Beyond Structured Settlements

S2P2J Release 61

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

Since it was first published in 1986, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), has provided professionals and other stakeholders involved with structured settlements an authoritative reference guide, consisting of 16 chapters with extensive footnotes and Appendix documents, to help them understand issues and fashion settlements and judgments utilizing periodic payments. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert, S2P2J features an online version as well as the traditional hardcopy. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability plus link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a March 2017 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 61 with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update simultaneously with no additional subscription charge. Competent professionals confronted by structured settlement issues should have access to an up-to-date copy (or the online version) of this indispensable source book.

Release 61 Highlights - Release 61 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics among others:

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

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

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

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

Structured Settlements 2015 -2

Market Issues and Developments

The 2015 structured settlement marketplace could perhaps best be characterized as "changing the focus of our future" as industry leaders cooperated to create a positive future agenda to overcome, or move beyond, multiple challenges that continued to negatively impact both primary and secondary market performance metrics.

Industry challenges during 2015 included: 1) residual impact of the ELNY insolvency; 2) continuation of low interest rates; 3) unprecedented, negative secondary market publicity; and 4) an ongoing primary market generational transition.

Elements of the future agenda: 1) a shift in the traditional "protect and preserve" focus of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) toward an expanded priority of identifying structured settlement growth opportunities; 2) increasing industry unity evidenced by improved communication and cooperation among NSSTA, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP); 3) consumer protection amendments to multiple state structured settlement protection statutes; 4) expanding educational offerings with programs that specifically target judges as well as new industry participants; 5) public relations investments to help counteract negative industry publicity; and 6) further development and growth of a professional personal injury settlement planning market.

Primary Market Growth

In a recent S2KM interview, Michael Goodman, current NSSTA President, offered a personal estimate of $8 to $10 billion per year of annuity premium as the potential size of the U.S. structured settlement market.

The U.S. primary structured settlement market, however, has never approached that annual figure and, in fact, has experienced a significant decline since its peak of $6.2 billion in 2008. To better understand and reverse this decline, NSSTA has re-focused its priorities on expanding the use of structured settlements.

As a first step in 2014, in partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA completed a three-part structured settlement survey project of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3) the results of which provided NSSTA members with marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

During 2015 NSSTA organized an "Industry Growth Initiative" to effectuate Goodman's number one priority of "identifying growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry." This Initiative is focusing on three preliminary growth opportunities:

• Rejuvenate defense programs.
• Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA).
• Convertible deferred lump sums.

Goodman has further supported NSSTA's growth priority with these related goals: 1) modifying NSSTA's traditional "protect and preserve" message to inspire primary market growth; 2) moving beyond "interest rate selling"; 3) moving beyond a focus on factoring; 4) identifying and pursuing new markets for structured settlement annuities; 5) adding one or more new life company providers; 6) engaging new, younger structured settlement brokers; 7) providing a new and improved training initiative.

Although NSSTA's renewed focus on industry growth has not yet noticeably improved primary market metrics, an important psychological and organizational foundation has been created which should enhance future performance.

Industry Unity

One significant factor which arguably has hurt the structured settlement industry has been the historic acrimony which has divided plaintiff and defense brokers as well as the primary and secondary markets and which has resulted in three professional associations (NSSTA, SSP and NASP) frequently at odds with each other.

In the words of former SSP President Neil Johnson: Lack of structured settlement industry unity has been "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."

During 2015, the leaders of NSSTA, SSP and NASP expanded prior educational dialogue which began in 2014 at NSSTA's Fall Educational Conference which served as a precursor for improved association relationships by featuring SSP President Neil Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde as guest speakers.

SSP's 2015 Annual Conference included an unprecedented number of structured settlement association leaders as speakers and attendees including representatives of NSSTA and NASP.

During the NASP 2015 Annual Conference , Robin Shapiro moderated an historic "President's Panel" featuring LaBorde and Goodman during which they announced a collaborative NSSTA and NASP legislative strategy to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes:

• No forum shopping.
• Payee required to attend hearing.
• Stricter application of approval requirements.
• Advanced notice of transfer.
• Required disclosure of prior transfers.

Personal Injury Settlement Planning

With the advent of plaintiff structured settlement brokers, continuing legislative and regulatory developments, plus an expanding array of settlement planning professionals, products and product providers, structured settlements are now viewed by many stakeholders as a subset of the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

Based upon studies by Towers Watson, S2KM has previously estimated that more than $170 billion of current annual United States tort costs (excluding workers compensation) represents payments to injury victims and their attorneys compared with a projected $5.4 billion of structured settlement premium (including workers compensation) for 2015.

S2KM has followed the development of personal injury settlement planning during 2015 by reporting on a number of professional conferences peripheral to the traditional structured settlement market:

• Stetson 2015 SNT Conference
• NAMSAP 2015 Winter Regional Conference
• SSP 2015 Annual Conference
  • Part 1
  • Part 2
• ASNP 2015 Annual Conference
• NAMSAP 2015 Annual Meeting

As NSSTA continues to evaluate options for growing its market, a new generation of leaders should more carefully analyze how to re-position their product as a fundamental component of post- Affordable Care Act personal injury settlement planning . This strategic adjustment requires a more comprehensive understanding of, and interaction with, other professional associations whose members also provide settlement planning products and services.

Secondary Structured Settlement Market

During her association's Annual Conference, NASP President Patricia LaBorde described 2015 as "a year of unimaginable successes and challenges". NASP's "challenges" included:

• Two blistering exposes of "worst case" secondary market business practices which appeared on the front pages of the Washington Post on August 25 and December 27;
• An estimated 7% decline in the number of secondary market transfers compared with 2014;
• A market "leader" (J.G. Wentworth, with an estimated 65-72% of the U.S. secondary structured settlement market) whose stock price has plummeted to $1.82 per share as of December 28, 2015 down from its historic high of $19.59 on February 28, 2014; and
• Judicial decisions such as In re: Rains, a Texas case enforcing a statutory "no-split" payment provision and establishing a new and extensive "best interest" precedent.

The successes included the proactive and collaborative legislative strategy developed by NASP and NSSTA to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes. The first success resulted in amendments to the Illinois statute which LaBorde characterized as NASP's "biggest victory since the Model Act", because it overturned the result of the Brenston case and re-opened the Illinois secondary market,

Also during the NASP conference, Goodman and LaBorde jointly announced that Governor Scott Walker had signed, just prior to their panel discussion, Wisconsin's first Structured Settlement Protection Act - thereby becoming the 49th state (all except New Hampshire) to have enacted such protective legislation.

