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. 

NSSTA Membership Qualifications

Is the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) guilty of hypocrisy when it prohibits its members from "actively soliciting and promoting structured settlement factoring transactions to individuals who are receiving periodic payments under structured settlements?"

NSSTA repeated its prohibition this week in a letter to members which NSSTA first distributed in 2006. NSSTA justifies its prohibition because NSSTA's Board of Directors consider structured settlement factoring transactions incompatible with NSSTA's mission. The primary mission of NSSTA, which appears in the NSSTA bylaws but not on the NSSTA website, is "to promote the establishment and preservation of structured settlements in order to provide long-term financial security to personal injury claimants and their families through periodic payment of compensation."

How could NSSTA's prohibition against promoting structured settlement factoring transactions be considered hypocrisy?

NSSTA's letter to its members identifies some of the types of factoring-related activities its Board of Directors has identified as incompatible with its mission. Conspicuous by their absence are: 1) purchasing structured settlement payment rights; 2) lobbying to enact structured settlement factoring legislation; and 3) amending model industry documents to facilitate factoring transactions.

It is common knowledge within the industry that multiple structured settlement annuity providers (NSSTA members), or their affiliates, are active purchasers of structured settlement payment rights after those payment rights have been securitized by structured settlement factoring companies. NSSTA, however, has made no apparent attempt to investigate and/or punish members who promote structured settlement factoring as purchasers thereby helping to generate demand.

NSSTA itself helped to legitimize and promote the growth of the structured settlement secondary market when it collaborated with the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) to draft and lobby in favor of IRC section 5891 and the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act. Coincidentally, both the primary structured settlement market and the secondary structured settlement factoring market experienced rapid growth following the 2001 enactment of these enabling laws.

NSSTA further supported and facilitated structured settlement factoring transactions following the enactment of IRC section 5891 when it amended its Model Qualified Assignment and Release form. Paragraph 7 of NSSTA's model form, which represents an important industry standard for structured settlement documentation, now reads in relevant part:

"Acceleration, Transfer of Payment Rights. None of the Periodic Payments and no rights to or interest in any of the Periodic Payments ... can be ....
ii. Sold, assigned, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred or encumbered, either directly or indirectly unless such sale, assignment, pledge, hypothication or other transfer or encumbrance .... has been approved in advance in a "Qualified Order" as defined in Section 5891(b)(2) of the Code (a "Qualified Order") and otherwise complies with applicable state law, including without limitation any applicable state structured settlement protection statute."

Having recognized and facilitated an historic change in structured settlement law, that NSSTA itself helped to enact, by amending a key section of NSSTA's core model settlement document, NSSTA's Board of Directors consciously and strategically failed to take one more critical step. They failed to reconcile NSSTA's mission with a legislative change that fundamentally redefined the structured settlement business.

As a consequence of continuing to promote a mission no longer in sync with existing laws, NSSTA has trapped itself and its members in a strategic dilemma of its own creation. NSSTA should be encouraging its members to utilize the new laws to improve their products and grow their market. Instead, NSSTA selectively proscribes legal activities and restricts innovation that cross an artificial behavioral line of NSSTA's own design. And for what strategic purpose?

So, as primary structured settlement sales plummet and secondary market structured settlement sales soar, is the attitude of NSSTA's Board of Directors toward structured settlement factoring stubbornly hypocritical or strategically challenged or both?

NASP 2011 Annual Meeting

Highlighting a year during which the secondary structured settlement market is exceeding previous annual transfer totals, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) cautiously celebrated its seventh Annual Meeting November 9-11, 2011 in Las Vegas with record conference attendance including member company representatives, affiliate attorneys and invited guests.

Recognizing its legislative successes, NASP honored its Executive Director Earl Nesbitt for his past lobbying efforts by awarding him with NASP's 2011 Alexander Hamilton Award. Nesbitt represented NASP in helping to enact Internal Revenue Code section 5891 and the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act upon which are based most of the related state structured settlement protection statutes.

