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.

Misguided Recommendations

In a recent article titled "Time for Congress to Reform Structured Settlements", published April 20, 2015 in the Congress Blog, attorney Richard Risk alleges "Congress’ noble goal of supporting accident victims has been upended by the current system in which insurers and their consultants often deceptively rig structured settlements against accident victims."

To "clean up" the primary structured settlement market, Risk recommends that Congress or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) should take action against "abusive practices" in the structured settlement industry and, "at a minimum", these reforms should include:

1. "Ensure victims have better access to their own structure consultants."
2. "Require diversification in large cases."
3. "Demand better disclosure from the defense."

Even assuming Risk's prognosis is correct, his proposed governmental solution is not - at least not for injury victims who are represented by legal counsel. Each of the three "reforms" Risk highlights falls squarely within the fiduciary role and responsibilities of plaintiff attorneys which encompass settlement planning and negotiation as well as litigation.

In the past, many plaintiff attorneys have relied on defendants and their advisors to make structured settlement proposals and to provide expertise regarding structured settlements. This practice was and continues to be a mistake and could be considered professional malpractice.

Plaintiff attorneys should never rely exclusively on the defense for structured settlement advice. Defense attorneys, structured settlement brokers and other consultants working on the defense side are not engaged to work for the plaintiff or to advise the plaintiff’s attorney. Defense settlement objectives are to secure a full release for all defendants and related parties at a reasonable cost.

A broad range of professionals, including structured settlement consultants, currently provides settlement planning related services to plaintiffs and their attorneys. Most structured settlement consultants belong to one of two primary market structured settlement associations: the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) or the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP).

NSSTA and SSP share a divisive political history which may explain, in part, the indirect critique of NSSTA (whose members are meeting this week in Washington, D.C.) that envelops the article by Risk, an SSP member. Whether intentional or not, Risk's article appears to represent a step backward from recent attempts by leaders of both associations to unify the primary structured settlement market.

During the NSSTA Fall 2014 Conference, for example, SSP President Neil Johnson outlined a "Blueprint for Industry Unification" which he and NSSTA President Kevin Silo continued to discuss at the SSP 2015 Annual Conference in a repeat performance of their "Presidents' Panel". Johnson's appeal for unity characterized "industry disarray" as a "threat to our future." Labeling diversity "good" and disparity "bad", he called for a united front before the public.

In Johnson's words: lack of structured settlement industry unity is "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

Many structured settlement professionals increasingly recognize the need to acknowledge and address structured settlement industry problems - including the need to improve primary and secondary business practices and standards. Relatively few industry participants, however, are likely to support Risk's proposal for federal legislation and/or regulation to attempt to force defendants to fulfill the fiduciary responsibilities plaintiff attorneys owe to their own clients.

A better solution, in S2KM's opinion, would encompass a combination of structured settlement industry self-regulation and improved education of plaintiff attorneys (and consultants themselves) about the client benefits and professional responsibilities associated with structured settlements in the context of personal injury settlement planning. This solution represents both an opportunity and a challenge for a new generation of structured settlement leaders.

For more detailed analysis about the role and responsibilities of plaintiff attorneys in structured settlements, see chapter 5 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

SSP 2015 Annual Conference - 2

The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) hosted its 2015 Annual Conference last week in Las Vegas with an unprecedented number of structured settlement association leaders as speakers and attendees including representatives from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP). For a list of SSP speakers and topics, see this prior S2KM blog post.

In his keynote address, SSP President Neil Johnson re-affirmed SSP's traditional commitment to "open dialogue" of industry issues with a mandate for "healthy, respectful discussion of all industry issues, controversial or not - rejecting the the temptation to sweep the uncomfortable under the carpet."

While seeking to engage all perspectives to identify shared permanent interests and discuss industry problems and issues, Johnson acknowledged and accepted that conference attendees would not agree on all issues - and they did not.

