Beyond Structured Settlements

S2P2J Release 60

The United States structured settlement market has been in existence for almost 40 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning.

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

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

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a late September 2016 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 60 with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update simultaneously with no additional subscription charge. Competent professionals confronted by structured settlement issues should have access to an up-to-date copy (or the online version) of this indispensable source book.

Release 60 Highlights - Release 60 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:

• History Chart - To help structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholders analyze the comprehensive changes impacting their professions, S2P2J inserted a History Chart into Chapter 1 several years ago, developed by Timothy Morbach and Patrick Hindert, which tracks legislative, regulatory, financial and market developments impacting structured settlements since 1975 and organizes these developments into three stages of industry development. Release 60 updates this History Chart.
• Primary Market Business Practices - Release 60 continues to update S2P2J's analysis of changes impacting primary market structured settlement business practices including public policy, guidelines for use, industry standards and product suitability.
• Secondary Market Business Practices - An update of Chapter 16 provides background coverage of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's civil investigation of J.G. Wentworth as well as historical context for recent Washington Post reporting about continuing abusive business practices by some factoring companies in Maryland which resulted in a civil lawsuit by the State of Maryland Office of Attorney General Consumer Protection Division.
• Taxation Examples - To increase clarity for various tax concepts, Professor Ken Milani, of the University of Notre Dame Mendoza College of Business, provides multiple case examples which have been added to Chapter 2 with this Release. In addition to his other teaching responsibilities, Professor Milani teaches the tax section of NSSTA's Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) program which is hosted by the University of Notre Dame.
• Settlement Trusts - As structured settlements increasingly fund settlement trusts, structured settlement stakeholders require greater knowledge of such topics as the duties of settlement trustees under the Uniform Prudent Investors Act plus factors settlement trustees must consider when making investments. Release 60 addresses those topics in Chapter 3.
• NSSTA Surveys - Prior updates of S2P2J provided summary analyses of structured settlement marketing surveys of claims executives and claims professionals sponsored by NSSTA and conducted by CLM Advisors. Release 60 features analysis of Part 3 of NSSTA's three marketing surveys in Chapter 5 which examines how plaintiff attorneys view structured settlements and structured settlement consultants.
• Plaintiff Attorney Malpractice - Also in Chapter 5, Release 60 summarizes a 2015 California lawsuit against a plaintiff law firm (Mraz v. Lief, Cabraser) which, although the jury determined the plaintiff law firm did not breach its duty of care, warns of several potential malpractice dangers for plaintiff attorneys who are: 1) uninformed; 2) lack competent advisors; and/or 3) act carelessly; with regards to structured settlement issues.
• Product Suitability - Recent updates of S2P2J have expanded Section 6.02 which addresses "Settlement Consultant" issues. Release 60 expands prior discussion within this section about the topic of "product suitability" and how it impacts structured settlement and settlement planning professionals.
• Judicial Authority to Impose Structured Settlement - Release 60 features a recent New Jersey Superior Court case (Impink v. Reynes) in Chapter 7 that determined (despite conflicting authority in other states) that a motion judge's inherent parens patriae powers did not permit the judge to change the terms of a settlement to impose a structured settlement for a minor without consent of the parties.

Previous S2P2J releases have highlighted and addressed the following structured settlement developments and growth opportunities:

• Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act of 2015.
• Court decisions analyzing "safe harbor annuity rules under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 when annuities are used to preserve Medicaid eligibility.
• New cases where courts have identified questions to held judges determine whether proposed transfers of future payment rights meet the "best interest" test under various state Structured Settlement Protection Acts.
• Non-qualified assignment issues - including tax and security issues raised by off-shore assignment companies.
• Templates for: 1) approval of MSAs; and 2) disclosure of consultants' roles and compensation.
• Expanded coverage of Workers Compensation MSAs.
• Summary and discussion of recent PLR for indexed annuities and commutation riders.
• Summarized results of CLM Advisors surveys commissioned by NSSTA to determine the value claims executives and claims professionals place on structured settlements and structured settlement consultants.
• Introduction to ABLE Accounts.
• A new section to introduce and explain federal and international regulatory developments and entities resulting from the 2008 global financial crisis.
• Updated analysis of the changing role of and standards for plaintiff attorneys engaged in personal injury settlement planning and when negotiating structured settlements.
• Summary and analysis of recent U.S. Treasury Regulations for IRC 104(a)(2).
• Practice tips for minimizing the risk of an IRS settlement challenge.
• Updated summary of lessons learned from the Executive Life Insurance of New York (ELNY) insolvency.
• Periodic payment reinsurance as an alternative means of funding structured settlements.

For S2KM's most recent analysis of the structured settlement industry, see: "Structured Settlements 2015":

• Part 1 - Market Metrics
• Part 2 - Market Issues and Developments

PFAC 2016 Annual Conference

Fiduciary standards, as they relate to product suitability specifically, and to business practices generally, can be expected to become more significant factors in product sales for the traditional structured settlement market as it continues to expand into, and interact with, the larger, more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

Multiple developments support this prediction. They include the expanding role of fiduciaries as settlement planning stakeholders and decision makers. In that context, fiduciaries most often serve as trustees, but also as guardians, conservators and/or executors.

Any person acting in a fiduciary capacity has an obligation to act in the "best interest" of another party. A fiduciary duty requires a high standard of honesty and full disclosure including any potential conflicts of interests. A fiduciary must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of his or her client.

Regardless of who sells/provides a financial or insurance product to a settlement trust, and what independent duties that product provider might have to a trust beneficiary (i.e. injury victim), the settlement trustee's own fiduciary duties arguably should require the settlement trustee to evaluate specific trust products, trust product providers and their related business conduct utilizing that same fiduciary standard which requires honesty, full disclosure, and best interest.

In personal injury settlement planning, several types of trusts are utilized - any of which may be funded with, or utilized to fund, structured settlements: qualified government bond trusts; reversionary grantor trusts; settlement preservation trusts; special needs trusts including pooled trusts; Medicare set-aside trusts; and IRC 468B Settlement Funds.

As one related result of the expanding use of settlement trusts, a unique settlement trust market is evolving in the United States characterized by:

• Specialized knowledge about government benefits required to serve "special needs" beneficiaries and their families.
• Willingness to consider structured settlements as trust assets and knowledge related thereto.
• Willingness to accept corpus amounts less than minimum requirements of traditional corporate trustees.
• Professional individual trustees as well as corporate trustees.

To S2KM's knowledge there does not yet exist any national association of settlement trustees. Instead, settlement trustees participate as members, speakers, sponsors and/or exhibitors at various structured settlement, settlement planning and special needs national conferences such as: NSSTA, SSP, NAMSAP, NAELA, ASNP, SN Alliance, Stetson SNT, University of Texas SNT among others.

PFAC Conference

There exist, however, state fiduciary associations the largest of which is the Professional Fiduciary Association of California (PFAC). To learn more about fiduciaries and fiduciary standards, from a structured settlement perspective, S2KM attended the 21st Annual PFAC Conference, which occurred June 1-4, 2016 in Indian Wells, California and featured 74 exhibitors, more than 600 attendees plus four days of speakers and breakout sessions covering a multitude of topics.

PFAC is an affiliate of the National Guardianship Association (NGA). California Court Rules define education and qualification requirements to serve as guardian, conservator or trustee in California. Attorneys and CPAs with current, active licenses to practice in California automatically qualify. To retain their license, professional fiduciaries must also meet continuing education requirements. Approximately 680 professional fiduciaries are currently licensed in California.

Not all professional fiduciaries, of course, work in personal injury settlement planning. In fact, relatively few of the PFAC Conference presentations and/or exhibits were even relevant to structured settlement and/or settlement planning professionals.

Uniform Prudent Investor Act

Perhaps the most important and relevant lessons S2KM learned during the PFAC conference concerned the duties of care and the investment considerations imposed upon trustees by the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA). Understanding these UPIA trustee duties and investment considerations will almost certainly help structured settlement and settlement planning professionals improve their sales success when personal injury cases include settlement trusts.

The UPIA , which was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) in 1994, has been enacted, with some state-specific modifications, by 44 states and the District of Columbia. In those states, the UPIA, external to the trust document itself, serves as the most important reference defining a trustee's investment responsibilities.

Prior to the UPIA, courts applied the "prudent man rule" when evaluating trustee investment performance. The UPIA, by contrast, adopts "modern portfolio theory" as a different and more appropriate standard for trustees. Compared with the prudent man rule, modern portfolio theory promotes a holistic view of trust assets by focusing on the total return generated by a trust as opposed to viewing a trust's income and principal separately. This newer standard allows for greater investment diversification so long as the risk/reward ratio matches the purposes and terms of the trust instrument.

In his PFAC conference presentation titled "A Trustee's Duty of Care Under the UPIA", Josh Yager addressed how a trustee can demonstrate prudence and good faith, and thereby avoid a lawsuit, by fulfilling six trustee duties required under the UPIA:

• Duty to have a plan.
• Duty to monitor risk/return.
• Duty to diversify.
• Duty to pay only fair fees.
• Duty to prudently delegate.
• Duty to monitor agent's activities.

Yager never mentioned structured settlements or personal injury settlement planning during his discussion. Within the context of his presentation, however, here are some follow-up questions worth considering at future educational conferences:

• How should life contingent structured settlements be compared with other investment alternatives when trustees calculate rates of return needed to accomplish trust objectives?
• How can structured settlement and settlement planning professionals better anticipate and address trustee risk objections that many structured settlements include too much concentration, as well as a lack of liquidity?
• What are "asset classes" - and should structured settlements be promoted/evaluated as a distinct and necessary "asset class" within settlement trusts?
• Assuming trustees have a duty to evaluate compensation arrangements related to trust assets, should structured settlement professionals be required to disclose their case-specific compensation, including compensation sharing agreements? To whom? When?
• How do "industry standard" four (4%) percent structured settlement commissions compare with commissions and fees charged by other financial product providers? Are these commissions "fair" or "excessive"?
• Why was a given structured settlement design and/or settlement professional selected in a specific case? Does he/she possess appropriate licenses and credentials? Is he/she subject to any undisclosed conflicts of interest? Has he/she been the subject of any prior lawsuits or client complaints? Does he/she understand the trustee's duties under the UPIA? Has he/she accomplished what they promised?
• What legal options does a trustee have when confronted with a structured settlement or structured settlement consultant that the trustee believes violates a fiduciary standard or duty for a specific settlement trust under the UPIA?

