Beyond Structured Settlements

SSP 2013 Annual Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motivation, Marketing and Perspective

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

Affordable Care Act (ACA)

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

 Qualified Settlement Funds

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

 Settlement Planning Team

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

 Government Benefit Issues

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

 Settlement Trusts

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

Settlement Planning Products

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

 Related S2KM Resources:

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

MSAs and Liability Cases - 3

Although no statutory or regulatory authority requires Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) in third party liability settlements, confusion continues as to whether and when MSAs are necessary and/or appropriate for such cases.

S2KM has addressed this topic in two prior blog posts:

• MSAs and Liability Cases 1: summarizing recommendations for MSAs in liability cases issued by the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) for special needs attorneys (case specific) and the American Bar Association (ABA) for the United States Congress (legislative).
• MSAs and Liability Cases 2: reviewing an article by Peter Wayne that offers advice to plaintiff attorneys about Medicare compliance generally in liability cases.

An article by Aaron D. Frishman published in the Fall 2012 issue of the NAELA Journal titled "Medicare Set-asides in Personal Injury Cases: Is There a Standard Method of Practice?" expands and updates analysis of this challenging settlement planning issue.

Frishman's article:

• Provides historical background about the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act and the evolution of MSAs in workers compensation cases.
• Details the three primary arguments for and against MSAs in liability cases:
  • Statutory basis for MSAs
  • Actions taken by CMS and its regional offices
  • Risks of attorney liability.
• Reviews
  • NAELA's 2010 liability MSA Task Force Report.
  • The ABA's 2011 Resolution 108A urging Congress to enact new MSA legislation.
  • The 2011 Hinsinger v. Showboat Atlantic City case "that found MSAs in third party liability cases to be synonymous with those in workers’ compensation matters." while addressing the issue of whether a liability set aside should be reduced for procurement costs.
  • Proposed MSA rule changes CMS released June 15, 2012 in the form of an "advanced notice of proposed rule-making" (ANPRM).

Frishman's conclusions for MSA's in non-workers compensation personal injury cases:

• No clearly identifiable best practice currently exists.
• MSAs are not currently a mandatory method for satisfying Medicare's interests.
• There is currently no published history of any suit by Medicare against any party in a personal injury suit for the failure to establish an MSA.
• Whether to use an MSA is case specific and ultimately the client's choice.
• Attorneys should fully informed their clients of the issues related to future medical expenses and Medicare’s interest.
• At a minimum, attorneys should discuss the potential use of MSAs in personal injury contexts with their clients and all parties involved.
• An attorney should always consider the size of the settlement, as well as the plaintiff’s Medicare eligibility status, when evaluating whether to use MSAs in personal injury settlements.
• An attorney’s examination of the issues should include an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of the plaintiff’s circumstances.
• When an attorney is determining whether to advise his or her client to use an MSA in a personal injury settlement, it is reasonable to assume that the following CMS rules for workers compensation cases would apply:
  
  • The total settlement amount is greater than $25,000; or
  • The plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of enrolling in Medicare within 30 months from the settlement date and the anticipated total settlement amount is expected to be greater than $250,000.
• Until CMS or Congress provides firm authority regarding the application and enforcement of the MSP Act in personal injury settlements, uncertainty will continue regarding MSA use in these contexts.

For additional S2KM reporting about the relationship of structured settlements and settlement planning to Medicare, Medicaid and health care reform, see the structured settlement wiki.

QSF Symposium 2012 - 2

Will Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) eventually replace structured settlements as the standard business model for resolving complex personal injury claims?

QSFs already represent the standard resolution technique for class action lawsuits - and provide advantages for both defendants and plaintiffs:

• Defendants not only obtain an immediate tax deduction and release, they also can reduce their settlement planning costs and risks.
• Plaintiffs can conduct their settlement planning with a sum certain, using their own advisers, free from the pressures of litigation, with unlimited time to analyze and address tax, investment and government benefit issues.
• QSFs can also be utilized to purchase tax-free structured settlements without any direct involvement by defendants.

The only opponents of QSFs, for becoming the settlement planning standard for all complex personal injury cases, appear to be advocates for the traditional claim management structured settlement business model. These advocates include liability insurers who attempt to direct claim dollars to their affiliate life companies and defense brokers who fear the loss or reduction of their annuity commissions.

