Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog: Structured Settlements | Settlement Planning News and Commentary, Now in 16th Year!

Absurd JG Wentworth Promotion

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

Social media promotion of JG Wentworth has entered into the realm of the absurd. 

"Is it just me who likes this song on CNBC?  @jgwentworth #structuredsettlement" tweets Boodajava with a link to an ancient JG Wentworth commercial.

What's absurd, in my opinion, is zaftig Vikings singing joyfully about a name associated with two bankruptcies, whose value proposition is paying unsophisticated people #penniesonthedollar for their #structuredsettlement payments.   Frankly I prefer to listen to the "Grateful Dead Gourds" than a bunch singinging "berserkers"

The "Grateful Dead Gourds"

 

JG Wentworth's Ass Backwards Approach to Consumers Selling Structured Settlement

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

JG Wentworth ass backward approach to structured settlement annuitants implies that you sell your structured settlement to them for pennies on the dollar

"On Burro'd Time"... Selling Your Structured Settlement before thinking about why is the first stop on the road to financial ruin.

and THEN think about what to do after you have that discounted lump sum. "

What Can You Do After Selling Your Structured Settlement Payments?

"Now, you can use your lump sum to achieve things that might have seemed out of reach before. Here are just a few of the things that some of our customers have used their lump sum to accomplish..." says JG Wentworth as part of its purported " Everything you need to know about structured settlements" 

Not only is JG Wentworth's " Everything you need to know" misleading because it is not literally everything you need to know about structured settlements (far from it, but one wonders why the twice bankrupted, third incarnation 800lb gorilla must resort to this nonsense. 

Read What You Need to Know About Selling Structured Settlements in 2019 '

Two essential messages from the Structured Settlement Watchdog

1. Stop and Think
2. Selling structured settlement payments is a loser 100% of the time, with no exception.

 

 

 

Court Denies JG Wentworth, Seneca One and VA Lawyer Stephen Heretick Motions to Dismiss in RICO Case

by Structured Settlement Watchdog® 

No "RICO Suave" For Defendants

 

RICO lawsuit v Stephen Heretick, JG Wentworth, 321 Henderson and Seneca One

A Federal District Judge in  Eastern Pennsylvania has denied motions to dismiss racketeering claims against Seneca One, JG Wentworth, 321 Henderson  and Portsmouth Virginia lawyer and delegate Stephen Heretick  in the matter of Larry G. Dockery et al. v Stephen E. Heretick et al. and New York Life Insurance Company, et al.Case 2:17-cv-04114-MMB.

Following are the list of motions and rulings by the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court on May 14, 2019:

Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Denied

• Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), by
  Seneca, Wentworth, 321 Henderson, and Stephen Heretick  DENIED
• Counts II through IV also allege violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), but only against
  Heretick  DENIED
• Count V alleges conspiracy to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) against Defendants. DENIED

Other Motions to Dismiss

• Count VI alleges unjust enrichment against Defendants.  DISMISSED
• Count VII seeks a constructive trust against all Defendants and all Nominal Defendants. DISMISSED 
• Count VIII Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Aiding and Abetting Said Breach DISMISSED

Plaintiff Overcame Rooker-Feldman Doctrine to keep case in Federal Court in Eastern Pennsylvania

In their Motions to Dismiss, Defendants argued that Rooker-Feldman  [ see Rooker-Feldman definition below] prevents the Court from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants contend that this case is essentially an improper federal appeal of the Virginia state court’s decision to grant the SSA transfer petitions". 

The Court disagreed:

"Plaintiff alleged a complicated, years-long scheme meant to take advantage of annuitants and subvert the review of state-court judges. These allegations raise claims wholly separate from an appeal of the state-court orders, and present more for this Court to consider than a plain lie or fraud on the state court". [Larry G. Dockery et al. v Stephen E. Heretick et al. and New York Life Insurance Company, et al.Case 2:17-cv-04114-MMB Document 108 Filed 05/14/19 Page 21 ]

Noerr Pennington Doctrine Does Not Shield Stephen Heretick, Says Court

The Court also reasoned "Plaintiff’s claims are not based solely on Heretick’s petitioning activities before the Virginia state court. Rather, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Heretick took part in an ongoing scheme meant to induce annuitants to sell their SSA (structured settlement annuity) streams on unfavorable terms, strip annuitants of their rights to independent counsel, and fashion transfer petitions in such a way that they would be granted despite procedural safeguards. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine therefore does not shield Heretick from Plaintiff’s claims

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

What is the Rooker-Feldman doctrine?

