Beyond Structured Settlements

Structured Settlements 2014 - Secondary Market

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

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

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

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

What happened?

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

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

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

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

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

Brenston Case Law "Progeny"

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

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

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

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

Washington Square v. RSL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change of Directions for JGWPT?

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

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

Other 2014 Secondary Market Developments

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

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

For additional related S2KM reporting, see:

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

NASP 2014 Annual Conference

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) celebrated its 10th annual conference November 5-6, 2014 in San Antonio, Texas with record attendance, recognition of past accomplishments and a clear existential message from its president Patricia LaBorde: "NASP exists to insure there will be a secondary structured settlement market for at least the NEXT 10 years".

NASP's 2014 educational conference followed by one week an historic NSSTA conference, which featured, for the first time, the presidents of NASP (LaBorde) and SSP (Neil Johnson) as speakers. LaBorde acknowledged this development in her opening NASP remarks stating: "we want to hear NSSTA's criticism and for the first time, they appear to want to hear ours." She expressed surprise and concern, however, about how little NSSTA members appear to understand about the secondary market including several basic misconceptions.

To underscore both NASP's "survival" theme and the need for improved education about the secondary market, LaBorde added: "there are some forces working against us right now and we need to remain diligent so our customers (structured settlement recipients who sell payment rights to NASP member companies) continue to have access to liquidity."

NASP lobbyist Jack Kelly and Executive Director Earl Nesbitt addressed some of NASP's challenges in their presentations providing legislative and case law updates respectively.

Legislative Update

Kelly reviewed structured settlement protection statute activities in Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Mississippi and declared NASP's 2014 state legislative lobbying a success. Kelly highlighted Florida and Wisconsin as states where NASP and NSSTA could collaborate to improve existing legislation. At the federal level, Kelly addressed H.R. 3897 and the July 23, 2014 "Consumer Protection for People with Disabilities" Congressional symposium which included a panel discussion about "factoring structured settlements".

Echoing LaBorde's comments about NSSTA, Kelly expressed his concern about "fact vs fiction" as to what happens and what benefits transfers provide for structured settlement recipients who experience unexpected or unaddressed financial needs. Emphasizing "no secondary market transaction can occur without a primary market transaction", Kelly criticized any development or activity that causes Congress to relook at IRC 130 and 104(a)(2). Speaking the morning after the 2014 election, Kelly labeled the Republican victory a political "tsunami" and the odds on new tax legislation in 2015 as a "toss up".

Case Law Update

For the uninitiated, Nesbitt prefaced his secondary market case law summary with several applicable "lessons": if you don't pay a seller the agreed amount, you will have trouble; courts take the "best interest" standard seriously; sometimes the prudent action is to dismiss a proposed transfer and move on; if you don't get what you want, don't move to another court or arbitration; words in a contract matter and words in a court order matter more; although rare in Texas, sometimes it rains (it did in San Antonio) and sometimes RSL Funding (formerly Rapid Settlements) wins cases.

Washington Square v. RSL

Among several significant cases, Nesbitt gave top billing to Washington Square v. RSL Funding wherein transfer company Washington Square (aka Imperial) sued transfer company RSL Funding in Texas for tortious interference with a transfer agreement that had not yet been approved in a final court order. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, held:

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

Acknowledging this case represents a "big win" for RSL, Nesbitt also predicted "chaos" for the secondary market as rival transfer companies increasingly search court records and seek to outbid other transfer companies who are awaiting court approvals. Subsequent NASP panels of transfer attorneys and judges, as well as sidebar discussions with angry representatives of companies outbid by competitors, confirmed Nesbitt prediction and suggested a strategic marketing shift is already occurring among transfer companies.

Brenston Case

In a separate presentation, Nesbitt reviewed the Peachtree Settlement Funding v. Brenston case and its case law "progeny". In the Brenston case, the Illinois Supreme Court in December 2013 denied Peachtree's petition for review of an Illinois Appellate Court decision which found multiple Peachtree-Brenston transfer orders, which Illinois Circuit Courts had approved in accordance with the Illinois transfer statute, to be void ab initio because:

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

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

As NASP predicted, the denial of Peachtree's petition for review was quickly followed by Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, a class action lawsuit, accusing JGWPT Holdings, Inc., several affiliate companies including J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Settlement Funding, and Illinois attorney Brian Mack, of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA). The case has since been removed to the Federal Court in the Southern District of Illinois with that court expected to rule on various motions and petitions in February 2015.

