Beyond Structured Settlements

Anti-Assignment Restrictions

Structured settlement transfers require that payment rights be assignable. Otherwise, transfer (factoring) companies have no direct right against the structured settlement obligor or annuity issuer.

Prior to enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection acts, the validity and enforceability of structured settlement transfers typically depended upon three basic issues:

• Did the structured settlement documentation clearly forbid assignments?
• If yes did state law override the anti-assignment provision?
• Or, did the parties to the structured settlement waive the anti-assignment provision?

Although IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection acts set forth procedures and conditions allowing transfers of structured settlement payment rights, courts continue to enforce anti-assignment restrictions when parties to the original structured settlement object.

Most transfer courts, however, have held that the anti-assignment restrictions are not self-executing and have granted transfers when no one objects. Objections to transfers by obligors and annuity issuers have become increasingly rare since the enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection acts.

The Brenston Case

Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston represents a high profile and controversial case where an Illinois Appellate Court overruled prior state court approval of structured settlement transfers based upon anti-assignment restrictions - even though the parties to the original structured settlement waived the anti-assignment provisions. The case currently is subject to a petition for review by the Illinois Supreme Court.

In the Brenston case, an Illinois 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, determined Brenston’s settlement agreement contained an enforceable anti-assignment provision. As a result, the panel decided the state court, which had previously approved requested transfers, had a duty to enforce the anti-assignment provision and “it had no authority under the Act to approve” the transfer petitions.

In other words, despite the existence of the Illinois transfer statute, the Appellate panel declared court orders approving assignments to be "void ab initio", as a matter of Illinois law, whenever structured settlement documentation purports to limit assignability.

If the Illinois Supreme Court upholds the Brenston appellate decision, or decides not to review it, the case would render the Illinois transfer statute "a practical nullity", according to an Amicus curiae brief filed by the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP).

"Without the certainty and finality of a court order, there is no viable secondary market," the NASP brief states. "Because every structured settlement contains boilerplate language that purports to limit or restrict assignability, every Illinois court approved transfer could be subject to challenge at any time."

Public Policy

The validity of assignments, including structured settlement transfers, depends in part on public policy issues. Transfers arguably undermine the fundamental purpose of structured settlements - to provide spendthrift protection for injury victims and their dependents.

This public policy perspective is captured in the statutory history of the structured settlement tax exclusion. To qualify, IRC 130 provides in part "periodic payments cannot be accelerated, deferred, increased, or decreased by the recipient of such payments"

Over time, many structured settlement documents have expanded this IRC 130 prohibition to include "transferred, assigned, mortgaged or encumbered" or words to that effect. (emphasis added). Although anti-assignment provisions are incorporated into many state workers compensation statutes, they are not specifically required by IRC 130, I04(a)(1) or 104(a)(2).

Factoring advocates offer competing public policy arguments to support structured settlement transfers. Unanticipated needs or poorly constructed settlement plans may necessitate immediate cash and outweigh other public policy considerations. Factoring advocates also criticize the "paternalistic" viewpoint of factoring opponents. They argue the structured settlement recipient, as owner of payment rights, should have the right to decide whether to transfer or assign those rights.

Many other statutes either permit or favor assignment of payments rights. These statutes include the 48 state structured settlement protection acts, IRC 5891, and recent revisions to UCC Article 9 as well as the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Unfortunately, the authors of revised UCC Article 9 did not carefully consider the impact of their revisions on structured settlement transfers which has resulted in conflicting statutory language and interpretations among various states.

Best Practices

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) amended its Model Qualified Assignment and Release Agreement following the enactment of IRC 5891 and the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act. Paragraph 7, titled "Acceleration, Transfer of Payment Rights", now provides:

"None of the Periodic Payments and no rights to or interest in any of the Periodic Payments (all of the foregoing being hereinafter collectively referred to as “Payment Rights”) can be

i. Accelerated, deferred, increased or decreased by any recipient of any of the Periodic Payments; or

ii. Sold, assigned, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred or encumbered, either directly or indirectly, unless such sale, assignment, pledge, hypothecation or other transfer or encumbrance (any such transaction being hereinafter referred to as a “Transfer”) has been approved in advance in a “Qualified Order” as defined in Section 5891(b)(2) of the Code (a “Qualified Order”) and otherwise complies with applicable state law, including without limitation any applicable state structured settlement protection statute.

No Claimant or Successor Payee shall have the power to effect any Transfer of Payment Rights except as provided in sub-paragraph (ii) above, and any other purported Transfer of Payment Rights shall be wholly void. If Payment Rights under this Agreement become the subject of a Transfer approved in accordance with sub-paragraph (ii) above the rights of any direct or indirect transferee of such Transfer shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and any defense or claim in recoupment arising hereunder." (NSSTA's emphasis).

Brenston Status

Peachtree Settlement Funding, the transfer company involved in the Brenston case, has filed a petition for review with the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court will likely act on Peachtree's petition by December, although a decision whether to review could be delayed until February, according to NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt who reported on the case during the NASP 2013 Annual Conference. Assuming the petition for review is granted, Nesbitt stated a final decision is not expected for nine to 12 months.

Brenston Issues

NASP President Patricia LaBorde characterized the Brenston case as "troubling" for several reasons during a recent S2KM interview:

• The Appellate Court decision challenges the finality of transfer orders. "No one wants litigation over closed cases."

• The only issue on appeal was timeliness. The Appellate Court expanded the issues to discuss anti-assignment restrictions.