The Rooker–Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462. The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts—i.e., federal courts other than the Supreme Court—should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief. In short, federal courts below the Supreme Court must not become a court of appeals for state court decisions. The state court plaintiff has to find a state court remedy, or obtain relief from the U.S. Supreme Court [Wikipedia]

Unlike what has happened in Dockery, structured settlement secondary market defendants have previously been successful in arguing Rooker Feldman doctrine in Taylor v Structured Asset Funding et al., Lafontant v Imperial Structured Settlements et al to remove an action brought in federal court to state court.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In denying defendants' motion to dismiss the RICO claims the court reasoned " Plaintiff alleges that he was the beneficiary of an SSA (structured settlement annuity) and that, as a result of a scheme amongst Defendants, he entered into an unfair settlement on terms substantially worse than he would have obtained if he had access to independent financial or legal advice. Therefore, Plaintiff has alleged (1) a concrete loss, i.e., the difference between a fair settlement and an unfair settlement, and (2) that the scheme caused this loss through a process in which Defendants induced Plaintiff to settle without financial or legal advice and obtained judicial approved in a manner that guaranteed a lack of meaningful judicial review. This suffices for purposes of RICO standing.   Read Judge Baylson's Memorandum Decision denying motions to dismiss Dockery

Related News

Last month the judge in the Terrence Taylor case recused himself following a motion made by Genex Capital Corporation on behalf of its investors. Our understanding is that the Portsmouth judiciary felt that any decision made by any one of them would be heavily scrutinized in light of the allegations in the Dockery case. Taylor's case, which has now been pending for over 4 years, will have to wait until a new judge is appointed from outside the Portsmouth circuit. Stephen Heretick was the lawyer representing the purchasers of structured settlement payment rights from Taylor that are the subject of that lawsuit.

The outcome of all of these lawsuits should be of interest to investors who have been sold scam labeled secondary market annuities.  

 

Harris County TX Structured Settlement Decision Makes Houston "Poach-E-Min City" as Gazumper Wins Peachtree Poach

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

A long standing structured settlement buyout poaching case, has ended with a judgment in favor of RSL Funding over JG Wentworth Originations LLC, Peachtree Settlement Funding and settlement Funding LLC that supports poaching in Texas  [ Cause No. 2006-23366]

What is Poaching in the Context of Structured Settlement Factoring?

Poaching is the undercutting of the price offered by a competing structured settlement factoring company  to the chagrin of the gazumped . The poached company tends to get all "Magoo-ey", because they found the annuitant and stand to lose possibly thousand of dollars invested in marketing, hiring counsel and filing fees only to be dumped at the last minute by a competing offer from a competitor, who has laid back stalking the court records for recent filings.  Some say its fair competition. Others are vehemently against it.

No "Sunny Side Up" for Settlement Funding, LLC and Peachtree Settlement Funding LLC

On March 6, 2019, Judge Rabeea Sultan Collier issued a final judgment in a home town decision that:

• Pursuant to the agreement of the parties' counsel entered on the record on February 20, 2019, Settlement Funding, LLC and Peachtree Settlement Funding LLC dismiss with prejudice their tortious interference with prospective relations claim against RSL Funding.
• Pursuant to the Court's November 21 Summary Judgment Order, the claims of Settlement Funding, LLC and Peachtree Settlement Funding LLC for tortious interference with existing contract were dismissed with prejudice.
• The Court, having considered the evidence, arguments, and applicable law, entered the following declaration under the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act ("TDJA"): RSL Funding has a right to make a competing offer to purchase the same structured settlement payment rights that are the subject of pending transfer agreements with the Peachtree Entities, prior to court approval of those transfer agreements.
• The Court, having considered the evidence, arguments, and applicable law, finds and orders that it is equitable and just for RSL Funding to recover its reasonable fees for its attorneys' necessary services in the amount of $651,463 for representation through trial. The Court enters judgment in RSL Funding's favor against the Peachtree Entities, jointly and severally, for $651,463.  Interest runs at 5%.
• The Court also assigned further costs to the losers, if they choose to appeal and lose.

