Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2016NOVEMBER 1-4
TONINO SACCO, ESQ.ELIAS N. FILLAS, ESQ.
Luigi Brandimarte, Esq.Lamont K. Rodgers, Esq.Brad S. Levin, Esq.Edward J. Quigley, Esq.Maria Barnett, Esq.Albert R. Matuza, Jr., Esq.Jeremy S. Ribakove, Esq.Adam Cohen, Esq.Andrew Siegel, Esq.Mathew W. Beckwith, Esq.Salvatore Asaro, Esq.George Vomvolakis, Esq.Richard E. Schirmer, Esq.Joseph Katz, Esq.Celeste Cohen, Esq.Joanne Ciaramella, Esq.James Benintendi, Esq.Nissim Abaev, Esq.Scott J. Laird, Esq.Peter J. Graff, Esq.Ying Hua Huang, Esq.Shibu J. Jacob, Esq.U William Sung, Esq.David L. Roer, Esq.James R. Baez, Esq.Wesley C. Glass, Esq.Patricia Lynch, Esq.Chad B. Russell, Esq.Todd R. Drummer, Esq.
OF COUNSEL
Hon. Peter F. Vallone, Sr., Esq.
BAYSIDE OFFICE42-40 Bell Blvd.Suite 301Bayside, New York, 11361
ASTORIA OFFICE MAIN OFFICE31-19 Newtown AvenueSeventh Floor Astoria, New York 11102 JACKSON HEIGHTS OFFICE78-05 Roosevelt AvenueSuite 1Jackson Heights, NY 11372
FEDERAL & STATE ADMISSIONSNew York, New Jersey, Connecticut U.S. Eastern DistrictU.S. Southern DistrictU.S. Northern District
Servicing the structured settlement secondary market since 1997.
A FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM CONCENTRATING IN ALL AREAS OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT AND LOTTERY PRIZE TRANSACTIONS • PERSONAL INJURY • REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND LITIGATION • LANDLORD TENANT • LEASING • WILLS • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE • PROBATE AND ESTATES • EMPLOYMENT LAW • BUSINESS SALES & ACQUISITIONS • CORPORATE • CRIMINAL • INSURANCE • MATRIMONIAL • IMMIGRATION • COMMERCIAL • WORKERS COMPENSATION • SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY • CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL LITIGATION • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS • PUBLIC AFFAIRS & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
PHONE: (718) 746-3440 FAX: (718) 746-4117
www.saccofillas.comPARALEGALSMercedes M. Arias Rosalind MendozaRetoria EstaphanAna GarciaMichele BrunnerCadine BramwellCatherine MitrotasiosKelly MihaliosDestiny TorresSamantha ReynosoMiguel AlarJessica TobarCharisse RichardsonDanielle KuchinskasXavier GarciaPolly TolisRuth E. Soriano
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn
David HanEric KimAbraham LeePauline PlioutasRichard ClaverieYamilett PernettAdriana SoleraJessica RiveraLaura MuñozChristopher DelCioppio, JDSteven Ingrassia, JDJohn Christoulakis, JDNorrisa HollomanKeisha SandyJennifer ReynosoRachel Prout
P L A T I N U M S P O N S O R O F T H E 2 0 1 6 N A S P C O N F E R E N C E
NOVEMBER 1-4
THE RITZ-CARLTON, NEW ORLEANSNEW ORLEANS, LA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
2016
WESTLAW® COURT EXPRESS®
Nationwide Document Research and Retrieval Services
© 2013 Thomson Reuters W-311958/10-13
Thomson Reuters and the Kinesis logo are trademarks of Thomson Reuters.
• Speed – fast delivery of essential legal information
• Experience – researchers familiar with structuredsettlement cases and documents
• Privacy – your personal information will never be revealed
Contact us today!Email: [email protected]: 1.877.632.7387
2016
5NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
GREETINGS AND WELCOME TO THE 2016 NASP ANNUAL CONFERENCE!
NASP MEMBER COMPANIES
123 LUMPSUM, LLC
Annuity Transfers, Ltd.
BofI Federal Bank
CBC Settlement Funding
Client First Settlement Funding, LLC
DRB Capital
Fairfield Funding
JG Wentworth Funding
Liberty Settlement Funding
Northeastern Capital Funding LLC
Novation Settlement Solutions
Peachtree Settlement Funding
Seneca One Finance, Inc.
Settlement Capital Corporation
Singer Asset Finance Company, LLC
Stone Street Capital, LLC
Strategic Capital Corporation
NASP OFFICERSPresidentPatricia LaBorde
Stone Street Capital, LLC
TreasurerRichard Connelly
JGWPT Holdings, LLP
Secretary Bob Thompson,
Annuity Transfers, Ltd.
Chair – Legislative and Legal Committee Jason Sutherland, DRB Capital
Chair – Membership CommitteeAndrew Savysky
123 LUMPSUM, LLC
Chair – NASP Database and Website Committee Stephen Kirkwood
JGWPT Holdings, LLC
Chair – NASP Conference Committee Doyle Chisholm
Seneca One Finance, Inc.
NASP Executive DirectorEarl Nesbitt
Nesbitt, Vassar & McCown LLP
NASP Association AdministratorSusan Barnes
Barnes & Company
I want to begin by thanking everyone for joining us here in the great city of New
Orleans. The past year has been a tempestuous one within our industry. It is
fitting that we are meeting here in this historic city renowned for its resilience and
indomitable spirit. We have weathered the storm, and as the skies clear we are now
able to see the opportunities on the horizon.
Principally, we learned how to be self-critical. Every action we take can be
interpreted differently, separate from our own intentions. With this hard-won
knowledge, we will rebuild and bolster the very foundation of our industry. And we
will be stronger for it. Here at NASP, we come together to share knowledge and
discuss what we can do to apply these lessons in a thoughtful and effective manner.
As always, I look forward to fruitful and engaging discussions as well as some great
Creole food.
Patricia LaBorde
NASP President
2016
6 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
THE RITZ-CARLTON FLOOR PLANS
Level One
L E V E L O N E
Level Two
L E V E L T W O
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
Breakout Sessions
Breakfast & Lunch
Main Conference
Tuesday & Wednesday Cocktail Receptions:
Level 3 Courtyard
2016
7NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
NASP BOARD OF DIRECTORS & MEMBERS LIST
MEMBER COMPANIES
123 LUMPSUM, LLC
Annuity Transfers, Ltd.
BofI Federal Bank
CBC Settlement Funding
Client First Settlement Funding, LLC
DRB Capital
Fairfield Funding
JG Wentworth Funding
Liberty Settlement Funding
Northeastern Capital Funding LLC
NovationSettlement Solutions
Peachtree Settlement Funding
Seneca One Finance, Inc.
Settlement Capital Corporation
Singer Asset Finance Company, LLC
Stone Street Capital, LLC
Strategic Capital Corporation
BOARD OF DIRECTORS /OFFICERS
President Patricia LaBorde Stone Street Capital, LLC
TreasurerRichard Connelly JGWPT Holdings, LLC
SecretaryBob Thompson Annuity Transfers, Ltd.
Chair – Legislative and Legal Committee Jason Sutherland DRB Capital
Chair – Membership Committee Andrew Savysky 123 LUMPSUM, LLC
Chair – NASP Database CommitteeSteven Kirkwood JGWPT Holdings, LLC
Chair – NASP Conference Committee Doyle Chisholm Seneca One Finance, Inc.
Board MemberDeborah Rosen Settlement Capital Corporation
Board MemberMichael Damore Novation, LLC
NASP Executive Director and General CounselEarl Nesbitt Nesbitt, Vassar & McCown, L.L.P.
NASP Association AdministratorSusan Barnes Barnes & Company
2016 CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Doyle Chisholm, Chair Seneca One Finance, Inc.
Susan Barnes NASP Association Administrator
Luigi BrandimarteSacco and Fillas, LLP
Paul Burns 123 LUMPSUM, LLC
Roger Dunaway Law Office of Roger T. Dunaway, PLLC
Doug EvansKroll, McNamara, Evans & Delhanty, LLP
Marc Harris Client First Settlement Funding, LLC
Mark HaslamJ.G. Wentworth Funding
Patricia LaBorde Stone Street Capital, LLC
Fred LoveSutton Park Capital
Sue MechioriLiberty Settlement Funding
Earl Nesbitt Nesbitt, Vassar & McCown, L.L.P.
Monica Ray Northeastern Capital Funding LLC
Abagail Adams Stone Street Capital, LLC
2016
8 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
2016 CONFERENCE SPONSORS
BRONZE SPONSORS
SILVER SPONSORS
GOLD SPONSORS
PLATINUM SPONSORS
THE MCPHERSON GROUP, LLP
Jack Kelly, Esq.
2016
9NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
SCHEDULE-AT-A-GLANCE
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2016
5:00 PM 8:00 PM
WELCOMING COCKTAIL RECEPTIONSponsored by: Westlaw Court ExpressLOCATION: Level 3 Courtyard
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2016
8:00 am 9:00 am
THURSDAY BREAKFASTSponsored by Schulte Roth & Zabel
9:00 am 9:10 am
DAY 2 WELCOME REMARKS
9:10 am 10:15 am
LITIGATION UPDATE
10:15 am 11:15 am
LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY UPDATES
11:15 am 11:30 pm
THURSDAY MORNING BREAKSponsored by Portfolio Financial Servicing Co.
11:30 am 12:15 pm
LESSONS LEARNED FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
12:15 pm 1:30 pm
THURSDAY LUNCHSponsored by GoldStar Trust Company
1:30 pm 2:00 pm
STATE OF THE SECURITIZATION MARKET
2:00 pm
2:45 pm
BREAKOUT SESSION I(Located on Level 1)
2:45 pm 3:00 pm
THURSDAY AFTERNOON BREAKSponsored by Portfolio Financial Servicing Co.
3:00 pm
3:45 pm
BREAKOUT SESSION II(Located on Level 1)
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 2, 2016
8:00 am
9:00 am
WEDNESDAY BREAKFASTSponsored by Fox Rothschild
9:00 am
9:15 amOPENING REMARKS
9:15 am
9:30 am
LOUISIANA LT. GOVERNOR WELCOME TO NEW ORLEANS
9:30 am
10:40 amJUDICIAL PANEL, PART 1
10:40 am
11:00 am
WEDNESDAY MORNING BREAKSponsored by Portfolio Financial Servicing Co.
11:00 am
12:15 pmJUDICIAL PANEL, PART 2
12:15 pm
1:30 pm
LUNCH Sponsored by Allied Servicing Corporation
1:30 pm
2:15 pmPRIMARY MARKET MATTERS
2:15 pm
3:00 pm
ETHICAL ISSUES IN STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT TRANSFERS
3:00 pm
3:15 pm
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON BREAKSponsored by Portfolio Financial Servicing Co.
3:15 pm
4:00 pm
OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
5:30 pm
8:00 pm
WEDNESDAY EVENING COCKTAIL RECEPTIONSponsored by Sacco & Fillas
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2016
9:00 AM 1:30 PM
NASP GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGIncludes Breakfast and LunchLOCATION: Broadmoor Room
750 attorneys | 22 offices nationwide
Samuel W. Cortes, Esq.610.458.4966 | [email protected]
Fox Rothschild is proud to support the
National Association of Settlement Purchasers
Since 1992, Portfolio Financial Servicing Company (“PFSC”) has provided uninterrupted portfolio servicing, backup servicing and successor servicing to the markets we serve. We offer our clients exceptional services, robust technology, an experienced and tenured workforce, and a variable cost model that affords our clients scalability, operating efficiency, servicing excellence, and an ability to focus on their core business objectives.
PFSC services structured settlement, lottery, annuity, royalty and life contingent structured settlements. Our services include contract boarding, auditing, document custodian and file certifications, treasury, split-payment processing, payment reminder letters, compliance processing, financial and managerial reporting, treasury and investor reporting, payment posting and daily cash reconciliations, life/death verification as well as backup servicing, data retention, and shadow posting.
PFSC has successfully serviced billions in portfolio value for a diverse client base. Our processes, technology and internal controls are validated during our annual SSAE 16 Type II (“SOC 1”) audit. We enjoy a high client satisfaction and retention rate and tailor our suite of services to the specific and unique needs of each client.
For more information please contact us at 800-547-4905 or www.pfsc.com.
Portfolio Financial Servicing Company 7303 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97267 www.pfsc.com
2016
11NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
TIME EVENT LOCATION
8:00 AM 9:00 AM
WEDNESDAY BREAKFASTSponsored by Fox Rothschild LLP
Lafayette Ballroom
9:00 AM9:15 AM
OPENING REMARKS Patricia LaBorde, NASP President
The Grand Ballroom
9:15 AM9:30 AM
WELCOME TO NEW ORLEANS Louisiana Lt. Governor
The Grand Ballroom
9:30 AM10:40 AM
JUDICIAL PANEL, PART 1MODERATOR: Matt Bracy, Esq. PANELISTS: Jeanette Dalton, Omar Maldonado, Elinore Marsh Stormer Sponsored by Green, Silverstein & Groff
The Grand Ballroom
10:40 AM11:00 AM
WEDNESDAY MORNING BREAKSponsored by Portfolio Financial Servicing Co.
Salon 2 and 3 Foyer
11:00 AM12:15 PM
JUDICIAL PANEL, PART 2MODERATOR: Matt Bracy, Esq. PANELISTS: Jeanette Dalton, Omar Maldonado, Elinore Marsh Stormer Sponsored by Green, Silverstein & Groff, LLC
The Grand Ballroom
12:15 PM1:30 PM
WEDNESDAY LUNCHSponsored by Allied Servicing Corporation
Lafayette Ballroom
1:30 PM2:15 PM
PRIMARY MARKET MATTERSPatrick Hindert, J.D.
The Grand Ballroom
2:15 PM3:00 PM
ETHICAL ISSUES IN STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT TRANSFERSPery D. Krinsky, Esq. Sponsored by Offit Kurman LLC
The Grand Ballroom
3:00 PM3:15 PM
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON BREAKSponsored by Portfolio Financial Servicing Co.
Salon 2 and 3 Foyer
3:15 PM4:00 PM
OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWSJeffrey Jacobson, Esq.
The Grand Ballroom
5:30 PM8:00 PM
WEDNESDAY EVENING COCKTAIL RECEPTIONSponsored by Sacco & Fillas
Level III Courtyard
CONFERENCE AGENDA Wednesday November 2, 2016
2016
12 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
MODERATOR:
MATT BRACY Partner, Scheef & Stone, LLP
Matt Bracy is a partner in the Dallas, Texas law firm of Scheef & Stone, practicing business and commercial law. For more than 10 years he was general counsel of Settlement Capital Corporation, and prior to that was the director of Government Relations for Metropolitan Mortgage & Securities. In both of these positions he was actively involved in drafting and implementing structured settlement transfer legislation in states and in the U.S. Congress.
Matt is a former Board member and president of NASP, heads the Judicial Education Program, and is a featured commentator on structured settlement issues on the Legal Broadcast Network. Matt has a BA from the University of California, Irvine, and a JD from the University of Houston.
PANELISTS:
HONORABLE JEANETTE DALTON
Jeanette Dalton, JD, graduated from the University of Washington with a Bachelor’s in Business Administration Degree. She later earned her J.D. from Seattle University School of Law [formerly University of Puget Sound School of Law] and was admitted to the Washington State Bar in 1984.
Judge Dalton practiced law for 24 years prior to being elected to the Superior Court bench in 2008. She was a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Norm Maleng at the King County prosecutor’s office until her move to Kitsap County in 1991. She then worked in private practice, opening her own successful law office in 1995. She also served as a Judge pro tem in Seattle Municipal court, Suquamish tribal court and district courts in Jefferson, Kitsap and King Counties. She also taught as an Adjunct Professor at Chapman University in Employment Law.
Judge Dalton has served on the Washington State Bar Association’s Rules Committee and as an Executive Board member of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys where she was awarded the President’s Award for Distinguished Service to the Organization. Among her long history of volunteer activities she served as a board member for the Kitsap Humane Society, volunteered with Hospice of Clallam County and was a member of the Kitsap Homebuilders Association.
9:30 AM – 10:40 AM
11:00 AM – 12:15 PM
MATT BRACYScheef & Stone, LLP2601 Network Blvd., Suite 102Frisco, TX 75034214-472-2149 (Direct)
JUDICIAL PANEL
HON. JEANETTE DALTONKitsap County Superior Court614 Division St. MS 24Port Orchard, WA 98368
JUDICIAL PANEL SPONSOR
2016
13NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
HONORABLE OMAR MALDONADO
Judge Omar Maldonado is a lifelong resident of Edinburg Texas. He graduated from Edinburg High School in 1993. Judge Maldonado went on to obtain a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Texas A&M University in 1997. Shortly thereafter, he continued his education by attending Texas Tech School of Law in Lubbock Texas. In 2001 Judge Maldonado graduated and received his Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from Texas Tech School of Law. Upon returning home Judge Maldonado began his own private practice in the areas of Criminal, Family, and Civil law. Judge Maldonado continued to serve his community in private practice from 2001-2014.
In March 2014 Judge Maldonado was successful in becoming the first elected Judge of County Court at Law #8 in Hidalgo County TX. Judge Omar Maldonado currently presides over County Court #8, where he oversees cases in the areas of criminal, civil, and family matters. With a focus and determination on making his court run as efficient as possible, Judge Maldonado and his staff have implemented policies and procedures that have helped them streamline the cases appearing before County Court 8. In his first year in office, County Court at Law #8 disposed over 3,400 cases, and they are currently on track to surpass the disposed rate in only their second year.
9:30 AM – 10:40 AM 11:00 AM – 12:15 PM
HONORABLE ELINORE MARSH STORMER
Judge Elinore Marsh Stormer graduated from Davidson College’s Honors College and received her Juris Doctorate from The University of Akron School of Law. Judge Stormer practiced law until 1989 when she became General Counsel to the Summit County Executive. In 1991, Judge Stormer was elected judge of Akron Municipal Court, and in November 2004, judge in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.
As a judge, she has been a leader in specialized treatment courts for offenders. She began the first mental health court in Ohio and the first municipal drug court. In the Court of Common Pleas, she began a reentry court to help offenders returning from prison.
In 2012, Judge Stormer was elected to the Probate Court and reelected in 2014. Since taking office, she has started a Mediation Program and a free Help Desk. Consistent with other Probate Courts, she has begun Senior Visitor and Volunteer Guardian Programs.
Among others, Judge Stormer serves as a board member of the Akron Children’s Hospital. She is currently a member of the Probate Section of the Ohio Judicial Conference. In the past, she has served the Boards of Women’s Network, Weathervane Playhouse, Oriana House Advisory Board, and The Salvation Army Advisory Board as well as the Supreme Court of Ohio Advisory Committee on the Mentally Ill in the Courts, and numerous other community organizations.
Judge Stormer has received many community awards including a 2015 Woman of Achievement Award from Women’s Network, in the 2014 Pinnacle Award and the Spirit Award from Stewarts Caring Place. In 2013 she received the Outstanding Alumni Award from the University of Akron Law School.
JUDICIAL PANEL
HON. ELINORE MARSH STORMERSummit County Probate Court Ohio209 South High StreetAkron, OH 44308-1616
HON. OMAR MALDONADOHidalgo County Court #8, Texas100 N. Closner Blvd.Annex BuildingEdinburg, TX 78539(956) 292-7740
2016
14 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
PRIMARY MARKET MATTERS
PATRICK JOHANN HINDERTManaging Director, S2KM Limited
Patrick Hindert is Managing Director of S2KM Limited, a consulting company located in Warren County, Ohio that specializes in structured settlements and personal injury settlement planning. Hindert is a member of the Ohio Bar Association. He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Michigan Law School. Hindert has been a leader within the United States structured settlement industry since its inception. He co-founded Benefit Designs, Inc. in 1977 and developed it into a national structured settlement intermediary before selling the company in 1999. Hindert has previously served as President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and Executive Director of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP). A NSSTA CSSC recipient, Hindert currently serves as Chairman of NSSTA’s Special Needs Attorney Task Force as well as a member of NSSTA’s Legal Committee and CSSC Committee.
Hindert co-authors “Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment of Judgments”, a legal treatise published in 1986 by Law Journal Press and updated semi-annually. Both NSSTA and SSP feature “Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments” in their certification programs. Hindert also authors S2KM’s blog “Beyond Structured Settlements” and the “Structured Settlement Wiki.”
Hindert appears frequently as a featured speaker at national conferences sponsored by professional associations including: NSSTA, SSP, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP), the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), and the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP). Hindert was the keynote speaker at the first national structured settlement conference in Australia in 1994. Hindert also provided expert testimony to the United States House Ways and Means Committee prior to the enactment of the Periodic Payment Act of 1982. The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) honored Hindert as the 2012 recipient of its Alexander Hamilton award.
1:30 PM – 2:15 PM
PATRICK J. HINDERTS2KM Limited9057 Swigert RoadLoveland, OH 45140513-899-2100 [email protected]
Primary Market Update & Analys is
NEW ORLEANS NOVEMBER 1-‐3
Presenta(on by
Patrick J. Hindert, J.D.
Managing Director
S2KM, Limited Ph: (513) 899-2100 [email protected]
Market Overview • Introduc>on • Premium Size and Growth • Brokers and Annuity Providers • Market Segments • Significant Submarkets • Market Surveys
PRIMARY MARKET MATTERS1:30 PM – 2:15 PM LOCATION
2016
15
16
Market Developments • Leadership Transi>on • Pivot to Government Benefits • Legisla>on and Regula>on • Case Law • Lessons from ELNY Liquida>on • AQtude Toward Secondary Market
Learning Resources • Handouts
• “Beyond Structured Settlements” blog – hTp://s2kmblog.typepad.com/rethinking_structured_set/
• “Structured Settlement Wiki” – hTp://structuredseTlement.wikispaces.com/
• “Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment of Judgments” – hTp://www.lawjournalpress.com/player/eBook_139_Structured_SeTlements_and_Periodic_Payment_Judgments.html
PRIMARY MARKET MATTERS1:30 PM – 2:15 PM
LOCATION
2016
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
6 Th
e S
ettle
men
t Ser
vice
s G
roup
. A
ll R
ight
s R
eser
ved.
S
3 B
usin
ess
Mod
el
06/0
1/20
16
Sta
ge
3 –
Str
uctu
red
Settl
emen
ts –
Era
of A
ccou
ntab
ility
& C
ompl
ianc
e H
isto
ry –
Str
uctu
red
Sett
lem
ents
H
isto
ry –
Str
uctu
red
Sett
lem
ents
20
01 S
tage
3 -
Settl
emen
t Pla
nnin
g “A
ccou
ntab
ility
& C
ompl
ianc
e Er
a”
1982
Sta
ge 2
- St
ruct
ured
Set
tlem
ent
“Cla
im M
anag
emen
t Era
” St
age
1 “L
ump-
sum
” •
Per
iodi
c P
aym
ents
•
Ann
uity
Fin
anci
ng
• Q
ualif
ied
Ass
ignm
ent
• D
efen
dant
Con
trol
• “G
ray
Mar
ket”
(‘Tra
nsfe
rs’)
• P
rimar
y &
Sec
onda
ry M
arke
ts
• B
lend
ed P
rodu
cts
• C
laim
ant-C
entri
c S
olut
ions
•
Com
petin
g B
usin
ess
Mod
els
• R
isk
Ana
lysi
s
Hal
lmar
k Fu
nctio
ns
AB
A M
odel
Rule
s, N
AE
LA a
dopts
Cod
e of
Ethi
cs
§468
B Re
gs
(IRS
proje
ct)
1965
-197
5 19
76-1
981
1982
-198
7 19
88-1
994
1995
-200
0 20
01-2
005
2006
-200
7
2008
-200
9 20
10-2
012
Reg
ulat
ory
Gov
ernm
ent
Ben
efits
Taxa
tion
Stat
e Le
gisl
atio
n
Fi
nanc
ial
Inte
rest
Rat
es/
Cre
dit &
Reg
s
Mar
kets
Seco
ndar
y M
arke
t 1s
t Tra
nsfe
r of
Stru
cture
d Sett
lemen
t, (S2
) pa
ymen
t righ
ts (‘fa
ctorin
g’)
1st o
f 48
Sta
te
S2
Pro
tect
ion
Act
s
Sym
etra
La
unch
es
Cle
arsc
ape
Sym
etra
R
esig
ns
NS
STA
Bus
ines
s St
anda
rds
&
Prac
tices
NS
STA
ado
pts
Cod
e of E
thics
N
SS
TA re
stric
ts
fact
orin
g by
M
embe
rs
SS
P ad
opts
Std
s of
Pro
fess
iona
l C
ondu
ct
Cla
ss A
ctio
n La
wsu
its
Wei
l v.
Man
ufac
ture
s
Mac
ombe
r v.