NASP President Matthew Bracy additionally praised NASP's founders stating: "Through their vision, guts and determination, we have not only persevered but flourished. Today NASP celebrates the fact that structured settlement recipients, in compliance with federal and state laws, have the right to sell their asset when needed."

NASP Educational Program

Maintaining its tradition of inviting judges representing different states to speak, NASP's 2011 educational program featured a panel discussion of judges from New York (Honorable Judith McMahon), Texas (Honorable Alexandra Smoots-Hogan) and Mississippi (Honorable Denise Owens) moderated by Patricia LaBorde. Among other issues, the judges discussed how they interpret the "best interest" standard as well as their expectations for transfer company counsel, transfer documentation, disclosure of prior transfers and levels of proof in transfer cases.

Another highlight of NASP's 2011 educational program was NASP's decision to organize smaller breakout group discussions consisting primarily of NASP member general counsel and affiliate NASP member attorneys to discuss:

• Issues in Obtaining Court Approval of the Transaction; and
• Issues in Underwriting Structured Settlement Transactions.

Other Speaker and Topics

Robin Shapiro - Shapiro, Chairman of NASP's Legal Committee, summarized historical and 2011 secondary structured settlement legislative and case law developments. Among the specific cases and issues:

• Symetra v. Rapid - This ongoing litigation appears likely to be completed in 2011 with injunctions prohibiting Rapid Settlement's prior business practices of using arbitration to by-pass state structured settlement protection statutes and taking security interests to gain rights of first refusal for future transfers.
• Conflicts between "incumbents" and "insurgents" in the secondary structured settlement market with a substantial portion of new transfers including individual investors not just institutional investors.
• Confusion between transfers of structured settlement payment rights and "settlement liquidity" businesses involving other asset classes such as the increasing sale of veterans' benefits.
• At least one (unnamed) annuity provider that refuses to release guaranteed payments to investors when a payee dies resulting in delays and legal costs for transfer companies.

Leonard Bernstein - Bernstein, a financial services regulatory attorney, presented separate discussions about how 1) Dodd-Frank and 2) advertising laws impact structured settlements. Although both discussions were directed toward a secondary market audience, each also contained valuable information for primary market participants.

• Dodd-Frank - Bernstein's Dodd-Frank update focused on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a new federal agency . CFPB's central mission is "to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans ....." Among its core functions are to take consumer complaints and to restrict unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices under the Federal consumer financial laws. Dodd-Frank provides CFPB with authorities that go beyond the existing consumer protection statutes. CFPB has broad authority to ask questions and demand information including consumer complaints. Dodd-Frank also establishes the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry.
• Advertising - Bernstein's advertising discussion referenced sections of the Better Business Bureau's Code of Advertising that could impact structured settlement purchasing transactions (or primary market transactions) by prohibiting advertisements which are untrue, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, falsely disparaging of competitiors, or insincere offers including deception through omission. As one strategy to protect against false advertising, Bernstein recommended using disclaimers whose effectiveness depends upon their prominence and location.

Elizabeth Yingling - Yingling, a securities attorney, discussed how federal and state securities laws can impact structured settlements. In defining what constitutes a "security", Yingling focused on the meaning of an "investment contract" as that term was defined in SEC v. Howey, a 1946 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Yingling offered several practical tips for transfer companies to avoid the mine fields of the securities laws when marketing to individual investors and also emphasized the serious risks involved when dealing with unsophisticated investors.

Earl Nesbitt - Nesbitt discussed the concepts of "discount rate" and "discounted present value" both of which play an important role in court hearings to evaluate structured settlement transfer proposals. The Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act defines "discounted present value" to mean: "the present value of future payments determined by discounting such payments to the present using the most recently published Applicable Federal Rate for determining the present value of an annuity, as issued by the United States Internal Revenue Service." In addition to identifying many factors that can determine the discount rate for a specific case, Nesbitt summarized the results of a recent survey he conducted of the discount rates approved by judges in Harris County Texas. Results:

• The average discount rate: 15.8 percent;
• The weighted average (i.e. taking into consideration the relative case size): 12.96 percent;
• The lowest discount rate: 7.4 percent; and
• The highest discount rate ($3494 paid for $7282 due in less than one year): 61.3 percent.

