Beyond Structured Settlements

SSP 2017 Annual Conference

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

"Until recently," Tombs stated in an S2KM interview, "that view was entirely accurate. A plaintiff broker would simply order new business cards with the new title ('Settlement Planner') proudly displayed. Today, however, that transition creates changes in expectations, applicable standards of care, and required levels of disclosure."

Just as significant, under Tombs' leadership, SSP has made a dramatic policy shift: "to pull back completely from structured settlement politics". Tombs quickly adds, however: "Our refusal to take a position should not be misunderstood to imply anything about our individual members." For example: "[t]he SSP has been a zealous advocate of the single-claimant QSF in the past and I doubt any of our members have changed their opinions on the subject. We are not asking our members to suppress or to modify their own beliefs."

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Although most of the SSP members who produce structured settlements are also NSSTA members, according to Tombs, he also maintains that most SSP members, sponsors and seminar attendees do not sell structured settlement annuities.
• SSP has developed a new set of "Practice Standards" which it introduced during its 2017 Annual Conference because, according to Tombs, "professionalism requires a set of common standards recognized by those calling themselves settlement planners as well as the consuming public."
• Tombs also announced that a committee of the SSP Board will be "modernizing" SSP's existing "Standards of Professional Conduct" because this current ethical code is "too structured settlement centric".
• Tombs, as well as other SSP members, believes that settlement planning represents a uniquely superior business model compared with traditional structured settlements. Most structured settlement annuity providers, according to Tombs, "[don't] understand the significance of settlement planning - or how it differs and/or relates to structured settlements."
• From a plaintiff or plaintiff attorney perspective, Tombs characterizes settlement planners vs. structured settlement brokers as "unfair competition". "My experience has shown," Tombs states, "that whenever a plaintiff attorney sees and understands the settlement planning model, they will never again be satisfied with a structured settlement broker who only offers one product as a solution for a client's comprehensive needs."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SSP/ASNP 2016 Annual Conferences

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

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

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

SSP TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

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

ASNP TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

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

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

S2KM COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SSP Leadership

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

Marketing Feedback - NSSTA Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys

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

Settlement Planning - A Special Needs Perspective

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

The Grillo Case

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

The Mraz Case

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

Plaintiff Broker Diversification

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

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

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

SSP 2013 Annual Meeting

Since it was founded in 2001, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has defined itself as an alternative to the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA); and defined its membership as more than plaintiff structured settlement brokers. The resulting settlement planning business model features:

• Structured settlement annuities as a core funding product, but not as a singular funding vehicle or product, for personal injury settlement plans; and
• Settlement planners, as "claimant centric", multi-professional, advisers who collaborate as a team and offer injury victims and plaintiff attorneys complementary knowledge, skill sets and work product.

To support and expand this settlement planning business model, SSP has developed and promoted:

• Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners;
• The Registry of Settlement Planners certification program; and
• Annual educational conferences.

To improve and grow both the structured settlement and settlement planning markets, SSP President Charles Schell has proposed the following strategy:

• "Study and improve our business standards and practices.
• "Develop "customer centric" solutions that help injury victims.
• "Build collaborative business models by focusing on shared interests."

SSP recently announced the agenda for its 2013 Educational Conference which will take place May 5-7 in Las Vegas. Featured topics and speakers, organized by S2KM-suggested categories:

Motivation, Marketing and Perspective

• The Art of Significance - Dan Clark
• Overcoming Objections and Managing Opportunities - Frank Maguire
• Life Lessons from the Lottery - Don McNay

Affordable Care Act (ACA)

• Impact on Personal Injury Settlements, Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts - Thomas Begley
• ACA Panel - Thomas Begley; Pi-Yi Mayo; Karen Meyers

 Qualified Settlement Funds

• Update - Pi-Yi Mayo
• Panel - Pi-Yi Mayo; Don McNay; Andy Cook; Mark Wahlstrom.

 Settlement Planning Team

• Partnering with Ancillary Service Providers - Anthony Prieto; Dave Place
• Professional MSA Administration - Don Batchelor
• Tax issues - Jeremy Babener
• Partnering with Investment Professionals - Victor Wilkerson
• Working with Benefit Expert Attorneys - Peter Wayne

 Government Benefit Issues

• MSA Allocation Process - Michael Greco
• Social Security Disability Benefits - Omar Ortega and Kip Daniels
• Spend Downs - Kristen Behrens; Thomas Begley
• How to Fix the MSA Program - Doug Shaw

 Settlement Trusts

• Settlement Trusts - Karen Meyers
• Funeral Trusts - Scott Leonardi
• Pooled Trusts - Jason Lazarus

Settlement Planning Products

• Long-term Care Insurance - John Darer
• Guaranteed Index Annuities - David Salko and John O'Connell
• Defined Benefit Plans for Plaintiff Attorneys - Rosendo Zepeda, Jr.

 Related S2KM Resources:

• Spring 2013 Educational Conferences
• SSP 2012 Annual Meeting
• Settlement Planning in 2012
• Alternative Business Models
• ASNP 2013 Annual Meeting

NASP 2012 Annual Conference - 2

Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the enactment of IRC 5891, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) hosted its 2012 Annual Conference last week in New Orleans.

