Beyond Structured Settlements

S2P2J Release 57 Highlights

The United States structured settlement market has been in existence for more than 35 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning.

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

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

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a March 2015 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 57 with online S2P2J subcribers receiving their update simultaneously with no additional subscription charge. Competent professionals confronted by structured settlement issues should have access to an up-to-date copy (or the online version) of this indispensable source book.

Release 57 Highlights - Release 57 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:

• WCMSAs - Release 57 re-positions and expands S2P2J's extensive summary of the new CMS rules for workers compensation Medicare set-asides, the fastest growing segment of the structured settlement primary market. Regulatory rules for liability MSAs remain essentially unchanged following the withdrawl by CMS on August 8, 2014 of it the liability MSA-related NPRM it had earlier submitted to the Office of Management and Budget.
• Indexed Annuities - PLR 143928-13 highlights the potential importance of indexed annuities and annuity riders as structured settlement funding alternatives. Release 57 features a new section explaining indexed annuities, differentiating variable annuities and summarizing the related PLR.
• Commutation Riders - PLR 143928-13 also provided favorable tax treatment for a commutation rider pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion as a potential alternative to factoring transactions. This PLR justified an expansion in Release 57 of S2P2J's current section discussing commutations.
• Non-qualified Assignments - Most non-qualified assignments depend upon off-shore assignment companies which raise tax and security issues for participants. Release 57 expands S2P2P's analysis of non-qualified assignments to address these issues.
• CLM Advisors Surveys - Release 57 summarizes results from two surveys commissioned by NSSTA to determine the value claims executives and adjustors place on structured settlements and structured settlement consultants. The results and related metrics are generally favorable and arguably provide a valuable marketing blueprint for defense brokers.
• ABLE Accounts - Release 57 features a new section describing ABLE Accounts, a tax-preferenced funding option authorized by the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act (ABLE Act) of 2014. Although some structured settlement consultants view ABLE Accounts as a competitive product, others see opportunities to fund ABLE accounts using structured settlements.
• Insurance Regulation - States historically have regulated insurance in the United States. As a result of the 2008 global financial crisis, however, new federal and international insurance regulatory agencies now exist which are targeting some of the largest structured settlement annuity providers among other financial and insurance companies. Release 57 adds a new section to introduce and explain these new regulatory developments and entities.
• ELNY and Reliance - The recent ELNY and Reliance liquidations have each impacted thousands of structured settlement recipients. Although judicial solutions have been fashioned, litigation continues - as least involving some ELNY shortfall payees. Release 57 updates S2P2J's extensive coverage of the ELNY and Reliance liquidations.
• Role of Plaintiff Attorneys - As structure settlements and personal injury settlement planning have become more complex, and plaintiff attorneys increasingly require the services of other settlement planning professionals, plaintiff attorneys should continue to perform certain essential structured settlement and settlement planning roles. Release 57 identifies and discusses those roles and provides additional related advice for plaintiff attorneys.
• Secondary Market Update - The continuing expansion of the secondary market has generated controversy and litigation as well as legislative reform and changing business practices. S2P2J continues to track these developments in expanding chapter 16 titled "Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights". Release 57 highlights include "anti-assignment" issues in Illinois originating with the Brenston case and the market "chaos" some secondary market participant see occurring as the result of the Washington Square v. RSL Funding case.
• IRC 104(a)(2) Treasury Regulations - Recent U.S. Treasury Regulations for IRC 104(a)(2) relating to the exclusion from gross income for amounts received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness make two primary changes to the current regulations which Release 57 summarizes in the context of S2P2J more extensive analysis in Chapter 2 of "Taxation of Damages Received by the Claimant".

For related S2KM blog reporting about structured settlement 2014 developments, see:

• Primary market
• Secondary market
• Settlement planning
• ELNY and Reliance

 

Structured Settlements 2014 - Secondary Market

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

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

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

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

What happened?

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

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

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

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

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

Brenston Case Law "Progeny"

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

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

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

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

Washington Square v. RSL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change of Directions for JGWPT?

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

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

Other 2014 Secondary Market Developments

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

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

For additional related S2KM reporting, see:

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

Structured Settlements 2014 - Primary Market

The United States structured settlement primary market has continued to slowly recover from its 2012 nadir during 2014 with first nine months annuity sales of approximately $3.9 billion resulting from 19,778 cases (as reported by Melissa Evola) a premium increase of 3% compared to $3.73 billion for the same period in 2013.

Total projected 2014 annual premium of $5.28 billion, however, is expected to fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry apogee ($6.2 billion in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007. For estimated annual structured settlement annuity sales since 1976, see the structured settlement wiki.

Adding these 2014 third quarter results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru September 30, 2014:

• Total annuity premium: $143 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 822,000
• Average annuity premium: $174,000.

Nine month 2014 sales results for individual structured settlement annuity providers (per Evola's report) which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) plus the rounded increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2013 results:

• Berkshire Hathaway - $1.113 billion (+ $79 million)
• MetLife - $678 million (+ $114 million)
• Pacific Life - $553 million (- $47 million)
• Prudential Life - $463 million (+ $90 million)
• Liberty Life - $430 million (+ $21 million)
• Amgen/USL - $378 million (- $57 million)
• New York Life - $206 million (+ $14 million)
• Mutual of Omaha - $40 million (- $10 million)

Notes

• Allstate and John Hancock, which have departed the structured settlement market, sold a combined $79 million of structured settlement annuities during the first nine months of 2013.
• To better understand their clients' "perceptions, utilization and understanding of the value of structured settlement consultants" (and presumably to improve industry sales), NSSTA has retained CLM Advisors to conduct separate marketing surveys of property & casualty 1) senior claims executives and 2) claims adjustors as well as 3) plaintiff attorneys. The results of Phases 1 and 2 were presented at NSSTA 2014 educational conferences.

