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

Best Interest? | Benjamin Franklin in DRBs and Drabs

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

It's hoist DRB Capital on their own petard, the March 2018 edition. 

After a risible attempt to misdirect a quote from Wayne Gretzky, now DRB Capital tries to tap the well by co-opting Benjamin Franklin's adage that "an investment in knowledge pays the best interest". Taken from DRB Capital, a company that makes its business acquiring periodic payments for discounted lump sums from "the proleteriat", don't you think that's a little suspect? 

Taken in context with DRB's accompanying tweet which states that they can get you the cash you need,  ignites the petard. DRB Capital does not pay you any interest. DRB Capital effectively charges you interest as an audit of all of DRB Capital mandatory disclosures under the Florida structured settlement protection law would conclusively prove.

What petard will DRB Capital come up with next? 

Here's letters seal'd, and my two schoolfellows,   

As "Willy Shakespeare" Remonstrates in 2018

Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd—
They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon.   Hamlet Act 3 Scene 4   202-209

 

It's All About The Benjamins | DRB Capital Latest Marketing Stunt

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

A shout out to James Terlizzi, CEO of DRB Capital. "It's not all about the Benjamins, it's all about the bass, ' bout the bass no treble..."    

DRB Capital All About The Benjamins Nonsense

Have a look at DRB Capital's latest marketing stunt (right)

Was it a professional courtesy copy, or an example of how unfiltered DRB Capital's data base is? I received a  an envelope with an image of thousands of dollars worth of Benjamins on both sides. Benjamins as in $100 bills.  When I opened it up there were absolutely no actual Benjamins there. False Advertising. 

Inside was a check for $250 attached to all sorts of conditions to qualify for it, not the least of which is to agree to sell your payments. There was also a check for a measly $25, " Celray" in Delray maybe, but could never be mistaken for a Benjamin. Now, I don't know about you "Jimbo",  but, given the wallpaper, when I think of Benjamins I think of a lot more than two Benjamins and a Ulysses S. Grant!  

DRB Capital's marketing gimmick reminds me of the chump trawling Old Chicago Bank Roll, where there's a Benjamin or large bill on the outside and a stack of ones on the inside.  In the case of DRB Capital there is a whole lot of misleading BS on the outside and a whole lotta nothing on the inside.  

The rest of this post IS All About the Benjamins.

20 Famous Benjamins

1. Benjamin Harrison. a President of the US
2. Benjamin Affleck, actor
3. Benjamin Button,  a curious case
4. Benjamin Stiller, 
5. Benjamin Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers QB
   
6. Benjamin Kingsley
7. Ben Wallace
8. Benjamin Stein, the "Buehler?, Buehler?" economist
   
9. Benjamin Bernanke, knows his way around money supply
10. Benjamin E. King
11. The Michael Jackson Song "Ben"
12. Benjamin from George Orwell's Animal Farm
13. Benjamin Hogan
14. Gentle Benjamin  (known as Gentle Ben)
15. The Original Spock, DR. Benjamin Spock
16. Benjamin Disraeli, the British Prime Minister, not the youngest son of Jacob
    
17. Ben Crenshaw
18. Private Benjamin  
19. Benji  (short for Benjamin; no relation to Jumanji)
20. Benjamin Franklin Pierce (a/k/a  Hawkeye") of MASH 4077

 

 

 

 

 

Purveyors of Predatory Advertising 1 | DRB Capital Booked for "Hooking" When Hocking Annuitants

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

DRB Capital, in a show of predation of structured settlement annuitants enabled by inept regulation, exhorts structured settlement annuitants "Don't miss your shot", as if selling your structured settlement for cents on the dollar is a great deal.

DRB Capital Predatory Advertising Directed at Annuitants

DRB Capital has invoked Canadian hockey legend Wayne Gretzky to peddle this garbage. As the de-facto referee I am booking DRB Capital for "hooking" when "hock(ey)ing".

If you miss a shot in hockey, it's just a game and there's time left in the game to shoot again or another game.

There's no "hockey stick" when you sell your structured settlements.

Because the terms of sale of structured settlement payments at cents on the dollar are often so bad, you should never sell your structured settlement unless you have explored all other options. There are no rules and regulations about how companies like DRB Capital can solicit you. They can say or do anything that they please and obviously have by transmitting this rubbish on social media.

If you have a structured settlement you may experience being bombarded with unwanted mailings, laughing gassed with silly tweets like DRB Capital's, and strafed with unwanted calls.   But what do you have to do if you have a structured settlement? Absolutely nothing.

Enjoy the beach down in Delray, but don't hock your structured settlement to a cheap sales pitch by DRB Capital.

 

DRB Capital's Entry for Silly Season " You Have A Structured Settlement Now What?"

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

You Have a Structured Settlement Now What?, tweets DRB Capital a Delray Beach Florida  company, a big aspect of whose business is getting people to trade long term financial security for a highly discounted amount of cash now. Neither DRB Capital, nor any other factoring company is a reliable source of advice to answer that question because the answer is self-serving.  Why take advice on that question from a company whose general counsel stated on behalf of the settlement purchasers'trade association, that the factoring industry's "poop didn't stink" days before I exposed the dirty little secret of the factoring industry, that Jose Manuel Camacho Jr., the now convicted crooked lawyer to structured settlement factoring companies, forged judges names on structured settlement transfer orders in Broward County.

If you have a structured settlement there is absolutely no sense of urgency to do anything, much less put your hard earned income in DRB Capital's pocket. If you have a structured settlement simply enjoy the luxury of stable, relatively maintenance free income tax free income.

Silly Season Is Upon Us

 

Settlement Purchaser's Dubious CT Structured Settlement Transfer Disclosure to Bridgeport Woman

by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

Scare tactics are a "cheesy mousetrap"

DRB Capital's specious marketing strategy to structured settlement annuitants included scaring an annuitant that the life insurance company could go insolvent.   In a September 2016  ad on the CT disclosure to Nakeitha Makeba Rose of Bridgeport CT,  DRB Capital attempted to justify its discount rate by summoning up the ghosts of AIG and Lehman Brothers from 2008. What a pity that yet another member of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers scrapes the bottom of the barrel with this "cheesy mousetrap".

" Structured settlements are only as good as the insurance company that has to make payments. In 2008, AIG International, one of the largest insurance companies in the world came within days of becoming insolvent and going under-it was only a gigantic loan of some $178 billion dollars from the US Treasury that saved the company. The same couldn't be said for Lehman Brothers, a multi-billion dollar global financial firm that filed for bankruptcy around the same time. Lehman Brothers could trace its roots back to late 1800s but, in just a week, became insolvent and filed for bankruptcy. In a structured settlement transaction that kind of risk is passed from You to purchasers like DRB."  -Superior Court CT Judicial District of Bridgeport Case FBT-CV17-6062054 

Specious  "Having deceptive attraction or allure"

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why Was DRB Capital's CT Disclosure to Nakeitha Rose Misleading?

• Lehman Brothers was not an insurance company.
• Let's get our entities straight. The AIG core insurance business companies (life, health, annuities) were not what caused the 2008 impairment of American International Group, Inc.  In 2008 AIG was a leader in many lines of insurance worldwide. The company operated globally on multiple silo business model. The toxic assets were confined to a single business unit.CNBC reiterated September 16, 2008 that the insurance subsidiaries (which would include those writing structured settlement annuities) would be OK in the event of bankruptcy.
• The AIG Bailout is Over. Say A Prayer for the Victims of Structured Settlement Cash Now Vultures    "No taxpayer should be pleased that the government had to rescue this company, but all taxpayers should be pleased with today’s announcement, ending the largest of the government’s financial industry bail-outs with a profit to the Treasury Department"  Jim Millstein , US Treasury former chief restructuring officer
• No structured settlement annuitants written by AIG owned life insurers stopped making payments throughout the financial crisis.
• Nakeitha Rose's annuity is on the paper of Transamerica Life Insurance Company which held and still holds an A+ (Superior) rating from A.M. Best, and currently holds an AA-rating from Standard & Poors.

Novation Funding "Maximum Payouts" Research Tipped Off  Structured Settlement Watchdog

I came across the Nakeitha Rose case during the course of my ongoing investigation into discount rates charged by Novation Funding LLC ,generally set forth in statutory disclosures.  Nakeitha Rose applied to sell structured settlement payment rights in life contingent payments totaling $335,291.82 for $40,155 in cash.  It turns out In the subject case which I have cited above, DRB Capital intervened, alleging that Novation Funding tried to poach a deal already under contract to sell, albeit for $5,000 less ($35,140.04)

Ironically as part of the add on to the CT statutory disclosure, DRB Capital says "As with most things, the true market value of the payments is what a buyer is willing to pay", thus confirming that DRB  Capital was not paying, by its own definition, "true market value"

Nakeitha Rose waived independent professional advice. 

A $500 fee seems cheap when you've lost 10 times that amount. 

If you have done business with any structured settlement factoring company and they have used the same language as was done with Nakeitha Rose, please submit a report to the Structured Settlement Watchdog®

 

 

 

 

 

Imperial Holdings Presses the "Emergent-cy Button"

by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

A company that was subject to an IRS investigation, that was subject to an FBI raid,  and is a Defendant in a lawsuit over alleged poor business conduct against yet another African-American structured settlement recipient, walks into a bar and what does it do?  Presses the "emergent-cy button" of course!

Imperial Holdings announced in a press release September 1, 2015, that it was changing its name to Emergent Capital.

 

Structured Settlement Buyers Getting Sued | Impetus To Reform?

by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

Do lawsuits against structured settlement buyers represent the start of a new trend that will ultimately lead to reform of structured settlement protections that have been enacted? 

On April 17, 2015, Annuity.org,  which is upon information and belief, exclusively associated with CBC Settlement Funding, claims that "the type of transfers made by Terrence Taylor and Michael Lafontant are often prevented by regulations in the secondary annuity market". While admitting that there are predatory annuity purchasers in the business, Annuity.org says "most settlement purchasers do not pressure sellers into ill-advised decisions only to have judges approve transactions that leave sellers financially vulnerable".

Annuity.org observes that the two lawsuits share similarities that contributed to the plaintiffs’  financial demise:

• Judges approved transactions without disclosure of previous transfers
• The sellers sold payments in states where sellers are not required to appear in court
• Both involved companies with documented complaints of not following guidelines from the National Association of Settlement Purchasers  [ in both the Taylor and Lafontant cases, the majority of the transactions were with Defendants which are, or are associated with, or acting through, members of NASP*]
• Factoring company employees solicited sellers, encouraging reckless spending and offering misleading financial advice   (emphasis added)

I hope that the Lafontant and Taylor cases do lead to reforms of the structured settlement transfer laws, and lead to a licensing standard, where a penalty for non compliance can lead to heavy, publicized fines (just like other financial services regulation) and in the worst,  a person's or entity's license to operate can potentially be pulled out from underneath them if they do not comply.

Whether or not the reforms materialize this is the matter of these two men and the countless numbers of other known and unknown victims of similar business conduct.  Should these alleged victims prove their cases, they will need to be compensated.  Upon information and belief, there may be more victims and more lawsuits are on deck.

CBC Settlement Funding is a member of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers

*Lafontant  Defendant Washington Square DBA Imperial Structured Settlements was a member of NASP at the time of the solicitation and sales in Lafontant. Imperial Structured Settlements was later sold to Blackstone Group and operates under the name DRB Capital, as a member of NASP.  In 2014, I exposed how both Imperial Structured Settlements  and DRB Capital falsely claimed a photo stock image was an actual customer of the company named Kristin. 

Taylor Defendants 123 Lump Sum LLC  (including Structured Asset Funding and Isettlements) as well as Client First Settlement Funding, listed in the amended complaint as an agent for Defendant Bexhill  are members of NASP.

Defendants have denied wrongdoing.

Imperial Structured Settlements NY Forum Shopping | Best interest A Joke?

by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

The Michael Lafontant case is a prime example of questionable best interest test enforcement rendering a structured settlement protection act meaningless. Multiple judges are making incredibly bad decisions with devastating consequences Who is at fault? 

Are the judges simply incompetent on the subject matter, or are they making decisions based on inadequate or even fraudulent submissions by cash now pushers?   One way or another we are dealing with a flawed system, in my opinion. 

On Friday March 13, 2015, Washington Square Financial d/b/a Imperial Structured Settlements  and Andrew Levine were slammed with new allegations in the "forum shop churn and burn" lawsuit  brought by Michael Lafontant, a naïve then 19 year old New Yorker who was allegedly victimized by the Defendants. The amended complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  [Case No. 14-CIV-9895]

The amended complaint summarizes the claim as follows:

"Defendants’ egregious scheme to defraud Plaintiff out of millions of dollars in periodic payments due to Plaintiff under a structured settlement annuity. Defendants preyed upon and took advantage of Plaintiff, made material and fraudulent misrepresentations to Plaintiff, and caused Plaintiff to lose all of the tax free benefits and protections that were built into the settlement agreement reached in connection with the traumatic wrongful death of Plaintiff’s mother. Within a span of less than six months, Defendants managed to prepare and file three knowingly falsified and misleading petitions with a Sumter County, Florida court and one transaction with a Broward County, Florida court that were not in Plaintiff's best interest, resulting in suspect structured settlement payment rights transfers in excess of $4,000,000 to Defendants or their agents. Never once did Plaintiff appear in court in Sumter County or Broward County and, upon information and belief, Defendants knew that they could get the aforesaid petitions granted in Florida even though Plaintiff resided in and was domiciled in New York, was solicited in New York, and even had a transfer petition filed and pending in New York while Defendants orchestrated his “relocation” to Florida

Defendants also urged Plaintiff not to have his New York lawyer review the Florida petition because "it was the same" as the pending New York petition. Defendants knew this claim was completely untrue, as they injected into the Florida petition an arbitration provision that was not in the New York petition, and which violated New York law. Defendants also put a new discount rate into the Florida petition that was much higher than contained within the New York petition, and included more of Plaintiff’s structured settlement payments in the Florida deal. None of the aforesaid Florida petitions met the “best interest” standard outlined in Fla. Stat. § 626.99296 (the “Florida Structured Settlement Protection Act”) nor did they comply with the spirit or letter of New York law, Florida law or Internal Revenue Code § 5891"

The amended complaint illustrated a detailed forum shopping timeline and the efforts of Defendants to create the alleged fiction.

For example. there is allegation that the then Imperial representative and co-Defendant,  Andrew Levine, who was not an attorney, allegedly told the branch manager at RBC that he was acting as Lafontant's attorney while setting up a bank account with $100.  (Amended Complaint para 33)

To induce Plaintiff into leaving New York, Defendant Levine took at least the
following additional steps according to the Amended Complaint (Para 160):
i. Levine sent money to Plaintiff in the form of stored value cards;
ii. Levine sent Plaintiff a plane ticket so that Plaintiff could travel to Florida;
iii. Levine met Plaintiff at the airport;
iv. Levine arranged for Plaintiff’s hotel in Florida;
v. Levine arranged for Plaintiff to obtain a lease in Florida;
vi. Levine arranged for Plaintiff to open a bank account and provided the money to
fund that account;
vii. Levine arranged for Plaintiff to get Florida identification, going with Plaintiff into
the appropriate state office and acting as his representative with state officials,
including doing all the talking for Plaintiff when state officials asked Plaintiff
questions; and
viii. Levine provided Plaintiff with marijuana and took him out “partying” in Florida

At all times, Plaintiff was led to believe he was doing the same deal he had been
pursuing in New York for months. In fact, as noted herein, the alleged Florida agreements had the
same look and feel as the New York agreements, with one notable exception that was concealed
from Plaintiff: the broad arbitration provisions.

Plaintiff is seeking the court for a Declaration finding that the 2012 Florida Transactions were procured by fraud, that Plaintiff received none of the benefits from these transactions, and ordering that the 2012 Florida Transactions be set aside, with the structured settlement payments taken via the 2012 Florida Transactions restored to Plaintiff, and further directing Defendant Imperial to take all steps to rescind the transactions and restore Plaintiff’s benefits, with interest, and to pay appropriate penalties, and attorney’s fees.

Is Best Interest Test Enforcement a Joke in Certain Jurisdictions and Why?

The Lafontant case and another lawsuit filed recently in another state, which will be the subject of an upcoming post, raise serious questions about the how effective the best interest requirement in both Federal and state laws is being followed. This has implications to annuitants that seek liquidity as well as investors in any tainted deals.  People are getting hurt financially and questions need to be asked about the process.

As a woman named Martha once remarked "nowhere to run, nowhere to hide"  from this. There's more to come.

Related  Lafontant v Imperial Structured Settlements | New Yorker's Alleged Forum Shopping Nightmare  December 22, 2014

 

 

Cash For Annuity | Value of BBB Rating Questioned

by John Darer®. CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

Cash for annuity companies like to promote themselves using a rating from the Better Business Bureau because, despite criticism of the Better Business Bureau, many of these settlement purchasers have little else to offer. The reliability of BBB ratings is inconsistent throughout the United States.  The BBB runs on a franchise system where franchisees are in business to make a profit. Franchisees charge members a fee to be accredited but accreditation is not automatic.

For example, the BBB of Connecticut, which does a good job of enforcing BBB standards, in my opinion, clearly states and fully discloses thy following with respect to any accredited business:

"BBB has determined that (name of company) meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services."

Accredited businesses affirm that they meet and will abide by the following standards:

Build Trust
Establish and maintain a positive track record in the marketplace. An accredited business or organization agrees to: Have been operational (actively selling products or services) in any BBB service area for at least the most recent 12 months, unless the principal(s) previously operated a similar business with an eligible record (one that qualifies for BBB accreditation). Fulfill all licensing and bonding requirements of applicable jurisdictions; provide all license and bonding information upon application for BBB accreditation; and provide periodic updates upon request of BBB. Be free from government action that demonstrates a significant failure to support BBB ethical principles in marketplace transactions (this requires a determination by BBB as to the nature of any violation, whether it was caused or condoned by management, and actions taken to resolve underlying issues that led to the government action). Be free of an unsatisfactory rating and maintain at least a B rating at the accrediting BBB and the BBB where it is headquartered, if different. In its relationship with BBB: meet all applicable standards within this Code of Business Practices cooperate with BBB's activities and efforts to promote voluntary self-regulation within the business' industry honor any settlements, agreements or decisions reached as an outcome of a BBB dispute resolution process complete the required application and pay all monetary obligations to BBB in a timely manner
Advertise Honestly
Adhere to established standards of advertising and selling. An accredited business or organization agrees to: Follow federal, state/provincial and local advertising laws. Abide by the BBB Code of Advertising. Supply, upon request, substantiation for advertising and selling claims. Correct advertising and selling practices, when recommended by BBB. Adhere to applicable BBB industry codes of advertising. Cooperate with BBB self-regulatory programs for the resolution of advertising disputes. Use the BBB name and logos in accordance with BBB policy. Avoid misleading customers by creating the false impression of sponsorship, endorsement, popularity, trustworthiness, product quality or business size through the misuse of logos, trustmarks, pictures, testimonials, or other means.
Tell the Truth
Honestly represent products and services, including clear and adequate disclosures of all material terms. An accredited business or organization agrees to: Make known all material facts in both written and verbal representations, remembering that misrepresentation may result not only from direct statements but by omitting or obscuring relevant facts. Ensure that any written materials are readily available, clear, accurate and complete.
Be Transparent
Openly identify the nature, location, and ownership of the business, and clearly disclose all policies, guarantees and procedures that bear on a customer's decision to buy. An accredited business or organization agrees to: Upon request, provide BBB with all information required to evaluate compliance with BBB standards. This may include, but is not limited to business name, address and contact information; names and background of principals; business and banking references; licensing and/or professional accreditation; and a complete description of the nature of the business. Clearly disclose to customers: direct and effective means to contact the business terms of any written contract any guarantees or warranties accompanying a product any restrictions or limitations imposed (e.g. limited supply,maximum number available per customer) the business' return/refund policy any recurring commitment into which the customer may be entering, including information on how future billing will occur total cost of the transaction, including tax, shipping and handling, and other related charges If selling products or providing services on Web sites or via other electronic means: provide any required product labeling information disclose the nature and terms of shipping, including any known delays or shortages of stock provide an opportunity to review and confirm the transaction before the sale is completed provide a receipt summarizing the transaction after the purchase
Honor Promises
Abide by all written agreements and verbal representations. An accredited business or organization agrees to: Fulfill contracts signed and agreements reached. Honor representations by correcting mistakes as quickly as possible.
Be Responsive
Address marketplace disputes quickly, professionally, and in good faith. An accredited business or organization agrees to: Promptly respond to all complaints forwarded by BBB by: Resolving the complaint directly with the complainant and notifying BBB, or Providing BBB with a response that BBB determines: is professional, addresses all of the issues raised by the complainant, includes appropriate evidence and documents supporting the business' position, and explains why any relief sought by the complainant cannot or should not be granted. Make a good faith effort to resolve disputes, which includes mediation if requested by BBB. Other dispute resolution options, including arbitration, may be recommended by BBB when other efforts to resolve a dispute have failed. BBB may consider a business' willingness to participate in recommended dispute resolution options in determining compliance with these standards. Comply with any settlements, agreements or decisions reached as an outcome of a BBB dispute resolution process. Cooperate with BBB in efforts to eliminate the underlying cause of patterns of customer complaints that are identified by BBB.
Safeguard Privacy
Protect any data collected against mishandling and fraud, collect personal information only as needed, and respect the preferences of customers regarding the use of their information. An accredited business or organization agrees to: Respect Privacy Businesses conducting e-commerce agree to disclose on their Web site the following: what information they collect, with whom it is shared, how it can be corrected, how it is secured, how policy changes will be communicated, and; how to address concerns over misuse of personal data. Secure Sensitive Data Businesses that collect sensitive data online (credit card, bank account numbers, Social Security number, salary or other personal financial information, medical history or records, etc.) will ensure that it is transmitted via secure means.Businesses will make best efforts to comply with industry standards for the protection and proper disposal of all sensitive data, both online and offline. Honor Customer Preferences Businesses agree to respect customer preferences regarding contact by telephone, fax and e-mail, and agree to remedy the underlying cause of any failure to do so.
Embody Integrity

In its E-Book on selling structured settlements,  Toronto based Strategic Capital says "you might have heard that certain structured settlement buyers have an A+ BBB rating, and you might assume that this means this company has few complaints. Actually, that is not necessarily true. Companies with good BBB ratings have many structured settlements complaints when it comes to buying payments. To earn a good BBB rating a company needs only meet some BBB specific criteria"  (see above).  Stratcap then focuses on the number of complaints associated with some of the bigegr players in the market to support its assertion.   To wit "When considering what a BBB rating means, think about this: if you look at J.G. Wentworth’s listing on the BBB you will find that they have an “A+” rating. This sounds great. But if you look further you will see that they have had 40 complaints filed against them, through the BBB. That is 40 complaints, but still a perfect rating? Stone Street Capital has an “A+” rating as well, though they have had 57 complaints as of this writing. Imperial Structured Settlements, on the other hand, has only an “A” rating (no plus), yet they have only two complaints filed against them. And Strategic Capital doesn’t even appear on the BBB website, presumably because no one has ever complained about them to the BBB"

Comment:  While nobody likes to receive complaints, valid complaints also help a business improve. The number of complaints should be looked at in relation to the number of deals that the company has done. For example if JG Wentworth did 2000 transactions over a 3 year period and had 57 complaints that's 2.85% of their customers.  The real question (and this is where the BBB comes in) is if a company resolved the complaints in timely fashion through the BBB resolution process. If complaints do appear on a BBB listing the BBB posts if there was a resolution or not. 

A classic example of improving from customer complaints is Coca Cola.  New Coke was the reformulation of Coca-Cola introduced in 1985 by The Coca-Cola Company to replace the original formula of its flagship drink, Coca-Cola (also called Coke). New Coke originally had no separate name of its own, but was simply known as "the new taste of Coca-Cola" until 1992 when it was renamed Coca-Cola II. The American public's reaction to the change was negative and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales. This led to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy; however the company has always claimed it was merely an attempt to replace the original product  [source: Wikipedia]

The BBB of Greater Maryland is unfortunately one example of why the credibility of the BBB is in question.  Despite being put on notice that David Springer, CEO of a now defunct Maryland based structured settlement factoring broker admitted, in a 2013 deposition and in trial testimony, to fabricated information in its BBB and other social media, to include people that did not even exist, BBB continues to give the company an A+ rating. It's a complete joke.  The same BBB office gives another company an A+ rating despite publicly available information from the Maryland Secretary of State that conflicts with the BBB listing for the company.

Strategic Capital suggests that you Google a company name and the words complaints to get a more revealing rating than BBB. 

Comments:

I'm surprised that Strategic Capital would in this instance, subscribe to and promote such refutable rubbish.

Here's a smattering of what I've uncovered over the past 3 years about the structured settlement secondary market.

A. Several structured settlement factoring companies have actually paid for positive reviews from video testimonial websites

B. Several structured settlement  factoring companies have used stock photos which they portray to consumers as real customers in order to drum up more business, such as Imperial Structured Settlements and DRB Capital until they were exposed.

C.  A number of cash now pushers proudly display their topconsumerreviews.com, a paid survey without disclosing the nature of the results  (i.e these were paid reviews). In September 2014 I posted how Topconsumerreviews.com was given a low trust rating by scamadviser.com  Download Scam adviser report for topconsumerreviews.com 9-18-2014.

D.  StructuredSettlement-Quotes(dot)com,  whose controllers are competitors of JG Wentworth and Woodbridge Structured Funding, posted negative reviews of these competitors and then promoted them with hundreds of spam links from all over the world.   Woodbridge is now suing Genex Capital and Genex Strategies, Inc. over what they allege is "a fraudulent and deceptive scheme". The complexity of the litigation is an illustration of sorts over what it would take for a consumer or investor to litigate against Genex, which essentially solicits US consumers from outside the United States. Its US address is merely a mailbox at a UPS store.  Canada does not permit sales of structured settlement payment rights.

E. Genex Capital itself has been promoted with a ridiculous amount of spam comment reviews, some of which are downright comical

F. " Complaints" on commercial complaint sites appeared against witnesses in federal lawsuit against one factoring company.  Those complaint sites hide behind the ironically named Communications Decency Act and charge hundreds and, in one case, thousands of dollars to conduct an investigation. Regardless of the results they will not remove the reports.

Strategic Capital shares Patrick Hindert's opinion that "one criterion to consider when selecting a purchaser is whether that purchaser belongs to the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP), a professional association that promotes best practices among its members and provides industry education about the transfer process.”

Comment:  The NASP Code of Ethics is Pollyanna. Unfortunately I have shown that time and time again that some of the worst behaviors are exhibited by members of NASP.  Allegations in the matter of Lafontant v Imperial Structured Settlements,  portray a nightmare of abuse by a NASP member.  NASP does not speak for and does not control the behavior of the entire industry, let alone its own members.

Conclusion.

I understand where Stratcap is coming from, however a market place, like the structured settlement secondary market that lacks regulation of how consumers and investors are solicited and general marketplace business conduct that includes fines and where serious violations could result in the suspension or loss of license to practice,  is a marketplace that is fraught with dangers for both consumers and investors. Self-regulation is not possible based on a 12 year track record of wildly accelerating abusive behavior that shows that the "honor system" does not work.

Fortunately the muck is beginning to get raked.   Lawsuits have been filed and more are coming against structured settlement factoring companies over their business practices. Mainstream news media have taken an interest as have government agencies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash Advance on Structured Settlement NOT "Just Like Getting Cash From an ATM"

by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

Stone Street Capital has tweeted a picture of a "mutant bovine" , who if we are to believe what we see, can spit out cash advances just like an ATM.  

Of course this is simply not true as can be corroborated by a statement made by Earl Nesbitt, Executive Director of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP), in a published video interview with Mark Wahlstrom of the Legal Broadcast Network, in 2009.

When you make a withdrawal from an ATM you are withdrawing money from your bank account with nominal transaction fees of $1-$3. You are not receiving an advance on a future payment stream that has to be discounted at a rate that takes into account the settlement purchaser's cost of money and their expense load  (e.g. legal fees, court costs and the fixed administrative fee that must be paid to the annuity issuer)

Put in bovine terms, getting cash from your structured settlement is not as easy as milking a cow.  In some cases it is the seller that is getting "milked"  [See our December 22, 2014 blog on  Lafontant v Imperial Structured Settlements ]

While Stone Street Capital  has an excellent sense of humor,  I'm a little disappointed that they chose this approach in their social media.