Although not specifically discussed in any of the PFAC presentations S2KM attended, Section 2(c) of the UPIA identifies eight additional factors a trustee should consider when making any investment:

• General economic conditions.
• The possible effect of inflation or deflation.
• The expected tax consequences of investment decisions or strategies.
• The role that each investment or course of action plays within the overall trust portfolio.
• The expected total return from income and appreciation of capital.
• Other resources of the beneficiaries.
• Needs for liquidity, regularity of income, and preservation or appreciation of capital; and
• An asset’s relationship of special value, if any, to the purposes of the trust or to one or more of the beneficiaries.

When settlement trusts play a role in a personal injury settlement, structured settlement and settlement planning professionals should be prepared to address these factors as part of their sales strategy. Significant for structured settlements, the UPIA's list of investment considerations fails to mention mental or physical disabilities of a trust beneficiary. From a settlement planning perspective, injuries or diseases that create special needs or reduce an individual's normal life expectancy arguably should receive important consideration when a trustee makes investment decisions.

Comparative Business Standards

How do current business standards of structured settlement and settlement planning professionals measure up to the "best interest" standards required of trustees and other fiduciaries? Although various members of both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) are appointed as independent agents representing many of the same structured settlement annuity providers, the two associations address the issue of product suitability differently.

NSSTA, whose members include defense and plaintiff brokers, has adopted a "Statement of Ethics and Professional Responsibility" (Code of Ethics) with "guiding principles" for its members and member organizations. The Preamble provides: "Implicit in the acceptance of this Statement is an obligation to act in a professionally responsible and ethical manner when providing structured settlement services." Although Principle VI directs NSSTA members to:"…comply with all material federal and state laws and regulations applicable to the structured settlement services that are provided", NSSTA's Code of Ethics does not specifically address either fiduciary or product suitability standards.

By comparison with NSSTA, SSP's Mission Statement provides, in relevant part, that "[m]embership is open to all individuals with a genuine interest in the profession of settlement planning." However, "[c]andidates for membership must attest to their .......striving to ensure plans are consummated to a fiduciary standard." (emphasis added). Unlike NSSTA, almost all of SSP's members represent injury victims and their families and attorneys as opposed to defendants and liability insurers. Many SSP members also sell financial products as well as structured settlement annuities.

Plaintiff structured settlement brokers generally, and SSP members more specifically, regularly face direct competition from non-structured settlement financial advisors. Currently some financial advisors (Certified Financial Planners and Investment Advisors) are held to a fiduciary ("best interest") standard while other financial advisors (broker-dealers) provide services under a “suitability standard” which requires only a reasonable belief that any recommended product is suitable for a client.

Consumer protection concerns appear to be favoring broader application of the fiduciary standard. Acting under authority of Dodd-Frank, the SEC submitted a "fiduciary standard" study to Congress in 2011 recommending the adoption of a uniform fiduciary standard for investment advisers and broker-dealers when providing investment advice to retail customers. Congress has not yet adopted this uniform standard. More recently the U.S. Department of Labor has proposed a rule requiring fiduciary accountability for all investment advice related to retirement assets.

CONCLUSION

For most of its history, the primary structured settlement market has developed its business standards and practices based upon a "claim management" model which limits the scope of its representatives' duties of care toward injury victims - the ultimate customers for its products. Within the larger "settlement planning" market, which encompasses structured settlements, fiduciaries and other participating professionals are superimposing a more demanding "best interest" duty of care. To successfully compete in the settlement planning market place, therefore, structured settlement professionals need to acquire a better understanding of fiduciary and UPIA duties and requirements - and learn to re-shape their product sales accordingly.

S2P2J Release 59

Despite historically low interest rates and negative PR (most recently this Washington Post Editorial) resulting from the unconscionable business practices by some secondary market companies, the primary structured settlement market continues to experience incremental growth since hitting an annual annuity premium nadir of $4.82 billion in 2012.

The "Growth Initiative" developed by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), under the leadership of Presidents Michael Goodman and Len Blonder, has helped to sustain primary market growth by prioritizing specific objectives the first of which have included: 1) rejuvenate defense programs; 2) amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act; and 3) develop convertible deferred lump sum product options.

Other factors contributing to recent primary market growth ($5.3 billion of annuity sales in 2015):

• Increased industry unity - Advocated by the Presidents of NSSTA, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP), these associations recently have taken significant steps to overcome their historic acrimony which had divided plaintiff and defense brokers as well as the primary and secondary markets.
• Legislative collaboration - One result of increased industry unity has been a proactive and collaborative legislative strategy by NSSTA and NASP to add consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes with preliminary success in Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida, Maryland and Virginia.
• Expanding education - NSSTA continues to expand and improve its educational offerings adding new programs such as Structures 202, the Masters Structured Settlement Consultant (MSSC) certification and Structured Settlement University. SSP recently sponsored a joint educational program with the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) providing attendees an opportunity to evaluate structured settlements within the larger, more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

Consistent with these growth initiatives, recent updates of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), including newly issued Release 59, highlight multiple opportunities to expand the structured settlement market, providing technical guidance and practice advice, in addition to describing related industry developments and issues.

Publisher Law Journal Press distributed hard copy supplements for S2P2J Release 59 earlier this month 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 NSSTA and SSP have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Release 59 Highlights

"Release 59 for 'Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments' features analysis of the Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act of 2015. This new federal legislation, enacted December 18, 2015, creates an exclusion from gross income for civil damages, restitution, or other monetary awards that are received as compensation for wrongful incarceration. The Act includes an important one-year time-sensitive retroactivity provision.

"This Release also outlines recommendations to defense counsel for seeking court approval of settlements whenever parties have a duty to consider the provisions of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSP”). The advice is applicable whether or not the claimant has a legal disability that mandates such court approval or if doing so as a means to reduce risks of a finding of MSP noncompliance and its attendant possible sanctions.
"Noteworthy new case law in Release 59 includes:

• "An important 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which includes in-depth analysis of 'safe harbor' annuity rules under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 when annuities are sought to be used to preserve Medicaid eligibility.
• "Review of new cases under state Structured Settlement Protection Acts ('SSPAs'), where courts have identified standard questions to assist judges in making the determination of whether a proposed transfer of future payment rights is in a given claimant’s 'best interest' as required for court approval under the SSPAs.

Previous S2P2J releases have highlighted and addressed the following recent structured settlement developments and primary market growth opportunities:

• Non-qualified assignment issues - including tax and security issues raised by off-shore assignment companies.
• Templates for: 1) approval of MSAs; and 2) disclosure of consultants' roles and compensation.
• Expanded coverage of Workers Compensation MSAs.
• Summary and discussion of recent PLR for indexed annuities and commutation riders.
• Summarized results of CLM Advisors surveys commissioned by NSSTA to determine the value claims executives, claims professionals and plaintiff attorneys place on structured settlements and structured settlement consultants.
• Introduction to ABLE Accounts.
• A new section to introduce and explain federal and international regulatory developments and entities resulting from the 2008 global financial crisis.
• Updated analysis of the changing role of and standards for plaintiff attorneys engaged in personal injury settlement planning and when negotiating structured settlements.
• Summary and analysis of recent U.S. Treasury Regulations for IRC 104(a)(2).
• Practice tips for minimizing the risk of an IRS settlement challenge.
• Updated summary of lessons learned from the Executive Life Insurance of New York (ELNY) insolvency.
• Periodic payment reinsurance as an alternative means of funding structured settlements.

For S2KM's most recent analysis of the structured settlement industry, see: "Structured Settlements 2015":

• Part 1 - Market Metrics
• Part 2 - Market Issues and Developments

NSSTA 2016 Annual Conference

Len Blonder is a structured settlement pioneer now beginning an unprecedented third term as President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA). It may seem counterintuitive, therefore, or perhaps wishful thinking, but one could describe NSSTA's 2016 Annual Conference, which occurred April 6-8 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida April 6-8, as a "New Beginning."

Following the transformative leadership of Michael Goodman, NSSTA's immediate past President, however, the opportunity for such a new beginning now exists and the 2016 NSSTA Annual Conference Educational Program outlined some of the future possibilities.

TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• Opening Remarks - Michael Goodman
• NSSTA Objectives - Len Blonder
• Settlement Experiences and Aftermath - Michael Goodman (Moderator); Tania Root; Todd Falzone, Esq.
• Wrongful Imprisonment: Claimant Story - Michael Goodman (Moderator); Kwame Ajamu
• Structuring Wrongful Imprisonment Claims - John McCulloch and Ryan Jandreau
• Trusts and Structured Settlements - Dan McCarthy (Moderator); Phillip Krause; Tim Denehy
• Mediators and Structured Settlements - Connie Klingler (Moderator); Hyram Montero; Len Blonder
• Projecting Future Economic Damages After the ACA - Roger Bernstein; Noah Katz; Nichole Segal
• Property & Casualty Insurance Program Growth - (Michael Goodman and Len Blonder - Moderators); David Crowe; Richard Woollams
• Legislative and Political Update - Eric Vaughn
• NSSTA Growth Initiative Update - Sean Coleman (Moderator); Jim Early; Melissa Evola Price; Ryan Jandreau
• SSPA Success Stories - Michael Goodman (Moderator); Andy Prindable; Sally Greenberg
• NSSTA Legal Update - Tim O'Driscoll; Peter Vodola; Steve Harris

S2KM COMMENTARY ON SELECTED TOPICS

NSSTA Growth Initiative

During Goodman's Presidency, NSSTA revised its historic and defensive "protect and preserve" strategy by embracing a new "Growth Initiative" which already appears to have generated new energy and improved "community" spirit. Progress reports for preliminary "Growth Initiative" priorities [re-starting P&C programs; convertible lump sums; and Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) amendment(s)] were all positive. Equally important, the overall theme was forward looking asking: "How can we move forward? How can we change the dialogue?"