Trav
eler
s
Dis
clos
ure
PLR
83-
3035
(co
st dis
closu
re)
HIP
AA
Gril
lo c
ase
Inso
lven
cies
Bal
dwin
- U
nite
d M
onar
ch
Cap
ital
ELN
Y ‘a
gree
men
t’ A
ssoc
iatio
ns
NA
ELA
fo
unde
d
NS
STA
fo
unde
d N
AS
P fo
unde
d S
SP
foun
ded
NA
MS
AP
foun
ded
NA
SP
1s
t affi
liate
con
fere
nce
Mod
el P
erio
dic
Pay
men
t of
Jgm
ts. A
ct
Inte
rest
R
ates
pea
k
Med
icai
d O
BR
A ’9
3 (S
NT)
First
Exe
cutiv
e/ E
xecu
tive L
ife (C
A)
Sma
ll Bus
Job
Pro
tect A
ct ’96
Mod
el S
tate
S
truct
ured
S
ettle
men
t P
rote
ctio
n A
ct
Rev
ised
UC
C
Arti
cle
9 N
Y,FL
,MA
,MN
ad
opt S
2 di
sclo
sure
ru
les
Pen
nsyl
vani
a R
ule
229.
2
NA
IC M
odel
C
ompe
nsat
ion
Dis
clos
ure
Sta
tem
ent
NA
IC M
odel
Unf
air
Trad
e P
rote
ctio
n A
ct
Vict
ims
of T
erro
rism
Ta
x R
elie
f Act
(‘9
11 F
und’
– §58
91)
Jose
ph v
. City
of N
Y
Am
eric
an J
ob
Cre
atio
n A
ct
Gra
mm
Le
ach
Bile
y
Per
iodi
c P
aym
ent
Sett
lemen
t Act
(§13
0 QAR
)
TAM
RA
Tax
Ref
orm
A
ct
Uni
form
P
erio
dic
Pay
men
t of
Jgm
ts. A
ct
Uni
form
P
rude
nt
Inve
stor
A
ct (U
PIA)
Stru
ctur
ed
Set
tlem
ent
Rev
enue
R
ulin
gs
CA
Sup
rem
e C
ourt
appr
oves
MIC
RA
AIG
bail
out,
Lehm
an B
ros &
JG
Wen
twor
th bankrp
Cre
dit &
Liq
uidi
ty
Cris
is
Def
icit
Red
uctio
n A
ct
(DR
A)
US
v.
B
axte
r
Tax P
ayer
Reli
ef A
ct ‘97
(W
C-QAR
§130
)
US v
Stric
ker
Cer
on v.
H
ende
rson
• Fu
ll D
iscl
osur
e •
Info
rmed
Con
sent
•
Re-
allo
cate
d
R
espo
nsib
ilitie
s •
Saf
e H
arbo
rs
48 S
tates
S
2 Pr
otect
Acts
Fres
no
Cou
nty
Cas
es
Inte
rest
R
ates
bot
tom
Hea
lth C
are
Ref
orm
(P
PPCA
‘10)
M
MS
EA
en
acte
d C
MS
‘01
Issu
es M
SP
‘Pat
el’ p
olicy
mem
o (1
st of 1
7 mem
os)
OB
RA
’80
Incl. M
edica
re
Seco
ndar
y Pa
yer A
ct (M
SP)
Socia
l Se
curity
Act
Me
dicar
e/ Me
dicaid
CM
S
MS
P R
egs
42 C
FR 4
11.4
6
Sal
tzbu
rg &
Che
mer
insk
y (’0
6 pap
er to
AAJ
)
ELN
Y Ins
olven
cy
Spen
cer v
. H
artfo
rd
Rev
Pro
c 93
-34
(Re:
§468
B)
(QSF
)
Mar
k Ant
hony
Fowl
er S
NT v.
Well
s Fa
rgo
(U
PIA
uphe
ld)
US A
tty W
DNY
sets
Liabil
ity M
SA P
rotoc
ols
HHS-
Farm
ers v
For
key
CM
S W
CMSA
Por
tal
§104
Reg
s pu
blish
ed
‘Dod
d-Fr
ank’
Com
miss
ioner
v. S
chle
ier
• S
ingl
e R
ecov
ery
Rul
e “
Cas
h &
Clo
se”
• E
xcep
tions
:
Wor
k C
omp,
No-
Faul
t
His
tory
– “T
hing
s C
hang
e!”
Chi
lds
v Co
mmiss
ioner
(D
efer A
tty F
ee)
17
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
6 Th
e S
ettle
men
t Ser
vice
s G
roup
. A
ll R
ight
s R
eser
ved.
S
3 B
usin
ess
Mod
el
06/0
1/20
16
Sta
ge
3 –
Str
uctu
red
Settl
emen
ts –
Era
of A
ccou
ntab
ility
& C
ompl
ianc
e H
isto
ry –
Str
uctu
red
Sett
lem
ents
D
raft
Stag
e 1
“Lum
p Su
m”
1982
Sta
ge 2
– S
truc
ture
d Se
ttlem
ent
“Cla
im M
anag
emen
t Era
” 20
01 S
tage
3 –
Set
tlem
ent P
lann
ing
“Acc
ount
abili
ty &
Com
plia
nce
Era”
Hal
lmar
k Fu
nctio
ns
Sin
gle
Rec
over
y R
ule
- All
Cas
h E
xcep
t W
k C
omp
No-
Faul
t
Per
iodi
c P
aym
ents
A
nnui
ty F
inan
cing
Q
ualif
ied
Ass
ignm
ent
Def
enda
nt C
ontro
l “G
ray
Mar
ket”
(Tra
nsfe
rs/
Fact
orin
g)
Prim
ary
& S
econ
dary
Mar
kets
B
lend
ed P
rodu
cts
Cla
iman
t-Cen
tric
Sol
utio
ns
Ris
k A
naly
sis
Fu
ll D
iscl
osur
e In
form
ed C
onse
nt
Com
petin
g B
usin
ess
Mod
els
Re-
Allo
cate
d R
espo
nsib
ilitie
s C
oord
inat
e C
olla
tera
l Sou
rces
Saf
e H
arbo
r Fo
cus
on S
uita
bilit
y
1965
-197
5 19
76-1
981
1982
-198
7 19
88-1
994
1995
-200
0 20
01-2
005
2006
-200
7 20
08-2
009
2010
-201
2 20
13-2
016
Reg
ulat
ory
Gov
ernm
ent
Ben
efits
Socia
l Sec
urity
Ac
t Med
icare
/ Me
dicaid
OBRA
’80 I
ncl.
Medic
are
MSP
- Sec
ond
Paye
r Act
CMS
MSP
Regs
42
CFR
411.4
6
Medic
aid O
BRA
‘93
(SNT
) ’01
CMS
Issu
es M
SP
“Pate
l” poli
cy m
emo (
1st of 1
7 mem
os)
US v
Baxte
r
Defic
it Red
uctio
n Act
(DRA
) MM
SEA
– ’07
(M
SP S
ectio
n 111
Rep
ortin
g )
Healt
hcar
e Refo
rm
PPPC
A ’10
US
v St
ricke
r CM
S W
CMSA
Por
tal
Smar
t Act
‘12
MSPR
C – N
GHP
Reco
ncilia
tion C
enter
Be
nefits
Coo
rdina
tion
Reco
very
Ctr –
BCRC
Taxa
tion
Stru
cture
d Se
ttleme
nt Re
venu
e Ru
lings
Perio
dic P
mt S
tlmt
Act -
§130
QAR
Ta
x Refo
rm A
ct
TAMR
A Ch
ilds v
Com
m’r
Rev P
roc 9
3-34
(§
468B
QSF
)
Comm
’r v S
chlei
er
Sm B
us Jo
b Pro
tect A
ct
Tax P
ayer
Reli
ef Ac
t ‘97
(WC-
QAR
§130
)
Victi
ms of
Terro
rism
Tax R
elief
Act
(911
Fun
d - §5
891)
Am
erica
n Job
Cre
ation
Act
§468
B Re
gs (p
rojec
t) §1
04 R
egs P
ublis
hed
Able
Act IR
C §5
29
PLR
– 143
928-
13
Index
annu
ity as
set &
‘ha
rdsh
ip co
nver
sion’
Sta
te
Legi
slat
ion
Mode
l Per
iodic
Paym
ent o
f Jg
mts A
ct
CA S
upre
me C
rt Ap
prov
es M
ICRA
Un
iform
Acts
: Pe
riodic
Pmt
of Jg
mts
Prud
ent In
vest-
(UPI
A)
Revis
ed U
CC A
rticle
9 Mo
del S
tate S
tructu
red
Settle
ment
Prote
ction
Act
NAIC
Mod
el Un
fair T
rade
Pro
tect A
ct NA
IC M
odel
Comp
Disc
losur
e Stm
t
NY, F
L, MA
, MN
Adop
t Rule
s for
St
ructu
red S
ettlem
ent D
isclos
ure
Penn
sylva
nia R
ule 22
9.2
Mark
Antho
ny F
owler
SN
T v W
ells F
argo
(U
PIA
uphe
ld)
Fina
ncia
l In
tere
st R
ates
, Cre
dit/L
iqui
dity
Int
eres
t Rate
s Pea
k Cr
edit &
Liqu
idity
Crisi
s Int
eres
t Rate
s Bott
om
Mar
kets
Sec
onda
ry M
kt
1st Tra
nsfer
of S
2 Pm
t Righ
ts (fa
ctorin
g)
1st of 4
9 Stat
e S2
Prote
ction
Stat
utes (
S2PA
) Sy
metra
Laun
ches
Clea
rscap
e Sy
metra
Res
igns N
SSTA
Fr
esno
Cnty
Cas
es
Ce
ron v
Hen
derso
n 49
Stat
es S
2PA
& Am
end F
L,VA,
MD,IL
Bus
Std
& P
rac
NSST
A ad
opts
Co
de of
Ethi
cs
ABA
adop
t Mod
el Ru
les
NAEL
A ad
opt C
ode o
f Ethi
cs
NSST
A Re
strict
s Fa
ctorin
g by M
embe
rs SS
P ad
opts
Stan
dard
s of
Profe
ssion
al Co
nduc
t Do
dd-F
rank
Br
ensto
n v P
each
tree
SEC
Inve
stor B
ullet
in wa
rn of
2nd M
kt Tr
ans
Cla
ss A
ctio
ns
Weil
v Ma
nufac
tures
Ma
comb
er v
Trav
elers
Spen
cer v
Har
tford
Dis
clos
ure
PLR
83-3
035
(disc
lose c
ost)
HIPA
A Gr
amm
Leac
h Bile
y Gr
illo
Saltz
burg
& C
heme
rinsk
y (AA
J) Jo
seph
v Ci
ty of
New
York
Inso
lven
cies
Ba
ldwin-
Unite
d Fir
st Ex
ec Li
fe Ins
CA
Mona
rch C
apita
l EL
NY “a
gree
ment”
Le
hman
Bro
s, AI
G Ba
ilout,
JG W
ent.
ELNY
Inso
lvenc
y JGW
IPO
Relia
nce I
nsolv
ency
CF
PB -
Prob
es JG
W
Ass
ocia
tions
NA
ELA
& N
SSTA
(fo
unde
d)
NASP
(fou
nded
) SS
P an
d N
AMSA
P (fo
unde
d)
NASP
1st Affil
iate C
onfer
ence
BiPa
rt Bu
dget
Act ’1
3 ov
ertur
n Ahlb
orn/
Wos
18
19
Beyond Structured SettlementsCommentary About Structured Settlements, The Secondary Market,
Special Needs And Settlement Planning.
PATRICK J. HINDERTStructured Settlements & Knowledge Management, (S2KM)
email: [email protected], website: www.s2kmblog.typepad.com Opinions expressed are his alone, and are not intended to represent legal advice
MARKET METRICS
Although its new “Growth Initiative” has represented a well-publicized, number one priority of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) during 2015, the results of this initiative have not yet produced a noteworthy impact on structured settlement annuity sales.
As reported by Melissa Evola Price, the United States structured settlement primary market has continued to slowly recover from its 2012 nadir during 2015 with first nine months annuity sales of $3.96 billion resulting from 18,635 cases - a premium increase of 3% compared to $3.86 billion resulting from 19,778 cases for the same period in 2014. The average per case annuity premium has increased to $212,703 from $195,305.
Based upon these results, 2015 annual structured settlement annuity sales can be expected to approximate $5.4 billion. The projected 2015 annual premium totals, however, will still fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6.2 billion in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.
RECENT ANNUAL STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT ANNUITY PREMIUM
» 2015 (third quarter) - $3.96 billion » 2014 - $5.25 billion » 2013 - $5.13 billion » 2012 - $4.82 billion
Adding the 2015 Third Quarter results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru September 2015:
Total annuity premium: $148.7 billion. Total structured settlement cases: 847,200 Average annuity premium: $175,600.
Nine month 2015 sales results (in millions) for individual structured settlement annuity providers (per Price’s report) which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) plus the rounded increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2014 results:
» Berkshire Hathaway: $974 MM (-12%) » Pacific Life: $642 MM (+16%) » MetLife: $592 MM (-13%) » Prudential: $563 MM (+22%) » Liberty Life: $422 MM (-2%) » Amgen: $408 MM (+8%) » New York Life: $298 MM (+45%) » Mutual of Omaha: $65 MM (+63%)
LOW INTEREST RATES
Many structured settlement industry participants attribute decreased sales to low interest rates. Market yields on U.S. Treasury securities at 30 year constant maturity peaked at 13.45 percent in 1981. Here are several historic average annual rates for 30 year Treasury securities (source: U.S. Department of the Treasury):
» 2015 (as of December 28) - 2.95% » 2014 - 2.97% » 2013 - 3.96% » 2012 - 2.95% » 2011 - 3.91% » 2010 - 4.25%
Submarkets - Multiple noteworthy submarkets, each with significant structured settlement growth potential, are incorporated within the annuity production numbers set forth above. With the exception of non-qualified assignments funded with life insurance annuities sold by NSSTA members, S2KM is not aware of published metrics for these submarkets.
Non-Qualified Assignments
Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC section 130. They are generally used to defer taxable damage awards such as punitive damages as well as contingent attorney fees. Because they do not benefit from the favorable tax treatment of IRC 130, most non- qualified assignees are “off-shore” companies located in jurisdictions which do not tax the funds received by the assignee as income.
Two NSSTA-member annuity providers (Liberty Life and American General) currently offer and separately report non-qualified sales
» Reported nine month 2015 non-qualified structured settlement sales by Liberty and Amgen totaled $159.0 million compared with $113.2 million in 2014 - a substantial increase which does not include non-qualified sales by a growing number of non-NSSTA member companies.
» Release 58 of “Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments” (S2P2J) features an expanded analysis of the non-qualified market.
Medicare Set-Asides
» A Medicare set-aside (MSA) is an administrative and funding mechanism utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare’s interests as “secondary payer” under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute.
DECEMBER 28, 2015
STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS 2015 - 1
» 2009 - 4.08% » 2008 - 4.28% » 2007 - 4.84% » 2000 - 5.94% » 1990 - 8.61% » 1980 - 11.27%
» 2011 - $4.97 billion » 2010 - $5.5 billion » 2009 - $5.4 billion » 2008 - $6.2 billion
» Although Federal law does not define MSAs, or mandate specific types of MSA funding mechanisms, CMS (the responsible federal agency) has established certain basic requirements for workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs). Under current CMS rules, structured settlement annuities have an inherent cost advantage over lump sum alternatives for funding WCMSAs resulting from the method CMS prescribes for calculating present values.
» Although industry reporting does not currently separate MSA annuity sales, S2KM has previously estimated that eight (8%) percent of 2013 structured settlement premium and 24 percent of 2013 structured settlement annuities were attributable to WCMSAs.
» Although no specific CMS rules or requirements currently exist for liability MSAs, one professional MSA administrator has informed S2KM that liability MSAs now represent 30% of his company’s cases and the percent is growing.
Special Needs Trusts
» Established by Congress in 1993 as part of the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act, Special Needs Trusts (SNTs) provide an authorized method for disabled individuals to hold an unlimited amount of assets in trust without disqualification for certain means-tested government benefits including Social Security Income and Medicaid.
» When utilized as part of a personal injury settlement, SNTs are frequently funded with structured settlement annuities.
» Similar to MSAs, industry reporting does not currently separately report SNT annuity sales.
» Although an important strategic relationship clearly exists between structured settlement brokers and special needs attorneys, neither professional community have fully embraced the other for reasons explained in prior S2kM blog posts.
» As a result, continuing opportunities exist to expand structured settlements funding of SNTs as well as other government benefit programs promoted by special needs attorneys such as the ABLE Act and the Affordable Care Act.
How large is the potential U.S. annual structured settlement market?
Based on recent Towers Watson studies, S2KM has previously estimated that more than $170 billion of United States tort costs (excluding workers compensation) represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys during 2014. Within that framework, and in the context of an S2KM interview, NSSTA President Michael Goodman recently stated his own estimate of potential market size for the structured settlement industry to be $8 to $10 billion range per year.
SECONDARY MARKET
Unlike the primary structured settlement market, which has experienced modest annual sales increases since 2012, the secondary market appears to have regressed according to industry experts. As a point of reference, based on interviews with industry experts in 2012, S2KM estimated 2012 structured settlement secondary market activity to be:
» 12,000 secondary market transfers - with less than 120 contested by annuity owners and/or providers.
» $360 million of total secondary market purchases (money paid to transferors).
» $30,000 average individual transfer.
Following zero (0%) percent growth in 2013, the number of secondary market transfers appears to have declined as much as 15% during 2014 with another decrease of as much as 7% predicted in 2015, according to various industry sources.
This decline in secondary market transfers received further confirmation from:
» An exhibit to J.G. Wentworth’s December 10, 2015 SEC Form 8-K which indicates a $48 million drop in structured settlement revenue for the first three quarters of 2015 compared with the same 2014 period ($764MM vs. $812 MM).
» J.G. Wentworth’s current stock price - which closed on the New York Stock Exchange at $1.82 per share on December 28, 2015 down from its historic high of $19.59 on February 28, 2014.
Industry experts estimate J.G. Wentworth currently controls between 65-72% of the U.S. secondary structured settlement market.
Based upon the 2013-2015 transfer estimates indicated above, S2KM further updates its estimates of historic (1986-2015) structured settlement secondary market metrics as follows:
» 168,000 transfers - involving 84,000 structured settlement recipients.
» $5 billion - aggregate sums paid to transferor structured settlement recipients.
» $12.9 billion - aggregate periodic payments purchased by secondary market companies.
Archive site for this reprint:Beyond Structured Settlements - blog post: December 28, 2015 Title: Structured Settlement 2015 – 2 http://s2kmblog.typepad.com/rethinking_structured_set/2015/12/structured-settlements-2015-1.html
20
21
Beyond Structured SettlementsCommentary About Structured Settlements, The Secondary Market,
Special Needs And Settlement Planning.
PATRICK J. HINDERTStructured Settlements & Knowledge Management, (S2KM)
email: [email protected], website: www.s2kmblog.typepad.com Opinions expressed are his alone, and are not intended to represent legal advice
MARKET ISSUES AND DEVELOPMENTS
The 2015 structured settlement marketplace could perhaps best be characterized as “changing the focus of our future” as industry leaders cooperated to create a positive future agenda to overcome, or move beyond, multiple challenges that continued to negatively impact both primary and secondary market performance metrics.
Industry challenges during 2015 included: 1) residual impact of the ELNY insolvency; 2) continuation of low interest rates; 3) unprecedented, negative secondary market publicity; and 4) an ongoing primary market generational transition.
Elements of the future agenda: 1) a shift in the traditional “protect and preserve” focus of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) toward an expanded priority of identifying structured settlement growth opportunities; 2) increasing industry unity evidenced by improved communication and cooperation among NSSTA, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP); 3) consumer protection amendments to multiple state structured settlement protection statutes; 4) expanding educational offerings with programs that specifically target judges as well as new industry participants; 5) public relations investments to help counteract negative industry publicity; and 6) further development and growth of a professional personal injury settlement planning market.
PRIMARY MARKET GROWTH
In a recent S2KM interview, Michael Goodman, current NSSTA President, offered a personal estimate of $8 to $10 billion per year of annuity premium as the potential size of the U.S. structured settlement market.
The U.S. primary structured settlement market, however, has never approached that annual figure and, in fact, has experienced a significant decline since its peak of $6.2 billion in 2008. To better understand and reverse this decline, NSSTA has re-focused its priorities on expanding the use of structured settlements.
As a first step in 2014, in partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA completed a three-part structured settlement survey project of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3) the results of which provided NSSTA members with marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.
During 2015 NSSTA organized an “Industry Growth Initiative” to effectuate Goodman’s number one priority of “identifying growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry.” This Initiative is focusing on three preliminary growth opportunities:
» Rejuvenate defense programs.
» Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA).
» Convertible deferred lump sums.
Goodman has further supported NSSTA’s growth priority with these related goals: 1) modifying NSSTA’s traditional “protect and preserve” message to inspire primary market growth; 2) moving beyond “interest rate selling”; 3) moving beyond a focus on factoring; 4) identifying and pursuing new markets for structured settlement annuities; 5) adding one or more new life company providers; 6) engaging new, younger structured settlement brokers; 7) providing a new and improved training initiative.
Although NSSTA’s renewed focus on industry growth has not yet noticeably improved primary market metrics, an important psychological and organizational foundation has been created which should enhance future performance.
INDUSTRY UNITY
One significant factor which arguably has hurt the structured settlement industry has been the historic acrimony which has divided plaintiff and defense brokers as well as the primary and secondary markets and which has resulted in three professional associations (NSSTA, SSP and NASP) frequently at odds with each other.
In the words of former SSP President Neil Johnson: Lack of structured settlement industry unity has been “a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive.”
During 2015, the leaders of NSSTA, SSP and NASP expanded prior educational dialogue which began in 2014 at NSSTA’s FallEducational Conference which served as a precursor for improved association relationships by featuring SSP President Neil Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde as guest speakers.
SSP’s 2015 Annual Conference included an unprecedented number of structured settlement association leaders as speakers and attendees including representatives of NSSTA and NASP.
During the NASP 2015 Annual Conference , Robin Shapiro moderated an historic “President’s Panel” featuring LaBorde and Goodman during which they announced a collaborative NSSTA and NASP legislative strategy to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes:
DECEMBER 28, 2015
STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS 2015 – 2
22
» No forum shopping.
» Payee required to attend hearing.
» Stricter application of approval requirements. Advanced notice of transfer.
» Required disclosure of prior transfers.
PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT PLANNING
With the advent of plaintiff structured settlement brokers, continuing legislative and regulatory developments, plus an expanding array of settlement planning professionals, products and product providers, structured settlements are now viewed by many stakeholders as a subset of the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning market.
Based upon studies by Towers Watson, S2KM has previously estimated that more than $170 billion of current annual United States tort costs (excluding workers compensation) represents payments to injury victims and their attorneys compared with a projected $5.4 billion of structured settlement premium (including workers compensation) for 2015.
S2KM has followed the development of personal injury settlement planning during 2015 by reporting on a number of professional conferences peripheral to the traditional structured settlement market:
» Stetson 2015 SNT Conference
» NAMSAP 2015 Winter Regional Conference
» SSP 2015 Annual Conference
» Part 1
» Part 2
» ASNP 2015 Annual Conference
» NAMSAP 2015 Annual Meeting
As NSSTA continues to evaluate options for growing its market, a new generation of leaders should more carefully analyze how to re-position their product as a fundamental component of post- Affordable Care Act personal injury settlement planning . This strategic adjustment requires a more comprehensive understanding of, and interaction with, other professional associations whose members also provide settlement planning products and services.
SECONDARY STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT MARKET
During her association’s Annual Conference, NASP President Patricia LaBorde described 2015 as “a year of unimaginable successes and challenges”. NASP’s “challenges” included:
» Two blistering exposes of “worst case” secondary market business practices which appeared on the front pages of the Washington Post on August 25 and December 27;
» An estimated 7% decline in the number of secondary market transfers compared with 2014;
» A market “leader” (J.G. Wentworth, with an estimated 65-72% of the U.S. secondary structured settlement market) whose stock price has plummeted to $1.82 per share as of December 28, 2015 down from its historic high of $19.59 on February 28, 2014; and
» Judicial decisions such as In re: Rains, a Texas case enforcing a statutory “no-split” payment provision and establishing a new and extensive “best interest” precedent.
The successes included the proactive and collaborative legislative strategy developed by NASP and NSSTA to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes. The first success resulted in amendments to the Illinois statute which LaBorde characterized as NASP’s “biggest victory since the Model Act”, because it overturned the result of the Brenston case and re-opened the Illinois secondary market,
Also during the NASP conference, Goodman and LaBorde jointly announced that Governor Scott Walker had signed, just prior to their panel discussion, Wisconsin’s first Structured Settlement Protection Act - thereby becoming the 49th state (all except New Hampshire) to have enacted such protective legislation.
During his subsequent “Legislative Report”, NASP Lobbyist Jack Kelly identified Florida, Maryland and Virginia among priority states for joint future lobbying to improve structured settlement consumer protection.
Continuing its priority of interactive judicial education about the structured settlement transfer process, NASP’s 2015 Annual Conference again featured a judicial panel addressing such topics as:
» Interpreting the best interest standard;
» Common mistakes at transfer hearings by attorneys, factoring companies and sellers; How to best present a transfer;
» How judges consider objections to transfers;
» What documentation judges want to see at transfer hearings; How to best protect the seller’s privacy;
» Information judges are not seeing presented that should be;
» Significance of the origin (type of personal injury) to the judge’s analysis;
» Impact of prior transfers on assessments.
