Beyond Structured Settlements

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.

ELNY Class Actions vs. Brokers

Two years after Judge John Galasso signed an Order of Liquidation and approved the Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life of New York (ELNY), separate (but nearly identical) class action lawsuits have been filed in Florida and Oregon on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims against named and unnamed structured settlement brokers.

The complaints allege these brokers violated state statutes and their alleged duty of care to ELNY shortfall victims whose structured settlements were funded with qualified assignments and who resided in states where ELNY was not licensed to sell insurance when their settlements were consummated.

The Florida case names EPS Settlement Group (EPS), John Cantwell and John Does 1-100 as defendants. The Oregon case names Ringler Associates Incorporated (Ringler), Paul Hoffman and John Does 1-100 as defendants. The respective complaints identify Cantwell and Hoffman as the individual agents who brokered structured settlement annuities for the named plaintiffs.

In each case, the John Does 1-100 "represent those individual insurance brokers who, as employees and/or agents of [the named brokerage company], its affiliates, or predecessor companies, brokered the sales of the SSAs at issue in this case, of which members of the proposed class were beneficiaries."

Each complaint further states "that with proper discovery into the matter these Defendants can be identified, and the complaint can be amended at a later date to include the individual names of these Defendants."

The complaints in both cases identify as plaintiff attorneys Taus, Cebulash & Landau and Berger & Montague.  The Florida complaint also names Scott R. Shepherd and the Oregon complaint also names Arthur C. Johnson as plaintiff attorneys.

Each complaint identifies two causes of action:

• Negligence - failing to disclose facts about ELNY's deteriorating financial condition.
• State statutory violation - prohibiting persons from assisting unlicensed insurers transact business.

Although the negligence counts do not state specific amounts of damages, the statutory violation counts claim "Plaintiffs and Statutory Subclass members are entitled to damages for the fulI amount of their unpaid claims pursuant to the State Statutes."

As one state statutory example, the Oregon complaint cites Alaska Statute 2l -33.037:

• "A person may not directly or indirectly act as agent for, or otherwise represent, assist, or aid on behalf of another, a nonadmitted insurer in the transaction of insurance in this state.
• "If the nonadmitted insurer fails to pay a claim or loss within the provisions of the insurance contract, a person who assisted or in any manner aided directly or indirectly in the procurement of the insurance contract, shall be liable to the insured for the full amount under the provisions of the insurance contract."

The complaints allege that ELNY was never authorized to transact insurance in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

A prior and separate class action lawsuit filed in New York in 2012 by ELNY shortfall victims against Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, in his non-regulatory capacity as ELNY's Receiver, including predecessor ELNY Receivers (Rehabilitator), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse) as defendants was voluntarily dismissed in 2013 without prejudice.

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

S2P2J Release 55

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a Spring 2014 distribution date for hard copy supplements for Release 55 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update automatically and simultaneously. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability as well as link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

First published in 1986 and updated semi-annually, S2P2J is co-authored by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert (S2KM's Managing Director). 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.

Release 55 Highlights - Release 55 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections for the following topics:

• Risks of using off-shore companies and re-cycled structured settlements to fund qualified assignments.
• Meeting professional responsibilities for product disclosures.
• Subrogation rights impacting structured settlements.
• Choice of law provisions for attorney compensation.
• Medicaid liens and the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act.
• How the Brenston case impacts transfer applications.
• Document drafting and anti-assignment restrictions.
• Vermont's structured settlement protection act amendments.

Meta Structured Settlement Themes

Reviewing S2P2J Release 55 and other recent S2P2J highlights, S2KM notes two related structured settlement meta themes:

• Transformational market developments.
• Changing roles, responsibilities and work product.

Transformational Market Developments

A growing dichotomy exists between stagnant primary market sales and multiple, ongoing transformational developments impacting the structured settlement market - the most significant of which are addressed in S2P2J Chapter 15 ("Government Benefits and Structured Settlements") and Chapter 16 ("Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights").

