Beyond Structured Settlements

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NASP 2009 Annual Meeting - 3

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

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

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

Moderator: Earl Nesbitt, Executive Director of NASP.

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

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

Primary S2KM questions addressed by the NASP panel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S2KM applauds NASP for:

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

NASP 2009 Annual Meeting - 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NASP 2009 Annual Meeting - 1

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) hosted its 2009 Annual Meeting at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas November 12-13 almost one month following  NSSTA and SSP 2009 Fall meetings at the same location.

In comparison with traditional NSSTA and SSP meetings, the NASP 2009 educational program featured:

• More insightful and comprehensive strategic discussions;
• Broader perspectives from industry experts;
• Better analysis of legal and financial developments;
• Better analysis of structured settlement public policy;
• Better criticism of business standards and practices;
• Better recognition of industry leaders who are contributing to the growth and improvement of structured settlements.

Structured Settlement Wiki - for S2KM reports about prior NASP meetings, see the structured settlement wiki.

This S2KM blog post, the first in a series about the NASP 2009 meeting, highlights the NASP Alexander Hamilton honoree plus educational topics and speakers. Subsequent S2KM posts will summarize and analyze NASP discussions and provide interviews with some of the industry experts who spoke at the NASP meeting.

Alexander Hamilton Award - Van Tran was named 2009 recipient of NASP's Alexander Hamilton award. Van Tran is the California legislator who led the enactment of California SB 510 which amends and improves California's structured settlement protection statute.

NASP 2009 Educational Conference - Topics and participants:

• 2009 Legislative Developments - Matthew Bracy.
• Legal Case Update - Tricia Laborde.
• What Happened in California? - Michael Damore; Carl London; John Shafhi; Matt Eason; Linda Morris; Matt Bracy.
• Transactional Structured Settlement Issues - Tricia Laborde; Ken Barnett; Michael Green; Jim Klohn; David Barfield; Scott Topoloski; Kevin Mack; Joe Siegel.
• Structured Settlement Capital Markets - Jason Sutherland; Burt Kroner; John Ryan; Robin Shapiro; Josh Tobin.
• Structured Settlement Court Practices and Issues - Earl Nesbitt; Judge Edward Burke; Judge Christopher Marshall; Thomas Dixon; Roger Dunaway; Tricia Laborde; Amy Schwartz.
• Factoring and the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy - Jeremy Babener.
• Structured Settlement Bankruptcies - Bruce Akerly.
• Re-thinking Structured Settlements - Earl Nesbitt; Jeremy Babener; Matthew Bracy; Daniel Hindert; Richard Risk; Andrew Savysky; Robin Shapiro; Michael Upchurch.

For additional information about structured settlements, see:

• "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) co-authored by Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert;
• Wikipedia definitions for:
  • Structured settlement;
  • Structured settlement factoring transaction.