Some of the issues discussed:

• The need for structured settlement industry unity - encompassing education and, in some situations, political lobbying.
• How NSSTA and NASP are collaborating to improve state structured settlement protection statutes.
• Improving public relations by first acknowledging and addressing structured settlement primary and secondary market problems.
• The uniqueness of the structured settlement product and the need for better primary market self-regulation.
• The impact of "fiduciary standards" on settlement planning and the future of structured settlements.
• Collaborative primary/secondary market strategies for addressing "the darker side of factoring".
• Settlement planning as an important and distinctive growth strategy for structured settlements.
• Differentiating settlement planners from single-product plaintiff structured settlement brokers.
• Financial planners - a competitive threat or the next generation of structured settlement consultants and settlement planners?
• The inevitability and risks of "off-shore" settlement planning products in a globalized world.
• Lessons learned from the Executive Life debacle for claimants and their attorneys and advisors.
• How settlement planners and structured settlement consultants misuse life care planners and life care plans.
• The Social Security Administration's recent hostility toward special needs trusts (SNTs) and what it means for structured settlements.
• How and why settlement planners must learn to take control of the Medicare set-aside (MSA) process.
• The explosion of multi-claimant QSFs - a missed market for structured settlements?

None of these issues were resolved in Las Vegas. What did occur was a healthy exchange of ideas among leaders of historic structured settlement adversaries (NSSTA, SSP and NASP) with active participation from leaders of other settlement planning associations. The result: a unique industry gathering as much like a diplomatic conference as an educational event.

With NSSTA's President, Executive Director, and several members of its Board of Directors in attendance, whether and how NSSTA (as well as NASP) and its members will respond remains uncertain. NSSTA helped to initiate a more open industry dialogue during its own Fall 2014 Educational Conference by inviting SSP President Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde to appear as featured speakers.

Structured Settlement Industry Unification

During the NSSTA Fall 2014 conference, Johnson outlined a "Blueprint for Industry Unification" which he and NSSTA President Kevin Silo continued to discuss in Las Vegas in a repeat performance of their "Presidents' Panel". Johnson's appeal for unity characterized "industry disarray" as a "threat to our future." Labeling diversity "good" and disparity "bad", he called for a united front before the public.

In Johnson's words: Lack of structured settlement industry unity is "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

Both Johnson and Silo expressed optimism, however, about the future of structured settlements - especially in the context of generational transition. Johnson, in particular, highlighted potential opportunities amidst his self-described industry disparity, including a strengthened resolve and commitment for improvement and growth. According to Johnson and other settlement planners, the structured settlement industry needs a wakeup call - a fresh look and reevaluation that includes, but extends beyond, NSSTA's "protect and preserve" orientation.

Here are the core components of Johnson's proposed "solution" for structured settlement industry unity:

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

The Future of SSP

Throughout its 15 year history, SSP has punched beyond its weight class. Born out of a troublesome recognition that the structured settlement playing field was seriously tilted to the disadvantage of plaintiffs and their advisors, SSP has helped bring respect and professionalism to the plaintiff side of the table by emphasizing "settlement planning", not "settlement selling".

Recognizing the strategic role of structured settlements, settlement planning nonetheless seeks the "best interest" of its injury victim clients and includes multiple products and multiple experts.

Despite these accomplishments, and perhaps because of them, SSP's future as an association is uncertain. NSSTA has more plaintiff structured settlement brokers than SSP and has been more successful in adding a new generation of members.

Other, well-organized, non-structured settlement professionals, such as special needs attorneys and life care planners, increasingly focus their marketing, educational programs and work product on settlement planning using SNTs and MSAs as their gateway.

As was evident in Las Vegas, however, SSP continues to raise the educational bar for an entire industry of settlement professionals. Settlement planning remains an evolving profession - largely unregulated with few industry standards. The ultimate role and growth potential for structured settlements within the settlement planning market have not yet been determined.

SSP's ability to organize an educational conference where an unprecedented cross-section of industry leaders engaged in civil discussions about strategic industry issues suggests SSP has an important continuing role within both the structured settlement and settlement planning markets.

For S2KM reporting about prior structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, 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.

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.

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.

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

ELNY Appeal - Oral Arguments

Two Executive Life of New York (ELNY) legal actions are currently in process:

• ELNY Appeal - Oral arguments occurred on November 15, 2012 in Brooklyn before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department challenging the Executive Life of New York (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.
• ELNY Class Action - Attorney Edward Stone and representatives of the Christensen & Jensen law firm filed a class action lawsuit November 8, 2012 on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims in the United States District Court Southern District of New York against defendants 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/Rehabilitator), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse).