NSSTA has likewise initiated its own judicial education program about structured settlement transfers.
Archive site for this reprint:Beyond Structured Settlements - blog post: December 28, 2015 Title: Structured Settlements 2015 – 2 http://s2kmblog.typepad.com/rethinking_structured_set/2015/12/structured-settlements-2015-2.html
23
Beyond Structured SettlementsCommentary About Structured Settlements, The Secondary Market,
Special Needs And Settlement Planning.
PATRICK J. HINDERTStructured Settlements & Knowledge Management, (S2KM)
email: [email protected], website: www.s2kmblog.typepad.com Opinions expressed are his alone, and are not intended to represent legal advice
Archive site for this reprint:Beyond Structured Settlements - blog post: February 29, 2016 Title: Structured Settlements Upate – 2015 Annuity Sales http://s2kmblog.typepad.com/rethinking_structured_set/2016/02/index.html
Structured settlement primary market annuity sales increased by $97,315,462 (approximately 2%) to $5,347,578,153 in 2015 compared with $5,250,262,691 in 2014 according to industry estimates compiled and recently distributed by Melissa Evola Price. Total 2015 structured settlement cases, however, decreased to 25,152 from 26,572 a year earlier for an average case premium of $212,610.
The 2015 annual premium totals still 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.
Adding these 2015 results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru 2015:
» Total annuity premium: $150 billion.
» Total structured settlement cases: 853,800
» Average annuity premium: $175,700.
Berkshire Hathaway continued its recent primary market leadership in 2015 by generating $1.306 billion of structured settlement annuity premium - an eight (8%) percent decline from 2014 but still 24% of the 2015 industry total. Evola Price’s report did not indicate how much of Berkshire Hathaway’s premium was attributable to reinsurance and/or non-qualified structured settlement sales.
The U.S. structured settlement market now consists of eight annuity providers (down from more than 20 as recently as 2002) which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA). 2015 sales results (rounded in millions) for the seven other structured settlement annuity providers (per Evola Price’s report) plus the rounded percentage increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2013 results:
» Pacific Life: $871 MM (+13%)
» MetLife: $772 MM (-11%)
» Prudential: $772 MM (+8%)
» Amgen: $613 MM (+29%)
» Liberty Life $548 MM (-10%)
» New York Life: $368 MM (+18%)
» Mutual of Omaha: $98 MM (+113%)
Evola Price’s 2015 compilation also reports an annual increase in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlement assignments (from $182.3 million in 2014 to $190.3 million in 2015) as a portion of the overall structured settlement numbers. Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(1) or (2) including deferred attorney fees.
Although Evola Price’s report does not indicate the percentage of structured settlement premium and/or annuities attributable to workers compensation Medicare set-aside (WCMSA) cases, WCMSAs have become an increasingly important submarket for structured settlements. S2KM has previously estimated that as much as eight (8%) percent of recent structured settlement premium and 24 percent of recent structured settlement annuities are attributable to WCMSAs.
Evola Price’s reports do not provide information about the structured settlement secondary market. For S2KM’s most recent estimates of secondary market metrics, see this prior blog post.
FEBRUARY 29, 2016
STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT UPDATE - 2015 ANNUITY SALES
24
Len Blonder is a structured settlement pioneer now beginning an unprecedented third term as President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA). It may seem counterintuitive, therefore, or perhaps wishful thinking, but one could describe NSSTA’s 2016 Annual Conference, which occurred April 6-8 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida April 6-8, as a “New Beginning.”
Following the transformative leadership of Michael Goodman, NSSTA’s immediate past President, however, the opportunity for such a new beginning now exists and the 2016 NSSTA Annual Conference Educational Program outlined some of the future possibilities.
TOPICS AND SPEAKERS
» Opening Remarks - Michael Goodman NSSTA Objectives - Len Blonder
» Settlement Experiences and Aftermath - Michael Goodman (Moderator); Tania Root; Todd Falzone, Esq. Wrongful Imprisonment: Claimant Story - Michael Goodman (Moderator); Kwame Ajamu
» Structuring Wrongful Imprisonment Claims - John McCulloch and Ryan Jandreau
» Trusts and Structured Settlements - Dan McCarthy (Moderator); Phillip Krause; Tim Denehy Mediators and Structured Settlements - Connie Klingler (Moderator); Hyram Montero; Len Blonder Projecting Future Economic Damages After the ACA - Roger Bernstein; Noah Katz; Nichole Segal
» Property & Casualty Insurance Program Growth - (Michael Goodman and Len Blonder - Moderators); David Crowe; Richard Woollams
» Legislative and Political Update - Eric Vaughn
» NSSTA Growth Initiative Update - Sean Coleman (Moderator); Jim Early; Melissa Evola Price; Ryan Jandreau SSPA Success Stories - Michael Goodman (Moderator); Andy Prindable; Sally Greenberg
» NSSTA Legal Update - Tim O’Driscoll; Peter Vodola; Steve Harris
S2KM COMMENTARY ON SELECTED TOPICSNSSTA Growth Initiative
During Goodman’s Presidency, NSSTA revised its historic and defensive “protect and preserve” strategy by embracing a new “Growth Initiative” which already appears to have gener ated new energy and improved “community” spirit. Progress reports for preliminary “Growth Initiative” priorities [re-starting
P&C programs; convertible lump sums; and Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) amendment(s)] were all positive. Equally important, the overall theme was forward looking asking: “How can we move forward? How can we change the dialogue?”
Supporting its “Growth Initiative”, NSSTA has also expanded its industry outreach and networking with other professional associations. Improved relationships among NSSTA, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) has helped unify the structured settlement market. Working together, NSSTA and NASP have added important consumer protection provisions to five state structured settlement protection statutes. As one result, Goodman declared in his Opening Remarks: “we can no longer use factoring as an excuse for not growing the industry.”
Len Blonder Presidency
How will Blonder, a 38 year plus industry veteran who, as much as any single individual, has been personally responsible for “protecting and preserving” the tax foundation for structured settlements, respond to NSSTA’s current leadership challenges and market opportunities?
“The times are changing and we must change”, Blonder stated, as he addressed NSSTA’s membership to begin his third term as President. “The business is more complicated. We must determine how the parts fit together. Despite plaintiff growth, defendants remain indispensable to structured settlements. Defendants must continue to play a key role.”
Unless NSSTA faces an unexpected crisis, Blonder said his plans for NSSTA include continued industry and community growth. Based upon the preliminary success of the “Growth Initiative”, Blonder announced it would become a permanent NSSTA committee and expand its current list of priorities. As a result of recent state legislative successes, Blonder stated he expects NSSTA to spend less time on factoring legislation and more time on judicial education during his term as president.
Among NSSTA’s challenges and priorities, Blonder highlighted: growing NSSTA’s membership and increasing membership diversity; continuing to improve relationships with outside associations; and improving public relations generally for both NSSTA and structured settlements.
Re-starting P&C Programs
Speaking as part of a panel discussing Property and Casualty Company Program Growth, Richard Woollams, President of Claims for AIG Commercial Insurance, provided a contrarian perspective concerning future structured settlement growth and industry change. Asked to predict what the structured settlement market will look like in five years, Woollams opined: “the same as today
APRIL 16, 2016
NSSTA 2016 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Beyond Structured SettlementsCommentary About Structured Settlements, The Secondary Market,
Special Needs And Settlement Planning.
PATRICK J. HINDERTStructured Settlements & Knowledge Management, (S2KM)
email: [email protected], website: www.s2kmblog.typepad.com Opinions expressed are his alone, and are not intended to represent legal advice
25
with more broker consolidation and better technology.”
Woollams also identified reasons why some P&C companies have reduced their structured settlement program participation: “competing priorities; increasing compliance requirements; and inertia”. Woollams further challenged NSSTA’s membership by stating: “in workers compensation cases, the savings for defendants is obvious. Can you quantify the cost savings with liability cases? Even a couple of points pays for program compliance and administration.”
Woollams’ challenge concerning “cost savings for liability cases” echoes findings about “metrics and analytics” from a 2011 study (titled: “National Litigation Management Study”) commissioned by the Claims and Litigation Management (CLM) Alliance (formerly “the Council on Litigation Management”) as well as NSSTA’s own 2014 survey of Senior Claim Advisors conducted by CLM Advisors.
Based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives, the 2011 CLM Alliance study identified structured settlement as the “most penetrated external initiative” among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed. Another “key finding” that emerged from the answers to the more than 160 questions covered in that 2011 CLM Alliance study: “litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them.”
Also relative to metrics and analytics, NSSTA’s 2014 survey of senior claims executives found:
» Only 20 percent of the participants reported having any set of objectives around the use of structured settlements.
» A majority of the participants did not measure referral volume and only half measure the volume of successfully written structures.
Affordable Care Act
A separate NSSTA conference panel discussion about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) titled “Projecting Future Economic Damages After the ACA and Collateral Source Rule Changes” highlighted one way NSSTA members can utilize structured settlements to quantify potential cost savings for defendants. That being part of an expert team that provides defendants with two-tier (with and without ACA coverage) case specific calculations of future economic damages.
As NSSTA’s ACA panel pointed out, the admissibility of ACA coverage for trial purposes (both for evidence and damage calculation) depends upon the common law collateral source rule which not only varies by state, but also is subject to current, state-specific post-ACA legal disputes as to applicability. This contested claims environment, plus the applicable expert damage team recommended by the NSSTA panel (featuring a structured settlement broker), represents both a strategic growth opportunity for NSSTA members as well as a priority for continued in-depth education.
Trusts and Structured Settlements
The NSSTA conference panel discussing “Trusts and Structured Settlements” provided another window for viewing potential structured settlement change and growth. Contrary of traditional structured settlement perspectives, which view trusts as competitive products in a zero sum settlement game, panelist Tim Denehy (who identified himself as a “settlement planner” offering trusts and structured settlement annuities) insisted: “A structured
settlement does not solve every problem. However, by offering additional products, I can sell more structures.”
Fellow trust panelist Phillip Krause, who also sells multiple settlement products, stated: “I analyze products as an investment fiduciary.” He added, however: “There is more potential liability with a multi-product model.” As an alternative to a multi-product model, Krause suggested structured settlement brokers might partner with, or delegate product sales to, a trust provider. Moderator Dan McCarthy supported a more traditional approach saying he continues to defer to plaintiff attorneys’ relationships with banks and trust companies.
NSSTA has been slow to explore and/or embrace the evolving settlement planning profession in which structured settlement annuities, as well as trusts, represent strategic, interactive products. Other professional associations, especially SSP and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), have been more proactive than NSSTA in analyzing settlement planning issues. As more plaintiff brokers offer trusts and other non-structured settlement products, and share commissions with defense brokers, NSSTA should consider helping its members better understand how settlement planning impacts the sale of structured settlements - creating new opportunities as well as risks.
Structuring Wrongful Imprisonment Claims
John McCulloch and Ryan Jandreau traced the history and explained the significance of IRC 139F which was enacted December 21, 2015 as part of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). “In the case of any wrongfully incarcerated individual,” IRC section 139F provides: “gross income shall not include any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary award (including compensatory or statutory damages and restitution imposed in a criminal matter) relating to the incarceration of such individual for the covered offense for which the individual was convicted.” Damages paid for wrongful imprisonment, however, which are not derived from a personal, physical injury, are not eligible for an IRC section 130 qualified assignment. Although the exact number of exonerees is not known, McCulloch and Jandreau cited sources estimating approximately 4000 nationally over the past 15 years.
NSSTA DIRECTORS AND AWARD WINNERS – NSSTA announced the election of two Directors: Mal Deener and Ryan Jandreau. In addition, the following individuals were honored during the conference:
» President’s Award - Debbie Sink
» Leadership Award - Susan Clark and Robert Caples
» Service to the Industry Award - Andrew McClain
CONCLUSION
Assuming NSSTA’s 2016 Annual Conference represents a “New Beginning” for the structured settlement industry, the upcoming year will be one of the most important, if not the most important, in NSSTA’s history. Based upon his leadership experience and prior accomplishments, Len Blonder appears uniquely qualified to help NSSTA determine how the parts of an increasingly complicated business fit together in order to continue to grow structured settlement annuity sales and improve the lives of personal injury victims.
26
CORRECTIONS AND OMISSIONS
S2KM began receiving valuable feedback to this blog post almost immediately following its publication. Examples:
The second paragraph under “Trusts and Structured Settlements” above has been changed from what originally appeared in this blog post, at the request of Phillip Krause, to clarify that he used the word “investment” and not the word “professional.” Krause explained: “An ‘investment fiduciary’ is a specific role within the management of a Trust. The Trustee delegates or directs investment decisions to the ‘investment fiduciary.’ The role of ‘investment fiduciary,’ is separate from the role of a ‘structured settlement consultant.’ An investment fiduciary uses registered investments with the SEC/FINRA. A broker dealer may also be involved in the approval of the appropriateness of investments held within the Trust. The oversight by an OSJ or compliance officer is also common.”
S2KM could (still might) write an entire blog post about the informative “Property & Casualty Insurance Program Growth” discussion moderated by Michael Goodman and Len Blonder and featuring Richard Woollams and David Crowe. Some of Woollams’ comments appear in the original blog post. Crowe also offered valuable insights and recommendations for re- starting P&C structured settlement programs including the importance of: 1) identifyinging one or more internal structured settlement “champions”; 2) showing the impact on a P&C’s bottom line; 3) defense and plaintiff brokers working together for a more efficient settlement process; 4) attracting bright young professionals to the structured settlement industry - a problem, he stated, is shared more generally by the insurance industry.
Archive site for this reprint:Beyond Structured Settlements - blog post: April 16, 2016 Title: NSSTA 2016 Annual Conference http://s2kmblog.typepad.com/rethinking_structured_set/2016/04/index.html
27
Beyond Structured SettlementsCommentary About Structured Settlements, The Secondary Market,
Special Needs And Settlement Planning.
PATRICK J. HINDERTStructured Settlements & Knowledge Management, (S2KM)
email: [email protected], website: www.s2kmblog.typepad.com Opinions expressed are his alone, and are not intended to represent legal advice
Joint overlapping educational conferences hosted by the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) March 9-12, 2016 in Tucson, Arizona provided S2KM and other attendees an opportunity to evaluate the current status of structured settlements within the larger, more complex personal injury settlement planning market. The SSP conference also transferred association leadership from Neil Johnson to Joe Tombs with Tombs promising to maintain Johnson’s leadership direction and to “pull SSP back completely from structured settlement politics.”
Among S2KM’s conference conclusions: Many personal injury settlement planners characterize structured settlements as a strategic product, and recognize new marketing opportunities for structured settlements resulting from recent legislation such as the Affordable Care Act and the ABLE Act . The traditional and collective structured settlement industry should similarly embrace an important opportunity to grow its premium volume in this larger, more complex, more dynamic market than it has in the past by more effectively:
» Analyzing the evolving personal injury settlement and special needs planning markets;
» Addressing concerns and issues about structured settlements identified by plaintiff and special needs attorneys; and
» Re-positioning structured settlements from a single product sale to the core component of an integrated settlement solution.
SSP TOPICS AND SPEAKERS
» Introduction - Neil Johnson
» Comprehensive Settlement Planning - Joe Tombs; Charly Schell; Joe DiGangi; Tim Denehy Rules that Apply to Insurance Brokers - David Childers; Jeremy Babener
» The Grillo Case - Craig and Josephine (Grillo) Sullivan The Mraz Case - Mark Wilson and Patrick Hindert Sudden Money - John Darer
» Alternative Products - Martha Hunt; John Arendt; James Creel; Chris Shumate; Michael Upchurch; Rick Miller. Medicare Compliance, Entitlement Planning and Lien Resolution Issues - Anthony Prieto
» Joint ASNP/SSP Session - Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts - Frank Johns; Joe Tombs; Jack Meligan. ELNY and Factoring Industry Lawsuits - Edward Stone
» Small Business Legal Strategies - Paul Valentine
» Missed Tax Opportunities at Settlement - Jeremy Babener
MARCH 24, 2016
SSP/ASNP 2016 ANNUAL CONFERENCES
Foreign Assignment Companies - Jeremy Babener NSSTA’s Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys - Patrick Hindert SSP President’s Statement - Joe Tombs
ASNP TOPICS AND SPEAKERS
» ABCs of Public Benefits - David Lillesand
» ABCs of Special Needs and Settlement Planning - Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller Keynote: “Raising Special Kids” - Maureen Beyers & Michael Farrell
» SSI Update - David Lillesand
» SNTs and Retirement Benefits - Melanie Marmion
» Recent Trends in Special Needs Planning - Blaine Brockman
» Joint ASNP/SSP Session - Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts - Frank Johns; Joe Tombs; Jack Meligan. “Tricky Issues” in SNT Administration - Travis Finchum; Herb Thomas and Daniel Cutter.
» Ask the Experts Panel - Kevin Urbatsch (Moderator)
DISCLAIMERS: Because of overlapping conference schedules, S2KM was able to attend only three ASNP presentations but did receive and has reviewed all ASNP conference handouts. S2KM’s Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, testified as an expert witness in the Mraz case concerning structured settlement and QSF issues on behalf of Adriana and Addison Mraz.
S2KM COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSSP Leadership
» In his closing message as SSP President, Neil Johnson continued to emphasize several positive themes including industry unification and increasing collaboration between SSP and NSSTA. Among Johnson’s proposed solutions for 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.
» Newly elected SSP President Joe Tombs promised to “maintain the direction of Neil Johnson’s leadership and even accelerate it in every way possible.” He identified the following “main themes” for SSP going forward: “to pull completely back from structured settlement “politics”, redouble our efforts
28
at educating our members and promoting a Code of Ethics, and a membership push to quadruple our high water mark for number of members. We intend to actively encourage our members who sell structured settlement to join and to become actively engaged in NSSTA. We will continue to offer a hand of friendship and cooperation in their agenda although we will be decidedly apolitical. We will also make no attempt no manage our member’s opinions or their expressions of their opinions.”
» As for structured settlements, Tombs stated: “we intend to emphasize comprehensive settlement planning which will have the natural result of de-emphasizing structured settlement annuities to some extent as we move alternatives including trusts, taxable annuities, investment accounts, etc. closer to the forefront. We will be increasingly product- neutral and more advice-driven and client-need-focused in the future.” Note:
despite Tombs’ assertion, and perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, multiple SSP conference speakers maintained that settlement trust sales, in particular, have actually increased their sales of structured settlement annuities.
» Tombs also promised “to intensify [SSP’s] efforts to stave off any further “infiltration” of our society by factoring companies and their employees. We will want to remain abreast of the goings on in that market as we have always attempted, but as a practical matter we are cutting off any new members or sponsors from that side of things.”
Marketing Feedback - NSSTA Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys
» During 2014, the National Structured Settlement Trade
Association (NSSTA) commissioned a three-part Structured
Settlement Survey project, conducted by CLM Advisors, and previously reviewed by S2KM, of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3).
» Although NSSTA has made reports of all three surveys available to its members, and featured presentations about Part 1 and Part 2 at previous NSSTA educational conferences, NSSTA has
not yet featured its Part 3 survey of plaintiff attorneys as an
educational conference presentation. NSSTA has also prioritized “rejuvenating defense programs” as one of three preliminary “Growth Initiatives” with no equivalent current Growth Initiative focused specifically on plaintiff attorneys or personal injury settlement planning.
» As one SSP conference presentation, S2KM’s Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, discussed S2KM’s analysis of NSSTA’s
Part 3 Structured Settlement Survey which, in S2KM’s opinion, provides valuable insights for improving structured settlement marketing and expanding and accelerating structured settlement premium growth. For example:
1. Only 4% of the responding plaintiff attorneys viewed structured settlement consultants as adding value for negotiations and/or case evaluations separate from, or in addition to, their knowledge of structured settlements.
2. 35% stated that structured settlement consultants fail to deliver value because they are concerned withstructuring as much of a settlement as possible.
3. 52% contact a structured settlement broker one week (possibly less) prior to amediation.
4. 38% make contact only after a casesettles.
5. Less than 25% are likely to have a client sign a letter acknowledging that they were exposed to the opportunityto structure a portion of their settlement before opting for an all cash settlement.
6. Although 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 astructured settlement for cases involving Medicare set-asides (MSAs).
7. Only 26% have ever structured theirfees.
Settlement Planning - A Special Needs Perspective
» Most presentations by special needs attorneys at structured settlement conferences focus exclusively on special needs trusts. As one result, many structured settlement professionals fail to understand the broad and expanding scope of special needs planning - or how it impacts, overlaps with and differs from personal injury settlement planning. A similar misconception exists among special needs attorneys many of whom identify financial and insurance settlement planners exclusively with structured settlements. The title of the one joint SSP/ASNP
presentation in Tucson (“Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts”) re-enforced this misconception. Fortunately and positively, the actual presentation discussion, moderated my Jack Meligan and featuring Frank Johns and Joe Tombs, addressed a broader agenda.
» Separately, both the ASNP and SSP conferences featured multiple presentations which captured the expanding expertise
of their respective members. For structured settlement professionals, S2KM found ASNP’s two “Pre-Session” presentations (“The ABCs of Public Benefits” by David Lillesand and “The ABCs of Special Needs and Settlement Planning” by Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller) especially informative. Also recommended for structured settlement professionals seeking a more comprehensive understanding of special needs planning: Blaine Brockman’s presentation (“Recent Trends in Special Needs Planning”),
» Urbatsch and Fuller speak and write frequently about personal injury settlement planning and are recognized as leading national settlement planning experts among special needs attorneys. Their settlement planning presentations frequently discuss structured settlement “issues” - often with negative
connotations and without rebuttal or explanations from structured settlement experts. What follows are structured settlement “issues” Urbatsch and Fuller identified in Tucson. In S2KM’s experience: 1) many special needs attorneys agree with these issues; and 2) structured settlement proponents
need to proactively respond to these issues - or risk continuing/increasing loss of potential annuity premium:
» “Income stream is inflexible and cannot respond to emergency or major cash needs; “High initial fees;
29
» “Investment returns nearly always lower than what a diversified portolio would produce; “Big ticket items, such as a home, cannot be easily acquired;
» “Unscrupulous settlement planning brokers over-structuring because of high commission;
» “Little regulatory oversight over industry – no fiduciary responsibility or licensing required to sell; “Misleading statements about flexibility;
» “How it fits into Plaintiff’s overall financial plan?
The Grillo Case
» The Grillo case, which establishes potential legal liability for plaintiff attorneys who do not advise their clients about structured settlements, was the subject of an SSP conference presentation by Craig and Josephine (Grillo) Sullivan. The Sullivans shared the remarkable life story of their daughter,
Christina, the Foundation she inspired and the Texas State Statutory amendment her case helped to enact.
» For structured settlement brokers and settlement planners, the Grillo case provides a logical starting point for discussing structured settlements with plaintiff attorneys. As a point of comparison, consider response #5 above under “Marketing Feedback - NSSTA Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys.”
» Another important settlement planning “takeaway” from the Sullivans’ SSP presentation: both Craig and Josephine emphasized the value of Christina’s original life care plan which served as a care management “roadmap” throughout Christina’s life accurately predicting future needs and developments which the Sullivans would not otherwise have anticipated.
» This important observation, provided by the only care givers to appear as speakers at the combined SSP/ASNP conferences highlights an important settlement planning issue: Why do other settlement planning professionals ignore life care planners - especially considering their strategic role defining “future needs” for personal injury damage analysis, as well as future expense allocations for Medicare set-asides and Affordable Care Act coverage? For examples:
» As leading nurse life care planner Wendie Howland stated in this 2014 S2KM interview: “I have never been asked to review a settlement plan to see how well it matches my recommendations.”
» The Urbatsch/Fuller presentation summarized above which identified multiple professionals for the “Settlement Planning Team”, omitted life care planners.
» “Comprehensive” settlement plans S2KM has reviewed typically don’t include any life care plan, or other document, providing a detailed “needs analysis”.
» With the exception of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), a majority of whose members are life care planners, none of the many structured settlement or settlement planning conferences S2KM has
attended during the past several years has offered specific presentations addressing the topic of “needs analysis” - or, with rare exceptions, featured a life care planner as presenter.
» Key related issues: 1) what does “needs analysis” mean in the settlement planning context? Who is qualified, if not life care planners, to provide “needs analysis” for settlement planning? What is the relationship between a life care plan prepared for trial (damage analysis) and a life care plan for settlement planning? Who, besides a life care planner, is qualified to transpose one to the other?
The Mraz Case
» The traditional objective and responsibility for plaintiff attorneys in personal injury cases has been to obtain the largest amount of compensation for their clients whether by judgment or settlement. By this standard, the law firm Lief, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein was notably successful in obtaining a $55 million verdict and subsequent $24 million settlement in 2009 against Chrysler in the Mraz wrongful death case.
» Settlement planning, in general, and structured settlements, more specifically, however, prioritize an additional set of
objectives and responsibilities for plaintiff attorneys. As a result, when the Lief, Cabraser law firm failed to obtain a structured settlement for Addison Mraz, the minor daughter of the deceased, after her mother, Adriana Mraz, allegedly requested Lief, Cabraser to obtain a structured settlement on Addison’s behalf, Adriana brought a lawsuit alleging Lief, Cabraser attorneys breached the duty of care they owed to Addison.
