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

about

The STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS 4REAL® Blog is a highly regarded source for structured settlement news, information, and commentary, led by structured settlement and settlement planning subect mater expert John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC. With two decades of operation, the blog and 4structures.com are recognized as comprehensive resources, offering detailed guides and specialized insights. Established in 2005, the blog caters to a broad audience, including legal professionals, injured individuals, families, and various stakeholders, providing reviews and opinions on settlement planning. John Darer, President of 4structures.com LLC, is a seasoned structured settlement expert with over 40 years of financial services experience and 31 years specializing in structured settlements. Based in Stamford, CT, he is a Certified Financial Transitionist and Registered Settlement Planner, holding insurance licenses in 45 states and the District of Columbia. John Darer is dedicated to transparency and advocacy, he emphasizes the importance of engaging trained and licensed professionals for settlement planning, offering valuable insights through his investigative journalism and professional commentary.
  • Structured Settlement Receivables Marketed to Investors via MJ Settlements’ Reckless Use of Trademarked Insurer Brands

    Structured Settlement Receivables Marketed to Investors via MJ Settlements’ Reckless Use of Trademarked Insurer Brands

    by Structured Settlement Watchdog

    MJ Settlements heads to potential showdown with insurers?

    • MJ settlements appeared to be trading on the goodwill and trademarked insurer brands for MJ Settlements profit
    • Falsely promoted sales of structured settlement receivables to investors as annuities using the insurers’ trademarked brands on MJ Settlements website as well as social media platforms.

    See below for an example.

    Wheel of Logos on MJ website 6-8-2025

    Captured 6-8-2025 solely as reference for critical commentary. Note logo and multiple references to annuities below the logos. Lesk led company was still using the life insurer logos when checked again on December 3, 2025

    Active Registered Trademarks of Structured Settlement Annuity Issuers appear on the MJ Settlements website Wheel of Logos

    Pacific Life

    Name  USPTO Serial Number 75207211  June 23, 1998

    Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

    Logo    USPTO Serial Number 75741937  December 18, 2001

    Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

    New York Life Insurance Company

    Logo  USPTO Serial Number 74154351  Registered June 30, 1992

    Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

    Name USPTO Serial Number 74237947 Registered February 2, 1993

    Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

    The Prudential Insurance Company of America

    Covered in my June 1, 2025 post MJ Settlements Using Prudential’s Registered Trademark to Pitch Structured Settlement Receivable to Investors – Structured Settlements 4Real® 2025

    CEO Lesk’s Expired Appointments

    • Pacific Life,  expired 2022
    • Pruco (a Prudential underwriting company, however not the one that issues structured settlement annuities), expired 2023
    • John Hancock, expired 2023

    Source: Florida Department of Financial Services  Licensee Detail

    MJ Settlements uses Trademarked logos of insurers with which neither MJ Settlements nor its CEO Todd Michael Lesk have held an apppointment in the home state of Florida

    • Symetra Life Insurance Company
    • Berkshire Hathaway
    • AIG

    It should be noted that AIG spun off its Life & Retirement Division in 2022, which was rebranded as Corebridge Financial. According to Florida Department of Financial Services, Lesk is still appointed with one of the Corebridge companies. Corebridge is not in the structured settlement factoring business.

    As previously reported June 1, 2024, Todd Lesk is the CEO of MJ Settlements according to his LinkedIn; his wife Ricia Lesk is the President according to Florida Secreatry of State records.

    What is Fair Use?

    Trademarks enable the public to recognize goods or services as originating from a particular source. A trademark owner can stop others from using its trademark to prevent confusion about the source of the goods or services. In some circumstances however, someone may use another party’s trademark if the use is considered a “fair use”. This “fair use” exception is recognized throughout most of the world. 

    MJ Settlements added the Wheel of Logos after my June 1, 2025 posting

    It is evident that MJ Settlements is utilizing the branded and registered trademarked logos of various life insurers—key brand identifiers of insurers currently issuing structured settlement annuities—to promote structured settlement receivables, which are not annuities.

    It appears to be intended to generate financial gain for MJ Settlements through the use of trademarked logos and brand identifiers featured on the company’s website.

