Beyond Structured Settlements

Structured Settlements 2014 - Secondary Market

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

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

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

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

What happened?

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

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

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

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

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

Brenston Case Law "Progeny"

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

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

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

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

Washington Square v. RSL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change of Directions for JGWPT?

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

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

Other 2014 Secondary Market Developments

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

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

For additional related S2KM reporting, see:

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

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.

Growing the Primary Market - 2

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) share a strategic interest in the growth and vitality of the primary structured settlement market.

NSSTA and NASP have scheduled simultaneous Fall conferences in different cities which will each address (directly or indirectly) the steady, recent decline of primary market annuity premium.

NSSTA has transfigured its annual Fall Educational Conference into a members-only "Marketing Boot Camp" scheduled for November 5-6 in Dallas, Texas. The announced boot camp training agenda, "designed to help every member who attends learn how to increase the number of referrals they get from their clients and how to develop new clients", will address:

• Effective World Class Selling Behaviors for Professionals Who Sell to the Insurance Claims Industry
• The Discipline of Marketing
• Growing and Maintaining a Successful Business
• How Not to Market
• Getting New Business
• Marketing Through Social Media
• Marketing Tools
• Two Heads Are Better Than One
• How to Take an Old Book of Business and Grow It
• The Affordable Care Act

NASP's Annual Conference, scheduled for November 5-7 in Las Vegas, is open to NASP members, affiliate members and non-members. NASP's 2013 conference will feature a Primary Market Panel moderated by S2KM blog author, Patrick Hindert, with panelists:

• Daniel Hindert - Shareholder of Parsons Behle & Latimer who concentrates his legal practice on personal injury litigation for plaintiffs and defense. Daniel co-authors "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) and has published numerous articles concerning both the primary and secondary structured settlement markets.
• Anthony Prieto, Jr. - President of Synergy Settlement Solutions who also serves on the Board of Directors of the Society of Settlement Planners. Anthony is a frequent speaker at national conferences about settlement planning issues including "re-cycled structured settlements".
• William Schemmel - Legal counsel for Western & Southern Financial Group whose subsidiaries include Integrity Life Insurance Company which previously participated as a product provider in the structured settlement primary market. William's current responsibilities include supervising Integrity's secondary market structured settlement transfers.

Questions NASP's Primary Market Panel will address:

• What are the most important current primary market issues?
• What are the most important current primary market developments?
• How large is the potential U.S. primary structured settlement market?
• Why is the primary market continuing to decline?
• What can be done to reverse this downward trend?
• What segments, if any, of the primary market are growing and what segments are declining?
• What primary market business practices, if any, create problems for the industry?
• What are "re-cycled" structured settlements?
• What impact have they had on the primary market?
• What issues do they present for the primary market?
• How active are primary market brokers in the secondary market?
• What roles do they play?
• Why haven't more structured settlement annuity providers offered commutations as alternatives to transfers?
• What problems do structured settlement transfers and transfer companies create for primary market providers?
• What current impact does the secondary market have on primary market sales and the attitude of primary market stakeholders toward structured settlements?
• What steps do you recommend to improve communication and relations more generally between primary and secondary market participants?

Handout materials for the NASP Primary Market Panel will include a new section from S2P2J Release 54 titled "Re-Cycled Structured Settlements".

Related Developments and Resources

A recent S2KM blog post, "Growing the Structured Settlement Market", highlighted a survey of structured settlement primary market leaders by Daniel Durbin addressing opportunities to jump start primary market growth.

For previous S2KM blog posts about the following related topics, see the structured settlement wiki :

• Growing the Structured Settlement Market
• Structured Settlement Metrics
• Primary and Secondary Market Surveys
• Annual Industry Reports
• NSSTA and NASP Conference Reports

S2P2J Release 54

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates an October 2013 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for Release 54 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update simultaneously at no additional charge.

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. 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 54 Highlights - Release 54 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:

• Negotiating structured settlements vs. cashing out
• Defendant disclosure issues
• Business practices of consultants
• Insurance company insolvencies
• Medicare set-aside arrangements
• Re-cycled structured settlement payment rights
• Securitization of structured settlement payment rights
• Australia structured settlement update

Negotiating Structured Settlements vs. Cashing Out - Why and when should defendants agree to structured settlements as opposed to lump sum settlements? Do defendants save money using structured settlements and, if yes, why and how? Do structured settlements result in additional costs and risks for defendants and, if yes, how do defendants reduce these costs and risks? Release 54 examines these questions in the context of existing state statutes and case law and offers recommendations for defendants when they review their traditional structured settlement policies and business practices. The recommendations include new sample structured settlement Mission and Disclosure Statements for liability insurers.

Defendant Disclosure Issues - Release 54 substantially expands and re-organizes S2P2J's existing coverage of defendant structured settlement disclosure issues. Topics addressed:

• State structured settlement protection act requirements
• Product disclosures and representations
  • Cost or Value
  • NAIC Annuity Disclosure Model Regulation
  • NAIC Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation
  • Compensation disclosure
  • "Guaranteed" payments
  • Dissipation studies
  • Public assistance
  • Annuity ownership and rights
  • Taxation
  • Financial condition of funding entities
• Conflicts of interest
• Medicaid/Medicare disclosures
• Securities issues
• Class action lawsuits vs. defendants
• Meeting professional responsibilities

Structured Settlement Consultants - Release 54 expands and updates S2P2J's coverage 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.

Insurance Company Insolvencies - Release 54 expands and updates S2P2J's already extensive coverage of insurance company insolvencies including state insurance guaranty associations and the most recent developments impacting Executive Life of New York [ELNY] and Reliance Insurance Company. Following ELNY's 22 years of New York State supervised "rehabilitation", S2P2J's Release 54 identifies lessons that potential structured settlement recipients and their attorneys and advisers can and should learn from the ELNY debacle.

Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements - Release 54 re-organizes and promotes S2P2J's coverage of Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) with updated materials for both workers compensation (WC) MSAs and liability MSAs. These updates include an extensive summary and analysis of the structured settlement provisions in the new CMS WCMSA Reference Guide as well as conclusions and recommendations for utilizing MSAs in personal injury liability cases.

Re-cycled Structured Settlement Payment Rights - As low interest rates continue to negatively impact the primary structured settlement market, new products featuring re-cycled structured settlement payment rights have begun to proliferate as funding alternatives for personal injury periodic payment settlements. Release 54 features a new section with detailed diagrams and charts (designed by Timothy Morbach) to explain the several variations of these products. In addition, this new section compares the features of these products with traditional structured settlements and summarizes recent investor warnings about these products issued by the SEC and FINRA.

Securitization of Structured Settlement Payment Rights - S2P2J already includes a detailed Chapter 16 titled "Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights" which provides comprehensive coverage of most structured settlement secondary market issues. This coverage includes: the history of the secondary market; summary and analysis of IRC section 5891 and the state structured settlement protection acts; and how judges review (or should review) transfer applications. Release 54 adds a new section, with detailed diagrams and charts (designed by Timothy Morbach), explaining how securitization of structured settlement payment rights works.

Australia Structured Settlement Update - S2P2J continues to track structured settlement developments in countries outside the United States including Canada, the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Release 54 highlights a recent legislative development in Australia called “The Lifetime Care and Support Scheme” which provides treatment, rehabilitation and attendant care services to people severely injured in automobile accidents. At least one Australian structured settlement expert believes this legislative development could prevent an annuity-funded structured settlement market from developing in Australia anytime soon.

"Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" is a complete reference work for attorneys, settlement planners, structured settlement consultants, risk managers, liability insurers, annuity providers and secondary market participants. It is available in both hardcopy and online versions which are updated semi-annually. For highlights from previous S2P2J updates, see the structured settlement wiki.

A Response to the SEC Bulletin

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC Rule 10b-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

S2KM Critique

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

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

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

Most Fundamental Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of a "Security"

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

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

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

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

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

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.

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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