• The case had settled before the appeal. Both Brenston and Settlement Funding filed motions to stay the appeal which the Appellate Court ignored.
• The trial judges who approved the transfers were experienced with structured settlement transfers and aware of existing anti-assignment clauses. They never mentioned or suggested they were defrauded.
• The Appellate Court ignored waiver language and references to IRC 5891 which appeared in some of the original structured settlement documents.
• All of the relevant parties had waived the anti-assignment provisions.
• Unlike Brenston, all of the cases cited by the Appellate Court supporting enforcement of anti-assignment restrictions involved objections by structured settlement obligors or annuity providers.
• Brenston had other potential remedies against Settlement Funding including a separate cause of action for fraud.
• The Brenston Appellate Court decision probably puts a hold on transfers in Illinois until the case is appealed or the Illinois transfer statute is amended.

Additional Resources

• For more detailed analysis concerning anti-assignment restrictions, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).
• For the results of prior California transfer cases involving anti-assignment and finality of judgment issues, see - Fresno County Factoring Cases:
  • Report 1
  • Report 2
  • Report 3

Stone Street Capital v. McClendon

A Louisiana state court has ruled in Stone Street Capital v. McClendon that MetLife and Travelers had no right to withhold a structured settlement payment from Stone Street Capital which Stone Street had previously purchased, with court approval pursuant to the Louisiana structured settlement protection act, despite the original annuitant/payee's death prior to the payment date.

This 2012 case, which was featured in a presentation by Earl Nesbitt at the NASP 2012 Annual Conference, reinforces the finality of settlement transfer orders. According to Nesbitt, it also calls into question other cases where Travelers, as owner of structured settlement annuities, has ordered structured settlement annuity issuers to stop making payments to transfer companies following the death of the original annuitant/payees despite existing court orders approving those transfers.

Background

• In 1990, Shelia McClendon entered into a structured settlement in which Travelers Insurance Company, as assignee, purchased an annuity from Travelers Life and Annuity Company, which later became MetLife Annuity Company of Connecticut in 2006.
• On July 27, 2007, Shelia McClendon entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Stone Street Capital to sell her right to a $51,800.51 payment due October 15, 2010.
• On September 20, 2007 the same court which subsequently heard the Stone Street v. McClendon case signed an order approving the transfer.
• In the 2007 transfer proceeding, Stone Street gave proper notice to MetLife (as annuity issuer) and Travelers (as annuity owner) neither of whom raised any objections.
• MetLife subsequently sent a letter to Stone Street advising that MetLife would make the assigned payment to Stone Street in compliance with the order.
• The transfer order provided an indemnity, allegedly requested by Travelers and MetLife, to protect them from any further suit by any party asserting an ownership claim or a right to the assigned payment.
• Shelia McClendon died in 2008.
• Pursuant to instructions from Travelers, MetLife did not pay Stone Street the October 15, 2010 payment when due.
• Following Stone Street's inquiry, MetLife and Travelers informed Stone Street that other persons had competing demands for the October 15, 2010 payment and, to resolve the conflict, Stone Street must file a declaratory judgment action which Stone Street did file.
• On July 15, 2011, Travelers filed a preemptory exception of nonjoinder of indispensable parties.
• Travelers' exception claimed Shelia McClendon had passed away and that both her estate and the estate of Peatrice Jackson, whom Travelers claimed was the annuity beneficiary, were indispensable parties to Stone Street's declaratory judgment lawsuit.
• On August 4, 2011 MetLife answered Stone Street's petition and included a reconventional demand for consursus (a form of interpleader).
• None of the parties disputed, either at the time of the 2007 transfer hearing or at the time of the subsequent declaratory judgment suit, that Stone Street properly complied with Louisiana's structured settlement protection act.

Stone Street's Argument

• The declaratory judgment action was filed against MetLife and Travelers and also against the parties Travelers told Stone Street to file against.
• Stone Street subsequently asserted, however, that MetLife was the only party against whom Stone Street needed a judgment in this lawsuit.
• Therefore, Stone Street asked that everyone else be dismissed from Stone Street's motion for summary judgment.
• According to Stone Street, the declaratory judgment proceeding should not have been necessary.
• Stone Street fully complied with the Louisiana structured settlement protection act and a transfer order was previously entered without objections from MetLife or Travelers.
• The 2007 transfer order required MetLife to make the October 15, 2010 payment to Stone Street.
• MetLife ignored their own prior letter wherein MetLife stated it received the order and agreed to comply.
• The principle of res judicata should prevent MetLife from pleading concursus because its claim was previously prosecuted to judgment.
• Traveler's request for a declaratory judgment and MetLife's consursus proceeding represented "improper accumulations of actions".
• Although some state structured settlement protection statutes require a change of annuity beneficiary, the Louisiana statute does not because beneficiaries are not required to receive notice or be named parties.
• Louisiana law further holds:
  • Until a person dies that person has the right to sell assets that person owns.
  • Except for irrevocable beneficiaries, no one has a vested right to the status of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract if the death of the insured has not occurred.

MetLife's Argument

• Neither MetLife nor Travelers were parties to the 2007 transfer order so that order had no res judicata effect on MetLife.
• Travelers, the annuity owner, told MetLife not to make the October 15, 2010 payment to Stone Street.
• Nothing in the 2007 transfer order addressed what would happen to the October 15, 2010 payment if Shelia McClendon died prior to that date.
• When Shelia McClendon died, her named beneficiary in the annuity contract was Peatrice Jackson who predeceased McClendon.
• Peatrice Jackson's heirs filed a competing claim for the October 15, 2010 payment.
• Although Stone Street alleges Shelia McClendon filed a request to change her annuity beneficiary, neither MetLife nor Travelers had any record of receiving this request.
• Because a discrepancy existed among the documents submitted to MetLife, a concursus proceeding became necessary and appropriate.