During his subsequent "Legislative Report", NASP Lobbyist Jack Kelly identified Florida, Maryland and Virginia among priority states for joint future lobbying to improve structured settlement consumer protection.

Continuing its priority of interactive judicial education about the structured settlement transfer process, NASP's 2015 Annual Conference again featured a judicial panel addressing such topics as:

• Interpreting the best interest standard;
• Common mistakes at transfer hearings by attorneys, factoring companies and sellers;
• How to best present a transfer;
• How judges consider objections to transfers;
• What documentation judges want to see at transfer hearings;
• How to best protect the seller's privacy;
• Information judges are not seeing presented that should be;
• Significance of the origin (type of personal injury) to the judge's analysis;
• Impact of prior transfers on assessments.

NSSTA has likewise initiated its own judicial education program about structured settlement transfers.

For S2KM's summary of 2015 structured settlement market metrics, see this blog post.
For S2KM's prior year summaries of the structured settlement market, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements 2015 - 1

Market Metrics

Although its new "Growth Initiative" has represented a well-publicized, number one priority of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) during 2015, the results of this initiative have not yet produced a noteworthy impact on structured settlement annuity sales.

As reported by Melissa Evola Price, the United States structured settlement primary market has continued to slowly recover from its 2012 nadir during 2015 with first nine months annuity sales of $3.96 billion resulting from 18,635 cases - a premium increase of 3% compared to $3.86 billion resulting from 19,778 cases for the same period in 2014. The average per case annuity premium has increased to $212,703 from $195,305.

Based upon these results, 2015 annual structured settlement annuity sales can be expected to approximate $5.4 billion. The projected 2015 annual premium totals, however, will still fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6.2 billion in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

Recent Annual Structured Settlement Annuity Premium

• 2015 (third quarter) - $3.96 billion
• 2014 - $5.25 billion
• 2013 - $5.13 billion
• 2012 - $4.82 billion
• 2011 - $4.97 billion
• 2010 - $5.5 billion
• 2009 - $5.4 billion
• 2008 - $6.2 billion

Adding the 2015 Third Quarter results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru September 2015:

• Total annuity premium: $148.7 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 847,200
• Average annuity premium: $175,600.

Nine month 2015 sales results (in millions) for individual structured settlement annuity providers (per Price's report) which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) plus the rounded increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2014 results:

• Berkshire Hathaway: $974 MM (-12%)
• Pacific Life: $642 MM (+16%)
• MetLife: $592 MM (-13%)
• Prudential: $563 MM (+22%)
• Liberty Life: $422 MM (-2%)
• Amgen: $408 MM (+8%)
• New York Life: $298 MM (+45%)
• Mutual of Omaha: $65 MM (+63%)

Low Interest Rates

Many structured settlement industry participants attribute decreased sales to low interest rates. Market yields on U.S. Treasury securities at 30 year constant maturity peaked at 13.45 percent in 1981. Here are several historic average annual rates for 30 year Treasury securities (source: U.S. Department of the Treasury):

• 2015 (as of December 28) - 2.95%
• 2014 - 2.97%
• 2013 - 3.96%
• 2012 - 2.95%
• 2011 - 3.91%
• 2010 - 4.25%
• 2009 - 4.08%
• 2008 - 4.28%
• 2007 - 4.84%
• 2000 - 5.94%
• 1990 - 8.61%
• 1980 - 11.27%

Submarkets - Multiple noteworthy submarkets, each with significant structured settlement growth potential, are incorporated within the annuity production numbers set forth above. With the exception of non-qualified assignments funded with life insurance annuities sold by NSSTA members, S2KM is not aware of published metrics for these submarkets.

• Non-Qualified Assignments
  • Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC section 130. They are generally used to defer taxable damage awards such as punitive damages as well as contingent attorney fees. Because they do not benefit from the favorable tax treatment of IRC 130, most non-qualified assignees are "off-shore" companies located in jurisdictions which do not tax the funds received by the assignee as income.
  • Two NSSTA-member annuity providers (Liberty Life and American General) currently offer and separately report non-qualified sales
  • Reported nine month 2015 non-qualified structured settlement sales by Liberty and Amgen totaled $159.0 million compared with $113.2 million in 2014 - a substantial increase which does not include non-qualified sales by a growing number of non-NSSTA member companies.
  • Release 58 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) features an expanded analysis of the non-qualified market.
• Medicare Set-Asides
  • A Medicare set-aside (MSA) is an administrative and funding mechanism utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute.
  • Although Federal law does not define MSAs, or mandate specific types of MSA funding mechanisms, CMS (the responsible federal agency) has established certain basic requirements for workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs).
  • Under current CMS rules, structured settlement annuities have an inherent cost advantage over lump sum alternatives for funding WCMSAs resulting from the method CMS prescribes for calculating present values.
  • Although industry reporting does not currently separate MSA annuity sales, S2KM has previously estimated that eight (8%) percent of 2013 structured settlement premium and 24 percent of 2013 structured settlement annuities were attributable to WCMSAs.
  • Although no specific CMS rules or requirements currently exist for liability MSAs, one professional MSA administrator has informed S2KM that liability MSAs now represent 30% of his company's cases and the percent is growing.
• Special Needs Trusts
  • Established by Congress in 1993 as part of the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act, Special Needs Trusts (SNTs) provide an authorized method for disabled individuals to hold an unlimited amount of assets in trust without disqualification for certain means-tested government benefits including Social Security Income and Medicaid.
  • When utilized as part of a personal injury settlement, SNTs are frequently funded with structured settlement annuities.
  • Similar to MSAs, industry reporting does not currently separately report SNT annuity sales.
  • Although an important strategic relationship clearly exists between structured settlement brokers and special needs attorneys, neither professional community have fully embraced the other for reasons explained in prior S2kM blog posts.
  • As a result, continuing opportunities exist to expand structured settlements funding of SNTs as well as other government benefit programs promoted by special needs attorneys such as the ABLE Act and the Affordable Care Act.

How large is the potential U.S. annual structured settlement market?

Based on recent Towers Watson studies, S2KM has previously estimated that more than $170 billion of United States tort costs (excluding workers compensation) represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys during 2014. Within that framework, and in the context of an S2KM interview, NSSTA President Michael Goodman recently stated his own estimate of potential market size for the structured settlement industry to be $8 to $10 billion range per year.