Supplemental resources - structured settlement market developments:

• Recent and upcoming structured settlement, settlement planning and special needs educational conferences.
• S2KM's 2013 structured settlement industry reports:
  • Part 1 - Primary market
  • Part 2 - Settlement planning
  • Part 3 - Secondary market
  • Part 4 - ELNY and Reliance
• S2KM's 2014 structured settlement market updates:
  • Primary market
  • Secondary market

Changing Roles, Responsibilities and Work Product

The transformational market developments outlined above are causing and requiring significant changes to structured settlement roles, responsibilities and work product.

These changes feature more prominent roles for new professional stakeholders (settlement planners, special needs planners, settlement trustees, lien resolution specialists, damage allocators, factoring companies, secondary market brokers and attorneys) as well as adjustments for traditional professional stakeholders (defense and plaintiff attorneys, defendants and liability insurers, structured settlement consultants and annuity providers, judges, mediators, and guardians).

Defense and Plaintiff Attorneys

The original S2P2J publication (1986) included comprehensive chapters detailing respectively the roles and responsibilities of defense attorneys (Chapter 4) and plaintiff attorneys (Chapter 5) in structured settlements. These chapters continue to be updated reflecting new legislative and regulatory developments as well as changing business models and practices.

Release 54, for example, substantially expanded and re-organized S2P2J's coverage of defendant structured settlement disclosure issues. Release 55 enumerates a list of "best practices" for defense attorneys and includes a new structured settlement Appendix document to disclose material information about the costs, commissions and other elements of case specific funding. Release 55 also identifies and summarizes new structured settlement case law related to plaintiff attorney settlement planning, compensation and document drafting responsibilities.

Structured Settlement Consultants

Release 54 expanded and updated S2P2J's existing coverage (Section 6.02) of structured settlement consultants to address: consultant selection criteria; structured settlement product suitability; and consultant business practice issues including laws and regulations, industry standards, commission disputes, privacy rules, and disclosure and representation requirements.

Release 55 adds, as a new Appendix document, the SSP "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" which SSP describes as "rules of reason ... intended to impose high standards on professional settlement planners" including structured settlement consultants.

S2KM's recent summary of the AAJ 2014 Winter Meeting highlighted continuing concerns about structured settlement business standards and practices including:

• Questions about product suitability, disclosure standards and informed consent in the context of expanding structured settlement product and service offerings.
• Misrepresentations in structured settlement sales materials plus a general failure of these same sales materials to provide any information about the transfer issues.

Judges Reviewing Transfer Applications

The recent Settlement Planning v. Brenston and Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings cases highlight changing standards for judicial review of anti-assignment restrictions. S2P2J Chapter 16 ("Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights") already includes an entire section discussing "Judicial Review of Transfer Applications" plus detailed analysis of structured settlement anti-assignment restrictions (Sections 16.02[2][c] and [d] and 16.05[4][c]).

Release 55 expands S2P2J's anti-assignment analysis concluding that recent court decisions "should cause judges reviewing transfer petitions to require the full text of structured settlement documentation to see if an anti-assignment provision is present. Without such information, transfer approvals are subject to being found to be void ab initio and thus open to invalidation at any time."

S2P2J also features, as an Appendix document, NSSTA's Annotated and Non-annotated Model Qualified Assignment and Release Agreement. NSSTA's Model Agreement includes recommended language (Paragraph 7 - "Acceleration, Transfer of Payment Rights") for addressing anti-assignment issues in the context of IRC Section 5891 and the state structured settlement protection acts.

Anti-Assignment Restrictions

Structured settlement transfers require that payment rights be assignable. Otherwise, transfer (factoring) companies have no direct right against the structured settlement obligor or annuity issuer.

Prior to enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection acts, the validity and enforceability of structured settlement transfers typically depended upon three basic issues:

• Did the structured settlement documentation clearly forbid assignments?
• If yes did state law override the anti-assignment provision?
• Or, did the parties to the structured settlement waive the anti-assignment provision?

Although IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection acts set forth procedures and conditions allowing transfers of structured settlement payment rights, courts continue to enforce anti-assignment restrictions when parties to the original structured settlement object.

Most transfer courts, however, have held that the anti-assignment restrictions are not self-executing and have granted transfers when no one objects. Objections to transfers by obligors and annuity issuers have become increasingly rare since the enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection acts.

