The word from Hindertstan is…well nothing new. While the rest of AAJ was in educational sessions, Hindufus was apparently using reporting as a cover to "summarize without personal attribution" the inner monologue of structured settlement stakeholders. Based on this "stellar" reporting on what is supposed to be "Beyond Structured Settlements", it seems as if he was there to grab whatever free handouts, arthritis balls, mousepads, flash disks and other goodies he could?
Just take a look (Hindufus in black;my comments in blue):
AAJ’s Structured Settlement Role
- Several AAJ exhibitors identified "plaintiff attorneys’ lack of structured settlement knowledge" as a strategic industry issue and AAJ priority. As one exhibitor stated: "we must retrain plaintiff attorneys to correct the misinformation defense brokers have been communicating for the past 25 years." Agreed that attorneys must be kept informed about dynamic changes that affect them and their clients. BUT how about the misinformation that certain so-called plaintiff exclusive sponsors of AAJ and state TLAs have been feeding attorneys? Which would plaintiff attorneys feel more comfortable working with, someone who was a false advertiser or a perjurer?
- Other exhibitors urged AAJ to proactively support and advance a pro-plaintiff structured settlement public policy including:
- A plaintiff "Bill of Rights" for structured settlements beginning with the right of every plaintiff to his own structured settlement advisor Beware the SSP Standards of Conduct which promote factoring ; as well as
- AAJ political support for single claimant 468B funds.
Structured Settlement Business Practices
- The most common complaints from consultants who exhibited at the AAJ conference about structured settlement business practices included:
- Commission rebating; Very old news. Some confuse the term rebating with co-brokering with a licensed insurance agency. However most industry insiders privately agree that such programs, in whatever form, need to disappear.
- Defendants’ "approved lists" of annuity providers; For the most part easily to work around. Most are AM best rated A+ or better, which should be a minimum criteria for anyone. If a company has a selection of 5 providers, why can’t the broker simply survey the entire market and get the 5 companies to match. What is hypocritical is when certain "plaintiff exclusive" zealots trash certain annuity providers on one case and then use them on another.
- Settlement documentation providing a full release for defense consultants who receive annuity commissions. An interesting debate. Should the broker representing the defense as a co-broker with the plaintiff’s broker, be liable on a joint and several theory, for the actions of the plaintiff broker? On the other hand I stand behind my work so if I was engaged by the defense I likely wouldn’t have a problem. Which brings up the following situation… where a plaintiff would benefit from two brokers on the file. If something does go wrong there’s a bigger E&O pot.
- Although many of the exhibiting structured settlement consultants favored compensation disclosure, only one consultant interviewed by this author at the AAJ conference recommended written informed consent by plaintiffs of structured settlement compensation arrangements. How about disclosure of the money made on factoring referrals?
- Several consultants criticized structured settlement annuity providers who refuse to accept premiums from single claimant 468B funds – a business practice they characterized as a "conflict of interest" as well as a "fabricated political issue". According to one consultant, "the threat of single claimant 468B funds is the primary reason defense brokers have organized the Broker Relationship Initiative." Nice try QSF jockeys! The Settlement Professionals, Inc. dominated SSP fringe factor would love to give themselves the credit on this. Nothing could be further from the truth.
- Another consultant highlighted the need for an "unbiased product perspective." He characterized as a "conflict of interest" those "settlement planners" who sell structured settlement annuities but are not licensed or trained to sell other financial products. According to this consultant, "the greatest threat to structured settlements is the industry’s failure to adapt to change."This is the greatest threat to the business of those who do not adapt. Not the industry.
The Structured Settlement Secondary Market
- Despite frequent references to IRC sections 104(a)(2), 130 and 468B, not a single handout from any structured settlement consultant or annuity provider at the AAJ conference mentioned IRC section 5891 – which includes the federal income tax definition for "structured settlement".
- This omission is consistent with the educational programs of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA)and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)- neither of which has provided its general membership with any educational programs about the statutory language of IRC 5891(enacted in 2001) or the 46 state structured settlement protection statutes.
- Several of the exhibiting consultants said they never voluntarily or proactively discuss structured settlement factoring laws, issues or options with plaintiffs or plaintiff attorneys
Here’s the factoring shill Hindert weighing in. Phooey!
Leave a Reply