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

ELNY Related Lawsuit Against Ringler Associates is Settled | "Storm Clouds" Parted

by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

A 2014 Oregon lawsuit brought against Ringler Associates and  its former President Paul Hoffman has settled. This author understands that the monetary aspect of the settlement was modest. Moreover, the Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice makes it clear that a class action was never certified. A parallel case with other lead plaintiffs against EPS Settlements Group was dismissed in Florida on appeal in 2016.

The settlement of the lawsuit arising out of the 2013 ELNY liquidation,  highlights the difficulty in summoning memories and proving standards from settlements of more than 30 years ago in the context of a potential jury whose members may not have even been born then.  Thirty years ago there was no Internet, no Google, no Facebook, no Twitter,  but there was CNN, people watched the evening news and read nationally syndicated newspapers that would (or should) have given them or their financial advisors clues.There were many lessons learned by the industry then and now.  Our thoughts go to the shortfall victims.

Read my ELNY commentary here

Watch my ELNY related videos here

 

 

 

 

 

What Does Insurance Fraudster W. Michael Woodyard Have in Common With Romulus and Remus?

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

The sentencing of former Ringler of North Texas structured settlement broker and admitted felon Michael Woodyard, who absconded with ACE Insurance premiums meant for MetLife,  has been continued to Friday April 21, 2017, the anniversary of the day that Romulus and Remus founded Rome in 753 BC on the site where they were suckled by a she-wolf as orphaned infants.

A pallid Mike Woodyard on the day of his arrest June 2016 after  a year on  the lam

Romulus and Remus were nursed by a she-wolf, according to legend

The day that Woodyard will learn his fate coincides with these other happenings on April 21 in history:

1836 Battle of San Jacinto, Texas wins independence from Mexico

1857 Alexander Douglas patents the bustle, 118 years before Van McCoy recorded The Hustle

1862 Congress establishes US Mint in Denver, Colorado

1878 First Lady Lucy Hayes begins egg rolling contest on White House lawn

1878 NY installs 1st firehouse pole

1898 Phillies' pitcher Bill Duggleby hits a grand slam on 1st at bat

1918 World War I: German fighter ace Baron Manfred von Richthofen "The Red Baron"  (you know "10, 20, 30 or more....was rolling up the score"), shot down and killed over Vaux sur Somme in France, Canadian pilot Arthur Roy Brown credited with the kill  (you mean it wasn't Snoopy?}

1956 Elvis Presley's 1st hit record, "Heartbreak Hotel", becomes #1

 1973 Tie a Yellow Ribbon Around The Old Oak Tree goes to #1, creating a cultural phenomenon

 1977 Billy Martin pulls Yankee line-up out of a hat, beats Blue Jays 8-6

1980 Howard Stern begins broadcasting on WWWW Detroit Michigan

1984 After 37 weeks "Thriller" is knocked off as top album by "Footloose"

1986 Geraldo Rivera opens Al Capone's vault on TV & finds nothing

1987 Dow Jones Average soared 664.7; 2nd biggest one-day gain in history

1989  11 years before being elected President by a hanging chad, George W Bush (& Edward W Rose) become CEO of Texas Rangers

1989 Thousands of Chinese crowd into Beijing's Tiananmen Square cheering students demanding greater political freedom

1990 National League umpire is arrested for stealing baseball cards

Notes

Case reference: United States of America v Wesley Michael Woodyard  Northern District of TX  Dallas Division  3:16-CR-0156-D

History Sources: OnThisDay.com, History.com

Most Structured Settlement Brokers Are Independent Contractors

by John Darer CLU ChFC CSSC RSP CLTC

Some structured settlement companies are really insurance agencies that engage independent contractors to sell financial products on their behalf.

To wit, in a legal petition related to an insurance coverage dispute filed in 2014,

"Plaintiff Ringler was a party to an Agreement for Services with Defendant Woodyard which provided that Ringler engaged Woodyard and his corporation, Ringler Associates North Texas Inc., as an independent contractor to sell financial products, including settlement annuities , on behalf of Plaintiff Ringler"  [Plaintiff's First Amended Petition, Ringler Insurance Agency, Inc. v W. Michael Woodyard; Ringler Associates of North Texas, inc., et al.   District Court of Dallas, Texas 116th Judicial District  DC-14-15041 p2, paragraph 3]

Despite appearances, very few structured settlement consultants in the industry are salaried employees. Most work on contingency based compensation and may charge fees for certain services unrelated to the placement of structured settlement annuities.

Executive Life | New York Times 1983 Report on Telling Merrill Lynch Memo Ditching Executive Life

by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

Executive Life was already under scrutiny by the major Wall Street brokerage house Merrill Lynch  (now a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation) as well as other brokerage houses in 1983 .Why not certain structured settlement firms, plaintiff lawyers and judges?

"'There is no question that the brokers who sell annuities are taking a much harder look at the insurance companies, and at what they are doing with the premiums from the policies they sell,'' Perrin H. Long, an analyst with Lipper Analytical Services, said last night".  New York Times November 3, 1983.

In the same article came the following report:

"In a memorandum sent to its account executives, Merrill Lynch Life Agency, a Merrill Lynch subsidiary that sells annuities and receives commissions from the issuing companies, said that after Dec. 1, it would no longer handle annuities issued by Charter Security Life, a subsidiary of the Charter Company, the Capital Life Insurance Company, Old Republic Life of New York, the John Alden Life Insurance Company and Executive Life".  (Ibid para. 8)

I've already reported how the Wall Street Journal reported  in 1984 that EF Hutton, whose sales contributed to 20% of First Executive's sales, cut bait with the junk bund glutton. If only "people" HAD "listened" to EF Hutton!

 

 

ELNY Class Action | Ringler Motion to Dismiss Granted in Part/ Denied in Part

by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

Oregon Federal Magistrate Judge  Janice M. Stewart found on December 5, 2014  that Ringler Associates and its agent Paul Hoffman, did not owe a continuing duty to Marie Westrope or Reggie Kelly to advise them of ELNY's deteriorating financial condition in the time period following the placement of their structured annuities.  In the 25 page decision the judge however, DENIED part of the motion to dismiss regarding the statutory claims in Count II (paragraph 3 below), which allows the case to continue.  [ see MARIE WESTROPE and REGGIE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,Plaintiffs, v. RINGLER ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED, PAUL HOFFMAN, and DOES 1-100, Defendants.  USDC Oregon Portland Divison Case 3:14-cv-00604-ST   Doc 82]

In 1985, following litigation to recover damages for their personal injuries, plaintiffs, Marie Westrope (“Westrope”) and Reggie Kelly (“Kelly”), each entered into a structured settlement agreement (“SSA”) in which they released the 1985 Defendants in exchange for the right to receive lifetime annuity payments. The SSAs were funded by the 1985 Defendants/Insurers with Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (“ELNY”)  annuity contracts brokered by present defendants, Ringler Associates Incorporated (“Ringler”) and its employee, Paul Hoffman (“Hoffman”).

After ELNY was declared insolvent in 2012, plaintiffs’ annuity payments from ELNY were reduced by 52% and 50% respectively. Plaintiffs filed this action individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging a claim for alleging a claim for negligence based on defendants brokering “qualified assignment” annuity contracts with ELNY and then failing to disclose facts about ELNY’s deteriorating financial condition (Count I) and a claim for violating AK Stat § 21.33.037, ORS 746.310, and similar statutes in six other states based on defendants assisting ELNY, an unlicensed insurer, to transact business in those states (Count II).
____________________________________________________________________

The term "qualified assignment" annuity contract, as used in the Ringler decision, is a misnomer.  A qualified assignment describes a contract between a defendant or defendant's insurer and the qualified assignment company to effectuate a substitution of obligors with respect to a periodic payment obligation. Valid qualified assignments comply with the guidelines set forth in IRC 130.  A qualified assignment company ultimately purchases the structured settlement annuity as a qualified funding asset  [defined at IRC 130(d)].  There is no distinction between a structured settlement annuity contract that is used to fund a periodic payment obligation by a qualified assignment company or a structured settlement annuity that is purchased by a defendant or insurer on a "buy and hold" or unassigned purchase.  There is no difference in cost or a separate regulatory filing.  The same annuity form is used.

_____________________________________________________________________

Ringler had conceded that the negligence claim would survive their motion to dismiss
under Alaska law, but not under Oregon law. Thus there was no dispute as to Kelly's case surviving the motion leaving the Court to decide the motion as to Westrope's negligence claim.

Role of Structured Settlement Broker|  C0urt Holds Defendants' Experts Have No Fiduciary Duty to Plaintiffs

An insurance agent or broker who agrees to procure insurance for a fee "owes a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in obtaining insurance" under Oregon law.

Ringler conceded that while they brokered the contracts and that brokers generally owe a heightened duty to their clients; however the plaintiffs were not their clients; their clients were the settlement defendants in the personal injury cases (from 1985) who retained their brokerage services, who bought the annuities  (actually the qualified assignment company did-in one of the cases it appeared that a Ringler owned qualified assignment company did, according to our sources) and with whom they had privity. The Court cited seminal cases Macomber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 804 A2d 180, 194 (Conn 2002). and Adrian v Mesirow Financial Structured Settlements LLC Adrian v. Mesirow Fin. Structured Settlements, LLC, 736 F Supp2d 404 (D PR 2010) in its analysis and concluded that defendants owed no fiduciary duty to plaintiffs as their broker, under that theory.

Plaintiffs as Third-Party Beneficiaries Theory May Bear Fruit

The privity doctrine has proven problematic due to its implications upon contracts made for the benefit of third parties who are unable to enforce the obligations of the contracting parties  [Wikipedia]

Indeed the Court says  “The common thread in the special relationships that the [Oregon] Supreme Court has recognized as giving rise to a duty of care to protect against purely economic loss is that the professional is acting, at least in part, to further the economic interests of the person to whom the duty is owed.”

A third party alleging a violation of a professional duty may bring a negligence claim, as long as it is an intended beneficiary of the contract. A third-party beneficiary exists “if it appears from the terms of the contract, interpreted in light of the accompanying circumstances, that the purpose of the person securing the insurance was to benefit, at least in part, someone in addition to, or other than, himself.”   The Court cited the Ninth Circuit which has recognized, “[a] structured settlement takes place when a tort defendant or its liability carrier purchases an annuity, with the tort plaintiff as the beneficiary, to settle a civil lawsuit.” Legal Econ. Evaluations, Inc. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 39 F3d 951, 952 (9th Cir 1994).

"Concluding that the negligence claim survives under Oregon law based on the plaintiffs’ status as third-party beneficiaries and construing the allegations in the Complaint in favor of plaintiffs, plaintiffs were intended third-party beneficiaries of the SSAs which were purchased to provide for their lifetime care. This status demanded a heightened duty of care from defendants to exercise reasonable care in procuring SSAs for them."

Continuing Duty Theory

Plaintiffs also alleged that defendants owed a continuing duty until ELNY’s liquidation to
inform them of the downfall of the junk bond market and of ELNY’s failing health. The Oregon Court cited this general rule, since Oregon law does not specifically address it:

“[t]he general rule is that an insurance agent or broker is not a guarantor of the financial condition or solvency of the company from which he obtains the insurance” . . . [and] “where the company was solvent when the policy was procured, its subsequent insolvency generally does not impose liability on the agent or broker.”  citing AYH Holdings, Inc. v. Avreco, Inc., 826 NE2d 1111, 1132 (Ill App Ct 2005) (first alteration in original), quoting Higginbotham & Assocs., Inc. v. Greer, 738 SW2d 45, 46-47 (Tex App 1987).

This seems to suggest regardless of who engages the broker.   [ Note that insolvencies are typically excluded from insurance broker error's and omissions policies]

The exception to the rule is if the subsequent insolvency of an insurer imposes liability on an agent or broker if the agent or broker knew or should have known of the insurer’s precarious condition at some point when the insured could have been protected., citing Higginbotham & Assocs., Inc., 728 SW2d at 47; see Hobbs v. Midwest Ins., Inc., 570 NW2d 525, 530 (Neb 1997). The court concluded that, "even if defendants had a continuing duty to notify plaintiffs of ELNY’s declining financial condition under Oregon law, the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support a negligence claim for breach of that duty.

Breach of Duty of Care

The Court concluded that the general allegation as to why ELNY was an unreliable choice “at the time”
defendants brokered and finalized plaintiffs’ SSAs is sufficient to allege a breach of defendants’
duty of care.

The Court stated " defendants’ argument ignores paragraph 50 (of the Complaint) which alleges: “At the time Defendants brokered Plaintiffs’ and class members’ SSAs, a reasonable broker would have disclosed” three specific risks. That time period was 1985 for plaintiffs. Id, ¶¶ 17-18 (emphasis
added). One of the undisclosed risks is “that ELNY managed a significantly riskier asset pool
than other competing annuity sellers which increases ELNY’s risk of defaulting on its SSA
payment obligations.” Id, ¶ 50. That “risker asset pool” allegedly resulted from heavy investment in junk bonds by ELNY’s parent companies, FEC and Executive Life Insurance Company of California, which clearly predated the collapse in value of junk bonds in 1986. "  [ the complaint also cites the 1982 Baldwin United collapse which was at one time cited as one of the largest 20 business failures of the 20th century-see inset for more on Baldwin United]

_________________________________________________________________

Why was Baldwin United Significant?

Baldwin United's $9 billion bankruptcy was at the time, in 1983,  the largest bankruptcy ever!  [see Wikipedia].  Hard to ignore then!   Hard to ignore now!

NY Times Business Day 1/4/1983  cites that two insurance units of Baldwin United Insurance Units were" "financially impaired" for six months in 1982

NY Times Business Day 9/27/1983  cites "The Baldwin-United Corporation, the Cincinnati piano company that borrowed heavily to move into the insurance business, filed for protection under the bankruptcy laws yesterday in one of the largest financial collapses in American history"

David Ingram a risk management  historian cites the 1983 "Baldwin United Shell Game" in an ongoing list of risk management failures that includes Executive LIfe

"At the time the Baldwin annuities were sold between 1979 and July, 1983--both by insurance agents and securities brokers--they paid 14% interest for the first year with a guaranteed minimum for the next 10 years, and what Poortvliet called "a rock-bottom guarantee" of 5.5% to 7.5% interest. Purchasers usually bought the annuities with a single payment--typically $20,000. The interest income remained untaxed until the investor began withdrawing benefits, generally at retirement.

"What happened (after the bankruptcy) was that not only were rates cut, but the policyholders couldn't get access to their cash without penalties," he said. "Since the beginning of 1984, they have been in limbo. This plan now will not only increase their rate but give them access to their benefits."  -La Times

While this was going on Charter Company which had sold $4B annuities declared bankruptcy in 1984.  [ see Financial History of the United States p108 for a good read]

Both the Baldwin United and Charter stories were unresolved at the time the Westrope and Kelly annuities were placed.  

While the Internet was years away from being part of everyday life, the Baldwin United story was front page and/or front business page news in mainstream media,  due to its magnitude.

___________________________________________________________________

Statutory Claims Regarding Transacting Business with Unlicensed Insurer

In denying the defendants' motion in part, the Court stated that words “directly or indirectly with respect to domestic risks are sufficiently broad to encompass activities by a person acting outside Oregon to assist an unauthorized insurer in selling an annuity to an Oregon resident that names an out-of-state straw corporation as the owner of the annuity for tax purposes. Absent any contrary authority, at this juncture, the allegations in the Complaint are sufficient to state a claim by Westrope against defendants for violating ORS 746.310".

 

 

"The Only (Structured Settlement ) Broker You Need" Pitch Rubbished In Lawsuit Defense

by  Structured Settlement Watchdog® 

In its defense, Ringler Associates has helped underscore why plaintiffs should seek independent professional advice when it comes to structured settlements and indeed, all settlement planning matters.

