by Structured Settlement Watchdog
SellStructuredSettlement.Online is the latest "Flubber Duck" of the structured settlement secondary market
- They ask Is there government oversight, for companies that deal with settlements?
- They say Structured settlement firms are overseen by regulations, at both the state levels to guarantee ethical standards and lawful adherence.
- Can "rules" perform the physical act of overseeing? Let's solve this puzzle shall we?!
What are regulations?
- State regulations, or administrative laws, are rules adopted by the executive branch and agencies of each state. These regulations provide guidance on how to follow the laws (statutes) passed by the legislative bodies of each state. In Connecticut, regulations are rules adopted by Connecticut state agencies and some boards and commissions. Regulations are adopted in Connecticut pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act Chapter 54 of the General Statutes and the rules of the Legislative Regulation Review Committee (LRRC). Generally, a regulation must (1) be properly noticed, (2) have a public comment period, (3) be approved by the Attorney General as to legal sufficiency, (4) be approved by the LRRC, and (5) be filed in the Secretary of the State's office. Source: Regulations in Connecticut eRegulations - eRegulations Information
- "Regulations, on the other hand, are standards and rules adopted by administrative agencies that govern how laws will be enforced" Source: FindLaw
With few state exceptions, there is minimal regulation of sales practices for structured settlement factoring companies, a flawed regulatory approach that has resulted in detrimental outcomes for over two decades. The regulations in many states are neither a deterrent nor do they ensure ethical standards in sales practices directed at vulnerable individuals
Despite the fancy title of "Structured Settlement Protection Acts" in all 50 states, and it taking two decades to get there—talk about a slow-moving train, only a few states bothered to regulate the shady practices of certain structured settlement settlement transfer companies only did so after exposés revealed outrageous horror stories. Maryland, Minnesota, and South Carolina were practically shamed into action. Fast forward to today, and just six states require transferee registration. Yep, Georgia, West Virginia, and Louisiana joined the party with the original trio. Six out of fifty—what a stellar accomplishment for the secondary market! A case pending in the District of Columbia involves a pillaging of a structured settlement of a woman with a 50 IQ who has only held employment for a grand total of 6 months in her life.
This past weekend I finished up the CE credits due biennially for my home state insurance license. I only needed 1 ethics credit but the course was for 3. I can think of a few partcipants in the structured settlement secondary market by name that might benefit from a course like this to rejigger their ethical compass away from claiming to be "from the Courts", or wearing a insurance company from
By the way, are you curious about "at both the state Levels"?
Do Courts "Sanction" the Sale of Structured Settlement Payments?
What are Court Sanctions? Court sanctions are legal remedies imposed by a court to address violations of legal rules or misconduct by parties in litigation, aimed at maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Sanctions are a completely different thing to the act of "approving a structured settlement transfer" or "making a finding that a structured settlement transfer is in the best interest of a proposed seller and any applicable dependents" of the proposed seller.
My long standing aim as Structured Settlement Watchdog is to clear the path to accurate structured settlement information through critical commentary and education. Baloney Detection, Information and Commentary.
Comments and Trackback Policy