Travelers' Argument

• The Louisiana structured settlement protection act did not impact Shelia McClendon's settlement agreement.
• The settlement agreement remained valid even following the transfer agreement.
• The transfer agreement did not change either the settlement agreement or the annuity contract beneficiary designation.
• The settlement agreement and the annuity contract both provide that Peatrice Jackson, the named beneficiary, would receive the future payments in the event of Shelia McClendon's death.
• If Stone Street and Shelia McClendon had followed through on their request to name Stone Street the annuity beneficiary, this declaratory judgment lawsuit would not have been necessary.
• Travelers had no proof that Shelia McClendon made any attempt to initiate a beneficiary change.
• Therefore, material issues of fact existed concerning: 1) who was Shelia McClendon's rightful beneficiary; and 2) who was entitled to the October 15, 2010 payment.

Judgment - Louisiana District Court Judge Kay Bates:

• Dismissed MetLife's concursus with prejudice and costs payable by MetLife.
• Denied Travelers' exception of failure to join indispensable parties with costs payable by Travelers.
• Granted Stone Street's motion for summary judgment with costs payable by MetLife.
• Granted Stone Street's motion to dismiss the other defendants without prejudice.
• Ordered MetLife to remit the October 15, 2010 payment to Stone Street within 15 days of the mailing of the judgment.

Judge Bates' Reasoning

• In the 2007 transfer proceeding, Shelia McClendon and Stone Street were parties, and MetLife and Travelers were properly notified and served with the petition and order.
• Under the Louisiana structured settlement protection act, Shelia McClendon was clearly entitled to sell the October 15, 2010 payment.
• The 2007 transfer order was valid, final, and not subject to appeal as all delays had passed.
• MetLife's claims against Stone Street arose out of the same subject matter as the 2007 transfer proceeding.
• MetLife's issues existed when the 2007 transfer order was signed and neither MetLife nor Travelers objected at that time.
• Therefore, MetLife's concursus is barred by res judicata.
• Neither MetLife, nor Travelers, nor any of the other claimants had any continuing interest in the October 15, 2010 payment.
• Because Stone Street established it was entitled to the October 15, 2010 payment as a matter of law, no genuine issue of material fact remained.

Additional Resources

• For a 2009 California appellate case addressing the finality of structured settlement transfer orders, see Henderson v. Ramos reported in "Fresno County Factoring Cases" - Part 1 and Part 2 .
• For S2KM's complete reporting about the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.
• For a more comprehensive and updated analysis of structured settlement transfers, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgements" (S2P2J).

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 5

One of three fundamental transitions reshaping the structured settlement industry is the change from a singular, illiquid and non-assignable product to multiple products with greater flexibility to address changing needs and circumstances of injury victims. This transition includes the potential of greater product liquidity for traditional structured settlements provided by IRC section 5891 and the state protection statutes.

During their 2011 annual meetings and educational conferences, both the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) addressed this structured settlement industry transition.

NSSTA's Legal Committee organized two educational programs featuring secondary market structured settlement issues:

• Peter Vodola, Katherine Scanlon and Amy Ravitz - "Legal Committee Update on Developments in the Law"; and
• Judge Edward Burke and Judge Steven Denton (moderated by Vodola) - "Judicial Perspective" (on structured settlements).

The Legal Committee Update approached "factoring" from the perspective of "what is it and why should we [NSSTA] care?" Their "what is it" segment:

• Introduced NSSTA members to IRC section 5891;
• Highlighted the "best interest" test and disclosure requirements of state protection statutes; and
• Summarized the Ceron v. Henderson case which S2KM previously reported as part of S2KM's "business standards and practices" series.

NSSTA's "why should we care" (about factoring) comments focused upon:

• How factoring companies are "adversely defining" the term "structured settlement" with aggressive television and internet advertising;
• How structured settlement factoring cases have inundated many state court dockets; and
• How NSSTA members should respond to plaintiff attorneys and judges who resist structured settlements because of proliferating factoring transactions.

The theme of NSSTA's "Judicial Perspective", as stated by participating Judge Denton, might have been: "don't presume that judges understand structured settlements". Previously a plaintiff attorney, Judge Denton claimed a familiarity with structured settlements but acknowledged he had never been asked to approve a structured settlement transfer application. Conversely, Judge Burke stated that his structured settlement experience was limited to reviewing and approving transfer applications.

Among his NSSTA comments, Judge Burke identified his "heroes" to include the superior court judges involved in the California Fresno County factoring cases. Judge Burke's judicial praise is both noteworthy and difficult to understand. In Henderson v. Scieteco (one of the Fresno County factoring cases) , a California appellate court subsequently reversed the entire consolidated order from the Fresno County Superior Court because of "multiple prejudicial errors in making its factual findings and in reaching legal conclusions" (emphasis added).

Also in Henderson v. Scieteco, the California appellate court held that public policy supports state court approved structured factoring transactions (emphasis added). NSSTA's Legal Committee representatives failed to mention this case when they discussed "public policy" and factoring during their structured settlement legal update.

Some judges not only understand structured settlements, but also have experience with both primary and secondary market structured settlement cases and publish local court rules for structured settlements. See, for example, Rule 68.2 and Rule 68.3 of the Local Rules for the Hamilton County, Ohio Probate Court.

SSP offered three presentations about non-traditional structured settlement products as part of its educational program segment titled "Practice Improvement: Marketing and New Products",

• Anthony Prieto and Tim Denehy - "The Use of Structured Settlement Annuity Payment Rights";
• Brian Michaels - "Expanded Use of Non-Qualified Assignments"; and
• Rick Miller - "Equity Indexed Annuities and Settlement Planning".

