liability beyond the scope of Article 74. They also believed, contrary to the Receiver's representations, that Article 74 prohibits not just bad faith conduct but also conduct without appropriate care and prudence.

ELNY Shortfall Payees' Options 

Faced with significant payment reductions resulting from ELNY's liquidation and restructuring agreement, ELNLY's structured settlement shortfall payees were left with three options:

1. Accept their payment reductions under the ELNY Restructuring Agreement and do nothing; or,
2. Appeal Judge Galasso's Order and ask the Appellate Court to send ELNY's Receiver back to drawing board; or,
3. Bring a separate legal action against the Receiver personally for bad faith conduct, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment or waste.

The ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees chose options 2 and 3.

Option 2 failed. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department denied the ELNY shortfall payees' appeal of Judge Galasso's Order on February 6, 2013. New York State Court of Appeals denied a subsequent motion by ELNY shortfall payees for Leave to Appeal the Second Department decision on May 3, 2013.

Option 3 faces a significant judicial roadblock - a Contempt Order with the threat of fines plus imprisonment of legal counsel.

Prior to this Contempt Order, several ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees pursued Option 3 by filing a federal class action lawsuit November 8, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the ELNY Receiver (New York Superintendent of Financial Services Benjamin Lawsky) in his personal capacity. In response, the Receiver filed a motion December 7, 2012 asking the Liquidation Court (Judge Galasso) to find the shortfall payees in contempt for violating the injunction provision of the ELNY Liquidation Order.

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

Bottom line: so long as Judge Galasso's Contempt Order and continuing threat of additional fines and imprisonment of legal counsel remain in effect, ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees are effectively barred from pursuing Federal legal action against ELNY's Receiver for alleged mismanagement of ELNY's assets during ELNY's 22 year Rehabilitation. 

Appeal of Contempt Order

As a result, ELNY's shortfall payees are currently pursuing an appeal challenging "each and every part" of Judge Galasso's January 25, 2013 Contempt Order as a necessary step before re-filing their Federal action against the Receiver and his agents.

On August 9, 2013, Attorney Edward Stone filed a preliminary brief with the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department on behalf of ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees Jeanice Dolan, Keith Vincent, Daniel Malin and their attorneys.

The appellate brief filed on behalf of the ELNY shortfall payees addresses three legal issues:

• Did the ELNY Liquidation Court exceed it subject matter jurisdiction or otherwise err by interfering with shortfall payees' constitutional right to bring suit against the Receiver in Federal court?
• Did the ELNY Liquidation Court err in holding the shortfall payees in contempt for violating its injunctive Order when the order does not clearly and unequivocally bar personal capacity suits against the Receiver?
• Did the ELNY Liquidation Court err in holding that the shortfall payees conceded the Order barred personal capacity lawsuits by appealing the order and using this alleged concession as the basis to hold the shortfall payees in contempt?

S2KM will summarize the ELNY shortfall payees' arguments for each of these issues in a subsequent blog post. For S2KM's complete ELNY reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

NY Court of Appeals Denies ELNY Review

The New York State Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals), New York's highest judicial authority, has denied a Motion for Leave to Appeal a February 6, 2013 decision bythe Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department which rejected a legal challenge by Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees to the ELNY Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement signed by New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

The appeal challenging the merits of the ELNY Liquidation Order had raised three primary issues each of which the Court of Appeals' decision effectively rejected:

• Due Process - "Did inadequate notice and the denial of information to Objectors (ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees), along with the selective application of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, deny Objectors a fair hearing as required by principles of due process?"
• Immunity - "Did the Supreme Court exceed its subject matter jurisdiction or otherwise err in granting immunity to the Receiver and others in their personal capacities, where such immunity is not provided for by statute, is inconsistent with the common law, and is unsupported by evidence?"
• Injunction - "Did the Supreme Court exceed its jurisdiction or otherwise err in permanently enjoining claims against the Receiver and others in their personal capacities, where such injunction is not provided for by statute or the common law, and no evidence was adduced at the hearing?"

