Structured Settlements 4Real®Blog 2026
Structured settlements expert John Darer reviews the latest structured settlements and settlement planning information and news, and provides expert opinion and highly regarded commentary. that is spicy, Informative, irreverent and effective for over 20 years.
Recent Posts
- “From ‘Bridge to Bitcoin’ to $337M Daily Losses: Less Than a Year Apart.”
- MetLife Announces NQA-Flex Deferred Payment Solution for Non-Physical Injury Settlements
- 🔹Structured Settlements and Bankruptcy of the Payee: What Courts Actually Look At
- Structured Settlement Collection Agency in Henderson, Nevada Is Still Not a Structured Settlement — Now Nevada Law Makes That Clear
- Crypto Still Isn’t Suitable for Injury Victims — A Reminder From This Week’s Headlines
about
Category: Judges on Structured Settlement Factoring
-
HIndert was honored in 2012 as “a distinguished individual who has supported and defended the right to free alienability of property rights”, only months after Cordero sold payments. “NASP considers this right to be its own cornerstone and the foundation of the structured settlement factoring business”.
-
Structured settlement factoring class action lawsuit, Access Funding, LLC, et al. v. Chrystal Linton, et al., No. 5, September Term, 2022 ARBITRATION – EXISTENCE OF AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE – FRAUD – TRANSFER OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PAYMENT RIGHTS
-
On October 14, 2022, Judge Charles Maxfield granted Terrence Taylor’s motion to compel discovery against Structured Asset Funding and related entities. The motion had been pending for 7 years, 3 TIMES as long as it took Portsmouth judges to approve 11 factoring transactions
-
Inherent conflicts of interest exists between a series of entities (literally under one roof), that solicit pre-settlement cash advances, structured settlement annuities, the factoring and refactoring of structured settlement payment streams and the marketing of the payment streams to new investors
-
“It’s not in petitioner’s best interest to approve the sale of her structured settlement payments, which have a present value of $140,738, for $10,000. “The Court can’t determine that Petitioner’s best interests are served by her relinquishing to a factoring company 93% of the value of her structured settlement payments.
-
Star Tribune found that “judges are often hampered by doubts and vague laws”. There is no licensing standard or regulator of sales practices in any state, unlike other financial services. There is no regulator with the deterrent power to fine, suspend or revoke licenses of bad actors in settlement buyouts.
-
Defendants had no affirmative obligation to prevent Plaintiff from assigning his annuity benefits. The Settlement Agreement doesn’t require that Defendants exercise the anti-assignment clause for Plaintiff’s benefit. The clause exists for Defendants’ benefit and may be exercised at their discretion.
-
Is the “Best Interest Test” in state structured settlement protection acts adequate to determine suitability of structured settlement factoring transactions, or should a Uniform Suitability standard be established that that places obligations on the settlement purchaser and/or their brokers or affiliates?
-
A sampling of where things have gone terribly wrong for structured settlement annuitants. Valid questions arise about the miserable performance of the judges in providing the protection that NASP and structured settlement protection acts suggest
-
If Robert Ostrov is the type of person that omits material facts from his CV 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 judging best interest of annuitants?