Prieto and Denehy introduced a product called "The Settlement Asset Management Trust (SAM trust) with Enhanced Structured Income (ESI)" which is essentially an irrevocable spendthrift trust generating level monthly income payments for durations of 10-30 years plus access to discretionary distributions.

The ESI component, according to Prieto and Denehy, consists of payment rights previously sold (i.e., transferred or factored) by a structured settlement recipient to a third party purchaser (factoring company) with an approved court order pursuant to a state protection statute. The SAM trust product managers purchase the payment rights from one or more factoring companies and transfer the payment rights to the SAM trust.

According to Prieto and Denehy, the resulting SAM trust can produce a taxable interest rate that is "typically three (3%) percent higher than comparable fixed products with similar guarantees and safety." Their explanation for the enhanced interest rate: the ESI does not have the same high internal costs as a typical annuity during the first few years of the annuity policy.

Although the flow of structured settlement payment rights purchased from various factoring companies is typically uneven, Prieto and Denehy maintain the SAM trustee can consolidate selected payment rights to create an even payment flow to the SAM trust beneficiary who might be an injury victim or a plaintiff attorney.

In addition to an interest rate risk, Prieto and Denehy acknowledge the ESI has an insurance company insolvency risk similar to a traditional structured settlement. According to Prieto and Denehy, however, a typical SAM trust will include between two and ten separate payment rights purchases thereby diversifying the insolvency risk.

Although some secondary market brokers and factoring companies have previously sold "re-cycled" structured settlement payment rights to individuals, Prieto and Denehy believe their product is different because the SAM trust integrates multiple streams of separate payment rights and also includes a cash allocation permitting discretionary distributions.

For additional S2KM reporting about the SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings, see the structured settlement wiki.

See "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) for additional information about:

• Non-qualified (under IRC section 130) assignments and products - Section 3.08A; and
• Judicial review of transfer applications - Section 16.05

Business Standards and Practices - 1

For the structured settlement industry to achieve its public policy and revenue potential, business standards and practices must improve. This blog post, which begins a new S2KM series, highlights historical developments which help define the business standards and practices of the current structured settlement industry.

Periodic Payment Settlement Act of 1982 - This Federal legislation amended IRC section 104(a)(2) (clarifying an exclusion for "periodic payments") and added IRC section 130 (introducing and defining "qualified assignments" and "qualified funding assets").

NSSTA (1985) - A pioneering group of structured settlement agents and life companies formed the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) which became the first, and remains the largest, structured settlement professional association.

First Settlement Transfer (1986) - James Lokey completed the first transfer of structured settlement payment rights thereby launching the structured settlement secondary market. A number of companies subsequently responded to this market development to create a "gray market" allowing and encouraging structured settlement recipients to liquidate part or all of their future payment rights.

Revenue Procedure 93-34 (1993) - Regulations issued by the U.S. Treasury became effective defining a new type of IRC 468B fund ("Qualified Settlement Fund") providing an efficient dispute resolution technique for defendants and a safe harbor for plaintiffs who need time to resolve their own settlement planning issues prior to deciding upon any specific form of distribution including structured settlements.

NSSTA CSSC Program (1994) - NSSTA originated a training and certification program at the University of Notre Dame leading to a designation for qualifying persons as Certified Structured Settlement Consultants (CSSC).

Weil Settlement (1996) - The plaintiff in this lawsuit argued that, as a result of an anti-competitive conspiracy among certain structured settlement agents, annuity providers and NSSTA, structured settlement annuity providers marketed exclusively through agents who represented defendants and refused to appoint agents who represented plaintiffs or their attorneys. The confidential settlement of the Weil lawsuit coincided with a change in industry business practices whereby structured settlement annuity providers began to appoint agents representing plaintiffs and allowing agents representing defendants and plaintiffs to share commissions.

NASP (1996) - A group of companies specializing in structured settlement transfers created the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) which became the first and only trade association specializing in the structured settlement secondary market.

Structured Settlement Protection Statutes (1997-present) - Beginning with Illinois in 1997, nearly all states have enacted some form of structured settlement protection statute with many such statutes, since 2000, based upon the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act which was also adopted by the National Conference of Insurance Legislators in 2004. These state laws require structured settlement transfers to receive advanced state court approval.

NSSTA Code of Ethics (1997) - NSSTA adopted and published its Statement of Ethics and Professional Responsibility "to provide guiding principles to its members and member organizations". Implicit in the acceptance of this Statement, according to NSSTA, "is an obligation to act in a professionally responsible and ethical manner when providing structured settlement services".

NY Attorney General Investigation (1999) - The New York Attorney General launched an investigation of J.G. Wentworth, a leading structured settlement transfer company, and entered into a settlement in 1999 limiting discounts on J.G. Wentworth's New York transactions to no more than 25%.

Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001 - Among other provisions, this legislation added IRC section 5891 ("Structured Settlement Factoring Transactions") to Subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code and resulted from a political compromise between NSSTA and NASP.

SSP (2001) - Dissatisfied with what they considered NSSTA's continuing defense bias, a group of structured settlement agents formed the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), a national non-profit education and public policy association for structured settlement professionals who advocate "the injury victim's right to choose settlement planning advisers and financial and guarantee providers".

Grillo case (2001) - A Texas district court entered a $1,600,000 judgment against plaintiff attorneys based upon allegations by their prior clients that a medical malpractice case settlement "contained no language which required at least one defendant or its liability insurer to promise a fixed and determinable periodic payment which would be tax free to the claimant".

California Attorney General's Study (2004) - Prepared for the California legislature, this study surveyed hundreds of California transfers between 2000 and 2003. For a summary of the results, see "Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights - What Judges Should Know about Structured Settlement Protection Acts", by Daniel Hindert and Craig Ulman.

