Beyond Structured Settlements

ASNP 2017 Annual Conference

For the past 11 years, the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) annual conferences have consistently improved the educational scope and standards for an expanding professional landscape which, in addition to, and overlapping with, special needs planning, also encompasses personal injury settlement planning, including various types of settlement trusts as well as structured settlements, Medicare set-aside arrangements and life care planning.

ASNP's 2017 Annual Conference, which occurred March 23-25 in New Orleans, maintained its deserved reputation and also highlighted an increasing number of opportunities, issues and challenges for both the traditional structured settlement industry and the "emerging" personal injury settlement planning industry - relatively few of whose combined members have historically attended this, or other, national special needs conferences.

ASNP 2017 TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

PRE-SESSION

• Drafting the World's Best Special Needs Trusts - Kevin Urbatch; Nancy Chudacoff; Ray Falcon; Travis Finchum; Michele Fuller; Robert Mescali
• Online Marketing for Attorneys Intensive Workshop - Conrad Saam

MAIN PROGRAM

• Developments and Updates on Special Needs Topics - Blaine Brockman
• Ethically Representing Persons with Disabilities and their Families - Dr. Roberta Flowers and Sheila Moragas
• To SNT or not SNT: How to Systematically Review a Client's Situation to Provide the Best Advice - Travis Finchum and David Lillesand
• Understanding the Issues that Arise When Persons with Disabilities Interact in Family Law Situations - Emily Kile and Jennifer Kupiszewski
• Taxation Issues that Arise for Persons with Special Needs - Vincent Russo
• SSI Update - David Lillesand
• Ask the Experts Panel - Moderated by Kevin Urbatsch
• The Arc - Robin Shaffert

CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS - A STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT / SETTLEMENT PLANNING PERSPECTIVE

Legislative Developments - Multiple legislative developments addressed at the ASNP conference represent expanding business opportunities for structured settlement and settlement planning professionals.

• Affordable Care Act - The political future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicaid remain uncertain. In fact, House Speaker Paul Ryan pulled the Republican ACA replacement bill concurrent with the ASNP conference. At present, however, both the ACA and Medicaid continue to represent critical health care alternatives for disabled individuals as David Lillesand and Travis Finchurm discussed in their presentation "To SNT or not SNT". In discussing these options, Lillesand highlighted the need for a "cost benefit analysis" to determine whether advisors should recommend private health insurance or a special needs trust (SNT). Both d(4)(A) (self-settled) SNTs and ACA premium payments continue to represent excellent funding opportunities for structured settlements as well as important settlement planning considerations.
• Special Needs Trust Fairness Act - Blaine Brockman summarized Section 5007 of the 21st Century Cures Act - a section referred to as the "Special Needs Trust Fairness Act" (SNTFA), which was signed into law by President Obama on December 13, 2016. The SNTFA adds “the individual” to the list of persons/entities who can establish a special needs trust pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(4)(A) and thereby corrected a long -standing oversight in the OBRA 1993 legislation that created SNTs. Among the anticipated results of the SNTFA: more self-settled special needs trusts with more opportunities for structured settlements.
• The Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act - Since the Federal ABLE Act became law in December 2014, 18 states have opened ABLE programs. ABLE Accounts "seemed pretty simple at first", according to Brockman. However, "as programs have developed, accounts have opened, and people with disabilities have begun using ABLE funds," Brockman added "what seemed like simple financial accounts have given way to more nuanced issues about the best use of the ABLE Act." Brockman's presentation addressed many of these ABLE issues and confirmed that, in appropriate cases, ABLE accounts provide a valuable new tool for special needs and personal injury settlement planners. Although Brockman did not specifically address structured settlements, special needs attorney Stephen Dale will be speaking about ABLE Accounts (and presumably structured settlements) later this week at the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Annual Conference.