Together, with political support from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), these QSF opponents have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars attempting to limit both the scope of QSFs and the expanded utilization of QSFs. Maintaining that structured settlements are best created when both plaintiffs and defendants actively participate, the QSF opponents argue that broad approval of single-claimant 468B funds would undermine and diminish the use of structured settlements.

To sustain their argument, QSF opponents have organized and promoted a marketing and lobbying strategy that:

• Ignores the IRC section 468B regulations that allow a QSF to be “established to resolve or satisfy one or more contested or uncontested claims that have resulted or may result from an event (or related series of events) that has occurred and that has given rise to at least one claim asserting liability". (emphasis added)
• Expands their own definition of single claimant to encompass multiple single event claims by family members, their attorneys and lien holders including Medicare and Medicaid.
• Promises defendants questionable structured settlement advantages (e.g. cost savings in a low-interest rate environment) without fully informing defendants of their potential costs and risks using traditional structured settlement business practices.

Fortunately for defendants and plaintiffs, utilization of QSFs (including single claimant QSFs) appears to be expanding as more settlement planning stakeholders learn about the advantages of QSFs and the professional QSF community of practice continues to grow.

That conclusion was S2KM's most important take away from the first QSF Symposium sponsored by Evolve Bank and Trust in Memphis, Tennessee on September 27-28, 2012.

Organized to stimulate dialogue among QSF industry leaders and experts and to help shape industry thinking on QSF issues, the first QSF Symposium was restricted the 20 participants and included the following speakers and topics:

• Sylvius von Saucken - "Establishing the QSF: Account, Fund or Trust / Drafting Considerations"
• Kevin Urbatsch - "Petitioning the Court for Approval"
• Andy Cook - "Investment Policy and Fiduciary Investment Options"
• Peter Wayne - "QSFs and Government Benefits Preservation"
• Will Shapiro - "Lien Holdbacks and Claimant Distributions"
• Jeremy Babener - "QSF Taxation: Filing, Payments, Withholding and Reporting"
• Chris Lordan - "Accounting and Reporting Best Practices"
• Patrick Hindert - "How Structured Settlement Transfers Impact QSF Planning"
• Roundtable Discussion - moderated by Pi-Yi Mayo and Bryn Poland.

The first QSF Symposium provided several benefits in addition to the presentations:

• Networking with QSF experts and hearing multiple QSF professional perspectives.
• Detailed discussions focused on a single (QSF-only) settlement planning topic.
• Open dialogue that encouraged entrepreneurial and collaborative "out-of-the box" thinking.
• Meeting Evolve's officers, shareholders and technology providers.
• Learning how a bank views settlement planning, settlement trusts and QSFs.

For additional information about QSFs, see:

• Robert Wood, "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B"
• Hindert, Dehner and Hindert, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" - Section 3.08B
• Jeremy Babener, "Structured Settlements and Single Claimant Qualified Settlement Funds"

For additional S2KM analysis of the structured settlement and settlement planning markets, see the structured settlement wiki.

QSF Symposium 2012 - 1

Evolve Bank and Trust will host the first Annual Qualified Settlement Fund Symposium September 27-28, 2012 in Memphis, Tennessee.  Dedicated exclusively to the advancement of qualified settlement fund (QSF) professionals, the purposes of the Symposium are to stimulate dialogue among QSF industry leaders and experts and to help shape industry thinking on QSF issues.

QSF Symposium Speakers and Topics

• Sylvius von Saucken - "Establishing the QSF: Account, Fund or Trust / Drafting Considerations"
• Kevin Urbatsch - "Petitioning the Court for Approval"
• Andy Cook - "Investment Policy and Fiduciary Investment Options"
• Peter Wayne - "QSFs and Government Benefits Preservation"
• Will Shapiro - "Lien Holdbacks and Claimant Distributions"
• Jeremy Babener - "QSF Taxation: Filing, Payments, Withholding and Reporting"
• Chris Lordan - "Accounting and Reporting Best Practices"
• Patrick Hindert - "How Structured Settlement Transfers Impact QSF Planning"
• Roundtable Discussion - moderated by Pi-Yi Mayo and Bryn Poland

Defined in Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c),  QSFs represent an important settlement planning tool and provide benefits for both defendants and plaintiffs. Defendants can use QSFs to resolve complex claims in exchange for a release and immediate tax deduction. Plaintiffs and their advisers can use QSFs to marshall assets, determine which plaintiffs and counsel receive which amounts, satisfy government benefits and other lien obligations and engage in thoughtful settlement planning without the pressures that accompany negotiations, mediations and litigation.