    • A structured settlement receivable offered to by MJ Settlements (or any company in the secondary or tertiary market) does not qualify as a receivable in the form marketed to investors by MJ Settlements (or similar entities) until the transfer of structured settlement payment rights is finalized in accordance with IRC 5891 and applicable structured settlement protection acts.
    • Most structured settlement annuities are obtained by qualified assignment companies, not sold directly to individuals, when the settlement is set up. Since the ownership of the annuity doesn’t change in a factoring transaction, MJ Settlements and Lesk calling the receivables an annuity is, to put it mildly, both false and misleading.

    This activity pertains to companies with which Todd Lesk is not appointed to sell life insurance, and/or to place structured settlement annuities. The action of adding the wheel of trademarked insurer logos after my June 1, 2025 post is damning and indefensible, in my opinion. 

    Todd Lesk has been the CEO of two companies that have flaunted the use of Insurance Company Logos to sell receivables for more almost 15 years

    MJ Structured Settlement Annuities Using Insurance Company Logos   March 14, 2014

    How Big of a Problem is the Initial Interest Confusion created by the Secondary Market and Tertiary Market Trading on and Seeking to Profit From Insurer logos?

    Look no further than my May 4, 2025 post for another glaring example

    CBC Settlements Uses Trademarked Insurer Logos Claims to Work With Annuity Issuers to Get Best Price for Sellers – Structured Settlements 4Real®  

    The deliberate misrepresentation of structured settlement receivables as annuities propped up by the deliberate, unauthorized and deceptive use of insurers’ trademarked logos by anyone in the structured settlement secondary or tertiary markets in advertising needs to come to an end

    There is no gray area 

    1. National Association of Settlement Purchasers Statutory Issue Paper No. 160  (“not an annuity or insurance or product”)  Finalized April 6, 2019.
    2. 2017 Modifications to the Life & Health Guaranty Associations Model Act. You invest in receivables you could end up with zero if the insurer liquidates. Adopted by majority of US states. It applies retroactively. So an investor is not safe if  receivables were acquired before the effective date that a state adopts the Model Act. I’ve written about it extensively.
    3. “Receivables Purchase Agreement” is the name of the agreement that an investor enters into to acquire structured settlement receivables. If it were an annuity wouldn’t it say Annuity application?
    4. Definition of annuity under the laws of most states does not jive with those serving up the steaming bowl of bollocks bollognaise that investors are buying annuities instead of the receivables that MJ is selling.

     

  • Complex Arizona Factoring Litigation Settles After 5 years of Litigation in Maricopa County

    by Structured Settlement Watchdog

    On May 28, 2025, the parties in the below-captioned litigation jointly notified the Superior Court  of the State of Arizona in Maricopa County, “that they have reached a confidential global settlement of all claims, counterclaims, defenses asserted between them in the consolidated action The parties anticipate a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice within ninety (90) days. Given the number of parties and the complexity of legal issues, this time period is necessary to document settlement agreement and related documents and to ensure the performance of certain settlement obligations prior to dismissal”.  

    Clerk of the Superior Court
    *** Electronically Filed ***
    K. Higuchi-Mason, Deputy
    5/28/2025 10:11:07 PM
    Filing ID 19924542

    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

    Case No.: CV2020-004958
    Consolidated with Case No.: CV2020-013796
    CV2022-002266

    GENEX CAPITAL CORPORATION, a
    Delaware corporation,

    Plaintiff,
    vs.

    SEELEY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
    INC., a Massachusetts corporation, et al.,

    Defendants.
    Case No.: CV2020-004958

    Consolidated with Case No.: CV2020-013796
    CV2022-002266

    RICHARD L. KEEFER and VICKI L.
    KEEFER, husband and wife, et al.,

    Plaintiffs,
    vs.

    GENEX CAPITAL CORPORATION, a
    Delaware corporation, et al.,

    Defendants.

    AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

    CV2020004958-NOS – Notice Of SettlementDownload

    1 “Investor Plaintiffs” collectively refers to Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants Richard L. Keefer
    and Vicki L. Keefer, HunMi Pak, PANABCO, The Estate of E. Dwayne Walls, Barry
    Beitman, West Haven Fire Department, Sandi Haskell, and Weili Guo and Qingling Zhang.
    2 “NEAA Parties” collectively refers to Seeley Capital Management, Inc., John M. Bulbrook
    Insurance Agency Inc., New England Annuity Associates, LLC, Income Stream Funding
    Partners, LLC, Christopher Seeley, John Bulbrook and Jane Doe Bulbrook.