NAIC Compensation Disclosure (2004) - The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted a Compensation Disclosure Amendment to its Producer Licensing Model Act. The Disclosure Amendment neither mentions nor excludes structured settlements.

Saltzburg and Chemerinsky Opinion Letters (2006) - First presented at the ATLA 2006 Winter Meeting, two legal opinion letters written by law professors Stephen Saltzburg and Erwin Chemerinsky reach similar conclusions:

• Experts, including structured settlement experts, have a fiduciary duty to their clients.
• Plaintiff experts have a conflict of interest if they are paid by someone other than the plaintiff without disclosure to and consent by the plaintiff.
• Plaintiff attorneys have a duty to disclose this conflict of interest by structured settlement experts to their clients.

Macomber v. Travelers (2007) - Settled on undisclosed terms, this class action lawsuit alleged that Travelers lowered the cost of structured settlements by 2% without informing plaintiffs (shortchanging) by paying its approved structured settlement agents a 2% commission and retaining a 2% commission for itself (rebating). Coincidental with this settlement, Travelers changed its structured settlement business practices and its affiliated life company stopped selling structured settlement annuities.

SSP RSP program (2007) - SSP launched a Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) professional certification program in affiliation with Texas Tech University including an educational component; submission and review of a comprehensive personal injury settlement plan; experience requirements; continuing education; and a code of ethics.

NSSTA Broker Relations Initiative (2007) - Consultant Lynn Courier introduced the first draft of a proposed "Standards of Professional Conduct" for structured settlement consultants developed by the NSSTA-sponsored Broker Relations Initiative (BRI) during the NSSTA 2007 Fall Meeting. To date, NSSTA has not adopted any additional standards of professional conduct beyond its 1997 Code of Ethics.

Rapid Settlements (2007) - Rapid Settlements, a Texas factoring company, failed in a series of transfer cases to successfully utilize arbitration clauses in its attempt to bypass state structured settlement protection statutes.

Fresno County Factoring Cases (2009) - In Henderson v. Scioteco, a California appellate court ruled favorably for 321 Henderson Receivables, a J.G. Wentworth affiliate, reversing earlier opinions of a California superior court in 11 factoring cases consolidated for appeal. The appellate court ruling allowed Henderson to amend the transfer petitions at issue to correct any errors prior to any new hearing on the petitions and additionally held that public policy supports state court approved structured factoring transactions.

Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation (2010) - The NAIC adopted this Model Regulation "to require insurers to establish a system to supervise recommendations and to set forth standards and procedures for recommendations to consumers that result in transaction involving annuity products so that the insurance needs and financial objectives of consumers at the time of the transaction are appropriately addressed." Significantly for structured settlements, exemptions from the Model Regulation include: "settlements of or assumptions of liabilities associated with personal injury litigation or any dispute or claim resolution process."

Spencer v. Hartford (2010) - A U.S. district judge in Connecticut approved a $72.5 million class action settlement resulting from plaintiff allegations (denied by Hartford) that Hartford and its attorneys, brokers and agents violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed common law fraud in structuring its settlements. Hartford's affiliated life company stopped selling structured settlement annuities in 2009.

For more detailed information about these structured settlement business standards and practices developments, see "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" co-authored by Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert.

S2P2J Release 47

Release 47 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), co-authored by Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert, and published by Incisive Media, features extended discussions about structured settlement public policy and structured settlement business models, standards and practices.

Public policy issues addressed in Release 47:

• Does structured settlement public policy support:
  • Single claimant IRC section 468B qualified settlement funds?
  • Court-approved structured settlement factoring transactions pursuant to IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes?
• Do personal injury victims have a greater propensity to dissipate their financial resources than non-personal injury victims?
• Should the existence of the secondary market disqualify annuities as a funding option for special needs trusts?
• Does the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 apply to structured settlement annuities?
• Why should structured settlement annuities cost less than lump sum alternatives to fund Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs)?

Business standards and practice issues addressed in Release 47:

• Traditional structured settlement business models;
• Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit;
• Fresno County factoring cases;
• The J.G. Wentworth bankruptcy and related credit crunch;
• New "best interest" test in California's revised protection statute;
• SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct.

S2P2J Release 47 also tightens S2P2J's existing analysis (Chapter 15) about the interaction of structured settlement annuities with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and updates industry developments generally.

S2P2J Release 48 will analyze how health care reform impacts structured settlements and also will feature a new chapter about IRC section 468B qualified settlement funds.

For prior S2KM analysis of related issues see S2KM's:

• structured settlement wiki; and
• structured settlement public policy wiki;
• web 2.0 for lawyers wiki;
• as well as prior S2KM blog posts.

NAELA's Special Needs Summit - 2

This S2KM blog post strategically analyzes the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) 2010 Special Needs Summit from a structured settlement perspective. A prior S2KM post summarized the NAELA Special Needs Summit. A subsequent S2KM post will strategically analyze the NAELA Special Needs Summit from the perspective of Internet-based knowledge management.

For related S2KM learning resources, see S2KM's public read-only wikis:

• Structured settlement
• Structured settlement public policy
• Web 2.0 for lawyers

From a structured settlement perspective, the strategic business overlap with special needs attorneys encompasses disabled personal injury victims, their families and trial attorneys. Various knowledge leaders, knowledge networks and communities of practice within this strategic business and public domain utilize alternative terminology to describe their businesses without comparative analysis of the terminology itself. Here are some recommended resources to help special needs attorneys understand this growing legal market segment:

• Settlement law - hardcopy textbooks:
  • Robert W. Wood
    • "Taxation of Damage Awards and Settlement Payments"
    • "Qualified Settlement Funds and 468B"
  • Matt Garretson: "Negotiating and Settling Tort Cases"
  • Stuart Zimring, Rebecca Morgan and Bradley Frigon: "Fundamentals of Special Needs Trusts"
• Structured settlement law - Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert: "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments"
• Settlement consulting - see S2KM's report and analysis of Joseph DiGangi's presentation at the 2009 NSSTA winter meeting.
• Settlement planning - see S2KM's report about the SSP 2009 conference.
• Special needs settlement planning - see S2KM's report about the ASNP 2009 conference and Tim Nay interview.

S2KM regularly attends and publishes reports summarizing and analyzing national educational conferences sponsored by selected professional associations and universities whose speakers and attendees participate within the strategic business overlap of structured settlements and special needs law:

• National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA)
• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)
• National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)
• American Association for Justice (AAJ)
• National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)
• Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)
• National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP)
• Stetson Law School - Special Needs Trust conference

Strategic question: from a structured settlement perspective, what was most important about NAELA's first-ever Special Needs Summit? 

Strategic answer: None of the NAELA speakers or unprograms:

• Attempted to define "special needs law" or any of its ancillary legal and business domains.
• Addressed any of the following structured settlement legal priorities and developments - all of which are strategically important for special needs attorneys:
  • IRC sections 104(a), 130, 468B or 5891;
  • Treasury Hearings for IRC 104(a)(2) regulations
  • Treasury 2009-10 Priority Guidance Plan - dropping single claimant 468B.
  • Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit - alleging civil RICO violations.
  • Unauthorized practice of law
  • Dissipation studies
  • Single claimant 468B funds
  • Executive Life of New York
  • Secondary structured settlement annuity market:
    • State structured settlement protection statutes.
    • J.G. Wentworth bankruptcy
    • Fresno County factoring cases
    • Rapid Settlements arbitration model
    • California protection statute amendments - including "best interest" definition

Why should special needs attorneys be interested in structured settlement law? This S2KM structured settlement diagram summarizes a complex legal and financial transaction that requires special needs legal knowledge, documentation and representation and also presents business and career opportunities for special needs attorneys:

• IRC 468B qualified settlement funds
• IRC 130 qualified and non-qualified assignments
• Special needs trusts
• Medicare set-aside arrangements
• Structured settlement transfers

Additional S2KM structured settlement resources for special needs attorneys interested in learning more about structured settlement law:

• Market surveys
• Growing the market
• Structured settlements in 2009
• structured settlement wiki
• structured settlement public policy wiki.

S2KM's next blog post will analyze NAELA's Special Needs Summit from an Internet-based knowledge management perspective.

Structured Settlements in 2010 - 1

2010 promises to be an important year for the structured settlement industry.

Strategic structured settlement priorities for 2010:

• Public policy - what laws currently define structured settlement public policy and how do these laws impact:
  • 468B qualified settlement funds;
  • Non-qualified 130 structured settlements;
  • Structured settlement factoring transactions?
• Legislative reform - how will anticipated new legislation change structured settlements:
  • Health care reform;
  • Financial reform;
  • Tax reform?
• Business standards and practices - what business standards and practices will prevail following:
  • SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct;
  • Spencer v. Hartford;
  • J.G. Wentworth's re-emergence from bankruptcy;
  • Fresno County factoring cases and California SB 510
    
• Business models - who will create new business models and success metrics for:
  • Structured settlement claim management;
  • Settlement consulting;
  • Structured settlement secondary market;
  • Internet-based structured settlements?

Professional association meetings - S2KM will report structured settlement and settlement consulting educational results from four (4) professional association meetings during the first six (6) months of 2010:

• NAELA Special Needs Summit - February 25-27 in New Orleans;
• ASNP Annual Meeting - March 19-20 in Charleston, S.C.
• SSP Annual Meeting - April 27-28 in Washington, D.C.
• NSSTA Annual Meeting - May 4-6 in Washington, D.C.

For prior S2KM reports about structured settlement and settlement consulting professional associations, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

For S2KM's most recent strategic analysis of the structured settlement industry, see S2KM's blog post "Structured Settlements in 2009".

Structured Settlements in 2009 - 2

This S2KM post follows "Structured Settlements in 2009 - 1" and features topical links to S2KM 2009 blog reports.

For 2010 industry updates, please continue to visit S2KM's blog as well as S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Prior S2KM annual industry reports:

• Structured settlements in 2008
• Structured settlements in 2007
• Structured settlements in 2006

Professional Association Meetings

• NSSTA - National Structured Settlement Trade Association
  • Winter meeting
  • Annual meeting
  • Fall meeting
• SSP - Society of Settlement Planners
  • Preview
  • Annual meeting
• NASP - National Association of Settlement Purchasers
  • Part 1
  • Part 2
  • Part 3
• ASNP - Academy of Special Needs Planners
  • Annual meeting
  • Tim Nay interview

Settlement Consulting

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

Spencer v. Hartford

• Report 1
• Report 2
• Report 3
• Report 4

IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds

• Single Claimant 468B QSF Update
• IRC 468B and 5891
• Robert Wood's QSF Book
  • Summary and Review
  • Robert Wood Interview
• Jeremy Babener's QSF Paper
  • Summary
    
  • Review
    • Part 1
    • Part 2
  • Jeremy Babener Interview
• US Treasury Priority Guidance Plan 2009-2010

Dissipation Studies

• Introduction
• Jeremy Babener's Dissipation Paper
  • Summary and Review
  • Jeremy Babener Interview
  • Jeremy Babener Responds

