Beyond Structured Settlements

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.

Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings

A new Class Action lawsuit has escalated the legal battle in Illinois concerning the impact of "anti-assignment" restrictions on transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiff Valerio Sanders seeks to represent the following class: "Those individuals who sold part or all of their structured settlement annuities under the provisions of the Illinois [Structured] Settlement Protection Act, where the original structured settlement contract contained a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause."

Filed February 11, 2014 in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court St. Clair County, Illinois, the Class Action Complaint accuses Defendants JGWPT Holdings, Inc., several affiliate companies including J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Settlement Funding (JGWPT entities), and Illinois attorney Brian P. Mack of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA).

The Class Action Complaint alleges "the JGWPT entities ... intentionally failed to inform potential sellers that a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause prohibited the sale of deferred payment annuities because the JGWPT entity intended to defraud the seller and the Illinois courts by filing false pleadings under the Illinois [Structured] Settlement Protection Act in order to obtain large amounts of deferred cash payments for discounted present lump sum amounts and reap the tax benefits of the same in violation of federal law."

Section 2 of the ICFA provides in part: "[U]nfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression of omission of any material fact .... in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful ..."

The Class Action Complaint alleges Defendants used their advertising and solicitations to cause Plaintiff Valerio Sanders and other sellers to believe they could obtain cash for their structured settlement payment rights, "but intentionally failed to inform the potential sellers that if there was a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause in the settlement contract, no lump sum payment could be received in exchange for the seller assignment the deferred payments because any such "order" issued by an Illinois court approving such a transfer would be void. Moreover, the legal proceeding would violate federal law."

The Class Action Complaint further alleges:

• When a potential seller had a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause, the JGWPT entities would routinely hire Brian P. Mack to obtain a "Qualified Order" pursuant to the Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act so that the deferred payments could be purchased at a deeply discounted rate, and without any tax consequences.
• Attorney Mack "would personally counsel the seller ... on how to create Illinois jurisdiction and venue, how to find a 'friendly court', how to avoid appearing in court, how to obtain the services of 'independent counsel', ..... or inform them they could waive the right, and how to finalize the details to obtain the lump sum payment."
• Valerio Sanders' "Settlement Agreement and Release" included an anti-assignment clause which provided: "The periodic payments to be received by the Payee(s) pursuant to paragraphs 2B are not subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation, sale or transfer, assignment, pledge or encumbrance by Payee(s)."
• The Petition filed by Mack claimed: "That the assignment does not contravene any federal or state statutes or the order of any court or responsible administrative authority."
• "Mack knew that this allegation was false and misleading as Plaintiff's settlement contract had a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause."
• "....[F]ailure to inform Plaintiff that the order obtained from the court was in violation of Illinois and federal law was fraudulent and a material omission under the ICFA and a violation of the ICFA."
• In a subsequent transfer involving Plaintiff Sanders and the Defendants, Mack's representation that jurisdiction and venue were proper was also a fraudulent misrepresentation because the action was filed in Madison County and the Plaintiff never lived in Madison County and the underlying action did not accrue there.
• Plaintiff and putative class members relied on materials misrepresentations made by JGWPT entities and attorney Mack and sold payment rights under circumstances where the sale was contrary to Illinois law as well as the laws of various other states, "thus rendering the alleged transfers void, and were a fraud on the Internal Revenue Service of the United States government under 26 U.S. Code section 130."

The Complaint requests the court for an Order awarding both Plaintiff Sanders and the Class compensatory and punitive damages plus injunctive relief against Defendants to prohibit them from continuing to defraud the Class and the courts of Illinois plus attorney fees and costs.

Brenston Case

To support their legal arguments in the Sanders Class Action, Plaintiff attorneys: Cates Mahoney, LLC and Brad L. Badgley, P.C. cite six Illinois Appellate Court decisions (including Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston) upholding the enforceability of an anti-assignment clause in a structured settlement contract. The Complaint alleges Mack was attorney of record in Brenston plus three of the additional cited cases.

In Brenston, an Illinois 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, held that an 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
• Had no authority under the Illinois protection act to approve the transfer petitions - even though all of the relevant parties had waived the anti-assignment provisions.

The Illinois Supreme Court subsequently denied Peachtree's petition for appeal of this decision leaving both primary and secondary structured settlement market participants uncertain about the case's precedential meaning and scope. In an Amicus curiae brief, NASP asserted the Appellate Court decision could render the Illinois transfer statute "a practical nullity"

A companion case involving Peachtree and Brenston remains on appeal in the 3rd District Illinois Court of Appeals and will be argued February 27, 2014. The parties had previously stayed their appeal waiting for the Illinois Supreme Court to rule on the 4th District case.

In a recent Florida case, summarized in this Drinker Biddle Structured Settlement Alert, a Sumter County Circuit Court Judge cited the Brenston case as authority in ruling that an April 2011 transfer order was void ab initio, and that resulting arbitration awards were “impotent and without substance.”

For additional recent developments impacting the structured settlement secondary market, see:

• Structured Settlements 2013 - Secondary Market
• Secondary Market Update

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

NASP 2013 Annual Conference - 1

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) has announced its 2013 Annual Conference will take place November 5-7 at The Cosmopolitan Las Vegas. Non-NASP members, including participants in both the primary and secondary structured settlement markets, are invited to attend.

Topics and Speakers

• Legislative and Regulatory Developments - Jack Kelly
• Litigation Update - Earl Nesbitt
• Capacity Issues in Structured Settlement Transactions - Rajiv Goel
• Executive Life of New York - Edward Stone
• Financing Structured Settlement Transactions - Boris Ziser
• Life Contingent Transactions - Brian Robinson
• Breakout Sessions
  • Non-traditional Secondary Market Financing
  • Ethical and Legal Marketing Standards
  • Avoiding Problem Payees
  • Addressing Judicial Challenges
• Primary Market Panel - Patrick Hindert (moderator), William Schemmel, Anthony Prieto and Daniel Hindert
• Judges' Concerns about Transfers - Judges Nancy Allf, James McCarthy and Carter Bise

The Primary Market Panel has been one of the continuing featured presentations at NASP conferences. Primary market structured settlement topics addressed at previous NASP conferences include:

• How the primary market views the secondary market
• Primary market criticisms of transfers and factoring companies
• Reasons annuity providers oppose transfers
• Common interests among annuity providers and factoring companies
• Brokers' roles in transfers
• Pre-settlement discussions about transfers
• Improving and growing the primary market
• How large is the potential primary market
• Why plaintiff attorneys and injury victims reject structured settlements
• Why annuity providers are leaving the primary market
• Financial viability of annuity providers
• Primary market strategic priorities
• Roadblocks to primary market expansion
• Issues dividing the primary market
• Has the primary market abandoned the structured settlement brand?
• Best and worst primary market business practices
• Who regulates primary market business practices
• Improving primary market knowledge and skill sets
• Impact of various factors and developments on the primary market:
  • Settlement transfers
  • Settlement planning
  • Changing market demographics
  • 2008 financial crisis
  • Spencer v. Hartford
  • ELNY and Reliance insolvencies
  • Deficit Reduction Act
  • Affordable Care Act
  • Dodd-Frank
  • 468B qualified settlement funds
  • The Internet

For S2KM's reporting about previous NASP Conferences and structured settlement secondary market issues, see the structured settlement wiki.

For more comprehensive analysis about transfers of structured settlement payment rights, see Chapter 16 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) including upcoming Release 54.

A Response to the SEC Bulletin

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC Rule 10b-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

S2KM Critique

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

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

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

Most Fundamental Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of a "Security"

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Moody's Downgrades JG Wentworth

Moody's Investors Service has announced a downgrade of its Corporate Family Rating (CFR) for JG Wentworth (JGW) from B3 to Caa1 and has issued the same downgrade for JGW's new $425 million senior secured term loan and $20 million senior revolving credit facility issued by Orchard Acquisition Company, a subsidiary of JGW. Moody's outlook for both the CFR and the debt ratings is "stable".

Under Moody's credit rating scale, "B3" signifies a long-term rating "judged as being speculative and a high credit risk" and "Caa1" signifies a long-term rating "rated as poor quality and very high credit risk."

Moody's CFR and debt ratings for JGW are separate and distinct from financial agency ratings applicable to JGW securitizations of structured settlement payment rights which historically have been rated as high quality and low risk investments.

Bloomberg News reported in early January 2013 that JLL Partners, owners of JGW, had abandoned plans to sell the company after bids failed to meet expectations and might consider a dividend recapitalization or an initial public offering instead.

Moody's announcement confirmed "JGW is undergoing a leveraged recapitalization that will result in a tripling of the company's corporate debt as it pays its shareholders a very substantial dividend....Net proceeds from the $425 million Senior Secured Term Loan issuance will be used to finance a $309 million capital distribution to JGW's shareholders as well as to repay an existing $142 million term loan." 

Moody's identified multiple reasons for its downgrade of JGW:

• JGW's leveraged recapitalization will result in a "meaningful increase in leverage and decrease in debt service coverage."
• It also "indicates a more aggressive financial policy than was anticipated in the previous B3 rating, given the large size of the capital distribution, the notable increase in debt service requirements and accompanying high corporate leverage."
• Based upon significant capital distributions JGW's financial owners have previously taken, Moody's believes the risk of future aggressive financial policies continues despite JGW low structured settlement portfolio risk and historically strong cash flow.
• JGW's "cash flows are already highly leveraged, with the vast majority of cash flows utilized to support securitization structures' debt servicing requirements."
• "Increased interest coverage requirements will also divert resources that could otherwise be utilized to build the [JGW] franchise or support growth-related infrastructure."
• In addition to its complex organizational structure, JGW lacks clearly defined financial policies and has experienced Chief Financial Officer turnover.
• JGW is significantly dependent on the confidence-sensitive securitization market and its structured settlement payment rights are illiquid.