  • Evidence that “Justice Escrow QSF platform no more than Eastern Point Trust Co. QSF 360 platform by Another Name”

    by Structured Settlement Watchdog

    The legal case against Flatirons Bank and its cohorts in the joint venture operating as Justice Escrow grows stronger by the day, claim lawyers for Eastern Point Trust Company in a press release issued May 29, 2025.

    “Documents recently produced by certain governmental entities provide clear evidence that the Justice Escrow QSF Copyright claims platform is nothing more than Eastern Point Trust Company’s QSF360 platform by another name

    Dycio & Biggs Attorneys at Law, now intend to file a new complaint against Flatirons Bank and the other Justice Escrow defendants based on this newly acquired information.

    NEW Complaint will largely mirror the allegations in the prior complaint, while also materially expanding the named defendants and increasing the damages claims

    Necessarily, the original action was dismissed voluntarily, and not as a result of any court ruling, and in no way prejudices Eastern Point Trust Company from proceeding against the defendants in the forthcoming action, which shall take precedence over the prior proceedings”.

    Read Structured Settlement Watchdog blogs on the alleged Intellectual Property Infringement Matter

    Wyoming Town Nixes QSF Agreement with Flatirons Bank After Intellectual Property Infringement Claim – Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog: Structured Settlements | Settlement Planning News and John Darer Reviews  January 31, 2025

    Lovell Wyoming Ends QSF Business with Flatirons Bank and Justice Escrow after Eastern Point Settlement – Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog: Structured Settlements | Settlement Planning News and John Darer Reviews  March 7, 2025

    Eastern Point Trust Sues Flatirons Bank and Co-Conspirators Over Conspiracy and QSF Trade Theft – Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog: Structured Settlements | Settlement Planning News and John Darer Reviews  April 3, 2025 

    Copy of Eastern Point Trust Company Press Release May 29, 2025 Eastern Point Trust Company vs. Flatirons Bank et al.

    What Has Flatirons Bank Written?

    Chanel McDowell , VP Marketing and Client Experience at Flatirons Bank, according to her email signature, contacted me on April 30, 2025 at 5:43pm EDT, following the publication of a brief statement on the Justice Escrow website to make me aware id its existence. It was notably lacking a detailed point-by-point rebuttal.  Flatiron’s brief statement mentioned that

    Press Release – Justice Escrow, Powered by Flatirons Bank
    “Hello Mr. Darer,

    It was nice speaking to you on the phone. We’re reaching out to provide our formal response to the recent press releases issued by Eastern Point Trust Company regarding litigation involving Justice Escrow, Powered by Flatirons Bank.

    Below is our official statement addressing the matter for your publication, which can also be found on our website here: https://justiceescrow.com/press-release-april-2025. If you have any questions or would like to request further comment, please contact us at justiceescrow@flatirons.bank.

    “Flatirons Bank is aware of recent litigation initiated by a competitor regarding Justice Escrow. We (Flatirons Bank) believe these claims are entirely without merit and a poor attempt to disrupt innovation and client choice in the industry. We are confident that we will prevail under the law, and we look forward to a resolution that underscores the validity and innovation of our product“

    Update October 1, 2025: Flatirons did not offer a detailed rebuttal in the second quarter and seem to have either removed or made inaccessible (see the image below) the content previously available on their website at the link previously provided by Ms. McDowell , including the brief blurb mentioned in the previous paragraph.

    they have since filed a complaint against Eastern Point Trust Company on September 22, 2025… See Flatirons Bank v. Eastern Point Trust Company U.S. District of Wyoming 2:25-cv-00222.

    According to its May 2025 press release, Eastern Point Trust Company plans to file a new complaint but has not done so as of this update. To give readers a clearer perspective, I’m holding off on commentary until the filing is made and have taken the time to analyze both.

    There is (and should be) legitimate public and industry interest in what is happening and best practices in the context of

    • The use of Qualified Settlement Funds,
    • their connection to structured settlements,
    • and their implementation through a governmental authority as an alternative to a Court;
    • following best practices;
    • the impact of Dillon’s Rule;
    • the meaning of continuing jurisdiction and other issues that will undoubtably arise from the lawsuits.

    Who is behind Justice Escrow?   

    Town of Lovell Wyoming initially nixed the Town’s QSF agreement with Flatirons, after receiving Eastern Point’s Intellectual Property claim as was reported in the Lovell Chronicle and discussed in commentary in my January 31, 2025 blog linked above.

    According to the Lovell Chronicle, the town council was to meet at noon on Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2025 to discuss a proposed Compromise Settlement Agreement with Eastern Point Trust Company, but after an executive session, the council voted to table the settlement agreement and scheduled a second special meeting for the next day, January 30.

    According to the Lovell Chronicle, attending the January 30 meeting were Jakob Norman of Trial Lawyers for Justice from Bozeman, Montana, and Nick Coccimiglio of Justice for Life from Alpine, Wyoming, both of whom had worked with the town since the beginning on the QSF arrangement. (Lovell town) Attorney Rolin was traveling and attended the meeting by Zoom, as did several other persons from Flatirons Bank and other entities. A natural question to ask is who were the “several other persons and other entities”. See below for the answer.

    Timeline 

    January 24, 2025

    “Town Attorney Alexa Rolin talked to Lovell Town Counsel about a records request Lovell received in regard to the QSF Agreement with Flatirons Bank. In the notice it is demanding the Town terminate the QSF contract and advised that we are not to destroy anything information pertaining to the QSF Agreement. The request is generally a precursor to a lawsuit.

    Dan Anderson made a motion to move to Executive Session W.S.S 16-4-405 (iii) On matters concerning litigation to which the governing body is a party or proposed litigation to which the governing body may be a party. Second by Bob Mangus. All in favor. Motion passed.

    The meeting went into Executive Session at 11:39 am.

    The meeting was reconvened at 12:17 pm.

    Bob Mangus made a motion to Authorize legal counsel to draft a letter to terminate the contract with Flatirons Bank immediately and we will waive charging our legal counsel fees if they agree to the termination. Second by Carol Miller. All in favor. Motion passed.

    Lovell town meeting to approve termination of Flatirons contract.

    January 30, 2025   As reported by the Lovell Chronicle, the Lovell special meeting attended by among others settlement planner Nick Coccimiglio, lawyer Jakob Norman (as would be expected given their role in establishing the program with the town of Lovell)

    But I have learned with respect to the January 30, 2025 meeting,  through information that is publicly available to anyone, that that the “several other persons from other entities” referred to in the Lovell Chronicle report of the meeting included:

    • Multiple representatives of a life insurance company that currently issues structured settlement annuities. The representatives included the insurer’s CFO & Treasurer, an individual involved with strategic partnerships and direct and indirect sales efforts.
    • A settlement planner from California, other than aforementioned Nick Coccimiglio
    • Another settlement planner from Oregon, formerly President of the Society of Settlement Planners
    • The former CEO of a Life Insurance Company that issues structured settlement annuities and Delta Group, a structured settlement brokerage. It is worth noting that the LIfe Insurance Company in question made an announcement that another executive would be the new interim CEO earlier in January 2025,  as I reported in a blog published January 10, 2025 in New Leaderhip at Independent Insurance Group as Herrema takes over as Interim CEO – Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog 2025

    February 25, 2025  Lovell proceeds with settlement agreement with Eastern Point Trust Company.  According to Town of Lovell minutes, “Council was presented with Eastern Point Trust Company Settlement Agreement. Dan Anderson made a motion to enter into Eastern Point Trust Company Settlement Agreement and authorize the mayor’s signature. Second by Bob Mangus. All in favor: Dan Anderson, Bob Mangus and Carol Miller. Any opposed: Mike Grant. Motion passed”. 

    Last updated October 1, 2025

     

    Stay tuned

  • If a Law Professor Were Grading NJ Law Firm’s Explanation of Personal Injury Settlements as a Menu Item, What Would It Be?

    If a Law Professor Were Grading NJ Law Firm’s Explanation of Personal Injury Settlements as a Menu Item, What Would It Be?

    by Structured Settlement Watchdog

    New Jersey Law Firm Special of the Day is Braised “Leg of Lame”

    Braised leg of lamb

    “Personal injury settlements are typically structured in one of two ways: lump-sum awards, where the beneficiary receives all the funds at once, and structured settlements. Structured settlements are essentially contracts with insurance companies, where the insurer agrees to make regular, ongoing payments, otherwise known as annuities“