Structured Settlement Credo

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5

Rapid Settlements

• Pacific Life v. Rapid Settlements
• Allstate v. Rapid Settlements

Fresno County Factoring Cases

• Report 1
• Report 2
• Report 3

Additional S2KM Analysis

• Re-Thinking Structured Settlements
• Structured Settlement 2009 Mid-Year Update
• Structured Settlement 2009 Strategic Analysis
• Structured Settlements and Government Benefits
• Settlement Trust Due Diligence

Additional Primary Market Developments

• Forge Purchases TSSG
• Richard Halpern

Additional Secondary Market Developments

• S&P Withdraws JG Wentworth Credit Ratings
• Structured Settlement Securitizations

"Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments"

• S2P2J Release 45
• S2P2J Release 46

NASP 2009 Annual Meeting - 3

This blog post continues S2KM's summary and analysis of the NASP 2009 Annual Meeting. Prior S2KM blog posts about NASP are accessible on S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

NASP's 2009 strategic educational analysis occurred primarily during a two-hour panel discussion titled "Re-thinking Structured Settlements". S2KM assisted NASP in organizing this panel discussion. Jeremy Babener's NASP presentation titled "Factoring and the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy" preceded and contributed to NASP's strategic discussions.

NASP Panel Discussion: "Re-thinking Structured Settlements".

Moderator: Earl Nesbitt, Executive Director of NASP.

Panelists: Jeremy Babener; Matthew Bracy; Daniel Hindert; Richard Risk; Andrew Savysky; Robin Shapiro; Michael Upchurch.

Format: S2KM identified and submitted to NASP a preliminary list of strategic structured settlement questions. NASP encouraged the panelists to identify and address S2KM questions that most interested them. NASP allocated time for audience questions and participation.

Primary S2KM questions addressed by the NASP panel:

• Which 2009 events and developments (legal; financial; political) will most significantly impact the future of structured settlements?
• What are the best and worst structured settlement business practices?
• Are factoring transactions good or bad for structured settlements?
• Does public policy support state court ordered structured settlement factoring transactions?
• How has the financial crisis changed the structured settlement market? Note: although NASP's strategic panel acknowledged the importance of this issue, the panel also recognized the related comprehensive discussion by the NASP "Capital Markets" panel.

2009 structured settlement developments - as sequentially identified and discussed by the NASP panel:

• Financial and credit crisis - addressing both primary and secondary market consequences;
• Election of President Obama - highlighting anticipated legislation including health care reform and tax reform;
• J.G. Wentworth bankruptcy - what it means for traditional secondary market business models;
• Primary market departures - why leading structured settlement annuity providers continue to leave the market;
• Diminishing annuity sales - why structured settlement annuity sales are down when fixed annuity sales generally are way up;
• Spencer v. Hartford - how the recent United States Second Circuit Court decision (denying Hartford's appeal) impacts the Hartford class action lawsuit and which other structured settlement programs are now at risk for potential RICO class action lawsuits?
• Revised California protection statute - viewed by the panel as a legislative victory for the structured settlement industry and featuring specific "best interest" criteria for state judges to consider in California settlement transfer cases.
• Fresno County cases - viewed by the panel as a judicial victory for the structured settlement industry with an appellate court ruling that public policy supports state court approved structured settlement factoring transactions.
• Rapid Settlement cases - viewed by the panel as a victory for the structured settlement industry with continuing judicial denial of arbitration alternatives to state court approved transfers pursuant to IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes.
• Scott Rothstein ponzi scheme - identified as a legal and public relations reminder that all participants in settlements featuring periodic payments with potential subsequent payment transfers would benefit from applicable legislation (protection statutes) and required state court approvals.

Best and worst business standards and practices - as identified and discussed by the NASP panel:

• Primary market
  • Best practices
    • SSP's "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" - including Rule 9 titled "Factoring Structured Settlements";
    • IRC 468B qualified settlement funds;
    • Full market quoting surveys;
    • Multiple (blended) product offerings, licensing and expertise.
  • Worst practices
    • Alleged RICO violations in the Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit;
    • Over-structuring the wrong cases and with the wrong periodic payments;
    • Lack of disclosure to injury victims - about compensation sharing; conflicts of interest; IRC 5891; and state protection statutes;
    • No applicable "best interest" legislation or standards;
    • Mischaracterization by and of "agents" (loyal to annuity providers) as "brokers" (loyal to injury victims);
    • Defendant "approved lists" of agents and funding companies;
    • Affiliated company funding programs;
    • "Pay for play" endorsements by professional associations.
• Secondary market
  • Best practices
    • Business practices required by IRC 5891 and NCOIL's model state structured settlement protection statute - including judicial approval; best interest standard; disclosure; notification;
    • Standards and business practices endorsed by NASP;
    • Competitive bidding fostered by the Internet.
  • Worst practices
    • "Cash now" advertising;
    • Non-competitive bidding fostered by television advertising;
    • Failure to fund (or delayed funding) of court ordered settlement transfers.

Is the secondary market good or bad for structured settlements? This question was discussed in detail during the NASP 2008 Annual Meeting with Jack Meligan and Michael Upchurch providing a primary market critique of the secondary market. NASP's 2009 Annual Meeting featured two published critics of secondary market business behavior: Judge Edward Burke of Arizona and attorney Daniel Hindert of Utah. In addition, Michael Upchurch participated on the NASP strategic analysis panel. If the NASP program reached any conclusion for this issue, it was: the secondary structured settlement market is a reality. Whether the secondary market is good or bad for structured settlements depends upon business behavior and business results in both the primary and secondary markets.