Low Interest Rates

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

• 2014 (as of December 5) - 2.97%
• 2013 - 3.96%
• 2012 - 2.95%
• 2011 - 3.91%
• 2010 - 4.25%
• 2009 - 4.08%
• 2008 - 4.28%
• 2007 - 4.84%
• 2000 - 5.94%
• 1990 - 8.61%
• 1980 - 11.27%

Submarkets - Two noteworthy submarkets are incorporated within the structured settlement annuity production numbers set forth above:

• Non-Qualified Assignments
  • Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC section 130.
  • Unlike qualified assignees, U.S.-based, non-qualified assignees are subject to income tax on the amount they receive from whatever entity assigns (or more accurately "delegates") periodic payment obligations for claimants who do not qualify for tax exclusions under IRC section 104(a)(1) or (2) - such as employment discrimination cases or deferred attorney fees.
  • Despite the promise of a large potential "non-qualified assignment" market, reported sales on non-qualified structured settlement annuities by NSSTA members have declined since 2012.
  • Reported nine month 2014 non-qualified structured settlement sales totaled $113.2 million compared with $124.3 million in 2013.
• Medicare Set-Asides
• A Medicare set-aside (MSA) is an administrative and funding mechanism utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute.
• Although Federal law does not define MSAs, or mandate specific types of MSA funding mechanisms, CMS (the responsible federal agency) has established certain basic requirements for workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs).
• No similar rules exist for liability MSAs. In October 2014, CMS withdrew a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which was expected to address liability MSAs.
• Under current CMS rules, structured settlement annuities have an inherent cost advantage over lump sum alternatives for funding WCMSAs resulting from the method CMS prescribes for calculating present values.
• Based upon industry sources, S2KM has previously estimated that eight (8%) percent of 2013 structured settlement premium and 24 percent of 2013 structured settlement annuities were attributable to WCMSAs. Under current CMS rules, these numbers could increase in 2014.

Product Developments - Significant structured settlement product developments occurred during 2014 including:

• Equity-indexed Annuity Rider - Pacific Life has obtained a Private Letter Ruling (PLR-143928-13) from the IRS approving favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity with annual payment adjustments based on the performance of the Standard & Poors 500 Index. Although life insurance companies first offered equity-indexed annuities during the mid-1990's to compete with indexed mutual funds, Pacific Life's ILAAPR represents the first U.S. equity-indexed structured settlement option. To achieve market success, structured settlement consultants must convince settlement recipients that potentially higher long-term ILAAPR payouts (based upon S&P 500 performance) will offset lower starting payments compared with traditional structured settlement annuities.
• Hardship Conversion Feature - PLR-143928-13 also approves favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity with a commutation pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion which the PLR describes as follows: "The Notice of Hardship Conversion provides that the Assignee will consider a request from Claimant to convert future guaranteed structured settlement payments to an immediate lump sum payment, in certain qualifying hardship circumstances, if the request is approved by a court or applicable administrative authority pursuant to a qualified order under § 5891(b)(2). The qualifying hardship circumstances are financial hardship due to medical expenses, expenses related to a terminal illness, home improvement expenses for handicap accessibility, job loss, loss of home, and the same type of expense for the payee’s dependents. Assignee expressly represents that it reserves the right to decline any hardship conversion request and that it will consider each hardship conversion request on a case-by-case basis. In addition, Assignee represents that it will not allow any hardship conversion in the first year after a qualified assignment."
• Periodic Payment Reinsurance - Although first offered in 1982, Berkshire Hathaway re-introduced its periodic payment reinsurance product during 2014.  Issued by National Indemnity Company, a Berkshire property and casualty company, this product is available for both tax-free periodic payments [under IRC 104(a)(1) and/or (2)] and non-IRC 130 tax-deferred periodic payments. In many respects analogous to traditional structured settlements, Berkshire asserts multiple advantages for its reinsurance product. These include greater financial strength than other structured settlement product providers plus higher interest rates because, unlike life insurers, National Indemnity's investments are not concentrated in bonds. Unlike traditional structured settlements, however, periodic payment reinsurance does not qualify for guarantee fund coverage and cannot be used by self-insureds. For more detailed analysis of periodic payment reinsurance as well as other structured settlement financing alternatives, see Chapter 3 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Primary Market Challenges - Reporting on NSSTA's 2014 Fall Educational Conference, S2KM summarized the following challenges currently facing the structured settlement primary market:

• Generational transition
• Stagnant growth
• Polarized and complex overlapping market(s)
• Alternative business models
• Increasing competition
• Changing success factors

In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will address 2014 structured settlement developments related to the secondary market, personal injury settlement planning and the ELNY liquidation. For prior S2KM annual reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

Evolve 2014 QSF Symposium

Despite unresolved issues, utilization of IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) in "single event" cases, as well as class action and mass tort cases, is expanding, and increasingly represents the preferred method for resolving complex personal injury claims, according to participants at the Third Annual QSF Symposium sponsored by Evolve Bank and Trust on November 14, 2014 in Memphis, Tennessee.