Secondary Market

Unlike the primary structured settlement market, which has experienced modest annual sales increases since 2012, the secondary market appears to have regressed according to industry experts. As a point of reference, based on interviews with industry experts in 2012, S2KM estimated 2012 structured settlement secondary market activity to be:

• 12,000 secondary market transfers - with less than 120 contested by annuity owners and/or providers.
• $360 million of total secondary market purchases (money paid to transferors).
• $30,000 average individual transfer.

Following zero (0%) percent growth in 2013, the number of secondary market transfers appears to have declined as much as 15% during 2014 with another decrease of as much as 7% predicted in 2015, according to various industry sources.

This decline in secondary market transfers received further confirmation from:

• An exhibit to J.G. Wentworth's December 10, 2015 SEC Form 8-K which indicates a $48 million drop in structured settlement revenue for the first three quarters of 2015 compared with the same 2014 period ($764MM vs. $812 MM).
• J.G. Wentworth's current stock price - which closed on the New York Stock Exchange at $1.82 per share on December 28, 2015 down from its historic high of $19.59 on February 28, 2014.

Industry experts estimate J.G. Wentworth currently controls between 65-72% of the U.S. secondary structured settlement market.

Based upon the 2013-2015 transfer estimates indicated above, S2KM further updates its estimates of historic (1986-2015) structured settlement secondary market metrics as follows:

• 168,000 transfers - involving 84,000 structured settlement recipients.
• $5 billion - aggregate sums paid to transferor structured settlement recipients.
• $12.9 billion - aggregate periodic payments purchased by secondary market companies.

For S2KM's summary of 2015 structured settlement issues and developments, see this blog post.
For S2KM's prior year summaries of the structured settlement market, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlement Surveys - 2

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), in partnership with CLM Advisors, has recently completed a three-part structured settlement survey project of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3) the results of which provide NSSTA members with marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

Complementing NSSTA's surveys, NSSTA member and structured settlement provider Prudential recently published the results of its own 2013 survey of 400 claimants who had entered into a settlement of a physical injury or workers’ compensation claim of at least $100,000 from 2003 to 2013.

Considered together, these four surveys provide valuable insights into how key stakeholders currently view the structured settlement market. They also provide a point of reference for, and comparison with, other structured settlement market surveys several of which have been completed or updated since S2KM published this previous blog post in November 2008.

What follows are brief summaries of prior structured settlement surveys. In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will review and evaluate the most recent NSSTA and Prudential surveys.

• NSSTA 2006: Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys and Structured Settlement Recipients - This NSSTA-sponsored survey was titled: "A Study of the Structured Settlement Process Conducted on behalf of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association" and was directed by Robert E. Hoyt, the Dudley L. Moore, Jr. Chair of Insurance at the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. It consisted of attorneys involved in structured settlements (43 telephone surveys) and structured settlement recipients (1275 telephone and Internet surveys). Among the reported results:
  • Only 7% of personal injury settlements between $75,000 and $100,000 include structured settlements; and only 30% of personal injury settlements above $1 million included structured settlements.
  • When asked: "Whom do you prefer to use for purposes of financial planning for your clients?" , surveyed attorneys responded: trust company/department - 30%; Financial planner - 28%; Structured settlement consultant - 23%; No response - 19%.
• American General 2007: Survey about Structured Settlement Public Awareness - Sponsored by AIG American General and conducted by Esearch.com, Inc. in September 2007, this survey included 1000 U.S. participants - 80% had no connection with any personal injury case; 20% had previously been involved directly or indirectly through a family member in a personal injury case. Respondents who had no connection to a personal injury case were asked to read two hypothetical scenarios and answer questions on how they would react.Those with a direct connection to a personal injury case were not only asked to read the hypothetical scenarios, but also to answer questions based upon their real life experience. AIG's conclusion: the structured settlement industry needs to better educate Americans about structured settlements.
• J.G. Wentworth 2008: Survey of Structured Settlement Recipients - The survey consisted of 115 structured settlement recipients who had previously sold payment rights to J.G. Wentworth. The survey questions addressed both primary and secondary market issues, focusing upon the reasons the respondents: 1) first agreed to a structured settlement; and 2) then subsequently sold (transferred) some or all of their structured settlement payment rights. S2KM's prior reporting about the survey's primary market questions, responses plus related S2KM comments appears here. S2KM's prior reporting about the survey's secondary market questions, responses plus related S2KM comments appears here.
• Jeremy Babener 2009: Dissipation Legal Research Paper - Titled "Justifying the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy: The Use of Lump Sum Settlements," this paper examines and challenges the myth of the squandering injury victim. In it, Babener refutes the existence of any published study supporting the statistic that "90% of lump sum recipients dissipate their recoveries within five years" and identifies 12 existing dissipation studies relevant to structured settlements that reach a contradictory conclusion: injury victims have no greater propensity to dissipate money than non-injury victims.
• Towers Watson 2011: "Update of U.S. Tort Cost Trends" - The 2011 update represents the 15th study of U.S. tort costs, and the most recently published, by Towers Watson. Note: a Tower Watson representative has informed S2KM it has no current plans to publish further updates. The 2011 study reported $264.6 billion of 2010 U.S. tort costs and excluded: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs. Tower Watson's 2002 study had previously translated overall tort costs in 2001 into these additional cost categories and percentages: 1) administrative costs - 21%; 2) defense costs - 14%; 3) plaintiff attorneys -19%; 4) economic loss - 22%; and 5) non-economic loss - 24%. Based on the 2011 study and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM has estimated that since 2011 more than $170 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys.
• Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) 2011: "National Litigation Management Study" - This survey of litigation management executives analyzed 30 litigation-related service areas including structured settlements. Commissioned by CLM (formerly the Council on Litigation Management ) and conducted by Revere Advisory, it identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives. CLM membership includes: corporations, insurance companies, government agencies, defense attorneys and law firms plus individuals "who participate in litigation and the management thereof (Corporate Counsel; Risk, Claims and Litigation Managers; Adjusters and Service Providers etc.)."
• Daniel Durbin 2013: Survey of Structured Settlement Brokers - Durbin, a former NSSTA President and Senior Structured Settlement Sales Manager with Allstate Life, conducted an informal survey with a group of leading structured settlement brokers to obtain their input and evaluate their interest in representing a potential new structured settlement product provider. Durbin identified himself as part of an investor group of individuals including insurance executives who see underdeveloped opportunities in the structured settlement primary market. Although Durbin has not published the results of his survey, he has presented to several industry groups and stated that the survey showed the interest is high as long as the new firm is financially strong with competitive rates.
• Melissa Evola Price 2002-2015: Quarterly Reports of NSSTA Member Structured Settlement Annuity Provider Sales - Melissa Evola Price's quarterly structured settlement report, selectively distributed to NSSTA members, is now copyrighted by her company, Structured Financial Associates, Inc. (SFA). Price and SFA have granted S2KM permission to publish selected portions of her report on both S2KM's blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") and the structured settlement wiki. Her reports include historical data from 1975-2001 which is sourced with permission from "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).  Evola Price most recently reported 2015 first quarter structured settlement annuity premium of $1,332,047,252, an increase of more than $230 million (21%) compared with the 2014 first quarter structured settlement annuity premium of $1,101,839,529.

Structured Settlements 2014 - Secondary Market

Is the bloom finally off the rose for structured settlement secondary market leader JGWPT Holdings, Inc. (JGWPT) whose subsidiaries include J.G. Wentworth (JGW) and Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree)?

Despite strong sales since 2010, punctuated by the November 25, 2014 announcement that it had issued $207,501,000 of Fixed Rate Asset Backed Notes collateralized primarily by payment rights rights arising under court ordered structured settlement payment purchase contracts, JGWPT's NYSE per share price closed at $8.65 on December 12, 2014, down drastically from its 2014 high of $19.88 on March 4.

When JGWPT's Holdings IPO occurred November 8, 2013, with an initial offering price of $14.00 per share, one analyst opined the stock was worth at least $20 per share based upon JGW's "dominant franchise", access to securitization markets, low costs relative to competitors and "incalculable returns on capital", among other factors.

After JGW consolidated its 2011 merger with Peachtree, various industry experts estimated the combined combined company's structured settlement secondary market share totaled somewhere between 50% and 75%, and its share of industry profits exceeded 80%.

What happened?

Zacks Investment Research published two reports earlier this month on December 2 ("JG Wentworth - Bear of the Day") and December 9 ("What Falling Estimates & Price Mean for J.G. Wentworth").

Zacks' conclusion: "A key reason for this [downward stock price] move has been the negative trend in earnings estimate revisions. For the full year, we have seen four estimates moving down in the past 30 days, compared with no upward revision. This trend has caused the consensus estimate to trend lower, going from $1.71 a share a month ago to its current level of $1.45."

What has caused JGW's negative trend in earnings estimates?

As summarized in S2KM's 2013 annual report about the structured settlement secondary market, JGWPT faced a multitude of problems and controversies prior to 2014. New and/or expanded problems have occurred during the past 12 months - in particular:

• Brenston case law "progeny"; and
• Washington Square v. RSL.

Brenston Case Law "Progeny"

In the Brenston case, the Illinois Supreme Court in December 2013 denied Peachtree's petition for review of an Illinois Appellate Court decision which found multiple Peachtree-Brenston transfer orders, previously approved in accordance with the Illinois transfer statute, to be void ab initio because:

• Peachtree did not file all settlement documents with the transfer court.
• Peachtree concealed "by omission" the existence of anti-assignment provisions which the Appellate Court found "material".
• The conduct of Peachtree and it's attorney amounted to an "affirmative falsehood and a fraud upon the trial court".

The denial of Peachtree's petition for review has substantially reduced the secondary structured settlement market in Illinois according to industry sources. Some annuity providers reportedly have refused to waive anti-assignment provisions in Illinois cases while others evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. In addition, some annuity providers are citing Brenston to challenge transfers in other states.

The Brenston case was also quickly followed by Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, a class action lawsuit, accusing JGWPT Holdings, Inc., several affiliate companies including JGW and Peachtree, and Illinois attorney Brian Mack, of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA). The case has since been removed to the Federal Court in the Southern District of Illinois with that court expected to rule on various motions and petitions in February 2015.

Washington Square v. RSL

In this case, transfer company Washington Square (aka Imperial) sued transfer company RSL Funding in Texas for tortious interference with a transfer agreement that had not yet been approved in a final court order. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, held:

• RSL was “justified” in interfering with Imperial’s proposed transfer agreement prior to court approval because obtaining a better price was in the seller's "best interest".
• Transfer agreements that have not received court approval are not enforceable on public policy grounds and therefore cannot justify legal actions for tortious interference with existing contracts.

As a result of this case, a strategic marketing shift appears to be occurring within the structured settlement secondary market as rival transfer companies increasingly search court records and seek to outbid other transfer companies who are awaiting court approvals. This marketing shift may provide lower discount rates for some structured settlement recipients when they sell their payment rights. The impact on the secondary market, however, will be "chaos", according to some participants, including extra "informational" demands on the judicial system responsible for administering the state protection acts.

For JGW and Peachtree, who have invested millions of dollars to build their TV and Internet brands, this strategic marketing shift promises new, much less-well financed competitors. Like pilot fish, these competitors can be expected to offer competitive bids based upon public court filings of not-yet-approved transfers proposed by JGW and Peachtree (as well as other established transfer companies) rather than based upon their own independent marketing. Assuming this occurs, the likely per case results for JGW and Peachtree will be lower success ratios and higher costs.

ADDENDUM (added December 15, 2014) - JGWPT's September 10, 2014 Form S-1/A filing with the SEC identifies multiple "Risk Factors" at least two of which could impact other structured settlement stakeholders:

• "[T]he insolvency or downgrade of a material number of structured settlement issuers." S2KM will discuss these rating downgrades, which include Genworth, Hartford and Aviva, in a subsequent 2014 annual report about ELNY and Reliance.

• "[T]he impact of the March 2014 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau inquiry and any findings or regulations it issues as related to us, our industries, our products or in general." (emphasis added)

Change of Directions for JGWPT?

One apparent result of JGWPT's continuing problems and controversies has been a change of CEOs with Stewart Stockdale replacing David Miller in July 2014. Another result appears to be a more diversified strategy away from structured settlements.

In a November 13, 2014 press release, Stockdale stated: "We are in the early stages of transforming J.G. Wentworth and are excited about the groundwork we have laid to achieve the three key strategic pillars -- Grow the Core, Become an Information-Based Company, and Diversify." To date, this proposed transformation does not appear to have impressed investment analysts or positively impacted JGWPT's common stock.

Other 2014 Secondary Market Developments

• Educational Dialogue - For the first time, educational programs sponsored by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) featured representatives of the National Association of Settlement Planners (NASP) as participants in secondary market panel discussions. For the ninth consecutive year, NASP featured primary market representatives speaking about primary market issues at their annual educational conference. For summaries of these conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.
• Case Law - In addition to the Washington Square and Brenston-related cases summarized above, noteworthy 2014 case law developments occurred in Texas and New York related to split payments and servicing arrangements. Two Texas cases required JGW to continue servicing arrangements under prior court approved orders and also to service subsequent assignments by the same payees to another transfer company. Multiple New York judges expressed their concerns about servicing arrangements while approving structured settlement transfers. At least 27 state structured settlement protection acts prohibit partial transfers. During 2013, MetLife began actively opposing transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements. Under such servicing arrangements, structured settlement annuity providers remit the entirety of specific periodic payments to transfer companies to administer even when the original recipient/transferor only assigns a portion of the payments.
• State Legislation - Although structured settlement protection act (SSPA) activities occurred in Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Mississippi during 2014, only Minnesota enacted a legislative amendment. Minnesota amended its SSPA to require notice of the date and judicial district of any prior application for transfer filed by the transferee relating to a prior proposed transfer with the payee including whether the proposed transfer was approved or denied. If granted, such notice must provide the amount and due dates of transferred structured settlement payments, the aggregate amount, the discounted present value and the gross amount payable to the payee.
• PLR-143928-13 - Issued by the Internal Revenue Service in August, this two-part private letter ruling approves favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity which includes the possibility of a commutation by the recipient pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion. In a prior blog post, S2KM described this PLR as potentially "game changing" because it overcomes an industry concern (enunciated in a 2006 Robert Wood article) that commutations do not qualify for favorable tax treatment afforded third party factoring transactions under IRC 5891.
• Re-cycled payment rights - Representing a small fraction of secondary market sales, the resale to personal injury victims and their attorneys of payment rights previously acquired in a structured settlement factoring transaction (sometimes misleadingly referred to as "recycled structured settlements") continues to cause serious concern among most primary market participants. NSSTA considers engaging in or promoting the marketing or distribution of re-cycled payment rights to be risky, confusing and unregulated investment activity and inconsistent with its Mission.
• Discount rates - Discount rates for structured settlement transfers vary widely depending upon multiple factors including: single vs. multiple bids; fixed vs. life contingent payments; size of payments purchased; length of payment deferral; perceived financial strength of the annuity provider; and/or state law (eg. North Carolina rate cap). The NCOIL State Structured Settlement Protection Model Act, which NSSTA and NASP have agreed to support, contains a definition for "discounted present value" which is generally higher than, and unrelated to, the discount rate actually incorporated into most structured settlement transfers. Regardless of discount rates, judges continue to deny proposed transfers that do not otherwise satisfy the "best interest" test. Reasons include: funds from prior transfer(s) were not used for stated purposes; stated purposes do not justify approval.
• Secondary market sales
  • Based on interviews with industry experts in 2012, S2KM estimated 2012 structured settlement activity to be:
    • 12,000 secondary market transfers - with less than 120 contested by annuity owners and/or providers.
    • $360 million of total secondary market purchases (money paid to transferors).
    • $30,000 average individual transfer.
  • Opinions differ as to secondary market sales growth during 2013 and 2014 ranging from no growth to 7% growth per year.

S2KM will address 2014 developments related to personal injury settlement planning and the ELNY liquidation in subsequent blog posts,

For additional related S2KM reporting, see:

• NASP 2014 Annual Conference.
• Primary Market 2014 Report
• Prior Year Annual Reports

Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Class Action Complaint further alleges:

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

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

Brenston Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Structured Settlements 2013 - Secondary Market
• Secondary Market Update

Secondary Market Update

This structured settlement secondary market report updates S2KM's most recent secondary market reporting:

• Structured Settlements 2013 - Secondary Market
• Asta Funding Acquires CBC Settlement Funding

Falsified New York Transfer Orders

S2KM previously reported that a New York law firm had falsified court orders approving structured settlement transfers in as many as 100 cases - and possibly more. Industry sources have identified the responsible law firm as Paris & Chaikin where a former non-lawyer employee, apparently created the fraudulent, court-related documents. The primary transfer companies represented by Paris & Chaikin in these transactions were J.G. Wentworth, and its affiliate Peachtree Financial Solutions, as well as Stone Street Capital.

Paris & Chaikin has retained Pery D. Krinsky , according to industry sources, as outside ethics counsel for assistance with these cases. An online 2013 Speaker Biography states in part: "Pery’s ethics-based defense litigation practice focuses on: attorney ethics matters, representing judges before the Commission on Judicial Conduct, criminal defense matters, art law ethics & litigation matters, and representing law school students before the Committees on Character & Fitness. Pery serves as the Chair of the Ethics Committee of the Entertainment, Arts & Sports Law Section of the N.Y. State Bar Association. Pery also serves as Chair of the Committee on Professional Discipline of the N.Y. County Lawyers’ Association."

Ongoing investigations of these fraudulent transfers are being conducted by the New York State Courts and the New York County District Attorney's Office. Primary and secondary market representatives with whom S2KM has discussed these fraudulent transfers disagree on how they are impacting judicial attitudes toward structured settlement factoring transactions and factoring companies in New York.

Proposed Amendment to IRC 5891

Representative Matthew Cartwright (D-Pa) has introduced H.R. 3897, a bill which, if enacted into law, would amend IRC 5891 and impose standards and procedures which are substantially different than currently provided by the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Act) and almost all of the 48 related state statutes.

The most controversial provision of H.R. 3897 appears to be proposed new paragraph (5) under current subsection (b) titled "Transaction Requirements" which would provide in part: "(A)" In General - A transfer of structured settlement payment rights shall be treated as satisfying the requirements of this paragraph only if the transfer meets the following requirements:

• "(1) The annual discount rate of the consideration for the transfer, determined by taking into account charges, fees and other expenses, does not exceed the prime rate plus 5 percentage points.
• "(2) The aggregate amount of the charges, fees and other expenses payable by the payee do not exceed 2 percent of the value of the consideration to the payee (net of such charges, fees and other expenses)."

This H.R. 3897 language is similar to provisions in the North Carolina structured settlement protection act. North Carolina is one of only three states which currently impose statutory ceilings on discount rates. A recent bill to amend the Florida structured settlement protection act likewise proposes a discount ceiling similar to North Carolina.

Note: following years of conflict, the primary market National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and secondary market National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) reached an agreement in 2000 to support a combined federal and state legislative solution for structured settlement transfers which resulted in IRC 5891 and the Model Act. It is S2KM's understanding this agreement remains in effect.

Peachtree Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston

In 2013, an Illinois 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, held that an Illinois state court, which had previously approved transfers requested by Brenston:

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

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

S2KM has learned that a companion case involving Peachtree and Brenston remains on appeal in the 3rd District Illinois Court of Appeals and will be argued February 27, 2014. The parties had previously stayed their appeal waiting for the Illinois Supreme Court to rule on the 4th District case.

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

For additional information about structured settlements and anti-assignment provisions, see S2KM's prior blog post "Anti-Assignment Restrictions".

METLife Split Payment Policy

During NASP's 2013 Annual Conference, NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt reported that MetLife has begun actively opposing transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements. Under such servicing arrangements, structured settlement annuity providers typically remit the entirety of specific periodic payments to transfer companies to administer even when the original recipient/transferor only assigns a portion of the payments.

Primary market proponents of MetLife's new policy argue that at least 27 state structured settlement protection acts prohibit partial transfers. In addition, they maintain that servicing contracts represents an annuity provider obligation and that post-transfer problems can occur from subsequent, multiple transfers resulting from such occurrences as divorces, child support obligations and improper transfers by trust beneficiaries.

In response, Nesbitt believes this "Hobson's choice", forcing injury victims to sell all or nothing, will cause "deep trouble" for MetLife and other annuity providers who may adopt MetLife's split payment policy. Nesbitt argues that annuity providers are protected by stipulation agreements and administrative fees. He predicts litigation, legislation and attorney general investigations could result.

Stock Market Prices

• JGWPT Holdings, Inc. - JGWPT Holdings IPO, which occurred November 8, 2013, was poorly received with JGWPT Inc. reducing the initial offering price of its common stock from $19-$22 per share to $14.00 which then traded down to the high $12s. Since then, the common stock, which now trades on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: JGW), reached a high of $18.00 per share and closed Friday January 31 at $16.992 per share.
• Asta Funding Inc. - Asta, a publicly traded company (Nasdaq: ASFI), acquired an 80% ownership interest in CBC Settlement Funding, LLC ("CBC"), a structured settlement factoring company on December 31, 2013. Following announcement of the purchase on January 7, 2014, Asta's stock price closed during regular trading hours at $8.28 per share. The stock closed Friday January 31 at $8.20 per share.

For S2KM's complete reporting about the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements 2013 - Secondary Market

While Berkshire Hathaway quietly assumed leadership among primary market structured settlement annuity providers during 2013, J.G. Wentworth (JGW) continued to consolidate its control of the secondary market with the same "subtlety" and ubiquitousness that have characterized its late-night television advertisements.

Various industry experts estimate JGW's secondary structured settlement market share, following its 2012 merger with Peachtree Financial Solutions (Peachtree), now totals somewhere between 50% and 75%, and the combined JGW/Peachtree's share of industry profits now exceeds 80%.

JGWPT Holdings Inc. IPO

JGW's 2013 apogee occurred November 8 when JGWPT Holdings Inc.'s IPO produced what is currently the only publicly traded structured settlement company. The IPO was poorly received with JGWPT Inc. reducing the initial offering price of its common stock from $19-$22 per share to $14.00 which then traded down to the high $12s.

The stated purposes for JGWPT's IPO were to pay down some of JGW's $572 million debt and to provide its pre-IPO equity holders (JLL Partners) an opportunity to earn additional profits. Post-IPO, JLL Partners continues to hold a 39% economic interest and a 63% voting interest in JGWPT while four of its partners sit on the company's Board of Directors.

JGWPT's common stock, however, now trades on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: JGW) and closed Friday (December 27, 2013) at $17.10 per share. At least one analyst has informed S2KM he believes the stock is currently worth at least $20 per share based upon JGW's "dominant franchise", access to securitization markets, low costs relative to competitors and "incalculable returns on capital", among other factors.

Problems and Controversies in 2013

As S2KM reported in this prior blog post, JGW, which was founded in 1995, had experienced a tumultuous history prior to 2013 - and problems and controversies continued to plague the company during 2013:

• Abandoned Sale - Bloomberg News reported in January 2013 that JLL Partners had abandoned plans to sell the company after bids failed to meet expectations. Earlier reports had indicated that JLL Partners was seeking a $1 billion purchase price for JGW from private-equity firms.
• Ratings Downgrade - Moody's Investors Service (Moody's) announced in February 2013 a downgrade of its Corporate Family Rating (CFR) for JGW from B3 to Caa1. Under Moody's credit rating scale, "Caa1" signifies a long-term rating "rated as poor quality and very high credit risk." Moody's CFR ratings for JGW are separate and distinct from financial agency ratings applicable to JGW structured settlement securitizations which historically have been rated as high quality and low risk investments.
• Shareholder Distribution - Moody's announcement confirmed "JGW is undergoing a leveraged recapitalization that will result in a tripling of the company's corporate debt as it pays its shareholders a very substantial dividend....Net proceeds from the $425 million Senior Secured Term Loan issuance will be used to finance a $309 million capital distribution to JGW's shareholders as well as to repay an existing $142 million term loan."
• Falsified Court Orders - JGWPT's amended S-1 statement, filed October 28, 2013 in anticipation of its public offering, included the following statement under a section titled "RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS OPERATIONS: ... there have in the past and may be in the future deficiencies in court orders obtained on our behalf by third parties that result in those court orders being invalid, including as a result of failures to perform according to our requirements and acts of fraud,..." That statement apparently references as many as 100 falsified court orders in New York approving JGW structured settlement transfers.
• Brenston Case - The Illinois Supreme Court denied Peachtree Settlement Funding's petition for appeal of the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals' decision in the Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston case. The earlier Court of Appeals decision held the Illinois state court, which had previously approved transfers requested by Brenston 1) had a duty to enforce anti-assignment provisions in Brenston's original structured settlement documentation; and 2) had no authority under the Illinois protection act to approve the transfer petitions - even though all of the relevant parties had waived the anti-assignment provisions. In an Amicus curiae brief, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) asserted the Appellate Court decision will render the Illinois transfer statute "a practical nullity"
• Competitor Outrage - During NASP's 2013 annual conference, in remarks apparently directed at JGW, former NASP President Robin Shapiro expressed personal outrage about "troubling reports concerning the structured settlement factoring business" including:
  • Falsified transfer orders.
  • Inter-state forum shopping.
  • Short-cutting waiting periods and disclosure requirements.
  • Expediting hearing dates before preferred judges.
  • "Competing bids" from the same company.
• NASP Conference - In addition to Shapiro's comments, NASP's 2013 annual conference focused on controversial issues which have historically divided the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. In her keynote remarks, NASP President Patricia LaBorde encouraged diverse perspectives and re-inforced NASP's policy of politically unobstructed learning. "We want to hear from all structured settlement stakeholders - even if they disagree with us or don't like who we are," LaBorde stated. "We are here to listen. We are here to improve."
• METLife Split Payment Policy - During his NASP presentation, Executive Director Earl Nesbitt reported a controversial new business practice that is troubling JGW and other transfer companies. MetLife apparently is now actively opposing transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements. Under such servicing arrangements, structured settlement annuity providers typically remit the entirety of specific periodic payments to transfer companies to administer even when the original recipient/transferor only assigns a portion of the payments.
• Educational Forums - In addition to the NASP conference, JGW competitor Strategic Capital sponsored an online structured settlement "expert roundtable" which examined secondary market business practices and issues. S2KM Managing Director Patrick Hindert participated in the expert roundtable and also served as moderator for NASP's annual primary market panel discussion.
• Former Executives' Lawsuit - Another 2013 JGW nadir occurred in October when two former JGW executives and directors filed a Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against current JGW CEO David Miller, three current JGW Directors and multiple JGW affiliate companies seeking to enforce a Tax Receivables Agreement (TRA) under which they claim they are owed approximately $35 million. A copy of the Complaint, which is posted on the structured settlement wiki, highlights JGW's complex organizational history as well as a shareholder focus disconnected from the welfare of its customers.

SEC Addresses Structured Settlement Transfers

Responding in part to concerns about secondary market business practices, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Investor Education and Advocacy issued an Investor Bulletin in 2013 titled "Pension or Settlement Income Streams: What You Need to Know Before Buying or Selling Them".

The Investor Bulletin highlights questions potential sellers and investors should ask before proceeding with proposed structured settlement transfers and includes a number of additional warnings and resource links.

A responding article , written by two industry leaders, characterized the SEC Bulletin as "misleading and in some cases inaccurate concerning the sale of structured settlement payment streams and factored structured settlements as an investment vehicle." The authors assert the SEC Investor Bulletin should have clarified the following features of structured settlement factoring transactions:

• "Always court ordered"
• "No negative tax consequences to the seller"
• "Investors' rights"

Secondary Market Growth

Despite problems and controversies, the U.S. structured settlement secondary market appears to have experienced additional growth during 2013. Based upon various industry sources, and subject to future revisions based upon subsequent information, S2KM estimates the 2013 structured settlement secondary market has increased approximately 7% compared with 2012 resulting from approximately 12,800 transfers and $385 million PV of secondary market purchases.

Adding these 2013 numbers to prior historic estimates, S2KM estimates:

• Approximately 149,000 structured settlement transfers have occurred since 1986;
• Involving approximately 74,000 recipients - many of whom have made multiple transfers;
• With approximately $4.4 billion PV in aggregate sums paid to those recipients.
• For an average of approximately $30,000 per transfer.

For comparison, S2KM estimates the primary market has sold approximately $139 billion PV of structured settlement annuities to approximately 800,000 recipients since 1975 with an average premium of approximately $174,000.

For additional S2KM reporting about the secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki. For additional S2KM 2013 annual reports, see:

• Part 1 - Primary market.
• Part 2 - Settlement planning.

Former Executives Sue J.G. Wentworth

Former J.G. Wentworth (JGW) executives and Directors, Michael Goodman and Gary Veloric, (Plaintiffs) have filed a Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against current CEO David Miller, three current JGW Directors and multiple JGW affiliate companies seeking to enforce a Tax Receivables Agreement (TRA) under which they claim they are owed approximately $35 million.

In addition to Miller, other Defendants include: Paul S. Levy, Francisco J. Rodriguez and Alexander R. Castaldi (Defendant Directors); J.G. Wentworth, Inc. (Wentworth Inc.); J.G. Wentworth LLC (JGW LLC); JGW Holdco LLC (Holdco); JLL JGW Distribution LLC (JLL Distribution); JLL Partner Fund V L.P. (Fund V, and together with JLL Distribution, JLL Entities); and JGWPT Holdings LLC (JGW Peachtree).

The Complaint alleges:

• Plaintiffs and other principals sold the J.G. Wentworth family of companies in 2005 to JLL Distribution, an affiliate of private equity firm JLL Partners, Inc.
• Although Plaintiffs continued as senior officers thereafter, JLL Entities henceforth controlled all J.G. Wentworth affiliate companies.
• Anticipating an eventual public stock offering, JLL Entities in 2007:
  • Formed 1) Holdco to own all the J.G. Wentworth subsidiaries; and 2) Wentworth, Inc. as a vehicle for the public offering. Wentworth Inc.also served as Managing Member of Holdco and never had any assets of its own except for its interest in Holdco.
  • Determined they could maximize the value of their JGW investment by separating the value of equity from the value of various tax benefits.
    • For tax purposes, factoring companies recognize: 1) revenue over the term of the structured settlement payment rights they purchase; and 2) operating expenses when they occur.
    • This timing difference generates potential tax deferrals which, for LLCs like the JGW affiliates, are passed through to individual members.
    • Various exchanges of membership interests among JGW affiliates increased the tax basis of certain assets and resulted in additional tax benefits for Wentworth Inc.
  • Implemented a TRA in conjunction with the sale of stock in Wentworth, Inc. to participants (including Plaintiffs) in a private offering.
    • TRAs are frequently used to monetize tax benefits in IPOs because public stockholders may not pay full value for a company's tax attributes.
    • TRAs allow pre-IPO equity owners to receive the value of a company's tax attributes as those tax attributes are utilized following an IPO.
• Under the TRA, Wentworth Inc. agreed to pay to Plaintiffs and other principals 85% of its tax benefit upon certain circumstance including a change in corporate control.
• Because Wentworth, Inc. (a holding company) had no assets of its own, Holdco (another holding company) agreed in its LLC Agreement to provide Wentworth, Inc. with the money needed to satisfy the TRA obligation.
• Following the 2008 financial crisis, Wentworth, Inc., Holdco and JGW LLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy with a prepackaged plan of reorganization.
• The Bankruptcy Plan expressly stated that Plaintiffs' interests in the TRA and the debtors obligations to Plaintiffs remained "unimpaired" and Holdco, JGW LLC and Wentworth Inc. became jointly and severally liable for the TRA obligations.
• J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Financial Solutions merged in 2011 leaving JGW LLC as the surviving entity with JGW Peachtree as a subsidiary.
• To avoid TRA payments to Plaintiffs, Wentworth Inc.'s controlling stockholder and Directors structured the JGW Peachtree entities so that Holdco would not be able to fund the TRA payments.
• Without making any TRA payments to Plaintiffs, JGW Peachtree distributed $459.6 million to its principals in 2013.
• Defendants have advised Plaintiffs that no TRA payments will be made because:
  • The TRA obligations were extinguished in bankruptcy.
  • The TRA obligation is limited to Wentworth Inc. which is insolvent.
  • Wentworth Inc. has not earned enough money to pay taxes and therefore cannot receive the tax benefits.
  • Loaning money to Wentworth Inc. is not feasible because Wentworth Inc. is insolvent.
• JGWPT Holdings, Inc.'s November 8, 2013 public offering of common stock (or alternatively the 2011 merger with Peachtree) constitutes a "change in control" triggering the TRA payments due plaintiffs under the TRA.

The Complaint additionally sets forth:

• Causes of action against the various Defendants including: Breach of Contract; Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and Unjust Enrichment.

• Prayer for relief seeking: to enforce the terms of the Wentworth Inc. TRA and the Holdco LLC Agreement; to award damages including interest, costs and expenses; and to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien of $35 million on the proceeds of the JGWPT Holdings, Inc. IPO.

For a copy of the Complaint, see the structured settlement wiki. For a recent J.G. Wentworth update, see this prior S2KM blog post.

J.G. Wentworth Update

November was an "interesting" month for JGWPT Holdings Inc. (JGWPT), the leading purchaser of structured settlement payment rights, which markets under the names of J.G. Wentworth (JGW) and Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree).

Significant developments included: 1) falsified transfer orders in New York; 2) an initial public offering (IPO); and 3) a refusal by the Illinois Supreme Court to review the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals' decision in the Settlement Funding v. Brenston case.

Also during November, at the most recent National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) Annual Conference:

• Former NASP President Robin Shapiro expressed his personal outrage about "troubling reports concerning the structured settlement factoring business." At least some of Shapiro's criticism appeared to be directed toward some JGWPT business practices.
• NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt reported a controversial new business practice that is troubling JGWPT and other transfer companies. MetLife apparently is now actively opposing transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements. Under such servicing arrangements, structured settlement annuity providers typically remit the entirety of specific periodic payments to transfer companies to administer even when the original recipient/transferor only assigns a portion of the payments.

As S2KM previously reported, JGW, which was founded in 1995, had already experienced a tumultuous recent history prior to November:

• On June 1, 2009, JGW and two affiliated companies entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the company "encountered liquidity problems amid a tightening credit market".
• Standard & Poor's Rating Services had earlier announced, at JGW's request, that it would no longer rate JGW's counterparty credit and senior secured debt.
• During this period, JGW laid off 120 of its 200 employees and closed its office in Las Vegas.
• According to industry sources at that time, JGW's $325 million of general corporate bonds were "almost worthless" and were trading, if at all, for pennies on the dollar.
• Less than six months later, JGW emerged from bankruptcy with an announcement that owner JLL Partners had invested an additional $100 million in the company.
• By 2011, JGW had re-entered the asset-backed structured settlement securitization market.
• Also in 2011, JGW merged with Peachtree in a stock swap, with JLL Partners retaining control of the merged companies which have each continued to participate in the secondary market.
• On January 30, 2013, Moody's Investors Service announced a downgrade of its Corporate Family Rating (CFR) for JGW from B3 to Caa1. Moody's also issued the same downgrade for JGW's $425 million senior secured term loan and $20 million senior revolving credit facility issued by Orchard Acquisition Company, a subsidiary of JGW.

Estimates of secondary market experts interviewed by S2KM in late 2012 of the post-merger 2012 market share of the JGW and Peachtree varied from a low of 50% to a high of 75%. These experts also believed JGW/Peachtree's share of the estimated 2012 U.S. secondary structured settlement market profits of $120 million was $100 million, or 83%.

JGWPT Holdings Inc.'s Amended Form S-1 Registration Statement, filed October 28, 2013 prior to its November 8, 2013 public offering of common stock, provides more recent financial and marketing information about JGW's holding company. Selected data:

• JGWPT's 2012 revenue sources included: structured settlements (89% of revenues), lotteries (6%), presettlement funding (3%), and non-structured settlement annuities (2%).
• For the year ended December 31, 2012 and the six months ended June 30, 2013, JGWPT:
  • Generated revenue from structured settlement purchases totalling $416 million and $222 million.
  • Generated cash from the net financing activities of its warehouse financing and permanent securitization financing facilities totalling $314.8 and $131.3 million, not counting $29.9 million generated from its most recent July 2013 securitization.
  • Used cash of $225.7 million and $163.3 million in its operating activities.
• During 2013 prior to it IPO, JGWPT distributed $459.6 million to its "common interest holders" resulting in members' capital of $38.4 million and negative tangible equity of ($96.2 million) as of June 30, 2013.
• Since 1995, JGWPT has
  • Spent approximately $585 million in marketing through multiple media outlets including $216 million during the past three years.
  • Purchased more than $9.1 billion of structured settlement payments. Its average customer has completed two separate transactions.
• During an average four week period, JGWPT generates more than 510 million advertising impressions which result in 80% of its target audience viewing its advertisements five or more times during that four week period.
• Kantar Media estimates that JGW and Peachtree have each spent approximately five-times more than their nearest competitor on television advertising since 2008 and together have spent over 80% of the total amount spent by all participants in the U.S. secondary structured settlement market.
• JGWPT's customer databases included more than 121,000 current or prospective structured settlement recipients as of July 31, 2013 entitled to approximately $31 billion of unpurchased structured settlement payments.
• JGWPT's nationwide attorney network covers over 3,000 counties. Approximately 95% of the proposed structured settlement purchases JGW and Peachtree present to a judge have been approved.

The stated purposes for JGWPT's IPO were to pay down some of its $572 million debt and to provide its pre-IPO equity holders (JLL Partners) an opportunity to earn additional profits. Post-IPO, JLL Partners continues to hold a 39% economic interest and a 63% voting interest in JGWPT while four of its partners sit on the company's Board of Directors.

JGWPT originally anticipated raising $300 million by selling 12.2 million Class A shares at a price between $19 and $22 each. When demand didn't materialize, the IPO opened at $13 per share and fewer shares were offered.

JGWPT's stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: JGW) and closed today (December 2, 2013) at $16.45 per share. At least one financial analyst with whom S2KM has spoken believes JGWPT's stock remains substantially undervalued and is worth at least $20 per share.

For additional S2KM reporting about J.G. Wentworth and the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.