Collaboration Opportunities

• Structured settlement annuities represent a strategic product within the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) market. From a legal perspective, special needs planning and settlement planning increasingly overlap. Settlement planning is now viewed as a growth opportunity by many special needs and elder law attorneys.
• Although their signature products are special needs trusts (SNTs), special needs attorneys play a variety of settlement planning roles (legal advisor; guardian; conservator; trustee; QSF administrator) and provide a variety of settlement planning products and services. Their expertise encompasses government benefits including: Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; the ACA; ABLE Act; Veterans benefits; and public housing.
• ASNP's commitment to settlement planning has included a 12-part settlement planning webinar series (including a section on structured settlements) as well as its joint 2016 Annual Conference with the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)
• Noticeable by their general absence from the ASNP conference, as speakers, attendees, exhibitors and/or sponsors, were members of NSSTA and SSP - which might be explained, in part, by the calendar proximity of their own annual conferences. In S2KM's experience, however, NSSTA and SSP members are also general "no-shows" at other national special needs conferences such as those sponsored by Stetson Law School and the University of Texas.
• By comparison: among the 17 exhibitors at the 2017 ASNP Annual Conference, there were at least: seven settlement trustees, one life care planner, one MSA administrator, and one seller of Medicaid annuities. The Platinum Sponsor of the ASNP Annual Conference was MassMutual, a life insurance company which exited the structured settlement market in 2007. MassMutual now appears to be the leading national special needs life insurance provider - focusing on developmentally disabled individuals and their families rather than personal injury victims. MassMutual acquired Metlife's retail advisory force in 2016 including its special needs division.
• Why should members of NSSTA and SSP attend national special needs conferences? For NSSTA (and its "Growth Initiative") and SSP (and its "Emerging Professionalism"), attendance and participation at national special needs conferences is important, of course, for education and marketing. Beyond those objectives, however, It is also about:
  • Understanding special needs and special needs planning - and how they impact structured settlements and settlement planning;
  • Identifying special needs knowledge leaders and collaboration partners;
  • Establishing (or re-establishing and improving) professional and association identities within the special needs community;
  • Recruiting "next generation" structured settlement and settlement planning professionals;
  • Improving multi-professional work product and building better business models.
  • Becoming part of the local, state and national special needs community - as described during the ASNP conference by Robin Shaffert, Senior Executive Officer of the Arc.

Standards, Practices and Certification - In addition to developments noted above, some progress is being made toward improving professional standards, practices and certification within both the special needs and settlement planning (including structured settlement) markets.

• MassMutual, which sponsors the American College of Financial Services Center for Special Needs , announced during the ASNP conference that the American College now offers a new Chartered Special Needs Consultant (ChSNC™) program. The Mission of the Center is "to elevate the knowledge of financial service professionals in the area of special needs planning." However, its new certification program does not appear to encompass structured settlements or settlement planning.
• In her ASNP discussion titled "Ethically Representing Persons with Disabilities and their Families", Professor Roberta Flowers referenced the proposed and newly revised "Aspirational Standards for Professionalism and Ethical Behavior for Elder and Special Needs Law" published by the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) which NAELA will introduce to its members later this summer.
• During its 2017 Annual Conference, SSP announced a four-step plan to elevate settlement planning to professional status: 1) re-focusing SSP on professionalism; 2) updating SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct; 3) renewing and upgrading the RSP Designation program; 4) adopting and embracing new proposed SSP Practice Standards.
• NSSTA, as an association, has been slow to embrace "settlement planning" and to investigate "special needs planning." NSSTA, however, has recently formed a "Special Needs Attorney Task Force" and its 2017 Annual Educational Conference will feature an unprecedented (for NSSTA) three special needs attorneys as speakers. NSSTA is a major contributor to the American Association for People with Disabilities (AAPD) for which Eric Vaughn, NSSTA's Executive Director, currently serves as Vice Chairman. Ringler, a founding NSSTA member and historically the largest structured settlement broker, recently re-branded itself as "Objective Settlement Advisors" and now claims to be "the largest settlement planning company in the nation." NSSTA currently is updating its CSSC certification program and is expected to increase emphasis on government benefit issues.
• Important, but often overlooked, in discussions about special needs planning and settlement planning are life care planners. The two most prominent U.S. based life care planning professional associations are the International Association of Life Care Planners (IALCP) and the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners (AANLCP). Both offer or promote certification programs.

CONCLUSION - For S2KM, the ASNP Conference continues to be a "must attend" annual event providing "top tier" analysis of special needs and settlement planning developments, valuable perspectives on structured settlements plus the opportunity to converse with industry icons and next generation leaders. For S2KM reports on past ASNP conferences, as well as other structured settlement and settlement planning national conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP 2017 Annual Conference

Although the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) was founded in 2000, the term "settlement planner" is still viewed by many structured settlement stakeholders as an inflated synonym for "plaintiff broker". Current SSP President Joseph Tombs agrees.

"Until recently," Tombs stated in an S2KM interview, "that view was entirely accurate. A plaintiff broker would simply order new business cards with the new title ('Settlement Planner') proudly displayed. Today, however, that transition creates changes in expectations, applicable standards of care, and required levels of disclosure."

Just as significant, under Tombs' leadership, SSP has made a dramatic policy shift: "to pull back completely from structured settlement politics". Tombs quickly adds, however: "Our refusal to take a position should not be misunderstood to imply anything about our individual members." For example: "[t]he SSP has been a zealous advocate of the single-claimant QSF in the past and I doubt any of our members have changed their opinions on the subject. We are not asking our members to suppress or to modify their own beliefs."

The changes in SSP, as well as the growing maturation of settlement planning, were evident during SSP's recent 2017 Annual Conference which occurred March 1-3 in Las Vegas. Perhaps the most provocative statement of change, at least from a structured settlement perspective, was a panel discussion titled "Comprehensive Settlement Planning in a Post Structure-Centric World" featuring Tombs; Jack Meligan; Charly Schell; and Joseph DiGangi.

Each of these panelists has been a settlement planning leader and proponent for many years. Meligan and Schell are former SSP Presidents. DiGangi is the newly-elected SSP Vice-President. As panelists, each offered settlement planning "tips" including:

• Meligan - Dive into Medicare; study and understand the power of QSFs; expand your vision beyond structured settlement annuities.
• Schell - Prioritize planning over products; pay attention to compliance in the planning process.
• DiGangi - Obtain relevant credentials (RSP; CSSC; MCSSC; CFP; RIA; CFA; CPA; JD); charge fees for your expertise.
• Tombs - structure into trusts; consider equity-indexed annuities; embrace comprehensive services (financial planning; asset management; trust services; legal services; insurance products; lien resolution; MSP compliance; MSA allocations or management; factoring assistance; economic witness).

SSP did not ignore structured settlements during its 2017 Annual Conference. On the contrary,. the conference included a 90 minute panel discussion titled "Structured Settlement Industry Developments" featuring "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) co-authors Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert (S2KM's Managing Director) as panelists. Topics discussed included S2P2J Release 61 highlights; renewed structured settlement sales growth ; the current AIG class action ; and the current ELNY class action . The SSP conference audience included National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Board members, NSSTA brokers and NSSTA annuity provider representatives. Multiple NSSTA members were featured as speakers.

The SSP conference also included an informative panel discussion about the structured settlement secondary market titled "Bad Practices in the Secondary Market" featuring John Darer, Eddie Stone and moderated by Rhonda Bentzen. The presentation provided a detailed, professional critique, with examples, of false advertising by some primary market participants who sell products consisting of "re-cycled" or "derivative" structured settlement payment rights as "annuities" or "structured settlements" as well as the risks and dangers of such products.

Just as SSP as an association is transitioning, the relative role and importance of structured settlements (from SSP's perspective) is also changing - and this poses a challenge for NSSTA and the structured settlement industry generally. For examples:

• Although most of the SSP members who produce structured settlements are also NSSTA members, according to Tombs, he also maintains that most SSP members, sponsors and seminar attendees do not sell structured settlement annuities.
• SSP has developed a new set of "Practice Standards" which it introduced during its 2017 Annual Conference because, according to Tombs, "professionalism requires a set of common standards recognized by those calling themselves settlement planners as well as the consuming public."
• Tombs also announced that a committee of the SSP Board will be "modernizing" SSP's existing "Standards of Professional Conduct" because this current ethical code is "too structured settlement centric".
• Tombs, as well as other SSP members, believes that settlement planning represents a uniquely superior business model compared with traditional structured settlements. Most structured settlement annuity providers, according to Tombs, "[don't] understand the significance of settlement planning - or how it differs and/or relates to structured settlements."
• From a plaintiff or plaintiff attorney perspective, Tombs characterizes settlement planners vs. structured settlement brokers as "unfair competition". "My experience has shown," Tombs states, "that whenever a plaintiff attorney sees and understands the settlement planning model, they will never again be satisfied with a structured settlement broker who only offers one product as a solution for a client's comprehensive needs."

From an historic and strategic perspective, Tombs' message, indeed the message of the SSP 2017 conference more generally, appeared to S2KM to echo and amplify Joseph DiGangi's presentation during the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting which DiGangi termed "a wake up call for the [structured settlement] industry". At that time (2009), DiGangi proposed a "consultant" model for NSSTA members, with multiple products and services, as an alternative to the "annuity broker" structured settlement business model.

Characteristics of consulting model DiGangi proposed in 2009, not unlike SSP's current settlement planning model, included: planning orientation; solutions before products; blended products and services; product neutrality; compensation disclosure; professional training and designations; comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base.

Significantly, in 2009, DiGangi characterized structured settlement annuities as the "foundation product" for what DiGangi at that time termed "settlement consulting" - and settlement consulting as the new business model for structured settlement growth. For structured settlement consultants who lack the expertise, licensing or infrastructure to offer comprehensive solutions, DiGangi recommended teaming up with other professionals. DiGangi highlighted several transitional issues: licensing; conflicts of interest; collaboration models; and work process infrastructure.

Although NSSTA has not yet formerly embraced "settlement planning", NSSTA has formed a "Special Needs Attorney Task Force" and its 2017 Annual Educational Conference will feature an unprecedented (for NSSTA) number of special needs attorneys as speakers. Special needs attorneys play an increasingly important number of roles in personal injury settlement planning. Ringler, a founding NSSTA member and historically the largest structured settlement broker, recently re-branded itself as "Objective Settlement Advisors" and now claims to be "the largest settlement planning company in the nation."

Among several other interesting and educational SSP presentations (listed below), the following two related discussions were especially important for the future of SSP and settlement planning - again, from S2KM's perspective:

• "Turning Settlement Planning Into a Profession" - Kent Hansen presenter.
• "Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) Designation Update" - Joseph Tombs presenter.

Hansen's presentation was notable for several reasons. First, he acknowledged that "settlement planning" remains an emerging profession that has not yet achieved professional status. Second, he identified four SSP-related steps to elevate settlement planning to professional status: 1) the current re-focus of SSP; 2) updating SSP's (structured-centric) Standards of Professional Conduct; 3) renewing and upgrading the RSP Designation program; 4) adopting and embracing the proposed SSP Practice Standards.

Hansen also reviewed the proposed new SSP Practice Standards, which address the following issues, and which the SSP Board of Directors' Practice Standards Committee has approved and sent to the SSP membership for their input and consideration before the SSP Board meets to discuss, modify and most likely approve the Practice Standards at its upcoming April meeting :

• Practice Standard #1 - Identifying/acknowledging "client" as individual (potentially) receiving settlement proceeds.
• Practice Standard #2 - Defining the scope of the engagement including making required disclosures of material conflicts of interest and details of the planner's compensation.
• Practice Standard #3 - Defining the client's goals, needs and priorities relevant to scope of engagement.
• Practice Standard #4 - Obtaining information and documents.
• Practice Standard #5 - Analyzing information to match client's goals, needs and priorities with resources.
• Practice Standard #6 - Considering options and developing recommendations.
• Practice Standard #7 - Communicating recommendations to enable client to make informed decisions.
• Practice Standard #8 - Mutually agreeing on implementation responsibilities consistent with scope of assignment.
• Practice Standard #9 - Recommending appropriate products and services.
• Practice Standard #10 - Mutually defining monitoring responsibilities.

Finally, Hansen reviewed the settlement planning process which S2KM summarizes as follows: 1) identify the client; 2) establish the engagement; 3) define goals; 4) gather data; 5) analyze data; 6) develop options; 7) present options; 8) agree on implementation; 9) implement plan; 10) monitor plan. Hansen acknowledged the CFP Board's current Practice Standards as the source for these processes.

Tombs provided an RSP update which is newly organized and updated within a "Settlement Planning Education Center" (SPEC) website. SPEC, "an online education provider" for the settlement planning profession, is owned and operated by a public charity ("Friends of Settlement Recipients, Inc."), according to Tombs. An RSP Board, Tombs stated, owns and awards the RSP designation and approves, administers and promotes the program. Although the RSP is "independent" of the SSP, according to the SPEC website, SSP helped start RSP and supplied initial funding. The Missions of the RSP and the SSP are "congruent".

The SPEC website provides additional information about the RSP courses and the SPEC faculty and includes a detailed list of Frequently Asked Questions (with Answers) plus multiple "How-To" Videos. The RSP program is entirely online and self-paced. The total cost of the program will be "about $4750" per person. Additional contact information is available on the SPEC website.

The remaining SSP educational programs were topically diversified, well-organized and professionally delivered - easily matching the high standards of past SSP Annual Conferences. Additional topics and speakers:

• Settlement Taxation Update and Commonly Missed Savings - Jeremy Babener
• Are MSAs Required on Liability Cases? - Josh Pettingill; Joe Anderson; Patrick Hindert (moderator)
• The ACA's Impact on Special Needs Trusts - Pi-Yi Mayo
• ERISA, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Refunds - David Place
• Life Insurance in Settlement Planning - Michael Sharpe
• Trust-Based Comprehensive Settlement Planning - Beth Wheeler
• The ABLE Act - Tom Stanley
• Settlement Strategies for Cases Involving Public Benefits - Will Lindahl
• Using MoneyGuidePro in Settlement Planning - Larry Peterson; Cam Bowen; Joseph Tombs

Congratulations to SSP, especially Conference Chairs Steve Halterbeck and Rhonda Bentzen, for an outstanding 2017 SSP program and educational experience. For S2KM's reports on past SSP conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlement 2016 Annuity Sales

Among many recent structured settlement industry developments, perhaps the most significant and impressive has been the continuation of sustained primary market annuity sales growth - especially in the context of various industry challenges. These challenges have included: 1) the aftermath of the ELNY insolvency; 2) continuation of historic low interest rates; 3) public exposure of unsavory secondary market business practices; and 4) a generational transition within the structured settlement industry.

Despite these challenges, primary market annuity sales (on a comparative basis with prior years) totaled $5.73 billion in 2016 (based upon 24,750 cases with an average case size of $231,478) according to industry estimates compiled and recently distributed by Melissa Price. 2016 sales totals compare favorably, and show a steady increase, compared with similar sales totals for these prior years::

• 2015 - $5.35 billion
• 2014 - $5.25 billion
• 2013 - $5.13 billion
• 2012 - $4.82 billion

For the first time, Ms Price's 2016 report included structured settlement annuity sales by USAA. Although USAA is a member of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), it is S2KM's understanding that USAA is one of multiple "affiliated" life companies that limits its structured settlement sales to internal USAA claims only. Typically, because these companies don't compete for external business, they don't report their sales data.

Inclusive of USSA, 2016 structured settlement sales totaled $5.80 billion (based upon 25,201 cases with an average case size of $230,320. Even including USSA, the 2016 annual premium totals still fall short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6.2 billion in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

It should also be noted, that while structured settlement premium has continued to increase since 2012, the number of structured cases has not noticeably increased - resulting in an ever-increasing average case size. This development may be explained by more structured settlement brokers transitioning to a settlement planning approach, which by definition targets larger cases. For example, Ringler, historically the largest U.S. structured settlement broker, has recently re-branded itself as "the largest settlement planning company in the nation."

Incorporating the USAA 2016 numbers, and adding the 2016 results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru 2015:

• Total annuity premium: $156 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 879,000
• Average annuity premium: $177,474

Berkshire Hathaway continued its recent primary market leadership in 2016 by generating $1.504 billion of structured settlement annuity premium - a 15% percent increase from 2015. For the first time since 2011, two companies exceeded $1 billion in structured settlement annuity sales as Pacific Life increased its 2016 total to $1.186 billion from its year earlier total of $871MM - a 36% percent increase.

The U.S. structured settlement market now consists of nine NSSTA-member annuity providers who report their structured settlement annuity sales - down from more than 20 as recently as 2002. 2016 sales results (rounded in millions) for the seven other structured settlement annuity providers (per Ms Price's report) plus the rounded percentage increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2015 results:

• MetLife: $815MM (+6%)
• Amgen: $688MM (+12%)
• Liberty Life: $513MM (-6%)
• New York Life: $487MM (+32%)
• Prudential: $399MM (-48%)
• Mutual of Omaha: $141MM (+44%)
• USAA: $72MM (first report)

Ms Price's 2016 compilation also reports an annual increase in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlement assignments (from $190.3 million in 2015 to $199.2 million in 2016) as a portion of the overall structured settlement numbers. Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(1) or (2) including deferred attorney fees.

From S2KM's perspective, several factors help to explain the sustained primary market sales growth:

• Increased Industry Unity - As former SSP President Neil Johnson pointed out in 2014, for many years, an historical lack of structured settlement industry unity created a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects." Recent leaders of NSSTA, SSP and NASP have encouraged greater cooperation and focused their associations on more productive projects.
  • SSP - As an organization, SSP is no longer a political advocate for injury victims' rights. As Joe Tombs, its current President, stated in this recent S2KM interview: "A year ago, we decided to abandon taking 'political' positions.'' Instead, Tombs added: "1) SSP has substantially expanded its membership; 2) we have re-focused on professional settlement planning as our primary Mission and purpose; 3) we have pretty much put to bed the idea that we oppose NSSTA; and 4) we have developed a new set of Professional Practice Standards which we will introduce during our 2017 Annual Conference."
  • NSSTA - Although NSSTA continues to advocate for structured settlements, NSSTA has likewise undertaken its own initiatives toward achieving greater industry unification. As identified by former NSSTA President Michael Goodman in 2014, these initiatives have included: 1) a strong relationship with the AAJ; 2) improved dialogue with the SSP; 3) guest educational participation involving SSP and NASP representatives; 4) successful cooperation with NASP to enact revised structured settlement protection legislation in multiple states.
• Market Research - Among the structured settlement growth opportunities, expanded use by traditional stakeholders represents arguably the number one priority - a priority which NSSTA highlighted during 2014 by commissioning CLM Advisors to conduct a three-part survey of senior claims executives (Part 1); front line claims professionals (Part 2); and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3). For S2KM's summary and analysis of these surveys, see:
  • Senior Claim Executives
  • Claim Professionals
  • Plaintiff Attorneys
• Transitional Goals- During NSSTA' 2015 Annual Meeting, Goodman announced a series of transitional growth-oriented goals for NSSTA and its members: 1) modifying NSSTA's traditional "protect and preserve" message to inspire primary market growth; 2) moving beyond "interest rate selling"; 3) moving beyond a focus on factoring; 4) identifying and pursuing new markets for structured settlement annuities; 5) adding one or more new life company providers; 6) engaging new, younger structured settlement brokers; 7) providing a new and improved training initiative.
• Growth Initiative Committee - To help support these goals, NSSTA's Board of Directors established a new NSSTA "Industry Growth Initiative," "designed to identify opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements and bring those opportunities to the structured settlement industry marketplace." The first Growth Initiatives to be selected and approved:
  • Rejuvenate Defense Programs (including casualty insurers, commercial insureds and TPAs) - Originally the prime movers for structured settlements, many defense insurers have reduced or completely abandoned their structured settlement programs citing a variety of reasons.
  • Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act - FECA, which provides workers compensation like benefits for federal workers, currently does not permit structured settlements.
  • Convertible Deferred Lump Sums - As a sales response to "low interest rates", the Growth Committee proposed a new structured settlement feature. As envisioned, the convertible deferred lump sum would allow a structured settlement recipient to select a future lump sum that would automatically convert on its payment date into a series of predetermined periodic payments payable at whatever annuity rates offered at the time of conversion by the issuing life company.
  Under current President Len Blonder and current Growth Committee Chair Sean Coleman, the number of Growth Initiatives continues to expand with assistance from new NSSTA Communications and Marketing Director Abbey Hudson.
• Educational and Lobbying Support - To support its Growth Initiative, NSSTA has also expanded both its educational and certification programming as well as its strategic lobbying and lobbying partnerships. Educational Committee Co-Chairs Jordan Bossler and Nolan Robinson, CSSC Co-Chairs Karen Meyers and Patricia Fairhurst, and their respective committees, plus Compliance and Administrative Director Debbie Sink provide NSSTA with its strongest-ever group of educational resources. NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn, who also serves as Vice Chair of the American Association for People with Disabilities (AAPD) and manages the Congressional Structured Settlement Caucus , has continued to expand NSSTA's lobbying outreach thru strategic relationships with national special needs attorney associations.

Ms Price's reports do not provide information about the structured settlement secondary market. For S2KM's most recent estimates of secondary market metrics, see this prior blog post. Based upon industry sources, it is S2KM's understanding that structured settlement secondary market sales declined during 2016.

Structured Settlements 2014 - ELNY and Reliance

The Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation, which occurred on April 16, 2012 represented the dominant structured settlement story of 2011, 2012 and 2013 and one of the most important developments in the history of the United States structured settlement industry.

Related follow-up litigation continued during 2014. Individual ELNY shortfall payees filed class action lawsuits against various structured settlement brokers. Other ELNY shortfall payees and their attorneys lost their appeal of a Contempt Order.

Class Action Lawsuits

Separate (but nearly identical) class action lawsuits were filed in Florida and Oregon during 2014 on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims against named and unnamed structured settlement brokers. In the Florida case, against EPS Settlement Group (EPS) and various brokers, a federal judge granted defendants' Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice on December 17, 2014. The Oregon case, which remains unresolved, names Ringler Associates Incorporated (Ringler), Paul Hoffman (as the individual agent who brokered structured settlement annuities for the named plaintiffs) and John Does 1-100 as defendants.

Note: 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, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Credit Suisse Group, AG (Credit Suisse) as defendants was voluntarily dismissed in 2013 without prejudice.

Oregon Class Action

The 2014 Oregon class action Complaint was filed in U.S. District Court and alleges Ringler, Hoffman and John Does 1-100 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 John Does 1-100 "represent those individual insurance brokers who, as employees and/or agents of Ringler, 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." The 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 Complaint against defendants Ringler et al. (Defendants) 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."

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 26, 2014 plus a subsequent Request for Judicial Notice in Support of their Motion. On December 5, 2014 a Magistrate issued:

• Opinion and Order - granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice.
• Findings and Recommendations (to be referred under advisement to a district judge) - that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted in part as to Defendants’ alleged continuing duty to inform plaintiffs that their coverage may be threatened due to ELNY’s declining financial condition and otherwise should be denied. Note: Although the Magistrates' Findings and Recommendations identifies December 22, 2014 as the due date for any objections, S2KM has been informed that Defendants requested and received a scheduling extension.

ELNY Contempt Order

In response to the 2012 New York class action lawsuit, Judge John Galasso issued a Contempt Order on January 25, 2013. He also imposed a $5000 fine and threatened additional fines plus imprisonment of legal counsel if the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees did not dismiss their Federal action which they did (without prejudice) on February 7, 2013.

The ELNY shortfall payees who filed the New York class action and their attorneys appealed Judge Galasso's Contempt Order which was argued before the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Second Judicial Department on October 3, 2014. On November 5, 2014, the Court issued an Order dismissing the appeal by the shortfall payees and affirming the Contempt Order as to their attorneys.

Reliance Liquidation

Reliance Insurance Company was declared insolvent in 2001 and the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner was appointed as Liquidator. The Reliance Estate, however, remained open and its assets, until November 4, 2013, included approximately 3,400 structured settlements of which approximately 3093 involved annuities issued by United Pacific Life Insurance Company, a former Reliance subsidiary which Reliance sold in 1993 and which is now known as Genworth Life Insurance Company.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter signed an Order on November 4, 2013 approving a Transfer and Assumption Agreement whereby Reliance will transfer all Reliance-owned structured settlement annuity contracts and corresponding payment obligations issued by Genworth Life Insurance Company to a new corporation, the Genworth Annuity Service Corporation.

At one time a major provider of structured settlement annuities, Genworth and its life insurance affiliates have subsequently received financial downgrades by various rating agencies. As of this blog posting, for example, Standard & Poors rates Genworth Life Insurance Company as BBB+ which qualifies as "high yield" or "non-investment grade" - the same "junk bond" category that characterized ELNY's investments before it entered rehabilitation in 1991.

Conclusion

In its recent SEC filings, JGWPT Holdings, Inc. warns potential investors for its structured settlement securitizations about investment risks including "the insolvency or downgrade of a material number of structured settlement issuers".

Should structured settlement recipients receive similar warnings about the potential (or actual) financial deterioration of their structured settlement funding entity(s)?

Various ELNY lawsuits, including the Oregon class action case summarized above, suggest (at least indirectly) these types of related questions:

• What is the scope of post-settlement responsibilities, if any, for structured settlement brokers and/or settlement planners?
• Should a structured settlement broker (defense or plaintiff) or settlement planner be legally responsible for warning structured settlement recipients if and when an annuity provider or assignee experiences a deteriorating financial condition?
• What about the annuity provider or assignee itself?
• If any such legal responsibilities exist, what criteria would define a deteriorating financial condition?

For prior S2KM summaries of ELNY and Reliance with additional informational links, see:

• Structured Settlements 2013 - ELNY and Reliance.
• Structured Settlements 2012 - Executive Life of New York.
• Structured Settlements 2011 - Executive Life of New York

For additional S2KM blog posts summarizing 2014 structured settlement developments (primary market; secondary market; settlement planning), 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.