Supporting its "Growth Initiative", NSSTA has also expanded its industry outreach and networking with other professional associations. Improved relationships among NSSTA, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) has helped unify the structured settlement market. Working together, NSSTA and NASP have added important consumer protection provisions to five state structured settlement protection statutes. As one result, Goodman declared in his Opening Remarks: "we can no longer use factoring as an excuse for not growing the industry."

Len Blonder Presidency

How will Blonder, a 38 year plus industry veteran who, as much as any single individual, has been personally responsible for "protecting and preserving" the tax foundation for structured settlements, respond to NSSTA's current leadership challenges and market opportunities?

"The times are changing and we must change", Blonder stated, as he addressed NSSTA's membership to begin his third term as President. "The business is more complicated. We must determine how the parts fit together. Despite plaintiff growth, defendants remain indispensable to structured settlements. Defendants must continue to play a key role."

Unless NSSTA faces an unexpected crisis, Blonder said his plans for NSSTA include continued industry and community growth. Based upon the preliminary success of the "Growth Initiative", Blonder announced it would become a permanent NSSTA committee and expand its current list of priorities. As a result of recent state legislative successes, Blonder stated he expects NSSTA to spend less time on factoring legislation and more time on judicial education during his term as president.

Among NSSTA's challenges and priorities, Blonder highlighted: growing NSSTA's membership and increasing membership diversity; continuing to improve relationships with outside associations; and improving public relations generally for both NSSTA and structured settlements.

Re-starting P&C Programs

Speaking as part of a panel discussing Property and Casualty Company Program Growth, Richard Woollams, President of Claims for AIG Commercial Insurance, provided a contrarian perspective concerning future structured settlement growth and industry change. Asked to predict what the structured settlement market will look like in five years, Woollams opined: "the same as today with more broker consolidation and better technology."

Woollams also identified reasons why some P&C companies have reduced their structured settlement program participation: "competing priorities; increasing compliance requirements; and inertia". Woollams further challenged NSSTA's membership by stating: "in workers compensation cases, the savings for defendants is obvious. Can you quantify the cost savings with liability cases? Even a couple of points pays for program compliance and administration."

Woollams' challenge concerning "cost savings for liability cases" echoes findings about "metrics and analytics" from a 2011 study (titled: "National Litigation Management Study") commissioned by the Claims and Litigation Management (CLM) Alliance (formerly "the Council on Litigation Management") as well as NSSTA's own 2014 survey of Senior Claim Advisors conducted by CLM Advisors.

Based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives, the 2011 CLM Alliance study identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed. Another "key finding" that emerged from the answers to the more than 160 questions covered in that 2011 CLM Alliance study: "litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them."

Also relative to metrics and analytics, NSSTA's 2014 survey of senior claims executives found:

• Only 20 percent of the participants reported having any set of objectives around the use of structured settlements.
• A majority of the participants did not measure referral volume and only half measure the volume of successfully written structures.

Affordable Care Act

A separate NSSTA conference panel discussion about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) titled "Projecting Future Economic Damages After the ACA and Collateral Source Rule Changes" highlighted one way NSSTA members can utilize structured settlements to quantify potential cost savings for defendants. That being part of an expert team that provides defendants with two-tier (with and without ACA coverage) case specific calculations of future economic damages.

As NSSTA's ACA panel pointed out, the admissibility of ACA coverage for trial purposes (both for evidence and damage calculation) depends upon the common law collateral source rule which not only varies by state, but also is subject to current, state-specific post-ACA legal disputes as to applicability. This contested claims environment, plus the applicable expert damage team recommended by the NSSTA panel (featuring a structured settlement broker), represents both a strategic growth opportunity for NSSTA members as well as a priority for continued in-depth education.

Trusts and Structured Settlements

The NSSTA conference panel discussing "Trusts and Structured Settlements" provided another window for viewing potential structured settlement change and growth. Contrary of traditional structured settlement perspectives, which view trusts as competitive products in a zero sum settlement game, panelist Tim Denehy (who identified himself as a "settlement planner" offering trusts and structured settlement annuities) insisted: "A structured settlement does not solve every problem. However, by offering additional products, I can sell more structures."

Fellow trust panelist Phillip Krause, who also sells multiple settlement products, stated: "I analyze products as an investment fiduciary." He added, however: "There is more potential liability with a multi-product model." As an alternative to a multi-product model, Krause suggested structured settlement brokers might partner with, or delegate product sales to, a trust provider. Moderator Dan McCarthy supported a more traditional approach saying he continues to defer to plaintiff attorneys' relationships with banks and trust companies.

NSSTA has been slow to explore and/or embrace the evolving settlement planning profession in which structured settlement annuities, as well as trusts, represent strategic, interactive products. Other professional associations, especially SSP and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), have been more proactive than NSSTA in analyzing settlement planning issues. As more plaintiff brokers offer trusts and other non-structured settlement products, and share commissions with defense brokers, NSSTA should consider helping its members better understand how settlement planning impacts the sale of structured settlements - creating new opportunities as well as risks.

Structuring Wrongful Imprisonment Claims

John McCulloch and Ryan Jandreau traced the history and explained the significance of IRC 139F which was enacted December 21, 2015 as part of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). "In the case of any wrongfully incarcerated individual," IRC section 139F provides: "gross income shall not include any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary award (including compensatory or statutory damages and restitution imposed in a criminal matter) relating to the incarceration of such individual for the covered offense for which the individual was convicted." Damages paid for wrongful imprisonment, however, which are not derived from a personal, physical injury, are not eligible for an IRC section 130 qualified assignment. Although the exact number of exonerees is not known, McCulloch and Jandreau cited sources estimating approximately 4000 nationally over the past 15 years.

NSSTA DIRECTORS AND AWARD WINNERS - NSSTA announced the election of two Directors: Mal Deener and Ryan Jandreau. In addition, the following individuals were honored during the conference:

• President's Award - Debbie Sink
• Leadership Award - Susan Clark and Robert Caples
• Service to the Industry Award - Andrew McClain

CONCLUSION

Assuming NSSTA's 2016 Annual Conference represents a "New Beginning" for the structured settlement industry, the upcoming year will be one of the most important, if not the most important, in NSSTA's history. Based upon his leadership experience and prior accomplishments, Len Blonder appears uniquely qualified to help NSSTA determine how the parts of an increasingly complicated business fit together in order to continue to grow structured settlement annuity sales and improve the lives of personal injury victims.

CORRECTIONS AND  OMISSIONS

S2KM began receiving valuable feedback to this blog post almost immediately following its publication. Examples:

The second paragraph under "Trusts and Structured Settlements" above has been changed from what originally appeared in this blog post, at the request of Phillip Krause, to clarify that he used the word "investment" and not the word "professional." Krause explained: "An 'investment fiduciary' is a specific role within the management of a Trust. The Trustee delegates or directs investment decisions to the 'investment fiduciary.' The role of 'investment fiduciary,' is separate from the role of a 'structured settlement consultant.' An investment fiduciary uses registered investments with the SEC/FINRA.  A broker dealer may also be involved in the approval of the appropriateness of investments held within the Trust.  The oversight by an OSJ or compliance officer is also common."

S2KM could (still might) write an entire blog post about the informative "Property & Casualty Insurance Program Growth" discussion moderated by Michael Goodman and Len Blonder and featuring Richard Woollams and David Crowe. Some of Woollams' comments appear in the original blog post. Crowe also offered valuable insights and recommendations for re-starting P&C structured settlement programs including the importance of: 1) identifyinging one or more internal structured settlement "champions"; 2) showing the impact on a P&C's bottom line; 3) defense and plaintiff brokers working together for a more efficient settlement process; 4) attracting bright young professionals to the structured settlement industry - a problem, he stated, is shared more generally by the insurance industry.

SSP/ASNP 2016 Annual Conferences

Joint overlapping educational conferences hosted by the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) March 9-12, 2016 in Tucson, Arizona provided S2KM and other attendees an opportunity to evaluate the current status of structured settlements within the larger, more complex personal injury settlement planning market. The SSP conference also transferred association leadership from Neil Johnson to Joe Tombs with Tombs promising to maintain Johnson's leadership direction and to "pull SSP back completely from structured settlement politics."

Among S2KM's conference conclusions: Many personal injury settlement planners characterize structured settlements as a strategic product, and recognize new marketing opportunities for structured settlements resulting from recent legislation such as the Affordable Care Act and the ABLE Act . The traditional and collective structured settlement industry should similarly embrace an important opportunity to grow its premium volume in this larger, more complex, more dynamic market than it has in the past by more effectively:

• Analyzing the evolving personal injury settlement and special needs planning markets;
• Addressing concerns and issues about structured settlements identified by plaintiff and special needs attorneys; and
• Re-positioning structured settlements from a single product sale to the core component of an integrated settlement solution.

SSP TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• Introduction - Neil Johnson
• Comprehensive Settlement Planning - Joe Tombs; Charly Schell; Joe DiGangi; Tim Denehy
• Rules that Apply to Insurance Brokers - David Childers; Jeremy Babener
• The Grillo Case - Craig and Josephine (Grillo) Sullivan
• The Mraz Case - Mark Wilson and Patrick Hindert
• Sudden Money - John Darer
• Alternative Products - Martha Hunt; John Arendt; James Creel; Chris Shumate; Michael Upchurch; Rick Miller.
• Medicare Compliance, Entitlement Planning and Lien Resolution Issues - Anthony Prieto
• Joint ASNP/SSP Session - Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts - Frank Johns; Joe Tombs; Jack Meligan.
• ELNY and Factoring Industry Lawsuits - Edward Stone
• Small Business Legal Strategies - Paul Valentine
• Missed Tax Opportunities at Settlement - Jeremy Babener
• Foreign Assignment Companies - Jeremy Babener
• NSSTA's Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys - Patrick Hindert
• SSP President's Statement - Joe Tombs

ASNP TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• ABCs of Public Benefits - David Lillesand
• ABCs of Special Needs and Settlement Planning - Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller
• Keynote: "Raising Special Kids" - Maureen Beyers & Michael Farrell
• SSI Update - David Lillesand
• SNTs and Retirement Benefits - Melanie Marmion
• Recent Trends in Special Needs Planning - Blaine Brockman
• Joint ASNP/SSP Session - Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts - Frank Johns; Joe Tombs; Jack Meligan.
• "Tricky Issues" in SNT Administration - Travis Finchum; Herb Thomas and Daniel Cutter.
• Ask the Experts Panel - Kevin Urbatsch (Moderator)

DISCLAIMERS: Because of overlapping conference schedules, S2KM was able to attend only three ASNP presentations but did receive and has reviewed all ASNP conference handouts. S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, testified as an expert witness in the Mraz case concerning structured settlement and QSF issues on behalf of Adriana and Addison Mraz.

S2KM COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SSP Leadership

• In his closing message as SSP President, Neil Johnson continued to emphasize several positive themes including industry unification and increasing collaboration between SSP and NSSTA. Among Johnson's proposed solutions for industry unity: 1) recognizing and accepting product diversity; 2) focusing on client and customer service; 3) identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues; 4) engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues; 5) improving relationships among stakeholder groups; 6) promoting and practicing settlement planning not settlement selling.
• Newly elected SSP President Joe Tombs promised to "maintain the direction of Neil Johnson's leadership and even accelerate it in every way possible." He identified the following "main themes" for SSP going forward: "to pull completely back from structured settlement “politics”, redouble our efforts at educating our members and promoting a Code of Ethics, and a membership push to quadruple our high water mark for number of members. We intend to actively encourage our members who sell structured settlement to join and to become actively engaged in NSSTA. We will continue to offer a hand of friendship and cooperation in their agenda although we will be decidedly apolitical. We will also make no attempt no manage our member’s opinions or their expressions of their opinions."
• As for structured settlements, Tombs stated: "we intend to emphasize comprehensive settlement planning which will have the natural result of de-emphasizing structured settlement annuities to some extent as we move alternatives including trusts, taxable annuities, investment accounts, etc. closer to the forefront. We will be increasingly product-neutral and more advice-driven and client-need-focused in the future." Note: despite Tombs' assertion, and perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, multiple SSP conference speakers maintained that settlement trust sales, in particular, have actually increased their sales of structured settlement annuities.
• Tombs also promised "to intensify [SSP's] efforts to stave off any further “infiltration" of our society by factoring companies and their employees. We will want to remain abreast of the goings on in that market as we have always attempted, but as a practical matter we are cutting off any new members or sponsors from that side of things."

Marketing Feedback - NSSTA Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys

• During 2014, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) commissioned a three-part Structured Settlement Survey project, conducted by CLM Advisors, and previously reviewed by S2KM, of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3).
• Although NSSTA has made reports of all three surveys available to its members, and featured presentations about Part 1 and Part 2 at previous NSSTA educational conferences, NSSTA has not yet featured its Part 3 survey of plaintiff attorneys as an educational conference presentation. NSSTA has also prioritized "rejuvenating defense programs" as one of three preliminary "Growth Initiatives" with no equivalent current Growth Initiative focused specifically on plaintiff attorneys or personal injury settlement planning.
• As one SSP conference presentation, S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, discussed S2KM's analysis of NSSTA's Part 3 Structured Settlement Survey which, in S2KM's opinion, provides valuable insights for improving structured settlement marketing and expanding and accelerating structured settlement premium growth. For example:
  1. Only 4% of the responding plaintiff attorneys viewed structured settlement consultants as adding value for negotiations and/or case evaluations separate from, or in addition to, their knowledge of structured settlements.
  2. 35% stated that structured settlement consultants fail to deliver value because they are concerned with structuring as much of a settlement as possible.
  3. 52% contact a structured settlement broker one week (possibly less) prior to a mediation.
  4. 38% make contact only after a case settles.
  5. Less than 25% are likely to have a client sign a letter acknowledging that they were exposed to the opportunity to structure a portion of their settlement before opting for an all cash settlement.
  6. Although 89% believe they "have adequate knowledge of structured settlements so that [they are] able to recognize when they would be in the best interest of an injured party...", only 28% said they suggest a structured settlement for cases involving Medicare set-asides (MSAs).
  7. Only 26% have ever structured their fees.

Settlement Planning - A Special Needs Perspective

• Most presentations by special needs attorneys at structured settlement conferences focus exclusively on special needs trusts. As one result, many structured settlement professionals fail to understand the broad and expanding scope of special needs planning - or how it impacts, overlaps with and differs from personal injury settlement planning. A similar misconception exists among special needs attorneys many of whom identify financial and insurance settlement planners exclusively with structured settlements. The title of the one joint SSP/ASNP presentation in Tucson ("Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts") re-enforced this misconception. Fortunately and positively, the actual presentation discussion, moderated my Jack Meligan and featuring Frank Johns and Joe Tombs, addressed a broader agenda.
• Separately, both the ASNP and SSP conferences featured multiple presentations which captured the expanding expertise of their respective members. For structured settlement professionals, S2KM found ASNP's two "Pre-Session" presentations ("The ABCs of Public Benefits" by David Lillesand and "The ABCs of Special Needs and Settlement Planning" by Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller) especially informative. Also recommended for structured settlement professionals seeking a more comprehensive understanding of special needs planning: Blaine Brockman's presentation ("Recent Trends in Special Needs Planning"),
• Urbatsch and Fuller speak and write frequently about personal injury settlement planning and are recognized as leading national settlement planning experts among special needs attorneys. Their settlement planning presentations frequently discuss structured settlement "issues" - often with negative connotations and without rebuttal or explanations from structured settlement experts. What follows are structured settlement "issues" Urbatsch and Fuller identified in Tucson. In S2KM's experience: 1) many special needs attorneys agree with these issues; and 2) structured settlement proponents need to proactively respond to these issues - or risk continuing/increasing loss of potential annuity premium:
  • "Income stream is inflexible and cannot respond to emergency or major cash needs;
  • "High initial fees;
  • "Investment returns nearly always lower than what a diversified portolio would produce;
  • "Big ticket items, such as a home, cannot be easily acquired;
  • "Unscrupulous settlement planning brokers over-structuring because of high commission;
  • "Little regulatory oversight over industry – no fiduciary responsibility or licensing required to sell;
  • "Misleading statements about flexibility;
  • "How it fits into Plaintiff’s overall financial plan?

The Grillo Case

• The Grillo case, which establishes potential legal liability for plaintiff attorneys who do not advise their clients about structured settlements, was the subject of an SSP conference presentation by Craig and Josephine (Grillo) Sullivan. The Sullivans shared the remarkable life story of their daughter, Christina, the Foundation she inspired and the Texas State Statutory amendment her case helped to enact.
• For structured settlement brokers and settlement planners, the Grillo case provides a logical starting point for discussing structured settlements with plaintiff attorneys. As a point of comparison, consider response #5 above under "Marketing Feedback - NSSTA Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys."
• Another important settlement planning "takeaway" from the Sullivans' SSP presentation: both Craig and Josephine emphasized the value of Christina's original life care plan which served as a care management "roadmap" throughout Christina's life accurately predicting future needs and developments which the Sullivans would not otherwise have anticipated.
• This important observation, provided by the only care givers to appear as speakers at the combined SSP/ASNP conferences highlights an important settlement planning issue: Why do other settlement planning professionals ignore life care planners - especially considering their strategic role defining "future needs" for personal injury damage analysis, as well as future expense allocations for Medicare set-asides and Affordable Care Act coverage? For examples:
  • As leading nurse life care planner Wendie Howland stated in this 2014 S2KM interview: "I have never been asked to review a settlement plan to see how well it matches my recommendations."
  • The Urbatsch/Fuller presentation summarized above which identified multiple professionals for the "Settlement Planning Team", omitted life care planners.
  • "Comprehensive" settlement plans S2KM has reviewed typically don't include any life care plan, or other document, providing a detailed "needs analysis".
  • With the exception of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), a majority of whose members are life care planners, none of the many structured settlement or settlement planning conferences S2KM has attended during the past several years has offered specific presentations addressing the topic of "needs analysis" - or, with rare exceptions, featured a life care planner as presenter.
  • Key related issues: 1) what does "needs analysis" mean in the settlement planning context? Who is qualified, if not life care planners, to provide "needs analysis" for settlement planning? What is the relationship between a life care plan prepared for trial (damage analysis) and a life care plan for settlement planning? Who, besides a life care planner, is qualified to transpose one to the other?

The Mraz Case

• The traditional objective and responsibility for plaintiff attorneys in personal injury cases has been to obtain the largest amount of compensation for their clients whether by judgment or settlement. By this standard, the law firm Lief, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein was notably successful in obtaining a $55 million verdict and subsequent $24 million settlement in 2009 against Chrysler in the Mraz wrongful death case.
• Settlement planning, in general, and structured settlements, more specifically, however, prioritize an additional set of objectives and responsibilities for plaintiff attorneys. As a result, when the Lief, Cabraser law firm failed to obtain a structured settlement for Addison Mraz, the minor daughter of the deceased, after her mother, Adriana Mraz, allegedly requested Lief, Cabraser to obtain a structured settlement on Addison's behalf, Adriana brought a lawsuit alleging Lief, Cabraser attorneys breached the duty of care they owed to Addison.
• On December 22, 2015, among other findings, a California trial court jury determined Lief, Cabraser attorneys did not breach the standard of care or any fiduciary duty they owed Addison Mraz. Nevertheless, unrelated to damages associated to the loss of the structured settlement, the jury awarded Addison Mraz $400,000 of fees and costs she previously paid to Lief, Cabraser. The case is currently on appeal.
• Mark Wilson, the attorney who represented Adriana and Addison Mraz in their lawsuit against Lief, Cabraser, was a featured speaker at the SSP conference. Based upon the Marz case, and regardless of what occurs on appeal, Wilson highlighted the following structured settlement responsibilities as potential duties of care for plaintiff attorneys and recommended that structured settlement professionals and settlement planners utilize CLE programs to educate plaintiff attorneys about their potential liabilities. Plaintiff attorneys should:
  • Educate themselves about structured settlement issues including how to avoid constructive receipt as well as the appropriate utilization of QSFs and non-qualified assignments.
  • Recommend competent structured settlement professionals to clients (and retain them for advice) prior to settlement negotiations.
  • Insert appropriate language in term sheets and/or settlement agreements to preserve clients' structured settlement options.
  • If and when necessary, know how to correct mistakes to preserve or re-establish their clients' structured settlement options.

Plaintiff Broker Diversification

• The most successful plaintiff structured settlement brokers appear to be diversifying their products and services. It works, according to SSP speaker Anthony Prieto, "because it changes the conversation from a marketing perspective. There are a lot more people who want to talk to me about updates in MSP compliance or lien resolution than structured settlements. You see more cases when you offer other services. You become a problem solver as opposed to a problem identifier."
• Prieto identified multiple sources of alternative revenue now available to settlement planners in 2016: alternative products (retail annuities, life insurance, managed money); trust company fees or referrals; lien resolution or verification fees or referrals; MSP compliance fees or referrals; attorney fee deferral programs; QSF referrals and administration fees.
• Although one SSP panel, discussing "Comprehensive Settlement Planning", emphasized the importance of "planning before products", another SSP panel spoke specifically about expanding opportunities for alternative (non-traditional structured settlement) settlement planning products: Martha Hunt (equity-indexed annuity riders); John Arendt (reinsurance); James Creel (settlement trusts); Michael Upchurch (rehabilitation facilities); Rick Miller (indexed annuities).
• Consistent with the themes of "diversification" and "changing the conversation", John Darer made a convincing case for "transition expertise" as a critical settlement planning skill.
• What potential professional liability issues accompany plaintiff broker product and service diversification? The SSP conference did not directly address this issue comprehensively.
  • Speaking about "ELNY and Factoring Industry Lawsuits", attorney Edward Stone asserted that the "New Normal" (i.e. personal injury settlement planning) will not work if the core product (i.e. structured settlements) does not work. Focusing specifically on structured settlements, Stone asked whether a broker (plaintiff and/or defendant) owed any duty of care - and to whom? Also whether split commission arrangements changed the analysis? Based upon ELNY, he offered several related lessons for settlement planners.
  • Insurance law expert David Childers provided SSP conference attendees with a traditional analysis of standards of care and duties of care for insurance brokers, agents and producers under Arizona law.

CONCLUSION: Personal injury settlement planning is a large, complex, dynamic marketplace within which structured settlements historically has represented a strategic, if arguably under performing, product. The traditional structured settlement industry has heretofore avoided the educational analysis and strategic association relationships necessary to help its "New Generation" membership successfully transition to the "New Normal". It remains to be seen whether, when and how successfully future industry leadership will figure out how to put old wine in new bottles. Based upon this year's joint SSP/ASNP conference (and mixing metaphors), it appears the "New Normal" train is already leaving the station with a diversified cargo of blended products and services.

For additional S2KM analysis about personal injury settlement planning, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2016 Structures 202 Conference

Hosted earlier this month in Las Vegas for the second consecutive year by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the Structures 202 conference represents an important addition to NSSTA's growing educational curriculum and also provides valuable strategic insights into some of the challenges and opportunities currently facing the structured settlement industry.

Primarily targeting "Next Generation" structured settlement participants, Structures 202 offers attendees a day and one half program explaining case management fundamentals and identifying business development opportunities. This educational offering replaces and expands upon NSSTA's previous Structures 101 program which was directed more narrowly toward structured settlement case analysts and administrators.

Most of the following 2016 presentations, and many of the 2016 speakers, replicated NSSTA's inaugural 2015 Structures 202 Conference:

Case Management Fundamentals

• Settlement Documents and Qualified Assignments - Toni Warbington
• Group Exercise - Review and Fixing Settlement Documents
• Payees and Best Practices - Betty Gregware
• Long Term Obligation Risk - Geoff Kissel and Ravi Vaswani
• Workers Compensation Documentation - David Korch
• Medical Underwriting - Ken Kiefer
• Structured Settlement Protection Act Update - Eric Vaughn
• Technology and Productivity - Nolan Robinson
• Post Issuance Services - Harry Coleman; Dan Goodmann; Patrick Kelly
• Resolving "Problem Cases" and Dealing with Foreign Nationals - Daniel Caldwell; Trish Fairhurst; and Amy Sisson
• QSF Best Practices - Christi Fried

Business Development Opportunities

• IRC Section 104(a) Grey Areas - Trish Fairhurst
• Working with Financial Planners - Michael Goodman
• MSA Professional Administration - Joe Anderson and Marques Torbert
• Quoting ACA Plans - Mike Zea

The primary topical differences from NSSTA's 2015 Structures 202 Conference:

• Medical Underwriting - NEW
• Working with Financial Planners - REPLACED "Comprehensive Settlement Designs"
• Special Needs Trusts - DROPPED
• Marketing Plaintiff Attorneys - DROPPED

Former NSSTA Presidents and current NSSTA Directors Mal Deener and Len Blonder also spoke this year about the history of NSSTA and the structured settlement industry. Blonder is scheduled to become NSSTA President for the third time when he succeeds current NSSTA President Michael Goodman in May during the NSSTA 2016 Annual Meeting.

S2KM Comments and Recommendations

Strategic Context for Structures 202

• Growth Initiative - From a strategic perspective, NSSTA's expanded educational program generally, and its Structures 202 program more specifically, can be viewed, and should be considered, as complementary to NSSTA's current "Growth Initiative" - as described in S2KM's review of the NSSTA 2015 Fall Conference. One way to measure growth is annual structured settlement annuity premium - which increased approximately 2% in 2015. Other possible growth measurements: annual increases in NSSTA membership and/or attendance at NSSTA conferences including Structures 202. Approximately 110 NSSTA members attended the 2016 Structures 202 Conference, including approximately 40 life company representatives and 60 broker representatives - compared with approximately 150 attendees in 2015.
• Generational Transition - Recent NSSTA conferences have highlighted the ongoing "Generational Transition" as a primary industry challenge. Related presentations have addressed the need for succession planning and greater diversity. Because Structures 202 targets NSSTA's "Next Generation" structured settlement participants, the following (not necessarily consistent) speaker comments from the NSSTA 2015 Fall Conference seem relevant when evaluating Structures 202:
  • "From a demographic perspective, our industry should mirror the people we serve."
  • "Our industry suffers from a lack of diversity of thinking. Where do we find new voices and perspectives?"
  • "A lack of capital has prevented the primary market from bringing in and training new people."
  • "Nepotism works in the structured settlement industry."
• Industry Unity -During 2015, the leaders of NSSTA, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) expanded their shared educational dialogue. NSSTA and NASP announced a collaborative legislative strategy to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes. During the 2016 Structures 202 Conference, NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn reported continuing state legislative progress in Florida, among other states. These actions help mitigate the historic acrimony which has divided plaintiff and defense structured settlement brokers, as well as the primary and secondary markets, and also has arguably hurt the structured settlement industry and limited primary market growth.
• Special Needs and Personal Injury Settlement Planning - Despite its strong public commitment to persons with disabilities, NSSTA has never fully committed itself to analyzing and/or marketing its structured settlement annuity product within the larger and more complex special needs planning and personal injury settlement planning markets. Among other results, and despite shared interests, limited collaborative membership and/or educational/lobbying interaction currently exists between NSSTA and professional associations such as the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), the Special Needs Alliance (SNA), the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) or the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners (AANLCP).

Case Management Curriculum

• With two exceptions, all of this year's Case Management presentations repeated presentations made at the inaugural 2015 NSSTA Structures 202 Conference - although some of the speakers were different. The two exceptions: 1) the Medical Underwriting presentation was new; 2) the Structured Settlement Protection Act Update replaced last year's Structured Settlement Litigation and Factoring Issues.
• Overall, these presentations were excellent and represent NSSTA and structured settlement industry core competencies and best practices. The issues for NSSTA are: 1) whether repeating core elements of Structures 202 will attract new and/or repeat attendees - especially given NSSTA's decision to prospectively feature some Structures 202 presentations on its website; 2) what additional case management fundamentals, if any, should Structures 202 address; and/or 3) should NSSTA rotate and spend more time on fewer issues annually. For example, although the Group Exercise (Review and Fixing Settlement Documents) represented an excellent program feature it would have benefited from more allocated time.
• Additional observations: the selected case management topics 1) omitted key issues that would interest "Next Generation" structured settlement participants such as "needs analysis" and factoring; 2) were not presented sequentially as they actually occur in case management; and 3) could be improved from a learning perspective with the addition of one or more visual maps - process maps, concept maps, etc.

Business Development Curriculum

• Structures 202 evolved from Structures 101 which focused exclusively on case management issues. As one result, the Structures 202 Business Development presentations are less well-defined and/or developed.
• To date, for example, NSSTA's Structures 202 Business Development curriculum has not provided "New Generation" attendees with any overview of the current or potential structured settlement market.
• Among other objectives, such an overview could: 1) identify important structured settlement submarkets; 2) highlight current NSSTA "Growth Initiative" priorities; 3) discuss business opportunities and challenges created by recent legislation; 4) analyze the personal injury settlement planning market; and 5) promote the structured settlement annuity as a core strategic product within the personal injury settlement planning market.

Structures 202 and Industry Growth

• NSSTA's Structures 202 already represents an important component of a developing educational curriculum for structured settlement and personal injury settlement professionals. To help generate industry growth, NSSTA should consider marketing Structures 202 beyond current NSSTA members to include: 1) prospective NSSTA members and potential "Next Generation" structured settlement participants; 2) non-NSSTA personal injury settlement planning professionals interested in learning more about NSSTA and structured settlements.
• Otherwise, assuming NSSTA: 1) continues to repeat annually core elements of its Structures 202 curriculum; and 2) continues to restrict attendance to current NSSTA members; Structures 202 will likely (inevitably) have a declining audience - unless NSSTA has an alternative or complementary strategy for increasing its membership.
• As one alternative, NSSTA could simply open Structures 202 to non-NSSTA members (targeting, for example: financial planners, special needs attorneys, life care planners; annuity providers; trust companies) who, if sufficiently interested, could then apply for NSSTA membership. One negative political consideration for NSSTA with open attendance might be an anticipated and unwanted flood of secondary market attendees.
• As an alternative, NSSTA could open Structures 202 attendance selectively to members of other specific professional associations whose members engage in personal injury settlement planning - and/or invite those professional associations to serve as one-time co-sponsors. Among the advantages of this alternative: it would encourage NSSTA and the Structures 202 program to analyze how structured settlement professionals and their work product increasingly interact with other settlement planning professionals and their work product. Two of this year's Structures 202 Business Development presentations ("Working with Financial Planners" and "MSA Professional Administration") addressed these types of evolving professional interaction issues and opportunities.
• During various stages of its history NSSTA has selectively "vetted" various types of professionals and product providers, thereby preventing them from joining NSSTA and/or attending its educational programs. Opening Structures 202 attendance to a broader audience could help NSSTA diversify its institutional thinking as well as expand the structured settlement market.

For S2KM reports of prior educational conferences sponsored by NSSTA and other professional associations whose members participate in personal injury settlement planning, see the structured settlement wiki .

University of Texas 2016 SNT Conference

Perhaps less well known nationally than the Stetson Law School Special Needs Trust (SNT) Conference, the annual SNT conference presented by the University of Texas (UT) Law School represents a unique and complementary program that more structured settlement and personal injury settlement planning professionals should consider as an educational priority.

Attended by attorneys, financial advisors, trust officers, government agency representatives and care managers, the 12th Annual UT SNT program not only offered an outstanding faculty and comprehensive resource materials, it also integrated federal and Texas state-specific considerations (laws; regulations; current issues and trends; case examples; strategies; best practices) into a detailed learning mosaic that other national (non-state specific) special needs programs are unable to replicate.

Even for attendees venued outside of Texas, however, this integrated federal/state educational perspective provided a valuable analysis of the challenges and alternatives created by the interaction of the multiple sources of ever-changing special needs laws and regulations which sometimes conflict and often are subject to inconsistent administrative rulings.

Kudos to conference co-chairs, Patricia Sitchler and Renee Lovelace, as well as the entire conference faculty. Given the complicated scope and objectives of the UT SNT program, the resulting synthesis could easily have resulted in confusion. Instead, the 12th annual UT SNT conference served both as an excellent updated guidebook for Texas special needs professionals and as a potential model for other state special needs educational institutions and practitioners.

Topics and Speakers

• How to Make a Special Needs Trust - Craig Reaves
• Maximizing Public Benefits - H. Clyde Farrell and Christina Lesher
• Case Law Update - Rebecca Morgan and Elisa Dillard Rainey
• Medicaid Planning for Kids - Christina Lesher
• Texas Health and Human Services Commission Update - Shari Nichols
• Accessible, Available and Affordable Healthcare Resources - Leah Cohen; Anna Marie Mendez; Tresi Moore Weeks
• Working with SSA and the Trust Reviewer Teams - Pi-Yi Mayo (Moderator); Amanda Flood; Dana Marquez
• SNTs and the New SSA Trust Review Procedures - Neal Winston
• The New Texas Supported Decision-Making Agreement Act - Tresi Moore Weeks and Renee Lovelace
• Texas Legislative Update - Craig Hopper
• SNTs and Tax Planning - Bradley Frigon
• IRAs and SNTs - Renee Lovelace
• The Texas ABLE Act - Stephen Dale and Chris Masey
• Veterans Benefits and SNTs - Hon. Robert Davis
• Getting Families to Spend More Time Planning Ahead - Stephen Dale (Moderator); Matthews Badders; H. Clyde Farrell; Nancy Sosa; Scott Stebler
• Paying Caregivers - Katherine Barr; Scott Stebler
• The Role of SNT Attorneys in Personal Injury Settlement Planning - Patricia Flora Sitchler
• Ethical Issues in SNT Planning - Mary Alice Jackson

S2KM Comments About Selected Issues and Presentations

• UT SNT Conference Resources - As stated above, the conference handout materials (1481 pages of conference-specific legal papers and power points, plus sample forms, drafting tips, and other resources) provide valuable and recommended reference and learning resources. These materials are available for purchase in multiple formats on the UT CLE website.
• SNT Professional Education Resources - The number and quality of educational resources available for special needs professionals continues to increase and improve. In addition to the UT SNT conference, S2KM has attended and reviewed the most recent related conferences sponsored by Stetson, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA ) and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP ). ASNP has also sponsored a series of special needs planning webinars. Hal Wright's book: "The Complete Guide to Creating a Special Needs Life Care Plan" represents another valuable resource. Wright, a certified financial planner who focused much of his career on special needs clients, recommends and explains "a comprehensive approach integrating life, resource, financial, and legal planning to ensure a brighter future for a person with a disability."
• Personal Injury Settlement Planning - As S2KM has discussed in numerous blog posts (example), personal injury settlement planning represents a strategic, underdeveloped market for both structured settlement and special needs professionals. UT SNT Conference co-Chair Patricia Sitchler's presentation in Austin (see above) highlighted these opportunities for SNT attorneys. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have taken recent steps to expand their collaboration with special needs attorneys. NSSTA has appointed a Special Needs Trust Task Force to develop strategic relationships with special needs attorneys and also featured Sitchler as a speaker at NSSTA's 2015 Fall Conference. SSP's 2016 Annual Conference (March 10-12 in Tucson, Arizona) will include a joint session and social event with ASNP which recently hosted its own settlement planning webinar series.
• Supported Decision-Making - Effective Sept. 1, 2015,Texas became the first state to recognize supported decision-making agreements as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship. As defined under Texas' new law, a supported decision-making agreement is an alternative to guardianship for an adult with a disability who may need assistance with making decisions regarding daily living but is not so incapacitated that he or she needs a guardianship. As explained by Tresi Moore Weeks and Renee Lovelace in their UT conference presentation (see above) and accompanying paper, the supported decision-making process "is an outgrowth of person-centered planning" which in turn "is based on the belief that people with disabilities are people first, with their own gifts and contributions. A person-centered plan develops a life plan for the future by focusing on the individual’s preferences and capacities. It provides supports to the individual while giving the individual as much self determination and independence as he or she wants and is able to take on." Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was adopted by the U.N. in 2006 and signed (but not yet ratified) by the United States and signed or ratified by 159 other countries, requires states to "take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity."
• New SSA Trust Review Procedures - As S2KM has previously reported (see: ASNP 2015 Annual Conference and the Stetson 2015 SNT Conference ), the process by which the Social Security Administration (SSA) reviews SNTs has changed dramatically during the past two years as the result of meetings between SSA representatives and advocates who deal with SNT issues. The UT 2016 SNT Conference featured two complementary video presentations explaining the background, processes, status and impact of these changes: 1) Pi-Yi Mayo moderated a discussion with SSA representatives Amanda Flood and Dana Marquez; 2) Neal Winston explained why the problems with inconsistent, erroneous, or vaguely defined SSA SNT decisions occur; reviewed sources of SSA SNT written policy; discussed current SSA SNT policy trends; detailed the new centralized SSA SNT review procedure; and recommended current best practices for communicating with the SSA about SNTs. Both presentations were supported by excellent papers.
• The Texas ABLE Act - Stephen Dale and Chris Masey reported on the Texas ABLE Act under which eligible individuals with disabilities could start an ABLE account, modeled after current Section 529 savings accounts. For additional ABLE Act background, see this S2KM blog post. Their presentations summarized proposed, related IRS regulations as well as new POMS, issued December 21, 2015, in which the SSA explains ABLE accounts and provides instructions for developing and documenting account balances and distributions. In addition, Dale and Masey identified and addressed multiple practical ABLE-related issues to help attendees educate and advise their special needs clients and communities how best and when to utilize this new disability funding option.

For additional S2KM reporting about structured settlements and government benefit issues, see the structured settlement wiki.

NAELA 2016 Summit

As a benchmark for planning and/or evaluating 2016 professional association educational conferences, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) Second Annual Summit, hosted January 26-27 in Newport Beach, California, established multiple impressive standards.

Organized by Co-Chairs Michael Amoruso and Professor Roberta Flowers into a series of overlapping three-hour Immersion Sessions and one-hour Breakout Sessions, the NAELA Summit fulfilled its promise of "div[ing] deep" into real-life elder law and special needs law case situations and challenging office practices. Designed to support different types of learning, individual sessions were supplemented with workshop documents made available online in advance of the conference.

Approximately 200 NAELA members attended the Summit - including a significant number of first-time NAELA member conference attendees plus an additional 20 sponsoring exhibitors. Combining the old with the new, two of NAELA's original founding members (Michael Gilfix and Vincent Russo) appeared as featured speakers. Networking was encouraged and multiple opportunities were scheduled including a First-Time Attendee Orientation Session.

Featured Summit Sessions

Personality Evaluation - Organizational anthropologist and marketing strategist Kimberly Dodson Gilbey delivered the Summit keynote address titled "How My Communication Style Can Help My Bottom Line." As a keynote supplement, attendees were encouraged to participate in a pre-conference personality type assessment and to wear their resulting "personality type badge" throughout the conference. Combined objectives included: 1) understanding how different personality styles interact in a professional context; 2) recognizing the impact of clients' communication styles; 3) learning to recognize problems resulting from conflicting communication styles; and 4) acquiring skills to address conflicting communication styles.

Technology Training - The NAELA Summit offered three separate technology breakout sessions:

• An iOS clinic led by Scott Grossberg profiling aps specifically recommended for elder law and special needs attorneys.
• A social media introduction by Robin Krooks focused on useful sites, marketing advice and consultative resources.
• An interactive technology clinic organized by Apple representatives to teach Apple technology accessibility features.

Peer Instruction - "Peer Instruction" is an increasingly popular, interactive teaching methodology developed by Harvard Physics Professor Eric Mazur in the 1990s as an alternative to the traditional lecture format. S2KM was introduced to peer instruction by Forge Consulting, a personal injury settlement planning company which utilizes peer instruction to accelerate learning among its new employees. As described on wikipedia, peer instruction is "a student-centered approach that involves flipping the traditional classroom by moving information transfer out and moving information assimilation, or application of learning, into the classroom."

With the exception of Forge Consulting, S2KM had not witnessed or participated in any peer instruction educational exercise prior to the NAELA Summit. Without referencing the term "peer instruction", or consciously utilizing this learning methodology, both of the NAELA Summit Immersion Sessions led by Frank Johns ("Skills and Law When Serving Clients with Diminished Capacity") and Michael and Mark Gilfix ("Advanced Elder Law, Tax, and Estate Planning from Start to Finish, Part 1") represented (from S2KM's perspective) highly successful peer instruction educational prototypes worth additional evaluation and replication by NAELA. Note: S2KM was unable to attend Part 2 of the Advanced Elder Law Immersion Session led by Mark Munson.

Practice Management - Especially useful for the many Summit attendees beginning their elder law and/or special needs practice, NAELA scheduled several sessions addressing practice management topics:

• Michael Weeks - Explaining the Value of Your Fees to Clients.
• Jennifer VanderVeen - Practice Management Idea Sharing.
• Vincent Russo - Staff to Success.
• Shirley Berger Whiteneck - Communicating "Bad News" to Clients.
• Kirsten Davis - Writing Concise Letters.
• Sue Bronson and Michael Kirtland - Dealing with High Conflict Families.

Public Policy - As the professional practice of NAELA members continues to expand beyond traditional elder law to include special needs planning and personal injury settlement planning, NAELA is likewise challenged to expand its public policy focus. NAELA Public Policy Committee Co-Chairs Morris Klein and Jason Frank and Public Policy Manager David Goldfarb provided Summit attendees with an overview of potential legislative and regulatory changes that could affect their professional practice. Although the Special Needs Trust Fairness Act remains NAELA's most important lobbying priority, NAELA has proactively addressed several other public policy issues:

• Submitting comments about proposed FINRA rules relating to financial exploitation of seniors and persons with disabilities.
• Urging CMS to ban pre-dispute arbitration provisions in long-term care facility agreements.
• Recommending expanded Medicare home health coverage for persons with chronic illnesses to the Senate Finance Committee Chronic Care Working Group.
• Highlighting unanticipated harms to care giving spouses that could result from H.R. 1771 - a Bill to amend the Social Security Act to count portions of income from annuities of a community spouse as income available to institutionalized spouses for purposes of eligibility for medical assistance.
• Urging the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to issue new guidelines to ensure that HUD rental assistance providers apply consistent rules for Special Needs Trust distributions throughout the U.S.
• Submitting an amici curiae brief (jointly with the Special Needs Alliance and National Housing Law Project) in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit case of Kimberly DeCambre v. Brookline Housing Authority et al. on the issue of "whether 42 U.S.C. Section 1437a as construed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development permits a local housing authority to treat the return of principle from a resident's self-settled special needs trust as "income" for purposes of the Housing Choice Voucher Program."

Special Needs Trusts - As evidenced by separate annual conferences sponsored by Stetson and the University of Texas Law Schools, Special Needs Trusts (SNTs) continue to represent a primary focus of practice for many elder law and special needs attorneys. The NAELA Summit did not overlook this important topic offering the following related presentations:

• Stuart Zimring - Drafting SNTs.
• Patricia Kefalas Dudek - Navigating SNT Trustees Through Rough Waters.

Advanced Elder Law Review - The NAELA Summit was preceded by a two-day advanced Elder and Special Needs Law review course consisting of 14 sessions designed in part to help attendees prepare for the CELA Exam.

As a relatively new addition to professional educational conferences, the NAELA Summit significantly exceeded S2KM's expectations and should become an important educational priority for an increasing number of NAELA members.

For S2KM reporting about prior NAELA conferences as well as conferences sponsored by other professional associations addressing special needs, settlement planning and structured settlement issues, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements 2015 -2

Market Issues and Developments

The 2015 structured settlement marketplace could perhaps best be characterized as "changing the focus of our future" as industry leaders cooperated to create a positive future agenda to overcome, or move beyond, multiple challenges that continued to negatively impact both primary and secondary market performance metrics.

Industry challenges during 2015 included: 1) residual impact of the ELNY insolvency; 2) continuation of low interest rates; 3) unprecedented, negative secondary market publicity; and 4) an ongoing primary market generational transition.

Elements of the future agenda: 1) a shift in the traditional "protect and preserve" focus of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) toward an expanded priority of identifying structured settlement growth opportunities; 2) increasing industry unity evidenced by improved communication and cooperation among NSSTA, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP); 3) consumer protection amendments to multiple state structured settlement protection statutes; 4) expanding educational offerings with programs that specifically target judges as well as new industry participants; 5) public relations investments to help counteract negative industry publicity; and 6) further development and growth of a professional personal injury settlement planning market.

Primary Market Growth

In a recent S2KM interview, Michael Goodman, current NSSTA President, offered a personal estimate of $8 to $10 billion per year of annuity premium as the potential size of the U.S. structured settlement market.

The U.S. primary structured settlement market, however, has never approached that annual figure and, in fact, has experienced a significant decline since its peak of $6.2 billion in 2008. To better understand and reverse this decline, NSSTA has re-focused its priorities on expanding the use of structured settlements.

As a first step in 2014, in partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA completed a three-part structured settlement survey project of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3) the results of which provided NSSTA members with marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

During 2015 NSSTA organized an "Industry Growth Initiative" to effectuate Goodman's number one priority of "identifying growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry." This Initiative is focusing on three preliminary growth opportunities:

• Rejuvenate defense programs.
• Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA).
• Convertible deferred lump sums.

Goodman has further supported NSSTA's growth priority with these related goals: 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.

Although NSSTA's renewed focus on industry growth has not yet noticeably improved primary market metrics, an important psychological and organizational foundation has been created which should enhance future performance.

Industry Unity

One significant factor which arguably has hurt the structured settlement industry has been the historic acrimony which has divided plaintiff and defense brokers as well as the primary and secondary markets and which has resulted in three professional associations (NSSTA, SSP and NASP) frequently at odds with each other.

In the words of former SSP President Neil Johnson: Lack of structured settlement industry unity has been "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. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive."

During 2015, the leaders of NSSTA, SSP and NASP expanded prior educational dialogue which began in 2014 at NSSTA's Fall Educational Conference which served as a precursor for improved association relationships by featuring SSP President Neil Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde as guest speakers.

SSP's 2015 Annual Conference included an unprecedented number of structured settlement association leaders as speakers and attendees including representatives of NSSTA and NASP.

During the NASP 2015 Annual Conference , Robin Shapiro moderated an historic "President's Panel" featuring LaBorde and Goodman during which they announced a collaborative NSSTA and NASP legislative strategy to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes:

• No forum shopping.
• Payee required to attend hearing.
• Stricter application of approval requirements.
• Advanced notice of transfer.
• Required disclosure of prior transfers.

Personal Injury Settlement Planning

With the advent of plaintiff structured settlement brokers, continuing legislative and regulatory developments, plus an expanding array of settlement planning professionals, products and product providers, structured settlements are now viewed by many stakeholders as a subset of the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

Based upon studies by Towers Watson, S2KM has previously estimated that more than $170 billion of current annual United States tort costs (excluding workers compensation) represents payments to injury victims and their attorneys compared with a projected $5.4 billion of structured settlement premium (including workers compensation) for 2015.

S2KM has followed the development of personal injury settlement planning during 2015 by reporting on a number of professional conferences peripheral to the traditional structured settlement market:

• Stetson 2015 SNT Conference
• NAMSAP 2015 Winter Regional Conference
• SSP 2015 Annual Conference
  • Part 1
  • Part 2
• ASNP 2015 Annual Conference
• NAMSAP 2015 Annual Meeting

As NSSTA continues to evaluate options for growing its market, a new generation of leaders should more carefully analyze how to re-position their product as a fundamental component of post- Affordable Care Act personal injury settlement planning . This strategic adjustment requires a more comprehensive understanding of, and interaction with, other professional associations whose members also provide settlement planning products and services.

Secondary Structured Settlement Market

During her association's Annual Conference, NASP President Patricia LaBorde described 2015 as "a year of unimaginable successes and challenges". NASP's "challenges" included:

• Two blistering exposes of "worst case" secondary market business practices which appeared on the front pages of the Washington Post on August 25 and December 27;
• An estimated 7% decline in the number of secondary market transfers compared with 2014;
• A market "leader" (J.G. Wentworth, with an estimated 65-72% of the U.S. secondary structured settlement market) whose stock price has plummeted to $1.82 per share as of December 28, 2015 down from its historic high of $19.59 on February 28, 2014; and
• Judicial decisions such as In re: Rains, a Texas case enforcing a statutory "no-split" payment provision and establishing a new and extensive "best interest" precedent.