ELNY Appeal

The appeal, filed May 30, 2012 on behalf of 18 ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims as objectors:

• Alleges Judge Galasso "erroneously denied objectors' request to reject the proposed agreement of restructuring in connection with the [ELNY] liquidation";
• Further alleges  Judge Galasso's order:
  • "[I]mproperly grants and/or continues certain injunctions and immunities and discriminates against the objectors";
  • "[C]reates impermissible sub-classes of claimants"; and
  • "[R]eflects the courts erroneous denial of objectors' requests to adjourn the hearing ... due to a lack of proper notice of such hearing."
• Seeks to compel:
  • The Superintendent, as ELNY's Rehabilitator, "to provide certain discovery necessary to, among other things, allow objectors to demonstrate why the plan should not be approved and submit a viable competing restructuring plan";
  • Judge Galasso "to unseal certain documents submitted to the court by the rehabilitator"; and
• Further seeks to allow the objectors "to present evidence (in the form of live testimony by certain witnesses) rebutting the receiver's experts and otherwise showing that the proposed-liquidation plan should not have been approved."

Appellate Briefs

S2KM previously summarized:

• Objectors' appellate brief
• Arguments in the objectors' preliminary brief:
  • Due process
  • Immunity
  • Injunction
• Arguments in the Superintendent's brief and the objectors' reply brief:
  • Due process
  • Immunity
  • Injunction

Oral Arguments

S2KM did not attend the ELNY oral arguments in Brooklyn, N.Y. The following reporting notes were provided to S2KM by structured settlement shortfall payees, and their attorney Edward Stone, who did attend the oral arguments and includes their opinions and observations.

The four appellate judges who heard the oral arguments appeared to understand the complexity of the issues on appeal:

• Associate Justice Mark C. Dillon
• Associate Justice Sandra L. Sgroi
• Associate Justice Cheryl E. Chambers
• Associate Justice Robert J. Miller

Each briefing attorney summarized his/her arguments then responded to questions from the judges:

• Karra J. Porter - for the ELNY shortfall payees.
• Steven M. Bierman - for the Superintendent.
• Kevin P. Griffith - for NOLHGA.

At least a dozen attorneys supporting the ELNY liquidation plan approved by Judge Galasso attended the oral arguments, many at the expense of the ELNY victims.These attorneys included several each representing the Superintendent and NOLHGA.

Appearing on behalf of the ELNY shortfall payees, attorney Porter focused her comments on lower court proceedings that denied ELNY shortfall payees their basic due process rights including the right to verify information the Superintendent and NOLHGA relied upon in formulating their restructuring plan.

Porter also addressed the scope of immunity, if any, to be accorded the Superintendent under New York law. She asked the panel to hold the Superintendent's ELNY conduct to the same standard applicable to all private receivers: good faith and appropriate care and prudence. She argued there is no basis in either New York or common law for the immunity and injunctive relief Judge Galasso granted to the Superintendent and his agents.

Appearing on behalf of the Superintendent, attorney Bierman claimed the ELNY shortfall payees had been afforded a fair hearing and noted Judge Galasso had determined the ELNY liquidation and restructuring plan were appropriate under the circumstances. Bierman insisted the Superintendent represented all of the ELNY shortfall victims and acted in their best interest.

Bierman never referenced or attempted to refute evidence that the Superintendent and his agents mismanaged the ELNY estate. Instead, he characterized as "galling" that ELNY shortfall payees would challenge the results of the ELNY liquidation hearing and added "no good deed goes unpunished".

Understandably, the ELNY shortfall victims who attended the oral arguments strongly disagree with attorney Bierman as to what is "galling" about the ELNY rehabilitation, liquidation hearing and restructuring plan. What is "galling" to ELNY shortfall victims:

• The Superintendent's claim that he acted in their best interests.
• The Superintendent's gross mismanagement of the ELNY estate.
• Judge Galasso's denial of their basic due process rights.
• Judge Galasso's grant of immunity and injunction to:
  • Protect the Superintendent and his agents from lawsuits; and
  • Prevent meaningful verification of the Superintendent's assertions.

The judges seemed disinterested in the due process arguments presented by attorney Griffith on behalf of NOLHGA, according to the ELNY shortfall payees who attended the oral arguments. The only question asked: "Wasn't it always the obligation of NOLHGA's state guarantee association members to pay their coverage amounts to the ELNY shortfall payees?"

A decision in the ELNY appeal is expected by year end 2012.

For additional notes about the ELNY oral arguments, see attorney Edward Stone's website.