The use of the term "friendly" to describe structured settlement representation that has been "rigged" so that two related companies under the same holding company can work the case from adverse positions has met with some consternation in some corners of the structured settlement industry. In theory, the holding company wins because it pockets all the commission revenue from both sides and the insurer wins because some "free radical" settlement consultant for the plaintiff will not upset the "karma" of the settlement process. But does the plaintiff win? Maybe , maybe not, in my opinion.
Now as we understand from our sources, perhaps in response to the encouragement that we and others have made to shop around, Peachtree and J.G. Wentworth are playing ping pong with each other when it comes to would be sellers of structured settlement payment rights. This presents some issues:
1. A story emerged recently that the two companies are in the process of merging.
2. Peachtree is not known for offering competitive discount rates. A transaction I reviewed recently for a seller carried a 20.62% discount rate. Nothing unusual for them. From a visual standpoint, the big advertiser reminds of a snake in a cave feeding on the mass exodus of bats. Cue video…
3. J.G. Wentworth is not known for giving a good rate right off the ah… bat. It will compete if it has to.
4. The obvious questions to be raised, in my opinion, are whether adequate disclosures are being made about the relationship between the two "friendly" companies and whether or not there really is " competitive bidding"?
Perhaps one can draw a lesson from soccer, where "friendlies" are practice games that don't mean much
Leave a Reply