Revenue Procedure 93-34

One QSF advantage is the unlimited time QSFs allow for claimants to consider multiple investment options - including structured settlements provided the QSF satisfies rules set forth in Revenue Procedure 93-34 to qualify as a "party to a suit or agreement":

1. Claimants must agree in writing to the assumption by a IRC 130 qualified assignee of the QSF's obligation to make periodic payments.
2. Each qualified assignment must relate to a claim “on account of personal injury or sickness (in a case involving physical injury or sickness)”.
3. Each qualified funding asset purchased by each qualified assignee must relate to a liability to make periodic payments for damages to a single claimant.
4. No qualified assignee can be “related” to the QSF.
5. No qualified assignee can be controlled by nor control, directly or indirectly, the QSF.
6. Each transaction must meet all other section 130 requirements.

Single Claimant QSF Controversy

Whether a QSF can be established for a single claimant remains controversial - especially among structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholders.

The arguments in favor of allowing single claimant QSFs include the language in IRC section 468B and, more specifically, in the 468B regulations. These regulations, which also define a QSF (see above), allow a QSF to be “established to resolve or satisfy one or more contested or uncontested claims that have resulted or may result from an event (or related series of events) that has occurred and that has given rise to at least one claim asserting liability". (emphasis added)

The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) requested a ruling from the U.S. Department of Treasury on this single claimant issue in 2004. To date, however, the Treasury has not provided definitive tax authority for the single claimant QSF issue.

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) historically opposes the issuance of guidance by the Treasury Department or the Internal Revenue Service on the single claimant QSF issue. NSSTA’s position appears to be that broad approval of single-claimant 468B funds would undermine and diminish the use of structured settlements. NSSTA maintains structured settlements are best created when both plaintiffs and defendants actively participate.

For more detailed information about QSFs, see:

• Robert Wood, "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B"
• Hindert, Dehner and Hindert, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" - Section 3.08B
• Jeremy Babener, "Structured Settlements and Single Claimant Qualified Settlement Funds"

S2P2J Release 51

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates an April 2012 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for Release 51 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). Online S2P2J will also be updated April 2012 to include Release 51 materials. First published in 1986, S2P2J is co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) utilize S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Release 51 Highlights

Release 51 for "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" features a comprehensive Executive Life update including expanded and updated coverage for the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation proceedings now in progress. In related reporting, Release 51 also:

• Expands and updates prior reporting for life insurance insolvency procedures and state guaranty association laws;
• Offers advice to plaintiff attorneys about how to address the risk of non-payment by annuity providers; and
• Summarizes recent case developments impacting Aurora, the successor company to Executive Life Insurance Company of California (ELIC),

Release 51 also updates Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) developments and conditional Medicare payment requirements. Contributing author Peter H. Wayne IV provides current analysis and advice about Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) arrangements in liability cases discussing new and related case law, new CMS pronouncements and new CMS field office guidance with practice tips for structured settlement and settlement planning consultants, attorneys and claim supervisors.

Release 51 expands existing coverage of structured settlement business standards and practices including analysis of the following legislation impacting settlement planners:

• The NAIC Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation;
• The NAIC Annuity Disclosure Model Regulation;
• Dodd-Frank's impact on fiduciary and suitability standards; and
• The Uniform Prudent Investor Act.

Other topics addressed in Release 51:

• Structured settlement metrics for defendants and liability insurers.
• The Treasury's final regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2) incorporating amendments resulting from the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996.
• The new IRS Lawsuits, Awards and Settlements Audit Techniques Guide.

"Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" is now available in both hardcopy and online versions. For summaries of prior Release Highlights, see the structured settlement wiki.

New MSP Protocol in New York

Although no statutory or regulatory authority requires Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) in third party liability settlements, confusion continues as to whether and when MSAs are necessary and/or appropriate for such cases.

CMS (the responsible Federal agency) has established certain basic requirements for workers compensation MSAs (WCMSA) in a series of memoranda beginning in 2001. CMS, however, has not offered any definitive statements about whether or when MSAs are needed to account for future medical expenses in liability settlements.

On May 6, 2011, the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York (USAOWDNY) released a one page "Medicare Secondary Payor Protocol" (MSP Protocol) establishing a voluntary process by which that U.S. Attorney's Office will review MSA proposals for liability cases provided certain conditions are met.