The Brenston Case

Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston represents a high profile and controversial case where an Illinois Appellate Court overruled prior state court approval of structured settlement transfers based upon anti-assignment restrictions - even though the parties to the original structured settlement waived the anti-assignment provisions. The case currently is subject to a petition for review by the Illinois Supreme Court.

In the Brenston case, an Illinois 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, determined Brenston’s settlement agreement contained an enforceable anti-assignment provision. As a result, the panel decided the state court, which had previously approved requested transfers, had a duty to enforce the anti-assignment provision and “it had no authority under the Act to approve” the transfer petitions.

In other words, despite the existence of the Illinois transfer statute, the Appellate panel declared court orders approving assignments to be "void ab initio", as a matter of Illinois law, whenever structured settlement documentation purports to limit assignability.

If the Illinois Supreme Court upholds the Brenston appellate decision, or decides not to review it, the case would render the Illinois transfer statute "a practical nullity", according to an Amicus curiae brief filed by the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP).

"Without the certainty and finality of a court order, there is no viable secondary market," the NASP brief states. "Because every structured settlement contains boilerplate language that purports to limit or restrict assignability, every Illinois court approved transfer could be subject to challenge at any time."

Public Policy

The validity of assignments, including structured settlement transfers, depends in part on public policy issues. Transfers arguably undermine the fundamental purpose of structured settlements - to provide spendthrift protection for injury victims and their dependents.

This public policy perspective is captured in the statutory history of the structured settlement tax exclusion. To qualify, IRC 130 provides in part "periodic payments cannot be accelerated, deferred, increased, or decreased by the recipient of such payments"

Over time, many structured settlement documents have expanded this IRC 130 prohibition to include "transferred, assigned, mortgaged or encumbered" or words to that effect. (emphasis added). Although anti-assignment provisions are incorporated into many state workers compensation statutes, they are not specifically required by IRC 130, I04(a)(1) or 104(a)(2).

Factoring advocates offer competing public policy arguments to support structured settlement transfers. Unanticipated needs or poorly constructed settlement plans may necessitate immediate cash and outweigh other public policy considerations. Factoring advocates also criticize the "paternalistic" viewpoint of factoring opponents. They argue the structured settlement recipient, as owner of payment rights, should have the right to decide whether to transfer or assign those rights.

Many other statutes either permit or favor assignment of payments rights. These statutes include the 48 state structured settlement protection acts, IRC 5891, and recent revisions to UCC Article 9 as well as the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Unfortunately, the authors of revised UCC Article 9 did not carefully consider the impact of their revisions on structured settlement transfers which has resulted in conflicting statutory language and interpretations among various states.

Best Practices

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) amended its Model Qualified Assignment and Release Agreement following the enactment of IRC 5891 and the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act. Paragraph 7, titled "Acceleration, Transfer of Payment Rights", now provides:

"None of the Periodic Payments and no rights to or interest in any of the Periodic Payments (all of the foregoing being hereinafter collectively referred to as “Payment Rights”) can be

i. Accelerated, deferred, increased or decreased by any recipient of any of the Periodic Payments; or

ii. Sold, assigned, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred or encumbered, either directly or indirectly, unless such sale, assignment, pledge, hypothecation or other transfer or encumbrance (any such transaction being hereinafter referred to as a “Transfer”) has been approved in advance in a “Qualified Order” as defined in Section 5891(b)(2) of the Code (a “Qualified Order”) and otherwise complies with applicable state law, including without limitation any applicable state structured settlement protection statute.

No Claimant or Successor Payee shall have the power to effect any Transfer of Payment Rights except as provided in sub-paragraph (ii) above, and any other purported Transfer of Payment Rights shall be wholly void. If Payment Rights under this Agreement become the subject of a Transfer approved in accordance with sub-paragraph (ii) above the rights of any direct or indirect transferee of such Transfer shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and any defense or claim in recoupment arising hereunder." (NSSTA's emphasis).

Brenston Status

Peachtree Settlement Funding, the transfer company involved in the Brenston case, has filed a petition for review with the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court will likely act on Peachtree's petition by December, although a decision whether to review could be delayed until February, according to NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt who reported on the case during the NASP 2013 Annual Conference. Assuming the petition for review is granted, Nesbitt stated a final decision is not expected for nine to 12 months.