The conference featured an ambitious and successful educational program highlighting prior NASP accomplishments and focusing on emerging issues that impact both the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. For the first time in NASP's history, conference attendance was open to primary market participants.

S2KM previously published an introductory blog post identifying NASP 2012 conference speakers and topics and providing links to S2KM reports from previous NASP conferences. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will recap speaker presentations.

This blog post offers S2KM's general observations and impressions of some of the broader structured settlement industry issues based upon NASP's 2012 conference.

Why Has Factoring Flourished?

Compared with the primary structured settlement market, both NASP and the secondary market appear to be flourishing. What explains this paradoxical success?

The groundwork for secondary structured settlement market success began in 1997 when NASP launched a strategic lobbying initiative resulting in the enactment of IRC 5891 and NCOIL's Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Act).

Although neither legislative development would have been possible without support from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the lobbying agendas of the two associations were markedly different. Ultimately NASP prevailed on several critical issues including:

• "Best interest" standard vs. NSSTA's preferred "financial hardship" standard.
• Denying annuity owners and providers the right to veto proposed transfers.
• Eliminating maximum discount rates.

In addition to NASP's lobbying success, NASP's members have achieved considerable, and controversial, marketing success utilizing aggressive television advertizing and sophisticated Internet techniques. As one measure of this marketing success, the primary market now claims the secondary market has "stolen the structured settlement brand".

Both the primary and the secondary structured settlement markets were devastated by the 2008 financial crisis which:

• Temporarily shut down asset-backed securities markets including securities backed by structured settlement payment rights.
• Created an industry liquidity crisis which resulted in:
  • J.G. Wentworth, the largest secondary market company, entering bankruptcy in 2009.
  • AIG, the largest primary market company, receiving a financial bailout from the U.S. government in 2008 and 2009.
  • Both Wentworth and AIG have subsequently recovered and regained their respective market leadership roles.
• Reduced interest rates to historic low levels causing a substantial reduction in primary market sales beginning in 2009.

As of the 2012 second calendar quarter, the secondary structured settlement market appears to have fully recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. The primary market has not yet recovered. Part of the reason is that interest rates, whether high or low, affect the primary and secondary structured settlement markets differently.

Other reasons, however, also help explain the growing success of the secondary structured settlement market.

• Structured settlement transfers improve the structured settlement product by addressing a critical need for many structured settlement recipients - a liquidity need that was not properly addressed in the original settlement plan or, alternatively, resulted from unanticipated developments.
• Continuing strong demand exists among some institutional and individual investors for recycled structured settlement payment rights.

Linked Markets - Same Customers

Having failed politically to end structured settlement factoring, NSSTA, and many annuity providers, have adopted alternative strategies which appear to be misguided attempts to create obstacles and impede the growth of the secondary structured settlement market.

NSSTA's 2006 bylaw amendments represent one such example. As NSSTA explained to its members: "because [the secondary market] activities [prohibited by the amendments] are inconsistent with the membership qualifications, engaging in those activities can lead to suspension or expulsion from membership and to denial of new membership applications." (emphasis added).

The increasing "administrative fees" annuity providers charge factoring companies, either as a condition to avoid "opposed transfers" or to allow transfers of life contingent payment rights, represents another example. Ultimately, the structured settlement recipients who transfer payment rights pay for those administrative fees which, for some annuity providers, now represent a new profit center.

How do these types of actions help the structured settlement customer or improve the structured settlement industry?

Both NSSTA and NASP, and their members, share a common existential interest in IRC 104(a)(2) and 130. Both NSSTA and NASP recognize the anticipated re-writing of the U.S. tax code expected to begin following the 2012 Presidential election represents a threat to those tax sections.

Arguably, the existence of IRC 5891, which not only links to IRC 104(a)(2) and 130, but also to the 48 state structured settlement protection statutes, has both expanded and strengthened the U.S. structured settlement legislative framework.

Having collaborated to help enact IRC 5891 and the NCOIL Model Act, shouldn't NSSTA and NASP also collaborate to defend and maintain IRC 104(a)(2) and 130 - and to identify additional shared interests for structured settlement industry improvement and growth?

Improving Industry Education

In his opening comments at the NASP 2012 conference, outgoing NASP President Matthew Bracy challenged attendees to make the structured settlement transfer business better: "better in the marketplace, better in the courts, and above all better for the customers who so need the service this industry provides."

One way NASP "walks the walk" of secondary market improvement is by inviting its critics to speak at NASP conferences. NASP challenges these critics not only to address secondary market problems but also to recommend improvements.

Critics who have spoken at past NASP conferences include: Jack Meligan, Stephen Harris, Peter Vodola, John Darer, and Richard Risk. Other critics, including NSSTA leaders, have been invited but have declined to participate.

Jan Schlichtmann, keynote speaker for the 2012 NASP conference, began by stating: "I don't like your advertizing". He then praised NASP for inviting and encouraging criticism to better itself and the secondary structured settlement market.

NSSTA also has permitted criticism as part of its educational programs. Examples include: Joseph DiGangi (see: "Settlement Consulting") and Dan Clark (see: "SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings"). Whenever NSSTA has addressed strategically important and/or controversial issues (egs. IRC 468B and IRC 5891), however, NSSTA members generally hear only "politically correct" speakers and perspectives.