The Court of Appeals decision effectively ends litigation challenging the merits of the ELNY Liquidation Order and permits the National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association (NOLHGA) to proceed with the ELNY Restructuring Agreement including substantial annuity payment reductions for more than 1400 structured settlement recipients.

ELNY Contempt Order and Class Action Lawsuit

Another anticipated result of the Court of Appeals decision will be the filing of a brief by legal counsel for three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees (objector respondents) to perfect their appeal of a Contempt Order issued January 25, 2013 by Judge Galasso. Based upon previous court filings and out-of-court statements, they are expected to argue that Judge Galasso's Contempt Order violates the United States Constitution.

Following Judge Galasso's Contempt Order, attorneys representing the structured settlement shortfall payees voluntarily dismissed their federal court ELNY class action lawsuit , without prejudice, preserving their right to refile claims and tolling the statute of limitations. At that time, shortfall payee attorney Edward Stone characterized the voluntary dismissal as a "strategic decision" attributable to the Contempt Order which left open the possibility of additional fines for continued legal efforts to protect ELNY shortfall payees.

In a letter written to United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman prior to the voluntary dismissal of the ELNY class action lawsuit, shortfall payee attorney Roger Christensen quoted from the 1964 United States Supreme Court decision in Donovan v. City of Dallas: "Early in the history of our country, a general rule was established that state and federal courts would not interfere with or try to restrain each others proceedings. That rule has continued substantially unchanged to this time."

Christensen's letter continued: "It could not be more clear that a state court cannot enjoin a federal action or use contempt proceedings to preclude citizens' attempts to have their claims heard in federal court."

The original class action Complaint named Jeanice Dolan, Daniel A. Malin, Keith Vincent, and other similarly situated ELNY shortfall victims, as plaintiffs, and 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.

Based upon allegations of defendant misconduct (see: ELNY Allegation Timeline), the original class action Complaint requested the following damages and relief:

• "Damages equaling the full present value of each Class Member's annuity issued by ELNY, less any amount determined to be owing to Plaintiff under the terms of ELNY's liquidation;
• "Damages equaling the amount of each defendant's unjust enrichment and ill-gotten gains;
• "Attorney fees and litigation expenses, to the extent permitted by contract or law;
• "Pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent provided by contract or law; and
• "Such other equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate."

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

 

ELNY Shortfall Payees Seek Review by NY's Highest Court

Attorneys representing Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees (Objectors) have filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal dated March 8, 2013 and a supporting Memorandum of Law with the New York State Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals).

This Motion, requesting review by New York's highest judicial authority, seeks to reverse a February 6, 2013 decision by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department (Second Department) which rejected an earlier legal challenge to the ELNY Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement signed by New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

In addition to attorney Edward Stone and the Christensen & Jensen law firm, the ELNY shortfall payees' appellate legal team now includes Michael J. Hutter, Jr., a law professor at the Albany Law School of Union University. Professor Hutter's online biography states he "has argued over 275 appeals in all of New York's appellate courts and many of the cases in which he represented the prevailing party are considered to be landmark decisions."

The ELNY shortfall payees consist of approximately 1456 structured settlement payees whose benefits under the ELNY Restructuring Agreement will be reduced up to 66 percent with an average per payee present value reduction of approximately $632,310 and a total present value reduction of approximately $920,642,947.

The issues being presented to the Court of Appeals requesting their review are the same issues the Second Department rejected:

• Due Process - "Did inadequate notice and the denial of information to Objectors, along with the selective application of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, deny Objectors a fair hearing as required by principles of due process?"
• Immunity - "Did the Supreme Court exceed its subject matter jurisdiction or otherwise err in granting immunity to the Receiver and others in their personal capacities, where such immunity is not provided for by statute, is inconsistent with the common law, and is unsupported by evidence?"
• Injunction - "Did the Supreme Court exceed its jurisdiction or otherwise err in permanently enjoining claims against the Receiver and others in their personal capacities, where such injunction is not provided for by statute or the common law, and no evidence was adduced at the hearing?"

Why should the Court of Appeals grant the ELNY shortfall payees' Motion seeking leave to appeal? Their attorneys argue the distribution and protection of Article 74 assets is a matter of public importance and the Second Department decision warrants leave to appeal for the following reasons:

• The Second Department's decision to authorize immunity and enjoin suits against the Receiver in his personal capacity "undermines the public's interest in protecting policyholders and receivership assets."
• The Second Department's decision is inconsistent with the Court of Appeals' previous ruling in Dinallo v. DiNapoli, "which implicitly recognized that an Article 74 Receiver is no different than any other court appointed private Receiver."
• The immunity and injunction provisions included in the ELNY Liquidation Order "exceed the subject matter jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court and is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 74."

In addition, the ELNY shortfall payees' attorneys argue the Court of Appeals should grant leave to appeal "to determine whether the limited notice and the denial of information to Objectors, along with the selective application of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, provided Objectors a fair hearing as required by the principles of due process" for two reasons:

• First, under New York law, "leave to appeal is not required to appeal constitutional issues."
• Second, even absent this express right, "the issue of whether an Article 74 proceeding, or any court proceeding, is conducted in accordance with principles of due process is a matter of public importance and concern."

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation and an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki. 

For S2KM's summary of arguments presented earlier to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department by attorneys representing Benjamin M. Lawsky,  Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, and the ELNY shortfall payees, see:

• Due process
• Immunity
• Injunction

"Shut It Down!"

"It is time to shut down the New York Liquidation Bureau", argues attorney and insurance expert Peter Bickford in his opinion article titled "ELNY Debacle Exposes Serious Problems" which is featured as the cover story in the February 18, 2013 issue of Insurance Advocate magazine.

Bickford's article is accompanied by a second Insurance Advocate opinion article written by Edward S. Stone, an attorney who represents 40 ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees.

In his article, titled "ELNY Opinion Unjust to Victims", Stone accuses Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services and his predecessors (Superintendent), the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) and their agents of "concealment, fraud, waste and mismanagement".

Bickford's article further asserts the ELNY liquidation impacts the entire insurance industry, "including the guaranty fund structure and the growing nationwide debate on State v. Federal regulation of insurance." Bickford states: "[t]he attacks against continued state regulation of the business of insurance is focused primarily on solvency and unless the states can show that they have appropriate standards and ability to enforce those standards the attacks could result in a sea change in regulation."

Bickford maintains the Superintendent should recognize the "hollowness" of his recent legal victories: Judge John Galasso's civil contempt order and the denial of an appeal challenging Judge Galasso's ELNY liquidation order approving the ELNY restructuring agreement. The ELNY liquidation "fully exposed the Bureau for its decades-long covert mismanagement of insolvent insurance companies" according to Bickford.

What Bickford finds most surprising about the ELNY liquidation is:

• "[T]he unwillingness of the administration, the courts, the legislature and the industry to admit the scope of the ELNY disaster and the failings of the insolvency process, and to take appropriate action to remedy these systemic problems"; and
• "[T]he lengths that the administration and the courts have gone to in order to preserve the myth of the Bureau’s fiduciary role without fiduciary accountability, or to protect it from any form of meaningful external investigation or scrutiny."

Bickford's bottom line: it is time to shut down the NYLB! 

Bickford's argument, which echoes and expands criticism of the NYLB published in LifeHealthPro's 2012 article titled "The Complete ELNY Saga - 21 Years of Mismanagement, Corruption, Broken Promises and Shattered Lives", runs as follows:

• The NYLB is not defined under New York insurance law.
• The NYLB is not a state agency and not subject to either audit by the State Comptroller or the Freedom of Information Act according to a decision (Dinallo v. DiNapoli) by New York highest state court.
• The NYLB is not required to file any plan or reports with the courts supervising receivership estates or to provide any status reports to policyholders or creditors.
• Once under NYLB control, an insurer is no longer subject to regulatory oversight and no longer files any reports or financial statements.
• The NYLB's lack of accountability over decades has made it a breeding ground for corruption and abuse.

