Beyond Structured Settlements

NSSTA 2015 Fall Conference

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

Industry Growth Initiative

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

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

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

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

Goodman and the Committee co-Chairmen identified the following three NSSTA Growth Initiatives already selected and approved:

• Rejuvenate Defense Programs (including casualty insurers, commercial insureds and TPAs) - Originally the prime movers for structured settlements, many defense insurers have reduced or completely abandoned their structured settlement programs citing a variety of reasons. Beginning with three target carriers, the Committee plans to analyze the causes, and ultimately revitalize the programs, to create new prototype defense program models. Note: NSSTA recently commissioned surveys of Senior Claims Executives; and front line Claims Professionals which S2KM summarized and evaluated in prior blog posts.
• Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) - FECA, which provides workers compensation like benefits for federal workers, currently does not permit structured settlements. With payouts totally approximately $4.5 billion per year, FECA represent an attractive potential market for structured settlements with administrative cost savings being one justification for a legislative amendment. Based upon preliminary interviews, the Growth Committee believes FECA stakeholders view structured settlements favorably. The Committee is gathering statistical data to support its proposal and building grassroots support.
• Convertible Deferred Lump Sums - As a sales response to "low interest rates", the Growth Committee is proposing a new structured settlement feature. As envisioned, the convertible deferred lump sum would allow a structured settlement recipient to select a future lump sum that would automatically convert on its payment date into a series of predetermined periodic payments payable at whatever annuity rates offered at the time of conversion by the issuing life company. A Canadian broker attending the NSSTA conference stated that at least one Canadian life company already offers this structured settlement product feature. The Committee anticipates whichever annuity provider introduces this product feature in the U.S. will probably also seek an IRS private letter ruling.
• Note: NSSTA's Growth Committee identified a fourth preliminary initiative (Dissipation Study) - to confirm that injury victims squander lump sums. However, this initiative is currently on hold. For background, see this 2009 S2KM review of Jeremy Babener's legal research paper analyzing historic dissipation studies.

Factoring Update

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

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

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

Additional Conference Presentations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other recent NSSTA-related S2KM blog posts:

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

NSSTA Marketing Surveys - Plaintiff Attorneys

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) has previously announced an "Industry Growth Initiative" - "designed to identify opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements and bring those opportunities to the structured settlement marketplace" - which appears to focus multiple growth-oriented goals NSSTA president Michael Goodman identified during NSSTA's 2015 Annual Meeting.

Although the first progress report for its Growth Initiative will not occur until NSSTA's 2015 Fall Educational Meeting, expanded use by traditional stakeholders represents one logical priority - a priority which NSSTA highlighted during 2014 by commissioning CLM Advisors to conduct a three-part survey of senior claims executives (Part 1); front line claims professionals (Part 2); and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3).

S2KM has previously reviewed Part 1 and Part 2 of NSSTA's structured settlement survey - the results of which NSSTA has made available to its members, including S2KM. NSSTA and CLM Advisor representatives have also provided their own interpretive analyses of these surveys during prior NSSTA educational conferences.

This blog post discusses selected portions of Part 3 (Titled: "Plaintiff Attorney Survey of Structured Settlements") the results of which: 1) NSSTA has made available to its members, including S2KM; 2) neither NSSTA nor CLM Advisors has yet to discuss or analyze during a NSSTA educational conference. 130 attorneys participated in the Part 3 survey. Not every attorney responded to every question.

S2KM INTRODUCTION

Until the Weil lawsuit settled in 1996, defendants retained exclusive control of structured settlements. Many defense brokers, as well as their liability insurance company clients, historically have referred to unsuccessful sales as "cash outs". As a general rule, their professional interests in structured settlements have been narrowly defined and focused upon their own product to the exclusion of other settlement related financial and insurance products.

To a much greater extent than defense brokers, plaintiff structured settlement brokers (and settlement planners, their evolutionary progeny) face direct competition from other product and service providers who market to plaintiff attorneys. These settlement planning product and service providers include: tax attorneys, special needs attorneys, settlement trustees, financial planners, life care planners, case managers, economists, Medicare set-aside (MSA) specialists and damage allocators - as well as structured settlement consultants. In response, many plaintiff structured settlement brokers and settlement planners increasingly offer financial and insurance products and services which extend beyond structured settlements.

Regardless of case complexity, or the involvement of other settlement planning professionals, plaintiff attorneys continue to perform the following essential settlement planning roles:

• Recognizing settlement planning issues which impact their clients;
• Recommending appropriate settlement planning professional resources to their clients; and
• Retaining ultimate responsibility for effectuating settlements.

For these reasons, plaintiff attorneys represent the primary marketing target for companies and professionals offering settlement planning services - as well as a logical priority marketing target for growing the structured settlement market.

To effectively analyze the growth opportunities and obstacles for structured settlements and structured settlement brokers from the plaintiff attorney's perspective, therefore, both need to be viewed (and surveyed) in a broader context - as subsets of, and participants in, the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning market. Although the results of NSSTA's Part 3 Survey provide valuable marketing information, the survey questions neither attempt nor accomplish this more comprehensive objective.

This shortcoming is understandable - even predictable. CLM Advisors, which conducted all three of the NSSTA surveys, is an affiliate of Claims and Litigation Management (CLM) Alliance - "the only national organization created to meet the needs of professionals in the claims and litigation management industries". Perhaps as a result, NSSTA's Part 3 Survey has a defense-oriented, historic quality. Some of their survey questions use awkward or unfamiliar language ("ancillary products to structures"). Some important issues (fiduciary responsibilities) are only addressed obliquely. Other important topics (Non-Qualified Assignments; Qualified Settlement Funds; Affordable Care Act) are not addressed at all.

Borrowing a phrase from an excellent presentation titled "Marketing Attorney Fees", delivered by Spooner Phillips and Rebecca Metzger at NSSTA's inaugural Structures 202 Conference, and applying it more broadly, perhaps it's time for proponents of structured settlements to "change the conversation" when marketing to plaintiff attorneys.

