Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog: Structured Settlements | Settlement Planning News and John Darer Reviews

Structured Settlement Strategy To Help Maximize Social Security for Baby Boomers, GenX

by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT® RSP CLTC

There is a compelling reason to structure a settlement that some attorneys, plaintiffs and insurance adjusters may have overlooked.

Using structured settlement to help maximize Social Security

How a Structured Settlement Can Be Used to Help Maximize Social Security Retirement income

A structured settlement can be used to replace the payments that a plaintiff would receive from social security and give them the economic support to delay social security until age 70 when benefits are considerably higher.  Plaintiffs thinking of taking social security early, beginning at age 62 may want to think again when looking at these numbers compiled from the Social Security Administration website.

Percentage Social Security is reduced if you take early retirement at age 62, instead of at full retirement

• Born 1960 or later    30%
• Born 1955-1959        25.83%-29.17%

Percentage Social Security is increased for delaying receipt from full retirement age until age 70

• Born 1960 or later      32%   [ Note full retirement age is age 67 for those born 1960 or later]

The last time I checked for myself, there was an almost $9,000 annual difference in payments for life if I defer from full retirement at age 67 until age 70.

• For married couples, if the settlement is large enough, a structured settlement could be fashioned so that both spouses could afford to delay receiving social security.
• Plaintiff lawyers can use this strategy with structured attorney fees or attorney fee deferred compensation, even though payments are taxable.

Each person's decision should be taken after consideration of that person's unique set of facts.

 

Structured Settlement Industry Primary Market Update

by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

Curmudgeon alert! Patrick Hindert's commentary on "structured settlement primary market annuity sales" falls a bit short of the mark, in my opinion.

Where Pat Hindert Sees Bleak I see Strands of Optimism

The fact is that premium is up 7% year over year, according to industry statistics annually compiled by Melissa Evola of SFA. 

It's worth noting that production increased despite the withdrawal of two companies from the market in February 2013.

It is also not clear if the numbers of those companies for Q1 2013 were counted.

Berkshire Hathaway was the dominant company in 2013 with $1,424,306,831. The rest of the pack:

• Pacific Life/PLA  - $848,725,000 (+ $11.7 million)
• MetLife - $726,000,000 (+ $62 million)
• Amgen/USL - $587,367,753 (+ $61.3 million)
• Liberty Life - $558,106,000 (+ $147.3 million)
• Prudential Life - $548,700,000 (- $86.7 million)
• New York Life - $275,253,601 (- $47.5 million)
• Mutual of Omaha - $86,598,027 (+ $29 million)

The withdrawal of Allstate has quite clearly made a major difference in the production of Liberty Life, which has filled the void for annuity non qualified assignments.

It is truly remarkable if you consider that Liberty Life Assurance Company is considering, but does not presently do the structured sales, structured celebrity endorsement fees and structured oil and gas lease bonuses and creative uses of NQAs from which Allstate drew its aplomb, if my math is right and using Evola's stats, Liberty's business grew more than 35.8%. [ Based on Evola's stats 2012 Liberty production would have been $410,806,000;  $147,300,000 added to that would bring us to $558,106,000 in 2013]. 

The decrease in non qualified annuity premium cited by Evola and trumpeted by Pat Hindert is unremarkable at $6.2 million. It is prima facie evidence that Liberty and the brokers who support it  "did the business". Bravo!  And we can do better! It is unclear whether Melissa Evola's stats included the TFSS/ Structured Assignments Inc, non qualified assignment production that funds with treasury obligations and does include structured sales. Evola's stats do not speak about alternative non qualfied assignment products from Kenmare Assignments, new entrant Havelet Assignments, or the fact that peridodic payment reinsurance programs through National Indemnity and MetLife are viable solutions to non IRC 104(a)(2) cases where the payor is an insurance company.Speaking from my own personal experience,  demand is improving on the non qualified side. Given the number of calls I get per week on structured sales and the expressed comfort with an annuity funded product, I might be able to make up the industry slack on my own if the solution were available.  I know of one broker in Texas who could probably do that in a good afternoon.

AmGen's numbers will undoubtably improve when it eventually earns an A+ rating from A.M. Best. Their rates are generally among the most competitive.

