by Structured Settlement Watchdog
Attorney Richard B. Risk shamelessly promotes his poorly pleaded lawsuit against AIG in an opinion piece on The Hill published May 22, 2017.
How can any Congressman, Congresswoman or staffers lend any credence to Richard B. Risk, a licensed attorney and then licensed insurance agent who, in 2004, signed a declaration, under penalty of perjury, to the United States Department of Justice, that he had provided substantial services to defendants in each of the preceding three years. The statement was in direct contradiction to what Risk and his firm held themselves out (only serving plaintiffs), according to forensic evidence available online and also available via FOIA [ see my blog Is There a Need for a Risk Assessment?]
As I've previously opined, there are serious problems in the argument about undisclosed commissions and their impact on plaintiffs.
In 2004, the same year as the aforementioned declaration under penalty of perjury to the DOJ, Dick Risk's company website claimed that the Risk folks "always disclosed the true cost of the structured settlement". One wonders whether an audit of files from that time would show that Dick Risk disclosed the"true cost" as the cost on the annuity issuer quote or the annuity issuer quote less the commission? It's a goose gander thing. Download 2004 Structured Settlement Services Ethics Statement
Insurance regulation is the province of the states, the majority of which have long standing anti-rebating laws. Risk's opinion piece implies that the rebate issue is an insurmountable hurdle. It would involve each state amending its longstanding insurance laws. I imagine that Risk's inner monologue is a paraphrase of Faber College's Eric Stratten, "We could fight them with conventional weapons (state by state), but that would take years and cost thousands of lives". No, AIG didn't "bomb Pearl Harbor".
Dick Risk does not even appear have widespread support from plaintiff advisors.
Sing it Julie!