Beyond Structured Settlements

Stetson 2015 SNT Conference

Sponsored by Stetson University College of Law, the 17th Annual Special Needs Trust (SNT) National Conference, held October 14-16, 2015 in St. Petersburg, Florida, fulfilled its promised objective of providing "an in-depth review of major issues presented in the creation, administration and monitoring of special needs trusts."

The three-day conference included an optional one day "Pre-Conference" featuring two alternative curriculum choices - "Tax Intensive" and "Pooled Trust Intensive" - plus a one day "Basics of SNTs" as well as the "SNT National Conference" itself.

Except for the Tax Intensive Pre-Conference, the other three programs each included multiple breakout sessions - for a total of 45 SNT-related presentations delivered during three days. Befitting this highly regarded program, the speakers represented a "who's who" of nationally-recognized SNT experts. In addition to power point presentations, almost every speaker also provided an original supporting handout paper.

More than 500 professionals attended the conference - many of whom are themselves recognized national SNT experts. Twenty-five (25) companies exhibited.

In addition to the outstanding speakers, the diversity of topics, the exceptional networking opportunities, the organizational acumen as well as the attractive conference setting and amenities, S2KM found the following conference issues to be noteworthy from a structured settlement and personal injury settlement planning perspective.

SNT Advocacy

• Working through their national associations [especially the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) and the Special Needs Alliance (Alliance)] as well as less formal groups such as the SSI Advocacy Committee, special needs attorneys have become increasingly involved in legislative and regulatory lobbying. The SNT Fairness Act, which, if enacted, would allow persons with disabilities to create their own SNTs, represents one important current example.
• Among the highlights of the Stetson SNT Conference were two interactive video conferences featuring national and regional Social Security Administration (SSA) representatives. This dialogue followed, and may have resulted from, a series of meetings between individual SNT attorneys (the SSI Advocacy Committee) and SSA senior staff members which began in 2013 to address problems identified by, and complaints from, SNT stakeholders with the SSA's SNT approval process.
• The SSA representatives addressed numerous questions from the Stetson attendees in addition to outlining their internal processes and challenges. They also announced their intention to "retire" the controversial SSA Trust Training Guide (released April 23, 2014) which unfortunately conflicts with the POMS, SSA's primary technical resource, in several important respects. Among its problems, the SSA Trust Training Guide states that additions to a (d)(4)(A) SNT after age 65 results in disqualification with no mention of the exception that exists in the POMS (SI 01120-203b.1.C) for structured settlements.
• Additional legislative and regulatory issues exist that impact both structured settlements and special needs trusts and provide a growing rationale for collaborative lobbying to benefit their shared client communities. For examples, both professional groups would benefit from regulatory authority confirming that 1) the Deficit Reduction Act annuity rules do not apply to structured settlements; and 2) the mere existence of a secondary market does not disqualify SNTs funded with structured settlements.

Affordable Care Act

• From S2KM's perspective, Stetson's 2015 SNT conference allocated insufficient time to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Presentations included one Pre-Conference Tax Intensive session titled "The Role of MAGI in Special Needs Planning" plus a two-part Basic's session titled "The Planner's Evolving Tool Box" during which the ACA shared conference time with SNTs, ABLE Accounts and other public benefits such as SSI, SSDI, Veteran's Pensions, the Disability Military Child Protection Act, CHIP, Section 8 Housing, and SNAP (formerly Food Stamps). By comparison, three separate, additional one hour sessions were devoted to ABLE Accounts during the three days of presentations.
• In fairness, Janet Lauder, who was allocated only 20 minutes to discuss the ACA, provided a valuable written analysis of the ACA as part of her conference handout materials.
• The ACA, however, is clearly a "game changer" for special needs planning and may prove a "career changer" for many special needs attorneys. Scott Solkoff points out the reasons in his excellent Spring 2015 NAELA Journal article titled "Report on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Its Impact on the Special Needs and Elder Law Practice", (reviewed here by S2KM).
• SNTs and Medicaid are now options and no longer necessities for many special needs clients. The ACA's elimination of pre-existing condition restrictions in health insurance policies complicates the insurance decision making process, as well as fundamental "needs and/or cost analysis", for special needs clients - as Solkoff illustrates with a suggested and valuable list of post-ACA client information questions.
• As ACA experts such as attorney David Lillesand have pointed out, ACA private health insurance offers special needs clients several potential advantages compared with SNTs. These advantages include: 1) ability to select your own insurer and insurance plan - and change annually if not satisfied; 2) a wider range of doctors; 3) no ongoing re-certification or sole benefit rule; 4) no estate repayment requirements; plus 5) reduced costs by eliminating SNT attorney, trustee and annual tax preparation fees.
• Given the many complicated ACA issues, continuing ACA developments and their profound impact on special needs individuals and special needs attorneys, Stetson conference attendees would have benefited from more time allocated to detailed ACA analysis and practice recommendations.

Structured Settlements

• Structured settlement brokers and special needs attorneys frequently play important and complementary roles in personal injury settlement planning. Historically, SNTs have represented a strategic submarket for structured settlements. Arguably, both the ACA and the ABLE Act provide additional opportunities for these two professional groups to collaborate. As suggested above, multiple legislative and/or regulatory issues exist involving both structured settlements and SNTs. Clearly, an important strategic relationship exists between these two professional communities.
• Somewhat surprisingly, therefore, the 2015 Stetson conference exhibited virtually no indication of this strategic relationship. For example, by S2KM's count, only one National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) broker and zero NSSTA annuity provider representatives attended the conference. No NSSTA brokers or NSSTA annuity providers exhibited or spoke at the conference. This lack of attendance and participation by structured settlement participants at a prestigious SNT conference constitutes a notable missed opportunity - for learning, networking and improving the image of structured settlement brokers.
• For examples of why NSSTA and its members might want to improve their image with at least some special needs attorneys, see S2KM's 2012 blog review of the legal treatise "Special Needs Trusts: Planning, Drafting and Administration", edited by Kevin Urbatsch. In this two volume SNT treatise, structured settlements are the only SNT "funding product" that receives detailed coverage. Chapter 8 authors Donna Bradshaw and Leslie Ann Barnett justify devoting 12 subsections to "structured settlements" by stating: "special needs planners need to understand how structured settlements work with first party SNTs to best advise personal injury attorneys, persons with disabilities, and their families." Rather than endorse structured settlements, however, they provide several warning and cautionary notes.
• Although it was impossible for S2KM to attend every Stetson conference presentation, not one presentation S2KM did attend mentioned structured settlements. Significantly, during her presentation titled "Marketing Your Special Needs Planning Skills to Others; Expanding Your Practice Focus", Shirley Whitenack, current President of NAELA, emphasized a team-oriented special needs practice and recommended networking with other allied professionals "who can be an excellent source for referrals." Among allied professionals she identified: other attorneys; accountants; financial planners; financial advisors; insurance agents; trust officers; life care planners; care managers; teachers; family members; and medical providers - but did not mention structured settlement consultants.
• Both the structured settlement and the special needs attorney professional communities appear to be undergoing generational transitions at the same time the ACA is transforming both of their traditional practices. Now is an appropriate time for both professions to re-examine collaborative opportunities as they re-think their own future direction and growth.