The MSP Protocol issued by USAOWDNY specifically:

• Excludes liability cases involving mass torts;
• Confers no substantive rights;
• May be used or withdrawn at the unilateral discretion of the USAOWDNY;
• Provides a voluntary process; and
• Does not represent a CMS policy.

The MSP Protocol defines an MSA as: "An administrative mechanism used to allocate a portion of a settlement, judgment or award for future medical and/or future prescription drug expenses. A set-aside arrangement may be in the form of a Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (WCMSA), No-Fault Liability Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (NFSA) or Liability Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (LMSA)."

The MSP Protocol requires applications for MSAs in liability cases to be made jointly by the Medicare beneficiary, or his representative, and "the primary plan", presumably meaning the liability insurer or self-insurer, and additionally requires:

• A copy of the MSPRC letter stating the matter concerning repayment for historical medical items and services related to the tort was reviewed and resolved or provide adequate assurance to that effect;
• The proposed LMSA related to the tort;
• An agreed copy of the settlement agreement subject to completion of the MSP obligations;
• A joint statement from the applicants that warrants:
  • The value of the agreed settlement equals or exceeds $350,000.00;
  • The plaintiff is a Medicare beneficiary as defined under 42 C.F.R. §400.202.
  • CMS was requested to approve the LMSA, but no substantive response has been received for at least 60 days from the date of the letter to CMS; and
  • An affidavit from the preparer of the LMSA that it is:
    • True and correct based on the Medicare beneficiary’s medical records and the injuries being released; and
    • In conformance with the WCMSA submission checklist as published by CMS

Subsequent to the application, the USAOWDNY may request additional information from the parties, including a request for an additional LMSA(s). Upon receipt of all required information, the USAOWDNY will issue a Release which will compromise the LMSA obligations related to the settlement, judgment, award or other payment.

For additional S2KM reporting about MSAs and liability cases, see:

• MSAs and Liability Cases - summarizing recent recommendations for MSAs in liability cases issued by NAELA and the ABA.
• MSAs and Liability Cases - 2 - reviewing a new article by Peter Wayne which offers advice to plaintiff attorneys about Medicare compliance in liability cases.

For more detailed information about MSAs and structured settlements, see Section 15.03 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

MSAs and Liability Cases - 2

A prior S2KM blog post ("MSAs and Liability Cases") highlighted a challenging settlement planning priority: although no statutory or regulatory authority requires Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) in third party liability settlements, confusion continues as to whether and when MSAs are necessary and/or appropriate for such cases.

In that earlier post, S2KM summarized recent recommendations for MSAs in liability cases issued by the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) respectively for special need attorneys (case specific) and the United States Congress (legislative).

A new article written by Peter Wayne offers advice to plaintiff attorneys about Medicare compliance in liability cases in the context of this statutory and regulatory uncertainty. Titled "Medicare Update: Information to Help with the Darkness of Medicare Compliance", Wayne's article was recently published in both the 2011 Winter Edition of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association's Docket and the NAELA Special Needs Law Section's Spring Newsletter.

While advising plaintiff attorneys, Wayne is sympathetic for defendants and liability insurers whom he characterizes as "hyper sensitive" to Medicare issues for two primary reasons:

• Dissemination of bad Medicare advice by attorneys, consultants and product providers who are positioned to benefit financially from uncertainty; and
• Continued extension by CMS of its enforcement deadline for liability claim reporting under the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) now re-scheduled to begin the first quarter of 2012.

Wayne's article explains and differentiates current Medicare liability case compliance requirements for:

• "Conditional payments" (amounts paid by Medicare for injury related medical care between the time of injury and settlement) where several parties, including plaintiffs and defendants, run the risk of liability for failing to properly protect Medicare’s interest; and
• "Future interests" (using, for example, an MSA) where the plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney are responsible, but not the defendant or its insurer.

Conditional Payments - Summary of Wayne's advice for plaintiff attorneys:

• Notify the Medicare Coordinator of Benefits Contractor (“COBC”) of the cause of action.
• Then COBC will assign the case to the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor (“MSPRC”).
• Provide the required information along with a signed retainer agreement or proof of representation form.
• Then MSPRC will send the attorney a conditional payment summary within 60-90 days.
• Medicare will send a final demand once the MSPRC is notified of the final settlement and provided with the final settlement detail.
• Pay the final Medicare demand within 60 days of receipt in order to avoid incurring interest and penalties.