Various speakers estimated the number of QSF cases annually currently exceeds 2500, equally split between single event cases and class action/mass tort cases, increasing by 25% per year. This expansion has occurred as more settlement planning stakeholders learn about the advantages of QSFs - and despite single claimant QSF tax uncertainty.

Although Rev. Proc. 93-34 permits QSFs to make IRC 130 qualified assignments, and no tax authority exists prohibiting single claimant QSFs, structured settlement annuity providers currently refuse to accept single claimant QSFs which they broadly define to encompass claims by family members, plaintiff attorneys, lien holders and creditors.

Organized "to provide a forum for open dialogue that helps shape industry developments", the 2014 QSF Symposium completely avoided the single claimant controversy and focused instead on other important QSF and settlement planning issues.

Topics and Speakers

• Introduction and Welcome - Andrew Cook
• QSF Administrator Control Systems and Fraud Protection - Brian Berning
• QSF State Tax Issues - Mike May
• Tax Issues for Foreign Structured Settlement Assignment Companies - Jeremy Babener
• Calculating Settlement Awards - Chris Lordan
• QSF Settlement Planning Panel - Patrick Hindert (Moderator), Andrew Cook, Wendie Howland, Pi-Yi Mayo, Bryn Poland, Joseph Tombs.
• How New SEC Rules Impact QSF Money Market Fund Investments - John Rush.
• How Plaintiff Attorneys View QSFs - William Burns
• QSF Administrator Compensation Issues - Paige Balnum; Pi-Yi Mayo; Bryn Poland.
• QSF Attorney Fee Programs - Chris Shumate.

QSF Objectives and Benefits

In his legal treatise, "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B", published in 2009, Robert Wood explains QSFs as follows: "Their primary objective is to gather and administer cash or assets and determine the amounts and exact nature of payments that the plaintiffs, attorneys, and other claimants will receive..... QSFs benefit both plaintiffs and defendants alike. They are separate entities for federal income tax purposes and are flexible and easy to establish."

Section 3.08B of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) summarizes the benefits of QSFs in more detail: "defendants obtain a binding release from liability by making a currently-deductible payment into a court or government-approved Fund; while claimants, who have no tax consequence as a result of this payment into a Fund, are then afforded as much time as they need to sort out important issues of their own, such as allocating settlement shares, obtaining court approvals for minors or other legally-disabled claimants, resolving liens (which sometimes involve complex pay-back and set-aside issues as to Medicaid and Medicare), and deciding on forms of distribution (whether cash, structured settlements, or special needs trusts that may be used to preserve eligibility for certain government benefits)."

QSFs reconfigure the traditional (ready; shoot; aim) settlement planning process:

1. Needs assessment
2. Design
3. Negotiation
4. Implementation
5. Monitoring

so that needs assessment and settlement design follow the negotiation (and funding) steps rather than precede them.

Highlighted Issues

• QSF Administrator - The QSF Symposium emphasized the important role of the QSF administrator as well as the services he or she may provide and/or require including: investment, expense and distribution management; tax reporting and filing; legal and regulatory compliance; and fraud control. The QSF administer appears best positioned to quarterback the QSF settlement planning team. An apparent need exists for more (and better qualified) QSF administrators.
• Life Care Planners and Case Managers - Life care planners and case managers are frequently overlooked in traditional settlement planning. Life care planners are rarely asked to revise their pre-trial and trial-focused life care plans to account for collateral sources or the actual amount of settlement funding. Case managers (who are separately certified) increasingly are retained to "monitor" settlement plans by providing post-settlement medical advice and services for serious personal injury victims.
• Compensation Issues - For QSFs to achieve their potential improvements for single event settlement planning, multiple compensation issues must still be addressed and resolved:
  • Administrators - The QSF Symposium devoted one of its panels to administrator compensation issues, including: who pays their fee? what fee is appropriate for what services? and how should the fee be calculated (flat fee; per claimant fee; or fee based on QSF earnings)? Complicating these issues, many attorney QSF administrators play multiple roles (trustee; administrator) in addition to drafting QSF documents and making court appearances.
  • Structured settlement brokers - In many single event QSFs, the plaintiff structured settlement broker plays key roles: 1) selecting and paying the QSF administrator; 2) performing "value added" settlement planning services as part of his/her contingent commission compensation. Not only do these arrangements create potential conflicts of interest ("needs based" selling determined by the needs of the broker and administrator), they also increase a broker's risk of loss in the the event of an unsuccessful structured settlement sale.
  • Additional compensation issues arise when: 1) a case settles with no allowance for QSF expenses; 2) a case involves minors or incompetents requiring a guardian and court to approve QSF expenses; and also because 3) in the current low interest rate environment, QSF fees often exceed investment yields. Although not discussed during the Symposium, defense structured settlement brokers have opposed QSFs fearing a reduction or the elimination of their contingent commission compensation.
• Tax topics - The QSF Symposium featured three tax topics:
  • State taxation - State taxation of QSFs is inconsistent with little guidance. Many states have not yet addressed QSF taxation. Potential penalties exist for failure to file including interest on any unpaid liability without any statute of limitations. QSF administrators are advised to follow a two step analysis: 1) can a specific state tax a QSF based upon the situs of the court or the administrator or the bank where funds are deposited? 2) assuming a filing obligation exists, how will a state tax a QSF - as a corporation or a trust?
  • Foreign structured settlement assignment companies - Potential tax issues exist for defendants, plaintiffs and the foreign assignment company. Can a defendant deduct its payment to a foreign assignment company? When does a plaintiff receive payments for tax purposes and what is the character of those payments? Does the foreign assignment company recognize income when it receives an assignment payment? If yes, will it be considered active or passive income or does a treaty override exist?
  • Structured attorney fees - When properly arranged, structured attorney fees allow a contingently-compensated attorney to defer portions of his or her compensation and pay tax upon receipt regardless of the type of case or whether the client receives a lump sum or periodic payments.
• Education issues - Single event QSF education is needed for plaintiff attorneys and judges who are still unfamiliar with the QSF concept. Among the most likely education providers are special needs attorneys who serve as QSF administrators or trustees and structured settlement brokers. In addition to litigating attorneys and judges, QSF educational targets should include other settlement planning stakeholders such as: liability insurers; settlement trustees, guardians; mediators; and life care planners.

