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

Are Structured Settlement Receivables Viable in Domestic Non Qualified Assignments?

by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC

Could structured settlement receivables (factored structured settlement payment streams) be useful settlement planning tools in certain types of cases if there is regulation of both product and distribution, the transactional risks can be minimized/eliminated and are fully understood by buyers and certain settlement planners and other merchants stop misrepresenting them as annuities?

It is not necessary to go offshore for a non qualified assignment

Factored structured settlement payment streams are not annuities according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)

NAIC's members regulate the sale of annuities and insurance products. The NAIC's Statutory Issue Paper 160 dismisses the notion that acquired structured settlement payment rights are annuities or insurance products.

Offshore Non Qualified Assignment Companies Were The Norm

For many years the fulcrum for non qualified assignments was an offshore assignment company. Offshore assignment companies filled a void where the type of damages that the future payment obligations represent did not fall within the IRC 130 exclusion which applied to qualified assignment.  Initially such assignment companies were established in Barbados, to support the needs of clients of appointed agents of Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (now Lincoln Life Assurance Company of Boston) Allstate Life Insurance Company, Prudential Insurance Company of America and briefly, American General, in Bermuda. Various independent assignment companies followed, mostly in Barbados and one in the Republic of Ireland. There are a number of solutions that are only available using an offshore assignment company.

Domestic Non Qualified Assignment Companies

MetLife introduced a domestic non qualified assignment program as an excellent option for settlements comprised in whole or in part with taxable damages, settlements that otherwise to do not qualify for IRC 130 (such as wrongful imprisonment), or for structured installment sales. Payments must begin  within a year. The design for the funding asset, an immediate annuity issued by Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company, requires compliance with IRC 72(u).  IRC 72(u) is also known as the "non natural person rule" 

Treatment of annuity contracts not held by natural persons

(1)In general, If any annuity contract is held by a person who is not a natural person—

(A) such contract shall not be treated as an annuity contract for purposes of this subtitle (other than subchapter L), and

(B) the income on the contract for any taxable year of the policyholder shall be treated as ordinary income received or accrued by the owner during such taxable year.

For purposes of this paragraph, holding by a trust or other entity as an agent for a natural person shall not be taken into account.

 

(3) Exceptions  This subsection shall not apply to any annuity contract which—

(A) is acquired by the estate of a decedent by reason of the death of the decedent,

(B) is held under a plan described in Section 401(a) or 403(a), under a program described in section 403(b), or under an individual retirement plan,

(C) is a qualified funding asset (as defined in section 130(d), but without regard to whether there is a qualified assignment),

(D) is purchased by an employer upon the termination of a plan described in section 401(a) or 403(a) and is held by the employer until all amounts under such contract are distributed to the employee for whom such contract was purchased or the employee's beneficiary, or

(E) is an immediate annuity.

 

What is an immediate annuity?

Per IRC 72(u)(4), the term "immediate annuity" means an annuity

(A) which is purchased with a single premium or annuity consideration,

(B) the annuity starting date (as defined in subsection (c)(4)) of which commences no later than 1 year from the date of the purchase of the annuity, and

(C) which provides for a series of substantially equal periodic payments (to be made not less frequently than annually) during the annuity period.

 

Funding Agreement is Not an Annuity Contract

 

In August 2020 American General introduced its Funding Agreement Structured Settlement which can be used with it domestic non qualified assignment company to fund non qualified structured settlements with a deferred start date. How is this possible?

 

The New York State Department of Financial Services provides some excellent resource material that I have excerpted below.

 

Funding Agreement Not An Annuity Contract. Section 3222(a) states that the issuance or delivery of a funding agreement shall not be deemed to be doing a kind of business authorized by §1113 of the Insurance Law or engaging in any business authorized by §1714 of the Insurance Law.

 

1. In 1982, the term “annuity” was defined to mean “all agreements to make periodical payments where the making or continuance of all or some of a series of such payments, or the amount of any such payment, depends on the continuance of human life”, except payments made under the authority of §1113(a)(1) (i.e., optional modes of settlement of life insurance proceeds (a) As such, a funding agreement could provide for periodic payments over a period certain for individuals in structured settlements or in cases where an annuity with life contingencies was not wanted.
2. In 1985, the term “annuity” was amended by adding the phrase “for a period certain or” following “periodical payments” in the definition of annuity. See §1 of Chapter 864 of the Laws of 1985. As such, an agreement to make “periodical payments for a period certain” could now be considered to be an
annuity as defined in §1113(a)(2). (a) The sponsor’s memorandum in support of Chapter 864 of the Laws of 1985 states that the bill would bring New York into conformity with approximately 38 other states that permit period certain contracts to be written for a period of years rather than for a period dependent on the continued life of the annuitant.
3. Funding agreements sold to entities are not annuities because:
(a) Annuitant must be a natural person. There is nothing in the bill jacket of Chapter 864 of the Laws of 1985 to suggest that the change in §1113(a)(2) was intended to broaden the class of purchasers beyond annuitants (i.e., natural persons).
(b) Installment payments at maturity of a guaranteed interest contract does
not make the contract an annuity. There is nothing in the bill jacket of Chapter 864 of the Laws of 1985 to suggest that the change in §1113(a)(2) was intended to expand the scope of such contracts to include unallocated funding agreements, such as fixed rate, fixed maturity guaranteed interest contracts that provide for installment payments at maturity rather than a lump sum payment. An unallocated guaranteed interest contract is either a funding agreement or a group annuity contract depending on whether the contract provides for or permits the purchase of annuity payments dependent on the continuance of the lives of more than one person. See §4238(a).
4. In addition, a period certain annuity is not a funding agreement because the issuance or delivery of a funding agreement cannot be deemed to be doing a kind of business authorized by §1113.
(a) It has been argued that structured settlements providing for periodic payments to individuals can be considered annuity contracts. However,
because §3222(b)(iv) specifically refers to agreements “ providing for periodic payments in satisfaction of a claim”, we continue to classify such
agreements to be funding agreements for review purposes.
(b) Agreements that provide for lump sum payments at maturity are considered to be funding agreements.

 

The Utility of Factored Structured Settlement Payment Streams

 

The settlement planners who misrepresent factored structured settlement payment streams as annuities are not only misleading their clients, but potentially shooting themselves in the foot. If indeed they were annuities, which they aren't, wouldn't their ownership by a domestic assignment company (a non natural person) possibly violate IRC 72(u)? Factored structured settlement payment streams are often the result of a "slice and dice" of some other person's structured settlement payment streams. Payments are not substantially equal and/or have deferred start dates.   

 

How Not Being an Annuity Presents an Advantage Under Certain Circumstances

 

Given that factored structured settlement payment streams are not annuities, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, under the right circumstance with proper disclosures and acceptance of risk, they may be viable as part of the solution for certain clients. The risks associated with factored structured settlement payment streams include:

• transactional risk  (see ongoing cases Barber case and Keefer v Genex Capital et al. as well as  Alcantara, Wall v Altium investor lawsuit, State of Maryland Attorney General Consumer Protection Division v Access Funding et al. and  Crystal Linton et al v Maryland Consumer Protection Division,   Barry Cooper v Horn, Hamlin et al. FINRA Complaint)
• the possible lack of statutory protections in the event of the insolvency of the issuer of the underlying annuity as set forth in the model act adopted by an increasing number of states.

 

 

    

Payment Delays to Investors as Multiple Servicers of "Secondary Market Annuity" Payments Went Kaplooey

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

Yet another difference between investments in factored structured settlement payment streams are not annuities. When you buy a legitimate annuity, as opposed to one mislabeled one, there is no payment servicing agreement.  One investor, a  retiree who has a purchased a number of factored structured settlement payment streams over the years, has shared that recent turnover in payment servicers has resulted in his acquired payments being delayed multiple times, sometimes for several months.

What is Structured Settlement Payment Servicing?

Structured settlement servicing comes about if you are only selling part of your structured settlement payment. Some life insurance companies will not split or dice annuity payments. THIS is the reason there is a need for servicing and the scenario where servicing applies. If, for example, you have a structured settlement that is funded with an annuity from "Longevity Annuity Life Insurance Company" and you're content to continue receiving payments as scheduled, there is no need for structured settlement servicing. Servicing, on its most basic level, means that the entire structured settlement payment (not just the amount sold) goes to the factoring company, its servicing arm or a third party servicing company which splits/dices the payment. The result is that the factoring company receives the transferred structured settlement payment rights it bought from the seller and passes the difference on to the selling annuitant.

Servicing is common in the mortgage industry.  You may fill out an application to one mortgage company and after your mortgage is approved you receive a notice that payments are to be sent an entirely different bank, which is servicing the mortgage.

Potential Bankruptcy of Payment Servicer Was An Issue I Raised in 2009

In October 2009 I did a couple of video podcasts on Legal Broadcast Network on the subject of how a bankruptcy of a payment servicing company would impact an investor in structured settlement payments rights.  The podcasts featured Bruce Akerly, a bankruptcy attorney from Dallas , Texas who conceded that even though things might turn out OK for the investor in the end, that there might be a delay and possibly legal expense to enforce/protect their rights. One month later the topic I raised was the subject of a presentation at the annual meeting of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers. A number of my sources in the secondary market claimed in the following months that they had servicers and back up servicers.

Use of Servicing by Tertiary Market Companies Selling Factored Structured Settlement Payments to Investors

Some of the tertiary market players use a servicer to administer payments so they can chop up one annuity payment stream into different chunks to sell to different investors. They also use the servicer to provide a means for the investor to re sell the rights to someone else. 

A layer of complexity is added to the process when you are further removed from direct contact with the annuity issuer.  If you buy a sliver of 1/3 of a factored structured settlement payment stream you must also rely on the servicer to handle payments to your beneficiaries and to maintain your wishes even if there is a change (or multiple changes) in servicers years into the future.

Then you have this

In one case a payment assignee's representative notified the annuity issuer that the payment assignee (not qualified assignee) "died", but the annuity issuer inaccurately entered it into their system that the annuitant died. When the servicer contacted the beneficiary to express its condolences they learned that the alleged decedent was very much alive. A representative of the annuity issuer then asked for proof that the annuitant was alive, when the mistake was theirs in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

Only An Insurance Company Can Issue An Annuity Admits Structured Settlement Factoring Company

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

While many types of financial companies can sell annuities, only an insurance company can issue an annuity because annuities are insurance products. So says Annuity.org in parallel with the opinion of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. NAIC's Statutory Issue Paper No 160 implies that factored structured settlement payment streams are neither annuities nor insurance products. Institutional investors cannot carry them on their books as annuities or insurance products.

Annuity.org Sticks A Fork Into Tertiary Market Militants

Alanna Ritchie, a writer for Annuity.org, has certainly got some stick from me over the years, but she gets this important thing right while sticking a fork into the likes of Nathaniel Pulsifer,  Genex Capital and the remaining tertiary market militants who defend the use of the scam label "secondary market annuity", or hold out factored structured settlement payment streams as annuities. Genex Capital originates structured settlement factoring transactions. Roger Proctor and Boris Drubetsky, Genex Capital President and Chief Operating Officer respectively,  know full well that the annuity funding the structured settlement payments being originated by or in conjunction with Genex Capital is NOT transferred to them or their investors. Only the structured settlement payment rights are transferred. If the annuity were transferred Genex  Capital would not have to resort to its unconvincing Merriam Webster "defense".

 

 

Deposed Parties in Wall v Altium Group LLC Misrepresented the Nature of What Retirees Were Buying Multiple Times

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

The Wall Case Has Done More For Highlighting the Perils of Investing in Recycled Structured Settlements Than Any Other Case To Date

A financial advisor and a Defendant in litigation each misrepresented in a deposition that a Pennsylvania couple acquired structured settlement annuities when they knew, or should have known they were not and could not have been structured settlement annuities. This revelation is contained in papers submitted by Holmdel NJ's Altium Group in defense of the unjust enrichment claim against it.   The Walls lost $152,999 investing in structured settlement derivatives scam labelled annuities after the origination was determined to be a fraud.

Examples from Defendant's statement of undisputed material facts that draw the logical conclusion that the Walls were lied to about what they were buying

Beginning in 2011, on the advice of their investment advisor, Roy D’Alessandro (“D’Alessandro”),the Walls invested in five structured settlement annuities(R. Wall Dep. Tr. 43:11–25 [96a]; R. D’Alessandro Dep. Tr. 85:2–22 [157a]).

Comment 

The Walls did not buy structured settlement annuities, they bought structured settlement payment rights. 

In December 2018, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners stated in its Statutory Issue paper 160 that factored structured settlement payment streams are neither annuities or insurance products. The fact that both the financial advisor and Altium testified or declared under oath that the Walls invested in structured settlement annuities draws the logical conclusion what verbiage was used to sell multiple times to The Walls by the adviser and, as a result of those solicitations, how the Walls came to believe, as it turns out erroneously, what they were buying. 

The Walls had previously worked with the adviser to obtain insurance policies. Thus the advisor would or should have know the difference between an annuity and something that is not an annuity.  ["They discussed the investment opportunities that structured settlement annuities offered with their investment advisor, D’Alessandro, with whom they had previously worked to obtain insurance policies (R. Wall Dep. Tr. 12:1–13:23 [86a–87a]; L. Wall Dep. Tr. 27:25–28:24 [102a–103a])]

D’Alessandro explained to the Walls what structured settlement annuities were and that they provided returns that were significantly greater than the returns that were available with certificates of deposit and United States Treasury bills (R. Wall Dep Tr.13:11–23[87a]; L. Wall Dep. Tr. 28:6–11 [103a])

D’Alessandro then began sending the Walls a structured settlement annuity distribution list by email each week (R. Wall Dep. Tr. 12:19–13:10 [86a–87a])

In or around January 2012, the Walls contacted D’Alessandro to inquire about a structured settlement annuity that had originally been issued by the New York Life Insurance Company (“New York Life”) in favor of Kenneth Stevens (“Stevens”)in connection with a personal injury settlement in a Florida state court action(W. Coluccio Dep. Tr. 58:18–59:3 [132a–133a]; R. D’Alessandro Dep. Tr. 39:25–40:6 [143a–144a]).9.D’Alessandro had learned about the Stevens structured settlement annuity from Altium’s website (W. Coluccio Dep. Tr. 58:18–59:3 [132a–133a])

Evidence #2

Despite knowing that payment rights are not annuities, Altiums' chief executive admits that he said they were in his deposition

Altium brokers the sale and purchase of secondary market annuities (W. Coluccio Decl. ¶¶2–4[158a–159a]; Am. Compl. ¶10[165a])\

The purpose of the Master Agreement was to enable Altium to broker the Walls’s purchase of structured settlement annuities from the original beneficiaries of those products (Master Agreement §§ 2.02–2.03 [1a])  { Altium's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts   Wall v Altium Group LLC  Doc 139 pp 18  2/11/19].  Total lie, Altium could not have possibly brokered the purchase of structured settlement annuities. In fact the annuity in question remains owned by New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation.  Later referred correctly as purchase if payment rights

The agreed-to purchase price for the Stevens structured settlement annuity was $152,833.37 (Am. Compl.¶15[166a]).  [ Statement of Facts #22] . This is a statement made in a  legal document by Altium in its defense. Again Altium knew, or should have known that The Walls were not actually purchasing the Stevens structured settlement annuity because the annuity could not be sold. Stevens was not a party to the annuity. Stevens could only sell structured settlement payment rights.

Clearly there is massive confusion (or intellectual dishonesty) even today about what was being sold to the Walls and brokered by Altium as their statement of undisputed material facts clearly demonstrates

At no point during his discussions with the Walls leading up to their decision to purchase the Stevens structured settlement annuity did D’Alessandro discuss with the Walls the risk that a court order approving the transfer of the Stevens structured settlement annuity to them could be later vacated, due to fraud or otherwise (L. Wall Dep. Tr.29:3–31:5[104a–106a]; R. D’Alessandro Dep. Tr. 72:19–25 [154a]).  { Altium Statement of Facts #23 2/11/2019]  The annuity was not transferred and could not have been transferred. 

Corona arranges to purchase the structured settlement annuity from the underlying personal injury plaintiff and also arranges to obtain the required state court approval (Am. Compl.¶9[165a])   { Statement of Facts #27}  Again there was no annuity being purchased and once a case is settled Stevens is no longer a plaintiff. 

The total commission that Altium received for brokering the Walls’s purchase of the Stevens structured settlement annuity was $4,874.46 (W. Coluccio Decl. ¶12 [161a]).

1. In the end the Pennsylvania couple are out $152,999 and have had to spend time and a considerable amount of money in an attempt to enforce their rights. Their investment has been a money loser.
2. They believed they were buying structured settlement annuities even though they weren't actually buying annuities. How did they form such belief?  I think its obvious now.
3. The purchase of structured settlement derivatives ( scam labeled SMAs or Secondary Market Annuities) through intermediaries instead of directly from the originator has considerable risks, not the least of which is the potential complete loss of investment.
4. Insurance companies that issue legitimate annuities, spend millions of dollars marketing a regulated product to retires and others. What was sold to The Walls and is being sold to others is an unregulated product. Structured settlement derivatives are scam labeled annuities to freeload off the goodwill of major insurers and to hoodwink potential buyers as to the safety of the investments. 

The Perils of Recycled Structured Settlements

In April I, along with Stephen Harris, a partner of Philadelphia's Cozen & O'Connor and Peter Vodola , a partner in West Hartford's Reardon Scanlon LLP, will be participating in a panel on the Perils of Recycled Structured Settlements at the NSSTA annual meeting in Charleston SC. Investors are solicited on the basis that these derivatives are annuities and they're not. Caveat Emptor applies

Defendant Altium’s Corporate Designee and President, William Coluccio, confirm(ed) during his deposition testimony that the Walls paid his company in full and received nothing in return. (Coluccio Dep. 57:20-58:3, Feb. 22, 2017, Joint Appendix 0286a-0287a)

So You Want to Buy Today?  Here's the Whopping Disclaimer  from Altium Group LLC

Altium Group is acting merely as a listing service for such factoring companies. Altium Group does not represent or warrant the safety or creditworthiness of any of the listed structured settlements. Altium Group is not providing, and does not provide, any legal, accounting, tax, financial, risk analysis, or other advice or guidance of any kind to Purchaser of any listed structured settlements.

It was a different story "back  n the day" when Altium's website showcased "Up to 8% Returns With No Volatility & Unparalleled Safety of Principal"  

Altium claimed in prior website iterations that its clients use its products for retirement planning, CD alternatives... (screen shot 12/21/2016)

 

Annuitant v Factoring Company | Hearing on Motion to Vacate Structured Settlement Transfer Order

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

Standby for the hearing in Amended Petition to Vacate Final Order Granting Application for Structured Settlement Transfer Seneca One, LLC v Shaqira Wilder on November 30, 2016. The venue, Sumter County Florida, was for many years favored by forum shopping settlement purchasers who took advantage of Judge Michelle Morley's courtroom.

According to the Amended Petition to Vacate Final Order Granting Application for Structured Settlement Transfer of Shaqira Wilder in Seneca One, LLC v Shaqira Wilder  Sumter County Circuit Court Case 2013 CA000078AXMX filed July 16, 2016:

1. Order Was Void Ab Initio because Seneca One violated the 10-Day Disclosure requirement of the Florida Structured Settlement Protection Act. Seneca provided the mandatory disclosure on the same day the transfers agreement was executed.  Seeks to vacate per Fla. R Civ. p. 1.540(b)(4).
2. Order Was Void Ab Initio because it contravened the Non-Assignability Provision of the Settlement Agreement.  Wilder's lawyers cite  Rapid Settlements Ltd v Dickerson, 941 So 2d 1275 (Fla 4th DCA 2006), first Providian, llC v Evans, 852 So 2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
3. Seneca's failure to comply with other mandatory Notice Provisions and/or filing provisions of the Act are Additional reasons that the Order Was Void Ab Initio. Seneca failed to notify all interested parties as required by the statute.
4. Claim is not time barred because there I no limitation to file a motion to vacate on the basis of voidness.

One of the risks of investing in structured settlement receivables (a/k/a recycled structured settlements and mislabeled secondary market annuities), run the risk of payments stopping if the court order is vacated.

As I alluded to in my September 14, 2016 post   Seneca One Hosed Met Life Annuitant in Sumter County with Wild 18.94% Discount Rate, there is much more to this story.   Stay tuned.

Is Investing in Structured Settlement Payment Rights Suitable For Plaintiffs?

by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC

The market for structured settlement payment rights and other cash flows and receivables, like lotteries) is no longer a pipe dream for individual investors. The concept became available as the result of the 2008-2009 financial crisis and grabbed the attention of individual investors (including plaintiff attorneys!) and their financial advisers, as alternatives for their IRAs and Pension Plans. Some settlement planners began offering them to tort victims. The question is "are they right for tort victims"? 

I submit to you that not every tort victim is unsophisticated. But, in the words of Elvis Costello "accidents do happen". When they do, the victims are the poor and the rich, young and old, the unsophisticated and sophisticated, the financially adept and the financially inept, as well as the risk averse and those with some appetite for risk.

What are Risks of Investing in Structured Settlement Payments Rights?

1. Health of Insurer The security of the structured settlement derivative is related to the financial health of the life insurance company that issued the annuity and its ability to pay claims on its policies and the terms of the court order that is a prerequisite to each transaction. The purchaser of the structured settlement derivative is buying the payment rights, or a subset of the payment rights to the underlying annuity.
2. Not Deposits Structured settlement payment rights are not deposits and thus not insured by the FDIC.
3. Not Annuities The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has expressly stated in its Statutory Issue Paper No. 160 (finalized April 6, 2019), that acquired structured settlement payment rights are not annuities or an insurance product. Furthermore, acquired structured settlement payment rights  (factored structured settlement payments) are not annuities as defined under the insurance law of many states. Nevertheless you may be solicited by lawyers, settlement planners, accountants and even licensed insurance agents and financial advisers calling them annuities. Don't be fooled!
4. May not be any coverage under statutory insolvency schemes Structured settlement payments rights are not covered under the statutory insolvency streams in a majority of the United State, whereas they might apply to legitimate insurance products. As of March 2022, 34 states had an express prohibition, 2 states were considering it and the NAIC is pushing to have all 50 states fall in line to adopt the 2017 Revisions to the Life & Health Guaranty Associations Model Act (#520) which introduced the exclusion. The scary thing for any investor in structured settlement payment rights is that the Model Act, adopted by 34 states so far, has a retroactive application, so you're not safe if you bought the investment before the eventual effective date of the adoption of the 2017 Revisions (#520) in your state.
5. Exposure to interest rate risk. If market interest rates rise, the rate of return on the structured settlement derivative is locked-in. Longer term purchases are more sensitive, similar to long bonds or traditional structured settlement annuities. This can be mitigated somewhat by hedging through an "structured settlement derivative ladder" by making several purchases over an extended period of time.
6. Transactional Risk There is originator risk (think Access Funding, Linda Cooper and husband among those whose payments were scheduled to begin and never did. They were suspended due to competing claims),  forgery (happened in 200 cases in New York and Florida, forgery by a law firm paralegal in New York and by a lawyer in Florida) and imposters (Wall case-retirees lost $152,000). In 2018, a whole slew of investors in "secondary market annuities" were noticed as creditors in the Woodbridge Structured Funding/Woodbridge Wealth bankruptcy (2018). The Barber case in Allegheny County PA, involved a raid on a minor's structured settlement and forum shopping.  One of the investors was a California settlement planner with retirement funds who found himself competing with an 18 year old for the payments when they came due.  Very unfortunate and it could have been any retiree.
7. Fraud Dan Cevallos and Advance Funding
8. Currency Rate Risk (To Foreign Investors) Payments are made in US dollars.
9. Liquidity Structured settlement derivative investments may need to be held to term and are not liquid.  Complex litigation investors and an intermediary pending since 2020 in Maricopa County Arizona and branching out into other states provides an illustration of what can happen. Genex Capital is litigating against multiple investors who it alleged breached its Receivables Purchase Agreement(RPA) when they sold their receivables and did not obtain Genex's consent or go through Genex. According to a Motion filed by Genex in Castro County Texas

" When Genex discovered that the Leonard IRA had wrongfully attempted to reassign payments to NEAA it issued a default notice, which went unresponded. It is uncontroverted that Genex confiscated the payments and reassigned them to other investors as it was expressly permitted under the Leonard IRA RPA"  In Re: Juan Oltivero  In the District Court of Castro County Texas Cause No. B9545-1211 Genex's Motion to Strike, Motion in Limine...Filed May 23, 2022 441pm

Some of the above risks are similar to the purchase of most fixed income annuities. However, most purchases of fixed annuities do not require a court order to be concluded, have such an exposure to transactional risk.

So is an investment in structured settlement payment rights appropriate for tort victims?  In rare circumstances, and only after very careful deliberation.

Last updated May 30, 2022