Wayne's article also highlights H.R. 4796, the Medicare Secondary Payer Enhancement Act, which proposes these improvements for conditional payments:

• Three year statute of limitations for Medicare to recover their conditional payments;
• Primary payer right of appeal;
• Eliminating the use of private information for MMSEA compliance;
• $5000 minimum threshold for all Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) claims;
• Changing the MMSEA penalty provision from mandatory to discretionary;
• Simplifying the conditional payment process.

Future Interests - Summary of Wayne's advice for plaintiff attorneys:

• Unlike conditional payments, the obligation to satisfy Medicare’s future interests is solely the responsibility of the plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney.
• CMS has not offered any definitive statements about whether MSAs are needed to account for future medical expenses in liability settlements.
• In workers compensation settlements, MSAs are simply CMS’ preferred methodology for protecting Medicare’s future interest and are not required by law.
• Section 111 of the MMSEA addresses reporting requirements and does not address or require MSAs.
• Circumstances where a plaintiff attorney should consider establishing an MSA or obtaining an objective third party opinion for a liability settlement:
  • If the liability settlement will create a permanent shift of the burden for paying for the Medicare beneficiary’s future injury‐related medical expenses from the liability insurance policy or plan to Medicare; and
  • The liability settlement provides a definitive allocation of settlement money to the plaintiff’s future injury‐related medical care.

For additional information about Medicare and structured settlements, see Section 15.03 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments".

Structured Settlements in 2010 - 2

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

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

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

Professional associations

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

Industry leaders

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

Industry commentators

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

Legislation

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

Regulations

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

Case law

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

Technology

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

Public policy

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

Business standards and practices

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

Business models

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

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

Forge Purchases The Settlement Services Group

Attorney Matthew Garretson has announced the sale of his structured settlement agency, The Settlement Services Group, (“TSSG”) to Forge Consulting (“Forge”) a leading plaintiff-exclusive, national settlement consulting company. Garretson said the timing was right for him to focus exclusively on the core lien/claims administrative services of the Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. (“GFRG”). Several former TSSG employees will join Forge including former Director of TSSG, Steve Komrska, and attorney Peter Wayne, as legal counsel.

In a related announcement, Forge named Patrick Hindert (Managing Director) and Timothy Morbach (Director of Sales) as TSSG's new executive directors. Hindert will continue to serve as Managing Director of S2KM Limited. Morbach previously worked as Vice President-Investments at UBS Financial Services Inc.

In exclusive interviews with S2KM, Garretson, Forge Principal Charles Schell and Morbach summarized the TSSG sale and re-organization:

Garretson: "TSSG and Forge now have one of the most innovative and comprehensive lineups of financial services available in the personal injury field for both single event and mass tort settlements. The sale of TSSG to Forge, however, will have no impact on the Garretson Firm and its services. The Garretson Firm will continue to serve its clients with superior lien resolution, claims administration, bankruptcy and probate coordination, settlement allocations, Medicare Set-Aside analysis, and Qualified Settlement Fund services".

Schell: “TSSG and Forge have a longstanding cooperative relationship on numerous single event and mass tort cases. Both companies share a common goal of serving the settlement community as well as mutual respect as two of the country's leading settlement planning firms.

"With leadership from Pat Hindert and Tim Morbach, TSSG will operate autonomously as an independent firm with a claimant/plaintiff centric message. TSSG will provide all stakeholders access to “the power of structure” unencumbered by historic structured settlement business practices.

"TSSG will facilitate comprehensive solutions featuring structured settlements and incorporating other government benefits. TSSG will improve structured settlement performance and enhance the role of structured settlements within the larger settlement services industry Matt Garretson and Forge have helped to define. TSSG will improve and grow the structured settlement market with this broader independent message."

Morbach: “Pat Hindert and I are excited for the opportunity to work together at TSSG. Our Mission is to develop the leading structured settlement business model based upon Matt Garretson's structured settlement legacy and complementary with Forge's plaintiff-centric commitment. TSSG's business model will meet standards in the wider financial services industry where product providers and their agents must 'know their customer' and meet "best interest" tests.

"Pat and I view structured settlements as a core settlement service product. From an investment and financial planning perspective, structured settlement annuities represent a strategic asset class within the settlement services and special needs markets. We see many opportunities to improve and grow structured settlements."

TSSG will be based in Cincinnati, Ohio with initial offices in Cincinnati and Northville, MI. For further inquiries, please contact TSSG Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, at (513) 899-2100 or [email protected].