» On December 22, 2015, among other findings, a California trial
court jury determined Lief, Cabraser attorneys did not breach the standard of care or any fiduciary duty they owed Addison Mraz. Nevertheless, unrelated to damages associated to the loss of the structured settlement, the jury awarded Addison Mraz $400,000 of fees and costs she previously paid to Lief, Cabraser. The case is currently on appeal.
» Mark Wilson, the attorney who represented Adriana and Addison Mraz in their lawsuit against Lief, Cabraser, was a featured speaker at the SSP conference. Based upon the Marz case, and regardless of what occurs on appeal, Wilson highlighted the following structured settlement responsibilities as potential duties of care for plaintiff attorneys and recommended that structured settlement professionals and settlement planners utilize CLE programs to educate plaintiff attorneys about their potential liabilities. Plaintiff attorneys should:
» Educate themselves about structured settlement issues including how to avoid constructive receipt as well as the appropriate utilization of QSFs and non-qualified assignments.
» Recommend competent structured settlement professionals to clients (and retain them for advice) prior to settlement negotiations.
» Insert appropriate language in term sheets and/or settlement agreements to preserve clients’ structured settlement options.
30
» If and when necessary, know how to correct mistakes to preserve or re-establish their clients’ structured settlement options.
Plaintiff Broker Diversification
» The most successful plaintiff structured settlement brokers appear to be diversifying their products and services. It works, according to SSP speaker Anthony Prieto, “because it changes the conversation from a marketing perspective. There are a lot more people who want to talk to me about updates in MSP compliance or lien resolution than structured settlements. You see more cases when you offer other services. You become a problem solver as opposed to a problem identifier.”
» Prieto identified multiple sources of alternative revenue now available to settlement planners in 2016: alternative products (retail annuities, life insurance, managed money); trust company fees or referrals; lien resolution or verification fees or referrals; MSP compliance fees or referrals; attorney fee deferral programs; QSF referrals and administration fees.
» Although one SSP panel, discussing “Comprehensive Settlement Planning”, emphasized the importance of “planning before products”, another SSP panel spoke specifically about expanding opportunities for alternative (non-traditional structured settlement) settlement planning products: Martha Hunt (equity-indexed annuity riders); John Arendt (reinsurance); James Creel (settlement trusts); Michael Upchurch (rehabilitation facilities); Rick Miller (indexed annuities).
» Consistent with the themes of “diversification” and “changing the conversation”, John Darer made a convincing case for “transition expertise” as a critical settlement planning skill.
» What potential professional liability issues accompany plaintiff broker product and service diversification? The SSP conference did not directly address this issue comprehensively.
» Speaking about “ELNY and Factoring Industry Lawsuits”, attorney Edward Stone asserted that the “New Normal” (i.e. personal injury settlement planning) will not work if the core product (i.e. structured settlements) does not work. Focusing specifically on structured settlements, Stone asked whether a broker (plaintiff and/or defendant) owed any duty of care - and to whom? Also whether split commission arrangements changed the analysis? Based upon ELNY, he offered several related lessons for settlement planners.
» Insurance law expert David Childers provided SSP conference attendees with a traditional analysis of standards of care and duties of care for insurance brokers, agents and producers under Arizona law.
CONCLUSION
Personal injury settlement planning is a large, complex, dynamic marketplace within which structured settlements historically has represented a strategic, if arguably under performing, product. The traditional structured settlement industry has heretofore avoided the educational analysis and strategic association relationships necessary to help its “New Generation” membership successfully transition to the “New Normal”. It remains to be seen whether, when and how successfully future industry leadership will figure out how to put old wine in new bottles. Based upon this year’s joint SSP/ASNP conference (and mixing metaphors), it appears the “New Normal” train is already leaving the station with a diversified cargo of blended products and services.
Archive site for this reprint:Beyond Structured Settlements - blog post: March 24, 2016 Title: SSP/ASNP 2016 Annual Conferences http://s2kmblog.typepad.com/rethinking_structured_set/2016/03/index.html
31
Beyond Structured SettlementsCommentary About Structured Settlements, The Secondary Market,
Special Needs And Settlement Planning.
PATRICK J. HINDERTStructured Settlements & Knowledge Management, (S2KM)
email: [email protected], website: www.s2kmblog.typepad.com Opinions expressed are his alone, and are not intended to represent legal advice
The National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), “the only non-profit association exclusively addressing the issues and challenges of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Statute and its impact on workers’ compensation and liability settlements”, hosted its 2016 Annual Conference September 14-16 in San Antonio, Texas.
NAMSAP, which also seeks and welcomes opportunities to help improve Medicare set-aside (MSA) industry standards for documentation, work product and business practices, encompasses a highly diverse professional membership consisting of attorneys, MSA allocators, MSP compliance consultants, CPAs, claims professionals, structured settlement consultants, guardians, nurses, pharmacists, rehabilitation professionals, and life care planners.
As S2KM has observed in reports about past NAMSAP conferences (see links below), the combination of membership diversity, subject matter complexity, legislative and regulatory developments plus an expanding MSA market create extraordinary challenges for NAMSAP in planning and organizing its educational programs. This year’s conference, co- chaired by NAMSAP President Gary Paturneau and Michelle Allan, should be congratulated for setting new standards for attendance (180) and sponsor/exhibitors (15) as well as the quality and organization of the speakers and extensive handout materials. The conference educational program was divided into two parts: an “MSP Crash Course” and the General Conference.
NAMSAP 2016 CONFERENCE TOPICS AND SPEAKERS
MSP “CRASH COURSE”
» MEDICARE SECONDARY PAYER ACT 101 - Dan Anders and Leslie Schumacher
» GENERAL ANATOMY OF THE WCMSA REFERENCE GUIDE - Jake Reason and Kathleen Wyeth
» WHAT WOULD CMS DO? - Barbara Fairchild and Erin O’Neill
GENERAL CONFERENCE
» CONFERENCE INTRODUCTION - Gary Paturneau and Michelle Allan (Co-Chairs)
» MEDICARE ADVANTAGE ORGANIZATION CASE LAW - Ciara Koba; Heather Sanderson Hon Lee Yeakel; Jennifer Jordan
» CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES - Katie Fox; Monika Boswein
» CURRENT STATE OF CONDITIONAL PAYMENT RECOVERY - Michele Carey; Shawn Deane; William Delaney PRIMARY PAYER APPEALS - Deborah Robinson Stewart; Melissa Woitalewicz;
Kim Young
» ADVENTURES IN ALLOCATING - Christine Melancon; Beth Hostetler; Jake Reason
» SUBMISSION VS. NON-SUBMISSION (OPT-OUT) FOR WC - John Cattie; Jennifer Jordan; MeLinda Petit; Robert Sagrillo; Mark Sidney; Rita Wilson; Mark Walls (Moderator)
» LIABILITY MSAS - David Cherry; Roy Franco; Thomas Spratt SETTLEMENT LANGUAGE - Joy Brewer; James Raines; Vincent Quatrini
» CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW - Jeanmarie Calcagno (IL), Rodney McColloch (GA), Joseph Schneider (TX) WCMSA RE-REVIEW PROCESS - Carmen Folluo; Shannon Metcalf; Kimberly Wiswell
» MITIGATING COSTS WHILE PROVIDING QUALITY CARE - Amy Bilton; Amy Lee; Mark Pew; Pamela Schweitzer. WHAT IS AFFECTING STAKEHOLDERS - John Cattie; Doug Holmes; Greg McKenna; Gary Paturneau
NOTEWORTHY NAMSAP PRESENTATIONS
Among NAMSAP’s many outstanding conference presentations, S2KM found the following most noteworthy from a structured settlement perspective:
» The “Crash Course” presentation “Medicare Secondary Payer Act 101”, which also featured an informative Medicare Overview and included exceptional handouts, did not reference structured settlements. With that single proviso, however, this NAMSAP presentation successfully captured, organized and communicated applicable information and data better than any prior presentation S2KM has attended - and should become part of the core curriculum for future educational programs offered by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP).
» Another NAMSAP “Crash Course” presentation which arguably should have, but did not, discuss structured settlements, was titled: “General Anatomy of the WCMSA Reference Guide”. Specific references to “structured settlements” exist throughout the WCMSA Reference Guide - see, for example: Table of Contents 5.0; 5.2; 19.3; Appendix 3 (Glossary entry for “structured settlement”); and Appendix 5:15. Paradoxically, and more importantly, the subtitle for this NAMSAP’s Crash Course presentation (the “Final resting place for the old CMS memos”), is critically important for understanding why structured settlements provide an inherent cost advantage, compared with cash, in funding WCMSAs - as S2KM first
OCTOBER 09, 2016
NAMSAP 2016 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
32
explained in this 2013 blog post and which appears to remain just as applicable and important in the context of CMS WCMSA Reference Guide Version 2.5.
» Only one NAMSAP 2016 conference presentation (“Settlement Language”) substantively addressed structured settlements issues. Significantly, based upon S2KM’s review, the structured settlement documentation included with the NAMSAP conference handouts for this presentation raised potential tax issues and highlighted a fundamental problem. The CMS WCMSA Reference Guide Glossary defines “structured settlement” as “[a] settlement in which the agreed-on funds are paid from an initial deposit and subsequent deposits on a regular basis for a given amount of time.” Unfortunately, there is no specific link in the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide to either structured settlement tax law generally or the tax definition for “structured settlement” in IRC 5891(c)(1) or the tax requirements of IRC 130 and 104(a)(1) more specifically. Settlement documentation which may satisfies CMS, therefore, does not automatically satisfy the IRS.
» The concluding NAMSAP panel discussing “What is Affecting Stakeholders” provided a valuable, if overly brief, summary of the complex Federal and state legislative and regulatory developments re-shaping personal injury claim management and settlement planning. Although many of the Medicare-related developments were addressed individually by separate NAMSAP presenters, the “Big Picture” perspective helped to reinforce how dramatically and quickly systemic changes are redefining the marketplace. For the structured settlement industry to expand and retain a leadership position within these dynamic claim management and settlement planning markets, it follows (at least from S2KM’s perspective) that industry leaders must improve their collective knowledge of the changing landscape (much of it related to government benefits) in order to help industry participants learn to re-position their sale from a stand alone alternative product to a critical component of integrated claim and settlement solutions.
ADDITIONAL S2KM OBSERVATIONS
During the NAMSAP 2014 Regional Conference, then NAMSAP President Michael Westcott explained why structured settlements and MSAs produce “a perfect match that also saves stakeholders on the cost of compliance”:
» “A structured settlement is a contract that defines specific future periodic payments for a specific dollar amount for a specified time.”
» “An MSA is an agreement with CMS to pay agreed upon future costs for an agreed dollar amount for an agreed period of time.”
“Good settlement planning”, Westcott added, “requires that all professional advisers know the roadmap to compliance.” Unfortunately, he concluded, structured settlements continue to be underutilized amid too much discussion on process and too little on benefits.
Just as Westcott pointed out in 2014, structured settlements continue to be underutilized in 2016 - especially considering the inherent cost advantage CMS has provided for structured
settlement funding of WCMSAs compared with cash. Among the reasons (from S2KM perspective): a strategic knowledge gap separates most of the structured settlement industry from the MSP community creating, especially for structured settlements, educational needs but also business opportunities. Some examples and thoughts:
» Among a diverse, intelligent and influential group of NAMSAP speakers, 15 exhibitors and 180 attendees, only six structured settlement brokers attended this year’s NAMSAP conference; none of whom were featured speakers; and only one broker company exhibited. No structured settlement annuity provider representatives attended or exhibited.
» NSSTA’s current Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) certification program does not cover MSAs, or the MSP Act or government benefits more generally. This educational omission probably results, at least in part, from NSSTA’s historic political and marketing slogan that: “structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance”.
» Regardless of its historic accuracy and/or value, this political/marketing slogan now appears not only false but contradictory and counterproductive. For many of the most promising and strategic structured settlement submarkets (including not just MSAs, but also special needs trusts, the Affordable Care Act, and the ABLE Act) the challenges and growth opportunities require integrating structured settlements with government benefits.
» In 2014 NSSTA commissioned separate surveys of senior claims executives, claims professionals and plaintiff attorneys. Significant for Medicare and MSAs, two thirds of the senior claims executive survey participants said they believed that structured settlement broker/consultant skills had stayed the same compared to 10 years ago and that they would value more educational and informational services about MSA requirements. They also recommended that structured settlement broker/consultants expand their Medicare services. Claims professionals, when asked their preferred areas for more education, gave their highest response by far (71%) to MSAs.
» Providing a “carrier perspective” on MSA compliance during their 2014 NAMSAP Regional Conference presentation, claims executives William Paxman and Todd Reimer pointed out that, although MSA issues are increasingly complex, they tend to align plaintiff attorneys and defendants - a decidedly positive characteristic for the structured settlement industry which has struggled historically with plaintiff vs. defendant broker “issues”.
The structured settlement and Medicare Secondary Payer communities of professional practice increasingly overlap and share complementary knowledge and clients. A more formal working relationship that encompasses their respective professional associations and addresses shared educational, marketing, legislative, and regulatory considerations would likely improve and further expand both communities.
33
MSP ACT AND MSA BACKGROUND
MSAs are administrative and funding mechanisms utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare’s interests as “secondary payer” under the MSP statute. Enacted in 1980, the MSP Act requires certain insurers, including liability, automobile, no-fault and workers compensation insurers, to make payment first for services to Medicare beneficiaries regarding claimed injuries, with Medicare responsible only as a “secondary payer.”
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Federal agency responsible for administering Medicare policies, failed to take practical steps to enforce the MSP rules until 2001 when it issued the first of several policy memoranda addressing workers compensation (WC) MSAs. These policy memoranda created a format, checklists and procedures for seeking approval for WCMSAs to “protect Medicare’s interests” when workers compensation cases are settled.
Several of these WCMSA policy memoranda address, directly or indirectly, structured settlement issues. One of these policy memoranda (dated October 15, 2004) addresses WCMSA present value calculations and provides an important pricing advantage for annuity funding compared with lump sum funding.
During 2013, CMS published both an 88 page WCMSA Reference Guide - since updated to Version 2.5. The Reference Guide’s intended purpose is to help WCMSA professionals, beneficiaries and other stakeholders “understand CMS’ [WCMSA] amount approval process and to serve as a reference for those electing to submit such proposals to CMS for approval.” CMS has also published a WCMSA Self-Administration Toolkit to help self-administrators manage their WCMSA accounts appropriately. Both the Reference Guide and the Toolkit prominently feature structured settlements.
Although CMS and its field offices have also issued informal guidance about the use of MSAs in liability cases, nothing comparable exists to the CMS WCMSA memoranda, WCMSA Reference Guide or the WCMSA Self-Administration Toolkit. As a result, there currently is no consensus among tort practitioners as to whether and when MSAs are required in liability cases. Lack of CMS guidance has not prevented an increase in the number of liability MSAs, according to leading professional MSA administrators. Unlike WCMSAs, however, liability MSAs typically are not submitted to CMS for approval.
Archive site for this reprint:Beyond Structured Settlements - blog post: October 9, 2016 Title: NAMSAP 2016 Annual Conferences http://s2kmblog.typepad.com/rethinking_structured_set/2016/10/namsap-2016-annual-conference.html
34
Beyond Structured SettlementsCommentary About Structured Settlements, The Secondary Market,
Special Needs And Settlement Planning.
PATRICK J. HINDERTStructured Settlements & Knowledge Management, (S2KM)
email: [email protected], website: www.s2kmblog.typepad.com Opinions expressed are his alone, and are not intended to represent legal advice
The United States structured settlement market has been in existence for almost 40 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning.
Since it was first published in 1986, “Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments” (S2P2J), has provided structured settlement stakeholders with an authoritative reference guide, consisting of 16 chapters with extensive footnotes and Appendix documents, to help them understand issues and fashion settlements and judgments utilizing periodic payments. 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.
Co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert, S2P2J now features an online version as well as the traditional hardcopy. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability as well as link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.
Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a late September 2016 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 60 with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update simultaneously with no additional subscription charge. Competent professionals confronted by structured settlement issues should have access to an up-to-date copy (or the online version) of this indispensable source book.
Release 60 Highlights - Release 60 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:
» History Chart - To help structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholders analyze the comprehensive changes impacting their professions, S2P2J inserted a History Chart into Chapter 1 several years ago, developed by Timothy Morbach and Patrick Hindert, which tracks legislative, regulatory, financial and market developments impacting structured settlements since 1975 and organizes these developments into three stages of industry development. Release 60 updates this History Chart.
» Primary Market Business Practices - Release 60 continues to update S2P2J’s analysis of changes impacting primary market structured settlement business practices including public policy, guidelines for use, industry standards and product suitability.
» Secondary Market Business Practices - An update of Chapter 16 provides background coverage of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s civil investigation of J.G. Wentworth as well as historical context for recent Washington Post reporting
about continuing abusive business practices by some factoring companies in Maryland which resulted in a civil lawsuit by the State of Maryland Office of Attorney General Consumer Protection Division.
» Taxation Examples - To increase clarity for various tax concepts, Professor Ken Milani, of the University of Notre Dame Mendoza College of Business, provides multiple case examples which have been added to Chapter 2 with this Release. In addition to his other teaching responsibilities, Professor Milani teaches the tax section of NSSTA’s Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) program which is hosted by the University of Notre Dame.
» Settlement Trusts - As structured settlements increasingly fund settlement trusts, structured settlement stakeholders require greater knowledge of such topics as the duties of settlement trustees under the Uniform Prudent Investors Act plus factors settlement trustees must consider when making investments. Release 60 addresses those topics in Chapter 3.
» NSSTA Surveys - Prior updates of S2P2J provided summary analyses of structured settlement marketing surveys of claims executives and claims professionals sponsored by NSSTA and conducted by CLM Advisors. Release 60 features analysis of Part 3 of NSSTA’s three marketing surveys in Chapter 5 which examines how plaintiff attorneys view structured settlements and structured settlement consultants.
» Plaintiff Attorney Malpractice - Also in Chapter 5, Release 60 summarizes a 2015 California lawsuit against a plaintiff law firm (Mraz v. Lief, Cabraser) which, although the jury determined the plaintiff law firm did not breach its duty of care, warns of several potential malpractice dangers for plaintiff attorneys who are: 1) uninformed; 2) lack competent advisors; and/or 3) act carelessly; with regards to structured settlement issues.
» Product Suitability - Recent updates of S2P2J have expanded Section 6.02 which addresses “Settlement Consultant” issues. Release 60 expands prior discussion within this section about the topic of “product suitability” and how it impacts structured settlement and settlement planning professionals.
» Judicial Authority to Impose Structured Settlement - Release 60 features a recent New Jersey Superior Court case (Impink v. Reynes) in Chapter 7 that determined (despite conflicting
SEPTEMBER 11, 2016
S2P2J RELEASE 60
35
authority in other states) that a motion judge’s inherent parens patriae powers did not permit the judge to change the terms of a settlement to impose a structured settlement for a minor without consent of the parties.
Previous S2P2J releases have highlighted and addressed the following structured settlement developments and growth opportunities:
» Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act of 2015.
» Court decisions analyzing “safe harbor annuity rules under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 when annuities are used to preserve Medicaid eligibility.
» New cases where courts have identified questions to held judges determine whether proposed transfers of future payment rights meet the “best interest” test under various state Structured Settlement Protection Acts.
» Non-qualified assignment issues - including tax and security issues raised by off-shore assignment companies. Templates for: 1) approval of MSAs; and 2) disclosure of consultants’ roles and compensation.
» Expanded coverage of Workers Compensation MSAs.
» Summary and discussion of recent PLR for indexed annuities and commutation riders.
» Summarized results of CLM Advisors surveys commissioned by NSSTA to determine the value claims executives and claims professionals place on structured settlements and structured settlement consultants.
» Introduction to ABLE Accounts.
» A new section to introduce and explain federal and international regulatory developments and entities resulting from the 2008 global financial crisis.
» Updated analysis of the changing role of and standards for plaintiff attorneys engaged in personal injury settlement planning and when negotiating structured settlements.
» Summary and analysis of recent U.S. Treasury Regulations for IRC 104(a)(2). Practice tips for minimizing the risk of an IRS settlement challenge.
» Updated summary of lessons learned from the Executive Life Insurance of New York (ELNY) insolvency.
» Periodic payment reinsurance as an alternative means of funding structured settlements.
Archive site for this reprint:Beyond Structured Settlements - blog post: September 11, 2016 Title: S2P2J Relase 60 http://s2kmblog.typepad.com/rethinking_structured_set/2016/09/index.html
2016
36 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
2016 CONFERENCE SPONSORS
BRONZE SPONSORS
SILVER SPONSORS
GOLD SPONSORS
PLATINUM SPONSORS
THE MCPHERSON GROUP, LLP
Jack Kelly, Esq.
2016
37NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
ETHICAL ISSUES IN STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT TRANSFERS
PERY D. KRINSKY
Pery D. Krinsky is the principal of Krinsky, PLLC, where he focuses his practice on ethics-based defense litigation. Before forming his own law firm, Mr. Krinsky was associated with the law firm of LaRossa & Ross, and then the Law Offices Of Michael S. Ross.
Mr. Krinsky’s ethics-based defense litigation practice focuses on:• Federal & State Attorney/Judicial Ethics Matters• Federal & State Criminal Defense Matters• Art Law Ethics & Litigation Matters
Mr. Krinsky is a frequent lecturer on topics involving ethics in litigation, personal and professional responsibility and academic integrity, including at: the N.Y. State Judicial Institute; the Appellate Divisions, First and Second Judicial Departments; the N.Y. State Bar Association; the N.Y. City Bar; the N.Y. County Lawyers’ Association; the N.Y. State Academy of Trial Lawyers; the N.Y. State Trial Lawyers Association; the Practicing Law Institute; the Bay Ridge Lawyers Association; the Queens County Bar Association; Sotheby’s Institute of Art; and law schools such as Brooklyn Law School, Columbia Law School and Fordham Law School.
Mr Krinsky serves as the Chair of the Ethics Committee of the Entertainment, Arts & Sports Law Section of the N.Y. State Bar Association; and the Chair of the Committee on Professional Discipline of the N.Y. County Lawyers’ Association. Mr Krinsky serves on the Board of Advisors of the N.Y. County Lawyers’ Association Institute of Legal Ethics; and is also a Member of: the Brooklyn Bar Association; the N.Y. State Bar Association’s Committee on Attorney Professionalism; the N.Y. City Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility Committee; and the N.Y. County Lawyers’ Committee on Professional Ethics.
Pery D. KrinskyKrinsky PLLC160 BroadwaySuite 603New York, NY 10038212-543-1400 [email protected]
PRESENTATION SPONSOR
2:15 PM – 3:00 PM
To learn how you can partner with Offit Kurman, email Elyse Strickland at [email protected]; 240.507.1770
Trust. Knowledge. Confidence. In a partner, that’s perfect.
Elyse L. Strickland, [email protected]
Offit Kurman attorney, Elyse Strickland has over 15 years of experience representing companies in the structured settlement purchasing industry. Elyse, along with her partners, assists her clients in securing qualified Court Orders under the various SSPAs in Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In her commercial litigation practice, Elyse also handles disputes within the structured settlement industry.
Offit Kurman also proudly offers legal services in commercial litigation, business law, real estate, intellectual property, labor and employment, elder law, health care law, construction law, estate planning, asset protection, family law and more.
with experiencepartner
Sponsorship opportunities are available now and are sure to sell out early. See page 53 for sponsorship details.
Join us November 7-10, 2017 at the Cosmopolitan in Las Vegas
for the NASP 2017 Annual Conference
2016
39NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
3:15 PM – 4:00 PMOVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
JEFFREY JACOBSON, ESQ.Partner, Kelley, Drye & Warren, LLP
Jeffrey Jacobson is a litigation partner at Kelley Drye and Warren with 20 years of experience defending companies against consumer fraud and privacy-related class actions. He co-chairs Kelley Drye’s class action practice defending clients in putative class actions alleging violations of consumer protection laws and related issues. From March 2014 until March 2016, Jeff served as Director of the Division of Law in the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office and then as Chief Counsel to the Attorney General. During this period, Mr. Jacobson oversaw law enforcement investigations involving consumer protection and data privacy and chaired the Attorney General’s Cyber Working Group.