NSSTA SURVEY PART 3 SELECTED RESPONSES WITH S2KM COMMENTS

• 40% of respondents stated low interest rates have not negatively affected their perception of structured settlements.
• 67% said factoring has no impact on their willingness to consider a structured settlement or that they are indifferent to the factoring industry.

S2KM Comment: These findings should encourage NSSTA members to re-think standard explanations for recent lackluster industry sales results. They also support two of the seven goals Michael Goodman has identified for NSSTA during his term as president.

• 89% believe they "have adequate knowledge of structured settlements so that [they are] able to recognize when they would be in the best interest of an injured party..."
• Only 28% said they suggest a structured settlement for cases involving Medicare set-asides (MSAs).

S2KM Comment: Similar to NSSTA surveys Parts 1 and 2, Part 3 identifies a need and opportunity to educate all structured settlement stakeholders to the advantages of funding MSAs with structured settlements including their inherent cost advantage compared with lump sums resulting from current CMS regulations for calculating present values.

• Less than 25% are likely to have a client sign a letter acknowledging that they were exposed to the opportunity to structure a portion of their settlement before opting for an all cash settlement.

S2KM Comment: Every plaintiff structured settlement broker and settlement planner who sells structured settlements should be familiar with the Grillo case and use it help educate plaintiff attorneys about their potential liability for not advising their clients about structured settlements.

• 40% said they felt obligated to introduce the idea of a structured settlement to a client if a case has a value between $101,000 and $500,000.
• An additional 32% felt obligated for cases having a value in excess of $500,000.

S2KM Comment: Although there is nothing inherently wrong with utilizing case values to identify potential structured settlement cases, this approach represents a more traditional, defense-oriented methodology rather than a plaintiff-oriented, comprehensive planning methodology that attempts to match products to needs.

• 48% stated the most significant drawback of a structured settlement is lack of liquidity.

S2KM Comment: NSSTA and its members should carefully consider how to improve primary market sales by proactively addressing this finding based upon the following, previously highlighted finding: 67% said factoring has no impact on their willingness to consider a structured settlement or that they are indifferent to the factoring industry.

• Only 4% view structured settlement consultants as adding value for negotiations and/or case evaluations separate from, or in addition to, their knowledge of structured settlements.
• 35% stated that structured settlement consultants fail to deliver value because they are concerned with structuring as much of a settlement as possible.
• 52% contact a structured settlement broker one week (possibly less) prior to a mediation.
• 38% make contact only after a case settles.
• 40% said they would use the defendant's structured settlement consultant.
• Only 20% assume a defendant will be offering more money if a defense structured settlement consultant is present.
• 38% work with financial planners instead of structured settlement consultants - at least on some cases.

S2KM Comment: This feedback provide an excellent starting point for NSSTA and its members to think strategically about how to increase structured settlements sales within the larger, more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

• Only 26% have ever structured their fees.

S2KM Comment: Similar to MSAs, structured attorney fees appear to represent an underdeveloped opportunity to grow the structured settlement market. Among the significant takeaways from the Structures 202 "Marketing Attorneys Fees" presentation referenced above: 1) the presenters were a settlement planner, who sells multiple products including structured settlement annuities, and a tax attorney; 2) their recommended sale encompasses tax, business, retirement and estate planning.

CONCLUSION

Although somewhat circumscribed by a traditional, defense perspective, NSSTA's Part 3 Survey of plaintiff attorneys provides valuable information for re-positioning the structured settlement industry for additional growth within the personal injury settlement market. The findings support and supplement the goals for growth previously identified by NSSTA president Michael Goodman and should assist NSSTA's Growth Initiative Committee in formulating its strategic priorities.

Evolve 2014 QSF Symposium

Despite unresolved issues, utilization of IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) in "single event" cases, as well as class action and mass tort cases, is expanding, and increasingly represents the preferred method for resolving complex personal injury claims, according to participants at the Third Annual QSF Symposium sponsored by Evolve Bank and Trust on November 14, 2014 in Memphis, Tennessee.

Various speakers estimated the number of QSF cases annually currently exceeds 2500, equally split between single event cases and class action/mass tort cases, increasing by 25% per year. This expansion has occurred as more settlement planning stakeholders learn about the advantages of QSFs - and despite single claimant QSF tax uncertainty.

Although Rev. Proc. 93-34 permits QSFs to make IRC 130 qualified assignments, and no tax authority exists prohibiting single claimant QSFs, structured settlement annuity providers currently refuse to accept single claimant QSFs which they broadly define to encompass claims by family members, plaintiff attorneys, lien holders and creditors.

Organized "to provide a forum for open dialogue that helps shape industry developments", the 2014 QSF Symposium completely avoided the single claimant controversy and focused instead on other important QSF and settlement planning issues.

Topics and Speakers

• Introduction and Welcome - Andrew Cook
• QSF Administrator Control Systems and Fraud Protection - Brian Berning
• QSF State Tax Issues - Mike May
• Tax Issues for Foreign Structured Settlement Assignment Companies - Jeremy Babener
• Calculating Settlement Awards - Chris Lordan
• QSF Settlement Planning Panel - Patrick Hindert (Moderator), Andrew Cook, Wendie Howland, Pi-Yi Mayo, Bryn Poland, Joseph Tombs.
• How New SEC Rules Impact QSF Money Market Fund Investments - John Rush.
• How Plaintiff Attorneys View QSFs - William Burns
• QSF Administrator Compensation Issues - Paige Balnum; Pi-Yi Mayo; Bryn Poland.
• QSF Attorney Fee Programs - Chris Shumate.

QSF Objectives and Benefits

In his legal treatise, "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B", published in 2009, Robert Wood explains QSFs as follows: "Their primary objective is to gather and administer cash or assets and determine the amounts and exact nature of payments that the plaintiffs, attorneys, and other claimants will receive..... QSFs benefit both plaintiffs and defendants alike. They are separate entities for federal income tax purposes and are flexible and easy to establish."