As a result of Brenston, according to Nesbitt:

• Many Illinois structured settlement recipients lack liquidity options because many transfer companies are avoiding the state.
• Some transfers continue to be completed in Illinois when all interested parties agree to waive existing anti-assignment language.
• Some annuity providers, however, will not waive anti-assignment provisions in Illinois cases while others evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.
• Attorneys for some annuity providers are citing Brenston to challenge transfers in other states.

Discounted PV and Applicable Federal Rate

The NCOIL State Structured Settlement Protection Model Act, which NSSTA and NASP have agreed to support, contains a definition for "discounted present value" linked to "the most recently published Applicable Federal Rate for determining the present value of an annuity, as issued by the United States Internal Revenue Service." This rate is generally higher than, and unrelated to, the discount rate actually incorporated into most structured settlement transfers. Nesbitt concluded his conference presentations with a detailed critique of NCOIL's discounted PV definition and explained why NASP believes this definition confuses rather than informs state judges.

Additional Presentations

NASP's conference featured two additional individual presentations.

Former NSSTA Deputy Executive Director Peter Arnold predicted future integration of the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. To support his prediction, Arnold reviewed NSSTA's historic attitude toward "factoring transactions." Arnold also highlighted NSSTA membership qualifications which currently prohibit members from "actively soliciting and promoting structured settlement factoring transactions to individuals who are receiving periodic payments under structured settlements."

Pery Krinsky, an ethics-based defense attorney who serves as Chairman of the Committee on Professional Discipline of the N.Y. County Lawyers' Association, spoke about legal ethics issues. He did not mention Paris & Chaiken, a New York law firm accused of falsifying court orders approving structured settlement transfers, which has reportedly retained Krinsky as outside ethics counsel for assistance with these cases.

Panel Discussions and Breakout Sessions

NASP's 2014 conference included four panel discussions and four breakout sessions (see listings below). Panel highlights and issues addressed:

• Drafting Transfer Agreements - Assigned payments vs. assigned payment rights; clients vs. sellers or annuitants relating to transfer company fiduciary responsibilities; representations and warranties; holdbacks and deductions; limited powers of attorney; testamentary agreements; arbitration provisions.
• Primary Market - NSSTA Fall conference; MSA market; primary market surveys; impact of Affordable Care Act; ELNY update; PLR-143928-13 and "hardship conversions"; settlement planning developments; re-cycled structured settlements; Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013; provider company departures; primary/secondary cooperation opportunities; best and worst business practices; annuity provider issues with transfer companies.
• Responding to Insurer Transfer Objections - Confirming his company's "good relationship" with transfer companies, Madis Smit of State Farm highlighted several insurer issues: unanticipated costs of reviewing 15 to 20 transfers per week; inadequate notice (need at least seven days); difficulty in locating some requested settlement documents; split payment problems resulting from insurer technology limitations; "three touches" constitute an insurer ideal (petition; order; notice of approval). Additional issues discussed: proposed documents from insurers that do not meet state-specific requirements; protecting public information in case filings.
• Judicial Panel - "Best interest" considerations; multiple transactions; common mistakes by petitioners; privacy issues; discount rates; independent professional advisors. The judges also were encouraged to identify questions for the audience - and did so. All three judges expressed a need and interest for additional education about the secondary market.

Alexander Hamilton Award

NASP honored James Lokey as the 2014 recipient of its Alexander Hamilton Award. Lokey completed the first transfer of structured settlement payment rights in 1986 thereby launching the secondary market. NASP has bestowed its Alexander Hamilton Award seven times "to distinguished individuals who have supported and defended the right to free alienability of property rights." NASP considers this right to be its own cornerstone and the foundation of the structured settlement factoring business.

Topics and Speakers

• Welcome Remarks - Patricia LaBorde.
• Legislative and Regulatory Developments - Jack Kelly.
• Legislative Update - Earl Nesbitt.
• Drafting Transfer Agreements - Jason Sutherland and Brian Mack.
• Hamilton Award - James Lokey.
• Integration of Primary and Secondary Markets - Peter Arnold.
• Primary Market Panel - Patrick Hindert (Moderator), Daniel Durbin, Medora Marisseau, Mark Wahlstrom.
• Ethics Issues - Pery Krinsky.
• Responding to Insurer Transfer Objections - Michael Damore (Moderator), John Shafai, John Mott, Michael Green, Steven Mastrantonio, Madis Smit.
• Break Out Sessions
  • Preparing vs.Coaching a Problem Payee - Laryssa Korduba and Elyse Strickland.
  • Addressing Judicial Concerns - Roger Dunaway and Andrew Hillman.
  • Life Contingent Issues - Michael Fasano and Dan Bonner.
  • Bankruptcy Issues - Michael Damore and Adam Zoldessy.
• Illinois Litigation and Discounted Present Value - Earl Nesbitt.
• Judicial Panel - Matthew Bracy (Moderator), Judges Lynne Parker, Patricia Summe, Travis Francis.