In future Insurance Advocate articles, Bickford promises to "explore how the process should and can work efficiently and truly for the benefit of the victims of an insolvency, and what course the legislature with the support of the regulators and the industry could take to successfully and meaningfully restructure the insolvency process."

Stone's article includes a comprehensive ELNY background summary. Stone's conclusions:

• "The blanket immunity and broad injunctive relief granted in the ELNY liquidation permits the Superintendent, the NYLB and their agents to hide the fraud, waste and mismanagement that doomed ELNY behind the pretext of court supervision.
• "The contempt sanctions issued against the victims and their attorneys for doing the Superintendent’s job are a blatant attempt to intimidate the plaintiffs into abandoning their claims.
• "Sadly, instead of helping the victims of this tragedy, the Superintendent is choosing to blame and punish them – and he’s using ELNY’s assets and the court system to do it."

For S2KM's comprehensive ELNY reporting and an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

ELNY Contempt Order Appealed

Three Executive Life of New York (ELNY) structured settlement shortfall payees (objector respondents) and their legal counsel have filed a Notice of Appeal dated February 14, 2013 challenging "each and every part" of a Contempt Order issued January 25, 2013 by New York Supreme Court Judge John Galasso "on questions of both fact and law".

Judge Galasso's Contempt Order:

• Responded to a federal class action lawsuit filed November 8, 2012 by the three ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees, as plaintiffs, 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 (Superintendent), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Credit Suisse Group, AG, as defendants.
• Determined the federal class action lawsuit violated three ELNY injunctions: injunctions contained in the ELNY Rehabilitation Order (1991) and the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan Approval (1992) as well as an injunction in Judge Galasso's April 16, 2012 ELNY Liquidation Order which states: "All persons are enjoined and restrained from commencing or further prosecuting any actions at law or other proceedings against ELNY or its assets, the Receiver or the New York Liquidation Bureau, or their present or former employees, attorneys, or agents, with respect to this proceeding or the discharge of their duties under Insurance Law Article 74."
• Imposed a fine, payable by the ELNY shortfall payees’ legal counsel to the Superintendent for costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney’s fees the Superintendent had incurred defending the federal class action and for pursuing the contempt application plus potential additional legal expenses assuming the Superintendent achieved a favorable result in the concurrent appeal of the ELNY Liquidation Order which was denied February 6, 2013 by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
• Acknowledged: "This Court is not empowered to dismiss the federal complaint outright."

Following Judge Galasso's Contempt Order and the denial of their Liquidation Order appeal, attorneys representing the structured settlement shortfall payees voluntarily dismissed their ELNY class action lawsuit without prejudice preserving their right to refile claims and tolling the statute of limitations.

Attorney Edward Stone characterized the voluntary dismissal as a "strategic decision" attributable to the Contempt Order which left open the possibility of additional fines for continued legal efforts to protect ELNY shortfall payees.  

The objector respondents and their legal counsel, attorneys Stone, Roger Christensen and Karra Porter, have six months to perfect their appeal of Judge Galasso's Contempt Order with the same appellate court that denied their earlier appeal of the ELNY Liquidation Order. Based upon previous court filings and out-of-court statements, they are expected to argue, in part, that Judge Galasso's Contempt Order violates the United States Constitution.

In a letter written to United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman prior to the voluntary dismissal of the ELNY class action lawsuit, attorney Christensen quoted from the 1964 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Donovan v. City of Dallas: "Early in the history of our country, a general rule was established that state and federal courts would not interfere with or try to restrain each others proceedings. That rule has continued substantially unchanged to this time."

Christensen's letter continued: "It could not be more clear that a state court cannot enjoin a federal action or use contempt proceedings to preclude citizens' attempts to have their claims heard in federal court." 

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation, including related litigation and an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.