Conclusion - Evolve's QSF Symposium offers a valuable and unique addition to the growing number of personal injury settlement planning conferences and educational resources. When Robert Wood's QSF legal treatise was published in 2009, he acknowledged his analysis "clearly enters unchartered ground". Congratulations to Chairman Andy Cook and Evolve Bank and Trust for helping to survey this unchartered QSF terrain by sponsoring an educational event specifically designed to promote discussion and exchange of ideas about QSF issues, standards and best practices.

For S2KM's complete coverage of 2014 structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

AAJ 2014 Annual Meeting

Increasing use of structured settlements by plaintiff attorneys and their clients requires a more "unified marketing strategy" by stakeholders according to multiple brokers who exhibited at the recent American Association for Justice (AAJ) 2014 Annual Conference in Baltimore.

Seven primary market brokers, one structured settlement annuity provider and two secondary market companies were prominent among the 141 sponsors and exhibitors at the AAJ conference which also included as exhibitors multiple companies offering lien resolution, MSA compliance, life care planning, legal finance and economic consulting services.

Other marketing advice from AAJ structured settlement exhibitors offering insights into how to grow the primary market:

• "Our industry needs more educational marketing.
• "The secondary market has stolen our brand and we need to get it back.
• "Many plaintiff attorneys do not discuss structured settlements with their clients.
• "We need to educate plaintiff attorneys to stop thinking of their clients as 'investors' and to recognize the benefits of structured settlements.
• "Most plaintiff structured settlement brokers are too narrowly focused on product.
• "Future success requires 'full service' not just annuities - financial planning, settlement trusts and lien resolution.
• "Plaintiff brokers need to be more holistic and offer plaintiff attorneys a 'brain trust' of strategic relationships.
• Offering non-structured settlement products and services to plaintiff attorneys 'has taken the lid off' our company's original view of the size of the settlement planning market."

Underperforming Market

Many industry observers view the United States structured settlement primary market as a strategic, underperforming segment of the larger personal injury settlement planning market:

• Primary market structured settlement annuity premium increased approximately seven (7%) percent to $5.134,380,855 in 2013 (compared with $4,819,124,617 in 2012) according to industry estimates compiled by Melissa Evola.
• Total structured settlement cases in 2013 also increased to 26,533 from 25,038 a year earlier for an average case premium of $193,495.
• The 2013 annual premium totals, however, fell substantially short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6,226,578,725 in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.
• Evola's 2013 compilation also reported an annual decrease in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlements (from $170.1 million in 2012 to $164.9 million in 2013) despite earlier industry projections of a large and growing market .
• Non-qualified structured settlements represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(1) or (2) including deferred plaintiff attorney fees.
• Independent industry sources further report a substantial shift in recent structured settlement premium with increasing sales to fund workers compensation Medicare set-aside arrangements (WCMSAs).

For comparison, based upon Towers Watson's 2011 Annual Study of "United States Tort Cost Trends" and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM estimates that more than $170 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys. The Towers Watson study excluded: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs.

Structured Settlement Marketing - to Defendant Insurers

Although primary market structured settlement participants have successfully marketed their products and services to defendants and their insurers, they have been less successful marketing to plaintiff attorneys and their clients.

A 2011 National Litigation Management study, commissioned by the Council on Litigation Management (CLM) and conducted by Revere Advisory, identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.

The success of structured settlement marketing to defense insurers was further evidenced by a 2014 study of "how senior claims executives perceive the value of structured settlements and the value that structured settlement consultants bring to the table" commissioned by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and conducted by CLM Advisors. Among the findings - ninety percent of respondents:

• Indicated their organizations maintain a “formalized structured settlement program”; and
• Reported their belief that, when a structured settlement consultant is involved, claims are “more likely to settle.”

 Structured Settlement Marketing - to Plaintiff Attorneys and Injury Victims

Earlier in 2006 (before interest rates crashed), NSSTA sponsored a survey of plaintiff attorneys involved in structured settlements (43 telephone surveys) and structured settlement recipients (1275 telephone and Internet surveys) titled: "A Study of the Structured Settlement Process Conducted on behalf of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association." Among the results, as reported at NSSTA's 2007 Winter and Annual meetings:

• Structured settlement recipients:
  • 65% said they had not heard about structured settlements prior to settlement.
  • Most were uncertain whether a structured settlement consultant was involved with their case.
  • 34% recalled receiving educational information while 75% of this 34% said the information was helpful.
  • 66% first learned about structured settlements from their trial attorney.
  • 75% said they were very happy their settlement included structured settlement annuities.
  • 75% said they would recommend a structured settlement.
• Plaintiff attorneys involved in structured settlements:
  • 95% said they are proponents of structured settlements.
  • 70% said they retain a structured settlement consultant at least for some cases.
  • When asked: "Whom do you prefer to use for purposes of financial planning for your clients?", the attorneys responded:
    • 30% - Trust company/department.
    • 28% - Financial planner.
    • 23% - Structured settlement consultant.
    • 19% - No response.