The introduction of the Pacific Life indexed linked structured annuity rider in Q2 2014 will be a positive step for the industry to increase opportunities and I hope it inspires others who have similar products on their retail shelves to adapt and make them available to the distribution channel.

Prudential has just released a moving testimonial video featuring a widow who received a structured settlement as part of her pilot husband's workers compensation settlements. As amusing and annoying the JG Wentworth commercials are, it's good to see a video that associates the term "structured settlement" for what it really is and really does.

 Bumps in the Road

• The ELNY debacle, while very tragic and unfortunate for some, has had little effect on industry production or perception of structured settlements. It proved that the statutory "tin cup" doth not runneth over and lent further credence to the old adage that all one's eggs should not be in one basket. 
• Nothwithstanding the issues set forth in the case, The Hartford v Spencer case proved to be non event as far as industry production goes. The gloating by one of the lawyers, a former structured settlement broker, that his lawsuit was the reason that Hartford got out of the structured settlement market was replaced with a "high protein scambled egg on face" when Hartford returned to the market a year and a half later. At best it showed that there is forum for addressing bad business practices. Some folks went in that direction and overall the indstry has improved as a result. That Hartford withdrew from the market again in 2012, like the first time had nothing to fo with the attorney. Following my calling out of the lawyer, his professional website now reads "His class action lawsuit against a major insurer was followed by the insurer’s adoption of significant changes in its structured settlement practices"-what it should have read in the first place,
• The factorabilty of structures has fortunately not proved to be the issue it was for trial lawyers 5-7 years ago. Some lawyers have even set up their own factoring companies or factoring brokerages and invest in structured settlement payment rights (and pre settlement financing). The New York City law firm at the center of the alleged fraudulent court orders story has an active personal injury practice. The Illinois law firm that is a co-Defendant in the class action against JGWPT is a lawyer with an active Chicago personal injury practice. The secondary market lacks the uniform professional legitimacy, in my opinion, that a licensing and advertising standard brings. There is a big slime factor, involving people who feign magnanimity but play dirty, with some participants apparently even willing to circumvent the law. Yet there are at least 3 individuals active in the structured settlement primary market who are involved as originators in the structured settlement market in a big way because they want to change things. So why not make it more legitimate and set enforceable standards, on par with the rest of the financial services industry?. 
• At this point I find the "low interest rate" objection to be weak and easily overcome.  Structured settlements are not an all or nothing financial solution.  A structured settlement is a core income solution that works for many people. Many people want safety, security and guarantees as part of the new normal after their financial transition.  In the late 1990s we competed with a screaming stock market that suffered the crash of the dot coms in 2000. Then there was the uncertainty after 9/11. Thne there was 2008-2009. Some of our potential clients have suffered two crashes and possibly 3 or 4 if they were investing in 1987 or 1990-1991. How about those who lost money on real estate? Or BItcoins? Or Bernie Madoff?

 Retooling of the structured settlement mind set

The primary structured settlement industry has been in the process of retooling for several years. Many individual players and/or companies have already found ways to sell the product or service for the core income and risk anagement tool that it is as opposed to simply selling interest rates.

 If you started participating in the structured settlement business after 1984 you would for the most part have been dealing with a sequence of lower interest rates. SOMEHOW  (eye roll), we managed to do $6B, more than 20 years later, when interest rates were less than half of what they were in 1984.

Hindert likes to posture the debate as the settlement planning model v the claims model. It's not as simple as that, in my opinion. It's a skill set, it's knowledge and ability to articulate and the ability to harness the modern day 21st Century tools at your disposal to promote your business while not forgetting some of the lessons and skills from the 20th Century.

To be continued.

 

 

 

 

 

Structured Settlement Factoring vs Structured Settlement Commutation: A Spade Is a Spade

by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

It's odd seeing Patrick Hindert on the defensive in NASP 2011 Annual Meeting -2. Very little of the blog is about the NASP Annual meeting. Instead the post primarily deals with a defense of criticisms of Hindert's review of the NASP meeting and criticism of his long advocacy of factoring in general (which the reader must assume has been from the primary market).

The private criticism that Hindert is referring to did not include this author. However, having now read the post, I am now going to share some observations that I personally find interesting.

A.  Hindert's viewpoint about a structured settlement annuitant's "right to factor" appears to be inconsistent with that of the President of NASP, whose annual meeting is the subject of the post!

"Many primary market participants will disagree with portions of the above paragraph. They do not view structured settlements transfers either as a product improvement or as a recipient's "right" however that right may be qualified by statute".  S2KM  November 18, 2011

"Structured settlement annuitants do not have the right to factor their structured settlement payment"s  (emphasis ours),..." Matt Bracy, President National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and General Counsel Settlement Capital Corporation, in a video appearing on Factoring Channel, November 7, 2011.  See my November 9, 2011 review

 B. Hindert's opinion on structured settlement commutation must have changed

  In S2KM's opinion, the primary market's general attitude toward and perspective of the secondary market since 2001 represent a serious strategic mistake that has caused considerable harm to the primary structured settlement market. Instead of improving their own products by adding commutation or transfer features, and re-learning how to sell their product in a statutorily re-defined market, the primary market continues to criticize and shun the secondary market. -November 18, 2011

yet on December 31, 2006, Hindert wrote...

"Summary of (Attorney Robert) Wood's Conclusions

• There is "no clear answer" - which, in and of itself, Wood characterizes as "unnerving";
• "Factoring someone else's annuity is clearly okay" (meaning in the context of Wood's article, the transaction does not violate section 130's prohibition against acceleration) - provided the parties obtain a court order pursuant to IRC Section 5891 and meet the requirements of the appropriate state structured settlement protection statute.
• But a commutation (see analysis below) "appears to accelerate payments" - in violation of IRC section 130's prohibition against acceleration.
• Wood also differentiates "automatic commutations" (see analysis below) whose features, according to Wood, do not appear (based upon LTR 9812027) to cause an acceleration in violation of IRC section 130;
• Because commutations and third party factoring produce different results for the qualified assignee and annuity issuer, Wood argues they should be treated differently for tax purposes.
• "Issuers risk violating section 130 when they commute their own annuities (with or without a qualified order under section 5891)" and whether directly or using an affiliate company.
• "Given the preponderance of authorities discounting the value of court orders as controlling (or even bearing on) federal income tax consequences, a court order .... cannot prevent (or cure) a violation of section 130."
• Based upon his "serious concerns" about potential adverse and unexpected tax results from commutations used as a substitute for third party factoring, Wood concludes such commutations "should not be recommended by prudent tax practioners."-S2KM/Hindert  December 31, 2006

C. Hindert Describes 3 elements of Criticism but Fails to Address the Main One

The 3 elements of criticism that Hindert admits he has received.

• S2KM is biased toward (or has an affinity for) the secondary market at the expense of the primary market.
• S2KM criticizes primary market business conduct without reporting abhorrent secondary market bad business behavior.
  
• S2KM should be more of a positive voice for change and not a muckraker

In the personal opinion of this author Hindert does not address his long time lack of criticism of the secondary market marketing .

 

 

 

 

 

NSSTA & SSP Annual Meetings: Pedantic Pat's Droning "Emission" Contains Glaring "Omission"

Like a campy horror show, Pedantic Patrick Hindert posted an unprecedented 9th blog post about the SSP and NSSTA 2010 annual meetings. While Hindert continues to fill his commentary with factual but predictable filler and drivel like "approximately 10 people attended portions of the SSP and NSSTA meetings", HIndert continues to avoid the controversial and big news that the Society of Settlement Planners named a factoring representative to its Board of Directors.

Ironically it was Hindert who expressed (in previous blog postings going back years) that factoring is the key to structured settlement industry growth. Hindert challenged this author to a debate on the topic in May 2008 and then famously chickened out when I accepted. Now that the dog can have his day he is famously avoiding his own scent mark. See Patrick Hindert Called On The Carpet For Specifics

What I really want to know is does Hindert see having representatives of factoring entities (which buy structured settlements from tort victims) on the Board of a trade association (whose members place structured settlements) as a positive thing or negative thing? Why? Moreover, now that the industry's cherry "has been popped" as it were, is it appropriate for the credibility of the group, that the subject member on the Board is apparently the only member (and apparently can be the only member) when there may be other factoring entities who offer alternatives in educating the public.

He does a better job in posing post-conference leadership questions:

• How will SSP's and NSSTA's new leaders respond to industry changes, challenges and opportunities?
• When and how will SSP and NSSTA transition their educational strategies to embrace the Internet?
• What shared interests exist between SSP and NSSTA to improve and grow the structured settlement industry?

Relevance and Social Media Tagging

by John Darer

Could S2KM's Patrick Hindert do any more to ride the creases of a dead man's shroud?

Patrick Hindert posted an online interview with deceased Paralympian Randy Snow in August 2008.  Then when Randy Snow met his untimely demise in November 2009,  Hindert did not make a peep-not a single word to honor this extraordinary individual.

Now in reprint of Evan Krames presentation at the March 2010 ASNP meeting entitled "25 Questions to Evaluate Pooled (Special Needs) Trusts ", he creepily tags Randy Snow among several other social media tags irrelevant to the subject of the post:

• Earl S. Nesbitt, lawyer to the factoring trade association
• Robert W. Wood,  a tax attorney
• NASP, the trade association for cash now pushers and settlement purchasers
• Structured Settlement Surveys
• Structured Settlement Secondary Market 
• Single Claimant 468B
• Structured Settlement Thought Leadership Conference  (run by cash now pusher JG Wentworth)
• structured settlement credo
• NYU Law student Jeremy Babener
• Medicare Secondary Payer Rule (anyone using pooled trusts for MSAs?

I didn't write HIndert's topic sentences, he did

 " Among the strategic consequences of health care reform:

 An estimated 16 million more Medicaid participants - and therefore:

• More special needs trusts;
• More special needs attorneys;
• More structured settlement annuities payable to trustees".

Is making a stink of this "trivial and inconsequential"?  

Consider that inappropriate "kitchen sink" tagging serves to act as a drag on the speed that Internet users can find the information they seek (and it reduces the credibility of your site for search engines). For example If you were looking for something about Randy Snow and ended up with Hindert's latest posting it would be like dressing up in black tie for Phantom of the Opera

and getting a full frontal of Jason Voorhees instead

Paralympian Randy Snow Dies...Patrick Hindert Silent November 26, 2009

 

What's Going on With S2KM Limited?

Where in the world is S2KM? Does the alter ego of Patrick Hindert still exist?

Hindert's blog "Beyond Structured Settlements" still has occasional posts although in recent times those have been authored by NYU 3L Jeremy Babener as contributing author.

Patrick Hindert's LinkedIn Profile lists S2KM Limited as a past employment ending in October 2009.

Bearon Von Wikitoven

Then "von Wikitoven's" Structured Settlement Wiki states:

"Welcome to the structured settlement wiki co-sponsored by S2KM Limited (a dead link) and The Settlement Services Group (TSSG). S2KM first published this "read only" public wiki March 24, 2008. S2KM and TSSG will continue to develop, edit and improve its content".

So to recap:

1. S2KM listed as past employment ending 5 months ago
2. Dead link to S2KM website

Are we talking "rudderless ship"?  Focus on Indonesia where BSS is still tearing it up?

Herr Wikitoven please explain!

 

 

Structured Settlement Websites Most Popular January 2010 Survey

Three Month Trailing Top 10 Global Traffic Rank (Alexa Rank as of 01/12/2010) of Structured Settlement and Settlement Planning Industry websites* (+ or- traffic from 12/14/2009 report). Lower number means more traffic (e.g. Google.com is ranked 1 in the overall scheme)

Who Are Ya?

1. Speaking of Settlements (Social Network) 500,113+
2. Structured Settlements 4Real Blog (John Darer) 500,945+
3. Amicus Settlement Planning 619,602+
4. 4structures.com, LLC 737,013-
5. Beyond Structured Settlements Blog (Pat Hindert) 1,141.700+
6. National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 1,211,807-
7. Ringler Associates, Inc. 1,842,422+
8. Settlement Professionals 2,295,511- 
9. Structured Settlement Services, LLC 2,808.350+
10. The Halpern Group 2,909,058+

Comments

• How about this month's global dead heat between Structured Settlements 4Real and Speaking of Settlements?
• NSSTA is still cleaning up in Thailand, according to Alexa!

Three Month Trailing Top 9  USA Traffic Rank (Alexa Rank as of 12/14/2009) of Structured Settlement and Settlement Planning Industry websites*. Lower number means more traffic (e.g. Google.com is ranked 1 in the overall scheme)

Who Are Ya?

1. Structured Settlements 4Real Blog (John Darer) 77,146+
2. Speaking of Settlements (Social Network) 116,570+
3. 4structures.com, LLC 165,012-
4. Amicus Settlement Planning 182,749+
5. Beyond Structured Settlements Blog (Pat Hindert) 251,427+
6. National Structured Settlement Trade Association 351,085
7. The Halpern Group 497,648+
8. Ringler Associates, Inc. 514,840-
9. Settlement Professionals 665,950+

The USA data is meaningful because the USA is the country in which the predominant amount of structured settlements are written. Who is reaching those prospects and clients on the Internet?

This survey omitted from the search results any websites with ISPs that do not differentiate between them and the ISP itself.  It is worth noting that the leading web sites are dominated by those whose creators, individually or as entities, employ a settlement planning approach to their business.

FAST FACT: The results of a Zogby poll published in June 2009 found that 38% of those asked consider the Internet the most reliable source of news. The survey results further state that 56% of adults nationwide would pick the Internet if they were allowed just one source for their news. Source: Zogby, World Net Daily 6/17/2009

Survey of structured settlement website traffic only covers USA websites of the creation side of structured settlements, including professional or associate members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) or Society of Settlement Planners, Inc. (whether individuals or firms), the association websites and alternative structured settlement periodic payment providers. 

ONGOING SURVEY OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT WEBSITE STANDINGS

( out of a possible 33 months-this structured settlement survey began in April 2007)

Times Ranked #1 in 3 month global structured settlement website traffic, as measured by Alexa: 

• Structured Settlements 4Real blog (John Darer) 16
• Beyond Structured Settlements blog (Pat Hindert) 12
• Ringler Associates 1
• Speaking of Settlements (LBN's industry social network) 4

Times Ranked #2 in 3 month global structured settlement website traffic, as measured by Alexa:

• Structured Settlements 4Real blog 17
• 4structures.com, LLC 5 
• Beyond Structured Settlements 5
• Structured Settlement Services 3
• Ringler Associates 1
• Speaking of Settlements (LBN's industry social network) 2

NEW! (out of a possible 5 months; survey began September 2009)

Times Ranked #1 in 3 month USA only structured settlement website traffic, as measured by Alexa.

• Structured Settlements 4Real blog (John Darer) 4
• Speaking of Settlements Social Network 1

Times Ranked #2 in 3 month USA only structured settlement website traffic, as measured by Alexa.

• 4structures.com, LLC 2
• Speaking of Settlements Social Network  3

If your company is not ranked high enough, or consistently unranked, it's time to realize that nobody knows who you are on the Internet. Here's some motivational material courtesy of The Who and the following "Rock Star"? CAN YOU KEEP UP?

Further survey criteria: Companies whose primary business is structured settlement factoring transactions are not counted in this survey because: (i) despite the propaganda and efforts of some to "frame" them otherwise, they are NOT part of the structured settlement industry- they are part of the cash flow, factoring or settlement purchasing industry; and (ii) the additional purpose of this survey is to identify legitimate sources of information for tort victims, their families, consumers, attorneys, judges or companies seeking structured settlements and the structured settlement brokers, certified structured settlement consultants, settlement planners, appointed structured settlement companies and agencies, United States Treasury structured settlement providers, or other financial professionals, who have the ability to deliver this information

Three Month Trailing Top 10 Global Traffic Rank (Alexa Rank as of 01/12/2010) of Structured Settlement and Settlement Planning Industry websites* (+ or- traffic from 12/14/2009 report). Lower number means more traffic (e.g. Google.com is ranked 1 in the overall scheme)

Who Are Ya?

1. Speaking of Settlements (Social Network) 500,113+
2. Structured Settlements 4Real Blog (John Darer) 500,945+
3. Amicus Settlement Planning 619,602+
4. 4structures.com, LLC 737,013-
5. Beyond Structured Settlements Blog (Pat Hindert) 1,141.700+
6. National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 1,211,807-
7. Ringler Associates, Inc. 1,842,422+
8. Settlement Professionals 2,295,511- 
9. Structured Settlement Services, LLC 2,808.350+
10. The Halpern Group 2,909,058+

Comments

• How about this month's global dead heat between Structured Settlements 4Real and Speaking of Settlements?
• NSSTA is still cleaning up in Thailand, according to Alexa!

Who Are Ya?

This survey omitted from the search results any websites with ISPs that do not differentiate between them and the ISP itself.  It is worth noting that the leading web sites are dominated by those whose creators, individually or as entities, employ a settlement planning approach to their business.

FAST FACT: The results of a Zogby poll published in June 2009 found that 38% of those asked consider the Internet the most reliable source of news. The survey results further state that 56% of adults nationwide would pick the Internet if they were allowed just one source for their news. Source: Zogby, World Net Daily 6/17/2009

468B Single Claimant Qualified Settlement Fund OFF Treasury Priority Guidance Plan After 6 Years

by John Darer CLU ChFC CSSC RSP

Has there been too much "crying wolf" about Treasury guidance concerning the Single Claimant Qualified Settlement Fund?

Here's my February 9, 2009 post  "Qualified Settlement Fund Use in Single Claimant Cases"

Make no mistake, the announcement that "the tax treatment of single-claimant 468B qualified settlement funds (QSF) has been eliminated from the list of tax priorities in the Priority Guidance Plan for 2009-2010 on November 24, 2009 by the United States Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service" is a real "howler" to some.

As S2KM and TSSG's Patrick Hindert admits "the purpose of the Priority Guidance Plan is to focus United States government resources "on guidance items that are most important to taxpayers and tax administration."

Patrick Hindert's fading star is never more evident in a blog post commentary dated November 28, 2009, about the aforementioned announcement entitled "U.S.Treasury Priority Guidance Plan 2009-2010".

1. He rehashes old arguments that the U.S. Treasury has apparently decided not to address, after 6 years of being on the priority guidance plan.
2. He cites a 3rd year law student with no bona fides as a tax authority and labels him a "QSF analyst".
3. He cites attorney Dick Risk who he says "interprets the decision to remove the single claimant 468B project from the Priority Guidance Plan as evidence that sufficient guidance favoring single claimant 468B QSFs already exists. Risk points to I.R.C. § 7805(d) which requires the Treasury Secretary to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of [the Internal Revenue Code].” Risk concludes that Treasury’s decision is an acknowledgment that additional guidance is not “needful.”  Wonder why Risk and others have spent 6 years writing why Treasury should issue guidance?

All the above brought to you by some of the same "cast of characters" who previously tried to broaden the definition of structured settlement in IRC 5891(c)(1) to say that it ostensibly establishes rights of plaintiffs to receive structured settlements, despite the Tax Code expressly stating that the definition solely applies to that specific Tax Code section.

This author is not denying that there are merits to the idea of a single claimant 468B qualified settlement fund under certain circumstances. Its proponents however have failed strategically. Perhaps it's time to go back to the stable and saddle up a NEW horse.

Hindert's shameless in desperately trying to opine that there's wiggle room in a statement by San Francisco tax attorney Robert W. Wood. Wood in a recent text wherein Wood suggests that single claimant QSFs be avoided without further clarification. Hindert cites to Wood's "alleged belief" that the regulations "seem to allow the possibility of the single claimant QSF". This lack of academic foundation is both astonishing and disingenuous given that only months ago HIndert was "talking trash" behind Jeremy Babener's dissipation paper. While said paper has been interpreted as an attack on the structured settlement tax subsidy based on alleged lack of empirical evidence to prove 90% of injury victims blow their money in 5 years, Hindert seems to abandon empirical evidence when it suits him.

Pay no attention to this "blatteroon".

 

Spencer v Hartford Financial Services Group

In posting Spencer v Hartford 4, Patrick Hindert, the Executive Director of TSSG informs us of the schedule of further proceedings in the case. I guess he just wanted to exercise his fingers because you can be sure few people who need or care about the schedule are going to be going to Beyond Structured Settlements to make sure they arent' missing a critical deadline. The trial is set for Fall 2010.

For our readers and those who have no time for pedantics, we have a more viable alternative to stay on top of the Spencer case. It's called PACER.

The PACER System offers an inexpensive, fast, and comprehensive case information service to any individual with a personal computer (PC) and Internet access who is seeking information about Spencer v Hartford Financial Services Group.

An added plus for those who read Hindert's blog is that it's free of the comment spam that often pervades Beyond Structured Settlements.

Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is described is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from Federal Appellate, District and Bankruptcy courts, and the U.S. Party/Case Index via the Internet. Links to all courts are provided from the web site. Electronic access is available by registering with the PACER Service Center, the judiciary's centralized registration, billing, and technical support center.

PACER is a service of the United States Judiciary.

I think most practitioners in the settlement industry would agree that the aspect of PAST Hartford Financial Services Group business practices, with respect to the often draconian, at times non competitive structured settlements offered to claimants and plaintiffs against Hartford insureds, were extremely unpopular.

The Hartford program at the time was unique in that despite the credit of the company being downgraded from A+ , until close to the end, if a plaintiff wanted a structured settlement from a Hartford insured, it had to be more of less exclusively funded with Hartford Life Insurance Company.

Up until a certain point following the commencement of litigation in Spencer v Hartford, those fundings were allegedly at a discount to that offered to claimant and litigants who were not litigating against Hartford insured tortfeasors.

Hartford Life Insurance Company made a business decsion to no longer write structured settlements as of November 2009. In September 2009, it was announced that structured settlements emanating from the resolution of a claim or lawsuit against a Hartford insured no longer had to be quoted with Hartford Life Insurance Company.

John Darer and Mark Wahlstrom covered the Hartford Life withdrawal on The Legal Broadcast Network on October 28, 2009

Hindert Inert on Structured Settlement Servicing by Factoring Companies

  Patrick Hindert has variously commented on JG Wentworth as "structured settlement thought leaders", "focusing on the needs and best interests of consumers". What Hindert has never discussed, however, is what our sources tell us is the business practice of structured settlement "servicing" that JG Wentworth was engaging in "on virtually every deal" involving a partial transfer, concurrent with the time Hindert was promoting them.

I have scoured Patrick Hindert's posts on factoring going back 4 years. If someone can show me one post, or page  of the text Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments ("S2P2J") where Hindert and/or his co-authors addressed the subject of servicing PLEASE HELP me find it.

1. Is it that Patrick Hindert thinks that servicing is not an issue? If so, why has he not moved to address this very important issue?
2. By his silence is Patrick Hindert denying that servicing of structured settlement payments goes on?
3. Does Patrick Hindert believe that the an annuitant who sells $2,000 per month of structured settlement payment rights from AAA rated New York Life to a factoring company, while entering into a "service agreement" for the $8,000 per month balance, has the same level of financial security as without the servicing agreement?

In the opinion of this author, HIndert has missed the boat.

• Instead of a topic of significant importance, Hindert made 5 pedantic "expulsions" on an unscientific JG Wentworth Survey that was treated by him as if it was.
• On December 6, 2008 and December 23, 2008 Hindert discussed the JG Wentworth credit downgrades yet no comments were made about how such downgrades might affect those who had already made partial transfers to JG Wentworth but who were subject to servicing agreements for the non-transferred  payments.

Servicing agreements come into play when a structured settlement payee initiates a transfer of some, but not all, of their structured settlement payment rights, but the factoring company enters into an agreement to service the rest of the payment rights. Servicing in theory is simple; the annuity issuer makes payments to the factoring company instead of the annuitant; the factoring company skims what's owed to it from the partial transfer off the top; then issues a new check drawn on its own account and "passes through" the "non transferred payments" to the payee.

The big question that nobody has come out to answer is what happens if the "servicing company" goes belly up? Downgrades of the credit of JG Wentworth and Peach Holdings within the last year give plenty of reason for pause.