by Structured Settlement Watchdog
New York Supreme Court Judge Matthew J. Murphy, III was another fine example of why New York judges are among the finest in the USA in enforcing their state’s structured settlement protection act
For reference see Judge Murphy’s January 8, 2021 decision in Tiger Parrish, LLC Petitioner v BHG Structured Settlements, inc et al. Respondents , Supreme Court of the State of New York Niagara County Index173532/2020
The petition involved the proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights from 4 structured settlement annuities due to a 23 year old, with aggregate payments totaling $2,313,704.40 in exchange for an aggregate purchase price of $895,647.03. The effective discount rate according to the mandatory disclosures was 6.10% which, while not bad, still had a considerable amount of fat. Our sources indicated that between $1,000,0000-$1,122,456.99 would have been possible.
An “Antedeluvian” Discount Rate Figuratively Speaking
Sacco & Fillas LLP, out of Queens New York, was the law firm representing the settlement purchaser, Tiger Parrish , LLC. True to form with some of the Sacco & Fillas petitions I’ve seen, their cited case support for discount rates are what one might irreverently( and figuratively) describe as “antediluvian“.
Best Interest Analysis by Judge Matthew J. Murphy, III
Judge Murphy’s thoughtful analysis reviewed prior transfers and attempts to transfer along with reasons that were stated in theprior petitions. The current petition reviewed by Judge Murphy also reviewed the budget and expenses , but noted that the Petition and the seller’s affidavit ” do not provide a complete picture of the seller’s financial landscape”. The Judge went into granular detail and said that “in order to make a best interests’ determination, as required by law a full explanation of the settlement must be provided.”
But the kudos in my opinion for Judge Murphy are deserved for noting that payments would be sold at a discount diplomatically skewering the investment projections.
The Petition to Transfer Exhibit 14 (labeled IPA) included an investment projection assuming a 12.5% rate of return, failed to take into account income taxes and there appeared to be no stochastic analysis (also known as Monte Carlo analysis) that takes into account multiple variables!
______________________________________________________________
SIDE BAR
Monte Carlo Simulation/Analysis in Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning Process (4structures.com)
______________________________________________________________
Judge Murphy observes that ” investing in the stock market always involves some risk. Additionally, despite the voluminous documentation there is no simple comparison of what Mr. M. (the seller) can expect to receive now; and an explanation of the safeguards which will be imposed on the proceeds of teh transfer so that Mr M. is not able to liquidate said proceeds without Court approval. Nor has Mr. Eglow provided, at a least in simple comparison, any analysis of the tax consequences of investing in the stock market compared to annuity payments. It is the Court’s understanding that the annuity payments are not taxable. If that is correct, it could affect Mr. Eglow’s analysis”.
According to New York’s General Obligations Law Section 5-1701(e)
“independent professional advice” means advice of an attorney, certified public accountant, actuary or other licensed professional adviser:
(i) who is engaged by a claimant or payee to render advice concerning the legal, tax and financial implications of a structured settlement or a transfer of structured settlement payment rights;
(ii) who is not in any manner affiliated with or compensated by the defendant in such settlement or the transferee of such transfer; and
(iii) whose compensation for rendering such advice is not affected by whether a settlement or transfer occurs or does not occur;
The papers say that Eglow and his firm will be providing financial planning services (for which he will presumably be compensated).
Eglow Niagara County New York Proposal 2020 is a familiar pattern
A. See Park St Closing LLC v Moronta C Case# MID-007817-20.
- A December 15, 2020 letter from Jeffrey Eglow, of Newbridge Securities was submitted December 16, 2020 to Judge Michael Cresitello in support of a Middlesex NJ Petition to transfer involving Park St Closing LLC.
- In the letter Eglow represents that he has had “many discussions regarding all aspects of her transaction and my advice, I respectfully request her transfer” (emphasis added).
- It is evident in my opinion, that either there wasn’t any discussion about the market in discount rates for income payments that begin in 2020 on one of the deals and 2021 on another with the third being a deferred transaction, or Eglow was brought to “the dance” by those charging her 12% plus .
- Selling a structured settlement is a money loser, 100% of the time.
- Instead of investing x$, with a more competitive discount rate, the seller in that case might have considerably more to invest, or she might not need to sell as much, just like the Niagara County case, but with much worse discount rates in 3 separate deals bearing discount rates of 12.8*, 12.81% and 12%. There were hundreds of thousands in the factoring profit spread, according to our sources. See Park St Closing LLC v Moronta C Case# MID-007817-20.
B. In late December 2013, a cognitively impaired 29 year old African American annuitant, a single father with 2 young children under the age of 5 from Florida, A.D., contacted me looking for a man named Escobar who “worked for Wells Fargo” and was distraught when he called Wells Fargo. He learned that Escobar did not work there. He felt that he was “misrepresented”.
A.D. had a structured settlement that was due to pay him a life time of income with an annual increase for the rest of his life. He essentially had a job he could not be fired from, with guaranteed raises for life. That was he had and when he called me it had been reduced to a single lump sum of under $600,000.
- It turned out Escobar worked for Client First.
- It turned out that Jeff Eglow ( the same financial advisor in the aforementioned Niagara County NY and MIddlesex County NJ cases), then with Wells Fargo, had a relationship with Client First. \
- It was later discovered that Client First took the extraordinary step of sending out an investment letters projecting an 8% return on investment of discounted lump sums, as I reported in “Was Client First Settlement Funding Show Of 8% Investment Projection to Structured Settlement Annuitant A Permissble Inducement?” in July 2016.
- A sample letter appears in that post along with more of the details of the A.D story. The Client First letter features a virtual billboard for Jeffrey Lewis Eglow, who was then a Wells Fargo advisor and another Wells Fargo advisor.
- When I confronted Eglow at the time about suitability in a watchdog capacity, he did not appear to be aware that the structure was all A.D. had.
- Fortunately for A.D. he did not spend any of the proceeds of the Client First deal and through the efforts of counsel for A.D. and the structured settlement transfer was reversed.
Judge Matthew J, Murphy, III retired from the bench December 31, 2021. Murphy died October 10, 2022 after a short illness.
Last updated February 17, 2026