Factoring Companies Are Not Structured Settlement Companies | "They Be Creeping" on Them

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

A whole lot of festering bullship is swirling around the Internet. Devious attempts abound, by companies that buy structured settlement payment rights whose highest value proposition is a money loser to the consumer, to position themselves as structured settlement companies. Some, like CBC Settlement Funding pay marketing networks to do their dirty work.  So, to set the record straight about the devious behavior:

• JG Wentworth is not a structured settlement company
• Peachtree is not a structured settlement company
• Genex Capital is not a structured settlement company
• Dos Nachos LLC is not a structured settlement company
• Annuity Transfers is not a structured settlement company
• CBC Settlement Funding is not a structured settlement company
• Annuity.org is not a structured settlement company, it is the marketing "lead pimp" for CBC Settlement Funding.
• Annuity Sold is not a structured settlement company, it is one of the factoring companies banned in January 2018 from doing business in Maryland for 7 years due to Annuity Sold fraud.
• Corona Capital is not a structured settlement company
• Structured Settlement Quotes is not a structured settlement company
• Client First Settlement Funding is not a structured settlement company
• Fairfield Funding is not a structured settlement company
• Strategic Capital is not a structured settlement company
• Novation Capital is not a structured settlement company
• Seneca one is not a structured settlement company
• Stone Street Capital is not a structured settlement company
• Novation Settlement Solutions is not a structured settlement company

Structured Settlement Information Gossamers Abound to Mislead Consumers

Top Ten Reviews   Stuck on an endless loop of the "When your factor your structured settlement you are selling an annuity "hamster wheel"

Annuity.org  Once a good idea undermined by poorly researched writing supported by apathetic management,  that unfortunately the gets cited by others. It's like an infectious rash that keeps getting scratched by management of the company

Paymaster.co  Mixes and matches structured settlement factoring companies like throw cushions.  Misleading for consumers but not at the level of the above two.

 

.

 

 

Dubious Top Ten Reviews of Best Structured Settlement Annuity Companies 2018

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

TopTenReviews.com Best Structured Settlement Annuity Companies 2018 is a fraud. Here's why I think so.

TopTenReviews is a dubious review site that has intentionally misrepresented to consumers that certain unlicensed and unregulated companies which buy structured settlement payment rights, for pennies on the dollar,as structured settlement annuity companies. Furthermore the "best" company of the 8 (not 10) companies listed is the company that has purchased native advertising to dominate the review page. It remains a fundamental flaw that undermines the entire list and someone who owns Top Ten Review ostensibly gets a payoff up front, or each time someone clicks on one of the "phony baloney" "structured settlement annuity companies".

By including Seneca One on its list, TopTenReviews fails to live up to its own criteria of including member companies of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers. Seneca One is not a member of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers.

By including JG Wentworth on its list and taking in advertising dollars for native advertising, TopTen Reviews associates itself with JG Wentworth's "losers lottery" ad, that serves to scam African Americans by portraying the sale of structured settlement payments for pennies on the dollar is being showered in cash, as if they've won the lottery.

TopTenReviews also lacks credibility for including Novation Settlement Solutions, a DBA for hedge fund fueled Novation Funding, a company that targeted, groomed and financially raped a naive 19 year old African American New Yorker in a New York to Florida forum shopped deal in October 2015.  The West Palm beach based financial rapist continues to falsely advertise it provides maximum payouts to lure in customers.

Since my October 2017 post  Top 10 Reviews Misleads Consumers, Falsely Portrays Cash Now Pushers as Structured Settlement Annuity Companies which revealed David Ropelato, 40, of Ogden Utah as the registrant of the website, the registration has now been changed to private.  However, the Ropelato controlled intentionally misleading so-called reviews are maintained. Ropelato's Linkedin profile states that he is Director Information Technology at TechMediaNetwork Purch, a company co-founded by Jerry Dale Ropelato, 62, of Huntsville Utah.

The Purch website  says it is "a digital publishing and marketplace platform uniquely positioned at the intersection of content, commerce and customer. By combining in-depth product reviews, comparisons, and services with industry leading publisher tech, Purch creates a seamless connection between intent-based buyers and sellers".

 

 

 

 

 

JG Wentworth "Leads" From The Back in Deceptive Ad Targeting African Americans

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

J.G. Wentworth Deceptive and Misleading Structured Settlement Advertising

The home page of JG Wentworth*, which recently underwent its second bankruptcy in 9 years last year, displays an African American man in a suit vest being showered in $20 bills. His facial expression is that of a person who has won the lottery.   Given that doing business with J.G. Wentworth, or any of its competitors is guaranteed to be a money loser 100% of the time, there is just no excuse for such an ad. When a so-called industry leader publishes such an ad it destroys the sinking credibility of an unregulated industry that insiders freely admit is in a race to the bottom.

J.G. Wentworth Bluff Take

J.G. Wentworth also displays on its home page an infographic that says "Take a Little, Take a Lot or Take it All". The "take it all" is a complete lie by J.G. Wentworth because J.G. Wentworth and those who invest in its securitizations will take it all, and pay you pennies on the dollar. Nobody, but nobody can "take it all" if they sell their structured settlement to J.G. Wentworth , or anyone else.  You can sell it all, if a judge approves, but you cannot take it all. You always lose money by selling. Totally shameful by J.G. Wentworth.

* as it appeared on June 9, 2018 at 11am

Peachtree Creates Moral Dilemma | Induces Annuitants to Sell Structured Settlements With 40 Inch HDTV

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

Structured settlement payment buyers such as Peachtree Financial Solutions,  have recently started upping the level of inducements to customers to do business with them, by offering them flat screen TVs in exchange for selling their payments at a steep discounts.  Is this ethically and morally sound business practice?

Peachtree Financial offers TV for Structured Settlement. It raises an ethical and moral dilemma over these types of inducements with vulnerable structured settlement annuitants

New York Law on Inducements

The Office of General Counsel of the New York Department of Financial Services (then NY Insurance Department) issued an opinion on March 10, 2000 in which it concluded:

1. Yes, an attorney violates the Insurance Law when she waives legal fees for attorney work in exchange for a client’s life insurance business and receives a commission from the sale of such life insurance in lieu of a commission.

2. Yes, a policyholder violates the Insurance Law when he accepts an inducement on the purchase of a life insurance policy that is not specified in the policy. 

It is indisputable that the purpose of offering a 40" LED HDTV to a structured settlement annuitant is an inducement to attempt to persuade the annuitant to sell at a discount without knowing in advance if that sale is in the person's best interest, or the interest of any applicable dependents. 

If such inducements like the TV were harmless, then there would be no need to address them in corporate policies , rules of financial regulatory organizations and the United States Constitution, such as:

• Companies all over the world have employee policies limiting the amount or value of gifts that employees may accept
• FINRA has limits on the amount that financial advisors or stock brokers may pay clients and a gift log is often required.
• The Emoluments clause in the United States Constitution (a subject in the news over the last 12 months) states  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State".  Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

 

The financial blood of young adults and others is on lawmakers hands for not following the money and regulating the sales practices of companies who approach annuitants, the originators, their investors, including participating hedge funds, participating private equity firms and participating banks who provide credit lines, who destroy and then feed off their financial carcasses. Is there a difference between the Peachtree offer of a 40 inch TV and offering to help pay the electric bill as part of an advance so that the electricity won't be turned off in the middle of the winter?

Peachtree Financial Solutions, a member of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers, was acquired by JG Wentworth in 2011. In November 2017, JG Wentworth filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy for the second time in 8 years, leaving equity investors with nothing after a series of Wall Street analysts touted and continued to tout the stock as it was going down the toilet.

Is there state lawmaker, state trial lawyer association or attorney general who sees the flaws in a system?    To be continued.

 

 

 

JG Wentworth "On Life Support" as Stock Plummets 87% Today After Bankruptcy Filing

by Structured Settlement  Watchdog

The tubes have been pulled out and hospice has been called in,  JG Wentworth, the leader of a massively underegulated industry whose members profit off the unsophisticated and the ignorant,  has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for the second time in 9 years according to Philadelphia Business Journal. Yet the word smithing on its press release framed by the wallpaper of some stodgy New York City law firms uses words kindler and gentler for PR.  

It's only too bad that a figurative dose of morphine is not available for JG Wentworth investors who were ripped off by the analysts who made questionable recommendations of the stock right before it plummeted in the first of a series of capital extinguishing moves that led to JGW's delisting and became JGWE. Read my recent commentary about JG Wentworth's stock performance chart, that looks as if the company "flipped investors the bird" in 2014, just before the beginning of the company stock's tumultuous drop. JG Wentworth went public 5 years after JGW shafted  investors in a 2009 bankruptcy. 

JG Wentworth is a defendant in a class action law suit filed September 14, 2017 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as one of the alleged participants in what was described in the complaint as an "Annuity Fraud Scheme" in which even the judges were alleged complicit.

JG Wentworth is also a defendant in a lawsuit arising out of the acquisition of Westar Mortgage. Allegations can be characterized as questioning shady dealings by JG Wentworth in an equity funded deal that was worth less almost immediately after the deal concluded when JG Wentworth stock began to tank. It has never recovered.

It should be noted that the stock rallied a penny, AFTER after this post was published to close at 3 cents!