Because of the importance of issues such as qualified settlement funds (QSFs) and the secondary market for the future of structured settlements, NSSTA members increasingly must rely upon non-NSSTA educational programs and educational resources to interact with the people and ideas challenging and changing the structured settlement industry.

During 2012, these educational programs have included: the SSP conference, the ASNP conference, the Risk settlement planning practicum and the QSF symposium.

Fortunately for NSSTA members, as well as members of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), NASP has now opened an entirely new educational forum to challenge and expand their understanding of structured settlements.

QSF Symposium 2012 - 3

Writing publicly about conferences you have not personally attended can be dangerous and unprofessional. So also is quoting, and/or misquoting, portions of copyrighted presentations out of context - especially when you rely on unnamed sources for your material.

Professional protocols, however, have not prevented John Darer (in this blog post) from mischaracterizing my presentation at the QSF Symposium sponsored by Evolve Bank and Trust on September 27-28, 2012.

In his blog post, Darer falsely accuses me of highlighting the following "points" related to "[p]romises to pay periodic payments acquired in the secondary market":

• "No tax authority
• "No regulatory oversight
• "No credit/performance enhancements
• "No state ‘guarantee fund’ protection
• "No liquidity
• "Many risks associated with enforcing and monitoring receivables acquired through structured settlement payment rights ‘transfers’
• "An unrated (‘naked’) promise by delegee/obligor (i.e. ‘general unsecured creditor’)
• "Non-transferable"

I did no such thing.

The "points" John attributes to me did appear in the larger context of two copyrighted slides I presented and discussed at the QSF Symposium. They did not, however, apply to "promises to pay periodic payments acquired in the structured settlement market" - whatever that means. Nor did they apply generally to "structured settlement payment rights" purchased in the secondary market.

Instead, the "points" John has lifted (out of context and without proper attribution or permission) from two copyrighted slides refer to one specific type of transaction that might indirectly utilize structured settlement payment rights. And the purpose of the discussion, as I stated during my presentation, was to highlight issues that need to be addressed before this specific type of transaction will satisfy marketplace due diligence.

Of course, John actually would have had to attend the QSF Symposium - and to have heard my presentation - to understand these nuances.

Concerning this same presentation John did not actually attend, he also writes: "This represents one of the few occasions in over 8 years that Hindert has highlighted anything substantially negative associated with structured settlement transfers or investing in structured settlement payment rights."

Having previously addressed this canard about S2KM's biased reporting, I refer readers, including John, to this blog post for S2KM's response.

For additional S2KM reporting about the QSF Symposium, see the structured settlement wiki.

Patrick Hindert, Author

"Beyond Structured Settlements"

"Only Half the Story"

In an August 2, 2012 blog post titled "Uniform Fiduciary Standards Only Half the Story", John Darer offers the following critique of this earlier S2KM blog post: "It's a pity that an otherwise well written blog post by Patrick Hindert about Uniform Fiduciary Standards, unexplainably omits standards for the secondary market."

S2KM's blog post addressed the following issue: "What impact will a new uniform fiduciary standard, being developed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as one result of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), have upon existing structured settlement and settlement planning business models and practices?"

Without any discussion of the secondary market, S2KM's blog post also highlighted certain traditional primary market structured settlement business practices that fail to meet any fiduciary standard:

• Misrepresentations or omission of material facts; and
• Conflicts of interest - without written, informed client and/or customer consent.

John's blog post makes two valid points. First, that S2KM's blog post ignored secondary market standards. Second, despite enactment of IRC section 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes, bad business practices continue to exist in the secondary market. John's blog post identifies several such practices.

By "setting aside the good players", however, John's blog post spotlights existing bad business practices but does not identify or address secondary structured settlement market business standards. What are those secondary market standards - and how do (or should) these standards impact the primary market?

Looking specifically at the "uniform fiduciary standard" (the subject of the S2KM blog post in question), the related secondary market standard is the "best interest" test. There are three sources that establish and/or address this secondary market standard: 1) IRC section 5891; 2) the state structured settlement protection statutes; and 3) judicial interpretations of the "best interest" standard.

IRC Section 5891

IRC section 5891 imposes a 40 percent excise tax on any person who acquires structured settlement payment rights in a factoring transaction. The excise tax, however, does not apply if the transfer is approved in advance in a "qualified order" issued under an applicable state statute by an applicable state court.

IRC section 5891(b)(2) defines a qualified order as “a final order, judgment or decree” that satisfies two requirements: a qualified order must find the transfer of the structured settlement payment rights:

• does not contravene:
  • Any Federal or State statute or
  • The order of any court or responsible administrative authority; and
• Is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents.

State Structured Settlement Protection Acts

Forty-seven states have enacted some form of structured settlement protection act. While the various state SSPAs lack uniformity, most adopt the same terminology and share the same basic legislative scheme as the Model SSPA. Echoing IRC section 5891, the state SSPAs provide that structured settlement payment rights transfers are not effective unless they receive advance court approval. Under each of the state SSPAs, key terms are defined, procedures for obtaining court approval are spelled out, and required notices, disclosures and findings are established.

