Beyond Structured Settlements

25 Questions to Evaluate Pooled Trusts

Health care reform (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), enacted on March 23, 2010, has re-defined the structured settlement and personal injury settlement consulting marketplace: whether current participants realize it - or (more probably) do not.

Among the strategic consequences of health care reform:

• An estimated 16 million more Medicaid participants - and therefore:
• More special needs trusts;
• More special needs attorneys;
• More structured settlement annuities payable to trustees.

Without focusing specifically on health care reform (not then enacted), the ASNP 2010 Annual Meeting included valuable presentations and handout resources indirectly related to health care reform, structured settlements and settlement planning/consulting.

Among those valuable presentations was Evan J. Krame's analysis titled "Not Very Special Trusts: Fixing Trusts to be Special and Using Pooled Trusts". As part of his ASNP trust analysis, Krame introduced a document he wrote titled "25 Questions to Evaluate Pooled Trusts".

In addition to his legal practice and teaching activities, Krame serves as President of Shared Horizons, Inc. Shared Horizons is trustee of the Wesley Vinner Memorial Trust (a pooled trust) serving people with disabilities in the District of Columbia and Maryland.

Krame has granted permission for S2KM to re-publish his list of 25 Questions here in S2KM blog format.

Trust Structures

• Check the Trust Agreement and Joinder Agreement? What do the documents say? For example, what powers does the trustee have?
• Is the trust approved and monitored by any state agencies?
• Who/what is really serving as the trustee? Is it the non-profit organization that created the trust or is it a third party hired to administer the trust?

Is this Trust Right for You?

• What are the costs of participation? Is there an initiation fee, an annual fee or a termination fee?
• How are the disbursements approved? What is the ease and method of disbursements? Who signs disbursement checks?
• What is the availability of advocacy on behalf of the beneficiary?
• How do they manage public benefit issues?
• How do they monitor the beneficiaries?
• Will the trust own illiquid or uncommon assets such as cars or homes?

Trust Management

• What is the reputation of the non-profit and/or trust management organizations?
• What is the organizational structure? Check on staff, space and activities.
• Who are the officers of the non-profit? What are their skills and background?
• What is the function of the board of the non-profit trustee?
• How long has the trust been in existence? Is there any reason to believe it could fail? How appropriately is the pooled trust compensated?
• How are the trust assets invested? Is there an investment policy in force that is followed? Is there an independent investment adviser? Is there an investment review committee? Is there an allocation model?
• How do they maintain separate shares? Do they uphold the duty to segregate?
• Is there liability and casualty insurance in place?
• How do they meet their duty to inform? Are statements provided to beneficiaries and state agencies (as required)?
• How do they meet their duty to account?
• How do they maintain their records? Are they precise, complete and accurate?
• How do they meet their duty of confidentiality?
• Do they have and/or employ legal counsel?
• Are there termination procedures in place?
• What is the policy as to funds at the death of a beneficiary?
• How do they handle income tax reporting?

Additional S2KM resources about settlement trusts:

• Settlement trusts re-visited
• Settlement trusts
• Single claimant 468B funds
• Selecting a settlement trustee
• Settlement trust due diligence
• Special Needs Trusts X
• Richard Halpern

S2P2J Release 47

Release 47 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), co-authored by Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert, and published by Incisive Media, features extended discussions about structured settlement public policy and structured settlement business models, standards and practices.

Public policy issues addressed in Release 47:

• Does structured settlement public policy support:
  • Single claimant IRC section 468B qualified settlement funds?
  • Court-approved structured settlement factoring transactions pursuant to IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes?
• Do personal injury victims have a greater propensity to dissipate their financial resources than non-personal injury victims?
• Should the existence of the secondary market disqualify annuities as a funding option for special needs trusts?
• Does the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 apply to structured settlement annuities?
• Why should structured settlement annuities cost less than lump sum alternatives to fund Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs)?

Business standards and practice issues addressed in Release 47:

• Traditional structured settlement business models;
• Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit;
• Fresno County factoring cases;
• The J.G. Wentworth bankruptcy and related credit crunch;
• New "best interest" test in California's revised protection statute;
• SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct.