Does public policy support state court ordered structured settlement factoring transactions? Jeremy Babener discussed the public policy arguments for and against factoring transactions. Babener concluded that more information is needed to make a comprehensive public policy declaration. The recent California appellate court decision in Henderson v. Scioteco holds that public policy supports state court approved factoring transactions. Babener, acknowledged the importance of the decision, but disagreed with the California court's characterization of IRC 5891 as an "express sanction" of factoring. Richard Risk agreed with Babener that IRC 5891 does not contain a clear statement of public policy about factoring. Risk, however, pointed to examples of IRC 5891 legislative history that contradict any claim that public policy is against structured settlement factoring. As one example, Risk cited the Joint Committee on Taxation’s report released on March 18, 1999, “Tax Treatment of Structured Settlement Arrangements,” which Risk interprets as public policy support that structured settlements can co-exist with factoring.

S2KM applauds NASP for:

• Focusing much of its 2009 educational program on strategic structured settlement industry issues; and also for
• Inviting and featuring  structured settlement industry experts with diverse viewpoints and opinions.

NASP 2009 Annual Meeting - 2

The purpose of this S2KM blog post is to summarize educational discussions which occurred at the NASP 2009 Annual Meeting. In a prior post (NASP 2009 Annual Meeting-1), S2KM listed the discussion topics, moderators, speakers and panelists and also identified Van Tran as the winner of the NASP 2009 Alexander Hamilton award. In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will provide analysis and feature interviews with selected NASP educational program participants.

2009 Legislative Developments - Matthew Bracy summarized California Senate Bill 510 which Governor Arnold Swarzenegger signed into law October 11, 2009 and which becomes effective January 1, 2010. Among changes to the California structured settlement protection statute, SB 510 adds factors for the court to consider when determining whether a proposed transfer is fair, reasonable and in the payee's best interest. These factors now include the reasonable preference of the payee considering age and mental capacity. Bracy also summarized the new North Dakota structured settlement protection statute which generally follows the NCOIL Model Act. North Dakota becomes the 47th state to enact structured settlement protection legislation.

Legal Case Update - Tricia Laborde's legal case update focused primarily on the Fresno County cases and Rapid Settlement cases. Among other holdings in Scioteco v. Henderson, a California appellate court ruled that public policy supports state court approved structured settlement factoring transactions. In Allstate v. Rapid Settlements, which denied Rapid's appeal, U.S. Third Circuit Judge Joseph F. Weis, Jr. noted: "We are one of the many courts to face Rapid Settlements' transparent attempt to use this arbitration scheme to evade the legislatures' intentions to protect the recipients of structured settlement payments".

What Happened in California? - A panel of legal and political experts provided background and analysis of SB 510 and the Fresno County cases. NASP lobbyist Carl London summarized the collaboration between NASP and Consumer Attorneys of California (formerly the California Trial Lawyers), plus the role of California legislator Van Tran, in securing enactment of SB 510. Linda Morris, General Counsel for J.G. Wentworth, provided background information and strategic commentary about appellate decisions for the Fresno County cases which she characterized as an important victory for the structured settlement industry.

Transactional Structured Settlement Issues - A panel of attorneys discussed practical problems in securing judicial approval for proposed structured settlement transfers. Some of the issues discussed: difficulties in determining the domicile of transient payees; privacy issues including the impact of Pennsylvania Rule 229.2; difficulties in finding independent professional advisers; and what happens when judges attempt to re-negotiate agreed upon transfers.

Structured Settlement Capital Markets - A panel of factoring company executives discussed how the 2008-2009 capital market upheaval has changed the secondary structured settlement market.
The changes:

• The cost of funds today for factoring companies (8 to 9%) equals the best discount rates offered for transfers two years ago;
• Bundling purchases of individual payment rights into a security is financially less efficient and/or available today;
• Marketing and court costs for factoring companies remain high;
• Perceived financial risks for potential insurer failure have increased;
• The impact of a potential ELNY liquidation remains uncertain.

Structured Settlement Court Practices and Issues - Judges Edward Burke of Arizona and Christopher Marshall of Oregon joined a panel of attorneys in discussing settlement transfer court practices and issues including: prior transfers by the same payee; the roles of transfer attorneys and independent professional advisers; privacy concerns for transferring payees; the advantages of utilizing a single state judge for all transfer requests; plus other problems which cause continuing judicial concerns about factoring and factoring companies.

Factoring and the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy - Jeremy Babener addressed the important role IRC 130 and 104 tax subsidies have played in the growth of structured settlements. He summarized the political and public policy attacks against, and defenses for, structured settlement factoring transactions and questioned whether:

• The tax subsidy prevents dissipation?
• The tax subsidy discourages factoring?
• Factoring undermines the tax subsidy?

Babener challenged NASP to develop better information about who actually sells structured settlement payment rights and why.

Structured Settlement Bankruptcies - Bruce Akerly summarized his recent paper titled "The Impact of an Annuity Servicer's Bankruptcy on the Annuitant and Structured Settlement Purchaser". Akerly's conclusions:

• "The annuity payments received by a structured settlement servicing company, as well as the servicing agreement itself, become property of the bankrupt estate"; and
• "It may be possible to draft provisions in the servicing agreement to anticipate some of the consequences of the servicing company entering bankruptcy and perhaps lessen the impact on all parties."

Re-thinking Structured Settlements - a multi-disciplinary panel of industry experts addressed strategic structured settlement issues:

• What developments in 2009 will most impact the future of structured settlements?
• What are the best (and worst) structured settlement standards and business practices?
• Which structured settlement myths are most out-of-line with reality?
• How will commutations change the structured settlement market?
• What knowledge and skill sets are most important for future success in the structured settlement industry?

For S2KM reports about prior NASP meetings, see the structured settlement wiki.