Moody's also identified factors whereby JGW's rating could be upgraded or downgraded:

• Upgraded - If JGW "meaningfully decreases its leverage, improves interest coverage levels and adopts a more conservative financial policy."
• Downgraded - If JGW's "liquidity risk increases, such as through a failure to renew major warehouse lines or securitize receivables, or due to reduced cash flows, such as through a decrease in net yield, loss of market share or a material adverse legal or regulatory ruling."

As S2KM reported in this prior blog post, JGW, which was founded in 1995, has experienced a tumultuous recent history:

• On June 1, 2009, JGW and two affiliated companies entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the company "encountered liquidity problems amid a tightening credit market".
• Standard & Poor's Rating Services had earlier announced, at JGW's request, that it would no longer rate JGW's counterparty credit and senior secured debt.
• During this period, JGW laid off 120 of its 200 employees and closed its office in Las Vegas.
• According to industry sources at that time, JGW's $325 million of general corporate bonds were "almost worthless" and were trading, if at all, for pennies on the dollar.
• Less than six months later, JGW emerged from bankruptcy with an announcement that owner JLL Partners had invested an additional $100 million in the company.
• By 2011, JGW had re-entered the asset-backed structured settlement securitization market.
• A June 2011 DBRS report, published prior to JGW's 23rd asset-backed structured settlement securitization, stated that JGW had previously consummated 59.000 structured settlement factoring transactions with aggregate payment streams of $4.5 billion and 0.11% of losses.
• Also in 2011, JGW merged with Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree) in a stock swap, with JLL Partners retaining control of the merged companies which have each continued to participate in the secondary market.
• Industry estimates obtained by S2KM of the post-merger 2012 market share (revenue and sales) of the now-combined JGW/Peachtree vary from a low of 50% to a high of 75%.
• Some industry experts believe JGW/Peachtree's share of the estimated 2012 industry profits of $120 million was $100 million, or 83%.

Despite JGW's downgrade by Moody's and its tumultuous recent history, industry experts, including some rating agencies, maintain a positive outlook for the 2013 structured settlement secondary market.

For example, in a recent "Secondary Market Update", S2KM reported the following 2013 structured settlement secondary market projections by DBRS, a rating agency that covers various structured finance product groups: "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 [structured settlement] asset class among certain investors."

Additional Resources

• For additional S2KM reporting and commentary 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).

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).

J.G. Wentworth Abandons Sale Plan

Bloomberg News reported earlier this week that JLL Partners, owners of J.G. Wentworth (JGW), have abandoned plans to sell the company after bids failed to meet expectations and may now consider a dividend recapitalization or an initial public offering instead.

Earlier reports had indicated that JLL Partners was seeking a $1 billion purchase price for JGW from private-equity firms with Moelis & Co. and Deutsche Bank AG acting as investment bankers.

JGW, which was founded in 1995, has experienced a tumultuous recent history:

• On June 1, 2009, JGW and two affiliated companies entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the company "encountered liquidity problems amid a tightening credit market".
• Standard & Poor's Rating Services had earlier announced, at JGW's request, that it would no longer rate JGW's counterparty credit and senior secured debt.
• During this period, JGW laid off 120 of its 200 employees and closed its office in Las Vegas.
• According to industry sources at that time, JGW's $325 million of general corporate bonds were "almost worthless" and were trading, if at all, for pennies on the dollar.
• Less than six months later, JGW emerged from bankruptcy with an announcement that owner JLL Partners had invested an additional $100 million in the company.
• By 2011, JGW had re-entered the asset-backed structured settlement securitization market.
• A June 2011 DBRS report, published prior to JGW's 23rd asset-backed structured settlement securitization, stated that JGW had previously consummated 59.000 structured settlement factoring transactions with aggregate payment streams of $4.5 billion and 0.11% of losses.
• Also in 2011, JGW merged with Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree) in a stock swap, with JLL Partners retaining control of the merged companies which have each continued to participate in the secondary market.
• Industry estimates obtained by S2KM of the post-merger 2012 market share (revenue and sales) of the now-combined JGW/Peachtree vary from a low of 50% to a high of 75%.
• Some industry experts believe JGW/Peachtree's share of the estimated 2012 industry profits of $120 million was $100 million, or 83%.

For S2KM's summary evaluation of the structured settlement secondary market in 2012, see this prior blog post.

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).