Patrick Hindert - Hindert (author of S2KM's blog "Beyond Structured Settlements") provided a "Primary Market Report" addressing current industry challenges and issues. In addition to explaining why primary market annuity premium could fall below $5 billion for 2011, Hindert summarized the historical background and current status of Executive Life of New York (ELNY). The impact of the secondary structured settlement market on the ELNY liquidation has been underestimated in most ELNY reporting by primary market sources. According to reliable secondary market sources, however, payment rights from as many as 1000 of ELNY's remaining structured settlements are currently owned by secondary market companies and/or investors.

Joe Feltes - Feltes, an attorney whose clients include health care providers and whose legal expertise includes social media, e-mail and Internet use, spoke about privacy issues in structured settlement transactions. Based upon his research, Feltes expressed surprised at the paucity of information available about structured settlements and privacy issues. As one example, Feltes pointed out the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act does not address privacy. Before seeking and transmitting private medical information about structured settlement candidates and/or recipients, Feltes recommended obtaining purpose-specific written authorization including a waiver and release. In addition to HIPAA, Feltes discussed the privacy provisions contain in Graham Leach Bliley.

Congratulations to NASP for continuing its high educational standards with an outstanding 2011 Annual Meeting. Conference Chairperson Patricia LaBorde prepared helpful and related handout summaries for several of the presentations.

For S2KM reporting about prior NASP annual meetings plus additional analysis about the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning

The purpose of this blog post is to compare structured settlements and personal injury settlement planning. As noted in an earlier S2KM blog post, the transition from structured settlements to settlement planning is one of three fundamental transitions reshaping the structured settlement industry. The other two fundamental transitions:

• From a singular, illiquid, and non-assignable product to multiple products with greater flexibility to address changing needs and circumstances of injury victims;
• From traditional (pre-Internet) to web-based business models, processes and skill sets.

Among statutory definitions, "structured settlement" is defined in IRC 5891 (c)(1) and Section 2(m) of the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act. Wikipedia offers an additional definition for "structured settlement". Financing diagrams provide a visual perspective for understanding traditional structured settlement financing alternatives and methodologies.

As summarized in this history diagram, structured settlements and the structured settlement industry have experienced significant changes since structured settlements were first utilized in the United States during the late 1970s including:

• The secondary market;
• 468B qualified settlement funds;
• Integration with Medicare and Medicaid; and
• Integration with settlement trusts.

This transaction diagram demonstrates how, as an integrated product, structured settlements have become increasingly complex legally and financially with multiple stakeholders and documents.

One result of this increased integration and complexity has been the evolution of structured settlements from a stand alone product into a core product for a more comprehensive profession called "settlement planning" - which some participants refer to alternatively as "settlement consulting" or "special needs settlement planning".

Although no statutory or standard definitions exist for settlement planning, leading practitioners and advocates, including Jack Meligan and Joseph DiGangi, have offered their own definitions and explanations. In addition, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has adopted the "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" and offers a Registered Settlement Planner  (RSP) certification program.

Here is how Meligan, SSP's President, explains settlement planning:

• "Settlement Planning is the modern day [holistic] approach to assisting personal injury (and other types of) claimants with the personal, and highly unique, financial planning decisions surrounding the settlement of their claim.
• "Settlement Planning starts from the premise that structured settlements are not the answer to everything that everyone needs or wants to do with their settlement dollars.
• "Using that as a starting point, the first in a long line of questions for any personal injury claimant to answer is: 'What do you want this settlement to accomplish for you? What is the most important thing? Then, what is the, second most important, third most important, etc'.
• "Only after you, as the claimant, answer the question above should you really begin to craft a plan to help you reach those goals."

DiGangi spoke about "settlement consulting" at the 2009 Winter Meeting of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA).

• In what he termed "a wake up call for the industry", DiGangi criticized the traditional structured settlement business model and knowledge standards.
• He also outlined his vision for industry transition, improvement and growth which he termed "comprehensive settlement consulting".

DiGangi characterized the current structured settlement industry as "a stagnant market" based upon an outdated "annuity broker" business model. Structured settlement clients and competitors, according to DiGangi, share negative perceptions about structured settlement consultants. As examples of negative perceptions, DiGangi cited the industry's single product offering and limited knowledge base.

As an alternative to the "annuity broker" structured settlement business model, DiGangi proposed a "consultant" model with multiple products and services providing added value for, and with, other settlement stakeholders.

Characteristics of DiGangi's settlement consulting model:

• Planning orientation;
• Solutions before products;
• Blended products and services;
• Product neutrality;
• Compensation disclosure;
• Professional training and designations;
• Comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base.

During his 2009 NSSTA presentation, DiGangi also highlighted several transitional issues: licensing; conflicts of interest; collaboration models; and work process infrastructure.

S2KM will summarize and evaluate how SSP and NSSTA addressed "settlement planning" during their 2011 Annual Meeting educational conferences in a subsequent and related blog post.

Timothy Morbach of The Settlement Services Group (TSSG) developed the linked diagrams in this blog post. TSSG is an affiliate and strategic partner of S2KM Limited. Viewers can enlarge the diagrams to improve their visibility.

Business Standards and Practices - 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NAELA's Special Needs Summit - 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic answer: None of the NAELA speakers or unprograms:

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

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

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

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

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

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

NSSTA 2009 Fall Educational Conference

Meeting at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas on October 15 and 16, the NSSTA 2009 Fall Educational Conference provided a potpourri of perspectives on the central topic of structured settlements.

Although lacking a unifying theme and failing to provide noteworthy handout materials, the conference did offer a general industry overview and did address several important industry developments without encouraging or generating meaningful discussion or detailed inquiry.

The general overview featured structured settlement perspectives from selected industry stakeholders:

• Plaintiff attorneys - Neil Galatz and Jeffrey Mitchell;
• Defense attorney - Steve Jaffe;
• Special needs attorney - James O'Reilly (with NSSTA member Thomas Spratt);
• Life company executive - Joseph Barnet;
• Annuity agents (discussing mediation) - Tony Robinson; Alice Frisbee; Kathleen Osler; and Traci Kaas;
• Attorney and annuity agent (discussing history, myths and opportunities) - Karen Meyers;
• Congresswoman Shelley Berkley.

Industry developments featured:

• NSSTA General Counsel Craig Ulman;
• NSSTA lobbyist Eric Vaughn;
• NSSTA Legal Committee representatives - Peter Vodola; Ilana Hanau; Michael Miller; and Mark Alpert.

The most important industry developments discussed in Las Vegas:

• Warnings from Vaughn and Congresswoman Berkley about anticipated federal tax reform in 2010;
• Vaughn's report that some federal health care reform proposals include tort reform and periodic payment of judgments;
• Ulman's update about the increasingly precarious financial condition of Executive Life of New York;
• Alpert's summary of PLR 121876-08 permitting a tax-free "restructuring" of periodic payments;
• Hanau's summary of the Henderson v. Sioteco case where a California appellate court reversed earlier Fresno County trial court decisions and declared that public policy now supports state court approved factoring transactions.
• Vodola's summary of California's new structured settlement protection statute (SB 510) which includes a detailed definition for "best interest".

From a critical perspective, NSSTA's 2009 Fall Educational Conference represented a series of "missed opportunities".

Missed opportunity #1 - Karen Meyers, who co-developed and annually presents NSSTA's "Certified Structured Settlement Consultant" (CSSC) program, addressed a NSSTA educational program for the first time in several years - and didn't talk about the CSSC program.

Missed opportunity #2 - Meyers spoke instead about structured settlement myths - yet failed to address the most fundamental and controversial NSSTA myths including "squandering injury victims" (see: "Dissipation Studies") and "how structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance" (see: "Structured Settlement Credo")

Missed opportunity #3 - NSSTA's educational program failed to acknowledge, respond to, or apparently understand, two recent strategic challenges which question the focus and scope of NSSTA education:

• Internal challenge - Joseph DiGangi's "Settlement Consulting" presentation at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting;
• External challenge - The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) Registered Settlement Planner Certification Program.

Missed opportunity #4 - related to missed opportunity #3: NSSTA's educational programs continue to ignore the strategic relationship among structured settlements, financial planning and life care planning.

Missed opportunity #5 - although NSSTA's legal committee has successfully expanded the scope of NSSTA's structured settlement legal education (from "Tax Posse" to "All Things Considered"), their programs tend to be repetitive (e.g. "Contracts 101") and fail to translate current legal developments into broader topical presentations.

Suggested future legal committee educational topics:

• What NSSTA members need to know (and tell their clients) about IRC 5891, state protection statutes and structured settlement factoring transactions;
• What NSSTA members need to know (and tell their clients) about IRC 468B qualified settlement funds;
• Comparative business standards and practices for various structured settlement stakeholders and "competitors" - insurance agents; financial securities salespersons; attorneys; trustees.
• Transactional analysis - what does a structured settlement look like in the context of 468B qualified settlement funds; special needs trusts; Medicare set-aside arrangements; and secondary market transfers?
• Integrating annuities with settlement trusts - how do integrated products impact traditional structured settlement planning, documentation and education?

Many structured settlement leaders no longer attend NSSTA educational conferences - especially those leaders who are defining the future of the structured settlement industry. When those industry leaders do attend NSSTA conferences, they attend primarily for networking opportunities or committee meetings - not for the educational programs.

With some exceptions, NSSTA's educational programs are no longer educational. They are mundane, repetitive and suitable primarily for persons new to the industry. Controversial subjects do not appear on the program - or they are circumscribed to avoid controversy. Debate is discouraged. Speakers rarely face tough questions - or provide handout materials.

Perhaps it is time for NSSTA to re-think structured settlements and structured settlement education. What will it take to attract a new generation of structured settlement leaders to join and participate in NSSTA? What will it take to re-engage the industry's best and brightest professionals in NSSTA's educational programs? The NSSTA Fall 2009 educational conference in Las Vegas highlighted those issues without providing any answers.

For prior S2KM reports about NSSTA educational programs, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2009 Annual Meeting - 1

To borrow a baseball analogy from Len Blonder, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) "hit a home run" (or rather a series of home runs) during its 2009 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. April 28-May 1.

Blonder's comments to NSSTA attendees about "federal and state issues", which occurred near the end of an exceptional NSSTA program, served as a belated key note address for the entire NSSTA program.

Blonder was one of three NSSTA past-Presidents, along with Henry Strong and Chris Diamantis, whom NSSTA, and new NSSTA President Daniel Durbin, honored during its meeting.

Blonder, a two-time NSSTA President who continues to co-chair NSSTA's Legislation and Regulation Committee, spoke passionately about baseball and structured settlements. Blonder traced his involvement in structured settlements to the late 1970s when he helped organize a pre-NSSTA political coalition which formulated, and eventually helped to enact, the original structured settlement tax legislation in 1982.

With support from Blonder and its Legislation and Regulation Committee, NSSTA announced and introduced a new "D.C. two-step" political strategy: move one-step backward before moving two or more steps forward.

NSSTA's backward step:

• Re-focus on "protecting, preserving and promoting" structured settlement laws already enacted in the United States Internal Revenue Code and 47 state structured settlement protection statutes;
• Consolidate and transition NSSTA's administrative, financial and political strengths.

NSSTA's forward steps:

• Continue enhanced education about Medicaid and Medicare as cornerstones for growing the structured settlement market;
• Continue to define NSSTA's Internet strategy and online voice.

NSSTA's strengths were displayed during the 2009 Annual Meeting.

• Joseph Ricci, NSSTA's new Executive Director, summarized improvements in NSSTA governance.
• NSSTA announced:
  
  • New NSSTA voting bylaws;
  • Election of new Directors Betty Gregware and Daniel Finn; plus
  • A new NSSTA Channel on YouTube.
• NSSTA's program featured presentations from:
  • NSSTA lobbyist Eric Vaughn;
  • NSSTA marketing consultant Peter Arnold; and
  • NSSTA General Counsel Hogan & Hartson partner Craig Ulman.
• In addition to his "Washington Report" Vaughn organized an impressive delegation of congressional speakers for NSSTA:
  
  • Senator Richard Durbin (D) from Illinois;
  • Senator Charles Grassley (R) from Iowa;
  • Congressman Charles Rangle (D) from New York;
  • Congressman James Langevin (D) from Rhode Island;
  • Congressman Joseph Crowley (D) from New York;
  • Congressman Dave Camp (R) from Michigan;
  • Congressman Brian Higgins (D) from New York;
  • Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz (D) from Pennsylvania;
  • Congressman Joseph Courtney (D) from Connecticut;
  • Plus the Chiefs of Staff for four congressmen.

Among the political speakers, Senator Durbin, uncle of NSSTA President Daniel Durbin, was the most focused on structured settlement issues. Senator Durbin promised to:

• Support IRC sections 104(a)(2) and 130;
• Address structured settlement secondary market advertising as part of his proposed Financial Product Safety Commission.

Ricci, Vaughn and NSSTAPAC Chairman Brad Cantwell complemented NSSTA congressional presentations with a NSSTAPAC status report.

In addition to the congressional speakers, NSSTA's educational program featured exceptional structured settlement and settlement planning presentations:

• Industry Update and Looking Forward - Transitioning NSSTA Presidents Chris Diamantis and Dan Durbin offered their strategic analyses;
• "All Things Considered" - NSSTA's legal committee has upgraded the quality and scope of its educational contributions:
  
  • Michael Miller summarized Spencer v. Hartford;
  • Ilana Hanau spoke about the Fresno County factoring cases;
  • Craig Ulman re-introduced "Exemption of Structured Settlement Payments" as a sales and marketing enhancement to help grow structured settlements.
• Medicare and Medicaid - NSSTA's government benefits committee sponsored two panel discussions.
  
  • Roy Franco, Mark Popolizio, David Korch and Rafael Gonzalez spoke about Medicare and structured settlements;
  • John McCulloch, Timothy O'Driscoll and Dennis Mc Andrews spoke about Medicaid and structured settlements.

• 35W Bridge Collapse - Jerry Lothrop summarized structured settlement results and lessons learned from the Minnesota August 1, 2007 bridge collapse.
• Financial Strength Ratings - William Pargeans of A.M. Best emphasized strong fixed annuity sales trends despite low interest rates;
• Ethics - Mike Jones continued a revitalized NSSTA priority:
  • Asking the NSSTA audience: "why be ethical?" and
  • Challenging the NSSTA audience to identify and support ethical leaders within the structured settlement industry.

Congratulations to NSSTA for an outstanding 2009 annual meeting in Washington, D.C. Future S2KM blog posts will offer commentary.

For S2KM reports about prior NSSTA meetings, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

SSP 2009 Annual Meeting - 1

The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) hosted sequential annual meetings the week of April 26 in Washington, D.C. This blog post begins S2KM's reporting about those meetings.

SSP's meeting (titled "Securing the Financial Needs of Injury Victims and their Families") was notable for the diversity of attendees, topics and viewpoints. Several NSSTA members were among the attendees as well as settlement planning and secondary market attorneys, annuity and trust providers, primary and secondary market intermediaries, authors, bloggers and law students.

Former NSSTA Executive Director Randy Dyer was a featured SSP speaker. Dyer spoke twice and provided:

• A definitive history of structured settlement insolvencies - annuities and bond trusts.
• An allegorical lesson about how to jump start structured settlement annuity sales.

Kevin Mack, former Director of Travelers' structured settlement program and former Chairman of NSSTA's legal committee, offered insights to "in-house" structured settlement programs. Mack made several recommendations for growing and improving the structured settlement industry including: more plaintiff intermediaries; improved education for judges and plaintiff attorneys; plus mandatory "disclosure" of structured settlement compensation and conflicts of interest.

Joseph Tombs, SSP's new President and Chairman of the Registry of Settlement Planners (RSP) Board of Directors spoke about three topics. Tombs:

• Reported on the status of the RSP program;
• Honored the first 10 RSP graduates;
• Outlined current "state of the art" for settlement planning.

Richard  Risk moderated SSP's settlement planning tax panel headlined by Sylvius von Saucken and Peter Wayne. von Saucken and Wayne responded to a series of Risk's questions addressing qualified settlement funds (QSFs), commutations, estate taxes, punitive damages, non-qualified assignments and sexual battery tax requirements among other issues.

Texas attorney Phillip McCrury surveyed state laws for judicial approval of minors' settlements. Common features in many states: "best interest" test; prohibitions against conflicts of interest; segregated accounts; guardian ad litems; and "reasonableness" of attorney fees.

Mark Popolizio reported on Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA). Popolizio summarized the new CMS NHGP User Guide and addressed reporting triggers, deadlines and issues for "responsible reporting entities" (RREs).

Eric Nordman, Research Director for the NAIC, discussed "life insurance insolvencies". Nordman summarized historic data and warned about future issues including systemic risks and the challenge of defining "transparency".

Christi Fried and David Eichenbaum spoke about settlement trusts and settlement planning software respectively. Tim Nay's presentation about "special needs trusts" outlined relevant laws and added practical advice and perspective.

Anthony Alfieri's "Litigation and Legislative Update" summarized Spencer v. Hartford; the PLR for non-qualified assignments; plus the Fresno County and Rapid Settlement factoring cases among other topics.

John Bowman, Director of Federal Relations for the American Association for Justice (AAJ), discussed how the 2008 elections have impacted AAJ's political priorities. One primary AAJ objective: keep medical malpractice out of anticipated health care reform.

Patrick Hindert, Managing Director of S2KM Limited, offered strategic analysis about the current settlement planning industry.

Congratulations to SSP, and especially Greg Maxwell, Joseph Tombs, Richard Risk and Rhonda Bentzen, for their continuing high education and annual meeting standards.

In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will:

• Summarize the NSSTA 2009 Annual Meeting;
• Analyze and compare the settlement planning and structured settlement industries.

Spencer v. Hartford - 3

Spencer v. Hartford is a class action civil lawsuit potentially involving more than 9000 plaintiffs who received structured settlement annuities from Hartford insurance subsidiaries. The plaintiffs allege:

• Hartford has conducted a structured settlement program called "Secured Benefit Services" (SBS) since 1992 that violates the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as state laws prohibiting fraud.
• Hartford began a "Broker Assistance Program" (BAP) in 1997 using structured settlement brokers selected by Hartford, who are not named as defendants in the civil class action, to further the mission of the SBS program. 

The case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals following a March 10, 2009 decision by the U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut granting plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel .

Prior S2KM blog posts:

• Spencer v. Hartford - 1 summarizes the case to date including chronology, participants, plaintiffs' allegations, District Court decision and defendants' Petition for Appeal.
  
• Spencer v. Hartford - 2 provides S2KM commentary about the plaintiffs' allegations, potential damages, the NSSTA Code of Ethics, and selected educational discussions from the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting.

This S2KM blog identifies and recommends:

• Questions;
• Lessons;
• A proposed solution.