For S2KM reports of additional 2014 educational conferences plus eight of the nine prior NASP conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP 2014 Secondary Market Panel

In addition to its other accomplishments (most notably publication of "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners"), the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has distinguished itself by sponsoring educational programs addressing issues, featuring speakers and permitting perspectives the more defense-oriented National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) traditionally has been reluctant or unwilling to offer.

SSP's 2014 Annual Conference, to be held April 27-29 in New Orleans, promises to continue this more open-minded educational tradition.

As one example,  SSP's Secondary Market Panel discussion will feature two leading structured settlement transfer legal experts whose clients typically oppose each other in significant secondary market cases:

• Stephen R. Harris - among other roles and accomplishments, Stephen (a partner at Drinker Biddle whose clients include annuity providers) recently served as co-Chairman of NSSTA's Legal Committee.
• Earl S. Nesbitt - in addition to representing factoring companies, Earl (a founding partner of Nesbitt, Vasser & McCown) serves as Legal Counsel and Executive Director for the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP).

SSP's Secondary Market Panel, which will be moderated by Patrick Hindert (S2KM's Managing Director and blog author), should be educational and entertaining - and hopefully somewhat controversial. Here are some of the questions the featured panelists will address.

Overview

• Is the secondary market good or bad for the primary structured settlement market?
• Among other objectives, IRC 5891 and the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Act) were enacted to protect claimants from predatory secondary market business practices. Both NSSTA and NASP supported these statutes. How successfully have these statutes accomplished their objective to protect structured settlement recipients?
• Based upon your experience, what changes or amendments, if any, would improve the Model Act?
• Would adding a multiple bid requirement as part of the "best interest" test improve the secondary market?

Troubling Developments

• During NASP's 2013 annual conference, former NASP President Robin Shapiro expressed personal outrage about "troubling reports concerning the structured settlement factoring business" including:
  • Falsified transfer orders.
  • Inter-state forum shopping.
  • Short-cutting waiting periods and disclosure requirements.
  • Expediting hearing dates before preferred judges.
  • "Competing bids" from the same company.
• How prevalent are these business practices?
• What have NASP, NSSTA and/or other primary market participants done to address these issues? What should they do?

Falsified Orders

• Reports indicate a former paralegal at the New York law firm Paris & Chaikin falsified as many as 100 transfer orders?
• What happened? What is the status?
• How will these events impact the secondary market and its various participants including: the law firm, its secondary market clients, the annuity providers and the structured settlement recipient/transferors?

Anti-Assignment Restrictions

• Recent (Brenston) and current class action (Sanders) cases in Illinois address the impact of "anti-assignment" restrictions on transfers of structured settlement payment rights.
• What is the status of these cases and related litigation? What are the issues?
• Does the recommended assignment language in NSSTA's Model Qualified Assignment and Release Agreement solve this problem - or is some other solution necessary?
• What case-specific responsibilities do structured settlement brokers, settlement planners and other plaintiff advisers have related to anti-assignment restrictions?

Primary Market Responses

• MetLife recently adopted controversial new business practices whereby it opposes transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements.
• What is MetLife's rationale and objective?
• How are these business practices impacting the secondary market?
• The Florida state legislature is considering a bill that would add a maximum discount rate (similar to North Carolina) to its existing protection act..
• Is this a good idea?
• How has the North Carolina provision impacted the secondary market in that state?
• Why haven't more annuity providers offered commutation-like alternatives to third party factoring transactions? What impact would such alternatives have on the existing primary and secondary markets?

RLS Arbitrations

• RLS (formerly Rapid Settlements) has attempted to use the Federal Arbitration Act to side step state structured settlement protection statute requirements.
• What is the status of the related RLS litigation?

Conclusion

• What other secondary market issues do you see as important for the future of structured settlements?
• What opportunities exist for primary and secondary structured settlement market cooperation? What is preventing this cooperation?