Section 3.08B of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) summarizes the benefits of QSFs in more detail: "defendants obtain a binding release from liability by making a currently-deductible payment into a court or government-approved Fund; while claimants, who have no tax consequence as a result of this payment into a Fund, are then afforded as much time as they need to sort out important issues of their own, such as allocating settlement shares, obtaining court approvals for minors or other legally-disabled claimants, resolving liens (which sometimes involve complex pay-back and set-aside issues as to Medicaid and Medicare), and deciding on forms of distribution (whether cash, structured settlements, or special needs trusts that may be used to preserve eligibility for certain government benefits)."

QSFs reconfigure the traditional (ready; shoot; aim) settlement planning process:

1. Needs assessment
2. Design
3. Negotiation
4. Implementation
5. Monitoring

so that needs assessment and settlement design follow the negotiation (and funding) steps rather than precede them.

Highlighted Issues

• QSF Administrator - The QSF Symposium emphasized the important role of the QSF administrator as well as the services he or she may provide and/or require including: investment, expense and distribution management; tax reporting and filing; legal and regulatory compliance; and fraud control. The QSF administer appears best positioned to quarterback the QSF settlement planning team. An apparent need exists for more (and better qualified) QSF administrators.
• Life Care Planners and Case Managers - Life care planners and case managers are frequently overlooked in traditional settlement planning. Life care planners are rarely asked to revise their pre-trial and trial-focused life care plans to account for collateral sources or the actual amount of settlement funding. Case managers (who are separately certified) increasingly are retained to "monitor" settlement plans by providing post-settlement medical advice and services for serious personal injury victims.
• Compensation Issues - For QSFs to achieve their potential improvements for single event settlement planning, multiple compensation issues must still be addressed and resolved:
  • Administrators - The QSF Symposium devoted one of its panels to administrator compensation issues, including: who pays their fee? what fee is appropriate for what services? and how should the fee be calculated (flat fee; per claimant fee; or fee based on QSF earnings)? Complicating these issues, many attorney QSF administrators play multiple roles (trustee; administrator) in addition to drafting QSF documents and making court appearances.
  • Structured settlement brokers - In many single event QSFs, the plaintiff structured settlement broker plays key roles: 1) selecting and paying the QSF administrator; 2) performing "value added" settlement planning services as part of his/her contingent commission compensation. Not only do these arrangements create potential conflicts of interest ("needs based" selling determined by the needs of the broker and administrator), they also increase a broker's risk of loss in the the event of an unsuccessful structured settlement sale.
  • Additional compensation issues arise when: 1) a case settles with no allowance for QSF expenses; 2) a case involves minors or incompetents requiring a guardian and court to approve QSF expenses; and also because 3) in the current low interest rate environment, QSF fees often exceed investment yields. Although not discussed during the Symposium, defense structured settlement brokers have opposed QSFs fearing a reduction or the elimination of their contingent commission compensation.
• Tax topics - The QSF Symposium featured three tax topics:
  • State taxation - State taxation of QSFs is inconsistent with little guidance. Many states have not yet addressed QSF taxation. Potential penalties exist for failure to file including interest on any unpaid liability without any statute of limitations. QSF administrators are advised to follow a two step analysis: 1) can a specific state tax a QSF based upon the situs of the court or the administrator or the bank where funds are deposited? 2) assuming a filing obligation exists, how will a state tax a QSF - as a corporation or a trust?
  • Foreign structured settlement assignment companies - Potential tax issues exist for defendants, plaintiffs and the foreign assignment company. Can a defendant deduct its payment to a foreign assignment company? When does a plaintiff receive payments for tax purposes and what is the character of those payments? Does the foreign assignment company recognize income when it receives an assignment payment? If yes, will it be considered active or passive income or does a treaty override exist?
  • Structured attorney fees - When properly arranged, structured attorney fees allow a contingently-compensated attorney to defer portions of his or her compensation and pay tax upon receipt regardless of the type of case or whether the client receives a lump sum or periodic payments.
• Education issues - Single event QSF education is needed for plaintiff attorneys and judges who are still unfamiliar with the QSF concept. Among the most likely education providers are special needs attorneys who serve as QSF administrators or trustees and structured settlement brokers. In addition to litigating attorneys and judges, QSF educational targets should include other settlement planning stakeholders such as: liability insurers; settlement trustees, guardians; mediators; and life care planners.

Conclusion - Evolve's QSF Symposium offers a valuable and unique addition to the growing number of personal injury settlement planning conferences and educational resources. When Robert Wood's QSF legal treatise was published in 2009, he acknowledged his analysis "clearly enters unchartered ground". Congratulations to Chairman Andy Cook and Evolve Bank and Trust for helping to survey this unchartered QSF terrain by sponsoring an educational event specifically designed to promote discussion and exchange of ideas about QSF issues, standards and best practices.

For S2KM's complete coverage of 2014 structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

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.

S2P2J Release 52

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a late October 2012 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for Release 52 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). Online S2P2J will also be updated late October 2012 to include Release 52 materials. First published in 1986, S2P2J is co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) utilize S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Release 52 Highlights

Documenting a structured settlement is generally more complicated than the paper work involved with a lump sum settlement. Structured settlement documentation can be further complicated depending upon the number of claimants and annuities, whether plaintiff attorneys defer their fees, the need to allocate damages, the degree of government benefit planning and the growing integration of annuities and trusts into blended products.

Increasingly, therefore, the parties to a structured settlement agreement must endeavor to implement complex settlement plans, using multiple funding devices, designed to address both the intent of the parties and compliance and accountability requirements from the public sector.

To assist structured settlement participants in achieving these objectives, S2P2J Release 52 features new sample structured settlement forms with suggested alternate clauses for use as circumstances change. The new sample forms include a model Structured Settlement Agreement, with a Supplemental Schedule to more conveniently address funding details, plus an optional Advisory Disclosure document specifying the involvement, services and commission sharing (if any) of structured settlement consultants used by the claimant, defendant and liability insurer(s).

The Supplemental Schedule provides a useful, alternative format for specifying the funding details of the settlement, including:

• The amount of up-front payments and their recipients.
• The cost to purchase funding for the periodic payments.
• A provision if the claimant’s attorney will receive periodic payments.
• Allocations by the parties between tax-free and taxable payments.
• Amount of monthly payments and whether they will extend for the claimant’s lifetime or for the greater of claimant’s lifetime or a set period of time.
• Any deferred lump sums to be paid.
• Contingent payee provisions in case payments remain due after claimant’s death.
• Provisions needed for minor’s or protected person’s settlements.
• Specific payee designations, including post office addresses or account information for electronic deposits.
• Designation of attorneys to be paid and at what address or to what account number.
• Language used to permit or disallow later transfers of periodic payment rights.

To help explain these new structured settlement forms, the authors have added extensive related commentary discussing how to create enforceable structured settlement agreements that minimize the risk of post-closing issues.

Release 52 also features a comprehensive update of the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation plus new and/or expanded analyses for the following structured settlement industry issues and case developments:

• International use of structured settlements.
• Whether defendants save money, historically and currently, using structured settlements.
• New Treasury regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2).
• Allocating settlement proceeds between taxable and tax-exempt elements.
• How special needs trusts can prevent private health care organizations from obtaining subrogation reimbursements from SNT beneficiaries.
• New case law addressing structured settlements for minors issues.
• Bankruptcy court decisions analyzing whether and when a bankruptcy trustee can access structured settlement benefits.
• New cases addressing differences between state periodic payment of judgment statutes that do and do not include termination provisions.
• The State of Washington's new Claims Resolution Structured Settlement Agreement for workers compensation cases.
• The new CMS Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal offering authorized users access and the ability to update pending case information.
• Secondary market case update including:
  • Approval and denial of transfers based upon the "best interest" and "fair and reasonable"  tests.
  • Whether a structured attorney fee is subject to the state structured settlement protection statutes.

For highlights of prior "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" updates, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 3

Whether and when personal injury settlements are taxable to their recipients represents one of the most important structured settlement legal issues. Both the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) featured multiple tax presentations during their 2011 educational conferences.

At the SSP conference, Robert Wood and Jeremy Babener each separately addressed multiple settlement tax issues. Wood discussed: "468B Qualified Settlement Funds" (QSFs) and "Common Settlement Tax Mistakes and How to Fix Them". Babener's SSP presentation addressed three topics:

• Maximizing the medical expense deduction;
• Emotional distress and the medical care exception; and
• Inheritance of personal injury proceeds.

The NSSTA conference also featured a QSF presentation by Martin Jacobson titled "The Ins and Outs of 468B Funds". In addition, NSSTA's Legal Committee Update included a summary of a 2011 tax case, Espinoza v. Commissioner, plus an introduction to IRC Section 5891 as part of a discussion about the secondary structured settlement market.

Wood, who has written both a textbook and a Tax Management portfolio about QSFs, utilized case examples to explain several QSF issues: when is a QSF available; formation of a QSF; who should serve as QSF administrator; what are the QSF administrator's responsibilities; determining QSF income and deductions; information reporting responsibilities; amounts to report and forms to use; reporting of structured settlements; and terminating a QSF.

In his presentation about identifying and fixing settlement tax mistakes, Wood highlighted several issues: the need for professional tax computations; interest is always taxable; punitive damages; attorney fees; tax allocations; miscellaneous itemized deductions; above-the-line deductions; the unclear scope of section 104; sex abuse and wrongful imprisonment cases; the Murphy case; constructive receipt; employment disputes; Form 1099; as well as qualified and non-qualified structured settlements. For related writing by Wood, see the Wood & Porter website as well as S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.

Like Wood, Babener is both a prolific writer about settlement tax issues, as evidenced by Babener's website and related commentary appearing on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki, and a frequent speaker at educational conferences sponsored by SSP and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP). Also similar to Wood, Babener's SSP presentation and handouts utilized case examples (as well as tables) to help communicate his analysis. Equally appropriate for their audience, both Wood and Babener emphasized settlement tax planning and incorporated structured settlements into their discussions.

Jacobson's QSF discussion at the NSSTA conference specifically addressed the single claimant issue. Jacobson focused his analysis on the statutory language of IRC 468B, related Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c) and related Revenue Procedure 93-34.

• Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c) requires and permits a QSF to be "established to resolve or satisfy one or more contested or uncontested claims that have resulted or may result from an event (or related series of events) that has occurred and that has given rise to at least one claim asserting liability ..." (emphasis added).
• Revenue Procedure 93-34 sets forth the rules under which a QSF will be considered a "party to the suit or agreement" for purposes of Section 130 and includes a stipulation that all Section 130 requirements still apply (emphasis added).

Jacobson highlighted the issue of whether Revenue Procedure 93-34 means that constructive receipt and economic benefit apply to single claimant QSF-funded Section 130 Qualified Assignments. For purposes of the single claimant QSF issue, Jacobson identified what he termed "the real questions":

• Does a single claimant have economic benefit of the funds placed in the QSF?
• Does the single claimant have "unqualified availability" of those funds?
• Has IRC Section 130(c) been satisfied?
• Is there going to be an IRS ruling applicable to single claimant QSFs?
• In the continuing absence of such an IRS ruling, Jacobson quoted Robert Wood's recommendation to "avoid the single claimant controversy" by establishing QSFs with multiple claimants.

With deference to Martin Jacobson for his valuable presentation and gratitude that NSSTA's educational programs have begun to address important and controversial industry issues, S2KM suggests these additional "real questions" concerning single claimant QSFs:

• Why haven't any NSSTA or SSP members applied for one or more IRS rulings applicable to single claimant QSFs?
• For example, what constitutes "multiple claimants" for purposes of QSFs - multiple family members as claimants? government liens? a plaintiff attorney's compensation claim?
• Does public policy favor or not favor single claimant QSFs? If not, why not?
• As Jeremy Babener addresses in his important QSF paper, how far has existing federal legislation eroded the applicability of the constructive receipt and economic benefit tax doctrines to structured settlements:
  • Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 - allowing "secured creditor status"; and
  • Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001 - allowing transfers of payment rights ("factoring") pursuant to state protection statutes.

For additional information about:

• Structured settlement tax issues - see Chapter 2 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J);
• Single claimant 468B QSFs - see S2KM's blog post "Single Claimant QSF Update"
• SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements in 2010 - 2

Beginning in 2004, S2KM has utilized this blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") and related web 2.0 publications to report and analyze strategic developments impacting the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning (aka settlement consulting) industries.

Featuring industry leaders, commentators and professional association conferences, S2KM has attempted to highlight how legal and technology changes are redefining the traditional (pre-2001) structured settlement market including structured settlement public policy as well as structured settlement business standards, business practices and business models.

From S2KM's perspective, the following categories, people and developments defined the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning industries in 2010:

Professional associations

• S2KM attended seven professional educational conferences during 2010 which addressed structured settlement and/or special needs settlement planning issues:
  • National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) - 2
  • Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)
  • National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)
  • National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP)
  • National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)
  • Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)
• As a general observation, all of these conferences were valuable and complementary. For S2KM's 2010 (plus historical) conference reports, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.
• SSP, NASP and NAMSAP deserve special recognition for their 2010 strategic educational discussions featuring industry leaders, commentators and critics who offered alternative perspectives for improving and growing the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning markets.
• By comparison, NSSTA remains reluctant to openly discuss strategic industry issues or to include alternative perspectives in their educational programs. More positively, NSSTA representatives and members increasingly attend and speak at non-NSSTA structured settlement and special needs settlement planning conferences.
• NAELA's educational conferences are noteworthy because they regularly feature sections or entire programs titled "unprograms". NAELA's unprograms are moderated group discussions about specific topics. NAELA's 2010 Special Needs Summit included six separate one hour unprograms with a concluding unprogram wrap-up session. One example of a 2010 NAELA unprogram was titled "Collaboration Opportunities for Special Needs Attorneys and Financial Planners".

Industry leaders

• NSSTA promoted Eric Vaughn, who previously served as NSSTA's lobbyist, to replace Joseph Ricci as NSSTA's new Executive Director effective July 1, 2010. Peter Arnold, previously NSSTA's Marketing Director, was similarly promoted to serve as NSSTA's Associate Executive Director. NSSTA's Board of Directors elected Michael Kelly as its 2010 President and Dan Finn as its President-elect. NSSTA honored Congressman Peter Stark during its Annual Meeting as its 2010 Legislator of the Year. NSSTA also gave special recognition to Karen Meyers and Joseph Bornstein for their contributions to NSSTA's CSSC and NSSTAPAC programs respectively..
• SSP elected Jason Lazarus as its President for 2010-11 and Charles Schell as Vice President. SSP honored Richard Risk with the designation of "life member" for his contributions to SSP and the settlement planning industry. Joseph Tombs continues as Director of SSP's RSP certification program.
• NASP named Matthew Bracy as its new President succeeding Robin Shapiro. Earl Nesbitt continues as NASP's Executive Director.
• NAMSAP elected Michael Westcott as its President.
• NAELA honored Dick Traum as the first recipient of NAELA's Special Needs Leadership Award. Traum is the founder and CEO of Achilles International, a non-profit organization providing community support for athletes with disabilities with members in more than 70 countries.
• Amy Palmiero-Winters, ultra-marathoner and lower-leg amputee, was named during 2010 as the winner of the 2009 James E. Sullivan Award given annually to the top amateur athlete in the United States.

Industry commentators

• For the past several years, Robert Wood has been the preeminent tax commentator and author for the structured settlement and settlement planning industries. Wood's publications appear on the Wood & Porter website.
• During 2010, Jeremy Babener emerged as an important new structured settlement tax commentator and author specializing in public policy and proposing an expanded structured settlement tax subsidy. In addition to authoring several structured settlement articles for tax and legal journals, Babener participated as a featured speaker at both the SSP and NASP 2010 Annual Meetings and authored two blog posts for S2KM during 2010. Babener discussed his structured settlement writing (accessible on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki and Babener's Tax Structuring website) in this 2010 S2KM interview.
• Additional authors who wrote and published 2010 legal articles about structured settlement and special needs settlement planning issues included: Daniel Hindert, Matt Garretson, Sylvius von Saucken, Peter Wayne, Mark Popolizio, Gregg Polsky and Brant Hellwig.
• Both the Legal Broadcast Network and Ringler Radio continued to produce and distribute podcasts featuring structured settlement commentators during 2010.
• An increasing number of structured settlement and special needs settlement planning professionals published blogs during 2010 joining industry blogging pioneers such as John Darer, Mark Wahlstrom, Matthew Bracy and Jack Meligan.
• Incisive Media published two new updates (Release 47 and Release 48) for "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" during 2010.

Legislation

• Both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Health Care Reform) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) redesign the legal environment in which the structured settlement and personal injury settlement planning markets operate.
• Among the anticipated strategic consequences of health care reform:
  • An estimated 16 million more Medicaid participants - and therefore:
  • More special needs trusts;
  • More special needs attorneys;
  • More structured settlement annuities payable to trustees.
• Dodd-Frank re-writes federal banking law and creates a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. A key question, as yet unanswered, is whether the sale and/or purchase of structured settlement annuities constitutes a "financial product or service" under Dodd-Frank requiring regulatory supervision by the Bureau.

Regulations

• The United States Department of Treasury held a public hearing on February 23, 2010 focused on proposed new regulations for Internal Revenue Code section 104(a)(2). The proposed regulations, if enacted, would:
  • Eliminate the requirement that damages be based on “tort or tort type rights” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion, and
  • Incorporate 1996 legislation requiring that personal injuries and sickness damages be “physical” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion.
  • A subsequent S2KM interview featured John McCullough and Richard Risk, two of the structured settlement industry members who spoke at the hearing.
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) continued to issue administrative guidance during 2010 for enforcement of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act of 1980 and the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) reporting requirements for insurers. Featured discussions during the NAMSAP 2010 Annual meeting highlighted:
  • The increasing importance and complexity of the MSP statute for all personal injury stakeholders;
  • The need for these personal injury stakeholders (and their professional associations) to cooperate politically and educationally;
  • The challenges of integrating structured settlements, including rated ages, with Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) in the context of health care reform, CMS MSA regulations and related judicial rulings;
  • The evolving business models, claim management strategies and professional skill sets which are now emerging to address these challenges.

Case law

• The Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit which settled in 2010 represents one of the most important legal developments in the history of the structured settlement industry.
• Hartford's gross settlement payment of $72.5 million represents 4.5% of total premium dollars Hartford used to purchase structured settlement annuities for class members from January 1, 1997 to June 7, 2010.
• Among the plaintiffs allegations:
  • Hartford and its attorneys, brokers and agents violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed common law fraud in structuring its settlements.
  • Hartford's structured settlements were priced so Hartford retained 15% of the value of the structured settlements.
  • Hartford and its attorneys, brokers and agents misrepresented structured settlements including explicit or implicit reference to:
    • The "cost" of the annuity or structured settlement or portion of the settlement being structured; and/or
    • The "value" of the annuity or structured settlement or portion of the settlement being structured.
• Hartford, which stopped writing new structured settlement business in 2009, denied the allegations.

Technology

• Despite the accelerating technology advances revolutionizing society generally, the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning industries have been slow to study and incorporate these advances into their educational programs and business models.
• The best industry-sponsored technology education programs during 2010 were offered by Mark Miller during a NAELA webinar and Harry Margolis at the ASNP 2010 Annual Meeting. Both presentations provided introductory overviews of web 2.0 and including recommendations for integrating specific social networking tools into special needs legal practices.
• NSSTA initiated a NSSTA blog during 2010 and offered an educational program about Internet marketing during its 2010 Fall Education program.

Public policy

• Both SSP and NASP featured specific discussions and presentations about structured settlement public policy during their 2010 Annual Meetings. The discussions included industry commentators representing diverse viewpoints and priorities.
• Jeremy Babener followed his 2009 paper debunking industry myths concerning "structured settlement dissipation studies" with several 2010 articles and papers addressing structured settlement public policy issues. Babener's public policy writing is featured on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.
• Release 47 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" re-examined several structured settlement public policy issues related to single claimant 468B funds, structured settlement factoring transactions, dissipation by personal injury victims, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, special needs trusts and Medicare set-aside arrangements.
• In a 2010 Boston College Law Review article, professors Gregg Polsky and Brant Hellwig challenged the application of any structured settlement tax benefit for deferring attorney fees or payments to non-physically injured tort plaintiffs under general common law tax principles.

Business standards and practices

• The Spencer v. Hartford case raises many issues about structured settlement business standards and practices which require greater education and analysis if the primary market expects to improve and grow. For example;
  • Is the primary structured settlement market capable of self-regulation?
  • Why shouldn't key elements of the state structured settlement protection statutes (judicial approval; best interest test; compensation disclosure) be applied to primary market transactions?
  • As an additional requirement, or as an alternative, why haven't plaintiff attorneys and plaintiff consultants insisted upon a claimant's written informed consent before entering into a structured settlement?
  • Why haven't the SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct received more public discussion and analysis within the structured settlement industry?
• "Cash now" advertising represents one of the most highly criticized secondary market business practices. Although this practice continues to exist, NASP took an important educational step during its 2010 Annual Meeting by highlighting this issue and inviting secondary market critics to participate in the discussion.

Business models

• While other segments of, and products within, the special needs settlement planning market have expanded and improved in recent years, the structured settlement primary market in general has stagnated and retrenched.
• During 2010, however, representatives of the primary structured settlement market increasingly recognized their interdependency, and interacted, with other settlement planning professionals and professional associations such as special needs attorneys, life care planners, Medicare set-aside professionals and secondary structured settlement market participants.
• Future industry improvement and growth will require even greater appreciation and identification of shared interests as well as expanded implementation of shared political strategies, educational programs and business models.

Prior S2KM annual reports about the structured settlement industry and reports about industry association conferences are available on S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Settlement Consulting - 3

In prior posts about settlement consulting, S2KM:

• Reviewed Joseph DiGangi's discussion at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting titled: "Comprehensive Settlement Consulting in the 21st Century". See: "Settlement Consulting".
• Continued DiGangi's discussion by asking questions and offering comments about "settlement consulting" definitions and scope. See: "Settlement Consulting - 2".

This S2KM post outlines settlement consulting history - from a structured settlement perspective.

S2KM's structured settlement history diagram (developed with graphic artist Keith Burtoft) concludes with the founding of the National Association of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) in 2005.

Beginning in 2005, S2KM has continued to monitor structured settlement history by attending and reporting about settlement consulting conferences addressing structured settlements.

For the past three years, S2KM has also published annual reports about structured settlement developments:

• Structured Settlements in 2008;
  
• Structured Settlements in 2007;
• Structured Settlements in 2006.

Using the same categories as S2KM's structured settlement history diagram, here are some of the more recent settlement consulting highlights:

Social Security

• Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA);
• The Ahlborn Case (2006) - see John Campbell's analysis of the Eighth Circuit's decision which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
• Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA);
• Additional MSA rules for structured settlements (2008);
• New POMS for Special Needs Trusts (2009) - see David Lillesand's report;

Taxation - see related articles on the Wood & Porter website:

• Banks and Banaitis cases (2005) - attorney fees;
• Murphy case (2007);
• IRS Letter Ruling 200836019 (2008) - Non-qualified 130 assignments and attorney fees.

State Legislation (2005-2008) - see Release 45 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

• Structured settlement protection statutes;
• Uniform Trust Code;
• UCC Article 9 anti-assignment provisions;
• Medicaid annuity rules.

Other Developments

• Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) founded (2007);
• AIG receives $150 billion U.S. Government bailout (2008);
• Joseph Ricci replaces Randy Dyer as NSSTA Executive Director (2008);
• SSP publishes its "Standards of Professional Conduct" (2008) and begins its Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification (2008);
• American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners (AANLCP) founded (2008);
• Several annuity providers depart the structured settlement market (2005-2008);
• Structured settlement annuity premium remains level at $6 billion per year (2001-2008);
  
• Structured settlement surveys identify a larger market (2006-2008);
• Settlement consulting bloggers and podcast providers emerge (2004-2009).

For reasons why S2KM views 1982, 2001 and 2008 as strategically important for structured settlements, see "Structured Settlements in 2008 - 1".

Robert Wood QSF Interview

Robert W. Wood has written a new legal treatise "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B" published by the Tax Institute and available for purchase on the Tax Institute website. Following S2KM's earlier review of Wood's book, the noted author and tax expert provided S2KM with the following exclusive interview.

S2KM:  Welcome Rob. Let's begin with a controversial issue. Why doesn't "one or more" encompass single claimant QSFs?

Wood:  That's a perfectly logical question, and I wish I had a complete (or even a logical) answer. Of course, the question suggests its own answer. After all, given the statutory language, it might seem that this SHOULD be enough. But tax lawyers are (and ought to be) cautious creatures. When we know the IRS has said it is looking at an issue and we are not certain how it will come out, our hackles understandably go up. In the last analysis, I don't think there should be a problem with single claimant funds, but I am risk averse, and I don't want to end up being a test case!

S2KM:  Does public policy support single claimant QSFs?

Wood:  As I have commented previously, I am not sure I see enough of the big picture to consider the public policy implications of anything in the tax world. In the 30 years I have been practicing as a tax lawyer, I have seen lots of things done in the name of public policy that end up getting changed. Here, I think there ought to be a public policy of encouraging structured settlements, since they encourage financial and tax planning, and encourage the conservation of assets. To the extent Qualified Settlement Funds aid in that endeavor (which I personally think they do), we should also encourage QSFs. That is probably so regardless of how many or how few claimants are in the fund.

S2KM:  How does 468B, as a potential settlement planning "standard", impact settlement negotiation, planning and funding?

Wood:  First, at the present time, I don't think Section 468B trusts are a standard. QSFs are certainly being used more and more today, but we are quite a ways away from seeing the use of the QSF as a standard for every case that structures. I doubt we will ever see that. But if I make a big assumption and think about QSFs in this context, I suppose it would be a good thing. Again, regardless of whether there are many or few claimants, QSFs encourage a kind of regimen, a protocol that involves court supervision and court orders. This is good. Plus, QSFs allow the time necessary to develop and implement plans. In the absence of a QSF, there are sometimes hasty decisions made as a case is settling.

S2KM:  Why don't plaintiff attorneys and settlement planners utilize QSFs in more cases?

Wood:  I'm not sure, but I'd guess the primary reason is simple lack of familiarity. Just as structured settlements were not as widely used 25 years ago because many people lacked familiarity with them, today the QSF is in a similar posture. A second reason may be expense. Some lawyers and clients may say: why spend even a few thousand dollars setting up something if you can structure without it? Although QSFs can almost always help the situation, they may simply not be needed in many simple cases, so they don't get used. Of course, a third reason is the whole single claimant controversy, which understandably causes people to have cold feet in cases where there is only one claimant.

S2KM:  How best can QSF performance metrics be defined and improved?

Wood:  Every case is different, so I am not sure there is a one-size-fits-all kind of answer. Still, you seem to be implying that QSFs will become the standard for structuring settlements in the future. I personally find it hard to imagine that will happen. That is, I think we will see lots more QSFs going forward, but I doubt we will ever see a QSF for every structured settlement. But if it does happen, then it should encourage structured settlements, and the thoughtful and orderly implementation of plans. I may be wrong, but I suspect that in the vast number of cases, the plaintiff/claimant feels enormous pressure to make a decision quickly about structured settlements at settlement time. These structured settlements end up being locked in place for many years and potentially for life. QSFs can release the pressure by allowing more time for decision making.

S2KM:  How can QSFs improve and grow the structured settlement and settlement planning markets?

Wood:  First, to reiterate my answer to the prior question, I think QSFs can act as a safety valve to allow more time, so claimants can fully evaluate and tailor their structured settlements. I don't have any statistical evidence to back this up, but I would bet that more time would produce more (and more carefully constructed and personally tailored) structured settlements. To begin with, though, I suppose there needs to be a critical mass, more use of QSFs, so more lawyers, brokers, insurance companies and defendants become more comfortable with them. That includes class action administrators too, although many in that context are already familiar with QSFs. Even so, someone needs to consistently remind all these people about structured settlements - and I mean structures of tax-qualified Section 104 payments, as well as structures of taxable monies. Regardless of the context, in almost every case, SOMEONE ought to be asking whether there is interest in structuring all or part of the recovery. We all need to make sure we are offering adequate choices and adequate disclosure.

S2KM:  What are the most important QSF educational priorities and opportunities?

Wood:  I guess it depends on where you are in the industry, on what your role is, and who your contacts are within that sphere. I think we can all start small, and attempt to at least discuss the concept with people with whom we work. We can start by using the QSF concept and discussion as a way to bridge difficulties. Regarding the sensitive topic of commissions, I think brokers on the plaintiff side, brokers on the defense side, and the life companies themselves all need to cooperate. No one likes to have the rug pulled out from under them. It may sound like a Rodney King remark, but we all ought to be able to get along!