    Structured Settlement Watchdog comments

    1. The term “award” derives from Middle English (1250-1300), from the word “awarden.”
    2. An award is not a settlement.
    3. A settlement is not an award.
    4. Settlements are reached through negotiation and require mutual consent, whereas awards are determined and enforced by the court.
    5. If the “beneficiary” receives all the funds at once in “lump-sum awards”, what is the plaintiff? Chopped liver? Pickled haggis?
    6. A structured settlement is a form of negotiated settlement which damages are paid in one or more customized streams of future periodic payments Structured Settlements | What are Structured Settlements?
    7. Typically, a settlement is divided into a portion paid in cash and another portion that is structured. 
    8. In New York, Structured Judgments are established in accordance with New York CPLR 50-A and CPLR 50-B.
    9. The structured settlement flow chart below illustrates the steps involved in establishing a structured settlement.
    How structured settlements work flow chart 2025


     

    10. An annuity is one of the permissible types of “qualified funding asset” under Section 130(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

    11. According to NJ Rev Stat § 17B:17-5 (2024)

    “Annuity” is a contract not coming within the definition of life insurance as set forth in section 17B:17-3, or health insurance as set forth in section 17B:17-4, under which an insurer obligates itself to make periodic payments for a specified period of time, such as for a number of years, or until the happening of an event, or for life, or for a period of time determined by any combination thereof”.
     
    12. According to the NJ Structured Settlement Protection Act C.2A:16-64 Definitions relative to structured settlements:
     
    • “Structured settlement” means an arrangement for periodic payment of damages for personal injuries or sickness established by settlement or judgment in resolution of a tort claim or for periodic payments in settlement of a workers’ compensation claim…
    • “Annuity issuer” means an insurer that has issued a contract to fund periodic payments under a structured settlement.
    • “Periodic payments” includes both recurring payments and scheduled future lump sum
      payments.

    13. Individuals cannot purchase structured settlement annuities. While they can enter into agreements with insurance companies for products like life insurance, retirement annuities, health insurance, long-term care insurance, Medicaid annuities, and other insurance options, structured settlement annuities are not available for individual sale. In a rare scenario, a self-insured individual who is a defendant in a lawsuit might have the resources and willingness to assume a contingent liability for the remainder of an annuity contract. However, this is an extreme example. Moreover it is highly probable that a plaintiff would prefer other arrangements, like having  New York Life, USAA, MetLife, Pacific Life, or well capitalized  and regulated companies stand behind the periodic payment obligation.

    As Structured Settlement Watchdog I provide “Bull-oney Detection”, Education and Commentary. I help root out and correct inaccuracy in social media and other online media related to structured settlements, wherever it exists. 

    Thank you for reading.

    Further Reading

  • Structured Settlement Factoring Audit Technique Guide Revised by IRS in 2009, 2015 and 2020, MIA in 2025

    by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

    Why has the Structured Settlement Factoring Audit Technique Guide gone MIA in 2025

    The Structured Settlement Factoring Audit Technique Guide contained loads of useful information for someone who wants to understand the basis for Structured Settlement Protection Acts and IRC 5891, a section of the Internal Revenue Code that was often cited by settlement professionals, industry commentators and some factoring representatives, but occasionally in a context that provides the misinformation that “IRC 5891 made factoring legal”.

    Structured settlement factoring audit technique guide


    Let’s start with some history…

    The IRS, citing ABA Judges’ Journal, Spring 2005 Vol. 44, No. 2 pp. 19-31, “Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights: What Judges Should Know About Structured Settlement Protection Acts”, authored by Daniel W. Hindert and Craig H. Ulman states:

    “Through aggressive advertising, specialized finance companies – now commonly referred to as factoring companies – began persuading structured settlement recipients (referred to herein as “payees”) to trade future payments for present cash.

    To circumvent the restrictions on assignment of payment rights, factoring companies arranged for payees to redirect their payments to factoring company addresses. The factoring companies would then collect the payments (endorsing checks in the payee’s names, using powers of attorney and signature stamps) without informing insurers that payment rights had been assigned.

    Many structured settlement payees who dealt with factoring companies were exploited. Some real horror stories

    By fashioning transactions as purchases of future payment rights or as loans originated in states with generous usury laws, factoring companies often charged sharp discounts to payees who were ill equipped to appreciate the value of their future payments or to understand the onerous terms of factoring agreements. In some cases, factoring companies charged discounts equivalent to annual interest rates as high as 70 percent. (as an aside, see J.G. Wentworth S.S.C. v. Jones, Jefferson Cty., S.W.3d 309, 315 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000) (“[i]n the four cases here the rate of return to Wentworth varied between 36 and 68 percent per year”); Windsor‐Thomas Group Inc. v. Parker, 782 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (finding that from “a functional viewpoint, this agreement is a secured promissory note with an annual interest rate of approximately 100 percent.”-credit to Jason Lazarus, Esq. for locating these cases). 

