Beyond Structured Settlements

Structured Settlements 2014 - ELNY and Reliance

The Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation, which occurred on April 16, 2012 represented the dominant structured settlement story of 2011, 2012 and 2013 and one of the most important developments in the history of the United States structured settlement industry.

Related follow-up litigation continued during 2014. Individual ELNY shortfall payees filed class action lawsuits against various structured settlement brokers. Other ELNY shortfall payees and their attorneys lost their appeal of a Contempt Order.

Class Action Lawsuits

Separate (but nearly identical) class action lawsuits were filed in Florida and Oregon during 2014 on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims against named and unnamed structured settlement brokers. In the Florida case, against EPS Settlement Group (EPS) and various brokers, a federal judge granted defendants' Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice on December 17, 2014. The Oregon case, which remains unresolved, names Ringler Associates Incorporated (Ringler), Paul Hoffman (as the individual agent who brokered structured settlement annuities for the named plaintiffs) and John Does 1-100 as defendants.

Note: A prior and separate class action lawsuit filed in New York in 2012 by ELNY shortfall victims against Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse) as defendants was voluntarily dismissed in 2013 without prejudice.

Oregon Class Action

The 2014 Oregon class action Complaint was filed in U.S. District Court and alleges Ringler, Hoffman and John Does 1-100 violated state statutes and their alleged duty of care to ELNY shortfall victims whose structured settlements were funded with qualified assignments and who resided in states where ELNY was not licensed to sell insurance when their settlements were consummated.

The John Does 1-100 "represent those individual insurance brokers who, as employees and/or agents of Ringler, its affiliates, or predecessor companies, brokered the sales of the SSAs at issue in this case, of which members of the proposed class were beneficiaries." The complaint further states "that with proper discovery into the matter these Defendants can be identified, and the complaint can be amended at a later date to include the individual names of these Defendants."

The Complaint against defendants Ringler et al. (Defendants) identifies two causes of action:

• Negligence - failing to disclose facts about ELNY's deteriorating financial condition.
• State statutory violation - prohibiting persons from assisting unlicensed insurers transact business.

Although the negligence counts do not state specific amounts of damages, the statutory violation counts claim "Plaintiffs and Statutory Subclass members are entitled to damages for the fulI amount of their unpaid claims pursuant to the State Statutes."

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 26, 2014 plus a subsequent Request for Judicial Notice in Support of their Motion. On December 5, 2014 a Magistrate issued:

• Opinion and Order - granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice.
• Findings and Recommendations (to be referred under advisement to a district judge) - that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted in part as to Defendants’ alleged continuing duty to inform plaintiffs that their coverage may be threatened due to ELNY’s declining financial condition and otherwise should be denied. Note: Although the Magistrates' Findings and Recommendations identifies December 22, 2014 as the due date for any objections, S2KM has been informed that Defendants requested and received a scheduling extension.

ELNY Contempt Order

In response to the 2012 New York class action lawsuit, Judge John Galasso issued a Contempt Order on January 25, 2013. He also imposed a $5000 fine and threatened additional fines plus imprisonment of legal counsel if the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees did not dismiss their Federal action which they did (without prejudice) on February 7, 2013.

The ELNY shortfall payees who filed the New York class action and their attorneys appealed Judge Galasso's Contempt Order which was argued before the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Second Judicial Department on October 3, 2014. On November 5, 2014, the Court issued an Order dismissing the appeal by the shortfall payees and affirming the Contempt Order as to their attorneys.

Reliance Liquidation

Reliance Insurance Company was declared insolvent in 2001 and the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner was appointed as Liquidator. The Reliance Estate, however, remained open and its assets, until November 4, 2013, included approximately 3,400 structured settlements of which approximately 3093 involved annuities issued by United Pacific Life Insurance Company, a former Reliance subsidiary which Reliance sold in 1993 and which is now known as Genworth Life Insurance Company.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter signed an Order on November 4, 2013 approving a Transfer and Assumption Agreement whereby Reliance will transfer all Reliance-owned structured settlement annuity contracts and corresponding payment obligations issued by Genworth Life Insurance Company to a new corporation, the Genworth Annuity Service Corporation.

At one time a major provider of structured settlement annuities, Genworth and its life insurance affiliates have subsequently received financial downgrades by various rating agencies. As of this blog posting, for example, Standard & Poors rates Genworth Life Insurance Company as BBB+ which qualifies as "high yield" or "non-investment grade" - the same "junk bond" category that characterized ELNY's investments before it entered rehabilitation in 1991.

