Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog: Structured Settlements | Settlement Planning News and Commentary

The Boomers Ruined Everything | Lyman Stone's Outrageous Judgment About Professional Licensure

by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC

Strict licensing rules make existing workers richer by reducing competition in their fields asserts Lyman Stone, a research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies (Stone blames Baby Boomers). And while some industries clearly need licensing rules for health and safety reasons  he says, most of the growth in licensure has been in fields where health and safety justifications are less salient: Do you really need hours of course work and special exams to be a florist, an interior designer, or an auctioneer?

By privileging existing workers, writes Stone,  "licensure rules increase income inequality, and they do so specifically by shifting income toward older workers. When licensure standards exclude felons, they also disproportionately affect minorities. Young people, and especially minorities, are increasingly being legally prohibited from work".

I received my first professional insurance licenses in New York and Connecticut at age 21 and my first securities license at age 22. 

Lyman Stone obviously has not studied the structured settlement secondary marketplace in which:

• There is no licensing standard. There is no way to measure even basic core competency, knowledge of state laws related to the profession, to exclude felons. and to deal with the hundred of on registered aliases used by some of the companies those associated with them.
• There is no means to  fine, suspend or revoke licenses.
• There is no way for consumers to seek redress without it taking years.
• There is no requirement to carry professional liability insurance.
• Investors in factored structured settlement payments streams have lost their money or are in jeopardy of losing all of their investment in what was touted as extremely safe.
• In most states where structured settlement factoring companies do business without first registering to do business with the Secretary of State when they solicit business from citizens of that state
• Many such unlicensed companies are holding themselves out using terms that implies credentials when those making the claims do not possess them. 
• Many such unlicensed companies operate using multiple fictitious names making it difficult for people to know who they are dealing with. 
• Richart Ruddie, a millennial from Owings Mills Maryland and Ft Lauderdale Florida, associated with a series of companies banned from doing business in Maryland for 7 years for fraud, had to plea bargain with the Rhode island District Attorney for filing bogus Court  documents featuring fictional defendants for his reputation management business, that transmitted documents to a process server using one of the banned company (AnnuitySold)  emails.
• On November 9, 2022 Raffi Boghosian, Charles E. Smith, Jr and Anuj Sud, minorities, were convicted of structured settlement theft. Most of the victims were minorities. 
• Two unlicensed entities who attempted and may have instigated pennies on the dollar sale of assets using investment projections which wouldn't have passed securities regulators.
• There have been Pennies on the dollar asset liquidations to place in unsuitable investments such as in a rap star's record. Any of the victims of the structured settlement secondary market are disproportionately young minorities, the very people that Lyman Stone is trying to give opportunity, who are targeted  and then ripped off by unlicensed sales people who are dispensing awful financial advice.  One unlicensed company referred to selling a structured settlement ( for literally pennies on the dollar)  as a windfall.
• A convicted felon named Todd Dyer was in the process of setting up a purported marketplace called Income Stream Exchange (for the exchange of structured settlement payments rights)  when he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years for another fraud.

It's not so clear what research Lyman Stone performed to form his opinion that course work and special exams to be a florist, an interior designer, or an auctioneer are less salient. Licensing standards not only benefit consumers but employers as well.  Frankly if I'm spending money do re-do my kitchen I want someone who knows what they are doing.  And do you want someone putting a straight edge razor to your throat to shave you without a license? The fees charged help fund the cost of administration.

Last updated December 7, 2022

 

 

 

 

 

Secondary Market Annuity Buyers Screwed Again as 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Summary Judgment

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

Buy a secondary market annuity at your own peril investors. That is the message in the November 23, 2018 decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in overturning a 2017 summary judgment decision in favor of a Pennsylvania couple who, on the advice of their adviser, bought what was marketed as a secondary market annuity by Altium Group, LLC with retirement funds.

Is Pennsylvania retirees Losing Big Money on  their investment , in addition to legal expresses and costs, that were marketed to them as "Low Risk" a reason to gloat?  

The term secondary market annuity is a massive untruth, a scam label that uses the cachet of annuities to attract investors. The scam labeled investment turned out to have been originated in a Florida fraud.  The Third Circuit also errs on the facts by referring to transfer of structured settlement payment rights as the transfer of a structured settlement annuity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I reported in February 2017. Altium Group, LLC advertised that 'Secondary Market Annuities are a High Yield, Low Risk financial investment vehicle. The Holmdel New Jersey company also claimed to " provide you safe, insured returns up to 8.00%. Invest in your future'"

Structured Settlement Derivatives have been intentionally misrepresented as annuities by a number of actors in the structured settlement tertiary market, who know that structured settlement payment rights are NOT in fact annuities, and in doing so, may attempt to 'disclaim liability for legal, accounting, tax, financial or other advice or guidance of any kind to purchaser" as has become evident here.  These middlemen also solicit settlement planners and financial planners, some of whom choose to perpetuate the intentional misrepresentation, in selling the derivatives to their clients.

In the Wall case, the deal originated by Corona Capital in Florida and then was offered up to investors on the shelf by Altium, which is a middle man, or stop on the distribution supply chain if you will. The only problem was that the underlying origination was subject to a fraud by the wife of a structured settlement payee who forged his signature. When the payee found out he moved to vacate the order. This led to a cascading effect on the Wall's " low risk financial investment vehicle" that was "safe and insured" and they've needed to spend thousands of dollars to try and protect their interests.

Altium claimed they were a victim too and, to its credit, introduced court order vacate insurance in May 2017. Court order vacate insurance is a policy that provides limited protection to investors in structured settlement derivatives. Collucio tells me that they require all the brokers who buy from their shelf must perform and have the client sign a suitability analysis the same way one is legally required when annuities are sold by insurance agents. Not very vendor of structured settlement derivatives does.

Unfortunately Altium was uninsured for the loss and the best that the Walls can hope for from their "low risk financial investment" is that the District Court rules in their favor on the unjust enrichment claim against Altium that was reinstated by the 3rd Circuit in its November 23, 2018 decision and there are assets to collect if a judgment is eventually rendered in their favor. The Walls invested $152,833.37 and I'm sure have incurred tens of thousands in attorney fees on the  "low risk investment vehicle" with "safe insured" return.

 

 

State Attorney General Alert on Structured Settlement Factoring | Is This Part of Your Investigation?

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

In this post I will report on two definitely unethical and potentially unlawful activities that are being perpetrated by structured settlement factoring companies on injury victims with structured settlements and have the potential to cause devastating financial harm if not stopped.  Both of these are going on as of March 2018.

A.  Structured Settlement Factoring Companies are Selling Irrational Fear Using the State Insurance Guarantee Funds Limits as a Weapon, to Induce People to Sell at Huge Discounts  [ ARE YOU LISTENING INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS?]

The scam works like this.  "Sheronda Jones"  was injured in an accident 15 years ago when she was an 8 year old child and has received a substantial monthly tax-free income from a structured settlement  since she was 21 which was split funded with four prominent life insurance companies.  The cost of the structured settlement was $5 million and $1,250,000 was used to fund periodic payments from each of the 4 companies.  Sheronda lives in Denver which does not permit its licensed agents to speak of its statutory protection.  Enter "Foknots Capital", and its unlicensed and unqualified sales person "Griffin Schmutznick", who makes his big move by telling Sheronda that since Colorado guarantee fund is limited to $300,000 per payee, she is exposed big time in the event of bankruptcy.  And of course the only solution that Foknots has is to sell it now for pennies on the dollar and give up the tax advantages "just in case" an A++ or A+ company, with hundreds of billions in assets that has been around for 160 years goes belly up.

The same actors that manufacture this poo poo on a stick, will surely use an inverted guaranty fund pitch when they attempt to sell the structured settlement payment rights they acquire from Sheronda to investors using the scam label "secondary market annuity".

B. Structured Settlement Factoring Company Uses Potentially Unlawful Investment Projection to Twist the Annuitant Out of Their Structure

The scam works like this.  Unlicensed and unqualified Factoring Company sales person attempts to convince structured settlement annuitant that they can sell their structured settlement and do much better investing the net proceeds elsewhere using an incomplete comparison featuring a single unreasonably high (and possibly unlawful) linear investment projection. 

I've previously reported how Client First Funding originated this misleading idea in or about 2013.  I've published copies of their letter of solicitation which featured an 8% linear investment projection. In the one I published the investment projection is laden with disclaimers, but promotes 4 investment advisers, two of which were then employed by Wells Fargo. One I spoke to was going to put everything this poor guy had, after selling $2.2 million for $577,000 into mutual funds. He had been receiving $60,000 tax free a year, with annual increases, a decent "salary". According to a legal complaint filed in the Terrence Taylor case, a representative of Bexhill/Client First told Terrence Taylor he could double his money with Wells Fargo if he sold to them. Undisclosed to Taylor, was that a Wells Fargo entity was also an assignee on the same deal. I understand that Client First is no longer doing this.

Now there is another company who is copying Client First's old methods and projecting an even higher linear rate assumption, in excess of 10%.  The investment projection for the nebulous investment is generated by the factoring company itself using a free online tool.

The scheme is marketed as "an amazing program that can help put you in a better financial position and allows you to have control/access over your money". The scheme is fraudulently marketed by the Florida company as "one of many ways we can help restructure the policy". The policy is not being restructured.

Here is how the scheme is purported to work:

1. The present value of your remaining annuity payments is calculated with today’s market rate.  (think 50 cents or worse on the dollar)
   
2. Once the present value is determined, you will know the initial amount of principal you have to work with (similar to what was started with when the annuity was first put into place)
3. The company that does this highly recommends that you meet with a certified financial advisor (they claim they can assist in locating them in your area) to put together a financial plan for your future.
4. Instead of investing your money with an insurance company, they claim that you can now have the option to put your money with a bank institution or other means (?) to generate interest. (misleading...as if your structured settlement paid no return)
5. The interest gained from your principal amount can be used as monthly income to help with every day needs or be used to reinvest in your portfolio.
6. This process now gives you full access and control over your money with the help of a professional to make your financial future is setup properly.

Interest rates on April 3, 2018

United State Treasuries  (all taxable)  Source: Bloomberg

12 month  2.06%

2 Year  2.27%

5 Year 2.60%

10 Year 2.78%

30 Year 3.01%

Municipal Bond (some part of interest tax exempt, depending on the bond and issuer)

1 Year 1.57%

5 Year 2.07%

10 Year 2.46%

Flaws in the Restructure scam

• Trading safe, stable , highly regulated, tax exempt structured settlement ncome stream, for one that is at best tax deferred and at worst fully taxable and exposes the annuitant to more financial risk
• How long it would take just to break even on your selling loss (assuming 50 cents on the dollar)?

1%  72 years

2%  36 years

3%   24 years

4%   18 years

5%    14.4 years

6%    12 years

7%     10.3 years

10%  7.2 years

11%    6.54 years

• Given the volatility that would have to be part of the underlying investments to generate a 10% or 11% yield in the Restructure scam, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use a non linear Monte Carlo analysis to randomly test the assumptions using the rigorously tested scientific method.
• And if you are going to do something such as use a linear analysis when discussing a high yield investment that is characteristically volatile why are you not using alternative interest rates?

Remember the Restructure scam is being pitched by the unqualified and possibly unlicensed structured settlement factoring salesperson before a financial or settlement planning advisor is involved.