For background about these secondary market issues, see the structured settlement wiki and more specifically these prior S2KM blog posts:

• Structured Settlements 2013 - Secondary Market
• Secondary Market Update - February 3, 2014
• Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings

For more detailed analysis of secondary market issues, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

S2P2J Release 55

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

First published in 1986 and updated semi-annually, S2P2J is co-authored by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert (S2KM's Managing Director). Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

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

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

Meta Structured Settlement Themes

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

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

Transformational Market Developments

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

Supplemental resources - structured settlement market developments:

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

Changing Roles, Responsibilities and Work Product

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

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

Defense and Plaintiff Attorneys

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

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

Structured Settlement Consultants

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

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

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

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

Judges Reviewing Transfer Applications

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

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

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

Brenston Appeal Denied

The Illinois Supreme Court has denied Peachtree Settlement Funding's petition for appeal of the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals' decision in the Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston case.

The earlier Court of Appeals decision held the Illinois state court, which had previously approved transfers requested by Brenston:

• Had a duty to enforce anti-assignment provisions in Brenston's original structured settlement documentation; and
• “[The transfer court] had no authority under the Act to approve” the transfer petitions - even though all of the relevant parties had waived the anti-assignment provisions.

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

For additional information about structured settlements and anti-assignment provisions, see S2KM's prior blog post "Anti-Assignment Restrictions".

Case Background

• Cathy Brenston resolved a medical malpractice case against the University of Illinois Board of Trustees in 2003 with a structured settlement.
• Subsequent to her settlement, Brenston completed multiple factoring transactions with Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree) all of which were approved by Illinois Circuit Courts (Sangamon and Peoria Counties) in accordance with the Illinois transfer statute.
• All transactions were closed and funded. Brenston was paid. The structured settlement obligors and annuity issuers acknowledged and implemented the court orders.
• Brenston filed lawsuits in Cook County in 2011 to void the prior transfer orders arguing anti-assignment clauses in the settlement agreement and the qualified assignment agreements prevented the transfer courts from exercising jurisdiction. The defendants included:
  • Peachtree
  • Peachtree's transfer lawyer
  • Brenston's transfer counsel
  • The structured settlement obligors and annuity issuers
  • The defendant in the original lawsuit
• After Peachtree invoked an arbitration clause, Brenston re-filed the lawsuits in Sangamon and Peoria Counties where Peachtree moved to dismiss the petitions on the grounds that:
  • The transfer courts had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the orders;
  • Brenston has already received the financial benefits of the orders;
  • Brenston provided no reason to vacate said orders; and
  • The statute of limitations had expired.
• The trial court granted Peachtree's motions to dismiss and denied Brenston's motions to reconsider and motions for leave to file an amended petition.
• Brenston appealed arguing the Sangamon and Peoria County courts erred in dismissing her petitions where the pleadings sufficiently showed that the orders approving the transfers were obtained by fraud, and therefore void ab initio and subject to challenge at any time.
• An Illinois 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, agreed with Brenston's argument and issued its decision - even though Peachtree and Brenston had:
  • Settled the case prior to the Appellate Court's decision; and
  • Filed motions to stay the Appeal.

Appellate Court Holdings

• Brenston's underlying settlement agreement contained an unambiguous, enforceable anti-assignment restriction.
• The transfer court had a duty to enforce that provision and "had no authority" under the Illinois transfer statute to approve the proposed transfers.
• The proposed transfers were improperly filed in Sangamon and Peoria Counties instead of Cook County where Brenston resided.
• Brenston's transfer orders are "void ab initio" because:
  • Peachtree did not file all settlement documents with the transfer court.
  • Peachtree concealed "by omission" the existence of the anti-assignment provision which "omission was material".
  • The conduct of Peachtree and it's attorney amounted to an "affirmative falsehood and a fraud upon the trial court".

Impact of Brenston

• An Amicus curiae brief filed by the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) states that the Appellate Court decision will render the Illinois transfer statute "a practical nullity".
• "Without the certainty and finality of a court order, there is no viable secondary market," the NASP brief states. "Because every structured settlement contains boilerplate language that purports to limit or restrict assignability, every Illinois court approved transfer could be subject to challenge at any time."

S2KM thanks NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt and NASP President Patricia LaBorde for their insights concerning the Brenston case and for granting S2KM permission to utilize materials from Nesbitt's 2013 NASP Annual Conference Litigation Update.

S2KM will continue reporting Brenston case developments including whether and how NASP and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) will respond.

For S2KM's complete reporting about the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.

Anti-Assignment Restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

The Brenston Case

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

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

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

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

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

Public Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Best Practices

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

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

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

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

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

Brenston Status

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

Brenston Issues

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources

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

SEC Bulletin Addresses Structured Settlement Transfers

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has issued an Investor Bulletin titled "Pension or Settlement Income Streams: What You Need to Know Before Buying or Selling Them". 

Although the SEC Investor Bulletin "is neither a legal interpretation nor a statement of SEC policy" it provides advice for individuals who are contemplating selling or purchasing (as investors) structured settlement payment rights and/or future pension payments.

The Investor Bulletin highlights questions potential sellers and investors should ask before proceeding with proposed transactions.

For sellers:

• "Is the transaction legal?"
• "Is the transaction worth the cost?"
• "What is the reputation of the company offering the lump sum?"
• "Will the factoring company require life insurance?"
• "What are the tax consequences?"
• "Does the sale fit your longer term financial goals?"

For investors:

• "Is the financial professional selling the product registered with a state or federal regulator or with FINRA?"
• "How is the salesperson being compensated?"
• "Is the salesperson authorized to sell this product?"
• "What is the reputation of the company selling the product to me?"
• "What are the tax consequences?"
• "What organization is ultimately paying you?"
• "Who is sending the check?"

To check the registration status of a salesperson, the SEC Bulletin recommends investors check these resources:

• The SEC's Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website.
• FINRA's BrokerCheck or telephone number (800-289-9999).
• Your state securities regulator.
• The NAIC's website or telephone number (866-470-6242) for your state's insurance commission.

The SEC's Investor Bulletin includes a number of additional warnings and resource links and concludes with the following admonition:

"Whether you are thinking about selling a pension or structured settlement, or buying one from someone else, remember that the risks in doing so are substantial and the safety net if things go wrong may not be very strong. Don’t shy away from asking probing questions—and shop around. there may be less risky alternatives to help you achieve your financial objectives."

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

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

For a detailed analysis of transfers of structured settlement payment rights, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

For S2KM's complete reporting about the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.

Secondary Market Update

DBRS 2013 Outlook

DBRS, a rating agency that covers various structured finance product groups including structured settlement payment rights, has published its 2013 Outlook for commercial asset-backed securities. Among DBRS' observations and projections for the structured settlement secondary market:

• "From the structural and rating perspective, implementation of the restructuring plan for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York provides a rare and valuable glimpse into the insurer liquidation process and adds evidence to the expected recovery proceeds assumptions in case of default by an insurer in the future."
• "Based on the estimated 15% increase in issuance in 2012 to $630 million, DBRS expects further 10%+ increase in issuance in 2013 amid the continuing popularity of the asset class among certain investors."
• "Expected steady collateral performance in 2013 will be supported by low delinquencies and improving condition of the insurance industry."

Based upon interviews with industry experts, S2KM previously estimated total 2012 structured settlement secondary market profit of $120 million calculated as follows:

• $1 billion received from investors;
• Less: $360 million paid to transferors;
• Equals: $640 million of revenue;
• Less: $520 million of expenses;
• Equals: $120 million of profits.

The difference between S2KM's estimated "$1 billion received from investors" and DBRS' estimated $630 million of "issuance" (meaning presumably "total face amount of structured settlement collateral debt obligations sold to investors") can be explained by two factors according to industry experts:

• Except for J.G. Wentworth (JGW) and Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree), most structured settlement factoring companies and brokers currently do not obtain financial ratings when they re-sell structured settlement payment rights.
• JGW, Peachtree and other issuers of rated bonds backed by structured settlement payment rights in 2012 may receive as much as $50 million of additional income from investors in the form of residuals, servicing rights and other income over time.

Drinker Biddle Structured Settlement Alert 

Drinker Biddle's website features summaries of two recent cases where state court judges in Florida and California have denied proposed transfers of structured settlement payments rights paid pursuant to awards under the Longshore Act and the California workers compensation statute, respectively.

In each case, the objecting structured settlement annuity issuer was represented by Drinker Biddle attorneys.