JEFFREY JACOBSON, ESQ.Kelley, Drye & Warren, LLP101 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10178(212) 808-7800 www.kelleydrye.com/[email protected]
PRESENTATION SPONSOR
Litigation and Enforcement Risks for Settlement Purchasers
A Few Ounces of Prevention
Jeffrey S. Jacobson
November 2, 2016
2016
40 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
3:15 PM – 4:00 PM OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
Practical Takeaways: Top 5 Triggers for Privacy + Security Enforcement / Litigation 1. Material misrepresentation in privacy policy or other terms that make promises 2. Inadequate safeguards for personal information (includes service providers) 3. Inadequate consumer choices / control re: use of their personal information 4. Inadequate disclosures about sharing personal information 5. Unauthorized third party access / use of personal information à Usually a combination of more than one of these that triggers attention
30
Attorney-Client Privileged and Confidential
What’s on Today’s Agenda § The regulatory landscape (State AGs, CFPB, FTC)
§ Deceptive Trade Practices / Data Security / Telemarketing
§ Third party liability for telemarketing arguably done on your behalf
§ Consumer class actions
§ What triggers them
§ The major statutes and theories
§ Arbitration clauses as a defense mechanism
§ How to assess a case
§ Settlement precepts and risks
2016
41NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
3:15 PM – 4:00 PMOVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
Regulators: State Attorneys General § Usually elected politician (but appointed in NJ)
§ Chief law enforcement officer
§ Regulator and enforcer of state (and some federal) consumer protection laws (UDAP)
§ Multistate collaboration through NAAG
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
2016
42 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
3:15 PM – 4:00 PM OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau § Bureau Director – Richard Cordray § Jurisdiction – Financial Markets § “The central mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) is to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans — whether they are applying for a mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer financial products.”
§ Larger Market Participant Rule (debt collectors) § $10 million in annual receipts
§ The Sandbox § State Attorney Generals § FTC
2016-2017 CFPB Priorities § 4 D’s: Deception, Debt Traps, Dead Ends, Discrimination
§ Debt Collection
§ Arbitration Restriction
§ Consumer Reporting
§ Data Breaches
§ Payday Loans
§ Mortgages
§ Bank Overdraft Programs
§ Small Business Lending
§ Student Loans
2016
43NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
3:15 PM – 4:00 PMOVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
Federal Trade Commission § Broad jurisdiction over advertising and sales practices
§ Can pursue any deceptive acts
§ Recently has asserted extensive authority over telemarketing and data privacy
§ Has been exceptionally aggressive in “native advertising” — ads that look like typical news/editorial copy — and paid endorsers who fail to disclose the fact of compensation
Federal Trade Commission Act, Section 5
Deceptive Practices Representing in your privacy policy and elsewhere that you have implemented reasonable and appropriate measures to protect consumers’ personal information from unauthorized access, when you in fact have not.
Unfair Practices When your conduct has caused or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits.
21
Guidance through reports, workshops, testimony, and enforcement
Attorney-Client Privileged and Confidential
2016
44 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
3:15 PM – 4:00 PM OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
“Reasonableness” Standard For Data Security
27
Commission Statement Marking the FTC’s 50th Data Security Settlement, January 21, 2014
Attorney-Client Privileged and Confidential
FTC Data Security Enforcement Actions
25
Computer Spying
Corporate Networks/ Employer Devices
Mobile Apps/Devices
Online Services/ Peer-to-Peer Networks
LabMD, Inc.
Attorney-Client Privileged and Confidential
2016
45NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
3:15 PM – 4:00 PMOVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
Why It Matters: What Does an FTC Settlement Look Like? § 20 year term
§ Sometimes individual liability for company owners
§ Injunctive Relief
§ Agree not to violate law
§ May include “fencing in”
§ Establish a comprehensive remediation program
§ Third party audits every 2 years for 20 years (reports to FTC)
§ Monetary payment – disgorgement of profits or civil penalties
§ Future violation of settlement = Up to $40,000 per each violation
26
Attorney-Client Privileged and Confidential
Another FTC Priority: Telemarketing Calls to Cell Phones § General Rule: Cannot use an ATDS or a prerecorded message to
call a cell phone without the called party’s prior consent
§ Non-telemarketing Calls- must have “prior express consent”
§ Telemarketing/Advertising Calls- must have “prior express written consent”
§ Electronic signature is sufficient
§ Specific requirements must be met
§ Mixed purpose calls treated as telemarketing calls
Note: Consent is not required if the call is made without using an ATDS or a prerecorded message
2016
46 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
3:15 PM – 4:00 PM OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
Why It Matters? Third Party Liability! § Are you paying third parties to generate “leads”?
§ FTC Rule provides for “assisting and facilitating” liability
§ Persons liable for providing “substantial assistance or support” to sellers or telemarketers violating the law
§ “Knows or consciously avoids knowing” standard
§ FTC believes sellers are strictly liable for all actions taken by telemarketers or other third parties acting on their behalf, regardless of whether an agency relationship exists
§ Any lead generation program must ensure full compliance with the TCPA, including not calling mobile phones; lead generators also should not suggest existence of agency relationship
FCC on Third Party Liability § FCC Declaratory Ruling (May 2013)
§ Common Law Principles of Agency § Control- third party acting under direct control of seller
§ Apparent authority- consumers reasonably believe third party is acting on behalf of seller based on actions of seller
§ Ratification- knowingly accepting the benefits (knew or should have known standard)
§ Takeaways § Courts are free to determine whether “on behalf of” language allows
for broader recovery against sellers (may get inconsistent opinions)
§ Ruling underscores the importance of due diligence programs for vendors, affiliates, lead generators, etc.
2016
47NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
3:15 PM – 4:00 PMOVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
And Then, There Are the Class Actions
Perspective
A Consumer Class Action Is . . .
A) a justice-driven search for the truth?
B) an economically efficient method for compensating victims of alleged false advertising or other allegedly deceptive practices?
C) procedurally fair to the defendant?
D) usually an exercise advanced by the plaintiff’s lawyer, who stands to be the biggest winner?
134 134
2016
48 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
3:15 PM – 4:00 PM OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
A Consumer Class Action Is . . .
135 135
A) a justice-driven search for the truth?
B) an economically efficient method for compensating victims of alleged false advertising or other allegedly deceptive practices?
C) procedurally fair to the defendant?
D) usually an exercise advanced by the plaintiff’s lawyer, who stands to be the biggest winner.
What’s a Class Action?
136 136
• Single plaintiff or small group of plaintiffs with a problem • Trying to represent all others who allegedly had the same problem • Note that individual purchase contracts likely are too individualized,
so plaintiffs will focus on practices they can portray as common • Service didn’t deliver an advertised benefit • Defendant failed to live up to a promise • Defendant failed to protect the customer’s privacy • Defendant violated a federal or state statute
• Proposed class action can be single-state, multistate or nationwide • But, largely impossible these days to certify a multistate class when the plaintiff is
suing under state laws, because of differences in those laws.
• If the plaintiff has facially pleaded a valid claim (i.e., survived dismissal), courts theoretically cannot rule on the merits of the claim before deciding, usually after discovery, whether or not to certify a class
2016
49NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
3:15 PM – 4:00 PMOVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
What Triggers a Class Action?
137 137
• You broke a promise. • Many consumer class actions are “you promised X and didn’t deliver it.”
• You angered a “true believer.”
• An irate consumer may reach out to a class action lawyer.
• An unflattering media story runs about your business practices, or a regulator issues a negative decision about you.
• A competitor is sued, and you’re doing the same thing. • Tough for lawyers to horn in on a case that’s already moving, easier to be the
first to move against a different company in the same space.
• You have a more aggressive practice than your competition. • Pre-arbitration era, class action lawyers used to sue whichever credit card or
mobile phone provider had the most onerous terms and conditions.
Obscure Statutes With Big Teeth
138 138
• Telephone Consumer Protection Act • Calling or texting a mobile phone without prior express written consent. • $500 to $1500 per call or message
• New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act • Including a contract term that violates a “clearly established right” • $100 per person bound by the contract
• California “two-party consent” telephone recording law • $5,000 per violation
• Plenty of state consumer fraud laws with statutory minimum damages.
• Lesson: Don’t treat terms and conditions as boilerplate. • They contain binding promises to which courts will hold you. • By contrast, courts will look for reasons not to bind consumers to them.
2016
50 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
3:15 PM – 4:00 PM OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
The Biggest Preventative Tool: Arbitration Clause With Class Action Waiver
139 139
• Consumer arbitration clauses are now staples in many industries.
• Clear notice to consumers is the key to enforceability. • This means highlighting the existence of an arbitration requirement.
• Courts want to see conspicuous notice that (1) both sides must arbitrate disputes, and (2) consumer is giving up the right to (a) sue in court, and (b) lead or participate in a class action.
• Can’t just link to terms. These warnings have to be front-and-center.
• Arbitration clauses must be mutual; requirement can’t be one-sided.
• Carefully think through what third parties should be protected.
• Choice of law clauses have upsides but sometimes more drawbacks.
What Makes An Arbitration Clause Enforceable?
140 140
• Consumer signs to indicating acceptance, after existence of an arbitration clause and class action waiver is disclosed and highlighted.
• VERY LIKELY ENFORCEABLE
• Consumer signs one document referencing another in which the arbitration clause and class waiver appear.
• PROBABLY ENFORCEABLE
• An unsigned document contains an arbitration clause and class waiver, but consumer would have to know to look for it.
• DOUBTS AS TO ENFORCEABILITY
2016
51NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
3:15 PM – 4:00 PMOVERVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
If You’re Sued, Assess the Case Early
Plaintiff Has a Unique Problem,
Not a Class Problem
141
Plaintiff’s Claim Is Simply Wrong
Even if Right, Plaintiff Is
Challenging a Legacy Practice
Plaintiff Is Challenging a Core Practice That Must Be
Defended
Which Square Is Yours?
Most Class Actions Settle Before Trial
142 142
• Only Rule 23(b)(3) class action settlements provide res judicata protection against future claims by all class members who don’t affirmatively opt out
• In federal court, these settlements require “best notice practicable under the circumstances” to all members of the settlement class, who can object to or opt out of the deal, plus notice to DOJ and 50 state Attorneys General
• May not be able to avoid individual notice to known class members • But, notice can be electronic
• Settlements are not “one size fits all” – can be creative, so long as they’re “fair”
• Most judges understand what class actions are and judge the fairness of a settlement against the relative strength of the plaintiffs’ claims
• “Claims-made” settlements are fine but can raise fee-fairness issues
• Be aware of notice that is “too cheap”
John Z. ShafaiAT T O R N E Y AT L AW
S O L I C I T O R O F E N G L A N D & WA L E S
John Z. Shafai has been representing the Structured Settlement Purchasing industry since 1998.
Settlement Transfers ✦ Settlement Transaction Litigation
Bankruptcy Litigation ✦ Business Law ✦ Real Estate ✦ Personal Injury
170 South Beverly DriveSuite 305Beverly Hills, California 90212
Phone: (310) 788-2889 Fax: (310) [email protected]
2016
53NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
CONFERENCE AGENDA: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2016
Time Event Location
8:00 AM 9:00 AM
THURSDAY BREAKFASTSponsored by Schulte, Roth & Zabel
Salon 1
9:00 AM 9:10 AM
DAY 2 WELCOME REMARKSPatricia LaBorde
The Grand Ballroom
9:10 AM 10:15 AM
LITIGATION UPDATEEarl Nesbitt, Esq.
The Grand Ballroom
10:15 AM 11:15 AM
LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY UPDATESJack Kelly, Esq. Sponsored by Clark Hill
The Grand Ballroom
11:15 AM 11:30 PM
THURSDAY MORNING BREAKSponsored by Portfolio Financial Servicing Co.
Salon 2 and 3 Foyer
11:30 AM 12:15 PM
LESSONS LEARNED FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICEPanelists: Jack Kelly, Esq., Patricia LaBorde, Earl Nesbitt, Esq., Jason Sutherland
The Grand Ballroom
12:15 PM 1:15 PM
THURSDAY LUNCHSponsored by GoldStar Trust Company
Salon 1
1:15 PM 1:30 PM
NASP ORGANIZATION UPDATESPatricia LaBorde, NASP Preisdent
The Grand Ballroom
1:30 PM 2:00 PM
STATE OF THE SECURITIZATION MARKETBoris Ziser, Esq.
The Grand Ballroom
2:00 PM 2:45 PM
BREAKOUT SESSION ITrack A: Assisting with Annuitant Challenges Michael Green, Esq. – Green, Silverstein & Groff, LLC Abagail Adams, Esq. – Stone Street Capital, LLC
Broadmoor (Level 1)
Track B: Overcoming Judicial Objections Doug Evans, Esq. - Kroll McNamara Evans & Delehanty, LLP Marc Harris, General Counsel – Client First Settlement Funding, LLC
Fountainbleau (Level 1)
Track C: Recent Experiences in Virginia, Florida and Tennessee Amanda Dobanton, In-House Counsel – Fairfield Funding, LLC Doyle Chisholm, Associate General Counsel – Seneca One Finance, Inc.
Gentilly (Level 1)
Track D: Maryland — Navigating the New Statute and Court Rules Shawn Richmor, Chief Operating Officer – Strategic Capital, LLC Michael Damore, General Counsel – Novation Settlement Solutions
Carrollton (Level 1)
2:45 PM 3:00 PM
THURSDAY AFTERNOON BREAKSponsored by Portfolio Financial Servicing Co.
Salon 2 and 3 Foyer
3:00 PM 3:45 PM
BREAKOUT SESSION II (see above for details) (see above)
2016
54 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
EARL NESBITT, ESQ.NASP Executive Director and General Counsel
Partner, Nesbitt, Vassar & McCown, LLC
NASP Executive Director and General Counsel Earl Nesbitt is a partner with Nesbitt, Vassar, and McCown, LLC. He specializes in commercial and business litigation, and represents many structured settlement purchasing companies. He formerly was general counsel for the Settlement Capital Corporation and a partner in Jackson Walker, LLP in Dallas, Texas. Nesbitt takes a central role in NASP’s lobbying efforts, notably in the enactment of federal legislation governing the secondary market (26 U.S.C. § 5891). He is a graduate of Texas Tech University School of Law and the University of Texas at Austin.
LITIGATION UPDATE
EARL NESBITT, ESQ.Nesbitt, Vassar & McCown, LLC1581 Dallas Parkway, Suite 800Addison, TX 75001972-371-3411 972-371-2410 [email protected]
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
NASP LEGAL UPDATE 2015/2016
Presented by: Earl S. Nesbitt, Executive Director National Association of Settlement Purchasers
2016 NASP CONFERENCE Nesbitt, Vassar, & McCown, L.L.P
15851 Dallas Parkway, Suite 800
Addison, Texas 75001
Ph. 972.371.2411
Fax 972.371.2410
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
2016
55NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases Freeman (New York)
§ Purchase Price of $ 16,000 for $ 27,000 at 10.55%
§ Four prior applications approved
§ 19 years old, single, one child
§ Employed part-time
§ Wants to purchase land in order to move her house
§ No indication of current location of house or details regarding moving
Best Interest Cases Freeman (New York)
§ Court’s view of statute and transaction-jaded and overly paternalistic?
§ New York SSPA “discourages” such transfers by requiring transferees to seek judicial approval
§ Transfer statute “reflects Legislature’s dissatisfaction with … market rates, and its conclusion that payees cannot protect their best interest and thus require judicial supervision.”
2016
56 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases Freeman (New York)
§ Factors to consider
• Payee’s age, mental capacity, physical capacity, maturity level, independent income, and ability to support dependents
• Intended use of proceeds
• “Potential need” for future medical treatment
• Is payee in “dire straits”?
• Ability of payee to appreciate financial consequences of transaction based on independent legal/financial advice
• Timing of application (relative to others?)
Best Interest Cases Freeman (New York)
§ Fourth transfer in 2 years
§ Petition fails to explain use of proceeds from prior transactions
§ Payee assigning balance of remaining payments
§ Payee changed story; now seeks money to pay fines and penalties and child support
• No “admissible” evidence provided regarding fines/penalties
§ If transaction approved, structured settlement will be dissipated without attendant benefit
2016
57NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases VanHousen (New York)
§ Assigning a $ 216,000 payment due in 2038 for $ 43,000 for at 7.64% rate
§ Four prior petitions, 3 denied, and 1 approved (in 2014)
§ Payee is 23 years old, married, 4 children
§ Payee working part-time
§ Wants to make home repairs (on home she rents) and get a reliable vehicle
Best Interest Cases VanHousen (New York)
§ No explanation in petition of use of proceeds of prior transaction, was used, but payee testified she had relocated to Florida, but had to move because of mold issues
§ Court-While having money now may solve some financial problems, there is no indication that payee would not find herself in same situation in a few months or year.
§ Except then she would have no future payments at all.
2016
58 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases Swain (Texas)
§ Contested transfer, in which MetLife objected to transaction
• Primary issue was servicing arrangement, but MetLife argued transfer was not in payee’s best interest (and plethora of other things)
§ Payee was 29, in committed relationship with Father of her 1 child, both payee and boyfriend employed full time
§ Payee graduated from high school, had some college
§ Received structured settlement as a result of mother’s death when she was 13 years old
Legal Trends & General Issues
§ “Best interest” is case specific, Judge dependent, and jurisdictionally sensitive
§ Language in court orders (transfer orders and orders approving settlements) is important and has meaning
§ Some issuers/obligors will indiscriminately use the threat of attorneys fees to get their way
§ “Hyper competition” is causing issues for the industry
§ Courts are unpredictable and an opinion often does not tell the entire story
2016
59NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases Matter of Kimberly S. (New York)
• Fourth petition
• 1 prior transfer approved; 2 denied
• 2 children listed in petition – Ka and KK (newborn)
• Petition in case # 3 listed 3 children
• B, Ka, and N
• Petition includes no explanation of payee’s relationship or obligations (i.e. child support, custody, visitation) re: B and N
Best Interest Cases Matter of Kimberly S. (New York)
§ “Conflicting facsimiles” received by court re: cancellation
• Court received call from unidentified caller, stating that payee did not sign anything
• In second letter, payee denies signing first letter or that she ever lived in Florida
§ Court – “these communications do not lend credibility to the current petition”
2016
60 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases Matter of Kimberly S. (New York)
§ Court evaluates whether transaction is “fair and reasonable”
• Discount rate
• Fees and costs of transaction in relation to payee’s level of financial hardship
• The more pressing the need, the more reasonable it may be to obtain cash at steep discount
§ $ 50,000 purchase price for $ 124,452 in future payments @ 10.32%
§ Transaction was “fair and reasonable,” but not “overly impressive”
Best Interest Cases Matter of Kimberly S. (New York)
§ Payee wanted to purchase reliable vehicle, pay off child support arrears, move into new apartment and pay 1st year’s rent
§ Court notes information not provided:
• Whether payee is employed
• Sources of income
• Monthly expenses
• Does she own a vehicle now?
• Prior petitions listed outstanding tax liens, medical bills, desired home improvements, and credit card bills
2016
61NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases Matter of Kimberly S. (New York)
§ No proof of child support obligations or amount of arrears
§ Transfer found not in payee’s best interest
§ Copy of denial order and 3 prior orders must be annexed as an exhibit in future petitions
Best Interest Cases In re: K. Smith (New York)
§ New petition, to address concerns identified in December 2015 denial order
§ Inconsistencies relating to children addressed and resolved
§ Additional information provided regarding payee’s living arrangements and expenses
§ Court notes that proceeds used to “ease relatively minor financial burdens such as purchase a new or used vehicle.”
§ No proof that income, structured settlement payments, and food stamps enough to cover their monthly expenses
2016
62 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases In re: K. Smith (New York)
§ Court questions “evidence” of child support
• Payee’s admission she owed $13,000 not enough?
• Found court records evidencing obligation
§ Court would consider supplemental application to secure funds solely to pay off child support
§ Transfer, as proposed, not in payee’s best interest
§ Court’s footnote noted that in statement payee referred to child Bianca Ann, but in child support order, name was spelled “Beonkiann”
• Court appears skeptical of information in statement
Best Interest Cases Swain (Texas)
§ Assigning portion of monthly payments for 11 years, totaling $ 76,000 in return for $ 49,000 (7.822%); retaining $ 1,100 per month
§ Repaying loan from Grandfather and putting down payment on a house (currently living with relatives – 13 people in house)
§ Had shopped the deal and received advice from Grandfather, who owned an accounting business
§ Transfer approved by trial court; MetLife appealed
2016
63NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases Swain (Texas)
§ Court of Appeals referenced Rains factors, which were relied on by MetLife in opposing transfer, but noted that “no particular factor is determinative; rather the factors, along with other pertinent information, are intended to assist the court in making an informed best-interest analysis.”
§ Outcome depends on circumstances of each case
Best Interest Cases Swain (Texas)
§ Most pertinent evidence in view of Court of Appeals
• Payee will have income from job and remaining payments of $ 4,000 per month
• Payee will use majority of proceeds to purchase a home for her family
• Payee was knowledgeable about transaction
• Grandfather who provided her “advice” regarding transaction had owned accounting business and been a surrogate parent to payee
• Payee had shopped around
2016
64 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases Turpin (Texas)
§ Contested transfer, in which MetLife objected to transaction
• Primary issue was servicing arrangement, but MetLife also argued transfer was not in payee’s best interest (and other things)
§ Payee is 49 years old, former police officer, married to teacher, with 21 year old daughter and 9 year old twins
§ Using proceeds of transaction to pay off debt and for daughter’s college tuition
§ Payee assigning partial payments, will continue to receive substantial monthly and lump sum payments, plus pension and spouse’s salary
Best Interest Cases Turpin (Texas)
§ Payee assigning future payments totaling $ 322,000, receiving $ 190,000 at 7.833% rate
§ Payee had worked with transferee before
§ MetLife argued Rains factors, insufficient evidence introduced to comply with those factors, and that trial court abused its discretion in finding transfer in payee’s best interest
2016
65NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Best Interest Cases Turpin (Texas)
§ Court of Appeals determined that Rains court looked at 8 factors in determining best interest and another 10 to shield against exploitation and abuse by the transferee
§ “Because these factors take the court’s analysis well beyond the scope of the inquiry authorized by the Act, we again decline to follow Rains.”
§ Best interest is to be determined by “general reasonableness and consistency” with purpose of the Texas Act, which is to protect payee from overreaching by transferee
§ If exchange is reasonable and payee is left with sufficient resources to support payee and dependents, best-interest analysis need go no further.
Servicing Arrangements Broadway
§ Payee sought to transfer partial payments ($ 300 per month out of $ 1,378 per month) from structured settlement involving wrongful death of payee’s Father
§ Payee had completed prior transfer of some lump sum payments, which had been approved and had NOT been opposed by MetLife
§ MetLife objected to transfer because it did not wish to split payments and opposed any servicing arrangement, but relied on several theories in opposing
2016
66 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Servicing Arrangements Broadway
§ Payee’s use of proceeds was to fund the adoption and support of three children she and her spouse had planned to adopt from foster care
§ Trial court approved transfer over MetLife’s objection
§ Some servicing arrangement language included in trial court’s order
Servicing Arrangements Broadway
§ MetLife appealed, arguing
• Language in court order violates statutory prohibition against annuity issuer/obligor being “required to divide periodic payments between payee and any transferee…”
• Transfer not in payee’s best interest
• Transfer violated anti-assignment language
2016
67NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Servicing Arrangements Broadway
§ Trial court’s order (arguably) referenced servicing arrangement and transferee argued that it directed MetLife to send 100% of payments to transferee, who would retain assigned payments and remit remainder to payee
§ Court of Appeals says transferee “misconstrues order”
• Order directs MetLife to deliver only transferred payments (of $ 300 per month) to transferee and therefore [implicitly] directs MetLife to pay balance to payee
• Violates Arkansas Act’s “No Split payment” provision
Servicing Arrangements Broadway
§ Arkansas Court of Appeals cites to Rains as part of resolution of conflict of laws argument
• Said Rains reversed lower court approval of transfer because transfer violated the Texas Act’s “No-Split Payment” provision. Not accurate.