Although all of the state SSPAs incorporate the "best interest" test, the California statute is the only SSPA that defines best interest. Section 10139.5 (b) of the California Insurance Code lists 15 factors that judges should consider "[w]hen determining whether the proposed transfer should be approved, including whether the transfer is fair, reasonable, and in the payee’s best interest, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents" including:

“(1) The reasonable preference and desire of the payee to complete the proposed transaction, taking into account the payee’s age, mental capacity, legal knowledge, and apparent maturity level"; and

“(15) Any other factors or facts that the payee, the transferee, or any other interested party calls to the attention of the reviewing court or that the court determines should be considered in reviewing the transfer.”

Judicial Interpretations

In the absence of a state SSPA "best interest" standard, state courts have applied differing determination standards and have been reluctant to provide their own definitions. For example, here is a statement from a 2003 New York trial court opinion (In re Petition of Settlement Capital Corp.):

"Although the [New York] statute does not define the best interests of the Payee, developing case law and the intent of the statute suggest the Court should consider: (1) the Payee’s age, mental capacity, physical capacity, maturity level, independent income, and ability to support dependents; (2) purpose of the intended use of the funds; (3) potential need for future medical treatment; (4) the financial acumen of the Payee; (5) whether the Payee is in a hardship situation to the extent that he or she is in “dire straits”; (6) the ability of the payee to appreciate financial consequences based on independent legal and financial advice; [and] (7) the timing of the application."

Conclusion

What relevance, if any, therefore, does the secondary structured settlement market "best interest" standard have as primary market stakeholders contemplate the potential impact of a uniform fiduciary standard under the Dodd-Frank legislation?

Neither IRC 5891 nor any of state SSPAs apply their "best interest" test to primary market structured settlement sales. Only four of the state SSPAs (New York, Florida, Massachusetts and Minnesota) establish any primary market sales standards, each requiring certain mandatory written disclosures.

The secondary market "best interest" test, however, does raise important issues for the primary structured settlement markets. Most importantly, If structured settlement transfers are required to be in "the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents", why shouldn't a "best interest" test or fiduciary standard apply to the original structured settlement sale?

Thank you, John Darer, for pointing out the importance of this issue.

For additional discussion and analysis of secondary market business practices and the "best interest" test, see:

• Sections 16.02 ("History of Structured Settlement Transfers") and 16.05 ("Judicial Review of Transfer Applications") in "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J); and
• The structured settlement wiki:
  • Secondary market blog posts
  • S2KM reports about Professional Association Meetings including the National Association of Settlement Professionals (NASP).

For S2KM's 2006 analysis of "How the Primary Market Views Factoring", see this concept map. 

NASP 2011 Annual Meeting - 2

S2KM has received both positive and negative private feedback about S2KM's coverage of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) 2011 Annual Meeting. Although S2KM welcomes any feedback, private or public, negative feedback generally provides greater focus and incentive for afterthoughts.

Among the private criticisms S2KM has received:

• S2KM is biased toward (or has an affinity for) the secondary market at the expense of the primary market.
• S2KM criticizes primary market business conduct without reporting secondary market bad business behavior.
• S2KM should be more of a positive voice for change and not a muckraker.

Bias Toward the Secondary Market

S2KM believes that IRC 5891 and the state protection statutes have radically changed and improved both the structured settlement product and the structured settlement market. To paraphrase NASP President Matt Bracy: structured settlement recipients, in compliance with federal and state laws, now have the right to sell their asset (payment rights) provided a state judge approves the sale in advance as being in the "best interest" of the transferor/payee taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents. Instead of the "grey" secondary structured market that existed from 1986 to 2000, the secondary market is now regulated by state judges and the Internal Revenue Service with substantial penalties for transfer companies who do not comply with federal and state statutes.

Many primary market participants will disagree with portions of the above paragraph. They do not view structured settlements transfers either as a product improvement or as a recipient's "right" however that right may be qualified by statute. In S2KM's opinion, the primary market's general attitude toward and perspective of the secondary market since 2001 represent a serious strategic mistake that has caused considerable harm to the primary structured settlement market. Instead of improving their own products by adding commutation or transfer features, and re-learning how to sell their product in a statutorily re-defined market, the primary market continues to criticize and shun the secondary market.

By comparison, NASP regularly invites and welcomes critics to speak at its educational conferences. These critics have included blogger John Darer, two current co-chairpersons of the NSSTA Legal Committee Peter Vodola and Stephen Harris, and current SSP President Jack Meligan, as well as judges from states where structured settlement transfers are viewed most negatively. Among NASP presentations by S2KM author Patrick Hindert (Hindert), see "How the Primary Market Views Factoring".

Criticizing Business Conduct

Beginning in 2004, S2KM has reported and discussed both primary and secondary structured settlement market business practices and business models. For compilations of S2KM's reporting about secondary market business practices (good and bad), see the Secondary Market page on the structured settlement wiki. For detailed information about pre-2001 secondary market business practices and issues, see section 16.02[2] of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) of which Hindert is a co-author.

For S2KM reporting and commentary about primary market business standards and practices, see also the structured settlement wiki:

• Business Standards and Practices .
• Primary Market - includes IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds.
• Spencer v. Hartford .

Readers can judge for themselves whether S2KM criticizes primary market business conduct without reporting secondary market bad business behavior.

Positive Voice for Change vs. Muckraker

Wikipedia defines the contemporary use of the term "muckraker" to mean "a journalist who writes in the adversarial or alternative tradition or a non-journalist whose purpose in publication is to advocate reform and change." When S2KM began publishing in 2004, social media (including blogs, wikis and podcasts) represented an "alternative" to traditional print media and educational conferences. Social media provides an opportunity for unpopular or minority ideas and viewpoints to gain an audience not otherwise available. Unfortunately, social media also has a dark side which can include personal attacks and bullying.

In advocating for improved structured settlement business practices and business models, S2KM has attempted (with a few exceptions which S2KM regrets), to follow the lessons taught in "Getting to Yes" which at one time represented a guidebook of sorts for the primary structured settlement market. Perhaps the "Getting to Yes" method can still be useful to help a divided structured settlement industry improve and grow:

• Separate the people from the problem.
• Focus on interests not positions.
• Invent options for mutual gain.
• Insist on using objective criteria.

Without more strategic conversations that include all structured settlement stakeholders and perspectives, the structured settlement industry will never achieve its full potential. To the extent possible, S2KM intends to encourage and to be part of those strategic industry conversations. Some of S2KM's preliminary contributions appear on the following pages of the structured settlement wiki:

• Re-thinking Structured Settlements .
• Growing the Market .

New York Liquidation Bureau

What is the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) and what role will the NYLB play if and when Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) is liquidated?

According to its Mission Statement: NYLB "acts for the Superintendent of Insurance as the court appointed fiduciary and Receiver of impaired and insolvent insurance companies, to maximize assets and resolve liabilities, return rehabilitated companies to the marketplace or distribute the proceeds of the company in a timely manner to creditors."

The NYLB website adds:

• NYLB is "a unique entity. Receiving no funding from taxpayers, it carries out the responsibilities of the Superintendent of Insurance as Receiver, and acts on his behalf in the discharging of his statutorily defined duties to protect the interests of the policyholders and creditors of insurance companies that have been declared impaired or insolvent.
  
• "The NYLB has performed this function since 1909, when the New York State Legislature passed the law mandating that the Superintendent assume the separate responsibility of Receiver. In the case of each insurance company in receivership, the Superintendent as Receiver is appointed by the New York State Supreme Court. The Court approves all of the actions of the Superintendent, and by extension those of the NYLB."

The New York Court of Appeals held in 2007 in the case Dinallo v. DiNapoli that, in his capacity as liquidator of insurance companies, the superintendent of insurance is not a state officer and that the NYLB, acting as the superintendent/liquidator's agent, is not a state agency and therefore is not subject to state audit.

The Court of Appeals reasoned: "[t]he Bureau does not perform a governmental or proprietary function 'for the state', but rather runs the day-to-day operations of private businesses in liquidation pursuant to Supreme Court order. The Bureau is not part of the Insurance Department's budget, operates without the benefit of state funds, maintains its own errors and omissions coverage, and is represented by its own private counsel, not the Attorney General, as is normally the case when a state agency is sued. Thus, the Bureau is not a 'state agency' within the ambit of State Finance Law § 8(2-b)(a)."

The Court of Appeals added: "When acting as liquidator of a distressed insurer, the Superintendent operates as a statutory receiver who stands in the shoes of a private entity and 'takes immediate possession and control of the assets and proceeds to a liquidation of its affairs' .... Indeed, the Superintendent as liquidator occupies a legal status that is 'separate and distinct from the superintendent of insurance as the public official charged with regulating the insurance industry generally' .... Thus, while the Superintendent's role as liquidator is judicial and private, his role as regulator and supervisor is administrative and public. Consequently, the Superintendent as liquidator is not a state officer but rather one who acts on behalf of a private entity."

New York attorney Peter Bickford has written a series of blog posts (titled "Insolvency Process in New York") which are highly critical of the NYLB. According to Bickford, the NYLB had (as of 2007) more than 450 employees ("most of whom are protected by union contracts") and an annual budget of more than $100 million.

Bickford's primary complaint about the NYLB is that the "receivership process in New York lacks meaningful transparency and accountability." Although the NYLB has promoted "a new era of openness and accountability" (including external audits beginning in 2006), Bickford maintains the opposite is true. As a primary example, Bickford highlights the NYLB's "recent unprecedented use of the courts to further insulate itself from outside scrutiny and accountability". As evidence, Bickford points to the following provision which he states now appears in liquidation and rehabilitation orders issued by New York courts:

“The Superintendent as [rehabilitator] [liquidator] of [the company], his successors in office and their agents and employees are relieved of any liability or cause of action of any nature against them for any action taken by any one or more of them when acting in accordance with this Order and/or in the performance of their powers and duties pursuant to Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law."

By adding this paragraph to court orders of liquidation or rehabilitation, Bickford claims "the [NYLB] seeks to obtain immunity without any basis in the law", and for which he maintains there is no precedent. This immunity, according to Bickford, "bestows absolute immunity – including for gross negligence or intentional acts committed while acting as liquidator or rehabilitator of an estate."

How do Bickford's criticisms of the NYLB square with the rehabilitation, and anticipated liquidation, of ELNY?