In the Florida case (In Re: Approval for Transfer of Structured Settlement Proceeds by Derrick Robotham), Circuit Court Judge Michelle Morley held the proposed transfer would contravene Federal law which prohibits assignment of Longshore Act payments. It would not, therefore, satisfy the requirements of the Florida structured settlement protection act which prohibits transfers that would violate or conflict with any applicable law.

In the California case (In Re Rudy Andrade), Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue applied similar reasoning in denying a petition seeking court approval for the transfer of a payee’s rights to payments under a workers’ compensation settlement. Among other findings, Judge Hogue held that the California structured settlement statute does not apply to transfers of workers' compensation payments. In addition, according to the Judge, the proposed transfer contravened: 1) the California Labor Code which prohibits assignment of workers' compensation payments; 2) California common law because the release agreement signed by the payee prohibited assignment of payments; and 3) a prior order of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that also expressly prohibited assignment of the payments.

Additional Resources

For S2KM's complete reporting about the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.

For more comprehensive legal analysis about transfers of structured settlement payment rights, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Structured Settlements in 2012 - 3

Secondary Market

In contrast to anticipated 2012 sales declines in the U.S structured settlement primary market, industry experts interviewed by S2KM agree the U.S. structured settlement secondary market achieved record sales and profits in 2012. 

S2KM secondary market estimates for 2012 - based on interviews with industry experts:

• 12,000 secondary market transfers - with less than 120 contested by annuity owners and/or providers.
• $360 million of total secondary market purchases (money paid to transferors).
• $30,000 average individual transfer.
• Average discount rates in the low double digits - with the lowest average discount rates (high single digits) provided by AllState's commutations.
• Total industry profit of $120 million calculated as follows:
  • $1 billion received from investors;
  • Less: $360 million paid to transferors;
  • Equals: $640 million of revenue;
  • Less: $520 million of expenses;
  • Equals: $120 million of profits.

Discount Rates

• As explained by Earl Nesbitt, Executive Director of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP), during his presentation at the NASP 2011 Annual Meeting: the concepts of "discount rate" and "discounted present value" both play an important role in court hearings to evaluate structured settlement transfer proposals.

• The Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act defines "discounted present value" to mean: "the present value of future payments determined by discounting such payments to the present using the most recently published Applicable Federal Rate for determining the present value of an annuity, as issued by the United States Internal Revenue Service."

• Secondary market experts interviewed by S2KM agree generally that discount rates for structured settlement transfers were "low" during 2012 compared with prior years - especially when compared with 2009 when discount rates were exceptionally "high" as a result of the 2008 financial crisis.
• "Average" discount rates are difficult to define because many factors determine the discount rate for a specific case. For examples: cost and availability of funds; single vs. multiple bid transactions; duration and amount of payments; and whether payments are certain or life contingent.
• During his 2011 NASP presentation, Nesbitt summarized these results from a 2011 survey he conducted of the discount rates approved by judges in Harris County Texas:
  • The average discount rate: 15.8 percent;
  • The weighted average (i.e. taking into consideration the relative case size): 12.96 percent;
  • The lowest discount rate: 7.4 percent; and
  • The highest discount rate ($3494 paid for $7282 due in less than one year): 61.3 percent.

Market Shares

• Industry experts interviewed by S2KM disagree on who controls what percentages of the structured settlement secondary market.
• Estimates of the post-merger 2012 market share (revenue and sales) of the now-combined J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Financial Solutions (JGW/Peachtree) vary from a low of 50% to a high of 75%.
• The remaining 2012 market shares (revenue and number of transfers) are believed to be split relatively evenly among other NASP members and non-NASP members including re-sellers.
• Not all secondary market participants, however, share equally in industry profits.
• Some industry experts believe JGW/Peachtree's share of the estimated 2012 industry profits of $120 million was $100 million, or 83%.
• Many new secondary market participants, including re-sellers, who began entering the market in 2009, are experiencing lower profits (or losses) in 2012 according to industry experts interviewed by S2KM. In addition, attorneys representing insurance companies report these newer (non-NASP member) factoring companies and re-sellers frequently lack legal and transactional knowledge ("don't know what they are doing") and cause an inordinate number of transfer problems.

Primary Market Response

As S2KM previously reported, continuing secondary market sales growth has occurred despite restrictive actions by primary structured settlement participants. Examples:

• The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) continues to prohibit its members from "actively soliciting and promoting structured settlement factoring transactions to individuals who are receiving periodic payments under structured settlements?"
• In Stone Street Capital v. McClendon, a Louisiana state court ruled that Travelers Insurance, as owner of structured settlement annuities, had no right to order structured settlement annuity issuers (in this case MetLife) to stop making payments to transfer companies following the death of the original annuitant/payees because of the existing court orders approving those transfers.

Historic Metrics

Based upon interviews with industry experts and DBRS' June 8, 2011 Pre-Sale Report for J.G. Wentworth's Fixed Rate Asset-Backed Notes Series 2011-1, S2KM estimates the following historic (1986-2012) structured settlement secondary market metrics:

• 136,000 transfers - involving 68,000 structured settlement recipients.
• $4 billion - aggregate sums paid to transferor structured settlement recipients. For comparison, S2KM estimates the primary market has sold $134 billion of structured settlement annuities since 1975.
• $10.4 billion - aggregate periodic payments purchased by secondary market companies.

2012 Secondary Market Developments

• Vermont became the 48th state to enact a structured settlement protection statute. The new Vermont statute is generally based upon the NCOIL Model Act with some variations related to independent professional advisors, notice requirements for certain state agencies and the required court appearance by the structured settlement payee.
• JLL Partners, owners of J.G. Wentworth, are reportedly attempting to sell the company for $1 billion with several private-equity firms identified as potential purchasers.

For additional S2KM structured settlement secondary market reporting and resources, see the structured settlement wiki.

Additional post in S2KM's blog series: "Structured Settlements in 2012":

• Part 1 - Primary market

• Part 2 - Settlement planning

• Part 3 - Secondary market

• Part 4 - Executive Life of New York

Stone Street Capital v. McClendon

A Louisiana state court has ruled in Stone Street Capital v. McClendon that MetLife and Travelers had no right to withhold a structured settlement payment from Stone Street Capital which Stone Street had previously purchased, with court approval pursuant to the Louisiana structured settlement protection act, despite the original annuitant/payee's death prior to the payment date.

This 2012 case, which was featured in a presentation by Earl Nesbitt at the NASP 2012 Annual Conference, reinforces the finality of settlement transfer orders. According to Nesbitt, it also calls into question other cases where Travelers, as owner of structured settlement annuities, has ordered structured settlement annuity issuers to stop making payments to transfer companies following the death of the original annuitant/payees despite existing court orders approving those transfers.

Background

• In 1990, Shelia McClendon entered into a structured settlement in which Travelers Insurance Company, as assignee, purchased an annuity from Travelers Life and Annuity Company, which later became MetLife Annuity Company of Connecticut in 2006.
• On July 27, 2007, Shelia McClendon entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Stone Street Capital to sell her right to a $51,800.51 payment due October 15, 2010.
• On September 20, 2007 the same court which subsequently heard the Stone Street v. McClendon case signed an order approving the transfer.
• In the 2007 transfer proceeding, Stone Street gave proper notice to MetLife (as annuity issuer) and Travelers (as annuity owner) neither of whom raised any objections.
• MetLife subsequently sent a letter to Stone Street advising that MetLife would make the assigned payment to Stone Street in compliance with the order.
• The transfer order provided an indemnity, allegedly requested by Travelers and MetLife, to protect them from any further suit by any party asserting an ownership claim or a right to the assigned payment.
• Shelia McClendon died in 2008.
• Pursuant to instructions from Travelers, MetLife did not pay Stone Street the October 15, 2010 payment when due.
• Following Stone Street's inquiry, MetLife and Travelers informed Stone Street that other persons had competing demands for the October 15, 2010 payment and, to resolve the conflict, Stone Street must file a declaratory judgment action which Stone Street did file.
• On July 15, 2011, Travelers filed a preemptory exception of nonjoinder of indispensable parties.
• Travelers' exception claimed Shelia McClendon had passed away and that both her estate and the estate of Peatrice Jackson, whom Travelers claimed was the annuity beneficiary, were indispensable parties to Stone Street's declaratory judgment lawsuit.
• On August 4, 2011 MetLife answered Stone Street's petition and included a reconventional demand for consursus (a form of interpleader).
• None of the parties disputed, either at the time of the 2007 transfer hearing or at the time of the subsequent declaratory judgment suit, that Stone Street properly complied with Louisiana's structured settlement protection act.

Stone Street's Argument

• The declaratory judgment action was filed against MetLife and Travelers and also against the parties Travelers told Stone Street to file against.
• Stone Street subsequently asserted, however, that MetLife was the only party against whom Stone Street needed a judgment in this lawsuit.
• Therefore, Stone Street asked that everyone else be dismissed from Stone Street's motion for summary judgment.
• According to Stone Street, the declaratory judgment proceeding should not have been necessary.
• Stone Street fully complied with the Louisiana structured settlement protection act and a transfer order was previously entered without objections from MetLife or Travelers.
• The 2007 transfer order required MetLife to make the October 15, 2010 payment to Stone Street.
• MetLife ignored their own prior letter wherein MetLife stated it received the order and agreed to comply.
• The principle of res judicata should prevent MetLife from pleading concursus because its claim was previously prosecuted to judgment.
• Traveler's request for a declaratory judgment and MetLife's consursus proceeding represented "improper accumulations of actions".
• Although some state structured settlement protection statutes require a change of annuity beneficiary, the Louisiana statute does not because beneficiaries are not required to receive notice or be named parties.
• Louisiana law further holds:
  • Until a person dies that person has the right to sell assets that person owns.
  • Except for irrevocable beneficiaries, no one has a vested right to the status of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract if the death of the insured has not occurred.

MetLife's Argument

• Neither MetLife nor Travelers were parties to the 2007 transfer order so that order had no res judicata effect on MetLife.
• Travelers, the annuity owner, told MetLife not to make the October 15, 2010 payment to Stone Street.
• Nothing in the 2007 transfer order addressed what would happen to the October 15, 2010 payment if Shelia McClendon died prior to that date.
• When Shelia McClendon died, her named beneficiary in the annuity contract was Peatrice Jackson who predeceased McClendon.
• Peatrice Jackson's heirs filed a competing claim for the October 15, 2010 payment.
• Although Stone Street alleges Shelia McClendon filed a request to change her annuity beneficiary, neither MetLife nor Travelers had any record of receiving this request.
• Because a discrepancy existed among the documents submitted to MetLife, a concursus proceeding became necessary and appropriate.

Travelers' Argument

• The Louisiana structured settlement protection act did not impact Shelia McClendon's settlement agreement.
• The settlement agreement remained valid even following the transfer agreement.
• The transfer agreement did not change either the settlement agreement or the annuity contract beneficiary designation.
• The settlement agreement and the annuity contract both provide that Peatrice Jackson, the named beneficiary, would receive the future payments in the event of Shelia McClendon's death.
• If Stone Street and Shelia McClendon had followed through on their request to name Stone Street the annuity beneficiary, this declaratory judgment lawsuit would not have been necessary.
• Travelers had no proof that Shelia McClendon made any attempt to initiate a beneficiary change.
• Therefore, material issues of fact existed concerning: 1) who was Shelia McClendon's rightful beneficiary; and 2) who was entitled to the October 15, 2010 payment.

Judgment - Louisiana District Court Judge Kay Bates:

• Dismissed MetLife's concursus with prejudice and costs payable by MetLife.
• Denied Travelers' exception of failure to join indispensable parties with costs payable by Travelers.
• Granted Stone Street's motion for summary judgment with costs payable by MetLife.
• Granted Stone Street's motion to dismiss the other defendants without prejudice.
• Ordered MetLife to remit the October 15, 2010 payment to Stone Street within 15 days of the mailing of the judgment.

Judge Bates' Reasoning

• In the 2007 transfer proceeding, Shelia McClendon and Stone Street were parties, and MetLife and Travelers were properly notified and served with the petition and order.
• Under the Louisiana structured settlement protection act, Shelia McClendon was clearly entitled to sell the October 15, 2010 payment.
• The 2007 transfer order was valid, final, and not subject to appeal as all delays had passed.
• MetLife's claims against Stone Street arose out of the same subject matter as the 2007 transfer proceeding.
• MetLife's issues existed when the 2007 transfer order was signed and neither MetLife nor Travelers objected at that time.
• Therefore, MetLife's concursus is barred by res judicata.
• Neither MetLife, nor Travelers, nor any of the other claimants had any continuing interest in the October 15, 2010 payment.
• Because Stone Street established it was entitled to the October 15, 2010 payment as a matter of law, no genuine issue of material fact remained.

Additional Resources

• For a 2009 California appellate case addressing the finality of structured settlement transfer orders, see Henderson v. Ramos reported in "Fresno County Factoring Cases" - Part 1 and Part 2 .
• For S2KM's complete reporting about the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.
• For a more comprehensive and updated analysis of structured settlement transfers, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgements" (S2P2J).