Law Suit Alleges "Annuity Fraud Enterprises" Involving VA Lawyer Stephen Heretick, JG Wentworth, Seneca One, Portsmouth VA Judges

by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

A class action lawsuit filed September 14, 2017, alleges Portsmouth Virginia Circuit Court judges were complicit in an "Annuity Fraud Enterprise" scheme, in which a Virginia lawyer and 79th District delegate Stephen E. Heretick was the central figure, representing JG Wentworth, Seneca One, 321 Henderson Receivables and other settlement purchasers, that allegedly violated the rights of thousands of structured settlement annuitants.

According to the Complaint,  Heretick hatched the scheme, which was designed entirely to defeat the regulatory scheme (which was designed to protect structured settlement annuitants), and to enable sales of the income streams from SSAs on terms that:

a would never be accepted by a beneficiary of an SSA if the beneficiary had been advised by a well-informed and objective advisor; and
b. would never be approved after meaningful judicial review.

The scheme evaded the state and federal requirements identified above by creating what was, in name only, a judicial review process but which was, in reality, a rubber stamp for virtually every transaction brought before complicit judges by Defendant Heretick  (numbering in the thousands!).

The structured settlement secondary market faces its second blistering lawsuit in a week
This is the second blistering lawsuit filed about alleged bad business practices in the structured settlement secondary market in the space of one week that  includes allegation of forum shopping of annuitants to places where they allegedly did not live and representations to the courts that they did. There are a lot of issues being raised and some important commentary regarding the potential implications to sellers, individual investors and individual investors in structured settlement derivatives ( "secondary market annuities") so I am going to break this out over several posts.

Case Caption

Larry G. Dockery, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v Stephen E. Heretick, 321 Henderson Receivables, LLC, JG Wentworth Receivables, LLC,  Seneca One Finance, Inc., Structured Settlement Investments, LP,  Structured Settlement Purchaser John Doe Inc. Purchaser Defendants 1-100 and John Doe Individual Defendants 1-100 and  New York Life Insurance Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Symetra et al*.  United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case 2:2017:cv-04114-MMB

* note the life insurers are only listed and referenced as nominal parties in the complaint. A nominal party is a defendant included in a lawsuit because of a technical connection with the matter in dispute and who is necessary for the court to decide all issues and make a proper judgment. However nominal defendants have no responsibility, no fault, and no right to recover.

 

Class members in "Annuity Fraud Enterprises "Lawsuit

1. The proceeding occurred in the Portsmouth, Virginia Circuit
   Court;
2. The proceeding was presided over by one of the Complicit
   Judges;
3. The beneficiary waived his or her right to counsel, and was not
   represented by counsel;
4. The petition approving the sale was approved either on the
   same day it was filed or within two weeks thereafter, and
   without the court's meaningful review of any evidence;
5. The beneficiary was not present during the proceedings

Counts in the Class Action Complaint Dockery et al v Stephen E. Heretick et al. 

I  Violation of RICO  18 U.S.C. §1962(c) (the Annuity Fraud Enterprises)

The Purchaser Defendant acted to perpetrate the fraud by inducing each of the victim sellers to abandon the right each of them had to independent counsel or advice regarding the Purchase transactions. It did this, as alleged, by 

I. Instructing each victim to execute a document in which the victim stated that he or she had been advised that he or she had the right to independent advice or counsel, while 

ii Simultaneously, it also informed each and every victim that in fact they could not exercise this right in any way, because if they did the transaction would be either completely impossible to consummate or would take immeasurably longer to close.

Each Purchaser Defendant hired and paid Heretick to file these documents and to develop and operate the agreement with the Complicit Judges, pursuant to
which the court would accept and approve petitions even when they
i.  Were filed in bulk
ii. Waived each victim's right to counsel and to independent financial advice
iii.Were presented at hearings at which the victim seller was not
present and so could not be questioned by the court

iv. Included victims who were residents of and domiciled in other states, whom the Purchaser Defendants had arranged to travel to Virginia and make fraudulent representations that they were domiciled there

I FOR VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCE AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) (the 321 Henderson Enterprise)

III FOR VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCE AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) (the Wentworth Enterprise)

IV FOR VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCE AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) (the Seneca Enterprise)

V. FOR VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCE AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) (the SSILP Enterprise)

VI FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RICO
UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1962(d)

VII FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT

VIII FOR DEPRIVATION OF PLAINTIFFS' RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW
IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §I983

IX FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND ALL NOMINAL DEFENDANTS

X. FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY