As someone who holds a FINRA Series 7 and 66 I wonder how Woodbridge Investments, LLC and Scott Schwartz are able to get away with a solicitation to investors that states you can earn 8% to 10% AND appears to guarantee zero defaults?
Should members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association and its leadership be appalled that Woodbridge Investments includes in its latest INVESTOR due diligence packet*, an Adobe Acrobat mash up of a June 4, 2009 NSSTA web page that includes the NSSTA logo and mast head to solicit money from investors? The NSSTA web page in question, reports of a Wall Street Journal article about Moodys Investors Services report on the life insurance industry.
Some points for discussion:
Woodbridge had the opportunity to but did not elect to chase down the actual Wall Street Journal article Woodbridge did not use the actual NSSTA web page Download NSSTA web site June 4, 2009_ Moody’s Repor.. , which as you can see includes a copyright notice.
Here is the Woodbridge mash up of the NSSTA web page included in cash now pusher Woodbridge Investments due diligence packet Download Woodbridge Mash Up of NSSTA web page for due diligence packet 6-18-2009 of.
The NSSTA web page mash up appears in a Woodbridge created document which our investigation has concluded was created on June 18, 2009 at 2:03pm entitled woodbridge.pdf
Does Woodbridge Investments have the imprimatur of the NSSTA as its inclusion in the due diligence packet suggests? I certainly hope not.
Although the possibility is not as far-fetched as it may seem. Former NSSTA President and current NSSTA Legal and Public Benefits Committee member Patrick Hindert has long posited, without justification, that factoring is the key to structured settlement industry growth. Reporting to the Society of Settlement Planners annual meeting attendees in Washington (in April 2009), Hindert purportedly characterized that "the NSSTA position on factoring has softened ". NSSTA has not come out publicly in any major way on factoring other than to disclaim "the structured settlement transparency initiative".
Nevertheless this author believes that Woodbridge's actions draw the logical conclusion that Woodbridge did not chase down the Wall Street Journal article because it wanted to create the illusion that NSSTA gives its imprimatur to Woodbridge Investments' business practices and to take advantage of NSSTA goodwill. Those Woodbridge business practices have included promoting the "cash now" fraud and offering deluxe party favors to prospective annuitants at what can only be described as "an inducement to sell" their structured settlement payment rights.
Will NSSTA be issuing a public statement denying association with Woodbridge Investments or will it allow its foes to to draw the negative inference as the result of indifference?