Questions:

• Will the plaintiffs' RICO and state fraud allegations in Spencer v. Hartford be adjudicated or settled?
• How does Hartford, recognized as "one of the World's Most Ethical Companies" and honored for "its products, services, research, philanthropy, and programs supporting individuals with disabilities" justify its SBS and BAP structured settlement programs?
• Did any Hartford employees or participating structured settlement intermediaries (incorrectly called "brokers') question the legality of the SBS and BAP programs?
• Has any structured settlement intermediary, defendant or plaintiff, in any Hartford case ever refused to share or receive annuity commissions from Hartford on account of the SBS and BAP programs?
• Will federal authorities initiate criminal RICO charges against Hartford and the structured settlement intermediaries who participated in Hartford's SBS and BAP programs?
• Should federal officials consider Spencer v. Hartford if and when Hartford applies for TARP funds?
• Should trial attorneys who originally represented Spencer v. Hartford plaintiffs in structured settlements with Hartford be held accountable for their incompetency, lack of due diligence, or poor advice?
• How widespread among insurance companies and structured settlement intermediaries are Hartford's allegedly illegal structured settlement business practices?
• Does Spencer v. Hartford reveal a continuing pattern of industry business behavior consistent with allegations in prior lawsuits such as Weil v. Manufacturers and Macomber v. Travelers?
• Regardless of case outcome:
  • What lessons, if any, will the structured settlement industry learn from Spencer v. Hartford?
  • What, if anything, about Spencer v. Hartford causes "shocked disbelief" among structured settlement stakeholders - to borrow a term and line of inquiry from Father Oliver Williams' Ethics Course at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting.
  • Will Spencer v. Hartford promote the structured settlement industry "wake-up call" Joseph DiGangi recommended when he criticized the traditional business model during his "settlement consulting" discussion at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting?

Lessons

• Structured settlements are complex and involve many federal and state laws and potential long-tail legal and financial liabilities.
• If you are a structured settlement participant and/or stakeholder, you should understand, obey and help improve the laws.
• The traditional structured settlement business model ("claim management") is inherently flawed and promotes conflicts of interests which are rarely identified, discussed or disclosed.
• Structured settlement compensation arrangements and relationships generally are not disclosed.
• Most plaintiff trial attorneys lack professional competence to advise their clients about settlement issues.
• Structured settlement stakeholders are not capable of self-regulation.
• The NAIC and state insurance regulators are not capable of regulating structured settlements or settlement planning under current laws, regulatory authority and budgets.

Proposed Solution

• Controlling criteria:
  • Judicial approval of structured settlements;
  • Standards and requirements:
    • Best interest test;
    • Due diligence;
    • Disclosure - compensation and conflicts of interest;
    • Informed consent;
    • Licensing;
    • Certification.
• Laws and regulations
  • Identify, preserve and promote existing structured settlement laws;
  • Improve state structured settlement protection statutes;
  • Apply the state protection statutes to the primary market;
  • Better integrate structured settlement laws with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans' benefits; and Federal housing laws.
• New business models
  • Re-define the "claim management" structured settlement business model:
    • Defendants' first priority in structured settlement cases should be to obtain a full legal release.
    • If defendants want to participate in settlement planning, they should:
      • Study settlement planning;
      • Understand the laws, products, documentation and participants;
      • Re-organize and re-focus their structured settlement business models, objectives, procedures and partners.
  • Grow the "settlement planning" business model featuring:
    • Qualified settlement funds (QSFs);
    • Structured settlement annuities - qualified and non-qualified under IRC 130;
    • Settlement trusts;
    • MSAs;
    • SNTs;
    • New products such as tax-free disability funds;
    • Secondary life and annuity markets.
• Re-learn and re-market structured settlements
  • Re-study structured settlements from a settlement planning perspective;
  • Feature and promote structured settlements as a strategic component for settlement planning learning, certification, products and business standards.
  • Identify settlement planning knowledge experts and learn about their expertise, work product, professional associations, online communities, networks and learning resources.
  • Design new business models utilizing, and compatible with, existing and emerging Internet technologies as well as new settlement planning laws and products.
  • Schedule and require ethics classes focused on structured settlement and settlement planning business conduct;
  • Organize, promote and participate in community service activities with and for disability associations.