From 2005 until about mid-2011 the Ringler Associates website home page proclaimed that Ringler was "the only (structured settlement) broker you need".  [source: Wayback Archive]

Its August 2014 reply to plaintiff's response to its motion to dismiss the Class Action against it by a group of Oregon ELNY annuitants however,  tells another story:

Citing the 2010 decision in Yanisse Adrian v Mesirow Financial Structured Settlements  LLC et al Puerto Rico District Court 3:2008cv0118 , Ringler's defense team articulates:

"[T]he primary broker-client or broker-buyer relationship here that would come closer to the sort of business relationship alluded to by [plaintiff’s]
analogy was not between Mesirow and [plaintiff], but between Mesirow and Fireman’s Fund, and perhaps with the other defendants. Second, even
though [plaintiff] may have exhibited her trust in Kling(l)er’s judgment, and even though Kling(l)er may have intended for [plaintiff] to trust her
judgment, the fact is that Kling(l)er worked for the defense side of the underlying case, and she took direction ultimately from Fireman’s Fund;
she was not beholden to [the plaintiff]."

Adrian at 425-426; see also Tsuyoshi v. Sec’y of HHS, 2009 U.S. Claims LEXIS 186 at *27-28 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 19, 2009) (explaining that “an annuity broker, retained by a tortfeasor, neither has a contractual relationship with the injured person nor owes the injured person a fiduciary duty”) (citing Macomber v. Travelers Property and Cas. Corp.,804 A.2d 180, 193 n. 12 (Conn. 2002)). For these same reasons, defendants in this case,as structured settlement annuity brokers retained by the defense in the underlying dispute (pursuant to the settlement freely entered into by plaintiffs), cannot be said to owe any special duty of care to plaintiffs".  [Read Adrian v Mesirow Summary Judgment Order]

Ironically the "only broker you need" tag line changed shortly after the Adrian case was decided.  It was not used however, at the time of the cases subject to the class action. Just an observation. 

As a practical matter most cases involve a settlement adviser from both sides. If a plaintiff is not comfortable with who his or her lawyer has recommended, or wants a second opinion,  he or she should seek independent advice from a credentialed settlement adviser.

ELNY Related Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against Ringler and EPS Settlements

by John Darer CLU ChFC CSSC RSP CLTC

Class action lawsuits have been filed separately against Ringler Associates and EPS Settlements related to the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) by claimants who suffered shortfalls in the ELNY Liquidation.   Former Ringler Associates president, CEO and Chairman Paul Hoffman was named individually in the lawsuit.

According to the Complaint against Ringler and Hoffman et al. filed April 11, 2014 in Oregon District Court, Plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that Defendants, as brokers for the sale of ELNY's annuities, solicited , negotiated , procured and effectuated insurance contracts, and performed other functions that ultimately directly or indirectly assisted ELNY in transacting the sale of unlicensed insurance to Plaintiffs and members of the Statutory subclass"

 The class includes:

"All persons who entered into structured settlement agreements (SSA) funded by qualified assignment annuity contracts brokered by Ringler or any of its affiliate or predecessor companies in states where Executive Life Insurance Company of New York was not licensed to do business or sell annuities; received benefits from ELNY pursuant to a SSA brokered by Ringler and (3) suffered annuity benefit cuts on or after August 8, 2013".  

The Complaint against Ringler and Hoffman et al. notes that "most state's (sic) guarantee associations excludes (sic) coverage of an annuity issued in the state when the annuity issuer was not licensed to issue  the annuity in the state". [States where ELNY was not licensed and therefore unauthorized to sell insurance include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,  Idaho, illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, , Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming]. The Complaint, at paragraph 46, cites the statutes of many states which have passed statutes imposing penalties on brokers for aiding non-licensed insurers with transactions in their respective states.

In an apparent attempt to build a negligence case, the complaint also alleges, among other things,  that "Defendants knew or should have known of ELNY's deteriorating financial condition in 2009 but failed to disclose this fact to Plaintiffs and class members.."

The complaint also alleges that "By December 31, 2010 that ELNY was operating with a deficit of $1.5Billion, Defendants knew or should have known of ELNY's deteriorating financial condition at the time but still failed to disclose this fact from Plaintiffs and class members"

The case is captioned:

Marie Westrope and Reggie Kelly, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v Ringler Associates Incorporated, Paul Hoffman and Does 1-100   United States District Court for the District of Oregaon, Eugene Division, Case No. 14-604 Download Westrope and Kelly v Ringler Associates Class Action Lawsuit 

Complaint against EPS Settlements Group  et al

The Class Action Complaint against EPS Settlements Group, was filed in the United States District Couryt for the Southern District of Florida on April 16, 2014. and closely follows the complaint against Ringler and Hoffman et al. The complaint against EPS Settlements Group also names John Cantwell,  a New Mexico structured settlement broker, who at the time of the annuities procured for class members was with EPS predecessor company Kenneth H . Wells.

The case is captioned:

Curtis Moore and Joseph Moore, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v EP Settlements Group, John Cantwell and Does 1-100  United States District Court SouthernDistrict of Florida Case 9:14-cv-80521-JIC  Download Moore and Moore v EPS Settlements Group, John Cantwell et al USDC So. Fl.

 

Is The Main Crux of Structured Settlement Services LLC Site "Teeing Up" Dad?

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

Is Structured Settlement Services LLC in the structured settlement business and doing something constructive for the industry,  or is it merely a shill for
Daddy Dick Risk's law firm? 

Visitors arriving at the landing page of the Structured Settlement Services website at structuredsettlements(dot) org are visually  "assaulted" by an "urgent notice" that takes up the majority of the "real estate" on the page, that states that "if you have a structured settlement you may be the victim of a fraud scheme". If you click to learn more, you are linked to Dick Risk's website. Dick  has even gone to the trouble of registering the internet domain structuredsettlementfraud (dot) com, which is hosted on the same server as structuredsettlements(dot)org, according to my research .

"Observing" Dick Risk's fraud "billboard" from the perimeter of the home page are button links to Rob Risk's Linkedin profile, Google Plus and email.

While the Tulsa based Mr. Risk is certainly able to design his website any way he likes, fair criticism is warranted. Doesn't Rob Risk have a greater value proposition than soliciting fraud business for Pop, or is that his business? The meta tags of the structuredsettlements(dot)org website include the term "free legal advice".

Speaking of Pop, isn't the image of  a 1950s era dial up phone on the header for the structuredsettlementfraud(dot)com website, a bit ironic for someone who lambasted the structured settlement industry for, in his opinion, a 30 year old business model with his "bash brother" Hindert at the 2010 NASP meeting?

"Mulligan Higher": The Opus Of The Ringler Open

by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

The American Association for People With Disabilities ("AAPD") is to be rewarded for golfers' profligacy at the upcoming Ringler Open.

Therefore as a member of the the AAPD Power Circle,  it is my duty and pleasure to inform you that shanks, slices, whiffs and the abject failure to get beyond the ladies' tee will all inure to the charity's benefit. Those hackers who "Mulligan" will have to pay up! The proceeds, along with a Ringler company match, go to AAPD.

Usually when it comes to the left coast, "Mulligan" don't mean "Jack". But in this case Ringler means "Jingler" for the AAPD.

I'm not one who encourages people to fail, but in this case I'll  have to make an exception so I've penned a stanza to motivate the hacker in all of us.

The "Mulligan Higher" Opus   (loosely to the tune of "Mull of Kintyre")

Mulligan Higher

Oh Miss that shot in from the tee

My desire is to help the AAPD

Oh Mulligan Higher

Shanks have I hit and worms have I burned

My 5 iron so trusty, now leaves me spurned

Not Past ladies' T, my pants at my knees

Oh it's all in good fun for the AAPD.

 

Cue the bag pipes

Is "Settlement Annuity Company" Selling Itself Short?

by John Darer CLU ChFC CSSC RSP

One of my esteemed competitors proudly proclaims that "There is no interest in selling the plaintiff any other type of financial product, before, during or after the case is settled". Consider on the one hand that in the book  In Search of Excellence.  one of the most widely read business books ever, Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. listed "sticking to your knitting" as one of eight common themes of successful corporations. Yet despite what the company and its associates actually appear to do, the company bills itself as solely a settlement annuity company.

In this day and age of multi product settlement solutions, is there an advantage to promoting yourself as a " one trick pony"? Whoa Nelly!