• As of today, 20 years following its 1991 Order of Rehabilitation, the ELNY profile that appears on the NYLB website is threadbare.
• Without any public explanation, the much ballyhooed 2007 announcement of "an agreement in principle", whereby various insurers and guarantee associations apparently had agreed to pay $650 to $750 million to fund future ELNY payments (which is not publicly available), has never materialized.
• The participants in the agreement, which apparently included Allianz, Fireman’s Fund, Allstate, State Farm and Travelers among other liability insurers who previously purchased ELNY annuities to fund structured settlements, have signed confidentiality agreements with the NYLB.

In a separate blog post, Bickford quotes from a Business Insurance article reporting statements by Mark Peters, who then served as the NYLB Superintendent, about the ELNY 2007 agreement in principle:

“The contributions will be enough to offset the $2 billion deficit that ELNY is predicted to face in 12 to 15 years, regulators say. The deficit results largely from an overly optimistic assumption in ELNY’s 1992 rehabilitation plan that the estate would earn 10% annually on its invested assets, Mr. Peters said. The actual return was between 7% and 8%. The Liquidation Bureau is now assuming a future annual return of just over 6%, he said. Most of ELNY’s contracts will run off within 35 years, with the last contract expiring in about 70 years, he said.”

In his blog post, Bickford takes issue with Peter's ELNY explanation, stating in part:

• "Inadequate interest rate assumptions cannot begin to account for the purported deficit."
• "The 1992 plan of rehabilitation does not include interest rate assumptions."
• "The 1992 plan of rehabilitation specifically stated that that the cash flows from investments 'are projected to be sufficient to cover current [covered annuity] payouts for at least ten (10) years.'”
• "So if it is not the interest rate assumptions causing the purported deficit, what is causing it?"

ELNY sold an estimated 8,000 structured settlement annuities prior to entering rehabilitation. To date, all related ELNY structured settlement payments have been paid in full. The most recent financial statements for ELNY (as of December 31. 2010) show assets of $905,945,200 compared with liabilities of $2,474,317,342 resulting in a negative surplus of $1,568,372,142. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently appointed Jonathan Bing to serve as Special Deputy Superintendent of the NYLB.

On June 23, 2011 the Superintendent of the New York Insurance Department filed a motion to postpone the previous deadline for filing a proposed order and plan of liquidation for ELNY with the New York State Supreme Court of Nassau County from July 1, 2011 to August 10, 2011 "in order to present a comprehensive and consensual proposed Plan of Liquidation that maximizes the potential benefits for ELNY's structured settlement and other annuitants."

Thanks to John Darer whose earlier ELNY blog posts introduced S2KM to Peter Bickford's writing.

S2KM's complete ELNY reporting and analysis appear on the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements in 2010 - 2

Beginning in 2004, S2KM has utilized this blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") and related web 2.0 publications to report and analyze strategic developments impacting the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning (aka settlement consulting) industries.

Featuring industry leaders, commentators and professional association conferences, S2KM has attempted to highlight how legal and technology changes are redefining the traditional (pre-2001) structured settlement market including structured settlement public policy as well as structured settlement business standards, business practices and business models.

From S2KM's perspective, the following categories, people and developments defined the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning industries in 2010:

Professional associations

• S2KM attended seven professional educational conferences during 2010 which addressed structured settlement and/or special needs settlement planning issues:
  • National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) - 2
  • Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)
  • National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)
  • National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP)
  • National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)
  • Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)
• As a general observation, all of these conferences were valuable and complementary. For S2KM's 2010 (plus historical) conference reports, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.
• SSP, NASP and NAMSAP deserve special recognition for their 2010 strategic educational discussions featuring industry leaders, commentators and critics who offered alternative perspectives for improving and growing the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning markets.
• By comparison, NSSTA remains reluctant to openly discuss strategic industry issues or to include alternative perspectives in their educational programs. More positively, NSSTA representatives and members increasingly attend and speak at non-NSSTA structured settlement and special needs settlement planning conferences.
• NAELA's educational conferences are noteworthy because they regularly feature sections or entire programs titled "unprograms". NAELA's unprograms are moderated group discussions about specific topics. NAELA's 2010 Special Needs Summit included six separate one hour unprograms with a concluding unprogram wrap-up session. One example of a 2010 NAELA unprogram was titled "Collaboration Opportunities for Special Needs Attorneys and Financial Planners".

Industry leaders

• NSSTA promoted Eric Vaughn, who previously served as NSSTA's lobbyist, to replace Joseph Ricci as NSSTA's new Executive Director effective July 1, 2010. Peter Arnold, previously NSSTA's Marketing Director, was similarly promoted to serve as NSSTA's Associate Executive Director. NSSTA's Board of Directors elected Michael Kelly as its 2010 President and Dan Finn as its President-elect. NSSTA honored Congressman Peter Stark during its Annual Meeting as its 2010 Legislator of the Year. NSSTA also gave special recognition to Karen Meyers and Joseph Bornstein for their contributions to NSSTA's CSSC and NSSTAPAC programs respectively..
• SSP elected Jason Lazarus as its President for 2010-11 and Charles Schell as Vice President. SSP honored Richard Risk with the designation of "life member" for his contributions to SSP and the settlement planning industry. Joseph Tombs continues as Director of SSP's RSP certification program.
• NASP named Matthew Bracy as its new President succeeding Robin Shapiro. Earl Nesbitt continues as NASP's Executive Director.
• NAMSAP elected Michael Westcott as its President.
• NAELA honored Dick Traum as the first recipient of NAELA's Special Needs Leadership Award. Traum is the founder and CEO of Achilles International, a non-profit organization providing community support for athletes with disabilities with members in more than 70 countries.
• Amy Palmiero-Winters, ultra-marathoner and lower-leg amputee, was named during 2010 as the winner of the 2009 James E. Sullivan Award given annually to the top amateur athlete in the United States.

Industry commentators

• For the past several years, Robert Wood has been the preeminent tax commentator and author for the structured settlement and settlement planning industries. Wood's publications appear on the Wood & Porter website.
• During 2010, Jeremy Babener emerged as an important new structured settlement tax commentator and author specializing in public policy and proposing an expanded structured settlement tax subsidy. In addition to authoring several structured settlement articles for tax and legal journals, Babener participated as a featured speaker at both the SSP and NASP 2010 Annual Meetings and authored two blog posts for S2KM during 2010. Babener discussed his structured settlement writing (accessible on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki and Babener's Tax Structuring website) in this 2010 S2KM interview.
• Additional authors who wrote and published 2010 legal articles about structured settlement and special needs settlement planning issues included: Daniel Hindert, Matt Garretson, Sylvius von Saucken, Peter Wayne, Mark Popolizio, Gregg Polsky and Brant Hellwig.
• Both the Legal Broadcast Network and Ringler Radio continued to produce and distribute podcasts featuring structured settlement commentators during 2010.
• An increasing number of structured settlement and special needs settlement planning professionals published blogs during 2010 joining industry blogging pioneers such as John Darer, Mark Wahlstrom, Matthew Bracy and Jack Meligan.
• Incisive Media published two new updates (Release 47 and Release 48) for "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" during 2010.

Legislation

• Both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Health Care Reform) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) redesign the legal environment in which the structured settlement and personal injury settlement planning markets operate.
• Among the anticipated strategic consequences of health care reform:
  • An estimated 16 million more Medicaid participants - and therefore:
  • More special needs trusts;
  • More special needs attorneys;
  • More structured settlement annuities payable to trustees.
• Dodd-Frank re-writes federal banking law and creates a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. A key question, as yet unanswered, is whether the sale and/or purchase of structured settlement annuities constitutes a "financial product or service" under Dodd-Frank requiring regulatory supervision by the Bureau.

Regulations

• The United States Department of Treasury held a public hearing on February 23, 2010 focused on proposed new regulations for Internal Revenue Code section 104(a)(2). The proposed regulations, if enacted, would:
  • Eliminate the requirement that damages be based on “tort or tort type rights” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion, and
  • Incorporate 1996 legislation requiring that personal injuries and sickness damages be “physical” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion.
  • A subsequent S2KM interview featured John McCullough and Richard Risk, two of the structured settlement industry members who spoke at the hearing.
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) continued to issue administrative guidance during 2010 for enforcement of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act of 1980 and the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) reporting requirements for insurers. Featured discussions during the NAMSAP 2010 Annual meeting highlighted:
  • The increasing importance and complexity of the MSP statute for all personal injury stakeholders;
  • The need for these personal injury stakeholders (and their professional associations) to cooperate politically and educationally;
  • The challenges of integrating structured settlements, including rated ages, with Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) in the context of health care reform, CMS MSA regulations and related judicial rulings;
  • The evolving business models, claim management strategies and professional skill sets which are now emerging to address these challenges.

Case law

• The Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit which settled in 2010 represents one of the most important legal developments in the history of the structured settlement industry.
• Hartford's gross settlement payment of $72.5 million represents 4.5% of total premium dollars Hartford used to purchase structured settlement annuities for class members from January 1, 1997 to June 7, 2010.
• Among the plaintiffs allegations:
  • Hartford and its attorneys, brokers and agents violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed common law fraud in structuring its settlements.
  • Hartford's structured settlements were priced so Hartford retained 15% of the value of the structured settlements.
  • Hartford and its attorneys, brokers and agents misrepresented structured settlements including explicit or implicit reference to:
    • The "cost" of the annuity or structured settlement or portion of the settlement being structured; and/or
    • The "value" of the annuity or structured settlement or portion of the settlement being structured.
• Hartford, which stopped writing new structured settlement business in 2009, denied the allegations.

Technology

• Despite the accelerating technology advances revolutionizing society generally, the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning industries have been slow to study and incorporate these advances into their educational programs and business models.
• The best industry-sponsored technology education programs during 2010 were offered by Mark Miller during a NAELA webinar and Harry Margolis at the ASNP 2010 Annual Meeting. Both presentations provided introductory overviews of web 2.0 and including recommendations for integrating specific social networking tools into special needs legal practices.
• NSSTA initiated a NSSTA blog during 2010 and offered an educational program about Internet marketing during its 2010 Fall Education program.

Public policy

• Both SSP and NASP featured specific discussions and presentations about structured settlement public policy during their 2010 Annual Meetings. The discussions included industry commentators representing diverse viewpoints and priorities.
• Jeremy Babener followed his 2009 paper debunking industry myths concerning "structured settlement dissipation studies" with several 2010 articles and papers addressing structured settlement public policy issues. Babener's public policy writing is featured on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.
• Release 47 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" re-examined several structured settlement public policy issues related to single claimant 468B funds, structured settlement factoring transactions, dissipation by personal injury victims, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, special needs trusts and Medicare set-aside arrangements.
• In a 2010 Boston College Law Review article, professors Gregg Polsky and Brant Hellwig challenged the application of any structured settlement tax benefit for deferring attorney fees or payments to non-physically injured tort plaintiffs under general common law tax principles.

Business standards and practices

• The Spencer v. Hartford case raises many issues about structured settlement business standards and practices which require greater education and analysis if the primary market expects to improve and grow. For example;
  • Is the primary structured settlement market capable of self-regulation?
  • Why shouldn't key elements of the state structured settlement protection statutes (judicial approval; best interest test; compensation disclosure) be applied to primary market transactions?
  • As an additional requirement, or as an alternative, why haven't plaintiff attorneys and plaintiff consultants insisted upon a claimant's written informed consent before entering into a structured settlement?
  • Why haven't the SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct received more public discussion and analysis within the structured settlement industry?
• "Cash now" advertising represents one of the most highly criticized secondary market business practices. Although this practice continues to exist, NASP took an important educational step during its 2010 Annual Meeting by highlighting this issue and inviting secondary market critics to participate in the discussion.

Business models

• While other segments of, and products within, the special needs settlement planning market have expanded and improved in recent years, the structured settlement primary market in general has stagnated and retrenched.
• During 2010, however, representatives of the primary structured settlement market increasingly recognized their interdependency, and interacted, with other settlement planning professionals and professional associations such as special needs attorneys, life care planners, Medicare set-aside professionals and secondary structured settlement market participants.
• Future industry improvement and growth will require even greater appreciation and identification of shared interests as well as expanded implementation of shared political strategies, educational programs and business models.

Prior S2KM annual reports about the structured settlement industry and reports about industry association conferences are available on S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA and NASP 2010 Educational Conferences - 3

"Protect and Preserve" or "Improve and Grow".

These polar-opposite imperatives for the structured settlement industry represent S2KM's two strategic lenses for reporting and analyzing simultaneous educational programs this week in Las Vegas sponsored by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP).

S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, will attend portions of the NSSTA conference (as a NSSTA member and former NSSTA President) and participate in NASP's Friday morning "Industry Analysis" program (as a moderator and speaker). S2KM's continued reporting and commentary about the NSSTA and NASP conferences will appear on this S2KM blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") as well as S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA's strategic mandate is to "protect and preserve".

Question: what exactly does NSSTA want to "protect and preserve"?

The simple answer: Internal Revenue Code sections 104(a) and 130.

More strategically, what NSSTA wants to "protect and preserve" (to the extent possible) are business models and business practices ("good old days") that existed prior to:

• 1986 - Jim Lokey completed the first structured settlement transfer;
• 1991 - Executive Life insolvency;
• 1993 - Congress enacted IRC 468B and introduced qualified settlement funds;
• 1994 - Weil lawsuit settlement permitting structured settlement agents to work directly with claimants and plaintiff attorneys;
• 2001 - Congress adopted IRC 5891 and defined "structured settlement" as well as rules for structured settlement transfers;
• 2010 - Hartford settled the Spencer class action lawsuit (and departed the structured settlement business) following allegations of civil RICO and state fraud violations by Hartford, its agents, brokers and attorneys.

One result of NSSTA's "protect and preserve" mandate has been a "dumbing down" of NSSTA's educational programs - at least from a strategic perspective. Some of NSSTA's technical discussions are excellent. For example, NSSTA's legal committee has re-emerged as a leading structured settlement educational resource. And NSSTA's CSSC certification program continues to receive positive reviews despite low attendance and the lack of a continuing education (CLE) requirement.

NSSTA's primary educational problem is the application of its narrow and political strategic framework ("protect and preserve" as opposed to "improve and grow") for its educational programs. For example, NSSTA never invites knowledge leaders from NASP or SSP (or anyone critical of NSSTA political objectives) to participate in NSSTA's educational programs. For another related example, NSSTA educational programs never provide strategic discussions ("Industry Analysis") with alternative perspectives.

Bottom line: NSSTA's educational programs have fallen behind NASP and SSP who now represent the benchmarks for structured settlement educational excellence. For further S2KM reporting about NSSTA's educational demise, see: S2KM's analysis of NSSTA's 2009 educational program. Unfortunately, NSSTA's announced 2010 educational program looks like "the same old, same old" - at least from S2KM's strategic perspective.

By comparison with NSSTA, NASP will devote three hours of its 2010 educational program this week in Las Vegas specifically to "Structured Settlement Industry Analysis". This portion of the NASP program is subtitled: "How to Improve and Grow the Structured Settlement Industry".

Announced participants for this strategic discussion include industry knowledge experts who are members of NASP, SSP and NSSTA plus Jeremy Babener as an independent writer and analyst. Other participants include: Robin Shapiro, Earl Nesbitt, Matt Bracy, Andrew Savysky, Peter Vodola, Richard Risk, John Darer and Patrick Hindert - and continues prior NASP strategic discussions that featured: Stephen Harris, Jack Meligan and Michael Upchurch among others.