§ Rains decision did not rely, nor was it in any way based, on Texas Act’s “No Split Payment” provision
2016
68 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Servicing Arrangements Broadway
§ Rains court had ruled trial court could not unilaterally, over MetLife’s objection, modify the annuity contract which obligated MetLife to make payments to payee (Rains)
• Noted that “servicing arrangement” language in court order was inserted to avoid running afoul of “No-Split Payment” provision
• Nothing in statute provided court authority to rewrite or modify underlying annuity contract
Servicing Arrangements Swain
§ Payee seeks to transfer partial monthly payments to repay loan from Grandfather and put down payment on home
§ MetLife objected to transaction on numerous grounds, but real problem was MetLife had mandated that they would not divide payments amongst payees and transferees (and could not be required to by statute) and would not permit a servicing arrangement
§ After two hearings and briefing by MetLife and transferee, trial court approved transfer and overruled MetLife’s objections
2016
69NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Servicing Arrangements Swain
§ Lesson is that evidence and language in the Final Order is important
• Also, pick your case well (or not)
§ Final Order
• Approved transfer and overruled MetLife’s objections
• Directed MetLife to make 100% of monthly payments (Term Payments) to transferee
• Ordered transferee to retain Assigned Payments and remit unassigned portions to payee
• Provides MetLife would discharge and satisfy payment obligations relative to Term Payments by remitting to transferee
Servicing Arrangements Swain
§ Payee signed order, agreeing to Servicing Arrangement and releasing MetLife from any liability for complying with Final Order
§ Payee will look solely to transferee for unassigned portions of payments
§ MetLife has no further obligation to make Term Payments to payee
§ MetLife not being forced to split or divide payments
2016
70 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Servicing Arrangements Swain
§ Trial court’s order complied with plain language of “No-Split Payment” provision of Texas Act
• MetLife was not required to divide payments amongst payee and transferee
• Noted language in order confirming that point
• Rejects MetLife’s arguments that “servicing arrangement language” required MetLife to “indirectly split payments”
• Acknowledged that No-Split Payment provision serves purpose of preventing obligors/issuers from bearing increased transaction costs and responsibilities
Servicing Arrangements Swain
§ “Waiver of liability provision” in court order makes clear that Peachtree’s actions not attributable to MetLife and “Servicing Arrangement” does not result in unforeseen increase in transaction costs/responsibilities
§ Final Order did not circumvent “No-Split Payment” provision
2016
71NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Servicing Arrangements Turpin
§ Payee, a 49 year old married, ex-police officer, sought to transfer and assign partial monthly payments to pay off debt and pay for daughter’s college
§ MetLife objected on numerous grounds, but real objection was MetLife’s “No-Split/No-Servicing Arrangement” policy
§ Policy imposed unilaterally by MetLife and not applied uniformly
§ Effect of MetLife’s policy was to force payees to assign all of specified payments, or none of them
Servicing Arrangements Turpin
§ Relying on Rains, MetLife argued that trial court “rewrote” underlying contracts (S/A, Q/A, and Annuity) by imposing Servicing Arrangement
• Court of Appeals noted that this argument was a “straw man”
• It cannot be said that, under the Texas Act, courts “lacked authority” to order payments be paid to someone other than the payee named in original structured settlement
• Rains decision not persuasive on this point
• Rains court painted with too broad a brush
2016
72 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Servicing Arrangements Turpin
§ Application for transfer is not an action for breach, enforcement, or interpretation of contract
• Case was not a contract action; it was a statutory proceeding
• Case did not turn on whether trial court acted in accordance with contracts, but whether it acted in accordance with the statute
§ Trial court exercised authority conferred on it by the Legislature to direct obligor/issuer to make payments to a transferee, rather than the payee (in the context of a court-approved transfer)
Servicing Arrangements Turpin
§ Transferee’s argument was that unassigned, serviced payments were being made to Turpin’s “payment agent” per the Servicing Arrangement approved in the Final Order
§ MetLife argued
• No agency agreement established
• MetLife could not be compelled to comply with agency agreement
• Texas Act did not permit Turpin/Transferee to pursue approval of agency agreement
• S/A, Q/A, and Annuity could not be amended with an agency agreement
2016
73NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Servicing Arrangements Turpin
§ Court of Appeals held MetLife cited no authority for these propositions
§ Record establishes assignee (and servicer) is payment agent of payee, for purposes of receiving (and servicing to payee) unassigned portions of payments
• Testimony of transferee personnel
• Testimony of payee
• Contents of order, approved by payee and transferee
§ This court, like Swain court, referenced the “waiver of liability” provision in Final Order
Servicing Arrangements Turpin
§ Court of Appeals rejected MetLife’s argument that by approving Servicing Arrangement trial court circumvented the “No-Split Payment” provision of Texas Act
• Court did thorough examination of the Texas Act
• Noted that Legislature used “indirectly” in requiring court approval of transfers, but did not use that term in the “No-Split Payment” provision
• Transferees/assignees omitted from “No-Split Payment” provision; therefore courts can direct transferees/assignees to divide payments in accordance with Servicing Arrangement
2016
74 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Servicing Arrangements Turpin
§ Cited to Freelon and Perez cases, where Texas courts have confirmed (and imposed) Servicing Arrangements on transferees/assignees
§ Court of Appeals rejected MetLife’s other arguments
• MetLife’s consent to the court order and the Servicing Arrangement is not necessary or required
• Legislature did not give issuers/obligors “veto power”
• MetLife has statutory cause of action to recover expenses incurred in complying with order and Texas Act
Servicing Arrangements Turpin
§ Trial court did not create a “contractual relationship” between transferee and MetLife. Relationship is governed by court order
§ Rejected MetLife’s suggestion that Servicing Arrangement increases its burdens and risks.
§ It is the payee’s best interests the court is to consider under the Act, not that of the issuer/obligor
§ If MetLife believed Servicing Arrangement increased its burdens and risks, it could have avoided those by agreeing to divide payments itself, noting that it has done so in the past
2016
75NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Servicing Arrangements Turpin
§ Court of Appeals addressed the Texas Act
• The Act authorizes a court to approve a transfer of payments to a transferee, as well as an assignee
• Nothing in Act prohibits a Servicing Arrangement
• The Act permits payees to transfer portions of monthly payments
• Legislature imposed no limits on how a transfer of partial payments can be “carved out”
• Payee can sell portions of periodic payments, all of periodic payments, or some of all monthly or lump sum payments, or any combination of same
Attorneys Fees in Transfer Cases Symetra/Rapid Settlements
§ Long running case relating to Rapid Settlements’ efforts to use arbitration proceedings to by-pass structured settlement transfer statute
§ Symetra and intervenor NASP prevailed in the case, securing injunction against Rapid Settlements from using arbitration to circumvent transfer statutes
§ Symetra sought attorneys fees from Rapid in three areas
• Involvement in Indiana garnishment case
• Contempt proceeding
• Under Texas Act
2016
76 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Attorneys Fees in Transfer Cases Symetra/Rapid Settlements
§ Trial court originally awarded attorneys fees in 2 of 3 categories, but rejected Symetra’s request for fees under Texas Act
§ Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that Symetra could recover attorneys fees for “Rapid’s noncompliance with Texas and Washington SSPA’s”
§ On remand Federal District Court awarded Symetra $ 881,299 in fees
Attorneys Fees in Transfer Cases Lozano-1
§ Payee signed a transfer agreement with Funding Company X who filed a petition for court approval of transfer
§ Later payee signed a transfer agreement with Funding Company Y, who also filed petition, assigned to same court
• Second petition included “sworn statement” from payee, indicating that she was cancelling agreement with Funding Company X
§ Court inquired of counsel for both companies whether petition with Funding Company X was “withdrawn” in light of payee’s statement
2016
77NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Attorneys Fees in Transfer Cases Lozano-1
§ Bidding war between funding companies, with various offers and counter-offers submitted to payee and court
• In footnote, noted that counsel had requested a hearing, but court declined.
• Noted that counsel viewed the petitions as a “predatory bidding war.”
• Court is not an “auctioneer attempting to elicit the highest bid”
• Counsel lost sight of whether transfer is in payee’s best interest
• Subjecting payee to pressure of counsel offering her “deal of a lifetime” would serve no purpose
Attorneys Fees in Transfer Cases Lozano-1
§ Court evaluates merits of transaction with Funding Company X
• Transaction is “fair and reasonable”
• Does not find transfer to be in payee’s best interest
• Payee is 21, single, unemployed, full-time student; wants to buy a home
• A payee seeking to purchase a home must be able to demonstrate a source of income to handle responsibility of being a homeowner
• Quote from court – “monies belong to [payee] and should not be used to financially assist or subsidize family members … in their housing needs”
2016
78 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Attorneys Fees in Transfer Cases Lozano-1
§ Hartford objected to transaction with Funding Company X because of failure to comply with SSPA; Court rules Hartford may recover attorneys fees
• Addresses “timing requirement” of disclosure and transfer agreement
• Notes that Hartford has raised “anti-assignment” language
§ Pinnacle Capital case – New York Court rejected claim for attorneys fees, when transfer was denied b/c of anti-assignment language, noting that breach of anti-assignment language does not equate to a violation of New York Act
Attorneys Fees in Transfer Cases Lozano-1
§ Here Hartford had also complained of problems with disclosure to the payee, which goes to very heart of compliance with the New York Act
§ Rejected argument that “following a transfer” means attorneys fees can be awarded only if a transfer is approved b/c such an interpretation would render provision meaningless
2016
79NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Attorneys Fees in Transfer Cases Lozano-2
§ Companion Case to Lozano 1
§ After petition of Funding Company Y was not withdrawn, court set both cases for submission on same day
§ Similar analysis by, and same decision of court, as with Lozano 1. Transfer denied as not in payee’s best interest.
§ Hartford objected to Lozano 2, claiming non-compliance with NY Act
• E-mail offers submitted to court after payee’s cancellation
• Failure to establish payee wanted to pursue transfer with Funding Company Y, especially in light of cancellation letter
Attorneys Fees in Transfer Cases Lozano 2
§ “Complete non-compliance” with NY Act relating to e-mail offers
§ Transfer agreement allowed transferee to collect penalty or liquidated damages from payee, but not included in disclosure statement
• 25% of purchase price if payee cancels or breaches after cancellation period, fails to appear for court hearing, or refuses to cooperate in obtaining court order
• Disclosure statement provides for “penalties” to payee would be $0
§ Transfer agreement allows Funding Company Y to recover attorneys fees from payee in the event of litigation to enforce transfer agreement
2016
80 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Attorneys Fees in Transfer Cases Lozano-2
§ Hartford raises other objections, including anti-assignment language
§ Court awarded Hartford attorneys fees (same legal reasoning as in Lozano 1)
Transfer does not contravene prior court order
§ Express finding requirement in State transfer statutes – that the transfer does not contravene a prior court order
§ A concern for payees, transferees, assignees, issuers, obligors, courts, plaintiff ’s lawyers, others
§ Typically arises where underlying structured settlement involved a minor settlement
2016
81NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Transfer does not contravene prior court order
§ Range of considerations/arguments
• Strong, unequivocal anti-assignment language (assignment is void) included in court order
• Settlement agreement includes anti-assignment language, and settlement agreement referenced and/or incorporated in court order
• Settlement approved in court order
• Court order provides for structured settlement payments to payee Mr. Smith, so payee cannot be changed
Transfer does not contravene prior court order
§ Highlights need to secure copies of settlement documents and court order
§ Impact on venue/jurisdiction?
• Some issuers/obligors direct transfer to be filed in court that approved settlement, even where unequivocal provisions of transfer statute require filing in county of payee’s residence
• Some courts have done the same
2016
82 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Transfer does not contravene prior court order
§ Can become an issue with a dissatisfied payee or payee’s beneficiaries
• Subsequent challenge to order approving transfer b/c of language in prior order approving settlement is bad for everyone
• Estoppel, invited error, reliance, and affirmative defense issues
• Language in court order/settlement documents important
• Judgements assignable
• Authority to approve transfers bestowed by transfer statutes
Transfer does not contravene prior court order
(Campos-Riedel)
§ Payee seeks to transfer payments arising from minor (court-approved) structured settlement from 11 years prior
§ Unclear if anti-assignment language included in order or in “approved” settlement
§ Motion filed by transferee in original case seeking order “permitting” payee to pursue transfer in State court under California Act (at request of issuer/obligor
§ Court “does not take issue” with transferee/payee seeking court approval of transfer in State court
2016
83NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Transfer does not contravene prior court order
(Campos-Riedel) § District Court notes that it does not make any express findings
nor approves transfer
• Simply finds no reason why State court cannot make those determinations
§ Anti-assignment language in prior court order unenforceable and transfer permissible under California law
§ Transfer (if approved) does not contravene any order of this Court
Transfer does not contravene prior court order
(Wade)
§ 20 year old structured settlement, minor settlement approved by Federal District Court
§ Agreed Final Judgment includes anti-assignment language
§ Payee no longer a minor; signs transfer agreement
§ Transferee files application in State court, in county of payee’s residence
§ Issuer/obligor asked transferee to “obtain consent” from District Court
2016
84 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Transfer does not contravene prior court order
(Wade)
§ Transferee files application in Federal District Court
§ Court requires notice to all parties in underlying case
§ No one appears or objects
§ Court finds
• Payee is advised of value of assigned payments and consequences of assignment
• Payee should be free to assign them as proposed
• Transferee may seek approval of transfer under Texas Act
Transfer does not contravene prior court order
§ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)
• On motion the court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding if applying it prospectively is no longer equitable
• Appropriate to grant such a motion when there has been a significant change either in factual conditions or in law
• Modification of an order may be warranted when statutory or decisional law has changed to make legal what the decree was designed to prevent
• Motions must be made within reasonable time
2016
85NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Miscellaneous (Jurisdiction to Amend Order – Newsome)
§ Payee agreed to assign payments to RSL Funding in return for payment of $ 53,000
§ At hearing, court conditionally approved transfer, added language to order that transferee was to pay payee within 10 days, otherwise, transferee would have to pay $ 106,000
§ No appeal, no motion for new trial or to amend judgment filed by transferee
• Judgement became final, non-appealable after 30 days
• Trial court lost plenary power and jurisdiction
Miscellaneous (Jurisdiction to Amend Order – Newsome)
§ Transferee submitted order to issuer/obligor and servicing company and started receiving assigned payments
§ Payee wrote to court complaining that he had not been paid; court issued show cause order
§ At hearing, transferee claimed payee had not been paid because RSL still working with issuer/obligor on servicing issues
§ Parties ordered to mediation
2016
86 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Miscellaneous (Jurisdiction to Amend Order – Newsome)
§ August of 2014, transferee filed agreed motion for entry of Nunc Pro Tunc order, arguing increased purchase price language had been inserted without transferee’s consent
• Newsome signed motion
• Court signed Nunc Pro Tunc Order in September of 2014
§ By November 2014, payee still not been paid
• Makes demand on transferee to pay transferee or set aside order and abandon transaction
Miscellaneous (Jurisdiction to Amend Order – Newsome)
§ Transferee makes arbitration demand and files suit in Harris County to compel arbitration and seeks declaratory relief
§ Payee filed bill of review in original transfer case to set aside Nunc Pro Tunc Order, alleging it was void because court had lost jurisdiction/plenary power
§ Transferee then sought to compel arbitration in Dallas County court and abate bill of review proceeding
§ Trial court denied motion to compel arbitration and granted payees MSJ, ruling that Nunc Pro Tunc Order was void and should be vacated
2016
87NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Miscellaneous (Jurisdiction to Amend Order – Newsome)
§ Court of Appeals affirmed (2-1 decision) denial of motion to compel arbitration and summary judgment relating to void Nunc Pro Tunc Order
• If there is a legal basis for vacating the transfer orders, these issues are purely for trial court to decide
• Arbitrator has no role in determining whether, or the terms on which, to approve a transfer agreement (referring to definition of “court”)
• Nothing for arbitrator to determine, because disputes alleged by transferee had nothing to do with whether Nunc Pro Tunc Order was void
§ Approving transfers is a purely judicial function
Workers Compensation Matthews
§ Transferee (WC Funding Group) sought court approval of transfer/assignment of workers compensation/structured settlement payments under California Act
§ Court denied application, finding that transaction was prohibited by statute (California workers compensation laws)
§ Payee wanted to pay delinquent mortgage payments in order to stave off foreclosure and make home repairs
2016
88 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Workers Compensation Matthews
§ On appeal, parties agreed that California Act did not apply to structured settlements of workers compensation claims because the definition of structured settlement agreement refers to “tort claims.”
§ Issuer/obligor argued that transfer could not be approved b/c transfer contravened other applicable law
• California Workers Compensation statutory provision provides “no claim for compensation shall be assignable before payment.”
Workers Compensation Matthews
§ Court of Appeals discusses 1921 California case (Pacific)
• Distinction between “claims” and “awards” rejected
• “Obviously” the statute was intended to cover both claims and awards
§ Legislature intended there should be no assignment of claimant’s rights whatsoever and award should be paid directly to claimant and no one else
§ Assignment of award was “illegal and unenforceable”
2016
89NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Workers Compensation Matthews
§ WC Funding cited to 1928 case (Richey)
• Workers compensation award, when reduced to judgment, lost its actionable character
• No longer a claim, subject to statutory prohibition against assignment
Workers Compensation Matthews
§ Court of Appeals disagreed with Richey
• Focus of statute is not on “claim for compensation” but rather on “before payment”
• Employee’s right to compensation for work injury cannot be alienated before payment is made
• Therefore, workers compensation structured settlement payments cannot be assigned; must be made directly to claimant and no one else
2016
90 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Workers Compensation Matthews
§ Emphasized “unique nature” of workers compensation awards and legislative intent to remove workers compensation awards from creditors remedies and insure award is available to employee for his recovery and rehabilitation
§ Benefits are payable only to employee or employee’s dependents in the event of his death and are neither assignable nor subject to employee’s general debts
§ Need to protect injured workers from improvident assignment and economic pressures or lack of competent advice continues after reducing workers compensation claim to a judgment
Workers Compensation Matthews
§ Workers compensation laws manifest an intent to provide more protection to claimants than provided in civil actions
§ Settlements and compromises of workers compensation claims must be approved by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)
• Workers compensation release on a higher plane than a private contractual release (settlement agreement)
§ Anti-assignment language in S/A was incorporated into WCAB’s Order Approving Compromise & Release, thus transfer would contravene a prior court order
2016
91NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Workers Compensation Matthews
§ Argument that transaction was just a simple “assignment of judgment,” not an assignment of structured settlement payments, was nonsensical
• If so, no reason to seek court approval of transfer under transfer statute and § 5891
• Conflicts with transfer agreement
§ Judgment cannot be separated from structured settlement payments
Hughes (Texas)
§ Payee is married, 35 years old, has a child, owns home, has mortgage, husband works in oil patch
§ Husband was laid off from $ 85,000 per year job
§ Payee sought to transfer partial payments to pay off car notes and reduce other debts, and repair non-working bathroom in home, while husband looked for new job
§ MetLife objected and opposed transfer based on their “No-Split Payment/No Servicing Arrangement” policy, asserting various legal theories (similar to what they had done in Swain and Turpin)
§ Trial court approved transfer over MetLife’s objection
2016
92 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Hughes (Texas)
§ MetLife appealed, arguing trial court erred by forcing MetLife to make “unassigned” payments to transferee pursuant to the Servicing Arrangement
• Because that rewrites MetLife’s contract with payee
• Improperly requires MetLife to make payments to transferee as payment agent
• Circumvents Texas Act’s “No Split Payment” provision
Hughes (Texas)
§ MetLife did NOT appeal based on anti-assignment language
• Did not raise, urge, or brief that issue
• Abandoned that argument on appeal
• Never used word “anti-assignment” in 80 pages of briefing
• No case law regarding issue was cited by MetLife
• Did not even refer to the purported “anti-assignment” language in the underlying documents
2016
93NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Hughes (Texas)
§ Nevertheless, the San Antonio Court of Appeals reversed
• Finding that payee could not complete transaction b/c of anti-assignment language
• And that transferee was not “payment agent” b/c no evidence of control
§ Case not concluded
§ Motion for reconsideration and rehearing en banc pending
Hughes (Texas)
§ Anti-assignment language in S/A
§ 3.1 Limitations on Modification or Transfer of Payment Rights
§ [Payee] acknowledges and agrees that neither the periodic payments nor any rights thereto or interest therein (collectively “payment rights”) can be:
§ Accelerated, deferred, increased or decreased by her or any other payee; or
§ Sold, assigned, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred or encumbered, either directly or indirectly, by her or any other payee….
2016
94 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Hughes (Texas)
§ Anti-assignment language in Q/A
• None of the Periodic Payments may be accelerated, deferred, increased, or decreased and may not be anticipated, sold, assigned, pledged or encumbered.
§ Anti-assignment language in Annuity
• This certificate and the payments provided under it are nonassignable and will be exempt from the claims of creditors to the maximum extent permitted by law
Hughes (Texas)
§ Payments cannot be
• Sold, assigned, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred or encumbered, either directly or indirectly, by her or any other payee unless such sale, assignment, hypothecation or other transfer or encumbrance, and any such transaction (being hereinafter referred to as a “transfer”) has been approved in advance in a “qualified order” as defined in § 5891(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (a “qualified order”) and otherwise complies with applicable state law, including without limitation, any and all applicable state structured settlement protection statutes.
§ Payee and her attorney bargained for and secured right to transfer and assign payments in accordance with structured settlement transfer statute and § 5891
§ Yet, Court of Appeals denied her that right by ignoring express language and relying on purported contracts to which payee was not a party
2016
95NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LITIGATION UPDATE 9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Hughes (Texas)
§ 3.2 Effect of Transfer Under Qualified Order
§ If payment rights under this Compromise Settlement Agreement become the subject of a transfer approved in accordance with subsection (B) of § 3.1 above:
§ The rights of any direct or indirect transferee of such transfer shall be subject to all terms of this Compromise Settlement Agreement….; and
§ The transferee shall be liable to the insurer, to any assignee (as hereinafter defined) and to the annuity issuer (as hereinafter defined) for any and all liabilities and costs, including attorneys’ fees, arising from compliance by any of such parties with the qualified order approving such transfer, or arising from any claim to any of the transferred payment rights by any party other than the transferee.
Hughes (Texas)
§ Qualified Assignment not signed by payee
• An agreement between the settling defendants and the qualified assignee only
• Governed by Delaware law
• Includes provision that the Q/A is binding on the payee’s “assigns”
§ Annuity is a contract between issuer and obligor (both MetLife entities)
2016
96 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LITIGATION UPDATE
9:10AM – 10:15 AM
Hughes (Texas)
STAY TUNED
Earl S. Nesbitt, Executive Director National Association of Settlement Purchasers
Nesbitt, Vassar, & McCown, L.L.P
15851 Dallas Parkway, Suite 800 Addison, Texas 75001
Ph 972.371.2411 Cell 214.755.9594 Fax 972.371.2410
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
THE END
2016
97NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS
JACK KELLY, ESQ.Partner, The McPherson Group
John A. (Jack) Kelly is a Partner in the McPherson Group LLP. He has extensive legislative and public policy experience in structured finance and tax-related issues. He was the federal lobbyist for the legislative clarification of tax issues related to the transfer of structured settlements. In addition to federal advocacy, he coordinates the McPherson Group’s state and local practice.
A political aide to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, he previously served as a legislative assistant to Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) and held staff positions in both the New York and federal courts. For 28 years until his retirement, Kelly served in active and reserve components of the United States Army, including command of a Special Forces unit. His awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit. He presently serves as chairman of the US Advisory Committee on National Cemeteries and Memorials.
JACK KELLYThe McPherson Group, LLP925 15th Street NW, 5th FloorWashington, DC 20005202-289-1011 202-342-0650 (Fax)[email protected]
10:15 AM – 11:15 AM
PRESENTATION SPONSOR
2016
106 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
LESSONS LEARNED FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
11:30 AM – 12:15 PM
PANELISTS
JACK KELLY, ESQ.Partner, The McPherson Group
John A. (Jack) Kelly is a Partner in the McPherson Group LLP. He has extensive legislative and public policy experience in structured finance and tax-related issues. He was the federal lobbyist for the legislative clarification of tax issues related to the transfer of structured settlements. In addition to federal advocacy, he coordinates the McPherson Group’s state and local practice. A political aide to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, he previously served as a legislative assistant to Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) and held staff positions in both the New York and federal courts. For 28 years until his retirement, Kelly served in active and reserve components of the United States Army, including command of a Special Forces unit. His awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit. He presently serves as chairman of the US Advisory Committee on National Cemeteries and Memorials.
JACK KELLYThe McPherson Group, LLP925 15th Street NW, 5th FloorWashington, DC 20005202-289-1011 202-342-0650 (Fax)[email protected]
PATRICIA LABORDEPresident, NASP
Senior Vice President, Stone Street Capital, LLC
Patricia LaBorde is the senior vice president and Structured Settlement Division counsel at Stone Street Capital, LLC based in Bethesda, Maryland. Since joining Stone Street in 2003, Patricia has overseen all legal, regulatory and transactional issues for its Structured Settlement Division. LaBorde has served as NASP’s Legal Committee chair and Conference Planning chair and chair of the Community Relations Committee. Previously, LaBorde was a business and litigation attorney with a McLean, Virginia law firm, handling structured settlement transactions. She has a BA from the University of Delaware and a JD from The George Washington University.
PATRICIA LABORDEStone Street Capital7316 Washington Ave, 5th FloorBethesda, MD 20814800-586-7786301-951-2171 (Fax)[email protected]
2016
107NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LESSONS LEARNED FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
11:30 AM – 12:15 PM
EARL NESBITT, ESQ.NASP Executive Director and General Counsel
Partner, Nesbitt, Vassar & McCown, LLC
NASP Executive Director and General Counsel Earl Nesbitt is a partner with Nesbitt, Vassar, and McCown, LLC. He specializes in commercial and business litigation, and represents many structured settlement purchasing companies. He formerly was general counsel for the Settlement Capital Corporation and a partner in Jackson Walker, LLP in Dallas, Texas. Nesbitt takes a central role in NASP’s lobbying efforts, notably in the enactment of federal legislation governing the secondary market (26 U.S.C. § 5891). He is a graduate of Texas Tech University School of Law and the University of Texas at Austin.
EARL NESBITT, ESQ.Nesbitt, Vassar & McCown, LLC1581 Dallas Parkway, Suite 800Addison, TX 75001972-371-3411 972-371-2410 [email protected]
JASON SUTHERLANDDirector of Capital Markets & Legal Counsel, DRB Capital
Mr. Sutherland has over 16 years of experience as an attorney and executive in the specialty finance area. Mr. Sutherland currently serves as the Director of Capital Markets & Legal Counsel at DRB Capital. He is also the founder of Citadel Financial, Ltd (“Citadel”). Prior to Citadel, Mr. Sutherland served as the Vice President of Legal Affairs for Peachtree Settlement Funding where he concentrated on the creation of financing facilities, term securitizations and managed litigation efforts on a nationwide basis. On behalf of Peach Holdings, LLC he also founded and served as the Managing Director-Legal & Operations for Peachtree Asset Management, Ltd (an FCA regulated firm) and managed its fund related activities. Prior to that, he was employed at the law firm of Powell, Goldstein, Fraser & Murphy as an Associate Attorney. Mr. Sutherland received his B.A. from The University of Georgia, Athens and his J.D. from New England Law, Boston. He is a board member of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers and the Chairman of its Legal and Legislative Committee.
JASON SUTHERLANDDRB Capital1625 S. Congress Ave, Suite 200Delray Beach, FL 33445561-982-3460
The contents of these materials may constitute attorney advertising under the regulations of various jurisdictions.
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP is a nationally recognized leader, with over 25 years of experience developing innovative and creative solutions for complex and sophisticated structured finance transactions. Our asset-backed finance practice has a particular focus on the securitization and financing of off-the-run assets, including life settlements, equipment leases, structured settlements, lottery receivables, timeshare loans, litigation advances, cell towers, intellectual property, insurance-linked securities, marketplace lending products, merchant cash advances and online consumer loans.
Boris Ziser, Partner Co-head, Structured Finance & Derivatives Group +1 212.756.2140 | [email protected]
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR MARKET LEADERS
2016
109NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
STATE OF THE SECURITIZATION MARKET
BORIS ZISER
Boris serves as co-head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Structured Finance & Derivatives Group. With over 20 years of experience across diverse asset classes, he focuses on asset-backed securitizations, warehouse facilities, secured financings and commercial paper conduits. His practice encompasses a variety of asset classes, including life settlements, equipment leases, structured settlements, lottery receivables, timeshare loans, litigation advances and cell towers, in addition to other esoteric asset classes such as intellectual property and other cash flow producing assets. Boris also represents investors, lenders, hedge funds, private equity funds and finance companies in purchases and dispositions of portfolios of assets and financings secured by those portfolios.
Boris serves as outside general counsel to the Institutional Longevity Markets Association (ILMA), and he is a member of the New York State Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association, as well as the Esoteric Assets Committee of the Structured Finance Industry Group. He is listed in Chambers USA and recognized by The Legal 500 United States for his work in structured finance. A frequent speaker at securitization industry conferences, Boris has conducted various securitization and life settlement seminars in the United States and abroad, having most recently addressed the current legal landscape for life settlements. Boris recently co-authored “Life Settlements and Longevity Swaps: Opportunities for Investors, Individuals, Insurers and Pension Funds” for The Hedge Fund Journal and the “Life Settlement Securitization” chapter of Securitizations: Legal and Regulatory Issues (ALM Law Journal Press).
Boris earned his J.D. from New York University School of Law and his B.A., with honors, from Oberlin College.
BORIS ZISERSchulte Roth & Zabel919 Third AvenueNew York, NY 10022212.756.2140 [email protected]
1:30 PM – 2:00 PM
The contents of these materials may constitute attorney advertising under the regulations of various jurisdictions.
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP is a nationally recognized leader, with over 25 years of experience developing innovative and creative solutions for complex and sophisticated structured finance transactions. Our asset-backed finance practice has a particular focus on the securitization and financing of off-the-run assets, including life settlements, equipment leases, structured settlements, lottery receivables, timeshare loans, litigation advances, cell towers, intellectual property, insurance-linked securities, marketplace lending products, merchant cash advances and online consumer loans.
Boris Ziser, Partner Co-head, Structured Finance & Derivatives Group +1 212.756.2140 | [email protected]
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR MARKET LEADERS
NASP 2016 Annual Conference State of the Securi-za-on Market
November 3, 2016
Boris Ziser Partner Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP +1 212.756.2140 | [email protected]
2016
110 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
NASP 2016 Annual Conference ©2016 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved.
State of the Securitization Market
• Non-‐Financial Cost – Disclosure
• Disclosure is out there for all to see • Offering document is supposed to disclose the warts, as well as other informaMon
• Even in a private deal, in which all the documents are supposed to be kept confidenMal, they osen get out
– Lockbox – ReporMng
NASP 2016 Annual Conference ©2016 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved.
State of the Securitization Market
• Recourse -‐ Is a securiMzaMon completely non-‐recourse financing
§ No § RepresentaMons and warranMes about the assets by operaMng company § Repurchase for breach
• What size transac-on is enough? -‐ Rule of thumb is at least $50 Million -‐ In pracMce, most deals are at least $100 Million
STATE OF THE SECURITIZATION MARKET
1:30 PM – 2:00 PM
2016
111NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
NASP 2016 Annual Conference ©2016 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved.
State of the Securitization Market
• What off-‐the run assets are ac-ve today? -‐ LiMgaMon Finance § Pre-‐se_lements § Mass torts
-‐ Consumer Lending § Marketplace lending § Small Mcket consumer loans
-‐ High yielding, uncorrelated, semi-‐illiquid or illiquid assets
NASP 2016 Annual Conference ©2016 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved.
State of the Securitization Market
Boris Ziser Partner and Co-‐Head of
Structured Finance & DerivaMves Office: 212.756.2140 Mobile: 917.940.1947 [email protected]
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 212.756.2000 | 212.593.5955 fax
STATE OF THE SECURITIZATION MARKET 1:30 PM – 2:00 PM
2016
112 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
NASP 2016 Annual Conference ©2016 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer
This informaMon and any presentaMon accompanying it (the “Content”) has been prepared by Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (“SRZ”) for general informaMonal purposes only. It is not intended as and should not be regarded or relied upon as legal advice or opinion, or as a subsMtute for the advice of counsel. You should not rely on, take any acMon or fail to take any acMon based upon the Content.
As between SRZ and you, SRZ at all Mmes owns and retains all right, Mtle and interest in and to the Content. You may only use and copy the Content, or porMons of the Content, for your personal, non-‐commercial use, provided that you place all copyright and any other noMces applicable to such Content in a form and place that you believe complies with the requirements of the United States’ Copyright and all other applicable law. Except as granted in the foregoing limited license with respect to the Content, you may not otherwise use, make available or disclose the Content, or porMons of the Content, or menMon SRZ in connecMon with the Content, or porMons of the Content, in any review, report, public announcement, transmission, presentaMon, distribuMon, republicaMon or other similar communicaMon, whether in whole or in part, without the express prior wri_en consent of SRZ in each instance.
This informaMon or your use or reliance upon the Content does not establish a lawyer-‐client relaMonship between you and SRZ. If you would like more informaMon or specific advice on ma_ers of interest to you please contact us directly.
NASP 2016 Annual Conference ©2016 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved.
State of the Securitization Market
• What is securi-za-on? – Fundamentally, it’s just a loan done
in a structured way – Pooling cash flow producing assets – Issuing securiMes backed by these
assets
• State of the Securi-za-on market – Fell of a cliff during the financial crisis – What happened?
Issuer Investors
Originator
$ Assets
$
Securi-es/ Pledge of Assets
STATE OF THE SECURITIZATION MARKET
1:30 PM – 2:00 PM
2016
113NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
NASP 2016 Annual Conference ©2016 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved.
State of the Securitization Market
“Today, when a bank makes a home loan, it doesn't hold on to it. Instead, it quickly sells the mortgage off to financial engineers, who chop up, repackage and resell home loans pre_y much the way supermarkets chop up, repackage and resell meat.
It's a business model that depends on trust. You don't know anything about the cows that contributed body parts to your package of ground beef, so you have to trust the supermarket when it assures you that the beef is U.S.D.A. prime. You don't know anything about the subprime mortgage loans that were sliced, diced and pureed to produce that mortgage-‐backed security, so you have to trust the seller – and the raMng agency – when it assures you that it's a AAA investment.”
Source: Paul Krugman. NYT October 22, 2007. • Why do we need securi-za-on? • Has been steadily returning
NASP 2016 Annual Conference ©2016 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved.
State of the Securitization Market
• Some assets have returned faster than others • Struggle of safety vs. yield • Structured seKlements offer safety at the expense of yield; however ABS buyers are
not high yield seekers • Why Securi-ze?
– Cost efficient financing – Mostly, only the credit of the assets is considered and not the credit-‐worthiness of
the operaMng company.
STATE OF THE SECURITIZATION MARKET 1:30 PM – 2:00 PM
2016
114 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
NASP 2016 Annual Conference ©2016 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved.
State of the Securitization Market
• How does a company get there? – Road to securiMzaMon begins with a warehouse – Basically a loan, but it's "non-‐recourse," well, mostly – Limited term – Subject to eligibility criteria and concentraMon limits – Warehouses fill up and a securiMzaMon empMes them and creates capacity
NASP 2016 Annual Conference ©2016 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved.
State of the Securitization Market
• Downside – Financial Cost
• SecuriMzaMon can be expensive – Offering document – Indenture and other agreements – Opinions (including true sale and non-‐consolidaMon) – The fees of ancillary counsel – There are mulMple parMes that charge fees
» Placement agent/underwriters » Trustee » Account Bank » Custodian » Counsel for each party (issuer pays all parMes' counsel fees) » The structure drives cost and certain base costs are built into what it takes to do a
securiMzaMon
STATE OF THE SECURITIZATION MARKET
1:30 PM – 2:00 PM
2016
115NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
2016 CONFERENCE SPONSORS
BRONZE SPONSORS
SILVER SPONSORS
GOLD SPONSORS
PLATINUM SPONSORS
THE MCPHERSON GROUP, LLP
Jack Kelly, Esq.
2016
116 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
BREAKOUT SESSION — TRACK A:
ASSISTING WITH ANNUITANT CHALLENGES
MICHAEL GREEN, ESQ.Green, Silverstein & Groff, LLC
Mike Green is a founding member of Green, Silverstein and Groff, LLC, a civil litigation firm that practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Mike has developed an expertise in the field of structured settlement and lottery payment transfers, speaking at conferences and authoring several articles, including Be Prepared – An Outside Counsel’s Perspective on the Court Approval Process and It’s the Interest Rate, Stupid – An Outside Counsel’s Perspective on Cutting Through the Morass of Financial Information on the Disclosure Statement at a Structured Settlement Transfer Hearing.
Mike is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania as well as the Villanova University School of Law. He is a member of all Pennsylvania and New Jersey state and federal bars as well as the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
2:00 PM – 2:45 PM 3:00 PM - 3:45 PM
BROADMOOR ROOM
MICHAEL GREEN, ESQ.Green, Silverstein & Groff, LLC215 South Broad Street, Ste 700Haddon Heights, NJ 08035215-972-5520 (Tel)215-972-5544 (Fax)www.gsglawfirm.com
ABAGAIL ADAMSStone Street Capital, LLC
Abagail Adams is an attorney licensed in the State of Maryland and has been practicing law for nine years. She formerly clerked for the Honorable Judge Thompson in the Montgomery County Circuit Court for the State of Maryland, where she reviewed structured settlement petitions and recommended rulings.
Mrs. Adams also has a background in civil litigation, as well as social security disability law, where she represented clients in federal administrative hearing throughout the country. Mrs. Adams started as the Assistant Division Counsel for the Structured Settlement Division of Stone Street Capital, LLC five years ago, where she reviews transactions for compliance with corporate underwriting guidelines, as well as legal compliance with state statutes.
Mrs. Adams received a BA in Communications and Political Science from West Virginia University and a JD from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law.
ABAGAIL ADAMSAssistant Division CounselStructured Settlement Division7316 Wisconsin Ave, Ste 500Bethesda, MD 20184301-951-2142
2016
117NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
BREAKOUT SESSIONS — TRACK B:
OVERCOMING JUDICIAL OBJECTIONS
DOUG EVANS, ESQ.Partner, Kroll McNamara Evans & Delehanty, LLP
Douglas M. Evans is a partner in the West Hartford, Connecticut, law firm of Kroll, McNamara, Evans & Delehanty, LLP. The focus of Doug’s practice is in commercial litigation, representing clients in business, financial and real estate disputes. Doug also concentrates in representing specialty finance companies in connection with actions to approve structured settlement transfers and lottery assignments. Doug is an affiliate member of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers.
Doug regularly represents clients in state and federal courts in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He is a member of the Connecticut Bar Association and serves on the executive committee of the Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section.
Doug has a BA from Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut, and a JD from Suffolk University Law School, Boston, Massachusetts.
2:00 PM – 2:45 PM 3:00 PM - 3:45 PM FOUNTAINBLEAU ROOM
MARC HARRISClient First Settlement Funding, LLC301 Yamato Road, Suite 3200Boca Raton, FL [email protected]
MARC HARRISGeneral Counsel – Client First Settlement Funding, LLC
Mr. Harris has almost 20 years of experience as an attorney in the specialty finance area. He currently serves as General Counsel to Client First Settlement Funding where he oversees the company’s legal issues for its lottery prize and structured settlement departments. Prior to joining Client First, Mr. Harris worked as General Counsel to Encore Funding, LLC and as Associate Counsel to Singer Asset Finance Company, LLC. Mr. Harris has an undergraduate degree from Florida State University and a law degree from Nova Southeastern University. He is admitted to the Florida Bar and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
DOUG EVANS, ESQ.Kroll, McNamara, Evans & Delehanty, LLP65 Memorial Road, Suite 300West Hartford, CT 06107860-561-7070www.kmelaw.com
2016
118 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
BREAKOUT SESSIONS — TRACK C:
RECENT EXPERIENCES IN VIRGINIA, FLORIDA AND TENNESSEE
AMANDA A. DOBANTONIn-House Counsel, Fairfield Funding, LLC
Amanda Dobanton began working at Fairfield Funding in 2010 as a recent graduate from Law School. In 2012, Mrs. Dobanton became General Counsel for Fairfield Funding and in 2015 became a partner. During Mrs. Dobanton’ s six years at Fairfield Funding she has been actively involved in all aspects of the business.
Prior to joining Fairfield Funding, Amanda interned and worked for a Wills, Trusts and Estates law firm while also obtaining her J.D. from Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School. Mrs. Dobanton graduated in the top 10% of her class and was awarded the Excellence in Oral Advocacy Award for her graduating class.
Mrs. Dobanton earned her Bachelor’s Degree in History and Political Science at Brenau University in Gainesville, Georgia.
2:00 PM – 2:45 PM 3:00 PM - 3:45 PM GENTILLY ROOM
DOYLE CHISHOLMAssociate General Counsel, Seneca One Finance, Inc.
Doyle Chisholm is the Associate General Counsel at Seneca One Finance, Inc. based in Bethesda, Maryland. Doyle joined Seneca One in 2004 and led the legal and transactional efforts of its Structured Settlement Division for six years before transitioning to the corporate legal office. In his current role, Doyle is responsible for Seneca One’s legislative and compliance efforts for both the Structured Settlement and Lottery Divisions. Doyle serves as NASP’s Conference Committee chair. He is a graduate of the College of Charleston and the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law. He is admitted to the Virginia and Washington, DC bars.
AMANDA A. DOBANTONFairfield Funding3424 Peachtree Road, Ste C 100Atlanta, GA 30326888-943-8637www.fairfieldfunding.com
DOYLE L. CHISHOLMAssociate General CounselSenecaOne Finance7920 Norfolk Avenue, Suite 300Bethesda, MD 20814 Direct: 240.482.1661Fax: [email protected]
2016
119NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
BREAKOUT SESSIONS — TRACK D:
ISSUES WITH MINOR’S ORDERS
SHAWN RICHMORChief Operating Officer, Strategic Capital, LLC
Shawn Richmor has served as COO of Strategic Capital Corporation since 2002. He is a CPA, with extensive financial, operations and accounting experience. Prior to joining Strategic Capital, Shawn was the corporate controller for a national property and casualty insurer. He also held the position of Director of Finance at a leading online retailer. Born and raised in South Africa, Shawn graduated from the University of the Witwatersrand with a Bachelor of Commerce degree and obtained an Honours in Accounting Science degree from the University of South Africa. He qualified as a chartered accountant in South Africa and in Canada, where he articled at Ernst & Young. He is married with two children.
2:00 PM – 2:45 PM 3:00 PM - 3:45 PM CARROLLTON ROOM
MICHAEL DAMORENovation Settlement Solutions916-692-8839 (Direct)800-747-6472 x313cell 916-769-8863fax 877-292-8499
MICHAEL DAMOREGeneral Counsel, Novation Settlement Solutions
In September 2001, Michael Damore joined LGS Advisors, Encore Funding, LLC and Novation Capital, LLC (now known as Novation Settlement Solutions). He serves as General Counsel where he is responsible for all of the legal underwriting, processing, and regulatory compliance related to these businesses. He has served on the NASP Board for over a decade.
SHAWN RICHMORStrategic Capital, LLC100 Sheppard Ave East, Ste. 720Toronto, Ontario M2N6N5Canada416-849-3484www.strategiccapital.com
Join us November 7-10, 2017 at the Cosmopolitan in Las Vegas
for the NASP 2017 Annual Conference
Sponsorship opportunities are available now and are sure to sell out early. See next page for sponsorship details.
2016
121NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
EXCLUSIVE PRESENTING SPONSOR ($12,500)
» Brand Recognition » Your corporate logo
featured on NASP website, in conference promotion materials and broadcast e-mails
» Banner displayed in main session room or Gobo logo projection
» On-Site Exposure » Opportunity to make brief
remarks and distribute company materials
» Verbal recognition at conference
» Logo on conference signage
» Exhibitor space » Conference Program » Logo inside » Full-page ad on back
cover » Conference Registrations » Three free registrations
PLATINUM LEVEL: Exclusive Cocktail Event Sponsor ($6,500)
» Brand Recognition » Your corporate logo
featured on NASP website, in conference promotion materials and broadcast e-mails
» On-Site Exposure » Opportunity to make
brief remarks and distribute company materials
» Logo on signage and projected via Gobo at the cocktail event
» Verbal recognition at conference
» Logo on conference signage
» Exhibitor space » Conference Program » Logo displayed inside » Full-page ad » Conference Registration » Two free registrations
SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 2017 NASP ANNUAL CONFERENCE
SIGN UP NOW:
NAME E-MAIL
NAME OF COMPANY PHONE NUMBER
I am interested in:
£ Exclusive Presenting Sponsor £ Silver Level: Speaker Sponsor
£ Platinum Level: Exclusive Cocktail Event Sponsor £ Bronze Level: Sponsor or Exhibitor Space
£ Gold Level: Exclusive Breakfast or Lunch Sponsor
GOLD LEVEL: Exclusive Breakfast or Lunch Sponsor ($4,500)
» Brand Recognition » Your corporate logo
featured on NASP website, conference promotion materials and broadcast e-mails
» On-Site Exposure » Opportunity to distribute
company materials » Logo and tabletop signage
at sponsored event » Verbal recognition at
conference » Logo included in
conference materials » Exhibitor space » Conference Program » Logo displayed inside » Half-page ad » Conference Registrations » One free registration
SILVER LEVEL: NASP Speaker Sponsor ($3,000)
» Brand Recognition » Your corporate logo
featured on NASP website, conference promotion materials and broadcast e-mails
» On-Site Exposure » Logo displayed in
conference materials » Verbal recognition at
conference » Exhibitor space » Conference Program » Quarter-page ad
BRONZE LEVEL: Sponsor or Exhibitor Space ($1,500)
» On-Site Exposure » Exhibitor space » Conference Program » Logo in program
Sponsorship opportunities for the NASP 2017 Annual Conference are available on a first-come-first-served basis. Reserve your 2017 sponsorship, fill out the form below and return it to the Conference Reservation Desk. Benefits include:
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT (CLE)
In previous years, state bars recognized the benefit of the NASP conference and provided varying levels of Continuing Legal Education credit each year including ethics credits. The following information provides you with how to secure CLE credit for this year's conference attendance and materials.
How to secure CLE Credit for the 2016 NASP Conference:
� Use the NASP Certificate of Attendance Form on teh next page. Make sure it is signed by a NASP committee member or registration staff.
� Download and print out the full digital version of the NASP Program which contains all the PowerPoint presentations and other materials form speakers and panels at the conference. The digital version of the program is available in pdf from online at nasp-usa.com in the left margin of the conference section.
� Review your state bar guidelines on submitting course or conference materials for CLE credit.
� Follow your state bar instructions on how to submit materials and attendance forms for CLE credit.
� Contact your state bar with any questions on CLE credit.
National Association of Settlement Purchasers
OBTAINING CREDIT FOR THE NASP CONFERENCE
123NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
NASP 2016 ANNUAL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE VERIFICATION FORM
Complete this form and attach a copy of the digital program (sent to all attendees on 11/01/16 to download) and return it to your state bar association requesting continuing education credit for 2016 NASP Conference. Complete a form for each state for which you intend to request credits for attendance.
Attendee certifies that he or she personally attended the 2016 NASP Annual Conference.
ATTENDEE NAME
PROFESSION
ATTORNEY BAR NUMBER OR OTHER LICENSE NUMBER
STATE OF ADMISSION
________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTENDEE
Verfication by NASP Conference Committee Member
________________________ ________________________________________________________________________DATE SIGNATURE OF COMMITTEE MEMBER
Susan Barnes NASP Association Administrator
National Association of Settlement Purchasers
EVENT LOCATION: The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans, New Orleans, LASPONSORED BY: National Association of Settlement Purchasers
37,500 SELF-DIRECTED IRAs
1989Disbursing Agent since
108 year old financial institution
1401 4th Avenue Canyon, Texas 79015
goldstartrust.com (800) 486-6888
$2.3 billion in serviced funds for more than entities
RETIREMENT INDUSTRY TRUST ASSOCIATION
Trust Branch of $3 Billion Happy State Bank
2016
125NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
ABAGAIL ADAMS Assistant Division Counsel Stone Street Capital, LLC 7316 Wisconsin Ave, Ste 500 Bethesda, MD 20814 301-951-2142 [email protected] stonestreet.com
R.L. ADAMS R.L. Adams, PLLC 333 Fayetteville Street, Ste 1201 Raleigh, NC 27601 919-270-7672 [email protected] rladams.com
MICHAEL AIELLO Director of Sales CBC Settlement Funding 181 Washington Street, Ste 375 Conshohocken, PA 19428 215-542-2130 [email protected] cbcsettlementfunding.com
JUAN ARCINIEGASPrincipal777 Partners518-331-1311777 Brickell Ave, Suite 1100Miami, FL [email protected]
JEREMY BABENER General Counsel Multistream Capital 601 SW Morrison, Ste 2100 Portland, OR 97204 503-866-3035 [email protected] multistreams.com
ROBERT BANDY Kay Casto & Chaney PLLC PO Box 2031 Charleston, WV 25327 304-345-8900 [email protected] kaycasto.com
ESHEL BAR-ADON EVP-Specialty Finance/Strategic Partnerships BofI Federal Bank 4350 La Jolla Village Drive San Diego, CA 92122 858-764-2905 [email protected] bofifederalbank.com
SUSAN BARNES NASP Association Adminstrator Barnes Company 720 Collier Drive Dixon, CA 95620 707-888-2647 [email protected] barnescompany.com
WILLIAM BARTH Vice President Westlaw Court Express 1100 13th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 202-423-2175 [email protected] thomsonreuters.com
DEBBIE BLAIR SMA Hub, Inc. 4000 Kruse Way Place, Ste 230 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 971-245-3425 [email protected] smahub.com
JEFF BOCK Bock Lawyer 150 E. Palmetto Park Blvd, #800 Boca Raton, TX 33432 561-392-8788 [email protected] bocklawyer.com
BOB BOCKRATH Vice President Wilmington Trust 300 Park Street, Ste 390 Birmingham, MI 48009 248-723-5421 [email protected] wilmingtontrust.com
MELISSA BOLLING President Allied Servicing Corporation 3019 N Argonne Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99212 509-893-0240 [email protected] allservicing.com
DAN BONNER Director of Sales Stone Street Capital 7316 Wisconsin Ave Bethesda, MD 20814 301-247-4434 [email protected] stonestreet.com
MICHAEL BOYD Managing Partner Bell & Boyd, PLLC P.O. Box 841 Magnolia, AR 71753 870-234-6111 [email protected] bell-boyd.net
MATT BRACY Partner Scheef & Stone 2600 Network Blvd., Ste 400 Frisco, TX 75034 214-472-2100 [email protected] solidcounsel.com
LUIGI BRANDIMARTE Senior Counsel Sacco & Fillas, LLP 3119 Newtown Avenue #7 Astoria, NY 11102 718-269-2201 [email protected] saccofillas.com
JOHN BULBROOK Principal Income Stream Funding Partners LLC 57 River Street STE 200 Wellesley, MA 2481 781-254-8550 [email protected] bulbrookdrislane.com
DAVID BYERS Attorney Law Offices of David A Byers LLC 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., Ste 920 Bloomington, MN 55437 612-201-4372 [email protected] byerslawoffice.com
37,500 SELF-DIRECTED IRAs
1989Disbursing Agent since
108 year old financial institution
1401 4th Avenue Canyon, Texas 79015
goldstartrust.com (800) 486-6888
$2.3 billion in serviced funds for more than entities
RETIREMENT INDUSTRY TRUST ASSOCIATION
Trust Branch of $3 Billion Happy State Bank
2016
126 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
MATTHEW CAMPBELL CEO Richmond Capital 6615 West Boynton Beach Blvd #394 Boynton Beach, FL 33437 561-706-0088 [email protected] richmondcapital.net
SUSAN CAST General Counsel/ Director Liberty Settlement Funding, LLC 16 NE 4th Street Ste 200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 855-577-2274 [email protected] libertysf.com
BERNADETTE CATALANA Lavin, O’Neil, Cedrone & DiSipio One East Main Street, Floor 10 Rochester, NY 14614 585-647-5753 [email protected]
JOHN CEVALLOS President Northeastern Capital 45 Broadway, Ste 1840 New York, NY 10006 800-931-8109 [email protected] necf.net
DOYLE CHISHOLM Associate General Counsel Seneca One Finance, Inc. 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Ste 300 Bethesda, MD 20814 240-482-1661 [email protected] senecaone.com
ANDY COCKRELL Vice-President Lance Insurance & Marketing Services 3033 N Central Ste 435 Phoenix, AZ 85012 888-939-0135 [email protected] lancemarketing.com
RICHARD CONNELLY Counsel J.G. Wentworth 201 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 215-567-1771 [email protected] jgwentworth.com
SAMUEL CORTES Fox Rothschild LLP 747 Constitution Drive, Ste 100 Exton, PA 19341 610-458-4966 [email protected] foxrothschild.com
JOHN CRILLEY Director Peachtree Settlement Funding 201 King of Prussia Rd Ste 201 Radnor, PA 19087 866-656-9853 [email protected] peachtreefinancial.com
ANDREW CUMMINGS Attorney Stolzenberg Gelles Flynn & Arango, LLP 1401 Brickell Avenue, Ste 825 Miami, FL 33131 305-961-1450 [email protected] sgfcounsel.com
HON. JEANETTE DALTON Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division St. MS 24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 360-337-7140 [email protected] co.kitsap.wa.us
MICHAEL DAMORE Novation Capital 1641 Worthington Road, Ste 410 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 916-692-8839 [email protected] novationventures.com
JANIS DAVIS Director of Operations GFG Alternative Investment Advisors LLC One Sound Shore Drive Ste 104 Greenwich, CT 06830 203-742-1474 [email protected] gfgai.com
J. BRIAN DEAR Attorney Nesbitt Vassar & McCown LLP 15851 Dallas Parkway, Ste 800 Addison, TX 75001 972-371-2411 [email protected] nvmlaw.com
MATT DEMARCUS Partner Wolnitzek, Rowekamp & DeMarcus, PSC 502 Greenup Street Covington, KY 41011 859-491-4444 [email protected] wrdattorneys.com
R. DIAMOND Paralegal Hanszen Laporte, LLP 11767 Katy Freeway, Ste 850 Houston, TX 77079 713-522-9444 [email protected] hanszenlaporte.com
SCOTT DINGMAN Managing Partner Fairfield Funding 3424 Peachtree Road Ste C-100 At, GA 30326 404-442-2920 [email protected] fairfieldfunding.com
THOMAS DIXON Attorney Clark Hill PLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Ste 3500 Detroit, MI 48226 313-965-8587 [email protected] clarkhill.com
AMANDA DOBANTON General Counsel Fairfield Funding 3424 Peachtree Road Ste C-100 Atlanta, GA 30326 404-442-2932 [email protected] fairfieldfunding.com
2016
127NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
LEE DRIZIN President Lee A. Drizin, Chartered 2460 Professional Court #110 Las Vegas, NV 89128 702-798-4955 [email protected] leedrizin.com
ROGER DUNAWAY Owner Law Office of Roger T. Dunaway, PLLC PMB 612 321 High School Road NE Ste. D-3 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206-719-4396 [email protected] rtdlaw.com
MATTHEW EASON Attorney Eason & Tambornini, A Law Corporation 1819 K Street, Ste 200 Sacramento, CA 95811 916-438-1819 [email protected] capcitylaw.com
JOHN ENYART President Portfolio Financial Servicing Company 2121 SW Boradway, 2nd Floor Portland, OR 97201 503-721-3234 [email protected] pfsc.com
DOUGLAS EVANS Kroll, McNamara, Evans & Delehanty, LLP 65 Memorial Road #300 West Hartford, CT 06107 860-561-7070 [email protected] kmelaw.com
JULIE EVANS Julie Pi Evans Law Firm, PLLC P.O. Box 924506 Houston, TX 77292 281-846-6252 [email protected] jpelawfirm.com
C THOMAS EZZELL The Getty Law Group, PLLC 250 W. Main St., Ste 1900 Lexington, KY 40507 859-533-8785 [email protected] gettylawgroup.com
MICHAEL FASANO President Fasano Associates 1201 15th Street NW, Ste 250 Washington, DC 20005 202-457-8188 [email protected] fasanoassociates.com
LORI FERRO National Sales Manager Stone Street Capital, LLC 7316 Wisconsin Avenue, Ste 500 Bethesda, MD 20814 301-347-4453 [email protected] stonestreet.com
LENA FLORENTINO Senior Case Manager Income Stream Funding Partners, LLC 57 River Street, Ste 200 Wellesley, MA 02481 413-209-2285 [email protected] seeleycapital.com
ERIK FRIEDMAN Managing Partner GFG Alternative Investment Advisors LLC One Sound Shore Drive, Ste 104 Greenwich, CT 06830 203-742-1473 [email protected] gfgai.com
GILA GARBER In House Counsel Client First Settlement Funding 301 Yamato Road, Ste 3200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 877-503-0268 [email protected] clientfirstfunding.com
BENJAMIN GEBER Managing Partner The Financial Xchange, LLC 7600 Leesburg Pike, Ste 305 East Tysons Corner, VA 22043 703-639-0456 [email protected] ballycm.com
MICHAEL GREEN Green, Silverstein & Groff, LLC 215 South Broad Street, #700 Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-972-5520 [email protected] gsglawfirm.com
NANCY GREEN Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey 1515 Market Street, Ste 700 Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-320-2075 [email protected] rtjglaw.com
JOSH GROFF Partner Green, Silverstein & Groff, LLC 215 S. Broad Street, Ste 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-972-5520 [email protected] gsglawfirm.com
STACY GUZMAN Firm Administrator Nesbitt, Vassar & McCown, L.L.P. 15851 Dallas Parkway, Ste 800 Addison, TX 75001 972-371-2411 [email protected] nvmlaw.com
CHRISTINA HAMALIAN In-house Counsel Liberty Settlement Funding, LLC 16 NE 4th Street, Ste 210 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 855-577-2274 [email protected] libertysf.com
KENT HANSEN In-house Counsel Bentzen Financial, LLC 95 West 100 South, Ste 380 Logan, UT 84321 615-823-3455 [email protected] bentzenfinancial.com
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
2016
128 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
MARC HARRIS General Counsel Client First Settlement Funding 301 Yamato Road, Ste 3200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 877-798-9043 [email protected] clientfirstfunding.com
KEVIN HARTY BofI Federal Bank 4350 La Jolla Village Drive San Diego, CA 92122 858-649-2213 [email protected] bofifederalbank.com
SHANNON HARVEY Chief Operating Officer Annuity Transfers Ltd 1800 Preston Park Blvd, Ste 115 Plano, TX 75093 972-952-0260 [email protected] annuitytransfers.com
MARK HASLAM Vice President J.G. Wentworth 201 King of Prussia Rd, Ste 201 Radnor, PA 19087 484-434-2387 [email protected] jgwentworth.com
DANIEL HEFNER BofI Federal Bank 4350 La Jolla Village Drive San Diego, CA 92122 858-649-2031 [email protected] bofi.com
MARC HERMES President Liberty Settlement Solutions 16 NE 4th St, Ste 210 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315 954-763-1165 [email protected] libertysf.com
ANDREW HILLMAN President, CEO and General Counsel Specialty Asset Advisors, Inc. 550 Okeechobee Blvd., Ste 1219 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-386-4307 [email protected] specialtyassetadvisors.com
PATRICK HINDERT Managing Director S2KM Limited 9057 Swigert Road Loveland, OH 45140 513 899-2100 [email protected] s2km.com
LEAH HOFFMAN Partner Hoffman & Grantham LLP 555 W. 5th St 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 213-236-3777 [email protected] hoffmangrantham.com
MARK HOGARD CFO Settlement Capital Corporation 14755 Preston Road, Ste 610 Dallas, TX 75254 972-450-5865 [email protected] setcap.com
KIRK HUGHES Director - Business Development Settlement Capital Corporation 14755 Preston Road, Ste 610 Dallas, TX 75254 972-450-5841 [email protected] setcap.com
STANLEY HUSER President SunDoc Filings 7801 Folsom Blvd. Ste. 202 Sacramento, CA 95826 916-712-0077 [email protected] sundocfilings.com
WILL HUSER Sr. Account Manager SunDoc Filings 7801 Folsom Blvd. Ste. 202 Sacramento, CA 95826 916-388-9800 [email protected] sundocfilings.com
JEFFREY JACOBSON, ESQ. Kelley, Drye & Warren, LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 212-808-7800 [email protected] kelleydrye.com
JACK KELLY Partner The McPherson Group, LLP 818 Connecticut Ave NW STE 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202-289-1011 [email protected] mcphersongroup.us
WARD KERR Life Equity, LLC 5611 Hudson Drive, Ste 100 Hudson, Ohio 44236 330-655-7500 [email protected] lifeequity.com
DAWSON KESTER Attorney Robert A. Manchester, IV, PC 4200 Perimeter Center Dr, Ste 160 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 405-525-6710 [email protected] coxinet.net
PENNEY KLEIN Paralegal RightWay Funding 5550 Glades Road 5th Floor Boca Raton, FL 33431 954-800-4688 [email protected] btgadvisors.com
LARYSSA KORDUBA Partner Korduba & Rogers, LLP 211 Florence Tomball, TX 77375 281-351-8877 [email protected] gmail.com
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
2016
129NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
PERY KRINSKY Krinsky PLLC 160 Boradway, Ste 603 New York, NY 10038 212-543-1400 [email protected] krinskypllc.com
PATRICIA LABORDE Senior Vice President Stone Street Capital, LLC 7316 Wisconsin Avenue, Ste 500 Bethesda, MD 20814 301-951-2130 [email protected] stonestreet.com
STEVEN LANCE President Lance Insurance & Marketing Services 3033 N Central, Ste 435 Phoenix, AZ 85012 888-939-0135 [email protected] lancemarketing.com
TOM LEE McCraney, Coco & Lee, PLLC 800 Woodlands Parkway, Ste 107 Ridgeland, MS 39157 601-899-0065 [email protected] mclpllc.com.com
ZACK LESHETZ Legal Director 123 LumpSum LLC 3625 W Broward Blvd 2nd Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 954-455-6060 [email protected] 123lumpsum.com
J DAVID LITTLE Attorney Law Offices of J. David Little, P.C. 5208 W. Broadway, Ste. 202 Pearland, TX 77581 281-705-5433 [email protected]
FREDERICK LOVE General Counsel Sutton Park Capital LLC 777 Brickell Avenue, Ste 100 Miami, FL 33131 212-537-8806 [email protected] suttonparkcapital.com
TAMMY LOW Attorney Low Law Firm, P.C. 5005 Greenville Avenue Ste. 200 Dallas, TX 75206 214-368-8300 [email protected] tdlowattorney.com
CHUCK LOWE CFO Novation Capital 1641 Worthington Rd., Ste 410 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-242-3086 [email protected] novationventures.com
BRIAN MACK Mack Law Group, PC 20 S. Clark Chicago, IL 60603 312-961-9101 [email protected] macklawyers.com
HON. OMAR MALDONADO Hidalgo County Court #8, Texas 100 Closner Blvd. Annex Building Edinburg, TX 78539 956-292-7740 [email protected] co.hidalgo.tx.us
DAVID MANCHESTER Director of Business Development DRB Capital 1625 S Congress Ave, Ste. 200 Delray Beach, FL 33444 561-982-3456 [email protected] drbmail.com
ROBERT A. MANCHESTER IV President Robert A. Manchester IV, PC 4200 Perimeter Center Drive 160 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 405-525-6710 [email protected]
MEDORA MARISSEAU Shareholder Karr Tuttle Campbell 701 5th Avenue, Ste 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 206-223-1313 [email protected] karrtuttle.com
HON. ELINORE MARSH STORMER Summit County Probate Court 209 South High Street Akron, OH 44308-1616 330-643-2330 [email protected] summitohioprobate.com
SIMON MASON Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP The Leadenhall Building 122 Leadenhall St. London EC3V 4AG, United Kingdom +44 (0) 207 746 1686 [email protected] leadenhallcp.com
W. MASON Fox Rothschild LLP 222 Lakeview Ave, Ste 700 West Palm Beach, FL 33408 618-04-4432 [email protected] foxrothschild.com
STEVEN MASTRANTONIO Partner Niekamp, Weisensell, Muttersbaugh & Mastrantonio, LLP 23 S. Main Street 3rd Floor Akron, OH 44308 330-958-0486 [email protected] b-wlaw.com
JAMES MCCABE CEO Liberty Settlement Funding, LLC 16 NE 4th St, Ste 210 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-763-1165 [email protected] libertysf.com
KRISTINE MCKITRICK Kristine McKitrick, Attorney at Law 6046 FM 2920 #426 Spring, TX 77379 832-767-9092 [email protected] mckitricklaw.com
JAMES MEEHAN Managing Principal Signal Point Capital, LLC 301 Yamato Road, Ste 2250 Boca Raton, FL 33431 561-520-2951 [email protected] signalpointcap.com
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
2016
130 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
DAVID MEYEROWITZ President and CEO Strategic Capital Corporation 100 Sheppard Avenue East, Ste 720 Toronto, ON M2N 6N5 416-849-3484 [email protected] strategiccapital.com
GARY MILWIT Chief Operating Officer Stone Street Capital 7316 Wisconsin Ave, Ste 500 Bethesda, MD 20814 301-347-4462 [email protected] stonestreet.com
ERIC MOLITOR Westlaw Court Express 610 Opperman Eagan, MN 55123 425-444-6082 [email protected] tr.com
DUDLEY MORTON Morton Partners, LLC Post Office Box 101103 Denver, CO 80250 303-250-5503 [email protected]
JOHN MOTT Mott & Mott, PLLC P.O. Box 979 McKinney, TX 75070 214-212-2036 [email protected] mottpllc.com
CHRISTOPHER MURRAY Shareholder Daniel Coker Horton & Bell PA PO Box 416 Gulfport, MS 39502 228-864-8117 [email protected] danielcoker.com
EARL NESBITT Partner Nesbitt Vassar & McCown LLP 15851 Dallas Parkway, Ste 800 Addison, TX 75001 9723712411 [email protected] nvmlaw.com
JOHN O’DONOVAN Owner Robin Hood Funding LLC 992 Old Eagle School Rd. #907 Wayne, PA 19087 610-909-5320 [email protected] gorobinhoodfunding.com
AMY R OLIVER Lawyer Amy Rose Oliver 715 Clear Lake Road Clear Lake Shores, TX 77565 281-334-3067 [email protected] amyroseoliver.com
MICHAEL ORENDORF Vice President Wilmington Trust 1100 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19711 302-355-0441 [email protected] wilmingtontrust.com
KALLI OSTLIE Attorney Shapiro & Zielke, LLP 12550 West Frontage Road, Ste 200 Burnsville, MN 55337 952-831-4060 [email protected] logs.com
JON PILGRIM Life Equity, LLC 5611 Hudson Drive, Ste 100 Hudson, Ohio 44236 330-655-7500 [email protected] lifeequity.com
ANTHONY PRIETO President Synergy Settlement Services 911 Outer Road Orlando, FL 32814 407-279-4803 [email protected] synergysettlements.com
MONICA RAY Director of Legal Department Northeastern Capital Funding LLC Empire State Building, 59th FL New York, NY 10118 800-931-8109 [email protected] necf.net
RON REITZ Partner Margolis Edelstein 525 William Penn Place, Ste 3300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412-355-4969 [email protected]
SHAWN RICHMOR COO Strategic Capital Corporation 100 Sheppard Avenue East Ste 720 Toronto, ON M2N 6N5 416-849-3482 [email protected] strategiccapital.com
RICHARD RILLING General Counsel RightWay Funding 600 Corporate Drive, Ste 100 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33334 954-654-7720 [email protected] rightwayfunding.com
DEBORAH ROBB Vice President GFG Alternative Investment Advisors LLC One Sound Shore Dr, Ste 104 Greenwich, CT 06830 203-742-1471 [email protected] gfgai.com
BRIAN ROBINSON Managing Partner GFG Alternative Investment Advisors LLC One Sound Shore Dr, Ste 104 Greenwich, CT 06830 203-742-1471 [email protected] gfgai.com
2016
131NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
MARIANO RODRIGUEZ In-House Counsel Liberty Settlement Funding, LLC 16 NE 4 St, Ste 210 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 855-577-2274 [email protected] libertysf.com
BARBARA ROGERS Partner Korduba & Rogers, LLP 211 Florence Tomball, TX 77375 281-351-8877 [email protected]
JIM ROTHBERG Route Sixty-Six Ventures LLP 118 King Street, 2nd Floor Alexandria, VA 22314 703-828-4198 route66ventures.com
TONINO SACCO Partner Sacco & Fillas, LLP 31-19 Newtown Avenue Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 718-746-3440 [email protected] saccofillas.com
TIM SANSONE Shareholder Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard P.C. 600 Washington Ave., 15th Floor St. Louis, MO 63101 314-446-4250 [email protected] sandbergphoenix.com
TODD SAUCEDO Attorney Robert A. Manchester, IV, PC 4200 Perimeter Center Dr, Ste 160 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 405-525-6710 [email protected] coxinet.net
ANDREW SAVYSKY President 123 LumpSum LLC 3625 W Broward Blvd, 2nd Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 954-455-6060 [email protected] 123lumpsum.com
CHAD SCHAFER Vice President Wells Fargo 600 South 4th Sreet N9300-061 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-316-2897 [email protected] wellsfargo.com
DAVID SCHNIERLE Senior Vice President GoldStar Trust Company 1401 4th Avenue Canyon, TX 79015 806-354-3891 [email protected] goldstartrust.com
AMY SCHWARTZ Partner Beaugureau, Hancock, Stoll & Schwartz P.C. 302 E. Coronado Road Phoenix AZ 85004 6029777725 [email protected] bhsslaw.com
CHRISTOPHER SEELEY CEO Income Stream Funding Partners, LLC 57 River Street Wellesley, MA 02481 413-739-0101 [email protected] seeleycapital.com
JOHN SHAFAI Law Office of John Z. Shafai 170 South Beverly Drive, Ste 305 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 310-788-2889 [email protected] aol.com
ERIC SHIH Attorney Clark Hill PLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Ste 3500 Detroit, MI 48226 313-965-8813 [email protected] clarkhill.com
PATRICK SICOTTE Attorney Nesbitt Vassar & McCown LLP 15851 Dallas Parkway, Ste 800 Addison, TX 75001 9723712411 [email protected] nvmlaw.com
WILLIAM SKYRM CEO CBC Settlement Funding 181 Washington Street, Ste 375 Conshohocken, PA 19428 215-542-2130 [email protected] cbcsettlementfunding.com
MADIS SMIT Counsel State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 1 State Farm Plaza, A-3 Bloomington, IL 61710 309-766-5672 [email protected] statefarm.com
JACQUE ST. ROMAIN Attorney Karr Tuttle Campbell 701 5th Avenue, Ste 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 206-223-1313 [email protected] karrtuttle.com
AMBER STEINBECK Attorney Steinbeck Law, LLC 3441 Coleman Road Kansas City, MO 64111 816-804-0210 [email protected] steinbecklawllc.com
SHANA STEPHENS MURRAY Vice President Wells Fargo 600 South 6th Street N9300-061 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-667-3538 [email protected] wellsfargo.com
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
2016
132 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SETTLEMENT PURCHASERS
ELYSE STRICKLAND Offit Kurman PA 4800 Montgomery Lane 9th Fl Bethesda, MD 20814 240-507-1770 [email protected] offitkurman.com
JASON SUTHERLAND Director of Capital Markets DRB Capital 1625 S Congress Ave Ste 200 Delray Beach, FL 33445 561-504-5231 [email protected] drbmail.com
WILLIAM SUTHERLAND Sutherland Law Firm 11005 Spain Rd NE, Ste 15 Albuquerque, NM 87111 505-400-1142 [email protected] sutherlandlegal.net
STEVE TAYLOR Manager Thomson Reuters 1100 13th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 202-572-1943 [email protected] thomsonreuters.com
MICHELLE THOMPSON Annuity Transfers Ltd 800 Campbell Rd, Ste 335 Richardson, TX 75081 214-693-7444 [email protected] annuitytransfers.com
SCOTT TOPOLSKI Topolski Law Firm, P.A. 3839 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Boca Raton, FL 33431 561-419-9900 [email protected] topolskilawfirm.com
DAVID VASSAR Partner Nesbitt Vassar & McCown LLP 15851 Dallas Parkway, Ste 800 Addison, TX 75001 972-371-2411 [email protected] nvmlaw.com
DAVID WAGUESPACK Attorney Carver Darden 1100 Poydras Street, Ste 3100 New Orleans, LA 70163 504-585-3814 [email protected] carverdarden.com
JONATHAN WALKER President & CEO SMA Hub, Inc. 4000 Kruse Way Place, Ste 230 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 971-245-3425 [email protected] smahub.com
BENJAMIN WANDER President 1504 Capital Inc. 1815 Purdy Ave Miami Beach, FL 33139 786-541-1650 [email protected] l1504capital.com
JOSHUA WANDER President Sutton Park Capital LLC 777, Ste 100 Miami, FL 33131 212-537-8806 [email protected] suttonparkcapital.com
CHRIS WELLS Life Equity, LLC 5611 Hudson Drive, Ste 100 Hudson, Ohio 44236 330-655-7500 [email protected] lifeequity.com
SHEILA WHITE Vice President Allied Servicing Corporation 3019 N Argonne Rd Spokane, WA 99212 509-893-0240 [email protected] allservicing.com
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
SCOTT WILLKOMM Life Equity, LLC 5611 Hudson Drive, Ste 100 Hudson, Ohio 44236 330-655-7500 [email protected] lifeequity.com
MICHAEL WORCH Founder The Financial Xchange 1300 Piccard Drive, S-201 Rockville, MD 20850 301-956-1525 [email protected] worchfinancial.com
JEFF WORLEY Senior Vice President GoldStar Trust Company 1401 4th Avenue Canyon, TX 79015 806-354-3841 [email protected] goldstartrust.com
TYSON WRIGHT SMA Hub, Inc. 4000 Kruse Way Place, Ste 230 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 971-245-3425 [email protected] smahub.com
BORIS ZISER Partner Schulte Roth & Zavel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-756-2140 [email protected] srz.com
ADAM ZOLDESSY Adam Zoldessy PC 724 Avenue C Bayonne, NJ 07002 201-823-8710 [email protected]
GORDON ZWEIG Intelifund 3524 Silverside Road, 3B Wilmington, DE 19810 301-785-2068 [email protected] intelifund.com
2016
133NOVEMBER 1–4, 2016
2016 CONFERENCE SPONSORS
BRONZE SPONSORS
SILVER SPONSORS
GOLD SPONSORS
PLATINUM SPONSORS
THE MCPHERSON GROUP, LLP
Jack Kelly, Esq.
PLATINUM SPONSOR OF THE 2016 NASP CONFERENCE
Expert Knowledge in a Disciplined Framework
SUTTON PARK CAPITAL
777 Brickell Avenue, Ste 100 Miami, FL 33131 212-537-8806 www.suttonparkcapital.com
Income stream Funding Partners, LLC is one of the leading buyers of secondary structured settlements. We have purchased over 2400 cases in the last seven years from you, our originators. Our deep experience includes the purchase of guaranteed structured settlement deals, life contingent hedged and unhedged deals, lottery payments both guaranteed and life contingent, hedged and unhedged, and annuities with commutation riders.
And when we commit to a deal, we close the deal. It’s as simple as that.
We’d like to personally thank you, our originators and NASP for making all of this possible.
It is an honor to be a sponsor of this conference.
Thank you,
Income Stream Funding Partners
ISFUNDINGPARTNERS.COM | [email protected] BULBROOK - CALL OR TEXT (781) 254-8550
CASE CLOSED (2400 OF THEM)
Income stream Funding Partners, LLC is one of the leading buyers of secondary structured settlements. We have purchased over 2400 cases in the last seven years from you, our originators. Our deep experience includes the purchase of guaranteed structured settlement deals, life contingent hedged and unhedged deals, lottery payments both guaranteed and life contingent, hedged and unhedged, and annuities with commutation riders.
And when we commit to a deal, we close the deal. It’s as simple as that.
We’d like to personally thank you, our originators and NASP for making all of this possible.
It is an honor to be a sponsor of this conference.
Thank you,
Income Stream Funding Partners
ISFUNDINGPARTNERS.COM | [email protected] BULBROOK - CALL OR TEXT (781) 254-8550
CASE CLOSED (2400 OF THEM)