Brenston Issues

NASP President Patricia LaBorde characterized the Brenston case as "troubling" for several reasons during a recent S2KM interview:

• The Appellate Court decision challenges the finality of transfer orders. "No one wants litigation over closed cases."

• The only issue on appeal was timeliness. The Appellate Court expanded the issues to discuss anti-assignment restrictions.

• The case had settled before the appeal. Both Brenston and Settlement Funding filed motions to stay the appeal which the Appellate Court ignored.
• The trial judges who approved the transfers were experienced with structured settlement transfers and aware of existing anti-assignment clauses. They never mentioned or suggested they were defrauded.
• The Appellate Court ignored waiver language and references to IRC 5891 which appeared in some of the original structured settlement documents.
• All of the relevant parties had waived the anti-assignment provisions.
• Unlike Brenston, all of the cases cited by the Appellate Court supporting enforcement of anti-assignment restrictions involved objections by structured settlement obligors or annuity providers.
• Brenston had other potential remedies against Settlement Funding including a separate cause of action for fraud.
• The Brenston Appellate Court decision probably puts a hold on transfers in Illinois until the case is appealed or the Illinois transfer statute is amended.

Additional Resources

• For more detailed analysis concerning anti-assignment restrictions, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).
• For the results of prior California transfer cases involving anti-assignment and finality of judgment issues, see - Fresno County Factoring Cases:
  • Report 1
  • Report 2
  • Report 3

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"

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.

Liability Insurers' ELNY Motion Denied

Without further explanation, Judge John Galasso has denied a Motion by liability insurers, including Travelers, Fireman's Fund and Hartford, asking the Judge to "clarify and/or correct" his August 16, 2012 Executive Life of New York (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. (see Addendum below)

The ELNY Memorandum Decision states in relevant part: "certain insurance companies such as Travelers, the Fireman's Fund Companies and Hartford have assured the Court that they will make up the difference to those identified shortfall payees for any settlement obligation where they purchased an ELNY annuity on behalf of an injured party."

In their June 14, 2012 Motion, attorneys representing those liability insurers, as well as Jefferson Insurance Company, Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company dba Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty North America, John Hancock Property and Casualty Insurance Company and John Hancock Indemnity Company, asked the Court to "amend its decision to omit what the Court likely intended as an aside, or background, which is not material to the Court's approval" of the ELNY Liquidation Plan.

Their Motion had attempted to distinguish two types of structured settlement funding alternatives: "buy and hold" vs. qualified assignments. The Motion maintained that "at no time" did the liability insurers "undertake liability following qualified assignments - liability was extinguished pursuant to the qualified assignment arrangements."

The Motion further attempted to clarify statements made during the ELNY Liquidation hearings by attorneys representing liability insurers including Fireman's Fund attorney Peter Vodola and Traveler's attorney Craig Ulman. (see Addendum below)

According to the Motion, Vodola's promise on behalf of Fireman's Fund that structured settlement shortfall payees "will receive a hundred percent of their benefits regardless of what happens here" was specifically limited to ELNY annuitants "who are entitled to payments under annuities owned by Fireman's Fund."

Similarly, the Motion sought to clarify Ulman's testimony which provided in part: "l can't speak for any but Travelers but they will in fact be covering the shortfalls under their structured settlements. So that the payees will receive the same number of dollars that they are -- were scheduled to receive eventually." Ulman further stated: "The fact is, their obligations are what they are and they will not be affected by the status of the plan." (see Addendum below)

As S2KM has previously written, the legal rights and responsibilities of ELNY qualified assignments represents a critical issue that may subsequently be litigated by the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims. The Motion suggested that all qualified assignments release all defendants and liability insurers from future liability for promised periodic payments and that annuity ownership determines liability.

Those "suggestions" and/or "assumptions", however, are not necessarily or universally true. For example:

• IRC section 130, which defines a "qualified assignment", does not address whether the assignor's duty is discharged as a result of a qualified assignment.
• IRC section 130 does include requirements which must be met to successfully create a qualified assignment.
• The Monarch Capital case demonstrates some judges apply "creative" legal analysis to protect structured settlement payees following the bankruptcy of a qualified structured settlement assignee.

In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will review IRC section 130 history and requirements and summarize, in the context of ELNY structured settlement shortfall payments, relevant sections of the Restatement (Second) of Law of Contracts addressing:

• Assignment of Rights
• Delegation of Duties
• Delegation vs. Novation
• Disclaimer by a Beneficiary
• Misrepresentation and Voidable Contracts

For S2KM's complete coverage of the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

ADDENDUM (July 29, 2012) - Please note two corrections to the above report:

1. Although Judge Galasso's Memorandum Decision specifically mentions Travelers, Travelers had nothing to do with the Motion "to clarify and/or correct" the Memorandum Decision. Travelers was "not a party to [the Motion] and learned about it only after it was filed" according to Craig Ulman, Travelers' attorney.
   
2. Although Ulman's testimony, as quoted above, appears in the ELNY liquidation hearing transcript, the Motion "to clarify and/or correct" does not mention Ulman's testimony at the hearing.  Instead, Ulman's hearing testimony, as quoted by S2KM above, appears in the "Affirmation of Edward S. Stone in Opposition to Motions to Clarify and/or Correct the Court's Memorandum Decision."

The following related ELNY documents are accessible on the structured settlement wiki:

• Memorandum Decision
• Motion to Clarify and/or Correct
• Affirmation in Opposition
• Reply in Support
• Decision denying the Motion
• Craig Ulman Testimony from the ELNY Liquidation Hearing Transcript

Elephant in the ELNY Court Room

Due to a lack of basic accountability standards, New York’s receivership system has failed Executive Life of New York (ELNY), its policyholders and beneficiaries, as well as the insurance industry and its customers, according to New York attorney Peter Bickford in a new article titled "The Elephant in the Court Room".

Bickford, whose legal specialties include insurance and reinsurance operational, regulatory and solvency issues, has written previously about the "flawed receivership process" in New York that he maintains has resulted in ELNY's liquidation and restructuring. See, for example, "The Trouble with ELNY".

Bickford's newest article expands this critique and provides a valuable summary analysis of the ELNY failed rehabilitation and subsequent liquidation hearing.

Bickford observes that the 1992 ELNY rehabilitation plan, "like the Titanic, was doomed the moment it left port". For reasons never satisfactorily explained, the ELNY rehabilitation plan differentiated between ELNY's traditional life and annuity business and its single premium annuities individual annuities (SPIAs) including all ELNY structured settlement annuities.

Pursuant to its rehabilitation plan, ELNY's traditional business was transferred to Metropolitan Life, along with ELNY's strongest statutory reserve assets, and these policyholders "received an equivilent (sic) policy from Met Life and suffered no material financial consequences." Although administered by Met Life, the structured settlement annuities and other SPIAs were left in ELNY along with its weakest ("junk bond") assets.

Significantly, neither the 1991 ELNY Rehabilitation Order nor the 1992 Order approving the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan declared ELNY to be insolvent. According to annual reports of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), which Bickford obtained through Freedom of Information Law requests, ELNY's cash flow went negative in 2002 - ten years following court approval of its Rehabilitation Plan and ten years before its Liquidation Order and Restructuring Plan were approved by New York State Supreme Court Judge John Galasso.

Bickford points out that even before ELNY's first external audit in 2006 (resulting in a substantial increase in reserves), the NYLB acknowledged that the reserve standard used in its annual statements “substantially understate[d] reserves when compared to reserves that would be required to satisfy regulatory requirements for a going concern insurance carrier.”

Bickford asks: "why weren’t proper accounting and reserve levels required or maintained, particularly for an entity that was solvent at the time it was taken into rehabilitation to protect it and its policyholders?"

The explanation, according to Bickford, results from fundamental flaws in New York's life insurance receivership process. "Counter intuitively" Bickford states, "when a company is placed in rehabilitation in New York the company ceases to be regulated":

• "The rigorous statutory requirements for filings, reports or certifications imposed on other licensed companies are no longer imposed on estates in rehabilitation;"
• "[T]here are no periodic regulatory reviews, examinations or communications;"
• "[T]here is no regulatory oversight of the operations, assets or finances; and"
• "[T]here is no mechanism for regulatory oversight of financial condition or compliance with the insurance law or regulations."

If ELNY had not been in rehabilitation, Bickford maintains "it is highly unlikely that the regulators would have allowed it to get to the point where the estate is today." Assuming ELNY had become insolvent outside of rehabilitation, Bickford asserts "the company’s officers and directors, its independent auditors, actuaries and other agents, could all potentially — and probably would — have been held accountable for their actions or inactions contributing to its failure."

Although New York Insurance Law, according to Bickford, does not provide immunity for the Superintendent or his agents in his separate, non-regulatory role as receiver, Judge Galasso granted judicial immunity, as requested by the Superintendent, in the ELNY Liquidation Order. In addition, Judge Galasso accepted the totality of the Superintendent's arguments and approved the ELNY Restructuring Agreement as proposed by the Superintendent and NOLHGA.

The result of the ELNY Liquidation Order and Restructuring Plan, even following contributions from state guaranty funds and voluntary life insurance company contributions, is a $900 million shortfall allocated entirely (and arguably inequitably) to approximately 1550 ELNY payees (including all structured settlement payees) out of a total of approximately 9700 current ELNY payees. The remaining, approximately 8150 current ELNY payees expect to receive 100 percent of their promised future payments.

To what extent will defendants and liability insurers supplement the ELNY structured settlement shortfalls? The answer is uncertain and depends, in part, on an issue S2KM addressed in a prior blog post: do qualified assignments extinguish the liability of defendants and/or liability insurers for shortfall payments resulting from the ELNY liquidation?

Bickford's article provides a succinct summary of objections raised by ELNY shortfall victims and their attorneys to the ELNY liquidation proceedings and ELNY restructuring plan:

• "Given the complexity and consequence of the proposed plan, the notice provided to payees was inadequate and untimely;
• "The plan will be administered and overseen by the very people that caused the shortfall — the rehabilitator and his agents;
• "The people most affected by the plan, the shortfall payees, were not consulted in the development of the plan and have not been given any reasonable opportunity to consider and propose an alternative plan;
• "The requested judicial immunity for the rehabilitator and everyone connected with the plan and its implementation is unprecedented and unwarranted given the failed history of the rehabilitation;
• "By placing the full burden of the shortfall on a small percentage of the payees, the plan is neither fair nor equitable, and creates an improper subclass of claimants; and
• "Collectively these objections, including a denial of any right to opt out of the plan, constitute an unconstitutional taking of property without due process." Note: for a summary of the due process issue, see this prior S2KM blog post.

Bickford's article further highlights the following legal issues which he states "could linger in the courts for years":

• "The propriety of the court including the rehabilitator’s request for judicial immunity for himself and his agents in the signed liquidation order;
• "Whether the up front netting of the guaranty funds’ subrogation rights (so that no guaranty fund actually pays its full cap on any claim) contradicts the legislative intent of the caps;
• "Whether the plan results in an improper sub-class of claimants — the shortfall annuitants;
• "The scope of claim-over rights of shortfall annuitants against policy owners, insurance brokers, attorneys or others involved in the original settlements;
• "The role and rights of factors that acquired claim payments from annuitants; and
• "The scope of responsibility of the rehabilitator and his agents as fiduciaries for all ELNY policyholders and payees for the failed rehabilitation."

Bickford's article concludes with a critical observation: although the ELNY Restructuring Plan may solve the immediate ELNY problem (at the expense of the remaining ELNY shortfall victims), it does not address the broader, underlying systemic defects inherent in the New York life insurance receivership system.

For additional articles by Peter Bickford, see his website. For S2KM's complete and continuing ELNY reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

ADDENDUM (July 4, 2012): Bickford's article adds one additional observation that should be highlighted. ELNY's liquidation will apparently exhaust the New York life insurance guaranty fund. Without an act of the New York legislature, according to Bickford, "there will be no life insurance guaranty fund coverage in New York" following ELNY. For additional information about the role of state guaranty funds in the life insurer liquidation process, see this prior S2KM blog post.

ELNY Qualified Assignments

Do qualified assignments extinguish the liability of defendants and/or liability insurers for shortfall payments resulting from the liquidation of Executive Life of New York (ELNY)?

That issue is highlighted by a Motion filed June 14, 2012 on behalf of several liability insurers ("Motion") asking Judge John Gallasso to "clarify and/or correct" his April 16, 2012 ELNY Memorandum Decision. For additional background, see S2KM's blog post "ELNY Shortfall Payments".

Judge Galasso's ELNY Memorandum Decision states in relevant part: "certain insurance companies such as Travelers, the Fireman's Fund Companies and Hartford have assured the Court that they will make up the difference to those identified shortfall payees for any settlement obligation where they purchased an ELNY annuity on behalf of an injured party."

The Motion attempts 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.

Regardless of whether Judge Galasso grants the liability insurers' motion, the legal rights and responsibilities of ELNY qualified assignments represents a critical issue that may subsequently be litigated. The Motion suggests that all qualified assignments release all defendants and liability insurers from future liability for promised periodic payments and that annuity ownership determines liability.

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 for multiple reasons:

• IRC section 130, which defines a "qualified assignment", does not address whether the assignor's duty is discharged as a result of a qualified assignment.
• IRC section 130 does include requirements which must be met to successfully create a qualified assignment.
• The Monarch Capital case demonstrates some judges apply "creative" legal analysis to protect structured settlement payees following the bankruptcy of a qualified structured settlement assignee.

See "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) Section 3.05[9] for information about life insurance insolvencies including ELNY; Section 3.06 for information about qualified assignments; and Section 5.04 which addresses the risk of non-payment to a structured settlement payee.

See the structured settlement wiki for S2KM's complete and continuing reporting about Executive Life of New York,

ELNY Shortfall Payments

Who has responsibility to make up the difference in annuity shortfall payments under the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Plan approved by New York State Supreme Court Judge John Galasso on April 16, 2012?

Attorneys representing several liability insurers who previously purchased ELNY structured settlement annuities have filed a Motion 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.

The ELNY Memorandum Decision states in relevant part: "certain insurance companies such as Travelers, the Fireman's Fund Companies and Hartford have assured the Court that they will make up the difference to those identified shortfall payees for any settlement obligation where they purchased an ELNY annuity on behalf of an injured party."

In their June 14, 2012 Motion, attorneys Seiger Gfeller Laurie, representing those liability insurers, as well as Jefferson Insurance Company, Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company dba Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty North America, John Hancock Property and Casualty Insurance Company and John Hancock Indemnity Company, ask the Court to "amend its decision to omit what the Court likely intended as an aside, or background, which is not material to the Court's approval" of the ELNY Liquidation Plan.

The Motion attempts to distinguish two types of structured settlement funding alternatives: "buy and hold" vs. qualified assignments. The Motion maintains that "at no time" did the liability insurers "undertake liability following qualified assignments - liability was extinguished pursuant to the qualified assignment arrangements."

The Motion further attempts to clarify statements made during the ELNY Liquidation hearings by Fireman's Fund attorney Peter Vodola. According to the Motion, Vodola's promise on behalf of Fireman's Fund that structured settlement shortfall payees "will receive a hundred percent of their benefits regardless of what happens here" was specifically limited to ELNY annuitants "who are entitled to payments under annuities owned by Fireman's Fund."

At least one ELNY shortfall victim has already requested that Fireman's Fund make up the difference on a structured settlement funded with a qualified assignment.  The Motion highlights as an Exhibit an April 25, 2012 letter written by attorney Edward Stone to Fireman's Fund's Chief Counsel on behalf of ELNY shortfall victim Jeanice Dolan.

Stone's letter states that Dolan anticipates a 47 percent payment reduction under the ELNY Liquidation Plan resulting in a present value loss of $815,162.62. After quoting the Memorandum Decision language the Motion seeks to "clarify and/or correct", Stone's letter requests Fireman's Fund to compensate Dolan for her ELNY shortfall.

Stone has indicated to S2KM he plans to file opposition papers and a cross motion.

A copy of the Motion to Clarify and/or Correct the Court's Memorandum Decision is posted on the structured settlement wiki.