Based upon the 2006 survey results, however, NSSTA estimated only 7% of personal injury settlements between $75,000 and $200,000 include structured settlements; and only 30% of personal injury settlements above $1 million include structured settlements.

Growing the Primary Market

What explains the apparent differences in marketing success by the primary structured settlement industry to 1) defense insurers; and 2) plaintiff attorneys and personal injury victims?

Several explanations are possible. They deserve and require greater analysis by the primary market. As one example, while defense brokers essentially sell a singular structured settlement product to their clients without direct competition from other financial/insurance product providers, plaintiff brokers must compete with settlement trustees, financial planners and other providers of asset management services.

As a result, plaintiff structured settlement brokers increasingly are evolving into alternative business models that offer structured settlement annuities as one of multiple products and more fully participate in a larger, more complex business (personal injury settlement planning) than structured settlement defense brokers.

Growing the primary structured settlement market therefore requires its proponents to ask themselves these fundamental questions: "what business are we in?", or, stated somewhat differently, "in what markets do we, or should we, participate?"

Failure to sufficiently address these issues has perpetuated both "inside-the-box" strategic thinking and traditional marketing strategies responsible, in part, for recent sales declines of the structured settlement product - a product which offers multiple, unique advantages and benefits from public policy endorsement, multiple tax preferences and statutory consumer protection.

The Settlement Planning Market

Despite an abundance of related professional associations, participants and conferences, as well as legislative and regulatory developments, personal injury settlement planning remains an evolving concept and market with competing definitions, standards and business models and many unanswered questions.

Many recent and continuing legislative and regulatory developments impact personal injury settlement planning, including:

• Affordable Care Act
• CMS WCMSA Reference Guide
• The SMART Act
• Defense of Marriage Act
• Dodd-Frank Uniform Fiduciary Standard
• Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013

Settlement planners consist, or represent a blend, of several professionals in addition to traditional personal injury litigation participants. These professionals include: tax attorneys, special needs attorneys, trustees, financial planners, structured settlement specialists, life care planners, economists, Medicare set-aside (MSA) specialists and damage allocators.

Professional associations, in addition to AAJ, whose members engage in settlement planning include: NSSTA, SSP, NAELA, ASNP, SNA, NAMSAP, AANLCP - and NASP assuming the definition of settlement planning includes adjustments during an injury victim's lifetime.

To grow the primary market, structured settlement proponents must learn how to better market the benefits and applications of structured settlements to plaintiff attorneys and these other professional groups and associations in the context of evolving settlement planning marketing, work product, business standards and educational priorities.

This educational and marketing challenge requires all structured settlement participants to fundamentally "re-think" structured settlements and their own roles in personal injury settlement planning. One result should be consideration of a more unified marketing strategy to plaintiff attorneys and their clients among heretofore competing professional associations such as NSSTA, SSP and NASP.

Conversations with structured settlement exhibitors at the AAJ 2014 Annual Meeting indicate some primary market plaintiff brokers already understand this message and are transitioning their business models accordingly.

For S2KM's report about the AAJ 2014 Winter Meeting, see this prior blog post.

Structured Settlements 2013 - Primary Market

The U.S. structured settlement industry in 2013 continued to define itself into three related markets (primary, secondary and settlement planning) with the liquidations of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) and Reliance Insurance Company representing important industry storylines.

This blog post reviews 2013 non-ELNY and non-Reliance primary market developments - focusing on structured settlement annuity sales. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will address structured settlement developments for the 2) settlement planning and 3) secondary markets and summarize 4) ELNY and Reliance-related events.

Primary Market Premium

Primary market structured settlement annuity premium and the number of structured cases have increased slightly during 2013 compared with 2012 based upon third quarter industry results compiled by Melissa Evola. Projected 2013 annual premium totals, however, will fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6,226,578,725 in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

Evola reports 2013 third quarter primary market annuity premium of $3,736,499,370 resulting from 19,656 cases ($190,094 per case average). Comparable third quarter results for:

• 2012 - $3,565,368,323 premium from 18,706 cases ($190,600 per case).
• 2008 - $4,429,915,586 premium from 25,545 cases ($173,416 per case).

Adding these 2013 third quarter results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru September 2013:

• Total annuity premium: $137.4 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 790,000.
• Average annuity premium: $174,000.

Individual Annuity Provider Results

Although overall 2013 third quarter results do not differ significantly from 2012, individual company production has changed dramatically per Evola's report. Berkshire Hathaway, which re-entered the market in 2011 following a multi-year hiatus, has assumed primary market leadership. Berkshire Hathaway generated $1,034,199,209 of structured settlement annuity premium (28% of the industry total) during the first nine months of 2013.

Berkshire Hathaway's structured settlement annuity premium and market share since 2011:

• 2011 - $116,458,245 annual premium (2% market share)
  • 1st - $4,976,847
  • 2nd - $11,311,378
  • 3rd - $39,880,339
  • 4th - $60,289,681
• 2012 - $824,962,720 annual premium (17% market share)
  • 1st - $97,187,721
  • 2nd - $193,222,438
  • 3rd - $181,111,553
  • 4th - $353,441,008
• 2013 - $1,034,199,209 nine months premium (28% market share)
  • 1st - $339,325,403
  • 2nd - $340,049,486
  • 3rd - $354,824,320
  • 4th - ?

With announced departures of Allstate and John Hancock during 2013, the U.S. structured settlement market now consists of eight annuity providers. Nine month 2013 sales results for other structured settlement annuity providers (per Evola's report) plus the rounded increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2012 results:

• Pacific Life - $600,146,000 (- $13 million)
• MetLife - $564,000,000 (+ $57 million)
• Amgen/USL - $434,691,262 (+ $25 million)
• Liberty Life - $409,286,609 (+ $118 million)
• Prudential Life - $372,700,000 (- $124 million)
• New York Life - $192,317,226 (- $75 million)
• Mutual of Omaha - $50,407,140 (+ $8 million)

Non-Qualified Assignments

Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC section 130. Unlike qualified assignees, non-qualified assignees are subject to income tax on the amount they receive from whatever entity assigns (or more accurately "delegates") periodic payment obligations to assignees who purchase annuities to fund obligations for claimants who do not qualify for tax exclusions under IRC section 104(a)(1) or (2) - such as employment discrimination cases or deferred attorney fees. 

Despite projections of a large and growing market, only two structured settlement annuity providers (AmGen and Liberty) currently offer non-qualified assignments. Nine month 2013 non-qualified assignment sales of $124,287,610 have declined more than $19 million compared with comparable 2012 sales totals according to Evola's report.

Growing the Primary Market

Many industry observers view the United States structured settlement primary market as a strategic, underperforming segment of the larger personal injury settlement planning market. S2KM looked at some of the related issues in a three-part 2013 blog series titled "Growing the Primary Market"

• Part 1 - Daniel Durbin's survey of primary market leaders.
• Part 2 - NSSTA and NASP 2013 Fall Conferences.
• Part 3 - NSSTA's marketing boot camp - "What business are we in?"

S2KM supplemented this analysis with a report on the developing global insurance capital standard which poses additional challenges for structured settlement annuity providers.

For S2KM's previous annual structured settlement industry reports, see the structured settlement wiki.

Former Executives Sue J.G. Wentworth

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

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

The Complaint alleges:

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

The Complaint additionally sets forth:

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

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

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

A Response to the SEC Bulletin

Two structured settlement industry leaders have taken issue with a recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Investor Bulletin providing advice for individuals who are contemplating selling or purchasing (as investors) structured settlement payment rights and/or future pension payments.

Matthew Bracy, a former President of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and Jason Lazarus, a former President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), have published an article titled "A Response to the SEC Bulletin: The Truth about Factored Structured Settlements as an Investment Vehicle." which characterizes the SEC Bulletin as "misleading and in some cases inaccurate concerning the sale of structured settlement payment streams and factored structured settlements as an investment vehicle." 

More specifically, Bracy and Lazarus argue the SEC Bulletin "muddles":

• "two distinctly different businesses, pension purchasing and structured settlement factoring"; and
• "distinctions between the process of purchasing payment from the structured settlement recipient and selling purchased payment streams to investors."
  

In response, Bracy and Lazarus discuss the following features of structured settlement factoring they believe the SEC Bulletin should have clarified:

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

SEC Rule 10b-5

Bracy and Lazarus premise their criticism of the SEC Bulletin in the context of SEC Rule 10b-5 which they characterize as "the bedrock of securities laws". SEC Rule 10b-5 "Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices" reads as follows:

"It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,

in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." (S2KM emphasis).

S2KM Critique

S2KM agrees with Bracy and Lazarus that the SEC Bulletin has serious shortcomings. As S2KM pointed out in an earlier blog post:

"The SEC Investor Bulletin provides a generic definition for a structured settlement plus an indirect reference to state structured settlement protection statutes. It does not, however, specifically reference or discuss the definitions, requirements and protections for structured settlement transfers provided in:

• Internal Revenue Code section 5891; and
• The state structured settlement protection statutes."

Most Fundamental Issue

More importantly, however, neither the SEC Bulletin nor the article by Bracy and Lazarus directly addresses the most fundamental related issue: whether, and when does, a specific sale and purchase of structured settlement payment rights constitute a "security" for purposes of U.S. securities laws?

The SEC Bulletin references this issue obliquely stating: "structured settlement income-stream products may or may not be securities and likely are not registered with the SEC. As such, reliable information about these products may be difficult to find and resolving disputes should an investment go sour may also be difficult."

Bracy and Lazarus recognize that factoring companies sometimes "bundle the payment streams together in securitized transactions for institutional investors". Presumably such "securitized transactions":

• Do qualify, and are registered, as investment "securities";
• Are subject to SEC regulatory authority; and
• Must meet the requirements of SEC Rule 10b-5.

What about individual transactions - i.e. the purchase and sale of structured settlement payment rights by factoring companies (and/or the re-purchase and re-sale of previously transferred structured settlement payment rights by brokers) to individual investors including sales to personal injury claimants?

Shouldn't the SEC specifically highlight these transactions and address the question: Do these transactions qualify as investment "securities"?

If the answer is "no", what is the legal authority? In this case, the securities laws presumably do not apply and the SEC presumably has no authority to regulate such transactions. Alternatively, who does regulate such transactions and what laws apply?

If the answer is "yes", what is the legal authority? In this case, how many of these transactions (do/do not) meet applicable securities law requirements including registration, licensing, disclosure and other sales practices?

Definition of a "Security"

The Securities Act of 1933 establishes the following definition of a "security" and courts have held the definition in the Securities Exchange act of 1934 to be identical:

“The term ‘security’ means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a ‘security’, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing.” 

After reviewing various tests applied by courts when determining whether this definition applies to various investment contracts, the authors of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) conclude in Section 4.05[2] ("Securities Law Issues"): "If a settlement involves fixed periodic payments for a claimant’s lifetime, which [are] funded through the purchase of a fixed annuity, it is highly doubtful that the promise to make such payments will be viewed as a “security” subject to the federal securities laws."

This conclusion, however, applies to the primary market and does not address the purchase and sale of structured settlement payment rights in factoring transactions. 

S2P2J Release 54, to be published later this summer, will address the issue of whether the purchase and sale of re-cycled structured settlement payment rights constitutes an investment "security". With Daniel Hindert and Joseph Dehner, S2KM author Patrick Hindert is an S2P2J co-author.

ELNY Periodic Payment Obligations

More than 1400 structured settlement annuity payees are expected to suffer payment shortfalls under the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Plan approved by New York State Supreme Court Judge John Galasso on April 16, 2012. The average individual shortfall is estimated to exceed $600,000 present value.

Under what circumstances, if any, will defendants/liability insurers have the legal responsibility to make up the difference in ELNY structured settlement shortfall payments?

Recent Motion

This issue was highlighted in a recent Motion by liability insurers asking Judge Galasso to "clarify and/or correct" his ELNY Memorandum Decision insofar as the Memorandum Decision "caused confusion or mistake" concerning responsibilities of those liability insurers to make up shortfalls on ELNY annuities. Judge Galasso denied the Motion on July 23, 2012.

The Motion attempted to distinguish two types of structured settlement funding alternatives ("buy and hold" vs. qualified assignments). "Buy and hold" annuities, according to the Motion, "are those whereby the underlying insurer retained, or held the liability for future payments, and funded that liability through its ownership of a qualified funding asset, or annuity."

In contrast, the Motion states, "where a structured settlement includes a qualified assignment, the defendant and its liability insurer are fully released from future liability - which liability is assumed by the assignee, here, First Executive Corporation." (emphasis added). Of course, one of the problems for all ELNY stakeholders is that First Executive Corporation ceased to exist in 1991.

As S2KM has previously written, those "suggestions" and/or "assumptions" are not necessarily or universally true. Legal rights and responsibilities resulting from attempts to create qualified assignments must be determined on a case by case basis.

Three Funding Choices

As more fully explained in Section 3.02 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J): with a structured settlement, each defendant and/or liability insurer has three choices regarding its obligation to fund future periodic payment obligations to the claimant (1) to have no obligation; (2) to assume or share the obligation; or (3) to assume and then transfer the obligation without recourse. In general:

• "No obligation" means either a claim is paid on a lump sum basis or a structured settlement occurs and all parties agree that the particular defendant or liability insurer shall have no duty to make any future periodic payments.
• “Assume the obligation” means that a particular defendant or liability insurer ("obligor") assumes a legal obligation to pay future periodic payments. This obligor may be solely, jointly, or jointly and severally liable for the payments and, by assuming the obligation, accepts certain risks. One such risk is the potential insolvency of the financing company (e.g. ELNY).
• "Transfer the obligation" means "novation" as defined in Section 280 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (Restatement): "A novation is a substituted contract that includes as a party one who was neither the obligor nor the obligee of the original duty." Comments to Section 280 further provide:
  • "Effect of novation. A novation discharges the original duty, just as any other substituted contract does, so that breach of the new duty gives no right of action on the old duty.
  • "Consideration. A novation is subject to the same requirements as any other contract, including that of consideration.... [C]onsideration to support the discharge of the original duty can usually be found in the promise to undertake a new duty….Assent of the obligee of the original duty and of the obligor of the new duty is always necessary."
  • "Substitution of obligor. ….[A] mere promise by a third party to assume the obligor’s duty, not offered in substitution for that duty, does not result in a novation, and the new duty that the third party may owe to the obligee as an intended beneficiary is in addition to and not in substitution for the obligor’s original duty."
  • Illustration: "A owes B $1000. B promises C that he will discharge the debt immediately if C will promise to pay him $1000. Intending to benefit A, C so promises. There is a novation under which B’s and C’s promises are consideration for each other, and A’s duty to pay B is discharged. A is the intended beneficiary of B’s promise …and can by disclaimer render the transaction, including the discharge, inoperative from the beginning."

Qualified Assignment

The most common method for transferring a structured settlement obligation is a "qualified assignment" as defined in IRC Section 130(c). For purposes of understanding "transfer of obligation" in the context of structured settlements, however, the Section 130 definition of "qualified assignment" presents two significant problems:

• IRC section 130 does not address whether the assignor's duty is discharged as a result of a qualified assignment.
• Section 130 incorrectly uses the term "assignment" when it should have utilized the term "delegation".

Restatement of Contracts

Comments to Section 316 of the Restatement explain both the difference and the significance of these two terms:

• "Assignment and delegation. In this Chapter rights are said to be 'assigned'; duties are said to be 'delegated' ….. 'Assignment' is the transfer of a right by the owner (the obligee or assignor) to another person (the assignee)."
• "Comparing delegation to assignment. A person subject to a duty (the obligor) does not ordinarily have such a power to substitute another in his place without the consent of the obligee; that is what is meant when it is said that duties cannot be assigned. 'Delegation' of performance may be effective to empower a substitute to perform on behalf of the obligor, but the obligor remains subject to the duty until it has been discharged by performance or otherwise."