Settlement Planning

• In a second article appearing in the Spring 2015 issue of the NAELA Journal, titled "The Affordable Care Act and the Continued Commoditization of Elder Law", (also reviewed here by S2KM) E. Spencer Ghazey-Bates warns that key provisions of the ACA, when combined with the anticipated addition of predictive technology "will either enable nonattorneys to compete with [elder and special needs] attorneys for clients or result in clients simply self-educating to the point of no longer needing attorney guidance."
• Ghazey-Bates is not alone in predicting some negative consequences for traditional special needs law practice as a result of the ACA. Attorney Lillesand, for example, observed during the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) 2012 Annual Conference and continues to opine that: "The need for self-settled (first party) special needs trusts has decreased (except when a beneficiary requires long term institutional care) because the ACA provides better insurance options than Medicaid for many persons with pre-existing medical conditions including personal injury victims."
• Assuming the ACA restricts their traditional SNT practice, special needs attorneys presumably will be forced to expand and/or redirect their practice by providing new services to new and/or existing clients. Both the Stetson conference two-part panel discussion titled "The Planner's Evolving Tool Box" and Whitenack's "Expanding Your Practice Focus" presentation highlighted, at least indirectly, this new reality. Indeed, the broad knowledge and skill sets associated with special needs law as a practice field should permit many special needs attorneys to successfully transition their practice.
• One expanding opportunity for special needs attorneys, actually a strategic component of special needs practice that deserves and requires greater independent market and product analysis, is personal injury settlement planning. Rather than restrict settlement planning opportunities for special needs attorneys, the ACA and other continuing legislative and regulatory developments actually increase those opportunities in S2KM's opinion.
• ASNP, an association of special needs attorneys, appears to support S2KM's opinion. ASNP recently sponsored a 12-part webinar series about "Settlement Planning" as distinct from "Special Needs Planning". And the distinctions are important - from both a marketing and work product perspective. S2KM highlighted some of the differences between these two related professional disciplines in this recent blog post.
• Although multiple speakers at Stetson's 2015 conference made references to personal injury settlement planning, future Stetson conferences could benefit from greater attention to both the settlement planning market itself as well as post-ACA settlement planning specific analytic and work product opportunities for special needs attorneys.

For prior S2KM reporting about the ACA as well as professional association conferences addressing structured settlement and settlement planning issues, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2014 Fall Educational Conference

Although David Ringler was unable to attend the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 2014 Fall Educational Conference October 29-30 in La Jolla, California, he had an apparent impact. Ringler, NSSTA's first president, previously re-stated his original vision for NSSTA during NSSTA's 25th anniversary celebration in 2011:

"Although we do need to constantly be on the watch for legislative change, I still believe having a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs is the most important reason for NSSTA. I have called it a common “talk table”, although I agree that is not exactly a very elegant term. If we can continue this tradition, there is no problem we cannot overcome."

Many industry participants, including some NSSTA members, have questioned whether NSSTA has lost sight of this original purpose and tradition. For the past several years, NSSTA's leadership has superimposed a political litmus test for membership, as well as for topics and speakers at its educational conferences. As one result, structured settlement industry participants with alternative issues, viewpoints, beliefs and educational interests have founded two other national structured settlement associations: the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) in 1996 and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) in 2000.

NASP and SSP Participation

Perhaps responding to Ringler's clarion call, NSSTA opened its members-only educational program in La Jolla by inviting NASP President Patricia LaBorde and SSP President Neil Johnson to speak.

LaBorde was featured on a Secondary Market Panel, moderated by John McCulloch, which also included Stephen Harris and Patrick Hindert as panelists. McCulloch's questions targeted primary market concerns such as the prevalence of secondary market transfers, consequences of transfer company advertising and secondary market discount rates. The resulting discussion captured the audience's undivided attention and hopefully will result in expanded educational dialogue between NSSTA and NASP to include shared political and business interests.

Johnson and current NSSTA President Kevin Silo jointly addressed "Industry Challenges", a panel discussion moderated by NSSTA President-elect Michael Goodman. Repeating portions of his SSP 2014 keynote speech, Johnson proposed the following solutions for achieving industry unity: 1) recognizing and accepting product diversity; 2) focusing on client and customer service; 3) identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues; 4) engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues; 5) improving relationships among stakeholder groups; 6) promoting and practicing settlement planning not settlement selling.

Generational Change and Challenges

NSSTA and the primary structured settlement market face multiple challenges (see below) - perhaps none greater than succession. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), 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?

In addition to generating more than $140 billion of annuity premium, the legacy of NSSTA's retiring generation includes enactment of the existing structured settlement legislative framework: current IRC sections 104(a)(1) and (2) and 130 plus multiple state periodic payment of judgment statutes and (with NASP) enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection statutes. More recently, however, NSSTA's aging leadership has focused on defense - with "protect and preserve" its principle mantra.

NSSTA attempted to addressed this generational succession issue at its Fall conference by juxtaposing panels featuring past NSSTA Presidents and "Next Generation" brokers. The impression that emerged: NSSTA and the primary market have reached an historic crossroads - with multiple stakeholders, issues and options, but no clear future direction.

Whatever next generation of NSSTA leaders emerges will face several challenges:

• Stagnant growth - Since achieving $6 billion of annual annuity sales in 2001, structured settlement premium growth has stagnated with 2013 sales totaling $5.1 billion.
• Polarized market(s) - NSSTA's leaders have been unable, and/or unwilling, to unify the structured settlement market(s) around such shared interests as: primary market growth; preservation of existing legislation; and consumer protection - which prioritizes maintaining promised periodic payments.
• Alternative business models - Can alternative structured settlement models (traditional defense vs. emerging plaintiff) continue to co-exist and collaborate?
• Complexity - Structured settlements represent a strategic product within the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) market.
• Product features - Will Pacific Life's recent private letter ruling encourage structured settlement annuity providers to expand their product offerings to include "equity-indexed" annuities and "hardship conversions"?
• Competition. Within the settlement planning market, the growth and leadership of other product and service providers has increasingly exceeded the growth and leadership of structured settlement participants.
• Success factors. To expand sales within the evolving settlement planning market, NSSTA's leaders must re-think and re-engineer historical success factors - backgrounds and skill sets; educational programs; business models; product enhancements; sales and marketing strategies.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

The settlement planning market is knowledge-intense and increasingly Internet-based. To continue, and increase, their historical success within the evolving settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members must improve their knowledge management capabilities. One preliminary step is to identify and evaluate existing strategic knowledge. NSSTA and its members possess three primary types of strategic knowledge:

• Product knowledge - The "Tax Posse", the ACA summary, and even the Non-traditional Products presentation at NSSTA's Fall conference represent good examples of NSSTA's product knowledge. Perhaps more important, and more valuable, than explicit product knowledge, NSSTA members possess tacit (intuitive, experiential) knowledge of how structured settlements work. In the context of the secondary market, however, NSSTA member knowledge of its own product is arguably much weaker, and, therefore, incomplete and less valuable.
• Relationship knowledge - Much of NSSTA's Fall conference related to, and re-enforced, NSSTA's and NSSTA members' settlement planning relationship knowledge about and with: 1) plaintiff attorneys; 2) insurance associations; 3) insurance claims adjustors; 4) national consumer associations; 5) U.S. Congressional members; 6) MSA administrators; 7) SSP; and 8) NASP. In settlement planning, as in life more generally, it is not what you know but who you know that counts the most.
• Market knowledge - Compared with other settlement planning market segments, NSSTA (and NASP) appear to have developed and maintained more accurate market metrics including quarterly and annual premium and cases in total and for each member product provider. To further expand structured settlements into the settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members might begin to track additional metrics. For examples: what percentage of structured settlements are utilized to fund MSAs, SNTs and settlement trusts more generally. Which categories of structured settlement recipients are most likely to sell payment rights and why?

MARKETING INITIATIVES

NSSTA conference speakers introduced multiple new marketing initiatives including:

• "NSSTA University" - NSSTA's Debbie Sink announced a new "NSSTA University" service whereby NSSTA will partner with any member to secure CE credits for member-sponsored educational seminars or insurance claims departments or law firms.
• CLM Survey Part II - In partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA's Marketing Committee summarized CLM Survey Part II (claims adjustors) of an eventual three part survey project. Part I surveyed claims executives. Part III will survey plaintiff attorneys. These surveys provide NSSTA members with valuable marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• Introduction and Welcome - Eric Vaughn.
• Industry Challenges - Michael Goodman (Moderator), Kevin Silo, Neil Johnson.
• Next Gen Brokers - Louis Masry (Moderator), Kristen Chess, Ryan Garrison, Tony Robinson.
• Financial Issues for People with Disabilities - Sally Greenberg and Mark Perriello.
• AAJ Treasurer Elect - Elise Sanguinetti.
• MSA Professional Administration - Tom Adams (Moderator), Marques Torbert, Joe Anderson.
• Affordable Care Act - Jordan Bossler.
• Past NSSTA Presidents - Moderators (Kevin Silo; Eric Vaughn); Jeff Bowers, Len Blonder, Joe Costello, Mal Deener, Dan Durbin, Randy Dyer, Dan Finn, Patrick Hindert, John Machir, Henry Strong.
• Factoring Panel - John McCulloch (Moderator), Stephen Harris, Patrick Hindert, Patricia LaBorde.
• Non-Traditional Products - Erin Muller (Moderator), John Arendt, Ryan Jandreau, Jeff Reinhold, Chris Shumate, Ravi Vaswani.
• American Insurance Association - Peter Foley.
• CLM Survey Part II - Taylor Smith, Susan Clark, Jeff Livingston.
• Tax Posse - John McCulloch, Timothy O'Driscoll, Tom Ronce.
• NSSTA CE News - Erin Muller and Debbie Sink.

Congratulations to NSSTA and conference chairperson Erin Muller for re-establishing NSSTA's tradition of educational programs featuring speakers with multiple viewpoints on industry issues "regardless of beliefs". David Ringler and other structured settlement pioneers should feel gratified - and hopeful for NSSTA's future success.

For S2KM's reports about prior NSSTA educational conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

Fall 2014 Educational Resources

During this transitional era for both settlement planning and the primary and secondary structured settlement markets, participating professionals are fortunate to have multiple educational opportunities this Fall to update and expand their knowledge.

Conferences

• Stetson SNT Conference - October 15-17 in St. Petersburg, Florida.
• AANLCP Annual Conference - October 24-27 in Atlanta.
• NSSTA Fall Meeting - October 28-30 - La Jolla, California.
• NASP Annual Conference - November 4-6 in San Antonio, Texas.
• Evolve QSF Symposium - November 13-14 in Memphis.

Webinar - ASNP's 12-part Settlement Planning webinar series beginning October 1 and ending March 18, 2015.

Certification Program - NSSTA's 2014 Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) Professional Certification Program - October 15-19 at the University of Notre Dame.

ACA Seminar - NBI's Affordable Care Act (ACA): Impact on Injury Settlements seminar - offered in multiple cities on alternative dates.

Journals

• NAELA Journal Fall 2014 - focuses on Guardianship issues.
• AANLCP Journal Fall 2014 - includes a survey and study of nurse life care planner roles.

Book Update - Release 56 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) will be published latter this Fall.

S2KM will provide subsequent blog reports summarizing many of these programs and written materials.

For past S2KM reporting about professional educational conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP 2014 Secondary Market Panel

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

Troubling Developments

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

Falsified Orders

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

Anti-Assignment Restrictions

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

Primary Market Responses

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

RLS Arbitrations

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Structured Settlements 2013 - ELNY and Reliance

Structured settlements are supposed to provide economic security for people with serious injuries and disabilities - to help them rebuild their lives and, in many cases, to achieve special lifetime accomplishments. Instead of an all-cash personal injury settlement, structured settlement recipients accept a promise of future periodic payments.

What happens, if and when, that promise is broken? What happens when a structured settlement funding company, and the regulators and guaranty system responsible for protecting the structured settlement recipients, fail to make and/or insure full payment?

ELNY Liquidation

These questions are highlighted by the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation - the dominant structured settlement story of 2012 and 2013 and one of the most important developments in the history of the United States structured settlement industry.

The story of ELNY, as well as its affiliate Executive Life of California (ELIC), and their parent company, First Capital Corporation (FEC), is long and complex. For background of events prior to ELNY's 1991 receivership, S2KM recommends Gary Schulte's 1992 book "The Fall of First Executive".  For an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

Significantly, neither the 1991 ELNY Rehabilitation Order nor the 1992 Order approving the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan declared ELNY to be insolvent.

Following 22 years of "Rehabilitation" supervised by various New York State Superintendents of Insurance and Financial Services, as Receivers, ELNY was officially liquidated August 8, 2013 pursuant to an Order of Liquidation signed by Nassau County New York State Supreme Court Judge John M. Galasso on April 16, 2012.

As part of his Liquidation Order, Judge Galasso also approved a Restructuring Agreement, as proposed by ELNY's Receiver and NOLHGA, whereby ELNY's remaining assets and ongoing liabilities have now been transferred to a successor company, Guaranty Associations Benefit Company (GABC), a not-for-profit Washington D.C.-based captive insurance company.

ELNY Shortfall Payees

GABC published two versions of a final Schedule 1.15 on its website in November 2013. Among the significant details:

• Thirty-seven (37%) percent of all remaining ELNY (now GABC) structured settlement annuities (SSAs) will experience shortfalls.
• SSAs represent ninety-eight (98%) percent of total ELNY shortfall annuities.
• The total percentage of each ELNY SSA contract value "protected" by ELNY's remaining assets, state guaranty fund payments plus additional enhancements varies from 31% to 100% depending upon the individual contract.

In a 2013 blog post titled "An ELNY Nightmare", S2KM profiled Glenn Arensdorf, one of the ELNY structured settlement victims. For profiles of five additional ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees, see "The Complete ELNY Saga - 21 Years of Mismanagement, Corruption, Broken Promises and Shattered Lives", the lead article in a comprehensive ELNY analysis published in 2012 by LifeHealthPro.

Faced with significant payment reductions resulting from ELNY's liquidation and restructuring agreement, ELNLY's structured settlement shortfall payees were left with three options:

1. Accept their payment reductions under the ELNY Restructuring Agreement and do nothing; or,
2. Appeal Judge Galasso's Order and ask the Appellate Court to send ELNY's Receiver back to drawing board; or,
3. Bring a separate legal action against the Receiver personally for bad faith conduct, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment or waste.

Several ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees chose Options 2 and 3.

Option 2 failed. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department denied the ELNY shortfall payees' appeal of Judge Galasso's Order on February 6, 2013. New York State Court of Appeals denied a subsequent motion by ELNY shortfall payees for Leave to Appeal the Second Department decision on May 3, 2013.

Option 3 remains unresolved.

• Class Action Lawsuit - Several ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees pursued Option 3 by filing a federal class action lawsuit November 8, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the ELNY Receiver (New York Superintendent of Financial Services Benjamin Lawsky) in his personal capacity.
• Receiver's Response - In response, the Receiver filed a motion December 7, 2012 asking the Liquidation Court (Judge Galasso) to find the shortfall payees in contempt for violating the injunction provision of the ELNY Liquidation Order.
• Contempt Order - Judge Galasso issued a Contempt Order on January 25, 2013. He also imposed a $5000 fine and threatened additional fines plus imprisonment of legal counsel if the ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees did not dismiss their Federal action which they did (without prejudice) on February 7, 2013.
• Bottom Line - So long as Judge Galasso's Contempt Order and continuing threat of additional fines and imprisonment of legal counsel remain in effect, ELNY structured settlement shortfall payees are effectively barred from pursuing Federal legal action against ELNY's Receiver for alleged mismanagement of ELNY's assets during ELNY's 22 year Rehabilitation.
• Shortfall Payee's Appeal - ELNY's shortfall payees are currently pursuing an appeal challenging "each and every part" of Judge Galasso's January 25, 2013 Contempt Order as a necessary step before re-filing their Federal action against the Receiver and his agents.
• Appellate Issues - The appellate brief filed on behalf of the ELNY shortfall payees addresses three legal issues:
  • Did the ELNY Liquidation Court exceed it subject matter jurisdiction or otherwise err by interfering with shortfall payees' constitutional right to bring suit against the Receiver in Federal court?
  • Did the ELNY Liquidation Court err in holding the shortfall payees in contempt for violating its injunctive Order when the order does not clearly and unequivocally bar personal capacity suits against the Receiver?
  • Did the ELNY Liquidation Court err in holding that the shortfall payees conceded the Order barred personal capacity lawsuits by appealing the order and using this alleged concession as the basis to hold the shortfall payees in contempt?

Reliance Liquidation

Reliance Insurance Company was declared insolvent in 2001 and the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner was appointed as Liquidator. The Reliance Estate, however, remains open and its assets, until November 4, 2013, included approximately 3,400 structured settlements of which approximately 3093 involve annuities issued by United Pacific Life Insurance Company, a former Reliance subsidiary which Reliance sold in 1993 and which is now known as Genworth Life Insurance Company.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter signed an Order on November 4, 2013 approving a Transfer and Assumption Agreement whereby Reliance will transfer all Reliance-owned structured settlement annuity contracts and corresponding payment obligations issued by Genworth Life Insurance Company to a new corporation, the Genworth Annuity Service Corporation.

For S2KM's complete reporting about the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

For additional S2KM 2013 annual reports, see:

• Part 1 - Primary market.
• Part 2 - Settlement planning.
• Part 3 - Secondary market.

Structured Settlements 2013 - Secondary Market

While Berkshire Hathaway quietly assumed leadership among primary market structured settlement annuity providers during 2013, J.G. Wentworth (JGW) continued to consolidate its control of the secondary market with the same "subtlety" and ubiquitousness that have characterized its late-night television advertisements.

Various industry experts estimate JGW's secondary structured settlement market share, following its 2012 merger with Peachtree Financial Solutions (Peachtree), now totals somewhere between 50% and 75%, and the combined JGW/Peachtree's share of industry profits now exceeds 80%.

JGWPT Holdings Inc. IPO

JGW's 2013 apogee occurred November 8 when JGWPT Holdings Inc.'s IPO produced what is currently the only publicly traded structured settlement company. The IPO was poorly received with JGWPT Inc. reducing the initial offering price of its common stock from $19-$22 per share to $14.00 which then traded down to the high $12s.

The stated purposes for JGWPT's IPO were to pay down some of JGW's $572 million debt and to provide its pre-IPO equity holders (JLL Partners) an opportunity to earn additional profits. Post-IPO, JLL Partners continues to hold a 39% economic interest and a 63% voting interest in JGWPT while four of its partners sit on the company's Board of Directors.

JGWPT's common stock, however, now trades on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: JGW) and closed Friday (December 27, 2013) at $17.10 per share. At least one analyst has informed S2KM he believes the stock is currently worth at least $20 per share based upon JGW's "dominant franchise", access to securitization markets, low costs relative to competitors and "incalculable returns on capital", among other factors.

Problems and Controversies in 2013

As S2KM reported in this prior blog post, JGW, which was founded in 1995, had experienced a tumultuous history prior to 2013 - and problems and controversies continued to plague the company during 2013:

• Abandoned Sale - Bloomberg News reported in January 2013 that JLL Partners had abandoned plans to sell the company after bids failed to meet expectations. Earlier reports had indicated that JLL Partners was seeking a $1 billion purchase price for JGW from private-equity firms.
• Ratings Downgrade - Moody's Investors Service (Moody's) announced in February 2013 a downgrade of its Corporate Family Rating (CFR) for JGW from B3 to Caa1. Under Moody's credit rating scale, "Caa1" signifies a long-term rating "rated as poor quality and very high credit risk." Moody's CFR ratings for JGW are separate and distinct from financial agency ratings applicable to JGW structured settlement securitizations which historically have been rated as high quality and low risk investments.
• Shareholder Distribution - 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."
• Falsified Court Orders - JGWPT's amended S-1 statement, filed October 28, 2013 in anticipation of its public offering, included the following statement under a section titled "RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS OPERATIONS: ... there have in the past and may be in the future deficiencies in court orders obtained on our behalf by third parties that result in those court orders being invalid, including as a result of failures to perform according to our requirements and acts of fraud,..." That statement apparently references as many as 100 falsified court orders in New York approving JGW structured settlement transfers.
• Brenston Case - The Illinois Supreme Court 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 1) had a duty to enforce anti-assignment provisions in Brenston's original structured settlement documentation; and 2) 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. In an Amicus curiae brief, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) asserted the Appellate Court decision will render the Illinois transfer statute "a practical nullity"
• Competitor Outrage - During NASP's 2013 annual conference, in remarks apparently directed at JGW, former NASP President Robin Shapiro expressed personal outrage about "troubling reports concerning the structured settlement factoring business" including:
  • Falsified transfer orders.
  • Inter-state forum shopping.
  • Short-cutting waiting periods and disclosure requirements.
  • Expediting hearing dates before preferred judges.
  • "Competing bids" from the same company.
• NASP Conference - In addition to Shapiro's comments, NASP's 2013 annual conference focused on controversial issues which have historically divided the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. In her keynote remarks, NASP President Patricia LaBorde encouraged diverse perspectives and re-inforced NASP's policy of politically unobstructed learning. "We want to hear from all structured settlement stakeholders - even if they disagree with us or don't like who we are," LaBorde stated. "We are here to listen. We are here to improve."
• METLife Split Payment Policy - During his NASP presentation, Executive Director Earl Nesbitt reported a controversial new business practice that is troubling JGW and other transfer companies. MetLife apparently is now actively opposing transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements. Under such servicing arrangements, structured settlement annuity providers typically remit the entirety of specific periodic payments to transfer companies to administer even when the original recipient/transferor only assigns a portion of the payments.
• Educational Forums - In addition to the NASP conference, JGW competitor Strategic Capital sponsored an online structured settlement "expert roundtable" which examined secondary market business practices and issues. S2KM Managing Director Patrick Hindert participated in the expert roundtable and also served as moderator for NASP's annual primary market panel discussion.
• Former Executives' Lawsuit - Another 2013 JGW nadir occurred in October when two former JGW executives and directors filed a Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against current JGW CEO David Miller, three current JGW Directors and multiple JGW affiliate companies seeking to enforce a Tax Receivables Agreement (TRA) under which they claim they are owed approximately $35 million. A copy of the Complaint, which is posted on the structured settlement wiki, highlights JGW's complex organizational history as well as a shareholder focus disconnected from the welfare of its customers.

SEC Addresses Structured Settlement Transfers

Responding in part to concerns about secondary market business practices, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Investor Education and Advocacy issued an Investor Bulletin in 2013 titled "Pension or Settlement Income Streams: What You Need to Know Before Buying or Selling Them".

The Investor Bulletin highlights questions potential sellers and investors should ask before proceeding with proposed structured settlement transfers and includes a number of additional warnings and resource links.

A responding article , written by two industry leaders, characterized 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." The authors assert the SEC Investor Bulletin should have clarified the following features of structured settlement factoring transactions:

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

Secondary Market Growth

Despite problems and controversies, the U.S. structured settlement secondary market appears to have experienced additional growth during 2013. Based upon various industry sources, and subject to future revisions based upon subsequent information, S2KM estimates the 2013 structured settlement secondary market has increased approximately 7% compared with 2012 resulting from approximately 12,800 transfers and $385 million PV of secondary market purchases.

Adding these 2013 numbers to prior historic estimates, S2KM estimates:

• Approximately 149,000 structured settlement transfers have occurred since 1986;
• Involving approximately 74,000 recipients - many of whom have made multiple transfers;
• With approximately $4.4 billion PV in aggregate sums paid to those recipients.
• For an average of approximately $30,000 per transfer.

For comparison, S2KM estimates the primary market has sold approximately $139 billion PV of structured settlement annuities to approximately 800,000 recipients since 1975 with an average premium of approximately $174,000.

For additional S2KM reporting about the secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki. For additional S2KM 2013 annual reports, see:

• Part 1 - Primary market.
• Part 2 - Settlement planning.

Structured Settlements 2013 - Settlement Planning

Despite an abundance of related professional associations, participants and conferences, as well as legislative and regulatory developments, personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) remains an evolving concept with competing definitions, standards and business models and many unanswered questions.

Professional associations whose members engage in settlement planning include: NSSTA, SSP, NAELA, ASNP, SNA, NAMSAP, AANLCP - and NASP assuming the definition of settlement planning includes adjustments during an injury victim's lifetime.

Settlement planners consist, or represent a blend, of several professionals in addition to traditional personal injury litigation participants. These professionals include: tax attorneys, special needs attorneys, trustees, financial planners, structured settlement specialists, life care planners, economists, Medicare set-aside (MSA) specialists and damage allocators.

Settlement planning topics are featured not only at national conferences sponsored by professional associations but also at conferences entirely focused on specific settlement planning products and issues (e.g. Qualified Settlement Funds [QSFs]; MSAs; special needs trusts [SNTs]; structured settlement annuities; structured settlement transfers).

Described alternatively by advocates as 1) a profession, 2) a process, 3) a community of practice and/or 4) a market, fundamental settlement planning issues exist which industry leaders have not yet adequately addressed:

• How large is the U.S. personal injury settlement planning market and its various sub-markets?
• What laws define and which regulators oversee personal injury settlement planning?
• What generally accepted settlement planning industry standards exist - and what is their source:
  • Definitions?
  • Documents?
  • Processes?
  • Product suitability?
  • Educational resources?
  • Certification programs?
  • Licensing requirements?
• What is a settlement plan?
• Have any professional associations attempted to define or develop a "standard" settlement plan?
• If such a standard settlement plan exists, what general and/or case specific reports and documents are required?

Settlement Planning 2013 Legislative and Regulatory Developments

• Affordable Care Act - Consisting of two laws enacted in March of 2010 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010), the Affordable Care Act (ACA) promises to have a profound, though still uncertain, impact on settlement planning once its primary features (including the individual mandate and protections against pre-existing conditions) become effective January 1, 2014. S2KM published four blog reviews during 2013 examining various ACA-related settlement planning issues:
  • Part 1 - The ACA's impact on future medical damages in personal injury cases.
  • Part 2 - The ACA's impact on the collateral source rule.
  • Part 3 - The ACA's Medicare cost-saving components.
  • Part 4 - Reactions to the California Exchange report announcing premium rates.
• CMS WCMSA Reference Guide - Workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs) represent a strategic and growing settlement planning sub-market in which structured settlement annuities have been granted an inherent cost advantage over lump sum funding alternatives as a result of a 2004 CMS policy memorandum. During 2013, CMS first published, then subsequently updated, a WCMSA Reference Guide. S2KM's published two blog posts summarizing the initial 88 page WCMSA Reference Guide:
  • Part 1 - Non-structured settlement issues.
  • Part 2 - Structured settlement issues.
  • For highlights of the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide Version 2.0, see this blog post written by Douglas Shaw.
• SMART Act - Signed into law on January 10, 2013, the “Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act” (SMART Act) is intended to improve the efficiency of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) system by requiring CMS to simplify its review process and to eliminate uncertainty and delays. CMS published related regulations in September thereby committing to:
  • Implement a web portal by January 1, 2016 to enable beneficiaries, their attorneys, other representatives or applicable plans to obtain important MSA information; and
  • Enhance the functionality of the MSA web portal to insure disputes and discrepancies are addressed within 11 business days following receipt of dispute documentation.
• Defense of Marriage Act - The United States v. Windsor case, decided June 26, 2013 by the United States Supreme Court, held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment. Among its many consequences, the Windsor decision will impact settlement planning for cases involving same-gender couples. For additional analysis, see this S2KM blog post.
• Dodd-Frank Uniform Fiduciary Standard - Among many other provisions, the "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" (Dodd-Frank) directed the SEC to study the need for a new, uniform fiduciary standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers and to apply such a uniform standard if it deemed necessary. This study is potentially important for settlement planning because the market currently lacks a uniform product suitability standard. Although the SEC published a fiduciary standard study in January 2011, it has not yet published any related regulations. S2KM reviewed settlement planning product suitability standards in a four-part 2012 blog series.
• Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (added January 7, 2014) - Section 202(b) of this statute, which will take effect October 1, 2014, modifies the federal Medicaid Secondary Payer statute and permits recovery for “any payments by such third party.” It overturns two prior Supreme Court decisions (Arkansas v. Ahlborn and Wos v. E.M.A.) and, according to some experts, will significantly complicate personal injury settlements involving Medicaid recipients and make them more expensive.
• Potentially important for settlement planning:
  • New federal legislative proposals:
    • H.R. 1982 - “Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreements Act of 2013″.
    • S.B. 1672 - "Special Needs Trust Fairness Act".
  • FASB Topic 834 - proposed new accounting standards for insurance contracts.
  • Global Insurance Capital Standard - IAIS has committed to develop and implement the first-ever risk based global insurance capital standard.

For additional S2KM annual reporting of structured settlement industry developments during 2013 and for prior years, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements 2013 - Primary Market

The U.S. structured settlement industry in 2013 continued to define itself into three related markets (primary, secondary and settlement planning) with the liquidations of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) and Reliance Insurance Company representing important industry storylines.

This blog post reviews 2013 non-ELNY and non-Reliance primary market developments - focusing on structured settlement annuity sales. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will address structured settlement developments for the 2) settlement planning and 3) secondary markets and summarize 4) ELNY and Reliance-related events.

Primary Market Premium

Primary market structured settlement annuity premium and the number of structured cases have increased slightly during 2013 compared with 2012 based upon third quarter industry results compiled by Melissa Evola. Projected 2013 annual premium totals, however, will fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6,226,578,725 in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

Evola reports 2013 third quarter primary market annuity premium of $3,736,499,370 resulting from 19,656 cases ($190,094 per case average). Comparable third quarter results for:

• 2012 - $3,565,368,323 premium from 18,706 cases ($190,600 per case).
• 2008 - $4,429,915,586 premium from 25,545 cases ($173,416 per case).

Adding these 2013 third quarter results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru September 2013:

• Total annuity premium: $137.4 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 790,000.
• Average annuity premium: $174,000.

Individual Annuity Provider Results

Although overall 2013 third quarter results do not differ significantly from 2012, individual company production has changed dramatically per Evola's report. Berkshire Hathaway, which re-entered the market in 2011 following a multi-year hiatus, has assumed primary market leadership. Berkshire Hathaway generated $1,034,199,209 of structured settlement annuity premium (28% of the industry total) during the first nine months of 2013.

Berkshire Hathaway's structured settlement annuity premium and market share since 2011:

• 2011 - $116,458,245 annual premium (2% market share)
  • 1st - $4,976,847
  • 2nd - $11,311,378
  • 3rd - $39,880,339
  • 4th - $60,289,681
• 2012 - $824,962,720 annual premium (17% market share)
  • 1st - $97,187,721
  • 2nd - $193,222,438
  • 3rd - $181,111,553
  • 4th - $353,441,008
• 2013 - $1,034,199,209 nine months premium (28% market share)
  • 1st - $339,325,403
  • 2nd - $340,049,486
  • 3rd - $354,824,320
  • 4th - ?

With announced departures of Allstate and John Hancock during 2013, the U.S. structured settlement market now consists of eight annuity providers. Nine month 2013 sales results for other structured settlement annuity providers (per Evola's report) plus the rounded increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2012 results:

• Pacific Life - $600,146,000 (- $13 million)
• MetLife - $564,000,000 (+ $57 million)
• Amgen/USL - $434,691,262 (+ $25 million)
• Liberty Life - $409,286,609 (+ $118 million)
• Prudential Life - $372,700,000 (- $124 million)
• New York Life - $192,317,226 (- $75 million)
• Mutual of Omaha - $50,407,140 (+ $8 million)

Non-Qualified Assignments

Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC section 130. Unlike qualified assignees, non-qualified assignees are subject to income tax on the amount they receive from whatever entity assigns (or more accurately "delegates") periodic payment obligations to assignees who purchase annuities to fund obligations for claimants who do not qualify for tax exclusions under IRC section 104(a)(1) or (2) - such as employment discrimination cases or deferred attorney fees. 

Despite projections of a large and growing market, only two structured settlement annuity providers (AmGen and Liberty) currently offer non-qualified assignments. Nine month 2013 non-qualified assignment sales of $124,287,610 have declined more than $19 million compared with comparable 2012 sales totals according to Evola's report.

Growing the Primary Market

Many industry observers view the United States structured settlement primary market as a strategic, underperforming segment of the larger personal injury settlement planning market. S2KM looked at some of the related issues in a three-part 2013 blog series titled "Growing the Primary Market"

• Part 1 - Daniel Durbin's survey of primary market leaders.
• Part 2 - NSSTA and NASP 2013 Fall Conferences.
• Part 3 - NSSTA's marketing boot camp - "What business are we in?"

S2KM supplemented this analysis with a report on the developing global insurance capital standard which poses additional challenges for structured settlement annuity providers.

For S2KM's previous annual structured settlement industry reports, see the structured settlement wiki.

Former Executives Sue J.G. Wentworth

Former J.G. Wentworth (JGW) executives and Directors, Michael Goodman and Gary Veloric, (Plaintiffs) have filed a Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against current CEO David Miller, three current JGW Directors and multiple JGW affiliate companies seeking to enforce a Tax Receivables Agreement (TRA) under which they claim they are owed approximately $35 million.

In addition to Miller, other Defendants include: Paul S. Levy, Francisco J. Rodriguez and Alexander R. Castaldi (Defendant Directors); J.G. Wentworth, Inc. (Wentworth Inc.); J.G. Wentworth LLC (JGW LLC); JGW Holdco LLC (Holdco); JLL JGW Distribution LLC (JLL Distribution); JLL Partner Fund V L.P. (Fund V, and together with JLL Distribution, JLL Entities); and JGWPT Holdings LLC (JGW Peachtree).

The Complaint alleges:

• Plaintiffs and other principals sold the J.G. Wentworth family of companies in 2005 to JLL Distribution, an affiliate of private equity firm JLL Partners, Inc.
• Although Plaintiffs continued as senior officers thereafter, JLL Entities henceforth controlled all J.G. Wentworth affiliate companies.
• Anticipating an eventual public stock offering, JLL Entities in 2007:
  • Formed 1) Holdco to own all the J.G. Wentworth subsidiaries; and 2) Wentworth, Inc. as a vehicle for the public offering. Wentworth Inc.also served as Managing Member of Holdco and never had any assets of its own except for its interest in Holdco.
  • Determined they could maximize the value of their JGW investment by separating the value of equity from the value of various tax benefits.
    • For tax purposes, factoring companies recognize: 1) revenue over the term of the structured settlement payment rights they purchase; and 2) operating expenses when they occur.
    • This timing difference generates potential tax deferrals which, for LLCs like the JGW affiliates, are passed through to individual members.
    • Various exchanges of membership interests among JGW affiliates increased the tax basis of certain assets and resulted in additional tax benefits for Wentworth Inc.
  • Implemented a TRA in conjunction with the sale of stock in Wentworth, Inc. to participants (including Plaintiffs) in a private offering.
    • TRAs are frequently used to monetize tax benefits in IPOs because public stockholders may not pay full value for a company's tax attributes.
    • TRAs allow pre-IPO equity owners to receive the value of a company's tax attributes as those tax attributes are utilized following an IPO.
• Under the TRA, Wentworth Inc. agreed to pay to Plaintiffs and other principals 85% of its tax benefit upon certain circumstance including a change in corporate control.
• Because Wentworth, Inc. (a holding company) had no assets of its own, Holdco (another holding company) agreed in its LLC Agreement to provide Wentworth, Inc. with the money needed to satisfy the TRA obligation.
• Following the 2008 financial crisis, Wentworth, Inc., Holdco and JGW LLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy with a prepackaged plan of reorganization.
• The Bankruptcy Plan expressly stated that Plaintiffs' interests in the TRA and the debtors obligations to Plaintiffs remained "unimpaired" and Holdco, JGW LLC and Wentworth Inc. became jointly and severally liable for the TRA obligations.
• J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Financial Solutions merged in 2011 leaving JGW LLC as the surviving entity with JGW Peachtree as a subsidiary.
• To avoid TRA payments to Plaintiffs, Wentworth Inc.'s controlling stockholder and Directors structured the JGW Peachtree entities so that Holdco would not be able to fund the TRA payments.
• Without making any TRA payments to Plaintiffs, JGW Peachtree distributed $459.6 million to its principals in 2013.
• Defendants have advised Plaintiffs that no TRA payments will be made because:
  • The TRA obligations were extinguished in bankruptcy.
  • The TRA obligation is limited to Wentworth Inc. which is insolvent.
  • Wentworth Inc. has not earned enough money to pay taxes and therefore cannot receive the tax benefits.
  • Loaning money to Wentworth Inc. is not feasible because Wentworth Inc. is insolvent.
• JGWPT Holdings, Inc.'s November 8, 2013 public offering of common stock (or alternatively the 2011 merger with Peachtree) constitutes a "change in control" triggering the TRA payments due plaintiffs under the TRA.

The Complaint additionally sets forth:

• Causes of action against the various Defendants including: Breach of Contract; Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and Unjust Enrichment.

• Prayer for relief seeking: to enforce the terms of the Wentworth Inc. TRA and the Holdco LLC Agreement; to award damages including interest, costs and expenses; and to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien of $35 million on the proceeds of the JGWPT Holdings, Inc. IPO.

For a copy of the Complaint, see the structured settlement wiki. For a recent J.G. Wentworth update, see this prior S2KM blog post.

J.G. Wentworth Update

November was an "interesting" month for JGWPT Holdings Inc. (JGWPT), the leading purchaser of structured settlement payment rights, which markets under the names of J.G. Wentworth (JGW) and Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree).

Significant developments included: 1) falsified transfer orders in New York; 2) an initial public offering (IPO); and 3) a refusal by the Illinois Supreme Court to review the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals' decision in the Settlement Funding v. Brenston case.

Also during November, at the most recent National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) Annual Conference:

• Former NASP President Robin Shapiro expressed his personal outrage about "troubling reports concerning the structured settlement factoring business." At least some of Shapiro's criticism appeared to be directed toward some JGWPT business practices.
• NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt reported a controversial new business practice that is troubling JGWPT and other transfer companies. MetLife apparently is now actively opposing transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements. Under such servicing arrangements, structured settlement annuity providers typically remit the entirety of specific periodic payments to transfer companies to administer even when the original recipient/transferor only assigns a portion of the payments.

As S2KM previously reported, JGW, which was founded in 1995, had already experienced a tumultuous recent history prior to November:

• 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.
• Also in 2011, JGW merged with Peachtree in a stock swap, with JLL Partners retaining control of the merged companies which have each continued to participate in the secondary market.
• On January 30, 2013, Moody's Investors Service announced a downgrade of its Corporate Family Rating (CFR) for JGW from B3 to Caa1. Moody's also issued the same downgrade for JGW's $425 million senior secured term loan and $20 million senior revolving credit facility issued by Orchard Acquisition Company, a subsidiary of JGW.

Estimates of secondary market experts interviewed by S2KM in late 2012 of the post-merger 2012 market share of the JGW and Peachtree varied from a low of 50% to a high of 75%. These experts also believed JGW/Peachtree's share of the estimated 2012 U.S. secondary structured settlement market profits of $120 million was $100 million, or 83%.

JGWPT Holdings Inc.'s Amended Form S-1 Registration Statement, filed October 28, 2013 prior to its November 8, 2013 public offering of common stock, provides more recent financial and marketing information about JGW's holding company. Selected data:

• JGWPT's 2012 revenue sources included: structured settlements (89% of revenues), lotteries (6%), presettlement funding (3%), and non-structured settlement annuities (2%).
• For the year ended December 31, 2012 and the six months ended June 30, 2013, JGWPT:
  • Generated revenue from structured settlement purchases totalling $416 million and $222 million.
  • Generated cash from the net financing activities of its warehouse financing and permanent securitization financing facilities totalling $314.8 and $131.3 million, not counting $29.9 million generated from its most recent July 2013 securitization.
  • Used cash of $225.7 million and $163.3 million in its operating activities.
• During 2013 prior to it IPO, JGWPT distributed $459.6 million to its "common interest holders" resulting in members' capital of $38.4 million and negative tangible equity of ($96.2 million) as of June 30, 2013.
• Since 1995, JGWPT has
  • Spent approximately $585 million in marketing through multiple media outlets including $216 million during the past three years.
  • Purchased more than $9.1 billion of structured settlement payments. Its average customer has completed two separate transactions.
• During an average four week period, JGWPT generates more than 510 million advertising impressions which result in 80% of its target audience viewing its advertisements five or more times during that four week period.
• Kantar Media estimates that JGW and Peachtree have each spent approximately five-times more than their nearest competitor on television advertising since 2008 and together have spent over 80% of the total amount spent by all participants in the U.S. secondary structured settlement market.
• JGWPT's customer databases included more than 121,000 current or prospective structured settlement recipients as of July 31, 2013 entitled to approximately $31 billion of unpurchased structured settlement payments.
• JGWPT's nationwide attorney network covers over 3,000 counties. Approximately 95% of the proposed structured settlement purchases JGW and Peachtree present to a judge have been approved.

The stated purposes for JGWPT's IPO were to pay down some of its $572 million debt and to provide its pre-IPO equity holders (JLL Partners) an opportunity to earn additional profits. Post-IPO, JLL Partners continues to hold a 39% economic interest and a 63% voting interest in JGWPT while four of its partners sit on the company's Board of Directors.

JGWPT originally anticipated raising $300 million by selling 12.2 million Class A shares at a price between $19 and $22 each. When demand didn't materialize, the IPO opened at $13 per share and fewer shares were offered.

JGWPT's stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: JGW) and closed today (December 2, 2013) at $16.45 per share. At least one financial analyst with whom S2KM has spoken believes JGWPT's stock remains substantially undervalued and is worth at least $20 per share.

For additional S2KM reporting about J.G. Wentworth and the structured settlement secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki.