What a brilliant strategy!
Is NYU law student Jeremy Babener being used as a "cheap but erudite tool" of those who collectively have hundreds of thousands of dollars vested in a project to convince Treasury to issue guidance as to IRC 468B concerning the use of single claimant qualified settlement funds, but have seen those efforts , (including the work of high priced legal talent) languish for years?
The circumstantial evidence:
Babener is from Oregon, home of "the great silverback" Jack Meligan of
Settlement Professionals, who was head of the Society of Settlement Planners at
the start of the project
Primary acknowledgments on the QSF paper are for Full review of the paper to follow, but at first glance it smells of the influence of the Word on the street is that Babener was at the recent Society of
Richard B. Risk and Patrick Hindert, also part of the original crew.
Settlement Planners annual meeting at the behest and expense of an SSP member.
Primary acknowledgments on the QSF paper are for
Full review of the paper to follow, but at first glance it smells of the influence of the
Word on the street is that Babener was at the recent Society of
Convincing Treasury to issue guidance likely means that:
More structured annuity companies will agree to take qualified assignments from single claimant qualified settlement funds.
Some planning opportunities may be easier with a single claimant qualified settlement fund, particularly in certain jurisdictions.
Many plaintiff advisers can make more money because those who feel uncomfortable using a single claimant settlement fund simply on the strength of a legal opinion, will feel more at ease with using the approach.
Many large institutions will be attracted to the business because by controlling all the settlement dollars it becomes more cost effective to enter the industry than a two broker or multi broker commssion sharing system.
Controlling all the settlement dollars provides a means for settlement consultants to have greater resources to contribute to trial lawyer associations. Let's call a spade a spade.
Stay tuned. More to come.