Continuing jurisdiction is one of the core requirements for a Qualified Settlement Fund under 26 C.F.R. §1.468B‑1. It must be real, ongoing, and supported by transparency. In this first petal, the July 16, 2025 Newman affidavit becomes the factual window into how that requirement functions when tested.
A governmental authority attempting to perform its federal role
Mayor Thomas Newman’s affidavit outlines a sequence that goes directly to the heart of QSF qualification:
- Flatirons Bank solicited the Town of Lovell to serve as the governmental authority for its Justice Escrow QSF platform.
- Once designated, Lovell’s counsel requested the operational and tax information required to exercise continuing jurisdiction.
- Those requests included tax returns, proof of tax payments, and compliance materials.
- Flatirons and its officers refused to provide the information.
These are not peripheral documents. They are the very materials a governmental authority must review to satisfy federal law.
See Affidavit of Thomas Newman Case 1:25-cv-01787-RDA-IDD Doc. 71-5 Pacer.gov
Why continuing jurisdiction matters
Under §1.468B‑1, a QSF must be subject to the continuing jurisdiction of a governmental authority. That jurisdiction is not ceremonial. It requires visibility into operations, access to tax filings and tax payments, and the ability to intervene if compliance issues arise.
If the governmental authority cannot obtain the information it needs, the QSF fails the qualification test. The affidavit describes a situation in which the governmental authority attempted to perform its role and was blocked.
How this connects to earlier best‑practice guidance
In September, I wrote about the importance of continuing jurisdiction as a best‑practice imperative. That post emphasized that the governmental authority must have full transparency, oversight must be continuous, and operators must support—not obstruct—the supervisory role.
The Newman affidavit shows that the risk described in September was not theoretical. It was already unfolding.
A separate issue: Dillon’s Rule
The affidavit also touches a second question: whether Lovell had the statutory authority to serve as a governmental authority in the first place under Wyoming’s strict Dillon’s Rule framework. That issue is addressed in a separate post and is not revisited here. Petal One remains focused on continuing jurisdiction.
The broader litigation landscape
On January 29, 2026, a federal judge dismissed Flatirons Bank’s lawsuit against Eastern Point Trust Company alleging interference with contracts. That ruling does not resolve the issues raised in the Newman affidavit, but it is part of the broader context in which these questions about continuing jurisdiction now sit.
Maintaining balance and transparency
I reached out to Flatirons for comment, as I have in other posts in this series, and provided them with a copy of Mayor Newman’s affidavit. As of this writing, no response has been received. If Flatirons offers clarification or additional context, I will update this analysis so readers have the fullest possible picture.
Practitioner takeaways
- Continuing jurisdiction must be active, not ceremonial.
- Governmental authorities need access to operational and tax information.
- When visibility is blocked, the QSF structure is compromised.
Related reading
Qualified Settlement Fund Not So Best Practices | Pay Attention! September 3, 2025. Continuing Jurisdiction Under 26 C.F.R. §1.468B‑1 — the September best‑practices explainer establishing the doctrinal baseline for what continuing jurisdiction requires in real‑world QSF administration.
Dillon’s Rule: Understanding Its Implications – Structured Settlements 4Real®Blog April 8, 2025
Leave a Reply