The successes included the proactive and collaborative legislative strategy developed by NASP and NSSTA to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes. The first success resulted in amendments to the Illinois statute which LaBorde characterized as NASP's "biggest victory since the Model Act", because it overturned the result of the Brenston case and re-opened the Illinois secondary market,

Also during the NASP conference, Goodman and LaBorde jointly announced that Governor Scott Walker had signed, just prior to their panel discussion, Wisconsin's first Structured Settlement Protection Act - thereby becoming the 49th state (all except New Hampshire) to have enacted such protective legislation.

During his subsequent "Legislative Report", NASP Lobbyist Jack Kelly identified Florida, Maryland and Virginia among priority states for joint future lobbying to improve structured settlement consumer protection.

Continuing its priority of interactive judicial education about the structured settlement transfer process, NASP's 2015 Annual Conference again featured a judicial panel addressing such topics as:

• Interpreting the best interest standard;
• Common mistakes at transfer hearings by attorneys, factoring companies and sellers;
• How to best present a transfer;
• How judges consider objections to transfers;
• What documentation judges want to see at transfer hearings;
• How to best protect the seller's privacy;
• Information judges are not seeing presented that should be;
• Significance of the origin (type of personal injury) to the judge's analysis;
• Impact of prior transfers on assessments.

NSSTA has likewise initiated its own judicial education program about structured settlement transfers.

For S2KM's summary of 2015 structured settlement market metrics, see this blog post.
For S2KM's prior year summaries of the structured settlement market, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2015 Fall Conference

Although the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) did not promote a specific theme for its 2015 Fall Educational Conference, one of the speakers succinctly captured the program's overall purpose and accomplishment when he described NSSTA's new Industry Growth Initiative as "changing the focus of our future."

Industry Growth Initiative

NSSTA's website description of its Industry Growth Initiative highlights "a significant decline in production since its peak at $6.3 Billion in 2008" and asserts "we do an excellent job protecting our industry" before announcing that "this year we want all NSSTA members to focus their time, energy and resources on new opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements-to grow our industry."

NSSTA President Michael Goodman utilized his Opening Conference Comments in Phoenix (as well as a preconference interview with S2KM) to describe the status and organizational structure of the NSSTA Industry Growth Initiative.

"My first priority as President of NSSTA," Goodman stated, "is to identify growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry. First, we asked all NSSTA members to submit ideas for growth at [email protected]. . Second, I tried to put together a NSSTA Growth Committee consisting of a highly talented cross section of industry leaders with diverse perspectives. Third, the Committee evaluated all of the 28 (to date) NSSTA member growth proposals and selected three for NSSTA Board of Directors approval to develop immediate implementation plans with success metrics."

Goodman introduced the NSSTA Growth Committee members including co-Chairmen William Goodman, Sean Coleman, John McCulloch and John Arendt. Speaking for the Committee, Coleman enthused: "I love our change of focus. Historically, NSSTA has been reactive, dodging bullets. The Growth Initiative redirects our mindset and focus. It encourages us to become proactive. The Growth Committee has already surpassed by highest expectations."

Goodman and the Committee co-Chairmen identified the following three NSSTA Growth Initiatives already 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. Beginning with three target carriers, the Committee plans to analyze the causes, and ultimately revitalize the programs, to create new prototype defense program models. Note: NSSTA recently commissioned surveys of Senior Claims Executives; and front line Claims Professionals which S2KM summarized and evaluated in prior blog posts.
• Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) - FECA, which provides workers compensation like benefits for federal workers, currently does not permit structured settlements. With payouts totally approximately $4.5 billion per year, FECA represent an attractive potential market for structured settlements with administrative cost savings being one justification for a legislative amendment. Based upon preliminary interviews, the Growth Committee believes FECA stakeholders view structured settlements favorably. The Committee is gathering statistical data to support its proposal and building grassroots support.
• Convertible Deferred Lump Sums - As a sales response to "low interest rates", the Growth Committee is proposing 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. A Canadian broker attending the NSSTA conference stated that at least one Canadian life company already offers this structured settlement product feature. The Committee anticipates whichever annuity provider introduces this product feature in the U.S. will probably also seek an IRS private letter ruling.
• Note: NSSTA's Growth Committee identified a fourth preliminary initiative (Dissipation Study) - to confirm that injury victims squander lump sums. However, this initiative is currently on hold. For background, see this 2009 S2KM review of Jeremy Babener's legal research paper analyzing historic dissipation studies.

Factoring Update

Goodman also addressed the state of the structured settlement industry including a "factoring update". As part of this report, Goodman confirmed that NSSTA and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) have agreed to cooperate legislatively in several states to seek the following consumer protection amendments for state structured settlement protection statutes:

• No forum shopping.
• Payee required to attend hearing.
• Stricter application of approval requirements.
• Advanced notice of transfer.
• Required disclosure of prior transfers.

Supporting this cooperative initiative, NSSTA has begun offering its members a new Judicial Education Training Seminar - taught in Phoenix by John McCulloch and Stephen Harris. Goodman also announced he will be a featured speaker at NASP's 2015 Annual Conference next week in Las Vegas - the first serving NSSTA President to do so. Perhaps anticipating his NASP appearance, and cognizant of the recent Washington Post article ("a perfect storm for factoring"), Goodman advised the NSSTA Conference attendees: "Factoring is not a zero sum game. What is bad for them is not always good for us."

Additional Conference Presentations

Many structured settlement participants believe control of the primary structured settlement market, and future market growth, have shifted from the defense to plaintiff attorneys and their injury victim clients. Although NSSTA has been slow to embrace plaintiff-focused personal injury settlement planning, NSSTA's Fall Conference included two presentation featuring plaintiff representatives:

• A Trial Lawyer Panel - moderated by Ryan Garrison with plaintiff attorneys Julio Zapata and Francisco Gutierrez; plus
• An introduction to the National Association of Trial Lawyers Executives (NATLE) by Gayle Bennett, Deputy Director of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association.

Both plaintiff presentations emphasized opportunities to expand the market for structured attorney fees. Both plaintiff attorneys expressed a preference for advisors who are "knowledgeable not just about structured settlements but also other investment vehicles."

In addition to the Judicial Education Training session mentioned above, three other NSSTA presentations addressed educational issues and programs:

• Best Practices for Structured Settlement Case Resolution - During her excellent review of structured settlement fundamentals, Betty Gregware expressed serious concern about the general quality of structured settlement documentation and the need to increase competence across the industry.
• Professional Broker Education - Gregware, Melissa Price and Debbie Sink introduced a new educational program NSSTA is developing primarily for individuals who are new to the structured settlement industry. They also provided an administrative overview of "NSSTA University" whereby NSSTA partners with members to secure CE credits for member-sponsored educational seminars for insurance claims departments or law firms.
• MSSC Paper Presentation - Mal Deener moderated a panel featuring Trish Fairhurst, Richard Carroll and other members of the first graduating class of NSSTA's new Masters Structured Settlement Consultant (MSSC) professional designation. Each MSSC graduate is required to submit a paper and these papers will be published on NSSTA's website. NSSTA will offer its next MSSC program beginning April 27, in conjunction with its Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) program, at the University of Notre Dame

Separate from, but related to, NSSTA Growth Initiative, NSSTA's Board of Directors has appointed a Special Needs Attorney Task Force to develop strategic relationships with special needs attorney professional associations and to identify collaborative marketing opportunities with special needs attorneys more generally. NSSTA member Carola Davis and Special Needs Alliance attorney Patty Sitchler initiated a NSSTA presentation/discussion in Phoenix which hopefully will continue and expand to the benefit of both professional communities.

A critical factor, both challenge and opportunity, for growing the primary structured settlement market concerns succession planning. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), or business models, will emerge (and when) to replace and build upon the accomplishments of the pioneering generation (now in their 60s and 70s) who originated the structured settlement market in the late 1970s? NSSTA's Fall Conference featured two presentations addressing these issues:

• Succession Planning - Presenter Jim Early looked at the succession issue primarily from the point of view of the individual producer. Among his observations: "nepotism works in the structured settlement industry" and "a lack of capital has prevented the primary market from bringing in and training new people."
• Diversity Discussion - Angel Viera and Stacy McCall offered a convincing case for promoting greater diversity among new structured settlement professionals as a key component for future growth. Their presentation included and elicited several thought-provoking observations including: 1) "From a demographic perspective, our industry should mirror the people we serve" and 2) "Our industry suffers from a lack of diversity of thinking. Where do we find new voices and perspectives?"

Lifetime payments represent a valuable, optional structured settlement benefit which can be further enhanced from a pricing perspective when rated ages are applicable. Kevin Puckett and Ken Kiefer expounded on these important issues during their presentation about Mortality, Morbidity & Rated Ages.

NSSTA members Susan Clark and Robert Caples introduced Arnie Begler and Scott Henry, representing Pipitone Group, NSSTA's new public relations firm, and together they discussed NSSTA's Communications Program. Because journalists, as well as their readers, frequently confuse the primary and secondary structured settlement markets, Pipitone's "first test" was responding to the aforesaid Washington Post article. Pipitone's stated assignment is "to find the best communications practices and bring them to NSSTA" which will include designing a new NSSTA website. Among NSSTA's priorities, and Pipitone's challenges, will be attempting to reclaim the "structured settlement" brand inclusive of Google searches which currently are dominated by secondary market companies.

NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn concluded NSSTA's Fall Conference with a Government Relations Update - his characteristically insightful and energizing overview of structured settlement legislative and regulatory activities. Among other accomplishments, Vaughn was recently named Vice Chairman of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD).

Other recent NSSTA-related S2KM blog posts:

• Michael Goodman Interview
• NSSTA Marketing Surveys
  • Senior Claim Executives
  • Claim Professionals
  • Plaintiff Attorneys
• NSSTA 2015 Structures 202 Conference
• NSSTA 2015 Annual Conference