S2KM:  Rob, thank you for your insightful comments and continued success with your new QSF legal treatise.

Additional S2KM blog posts featuring Robert Wood:

• Robert Wood and 468B Funds
• Single Claimant 468B Funds
  
• Structured Attorney Fees
  
• Factor vs. Commute
  

Structured Settlements in 2007

Happy holidays from S2KM Limited. Thank you for reading S2KM's blog during 2007. This final 2007 S2KM blog post highlights some of this year's important structured settlement developments and issues.  For additional background information, see:

• S2KM Mid-2007 Structured Settlement Report
• Structured Settlements in 2006

Industry Growth and Development

• Industry insiders are predicting final 2007 structured settlement annuity sales (qualified and non-qualified) will match or slightly exceed total 2006 production of $6.1 billion.
• Membership growth in 2007 for the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), the primary structured settlement trade associations, also appears flat. Neither of these associations has articulated a strategy for growing the structured settlement industry.
• NSSTA replaced long-time Executive Director Randy Dyer in 2007 with association management company Smith Bucklin. NSSTA has announced it will continue a business relationship with Dyer. However, NSSTA has not yet announced Dyer's new role or responsibilities.
• Annuity provider Mass Mutual exited the structured settlement industry in 2007 joining other recent industry departures such as Genworth, Travelers and Aegon. No new annuity providers entered the structured settlement market in 2007.
• The secondary life and annuity markets continued to be controversial within the structured settlement industry in 2007. Semetra resigned from NSSTA in 2007 based in part on their disagreement with NSSTA's Bylaw Amendments related to structured settlement factoring. Neither NSSTA nor SSP allows factoring companies to join their associations.
• Although the secondary structured settlement market continues to grow in 2007, the overall pace of its growth appears to have leveled off for many, but not all, participants.
• Preliminary strategic recognition and some consolidation continued during 2007 within these overlapping markets:
  
  • Structured settlements;
  • Personal injury settlement planning;
  • Litigation funding;
  • Special needs planning;
  • Secondary insurance and annuity markets.

Legislation and Regulations    

• New York Governor Eliot Spitzer announced a $750 million "agreement in principle" for Executive Life of New York in 2007. The agreement is designed to continue paying all ELNY annuitants 100% of their benefits. The announcement represents a public relations victory for the structured settlement industry. Many questions about the agreement, however, remain unanswered. For example: the amount of contributions from indemnity (casualty) insurers who own or have assigned structured settlement annuities.
• State Medicaid Agencies are continuing to adopt annuity provisions from the Deficit Reduction Act into their state Medicaid Plans. Interpretations and applications of these new annuity rules remain inconsistent creating process bottlenecks and denials. The impact of the secondary annuity markets on Medicaid qualification remains unclear in 2007. The Social Security Administration (SSA) announced in 2007 that it will draft POMS for annuities in 2008. For additional information about the Deficit Reduction Act, see:
  • Release 41 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments";
  • Inconvenient Questions; and
  • NAELA Annuity Policy White Paper.
• 48 states have enacted structured settlement protection statutes. Overall, these statutes appear to be accomplishing their purposes and functioning with increasing certainty and efficiency. Pennsylvania's judiciary adopted Pennsyvania Rule 229.2 in 2007 tightening some rules and processes within that state's protection statute.
• The U.S. Treasury has not ruled on single claimant 468B funds in 2007.

Case Law - some of the significant 2007 cases:    

• DOJ Sovereign Immunity Defense - see "Drinker Biddle's Structured Settlement Update" for analysis of two DOJ sovereign immunity cases: Transamerica v. Settlement Capital and Continental Casualty v. United States.
• Primary Market Disclosure Case - "Pullman & Comley's Structured Settlement Insights" provided the first Internet analysis of Joseph v. The City of New York which Pullman & Comley characterizes as ""the first court opinion to analyze the requirements in structured settlement protection acts that disclosures be made when negotiating a structured settlement."
• Rapid Settlements cases challenging secondary market laws and business practices including:
  
  • Rapid v. Symetra; and
  • CNA v. Rapid Settlements

• Murphy v. IRS - Eleven months after ruling that taxing damage awards for nonphysical compensatory damages violated the United States Constitution, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has reversed itself in Murphy v. IRS by holding that the United States can tax awards for emotional distress and injury to reputation.
• Macomber v. Travelers - the parties agreed to a confidential settlement in 2007.  It is unclear what legal precedents, if any, the earlier Connecticut State Supreme Court rulings in this case will hold for current or future structured settlement litigation.
  

Educational Programs and Resources

• Both NSSTA and SSP offered certification programs in 2007.    
• S2KM attended educational programs for the following trade associations in 2007 and wrote blog posts (see links) evaluating their structured settlement educational programs:          
  
  • National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA).          
  • Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)          
  • American Association for Justice (AAJ)          
  • National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)          
  • Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)          
  • National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)    
• The structured settlement industry continued to offer various additional educational resources in 2007:          
  
  • Blogs, podcasts, wikis and concept maps;          
    
  • Digital and hardcopy newsletters;          
    
  • Hardcopy legal textbooks.

Business Standards and Practices

• 2007 developments
  
  • Broker Relations Initiative - status report provided in this S2KM blog post.
  • SSP Ethics Project - status report provided in this S2KM blog post.
• 2007 issues:
  
  • Structured settlement public policy
  • Claim management vs. settlement planning
  • Consumer and investor protection including:
    
    • Compensation disclosure;
    • Informed consent;
    • Single claimant 468B funds;
    • Unfair claim practice legislation;
    • Fiduciary responsibilities for professional advisors.

• Additional compensation issues:
  • Rebating
  • Affinity programs
  • Secondary market transactions
• Unauthorized practice of law.