Someone needs to see if the investment advisor the factoring company is pimping for is associated with a firm that is involved in funding the structured settlement factoring deal.

More to come on this...

    

How Scammed Structured Settlement Derivative Investors Drain Insurance Department Resources

by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

Are companies that sold investors structured settlement derivatives using the scam label " secondary market annuities" to blame for real life financial consequences to state insurance coffers, as investors complain to regulators when insurers stop payments due to contested or competing claims? The regulators then contact the insurers for a "what's up?", according to our sources.

Structured Settlement Secondary Market Individuals and Companies Should Pay User Fees

The fact that structured settlement derivative investors are contacting state insurance regulators, possibly with the coaching of the secondary market annuity scam labeler, coupled with the subsequent contact of insurers by regulators, draws the inevitable conclusion that buyers of structured settlement derivatives did not completely understand what they were buying, thought that they were annuities and may have been misled about what they were buying.

As has been previously reported and documented, promoters of structured settlement derivatives heavily marketed to investors with the "secondary market annuities" scam label, routinely pushed the scam label to hustle their products.

Some structured settlement factoring originators package up acquired payment rights, securitize them and sell them to institutional investors, taking their "vig" along the way. Others directly target individual and possibly less sophisticated investors, mom & pops and retirees.  Investors, particularly retirees, who in reliance on the scam label believed they actually bought annuities, annuities being a familiar term associated with safe and secure, a reputation built by billions of ongoing and legacy advertising spent by licensed user fee paying life insurance companies (in some cases for more than one hundred years).

While falsely promoting the financial derivatives as an annuity, a regulated insurance product, some secondary and tertiary market companies also told buyers that state insurance guaranty funds might apply in the event of insolvency, conduct that would be illegal to promote annuities or any life insurance product under state law throughout the land.  Some of the principals of such companies held/hold insurances licenses, but perhaps not in every state they sold the secondary market scam labelled derivatives to investors, including retirees and perhaps injury victims.

Promoters of Structured Settlement Derivatives Scam Labelled As Annuities Who Advertise State Insurance Guarantee Associations in their Sales Pitchl 

1. Annuity Straight Talk LLC, Montana  [ via  (1) SecondaryMarketAnnuities(dot)Net  (2) DCF Exchange LLC (3) smasecureassets (dot)com which is listed as the only sponsor at time of posting]. Annuity Straight Talk not only mentions but uses hypothetical examples of how it would apply.
2. Factor Financial, Delaware, actually falsely represents that every insurance company "is regulated by a state guaranty fund"

State insurance departments are funded in large part by fees charged to those who use the system:

• Insurance companies who do business in the state
• Licensed insurance agents, brokers and consultants
• License fees

With few exceptions, structured settlement factoring companies that originate structured settlement factoring transactions, that are ultimately sold to investors directly or through intermediaries, are currently not subject to a license or registration requirement by any regulatory agency state or federal.

As a result, neither structured settlement factoring companies nor anyone discussing (1) structured settlement factoring transactions or (2) investing in structured settlement derivatives with the annuitants or investors, pay any license fees to state insurance regulators. Many do not even register to do business in the states they solicit customers or consummate structured settlement factoring deals. Thus those who profit from the system and tax the system's resources do not pay user fees. 

The cat is out of the bag. As more annuitants and former annuitants fight back against structured settlement factoring abuse, they contest and seek to invalidate court orders. Then insurers move for and are successful with interpleaders, or plaintiffs move for a constructive trust (since many unregulated originators have no money), which potentially impacts investors when the payments are suspended. 

The system is flawed when the consequence to insurers and ultimately to taxpayers, in states where consumers who have been misled by merchants (for the sake of their own profits), is increased unit costs for state and local regulators to devote time and resources to the scammed investors who turn to them for answers when the payments are halted due to a competing claims to the payments.  Payments may be contested if it can be proven that the Court approved transaction did not satisfy the requirements of the structured settlement protection act.  These individuals and entities should be taxed up front as a prerequisite to doing business in a state and through ongoing user fees.

The promoters often tout that "each deal is vetted and approved by outside counsel", but even that is no guarantee as investors in what turned out to be Access Funding related derivatives have shown  [ Read my recent story about the Florida retirees] New York Life is moving for interpleader in the Terrence Taylor case and a class action in Virginia threatens investors.  

 

 

 

 

Personal Injury Lawyer Buys Client's Structure 1 Year After Settlement and Shafts Client in Awful Deal

by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

It was disturbing to learn that a personal injury lawyer in a position of superior knowledge and trust, may have taken financial advantage of a personal injury client by entering into a structured settlement factoring transaction using an offshore company controlled by the lawyer and shafting his client for in excess of $1 million spread, in an awful deal that bears an effective discount rate in excess of 22% when a fair cost of money would have been less than a third of that amount. That's not all. The documents submitted to Acadia Parish (twice) each contained false representations to the Court as to the discount rate and the documents in public record show the client's and his wife's social security numbers in plain text. And I have more which I will save for a follow up post. The operative question is "Is it even kosher for a personal injury lawyer to buy his client's structured settlement?"

The backstory

• Bobby James Bourque and Peggy Bourque hired Lafayette, LA and Houston, TX personal injury lawyer David Patrick Daniel, Jr. to handle his lawsuit against CNH America, LLC filed in August 2010, with the caption Bourque v CNH America, LLC et al.  Western District of Louisiana  6:10-cv-013247.
• Attorney Daniel goes by Patrick Daniel and markets himself through the website goodguylafayette.com    There does not appear to be a website for his Houston office.
• The lawsuit arose out of a horrific accident in which a tractor gas cap blew off the gas tank showering  Bobby James Bourque with gasoline which ignited on October 6, 2007.  Rachel Ann Martin-Decklemann, also of Daniel & Associates is listed as co-counsel.   
• The lawsuit settled in July 2015 and the terms of settlement included as part consideration, a structured settlement with Prudential Insurance Company of America that was due to pay the Bourques more than $6,000/month in certain periodic payments for 15 years, with a huge balloon payment of $2,000,000 at the end of the 15 years.
• On October 2, 2015, a for profit company called D&A Litigation Support, LLC was formed in Puerto Rico  (register 363564), according to its most recent annual report which shows David P. Daniel as the authorized person.   Download D&A Litigation Support LLC 2016 Puerto Rico annual report  (retrieved 11/30/2017)
• The Texas Bar listing for Daniel's law firm is Daniel & Associates, LLC   David Patrick Daniel " Patrick" Daniel Jr. State Bar of Texas listing . David Patrick Daniel Jr. Louisiana Bar listing

December 2016 Petition to Transfer Structured Settlement Payment Rights

• A little over a year after concluding the personal injury case for the Bourques in which Attorney Daniel would had to have advised his client to take a structured settlement, D&A Litigation Support, LLC the Puerto Rico Company, for which the authorized person is David P. Daniel, hired Harvey, LA lawyer Jennifer R. Theriot to represent D& A Litigation Support LLC as the buyer,  for its acquisition of ALL of the structured settlement payment rights of Bobby Bourque and his wife Peggy Bourke. In the ExParte Petition filed  the Acadia Parish, bearing docket Number 2016 11173-G. 
• According to the transfer agreement the Bourques were selling 180 payments of $6,786.35 per month from July 15, 2018 through June 15, 2033 and a lump sum payment of $2,000,000 on June 15, 2033.  The purchase price was $400,000 for in excess of $3,221,543 in certain future payments.
• In the Affidavit of Bobby Bourke and Peggy Bourke signed December 16, 2016 at #5 they indicate that "I have discussed other options...".  With whom did they discuss these options.  With Daniel, the same attorney who they trusted and now effectively is an adversarial position to their interests?
• Shocking! The disclosure statement submitted by or on behalf of D&A Litigation Support LLC appears to be a fraud on the Court. Exhibit 3 Paragraph 6 states fraudulently that "Based on the net amount you will receive from us and the amounts an timing of the structured settlement payments that you are turning over to us, you will, in effect be paying interest to us at a rate of 6% per year. Today I received two separate  T Value calculations from two independent sources who said that the effective discount rate was in fact in excess of 22%
• Less than one year later the telephone number for D&A Litigation Support, LLC listed on the Bourque Transfer Petition was a non-working number when I attempted to dial it on November 30, 2017. Incredibly both Bobby and Peggy Bourque's social security numbers were left in plain text on the court documents which are public record.
• Judge Laurie A. Hulia signed the Transfer Order on December 27, 2016.
• The Order was served on Prudential by certified mail. Apparently there were irregularities that led to the need to file an amended transfer petition.

June 2017 Amended Petition to Transfer Structured Settlement Payment Rights

• On June 19, 2017,  Attorney Jennifer Theriot submits a Motion and Order to Leave to File Amended Disclosure Statement. Of note Therior, again the attorney for the Buyer, whose authorized rep is the Bourque's personal injury attorney,  says that the Disclosure statement must be amended with an updated Applicable Federal Rate and discounted present value. The applicable federal rate shown is 2.4% compared to 0.68% for the December 2016 petition but the discounted PV is shown as almost double. Usually a higher discount rate means lower present value. Is there different math in Harvey Louisiana?
• The list of expenses is different between the two disclosure statements as well and the net amount to the seller is reduced to $396,000  after deduction expenses.
• More apparent fraud on the Court as the effective discount rate is shown to be 13.2% when again it is in excess of 22%.  This is an absolutely shocking disparity.
• And the clueless court says that D&A is in compliance with Louisiana law.

Stay tuned for my future post about who gave the "Independent Professional Advice" given in this case,  a mandatory requirement under the Louisiana Structured Settlement Protection Act, and which insurance broker is pushing this deal to investors.

Louisiana Purchase Needs to Be Investigated

In my opinion the Acadia Parish Court and the State Bars of Louisiana and Texas must conduct a comprehensive investigation into the Bourque deal.  The scuttlebutt is that the payments that D&A Litigation Support LLC bought are currently being shopped to multiple tertiary buyers at a 7% discount rate through a broker in the Midwest and nobody is biting.  7% or less might have been a fair rate for Mr Daniel personal injury client (whose legal settlement earned Daniel a contingency fee of at least 1/3 just over a year earlier), not the "greedy bastard" rate of 22%+

 

Annuity Straight Talk Misrepresents and Completely Screws Up Structured Settlement Example

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

Annuity Straight Talk, a company run by a licensed insurance agent and sells legitimate annuities in addition to structured settlement derivatives using the scam label "secondary market annuities" gets it all wrong on Secondary Market Annuity(dot)net

Annuity Straight Talk Story Just Doesn't Hold Up

Annuity Straight Talk expects you to believe this...

"John Smith hits Jane Doe in a car accident, and the case goes to court.

John Smith loses in court, and Jane wins. Money is offered to Jane, either a lump sum, or a structured settlement making payments over her lifetime. Instead of taking the lump sum, Jane, who can’t go to work because of her injuries, elects a structured settlement.

Jane’s court ordered settlement reads “Jane Doe shall receive $1000 per month for life, with 20 years guaranteed.”

Why is Annuity Straight Talk not "talking straight" with consumers?

Annuity Straight Talk falsely implies that structured settlements are created after someone loses in court and the court orders a settlement.  In reality, if a case "goes to court"  (i.e. trial), a judge or jury will deliver a verdict. Settlement in legal terms refers to when parties to a lawsuit resolve their differences. Settlements are negotiated by their parties, usually through their attorneys and/or insurance adjusters, but final approval of a settlement offer must rest with the parties to the lawsuit {US Legal] Under some circumstances, a court may need to approve a settlement that the parties have negotiated, particularly settlements involving payments to minors or incompetents.

Annuity Straight Talk Is Selling You a Derivative Of a Product That It Does Not Accurately Explain

Says Annuity Straight Talk..."Now Jane doesn’t want John or Progressive, his auto insurance company, to be paying her, and the court doesn’t want this either. Progressive just wants to close the case and raise John’s premiums. To put closure on the case, Progressive purchases an annuity from a major life insurance carrier to pay Jane $1000 per month for life, with 20 years guaranteed. Let’s assume they purchase the annuity from MetLife.

Progressive Insurance is the owner, MetLife is the issuer, and Jane is the payee of this annuity contract. Jane can call up MetLife any time and they will tell her that she is entitled to $1000 a month for life, with 20 years guaranteed starting on the date the case was closed.

Comments:   A structured settlement is not typically owned by the insurance company for the defendant, it is owned by a qualified assignment company for personal injury cases, for payment of damages qualifying under IRC 104(a)(1) or 104(a)(2) and in compliance with the requirements of IRC 130. In the alternative, where taxable damages, or non assignable tax exempt damages (e.g. wrongful imprisonment IRC 139F). Annuity Straight Talk would have you believe, erroneously, that Progressive shifts its liability by simply buying an annuity from MetLife. 

Annuity Straight Talk Misrepresents Name of Insurer in SMA Inventory

Annuity Straight Talk lists an SMA from CNA Life Insurance Company at this post was published.  By its own definition all "SMA" listed are derived from factored structured settlements. The structured settlement annuity issuer for CNA was Continental Assurance Company. Continental Assurance Company was sold in August 2014 to Wilton Re and the acquired company became Wilcac Life Insurance Company.

Annuity Straight Talk Misrepresents Statutory Protections

If MetLife goes out of business, and also the State Guarantee funds that guarantee Met and the other carriers operating in that state go out of business too, (Ummm Not very likely!) Jane can go back on Progressive and demand that they make good on the money owed to her under the court settlement.

Comment:  It is unlawful under state insurance laws to use statutory protections to sell annuities.  That being said what Annuity Straight Talk says is inaccurate. For a more detailed explanation please follow this link

Annuity Straight Talk and Conflict of Interest

"Factoring is a cutthroat business, and is primarily about marketing". I agree and I would add the word deception to that as the allegations in legal cases against originators of structured settlement payment rights have shown.  Sooner or later some factoring company is going to get nailed for providing on unregistered investment advice.

Annuity Straight Talk claims it is a conflict of interest for an annuity issuer or a subsidiary to help out their annuitants if they run into hardship situations.  It's a total canard created by the factoring industry which sees it as a threat. An insurer willing to help their customers out in a hardship situation is a good thing if they can bring about a better deal. It's certainly better than leaving them to be court scraped by rapacious vultures who regurgitate their finds to the structured settlement factoring companies. Maybe a Terrence Taylor or Cedric Martez Thomas case doesn't happen if there is an internal "hardship repurchase program"

Annuity Straight Talk Misrepresents Ratings of insurers

Annuity Straight Talk misrepresents  Berkshire Hathaway   (A++), MetLife  (A+), New York Life (A++), Pacific Life  (A+), Prudential (A+).  All of these companies have AM Best Financial Strength ratings higher than "A".  For the smarty pants out there  Berkshire, New York Life, MetLife, Prudential and Pacific Life have better than " A" Standard & Poors ratings too.

Annuity Straight Talk Misrepresents a Structured Settlement Transfer as a Settlement

A structured settlement transfer or structured settlement factoring transaction is not a settlement.

 

 

 

Fiduciary Standards For Structured Settlement Purchasers/Originators Who GIve Financial Advice

by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

One of the drawbacks of the absent regulation of salespeople and sales practices in the structured settlement secondary market is that there is no suitability standard, no best interest standard and no fiduciary standard. Unlicensed salespeople lacking credentials are dispensing often very poor financial advice and people are getting hurt.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe that African-Americans and other minorities are being singled out and targeted for exploitation. Here are some examples:

• A young unemployable  29 year old African American father of two toddlers is advised to sell his entire structured settlement and primary source of support for his family and put it into mutual funds. Approved by a Florida judge. He had an Allstate annuity that had a better discount rate than the settlement purchaser offered as well. Fortunately this was nipped in the bud quickly and a negotiated rescission saw him restored. (NASP member)
• A  20 year old African American from New York is forum shopped into Florida and fleeced by predators in the secondary market who were not acting in ccc
  

  African Americans and other minorities are being exploited by the lack of standards in the structured settlement secondary market
  
  his best interest. (NASP member)
• Another young 19 year old African American is forum shopped into Florida and completely hosed out of his structured settlement. The factoring company sales rep colluded with a pal in the real estate industry and placed the young man into highly risky losing real estate positions that would not pass the smell test. (NASP member)
• According to a legal complaint, a West Virginia young African-American  man is told by a South Florida sales rep makes claims about investment performance that would violate securities laws  (NASP member)
• A Brooklyn NY 20 year old African American Allstate annuitant from New York was financially smoked by a Florida company

What is also tragedy in the making is that the "pimps" who originate these deals, grab their vig, sell off the acquisition,  and the deals then find their way to investors, including potentially, retirees and other injury victims using the secondary market annuities scam label.

These are just some examples. Add these to the Baltimore City scam allegedly perpetrated by Access Funding, its bribe taking lawyer Anuj Sud, Rockville MD lawyer Charles E Smith who allegedly advised an illiterate, intellectually disabled young woman on the sale of a structured settlement (designed to protect her throughout her lifetime) for a small and severely discounted amount of cash, without meeting her or providing counsel on the potential consequences of selling the structured settlement payments.

The road to recovery is difficult. Few attorneys have the sophistication and nous to prosecute cases against settlement purchasers. The rules need to change and there are good public policy reasons for doing so, in my opinion.

 

by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

One of the drawbacks of the absent regulation of salespeople and sales practices in the structured settlement secondary market is that there is no suitability standard, no best interest standard and no fiduciary standard. Unlicensed salespeople lacking credentials are dispensing often very poor financial advice and people are getting hurt.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe that African-Americans and other minorities are being singled out and targeted for exploitation. Here are some examples:

• A young unemployable  29 year old African American father of two toddlers is advised to sell his entire structured settlement and primary source of support for his family and put it into mutual funds. Approved by a Florida judge. He had an Allstate annuity that had a better discount rate than the settlement purchaser offered as well. Fortunately this was nipped in the bud quickly and a negotiated rescission saw him restored. (NASP member)
• A  20 year old African American from New York is forum shopped into Florida and fleeced by predators in the secondary market who were not acting in ccc
  

  African Americans and other minorities are being exploited by the lack of standards in the structured settlement secondary market
  
  his best interest. (NASP member)
• Another young 19 year old African American is forum shopped into Florida and completely hosed out of his structured settlement. The factoring company sales rep colluded with a pal in the real estate industry and placed the young man into highly risky losing real estate positions that would not pass the smell test. (NASP member)
• According to a legal complaint, a West Virginia young African-American  man is told by a South Florida sales rep makes claims about investment performance that would violate securities laws  (NASP member)
• A Brooklyn NY 20 year old African American Allstate annuitant from New York was financially smoked by a Florida company

What is also tragedy in the making is that the "pimps" who originate these deals, grab their vig, sell off the acquisition,  and the deals then find their way to investors, including potentially, retirees and other injury victims using the secondary market annuities scam label.

These are just some examples. Add these to the Baltimore City scam allegedly perpetrated by Access Funding, its bribe taking lawyer Anuj Sud, Rockville MD lawyer Charles E Smith who allegedly advised an illiterate, intellectually disabled young woman on the sale of a structured settlement (designed to protect her throughout her lifetime) for a small and severely discounted amount of cash, without meeting her or providing counsel on the potential consequences of selling the structured settlement payments.

The road to recovery is difficult. Few attorneys have the sophistication and nous to prosecute cases against settlement purchasers. The rules need to change and there are good public policy reasons for doing so, in my opinion.

 

by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

One of the drawbacks of the absent regulation of salespeople and sales practices in the structured settlement secondary market is that there is no suitability standard, no best interest standard and no fiduciary standard. Unlicensed salespeople lacking credentials are dispensing often very poor financial advice and people are getting hurt.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe that African-Americans and other minorities are being singled out and targeted for exploitation. Here are some examples:

• A young unemployable  29 year old African American father of two toddlers is advised to sell his entire structured settlement and primary source of support for his family and put it into mutual funds. Approved by a Florida judge. He had an Allstate annuity that had a better discount rate than the settlement purchaser offered as well. Fortunately this was nipped in the bud quickly and a negotiated rescission saw him restored. (NASP member)
• A  20 year old African American from New York is forum shopped into Florida and fleeced by predators in the secondary market who were not acting in ccc
  

  African Americans and other minorities are being exploited by the lack of standards in the structured settlement secondary market
  
  his best interest. (NASP member)
• Another young 19 year old African American is forum shopped into Florida and completely hosed out of his structured settlement. The factoring company sales rep colluded with a pal in the real estate industry and placed the young man into highly risky losing real estate positions that would not pass the smell test. (NASP member)
• According to a legal complaint, a West Virginia young African-American  man is told by a South Florida sales rep makes claims about investment performance that would violate securities laws  (NASP member)
• A Brooklyn NY 20 year old African American Allstate annuitant from New York was financially smoked by a Florida company

What is also tragedy in the making is that the "pimps" who originate these deals, grab their vig, sell off the acquisition,  and the deals then find their way to investors, including potentially, retirees and other injury victims using the secondary market annuities scam label.

These are just some examples. Add these to the Baltimore City scam allegedly perpetrated by Access Funding, its bribe taking lawyer Anuj Sud, Rockville MD lawyer Charles E Smith who allegedly advised an illiterate, intellectually disabled young woman on the sale of a structured settlement (designed to protect her throughout her lifetime) for a small and severely discounted amount of cash, without meeting her or providing counsel on the potential consequences of selling the structured settlement payments.

The road to recovery is difficult. Few attorneys have the sophistication and nous to prosecute cases against settlement purchasers. The rules need to change and there are good public policy reasons for doing so, in my opinion.

 

FACT: Dick Risk Marketed Himself As "Structured Settlement Broker"

by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

Apparently what was good for the goose is not good for the gander when it comes to one of the legal theories espoused by Dick Risk in a controversial legal action. 

So What You're Saying is What's Good for The Goose Is Not Cool For The Gander?

In his recent complaint which made certain allegations against AIG,   it is interesting to observe that attorney Dick Risk and his "Big Stick" make a meal out of the use of the term structured settlement broker. The fact is that when the lead lawyer Dick Risk himself, as a structured settlement broker, used the term "broker" frequently in his marketing, in a grievance letter to the then Attorney General of the United States, in a subsequent Declaration under penalty of perjury to the United States Department of Justice, permitted his son to sign multiple such declarations while associated with a firm founded by and associated with Dick Risk,  in the meta tags of his website and even AFTER Risk became a lawyer, in a presentation to other lawyers.  "

For example:

1. "I  am  a  structured  settlement  broker  and  consultant ,  accredited  as  a  Certified  Structured  settlement  Consultant (CSSC) by the National Structured Settlements Trade Association (NSSTA), of which I am a “Professional  Member,...”  Richard B. Risk Jr. March 12, 2001 letter to John Ashcroft, then US Attorney General.  In the same letter Risk repeatedly referred to competing firms as brokerages (i.e. brokers).  Some of the same firms are listed as non parties in the AIG complaint.
2. Meta tags of home page of Dick Risk's website  (structuredsettlements(dot) org) as preserved in 2004. [ now domain is registered to Risk's son Robert Risk. To wit..."Structured Settlement Broker, Structure Broker, Settlement Broker"
3. As an attorney Dick Risk made a presentation entitled Ethics and E&O Claims prevention in Structured Settlements in which one page of his PowerPoint is labeled "Role of the Plaintiff Broker"
4. "Dick Risk has been involved in several lawsuits on behalf of claimants and structured settlement brokers asserting the rights... " -Risk Law Firm website, about us  8/20/2006
   
5. "Dick Risk has been involved in several lawsuits on behalf of claimants and structured settlement brokers asserting the rights... " -Risk Law Firm website, about us  10/19/2016
   

Dick Risk and his son Robert Risk signed the Declarations under penalty of perjury attesting that he had done substantial work for defendants in the preceding three years

Download DOJ List 2004 (August update) includes the name Richard B. Risk Jr.
Pursuant to the minimum qualifications set forth in 28 CFR 50.24, each In order get on the list Dick Risk would have had to sign his name above a line which says "Signature of Individual Broker Making Declaration".  Upon information and belief Risk became a member of the bar in 2002.  At the time he signed his declaration attesting to having served defendants in each of the preceding three years his website stated it is a "full service plaintiff structured settlement firm"   Download Risk web site 3-31-2004.

Download Robert A Risk II DOJ Declaration 2004

Download Robert A Risk II DOJ Declaration Jan 2005

Setting aside the fact that the only reason to sign such Declaration would be to show the minimum qualifications to serve the United States business, be assigned work from United States attorneys and be compensated by commissions from annuities purchased and owned by the United States Department of Justice. With that understanding Risk signed the declaration under penalty of perjury despite by admission being a plaintiff structured settlement firm,  then as a lawyer had to have understood the significance of what he was signing, and by doing so, hoisted himself 13 years later on his own petard in a delayed explosion.

[Helpful reading My July 4, 2007 post Is There a Need For a Risk Assessment]

Richard B. Risk Jr. held an Oklahoma insurance producer license from 1985-2007 according to state records  . Yet the record shows that Dick Risk marketed himself as a broker time and time again. 

Sugar coat it any way you like, but in my opinion, Dick Risk, with unclean hands,  is seeking to make a big pay day in part off innuendo and allegations of "acts" that he himself has committed and it's shameful.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Palm Beach Judicial Candidate Ostrov Omits Material Facts on CV Related to His Structured Settlement Past

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

By omitting material facts about his work experience from his Palm Beach County CV, Robert Ostrov has made his opponents job that much easier.  Why would you trust a candidate like Rob Ostrov who leaves material stuff out?

There are gaping holes in Robert Ostrov's Campaign CV

Here is what the official Rob Ostrov for Judge campaign website says as of August 2, 2016  check cite:

• Law Offices of Robert Ostrov, 2011-2016
• Prosecutor, Florida Dispute Resolution Center, 2014-2016; Arbitrator, American Arbitration Association, 2013-2016
• Arbitrator, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), 2013-2016
• General Counsel, Structured Asset Factored Receivables    2006-2011
  
• Senior Counsel, Peachtree Settlement Funding, 2006-2009
• Assistant District Attorney, Orange County District Attorney's Office, 2001-2006
• Appellate Administrative Law Judge, New York City Department of Finance, 1995-2006
• Deputy Director, City of New York, Fraud Investigations Unit, 1996-1999
• Assistant District Attorney, Nassau County District Attorney's Office, NY, 1989-1993

What Has Robert Ostrov Selectively Omitted From His Campaign CV?

Ostrov would have you believe that there has been no involvement in structured settlement companies since 2011.  Like a golf ball that has landed in a puddle, it's a bad lie. Rob Ostrov has omitted his ownership and involvement with the following companies that purchase structured settlement payment rights for a discounted lump sum.  Note the time frames carefully.

1. Here is an April 14, 2011 announcement where Woodbridge Structured Funding says that it " Adds Robert Ostrov to Legal team".  The Woodbridge press release also said "Most recently Robert Ostrov served as General Counsel for Client First Settlement Funding, LLC. This is also in a Zoom info search. Why would a candidate for public office omit a position in which he served  as co-general counsel? 
   
2. Ozark Funding  Established in PA 10/3/2011  [this is the 4th involvement Ostrov had in 2011!]
   
3. Franklin Settlements Established 05/22/2012  Wyoming.  Calls to Franklin back in 2012 resolved to the same number as Ozark. Franklin was associated with Einstein Structured Settlements, a serial brand jacker and provider of poor inaccurate content about structured settlements to consumers. The Franklin Settlements website was registered the day after Einstein and used the same IP address and the websites engaged in the game of IP musical chairs as documented here. It is well documented that at the time Franklin became associated with Einstein,  Richart Ruddie was a defendant in a lawsuit alleging conspiracy and deceptive trade practices and Einstein was using fake paid testimonials to promote its business and creating aliases with fraudulent academic credentials like a fake law degree from Yale.  "Well vetted" Robert Ostrov. Could Palm Beach County litigants expect same quality of vetting if Robert Ostrov is elected judge?
4. Eagle Settlement Funding  2013-2014  Ostrov has omitted his ownership and involvement in Eagle Settlements  LP, another settlement purchaser. Download LL003162 Eagle Settlements Ostrov quite clearly was partner 2013-2015. Court records in Palm Beach County 50-2014-CA-012924 show that Ostrov sued his former partners at the end of that relationship on October 22, 2014, but the matter was voluntarily dismissed shortly thereafter in March 2015.  If one does a little digging one discovers that one of Ostrov listed endorsers is Chrissy Eynon, one of Ostrov's business partners in Eagle Settlements. Here is the BBB report for Eagle Settlements where Robert Ostrov is listed as the Principal and Chrissy Eynon is right there with him. Download Eagle Settlements LLP Business Review in Altamonte Springs, FL - Central Florida BBB Why did Ostrov selectively omit that he was even involved as an owner in the business. Do Palm Beach voters want a judge whose judgment call includes selectively omitting material facts to Palm Beach voters?
   
5. A Zoominfo search for Robert Ostrov also shows that he worked for the insurer AIG

More "Window Dressing" by Robert Ostrov for Florida Voters?

On the Law Offices of Robert L. Ostrov website it states "Founded in 1993, Law Offices of Robert L. Ostrov is a general-practice law firm located in West Palm Beach, FL, and New York, NY".  Ostrov was only admitted to the Florida Bar April 28, 2010.  Thus the firm started in New York. Ostrov moved to Florida to take the position with Peachtree, then based in Florida.  But the question is why Ostrov did not say Law Offices of Robert Ostrov 1993-2016?  One possibility is that Ostrov did that as window dressing for Palm Beach County voters. That might explain why West Palm Beach appears first for a firm that, according to his website was established in New York in 1993.

Does Robert Ostrov Possess the Ethical Standards to Be Judge in Palm Beach County?

According to the Palm Beach Post July 28, 2016, Wellington lawyer Robert "Rob" Ostrov is contesting a finding by Palm Beach County's Judicial Campaign Practices Commission that he violated judicial canons by repeatedly saying he is running against Circuit Judge Dina Keever because she was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott. The commission this week said Ostrov violated the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct by injecting partisan politics into what is supposed to be a non-partisan race. In a response, Ostrov claims the advisory opinion from the Palm Beach County Bar Association is "factually and legally incorrect." Further, he said he has no intention of refraining from telling voters that Keever was appointed to the bench in June 2015 by the Republican governor. Opinions from the commission are purely advisory and the commission does not have the power to force judicial candidates to comply. The commission, however, strongly urged Ostrov to stop using Scott to bash Keever.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 If Robert Ostrov is the type of person that omits material facts from his resume and has made false statements  about the highest structured settlement factoring discount rates on his watch, then is he fit to serve as a judge in Palm Beach County, where he will be presiding over the fate of annuitants and their best interest? In May, Palm Beach County gossip columnist Jose Lambert had this to say about Ostrov, " On paper at least, it seems Palm Beach County judge candidate Robert Ostrov has rarely seen an industry with a not very judge like reputation that he hasn't capitalized on" 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s

 

 

 

 

 

Aviva Implies in Memorandum of Law That Aviva Capital Maintenance Agreement is Not Worth Jack

by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

 

Aviva continues its stunning backpedal on the Capital Maintenance Agreement, which was indisputably an intrinsic part of ALL Aviva company structured settlement marketing materials and ALL issued structured settlement annuity contracts in which it charged extra money for the security feature.

Aviva continues to defend itself in the Class Action law suit brought by Hawaii resident John Griffiths as lead plaintiff, over Aviva's unannounced unilateral termination of the Capital Maintenance Agreement (CMA) in 2013. The Aviva Capital Maintenance Agreement was an instrument that was

1. used by Aviva's USA operations in its agent and consumer facing market materials;
2.  marketed as a security feature
3.  a feature that Aviva London charged extra money for on each contract that had it, 

All of which directly helped Aviva to generate over $1 billion of annuity premium for its US subsidiary from structured settlement in the USA, through the end of 2008.

I ask each and every member of the structured settlement industry to read the Memorandum of Law submitted by the Defendants.  Download CGU Aviva International Insurance plc Memorandum of Law Some may feel it's great lawyering, but in reality, in my personal opinion,  it provides a convincing argument why Aviva is not a company to be trusted in the future by agents or consumers. Given the opportunity to make things right when the unilateral unannounced termination of the CMA took place, Aviva did nothing for its customer.

Richard J. Kypta. then Senior Vice President of Aviva Life Insurance Company even went so far as to put in writing on company letterhead on May 20, 2004 that I have personally seen, that the Capital Maintenance Agreement was one of two forms of guarantee, expressly stated in writing that the at it was "absolute, unconditional and continuing" and expressly authorized in writing that the piece of information could be used in an affidavit to a Court deliberating over approving a settlement. 

Fortunately the Athene successor entities have improved financially in the eyes of the A.M. Best rating agency since the acquisition by Athene concluded in October 2013.

Download Sample Aviva CMA letter delivered with annuity contract 2006

Aviva produced Marketing Materials circa 2005 Download AL05S123USSSCapMaintAgmt  placed heavy emphasis on a company that had been around since 1696

The actual agreement between CGU International/ Aviva International was concealed from agents and consumers and needs to be outed to show any inconsistency between the actual agreement and the bull that Aviva was feeding its agents and customers as Aviva's subsequent actions imply. It's natural to expect Aviva to put up a big fight on that one. It took two months for Athene to provide a straight answer when I questioned them about the CMA in September October 2014.

It is now apparent that the marketing materials and the policy delivery materials regarding the CMA, which would have had to have been approved by state insurance departments throughout the United States, were materially misleading at best. Why are state insurance commissioners and attorneys general not investigating?  Must there be a front page Washington Post news story to get any action?