S2P2J Release 47 also tightens S2P2J's existing analysis (Chapter 15) about the interaction of structured settlement annuities with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and updates industry developments generally.

S2P2J Release 48 will analyze how health care reform impacts structured settlements and also will feature a new chapter about IRC section 468B qualified settlement funds.

For prior S2KM analysis of related issues see S2KM's:

• structured settlement wiki; and
• structured settlement public policy wiki;
• web 2.0 for lawyers wiki;
• as well as prior S2KM blog posts.

Legislation to Expand the Structured Settlement Industry

Jeremy Babener, third year student at NYU School of Law, has published a new article in the North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, titled: "How Plaintiffs Might Receive Emotional Distress Damages Tax-Free After 2010." This article, as well as Babener's other online writing, is available on his tax resources web site TaxStructuring.Com as well as S2KM's blog and structured settlement public policy wiki.

Babener's newest article examines past and future avenues for expanding the structured settlement industry by enlarging the tax exclusion for personal injury damages through regulation and legislation.

Babener's article begins with a summary of attempts by plaintiff attorneys and other structured settlement stakeholders to expand the definition of " physical" at the February 23, 2010 Treasury hearing, so that more damages are exempt from taxation under section 104(a)(2)'s exclusion of payments made "on account of personal physical injuries."

According to Babener, the U.S Treasury used the Administrative Procedure Act as one reason for not accepting some of the suggestions made at the recent Treasury hearing about IRC 104(a)(2) regulations. Babener's article, however, explains how the use of notice and comment periods for " interpretive" regulations are not necessarily required, even if ordinarily used.

Babener's article asks a pointed and strategic question: how can the structured settlement industry encourage more damages to be received tax-free? Doing so, presumably, would expand the structured settlement market. Babener recommends new tax legislation as one next step for industry growth.

The National Taxpayer Advocate, which considers taxpayer considerations from inside the IRS, recently recommended that section 104(a)(2) exempt non-physical damages, specifically emotional distress, mental anguish, and pain and suffering. This recommendation can be found in the Legislative Recommendations of the 2009 Report to Congress. If enacted, this recommendation would essentially undo the 1996 legislation requiring damages to be physical in order to be eligible for the 104(a)(2) tax exemption, and specifically holding emotional distress damages to be taxable.

Recounting the structured settlement industry's past lobbying successes, Babener recommends 2010 as the year for collaborative structured settlement industry political action. His article concludes, "It would seem that those opposed to the physical requirement of the tax exclusion have the momentum, planned or otherwise. If there was a year to reverse the 1996 legislation’s impact, it looks like that year is 2010."

S2KM agrees with Babener's recommendations and encourages structured settlement industry leaders to read all of Babener's structured settlement articles and also to continue to feature tax legislation as fundamental educational and lobbying components for industry growth.

NAELA's Special Needs Summit - 2

This S2KM blog post strategically analyzes the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) 2010 Special Needs Summit from a structured settlement perspective. A prior S2KM post summarized the NAELA Special Needs Summit. A subsequent S2KM post will strategically analyze the NAELA Special Needs Summit from the perspective of Internet-based knowledge management.

For related S2KM learning resources, see S2KM's public read-only wikis:

• Structured settlement
• Structured settlement public policy
• Web 2.0 for lawyers

From a structured settlement perspective, the strategic business overlap with special needs attorneys encompasses disabled personal injury victims, their families and trial attorneys. Various knowledge leaders, knowledge networks and communities of practice within this strategic business and public domain utilize alternative terminology to describe their businesses without comparative analysis of the terminology itself. Here are some recommended resources to help special needs attorneys understand this growing legal market segment:

• Settlement law - hardcopy textbooks:
  • Robert W. Wood
    • "Taxation of Damage Awards and Settlement Payments"
    • "Qualified Settlement Funds and 468B"
  • Matt Garretson: "Negotiating and Settling Tort Cases"
  • Stuart Zimring, Rebecca Morgan and Bradley Frigon: "Fundamentals of Special Needs Trusts"
• Structured settlement law - Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert: "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments"
• Settlement consulting - see S2KM's report and analysis of Joseph DiGangi's presentation at the 2009 NSSTA winter meeting.
• Settlement planning - see S2KM's report about the SSP 2009 conference.
• Special needs settlement planning - see S2KM's report about the ASNP 2009 conference and Tim Nay interview.

S2KM regularly attends and publishes reports summarizing and analyzing national educational conferences sponsored by selected professional associations and universities whose speakers and attendees participate within the strategic business overlap of structured settlements and special needs law:

• National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA)
• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)
• National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)
• American Association for Justice (AAJ)
• National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)
• Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)
• National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP)
• Stetson Law School - Special Needs Trust conference

Strategic question: from a structured settlement perspective, what was most important about NAELA's first-ever Special Needs Summit? 

Strategic answer: None of the NAELA speakers or unprograms:

• Attempted to define "special needs law" or any of its ancillary legal and business domains.
• Addressed any of the following structured settlement legal priorities and developments - all of which are strategically important for special needs attorneys:
  • IRC sections 104(a), 130, 468B or 5891;
  • Treasury Hearings for IRC 104(a)(2) regulations
  • Treasury 2009-10 Priority Guidance Plan - dropping single claimant 468B.
  • Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit - alleging civil RICO violations.
  • Unauthorized practice of law
  • Dissipation studies
  • Single claimant 468B funds
  • Executive Life of New York
  • Secondary structured settlement annuity market:
    • State structured settlement protection statutes.
    • J.G. Wentworth bankruptcy
    • Fresno County factoring cases
    • Rapid Settlements arbitration model
    • California protection statute amendments - including "best interest" definition

Why should special needs attorneys be interested in structured settlement law? This S2KM structured settlement diagram summarizes a complex legal and financial transaction that requires special needs legal knowledge, documentation and representation and also presents business and career opportunities for special needs attorneys:

• IRC 468B qualified settlement funds
• IRC 130 qualified and non-qualified assignments
• Special needs trusts
• Medicare set-aside arrangements
• Structured settlement transfers

Additional S2KM structured settlement resources for special needs attorneys interested in learning more about structured settlement law:

• Market surveys
• Growing the market
• Structured settlements in 2009
• structured settlement wiki
• structured settlement public policy wiki.

S2KM's next blog post will analyze NAELA's Special Needs Summit from an Internet-based knowledge management perspective.

Structured Settlements in 2010 - 1

2010 promises to be an important year for the structured settlement industry.

Strategic structured settlement priorities for 2010:

• Public policy - what laws currently define structured settlement public policy and how do these laws impact:
  • 468B qualified settlement funds;
  • Non-qualified 130 structured settlements;
  • Structured settlement factoring transactions?
• Legislative reform - how will anticipated new legislation change structured settlements:
  • Health care reform;
  • Financial reform;
  • Tax reform?
• Business standards and practices - what business standards and practices will prevail following:
  • SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct;
  • Spencer v. Hartford;
  • J.G. Wentworth's re-emergence from bankruptcy;
  • Fresno County factoring cases and California SB 510
    
• Business models - who will create new business models and success metrics for:
  • Structured settlement claim management;
  • Settlement consulting;
  • Structured settlement secondary market;
  • Internet-based structured settlements?

Professional association meetings - S2KM will report structured settlement and settlement consulting educational results from four (4) professional association meetings during the first six (6) months of 2010:

• NAELA Special Needs Summit - February 25-27 in New Orleans;
• ASNP Annual Meeting - March 19-20 in Charleston, S.C.
• SSP Annual Meeting - April 27-28 in Washington, D.C.
• NSSTA Annual Meeting - May 4-6 in Washington, D.C.

For prior S2KM reports about structured settlement and settlement consulting professional associations, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

For S2KM's most recent strategic analysis of the structured settlement industry, see S2KM's blog post "Structured Settlements in 2009".

Structured Settlements in 2009 - 2

This S2KM post follows "Structured Settlements in 2009 - 1" and features topical links to S2KM 2009 blog reports.

For 2010 industry updates, please continue to visit S2KM's blog as well as S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Prior S2KM annual industry reports:

• Structured settlements in 2008
• Structured settlements in 2007
• Structured settlements in 2006

Professional Association Meetings

• NSSTA - National Structured Settlement Trade Association
  • Winter meeting
  • Annual meeting
  • Fall meeting
• SSP - Society of Settlement Planners
  • Preview
  • Annual meeting
• NASP - National Association of Settlement Purchasers
  • Part 1
  • Part 2
  • Part 3
• ASNP - Academy of Special Needs Planners
  • Annual meeting
  • Tim Nay interview

Settlement Consulting

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

Spencer v. Hartford

• Report 1
• Report 2
• Report 3
• Report 4

IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds

• Single Claimant 468B QSF Update
• IRC 468B and 5891
• Robert Wood's QSF Book
  • Summary and Review
  • Robert Wood Interview
• Jeremy Babener's QSF Paper
  • Summary
    
  • Review
    • Part 1
    • Part 2
  • Jeremy Babener Interview
• US Treasury Priority Guidance Plan 2009-2010

Dissipation Studies

• Introduction
• Jeremy Babener's Dissipation Paper
  • Summary and Review
  • Jeremy Babener Interview
  • Jeremy Babener Responds

Structured Settlement Credo

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5

Rapid Settlements

• Pacific Life v. Rapid Settlements
• Allstate v. Rapid Settlements

Fresno County Factoring Cases

• Report 1
• Report 2
• Report 3

Additional S2KM Analysis

• Re-Thinking Structured Settlements
• Structured Settlement 2009 Mid-Year Update
• Structured Settlement 2009 Strategic Analysis
• Structured Settlements and Government Benefits
• Settlement Trust Due Diligence

Additional Primary Market Developments

• Forge Purchases TSSG
• Richard Halpern

Additional Secondary Market Developments

• S&P Withdraws JG Wentworth Credit Ratings
• Structured Settlement Securitizations

"Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments"

• S2P2J Release 45
• S2P2J Release 46

Richard Halpern

Richard Halpern, founder and President of The Halpern Group , died December 14, 2009 at age 64.

Halpern was one of the most important and controversial pioneers, critics and contrarian thinkers in the history of the structured settlement industry.

Halpern's education and training included electrical and computer engineering. Halpern started his professional practice in 1973 as a financial planner. At one time his insurance brokerage company was one of the largest in New Jersey.

Halpern entered the structured settlement industry in 1982 and subsequently clashed with the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the traditional NSSTA structured settlement business model. The Halpern Group business model focuses on plaintiff attorneys (especially the American Association for Justice) and their clients instead of defendants and their insurers.

Risa Lower, who worked with Halpern for 31 years and now serves as Acting President of the Halpern Group, offered this assessment of Halpern's contribution to the structured settlement industry: "Rich believed in the civil justice system and helping plaintiffs. Rich introduced products other than annuities. He gave plaintiffs a choice and changed how plaintiffs and plaintiff attorneys look at structured settlements."

U.S. Treasury Priority Guidance Plan 2009-2010

The tax treatment of single-claimant 468B qualified settlement funds (QSF) has been eliminated from the Priority Guidance Plan for 2009-2010 announced jointly on November 24, 2009 by the United States Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service.

Neither the Treasury-IRS announcement nor the 2009-2010 Priority Guidance Plan explain why the single claimant 468B tax issue was omitted following five years during which the controversial structured settlement issue has appeared on the Priority Guidance Plan - without ever being addressed.

The purpose of the Priority Guidance Plan is to focus United States government resources "on guidance items that are most important to taxpayers and tax administration." According to the announcement, the 2009-2010 Priority Guidance Plan contains 315 projects to be completed during the twelve months beginning July 2009. The Priority Guidance Plan also lists more routine tax guidance that is published each year.

Both the announcement and the Priority Guidance Plan state generally:

• "We intend to update and republish the Priority Guidance Plan during the plan year to reflect additional guidance that we intend to publish during the plan year. The periodic updates allow us flexibility throughout the plan year to consider comments received from taxpayers and tax practitioners relating to additional projects and to respond to developments arising during the plan year" and
• "The published guidance process can be fully successful only if we have the benefit of the insight and experience of taxpayers and practitioners who must apply the rules. Therefore, we invite the public to continue to provide us with their comments and suggestions as we write guidance throughout the plan year. "

A 468B QSF is a temporary fund into which defendants in certain cases can deposit settlement monies and receive an immediate tax deduction. QSFs represent an alternative for a defendant paying settlement monies directly to the plaintiff(s). QSFs allow time for plaintiffs and their advisers to organize and fund a settlement plan with a settlement sum certain and judicial approval - without negotiation and sales pressures from defendants and their insurers.

Despite "one or more" qualification language in the 468B regulations, various stakeholders within the structured settlement industry dispute:

• Whether single claimants qualify for 468B QSFs and
• What constitutes a single claimant for purposes of IRC 468B.

Jeremy Babener, a QSF analyst and author, summarized the primary tax dispute:

• "Legal arguments have revolved around whether economic benefit is incurred where defendant monies are transferred to a single-claimant QSF.
  
• "Where multiple claimants, and thus possibly competing interests are not involved, some have argued that the transfer to a QSF represents an unconditional and irrevocable transfer to the single-claimant.
• " If the existing QSF regulatory structure does not prevent this from being the case (a hotly contested fact), transfers to single-claimant QSFs would withhold eligibility to the structured settlement tax subsidy for any structured settlement between single-claimants and QSFs."

Richard Risk, an attorney who advocates for single claimant QSFs, interprets the decision to remove the single claimant 468B project from the Priority Guidance Plan as evidence that sufficient guidance favoring single claimant 468B QSFs already exists. Risk points to I.R.C. § 7805(d) which requires the Treasury Secretary to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of [the Internal Revenue Code].” Risk concludes that Treasury’s decision is an acknowledgment that additional guidance is not “needful.”

Robert Wood, a leading tax attorney and author of the recently released treatise Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B, has recommended that the use of single-claimant QSFs be avoided without additional clarification, though he believes that the regulations “seem to allow the possibility of the single claimant QSF.”

Most recent S2KM analysis of QSFs:

• "Single Claimant 468B QSF Update" featuring Jeremy Babener's QSF paper; and
• "Robert Wood and 468B Funds" featuring Wood's new QSF book.

NASP 2009 Annual Meeting - 3

This blog post continues S2KM's summary and analysis of the NASP 2009 Annual Meeting. Prior S2KM blog posts about NASP are accessible on S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

NASP's 2009 strategic educational analysis occurred primarily during a two-hour panel discussion titled "Re-thinking Structured Settlements". S2KM assisted NASP in organizing this panel discussion. Jeremy Babener's NASP presentation titled "Factoring and the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy" preceded and contributed to NASP's strategic discussions.

NASP Panel Discussion: "Re-thinking Structured Settlements".

Moderator: Earl Nesbitt, Executive Director of NASP.

Panelists: Jeremy Babener; Matthew Bracy; Daniel Hindert; Richard Risk; Andrew Savysky; Robin Shapiro; Michael Upchurch.

Format: S2KM identified and submitted to NASP a preliminary list of strategic structured settlement questions. NASP encouraged the panelists to identify and address S2KM questions that most interested them. NASP allocated time for audience questions and participation.

Primary S2KM questions addressed by the NASP panel:

• Which 2009 events and developments (legal; financial; political) will most significantly impact the future of structured settlements?
• What are the best and worst structured settlement business practices?
• Are factoring transactions good or bad for structured settlements?
• Does public policy support state court ordered structured settlement factoring transactions?
• How has the financial crisis changed the structured settlement market? Note: although NASP's strategic panel acknowledged the importance of this issue, the panel also recognized the related comprehensive discussion by the NASP "Capital Markets" panel.

2009 structured settlement developments - as sequentially identified and discussed by the NASP panel:

• Financial and credit crisis - addressing both primary and secondary market consequences;
• Election of President Obama - highlighting anticipated legislation including health care reform and tax reform;
• J.G. Wentworth bankruptcy - what it means for traditional secondary market business models;
• Primary market departures - why leading structured settlement annuity providers continue to leave the market;
• Diminishing annuity sales - why structured settlement annuity sales are down when fixed annuity sales generally are way up;
• Spencer v. Hartford - how the recent United States Second Circuit Court decision (denying Hartford's appeal) impacts the Hartford class action lawsuit and which other structured settlement programs are now at risk for potential RICO class action lawsuits?
• Revised California protection statute - viewed by the panel as a legislative victory for the structured settlement industry and featuring specific "best interest" criteria for state judges to consider in California settlement transfer cases.
• Fresno County cases - viewed by the panel as a judicial victory for the structured settlement industry with an appellate court ruling that public policy supports state court approved structured settlement factoring transactions.
• Rapid Settlement cases - viewed by the panel as a victory for the structured settlement industry with continuing judicial denial of arbitration alternatives to state court approved transfers pursuant to IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes.
• Scott Rothstein ponzi scheme - identified as a legal and public relations reminder that all participants in settlements featuring periodic payments with potential subsequent payment transfers would benefit from applicable legislation (protection statutes) and required state court approvals.

Best and worst business standards and practices - as identified and discussed by the NASP panel:

• Primary market
  • Best practices
    • SSP's "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" - including Rule 9 titled "Factoring Structured Settlements";
    • IRC 468B qualified settlement funds;
    • Full market quoting surveys;
    • Multiple (blended) product offerings, licensing and expertise.
  • Worst practices
    • Alleged RICO violations in the Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit;
    • Over-structuring the wrong cases and with the wrong periodic payments;
    • Lack of disclosure to injury victims - about compensation sharing; conflicts of interest; IRC 5891; and state protection statutes;
    • No applicable "best interest" legislation or standards;
    • Mischaracterization by and of "agents" (loyal to annuity providers) as "brokers" (loyal to injury victims);
    • Defendant "approved lists" of agents and funding companies;
    • Affiliated company funding programs;
    • "Pay for play" endorsements by professional associations.
• Secondary market
  • Best practices
    • Business practices required by IRC 5891 and NCOIL's model state structured settlement protection statute - including judicial approval; best interest standard; disclosure; notification;
    • Standards and business practices endorsed by NASP;
    • Competitive bidding fostered by the Internet.
  • Worst practices
    • "Cash now" advertising;
    • Non-competitive bidding fostered by television advertising;
    • Failure to fund (or delayed funding) of court ordered settlement transfers.

Is the secondary market good or bad for structured settlements? This question was discussed in detail during the NASP 2008 Annual Meeting with Jack Meligan and Michael Upchurch providing a primary market critique of the secondary market. NASP's 2009 Annual Meeting featured two published critics of secondary market business behavior: Judge Edward Burke of Arizona and attorney Daniel Hindert of Utah. In addition, Michael Upchurch participated on the NASP strategic analysis panel. If the NASP program reached any conclusion for this issue, it was: the secondary structured settlement market is a reality. Whether the secondary market is good or bad for structured settlements depends upon business behavior and business results in both the primary and secondary markets.

Does public policy support state court ordered structured settlement factoring transactions? Jeremy Babener discussed the public policy arguments for and against factoring transactions. Babener concluded that more information is needed to make a comprehensive public policy declaration. The recent California appellate court decision in Henderson v. Scioteco holds that public policy supports state court approved factoring transactions. Babener, acknowledged the importance of the decision, but disagreed with the California court's characterization of IRC 5891 as an "express sanction" of factoring. Richard Risk agreed with Babener that IRC 5891 does not contain a clear statement of public policy about factoring. Risk, however, pointed to examples of IRC 5891 legislative history that contradict any claim that public policy is against structured settlement factoring. As one example, Risk cited the Joint Committee on Taxation’s report released on March 18, 1999, “Tax Treatment of Structured Settlement Arrangements,” which Risk interprets as public policy support that structured settlements can co-exist with factoring.

S2KM applauds NASP for:

• Focusing much of its 2009 educational program on strategic structured settlement industry issues; and also for
• Inviting and featuring  structured settlement industry experts with diverse viewpoints and opinions.

NASP 2009 Annual Meeting - 2

The purpose of this S2KM blog post is to summarize educational discussions which occurred at the NASP 2009 Annual Meeting. In a prior post (NASP 2009 Annual Meeting-1), S2KM listed the discussion topics, moderators, speakers and panelists and also identified Van Tran as the winner of the NASP 2009 Alexander Hamilton award. In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will provide analysis and feature interviews with selected NASP educational program participants.

2009 Legislative Developments - Matthew Bracy summarized California Senate Bill 510 which Governor Arnold Swarzenegger signed into law October 11, 2009 and which becomes effective January 1, 2010. Among changes to the California structured settlement protection statute, SB 510 adds factors for the court to consider when determining whether a proposed transfer is fair, reasonable and in the payee's best interest. These factors now include the reasonable preference of the payee considering age and mental capacity. Bracy also summarized the new North Dakota structured settlement protection statute which generally follows the NCOIL Model Act. North Dakota becomes the 47th state to enact structured settlement protection legislation.

Legal Case Update - Tricia Laborde's legal case update focused primarily on the Fresno County cases and Rapid Settlement cases. Among other holdings in Scioteco v. Henderson, a California appellate court ruled that public policy supports state court approved structured settlement factoring transactions. In Allstate v. Rapid Settlements, which denied Rapid's appeal, U.S. Third Circuit Judge Joseph F. Weis, Jr. noted: "We are one of the many courts to face Rapid Settlements' transparent attempt to use this arbitration scheme to evade the legislatures' intentions to protect the recipients of structured settlement payments".

What Happened in California? - A panel of legal and political experts provided background and analysis of SB 510 and the Fresno County cases. NASP lobbyist Carl London summarized the collaboration between NASP and Consumer Attorneys of California (formerly the California Trial Lawyers), plus the role of California legislator Van Tran, in securing enactment of SB 510. Linda Morris, General Counsel for J.G. Wentworth, provided background information and strategic commentary about appellate decisions for the Fresno County cases which she characterized as an important victory for the structured settlement industry.

Transactional Structured Settlement Issues - A panel of attorneys discussed practical problems in securing judicial approval for proposed structured settlement transfers. Some of the issues discussed: difficulties in determining the domicile of transient payees; privacy issues including the impact of Pennsylvania Rule 229.2; difficulties in finding independent professional advisers; and what happens when judges attempt to re-negotiate agreed upon transfers.

Structured Settlement Capital Markets - A panel of factoring company executives discussed how the 2008-2009 capital market upheaval has changed the secondary structured settlement market.
The changes:

• The cost of funds today for factoring companies (8 to 9%) equals the best discount rates offered for transfers two years ago;
• Bundling purchases of individual payment rights into a security is financially less efficient and/or available today;
• Marketing and court costs for factoring companies remain high;
• Perceived financial risks for potential insurer failure have increased;
• The impact of a potential ELNY liquidation remains uncertain.

Structured Settlement Court Practices and Issues - Judges Edward Burke of Arizona and Christopher Marshall of Oregon joined a panel of attorneys in discussing settlement transfer court practices and issues including: prior transfers by the same payee; the roles of transfer attorneys and independent professional advisers; privacy concerns for transferring payees; the advantages of utilizing a single state judge for all transfer requests; plus other problems which cause continuing judicial concerns about factoring and factoring companies.

Factoring and the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy - Jeremy Babener addressed the important role IRC 130 and 104 tax subsidies have played in the growth of structured settlements. He summarized the political and public policy attacks against, and defenses for, structured settlement factoring transactions and questioned whether:

• The tax subsidy prevents dissipation?
• The tax subsidy discourages factoring?
• Factoring undermines the tax subsidy?

Babener challenged NASP to develop better information about who actually sells structured settlement payment rights and why.

Structured Settlement Bankruptcies - Bruce Akerly summarized his recent paper titled "The Impact of an Annuity Servicer's Bankruptcy on the Annuitant and Structured Settlement Purchaser". Akerly's conclusions:

• "The annuity payments received by a structured settlement servicing company, as well as the servicing agreement itself, become property of the bankrupt estate"; and
• "It may be possible to draft provisions in the servicing agreement to anticipate some of the consequences of the servicing company entering bankruptcy and perhaps lessen the impact on all parties."

Re-thinking Structured Settlements - a multi-disciplinary panel of industry experts addressed strategic structured settlement issues:

• What developments in 2009 will most impact the future of structured settlements?
• What are the best (and worst) structured settlement standards and business practices?
• Which structured settlement myths are most out-of-line with reality?
• How will commutations change the structured settlement market?
• What knowledge and skill sets are most important for future success in the structured settlement industry?

For S2KM reports about prior NASP meetings, see the structured settlement wiki.