Comments to Section 318 of the Restatement further differentiate "delegation" and "novation" as follows: "An obligor is discharged by the substitution of a new obligor only if the contract so provides or if the obligee makes a binding manifestation of assent, forming a novation….Otherwise the obligee retains his original right against the obligor, even though the obligor manifests an intention to substitute another obligor in his place and the other purports to assume the duty. The obligee may, however, have rights against the other as an intended beneficiary of the promise to assume the duty."

NSSTA Model Agreements

After ELNY entered rehabilitation in 1991, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) published Model Qualified Assignment Agreements (with and without a Release) which documents were updated following the enactment of IRC 5891 in 2001. Both versions of NSSTA's current Model Qualified Assignment Agreements reference IRC section 130 and utilize "assignment" to describe what the Restatement more properly characterizes as a "delegation".

Here is the relevant comparative language from current paragraphs 1 of the NSSTA Model Agreements:

• With Release - "Assignment and Assumption; Release of Assignor. Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee, and Assignee hereby accepts and assumes, all of Assignor’s liability to make the Periodic Payments. Each Claimant hereby accepts and consents to such assignment by Assignor and assumption by Assignee. Effective on the Effective Date, each Claimant hereby releases and discharges Assignor from all liability to make the Periodic Payments."
• Without Release - "Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee, and Assignee hereby accepts and assumes, all of Assignor’s liability to make the Periodic Payments."

Impact for Defendants and ELNY Victims

How does this discussion impact whether defendants/liability insurers have the legal responsibility to make up the difference in ELNY structured settlement shortfall payments?

• NSSTA's Model Qualified Assignment Agreements did not exist during the time period (1985-1990) when ELNY was selling structured settlement annuities.
• Legal rights and responsibilities resulting from attempts to create qualified assignments must be determined on a case by case basis.
• Whatever language parties used to describe and/or label their transactions (e.g. annuity financing; buy and hold; qualified assignment; novation; transfer; etc.) is not by itself determinative of the rights and responsibilities set forth in the actual language of the settlement documentation.
• Some common industry practices, at least during the 1985-1990 time period, could create problems for defendant/liability insurers.
• For example, in the paper he delivered at the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) 2012 Annual Meeting, attorney David Higgins pointed out how some defendants and liability insurers have attempted "to collapse the creation of the liability with the assignment of the liability to the assignee."
• Higgins, who drafted the text of the 1982 structured settlement law introduced in the House and the Senate, warned that "such a collapse is to be avoided if the definition [of a qualified assignment] is to be met."
• Under U.S. common law, whether a novation has occurred is a question of fact, and the burden of proving it is generally upon the party asserting it.
• The Restatement identifies potential defenses for ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims who attempt to void a novation including misrepresentation (Sections 159-162) and disclaimer (Section 306).
• All ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees, as well as defendants and/or liability insurers who purchased the related ELNY structured settlement annuities, should retain qualified legal counsel to review their settlement documentation.

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

Treasury Publishes New IRC 104(a)(2) Regs

The United States Treasury has published new regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2) relating to the exclusion from gross income for amounts received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness.

Published January 20, 2012, the new section 104(a)(2) regulations make two primary changes to the current regulations. First, they incorporate amendments to 104(a)(2) made in Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (1996 Act). Second, they eliminate the previous regulatory requirement that damages must be based upon “tort or tort type rights” to qualify for the tax exclusion.

The 1996 Act included two legislative amendments narrowing the applicability of the 104(a)(2) exclusion. The first amendment prevents any punitive damages from qualifying for the tax exclusion in the personal injury context. The second amendment requires that injury or sickness damages must result from “physical” origins to be excluded. Although emotional distress is not considered a physical injury or physical illness, the new regulations confirm that damages for emotional distress attributable to a physical injury or physical sickness are excluded from income under section 104(a)(2).

The new section 104(a)(2) regulations also eliminate the previous regulatory requirement that damages must be “based on tort or tort type rights” to qualify for exclusion. In a 1995 case (Commissioner v. Schleier), the United States Supreme Court interpreted this requirement to disallow the exclusion of damages where the relevant law (a "no-fault" statute) provided a contractual remedy even though the claimant suffered a personal physical injury or physical sickness as a result of a breach of contract. The new regulations eliminate this prior requirement and allow the tax exclusion to apply even when the physical injury or sickness does not constitute a tort under state or common law.

The new, final regulations for section 104(a)(2) are essentially the same as the proposed regulations the United States Treasury issued in 2009 and which were the subject of a public hearing on February 23, 2010. The final regulations did not adopt any of the recommendations offered by commentators at the public hearing. These recommendations included:

•  Requests by Richard Risk and Jack Meligan that the final regulations address whether a claimant has constructive receipt or the current economic benefit of a damage award that is set aside for the claimant’s benefit in a section 468B qualified settlement fund;

• Requests by John McCulloch and David Higgins that the final regulations confirm several specific types of damages are "physical" and therefore tax-exempt.

For background information about the new section 104(a)(2) regulations and their application to structured settlements, including commentary and analysis by Jeremy Babener, see these prior S2KM blog posts:

• Treasury Hearing on IRC 104(a)(2) Regs
• A Common Cause at the Treasury Regulation Hearing
• Treasury Hearing Commentary
• Voices at the Treasury Hearing
• Speaker Comments at the Treasury Hearing
• Legislation to Expand the Structured Settlement Industry
• Babener Proposes Expanded S2 Tax Subsidy

For a copy of the new section 104(a)(2) regulations, see the structured settlement wiki.