Conclusion

In its recent SEC filings, JGWPT Holdings, Inc. warns potential investors for its structured settlement securitizations about investment risks including "the insolvency or downgrade of a material number of structured settlement issuers".

Should structured settlement recipients receive similar warnings about the potential (or actual) financial deterioration of their structured settlement funding entity(s)?

Various ELNY lawsuits, including the Oregon class action case summarized above, suggest (at least indirectly) these types of related questions:

• What is the scope of post-settlement responsibilities, if any, for structured settlement brokers and/or settlement planners?
• Should a structured settlement broker (defense or plaintiff) or settlement planner be legally responsible for warning structured settlement recipients if and when an annuity provider or assignee experiences a deteriorating financial condition?
• What about the annuity provider or assignee itself?
• If any such legal responsibilities exist, what criteria would define a deteriorating financial condition?

For prior S2KM summaries of ELNY and Reliance with additional informational links, see:

• Structured Settlements 2013 - ELNY and Reliance.
• Structured Settlements 2012 - Executive Life of New York.
• Structured Settlements 2011 - Executive Life of New York

For additional S2KM blog posts summarizing 2014 structured settlement developments (primary market; secondary market; settlement planning), see the structured settlement wiki.

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

NASP 2014 Annual Conference

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) celebrated its 10th annual conference November 5-6, 2014 in San Antonio, Texas with record attendance, recognition of past accomplishments and a clear existential message from its president Patricia LaBorde: "NASP exists to insure there will be a secondary structured settlement market for at least the NEXT 10 years".

NASP's 2014 educational conference followed by one week an historic NSSTA conference, which featured, for the first time, the presidents of NASP (LaBorde) and SSP (Neil Johnson) as speakers. LaBorde acknowledged this development in her opening NASP remarks stating: "we want to hear NSSTA's criticism and for the first time, they appear to want to hear ours." She expressed surprise and concern, however, about how little NSSTA members appear to understand about the secondary market including several basic misconceptions.

To underscore both NASP's "survival" theme and the need for improved education about the secondary market, LaBorde added: "there are some forces working against us right now and we need to remain diligent so our customers (structured settlement recipients who sell payment rights to NASP member companies) continue to have access to liquidity."

NASP lobbyist Jack Kelly and Executive Director Earl Nesbitt addressed some of NASP's challenges in their presentations providing legislative and case law updates respectively.

Legislative Update

Kelly reviewed structured settlement protection statute activities in Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Mississippi and declared NASP's 2014 state legislative lobbying a success. Kelly highlighted Florida and Wisconsin as states where NASP and NSSTA could collaborate to improve existing legislation. At the federal level, Kelly addressed H.R. 3897 and the July 23, 2014 "Consumer Protection for People with Disabilities" Congressional symposium which included a panel discussion about "factoring structured settlements".

Echoing LaBorde's comments about NSSTA, Kelly expressed his concern about "fact vs fiction" as to what happens and what benefits transfers provide for structured settlement recipients who experience unexpected or unaddressed financial needs. Emphasizing "no secondary market transaction can occur without a primary market transaction", Kelly criticized any development or activity that causes Congress to relook at IRC 130 and 104(a)(2). Speaking the morning after the 2014 election, Kelly labeled the Republican victory a political "tsunami" and the odds on new tax legislation in 2015 as a "toss up".

Case Law Update

For the uninitiated, Nesbitt prefaced his secondary market case law summary with several applicable "lessons": if you don't pay a seller the agreed amount, you will have trouble; courts take the "best interest" standard seriously; sometimes the prudent action is to dismiss a proposed transfer and move on; if you don't get what you want, don't move to another court or arbitration; words in a contract matter and words in a court order matter more; although rare in Texas, sometimes it rains (it did in San Antonio) and sometimes RSL Funding (formerly Rapid Settlements) wins cases.

Washington Square v. RSL

Among several significant cases, Nesbitt gave top billing to Washington Square v. RSL Funding wherein 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.

Acknowledging this case represents a "big win" for RSL, Nesbitt also predicted "chaos" for the secondary market as rival transfer companies increasingly search court records and seek to outbid other transfer companies who are awaiting court approvals. Subsequent NASP panels of transfer attorneys and judges, as well as sidebar discussions with angry representatives of companies outbid by competitors, confirmed Nesbitt prediction and suggested a strategic marketing shift is already occurring among transfer companies.

Brenston Case

In a separate presentation, Nesbitt reviewed the Peachtree Settlement Funding v. Brenston case and its 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, which Illinois Circuit Courts had 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".

An Amicus curiae brief filed by NASP with the Illinois Supreme Court stated: "Without the certainty and finality of a court order, there is no viable secondary market.... 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."

As NASP predicted, the denial of Peachtree's petition for review was quickly followed by Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, a class action lawsuit, accusing JGWPT Holdings, Inc., several affiliate companies including J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Settlement Funding, 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.

As a result of Brenston, according to Nesbitt:

• Many Illinois structured settlement recipients lack liquidity options because many transfer companies are avoiding the state.
• Some transfers continue to be completed in Illinois when all interested parties agree to waive existing anti-assignment language.
• Some annuity providers, however, will not waive anti-assignment provisions in Illinois cases while others evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.
• Attorneys for some annuity providers are citing Brenston to challenge transfers in other states.

Discounted PV and Applicable Federal Rate

The NCOIL State Structured Settlement Protection Model Act, which NSSTA and NASP have agreed to support, contains a definition for "discounted present value" linked to "the most recently published Applicable Federal Rate for determining the present value of an annuity, as issued by the United States Internal Revenue Service." This rate is generally higher than, and unrelated to, the discount rate actually incorporated into most structured settlement transfers. Nesbitt concluded his conference presentations with a detailed critique of NCOIL's discounted PV definition and explained why NASP believes this definition confuses rather than informs state judges.

Additional Presentations

NASP's conference featured two additional individual presentations.

Former NSSTA Deputy Executive Director Peter Arnold predicted future integration of the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. To support his prediction, Arnold reviewed NSSTA's historic attitude toward "factoring transactions." Arnold also highlighted NSSTA membership qualifications which currently prohibit members from "actively soliciting and promoting structured settlement factoring transactions to individuals who are receiving periodic payments under structured settlements."

Pery Krinsky, an ethics-based defense attorney who serves as Chairman of the Committee on Professional Discipline of the N.Y. County Lawyers' Association, spoke about legal ethics issues. He did not mention Paris & Chaiken, a New York law firm accused of falsifying court orders approving structured settlement transfers, which has reportedly retained Krinsky as outside ethics counsel for assistance with these cases.

Panel Discussions and Breakout Sessions

NASP's 2014 conference included four panel discussions and four breakout sessions (see listings below). Panel highlights and issues addressed:

• Drafting Transfer Agreements - Assigned payments vs. assigned payment rights; clients vs. sellers or annuitants relating to transfer company fiduciary responsibilities; representations and warranties; holdbacks and deductions; limited powers of attorney; testamentary agreements; arbitration provisions.
• Primary Market - NSSTA Fall conference; MSA market; primary market surveys; impact of Affordable Care Act; ELNY update; PLR-143928-13 and "hardship conversions"; settlement planning developments; re-cycled structured settlements; Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013; provider company departures; primary/secondary cooperation opportunities; best and worst business practices; annuity provider issues with transfer companies.
• Responding to Insurer Transfer Objections - Confirming his company's "good relationship" with transfer companies, Madis Smit of State Farm highlighted several insurer issues: unanticipated costs of reviewing 15 to 20 transfers per week; inadequate notice (need at least seven days); difficulty in locating some requested settlement documents; split payment problems resulting from insurer technology limitations; "three touches" constitute an insurer ideal (petition; order; notice of approval). Additional issues discussed: proposed documents from insurers that do not meet state-specific requirements; protecting public information in case filings.
• Judicial Panel - "Best interest" considerations; multiple transactions; common mistakes by petitioners; privacy issues; discount rates; independent professional advisors. The judges also were encouraged to identify questions for the audience - and did so. All three judges expressed a need and interest for additional education about the secondary market.

Alexander Hamilton Award

NASP honored James Lokey as the 2014 recipient of its Alexander Hamilton Award. Lokey completed the first transfer of structured settlement payment rights in 1986 thereby launching the secondary market. NASP has bestowed its Alexander Hamilton Award seven times "to distinguished individuals who have supported and defended the right to free alienability of property rights." NASP considers this right to be its own cornerstone and the foundation of the structured settlement factoring business.

Topics and Speakers

• Welcome Remarks - Patricia LaBorde.
• Legislative and Regulatory Developments - Jack Kelly.
• Legislative Update - Earl Nesbitt.
• Drafting Transfer Agreements - Jason Sutherland and Brian Mack.
• Hamilton Award - James Lokey.
• Integration of Primary and Secondary Markets - Peter Arnold.
• Primary Market Panel - Patrick Hindert (Moderator), Daniel Durbin, Medora Marisseau, Mark Wahlstrom.
• Ethics Issues - Pery Krinsky.
• Responding to Insurer Transfer Objections - Michael Damore (Moderator), John Shafai, John Mott, Michael Green, Steven Mastrantonio, Madis Smit.
• Break Out Sessions
  • Preparing vs.Coaching a Problem Payee - Laryssa Korduba and Elyse Strickland.
  • Addressing Judicial Concerns - Roger Dunaway and Andrew Hillman.
  • Life Contingent Issues - Michael Fasano and Dan Bonner.
  • Bankruptcy Issues - Michael Damore and Adam Zoldessy.
• Illinois Litigation and Discounted Present Value - Earl Nesbitt.
• Judicial Panel - Matthew Bracy (Moderator), Judges Lynne Parker, Patricia Summe, Travis Francis.

For S2KM reports of additional 2014 educational conferences plus eight of the nine prior NASP conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP 2014 Secondary Market Panel

In addition to its other accomplishments (most notably publication of "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners"), the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has distinguished itself by sponsoring educational programs addressing issues, featuring speakers and permitting perspectives the more defense-oriented National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) traditionally has been reluctant or unwilling to offer.

SSP's 2014 Annual Conference, to be held April 27-29 in New Orleans, promises to continue this more open-minded educational tradition.

As one example,  SSP's Secondary Market Panel discussion will feature two leading structured settlement transfer legal experts whose clients typically oppose each other in significant secondary market cases:

• Stephen R. Harris - among other roles and accomplishments, Stephen (a partner at Drinker Biddle whose clients include annuity providers) recently served as co-Chairman of NSSTA's Legal Committee.
• Earl S. Nesbitt - in addition to representing factoring companies, Earl (a founding partner of Nesbitt, Vasser & McCown) serves as Legal Counsel and Executive Director for the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP).

SSP's Secondary Market Panel, which will be moderated by Patrick Hindert (S2KM's Managing Director and blog author), should be educational and entertaining - and hopefully somewhat controversial. Here are some of the questions the featured panelists will address.

Overview

• Is the secondary market good or bad for the primary structured settlement market?
• Among other objectives, IRC 5891 and the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Act) were enacted to protect claimants from predatory secondary market business practices. Both NSSTA and NASP supported these statutes. How successfully have these statutes accomplished their objective to protect structured settlement recipients?
• Based upon your experience, what changes or amendments, if any, would improve the Model Act?
• Would adding a multiple bid requirement as part of the "best interest" test improve the secondary market?

Troubling Developments

• During NASP's 2013 annual conference, 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.
• How prevalent are these business practices?
• What have NASP, NSSTA and/or other primary market participants done to address these issues? What should they do?

Falsified Orders

• Reports indicate a former paralegal at the New York law firm Paris & Chaikin falsified as many as 100 transfer orders?
• What happened? What is the status?
• How will these events impact the secondary market and its various participants including: the law firm, its secondary market clients, the annuity providers and the structured settlement recipient/transferors?

Anti-Assignment Restrictions

• Recent (Brenston) and current class action (Sanders) cases in Illinois address the impact of "anti-assignment" restrictions on transfers of structured settlement payment rights.
• What is the status of these cases and related litigation? What are the issues?
• Does the recommended assignment language in NSSTA's Model Qualified Assignment and Release Agreement solve this problem - or is some other solution necessary?
• What case-specific responsibilities do structured settlement brokers, settlement planners and other plaintiff advisers have related to anti-assignment restrictions?

Primary Market Responses

• MetLife recently adopted controversial new business practices whereby it opposes transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements.
• What is MetLife's rationale and objective?
• How are these business practices impacting the secondary market?
• The Florida state legislature is considering a bill that would add a maximum discount rate (similar to North Carolina) to its existing protection act..
• Is this a good idea?
• How has the North Carolina provision impacted the secondary market in that state?
• Why haven't more annuity providers offered commutation-like alternatives to third party factoring transactions? What impact would such alternatives have on the existing primary and secondary markets?

RLS Arbitrations

• RLS (formerly Rapid Settlements) has attempted to use the Federal Arbitration Act to side step state structured settlement protection statute requirements.
• What is the status of the related RLS litigation?

Conclusion

• What other secondary market issues do you see as important for the future of structured settlements?
• What opportunities exist for primary and secondary structured settlement market cooperation? What is preventing this cooperation?

For background about these secondary market issues, see the structured settlement wiki and more specifically these prior S2KM blog posts:

• Structured Settlements 2013 - Secondary Market
• Secondary Market Update - February 3, 2014
• Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings

For more detailed analysis of secondary market issues, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

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.