    “Payees who defaulted often were sued in remote forums specified in the factoring companies’ form contracts. In many cases, these actions commenced with entry of confessed judgments against payees. Insurers responsible for making ostensibly nonassignable settlement payments became embroiled in collection actions brought by factoring companies. Insurers also faced uncertain tax consequences and risks of multiple liability when assigned settlement payments became subject to competing claims”

    Comment

    Factoring was not illegal prior to IRC 5891. Though the IRS ackowledged that people were exploited, there was no mention that anyone was arrested for their “exploits”. 

    IRC 5891 Structured Settlement Factoring

    THE IRS itself very clearly states…

    “IRC section 5891(a) imposes a tax …The purpose of IRC section 5891, is to deter the purchasers of payment rights under structured settlements from taking advantage of recipients who are entitled to receive tax free (structured) settlement payments, including (structured) payments under settlements received by victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack.

    The tax is basically a penalty tax imposed on purchasers of payment rights under structured settlements.

    The practical effect of section 5891 is to compel such purchasers to comply with state structured protection acts (“SSPAs”), now in all 50 states, which require that transfers of structured settlement payment rights receive advance court (or administrative authority) approval”.

    Structured-Settlement-Factoring-Audit-Technique-GuideDownload

    When last checked in April 2026, the IRS site included Instructions for Form 8876 (12/2025) | Internal Revenue Service and a link to the revised form, effective January 2026. Form 8876 (Rev. December 2025)

    A sample of Structured Settlement Watchdog articles concerning unfortunate “IRC 5891 misinformation” by members of our industry

    1. IRC 5891 is “Settlement Planning Section” of The Internal Revenue Code-Patrick Hindert January 22, 2009

    2. S2KM’s “New Business Opportunities Created by IRC 5891 Structured Settlement Companies”  July 4, 2008

    Last updated April 27, 2026

     

     

  • Payment Servicing Arrangement May Be a Requirement of Annuity Issuer NOT Factoring Company

    Payment Servicing Arrangement May Be a Requirement of Annuity Issuer NOT Factoring Company

    by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC

    Did you know that buried in the details of a Miscellaneous section of a Structured Settlement Transfer Agreement may be written notice to sellers that a Servicing Arrangement may be required by the Annuity Issuer?  Pay attention!

    "In the event, the Assigned Payments are only a portion of the full amount of the individual payment due to You, the Annuity Issuer Encumbrance making the payment may require that We [i.e. the factoring company buying your payment(s)] receive the full amount of each payment and require that We (i.e. the factoring company) assume the obligation to remit any amount above and beyond the Assigned Payments (i.e the unassigned portion of the structured settlement payments) to You ("the Servicing Arrangement"). You agree to this Servicing Arrangement and further understand that this Servicing Arrangement may encumber the future assignment of the unassigned portion of the settlement payment" 

    What Does Encumber Mean?

    An encumbrance is a claim against an asset by an entity that is not the owner. Common types of encumbrances against real property, liens, mortgages, or restrictive covenants . Encumbrances impact the transferability and/or use of subjected properties.

    The calamitous handling and rapid demise of SuttonPark, once the United States' largest payment servicer of structured settlement receivables wreaked havoc on the lives of payees and investors alike for months.  A multi-faceted business school case study for many years to come.

    But it's more than that. Consider the fine print in your states Structured Settlement Protection Act.  Here is what the Rhode island Structured Settelment Protection Act says about the Effects of Transfer of Structured Settelment Payment Rights

    Chapter 9.3
    Rhode Island Structured Settlement Protection Act

    R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-9.3-5

    § 27-9.3-5. Effects of transfer of structured settlement payment rights.

    Following a transfer of structured settlement payment rights under this chapter:

    (1) The structured settlement obligor and the annuity issuer shall, as to all parties except the transferee, be discharged and released from any and all liability for the transferred payments;

    (2) The transferee shall be liable to the structured settlement obligor and the annuity issuer:

    (i) If the transfer contravenes the terms of the structured settlement, for any taxes incurred by the parties as a consequence of the transfer; and

    (ii) For any other liabilities or costs, including reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, arising from compliance by the parties with the order of the superior court or arising as a consequence of the transferee’s failure to comply with this chapter;

    (3) Neither the annuity issuer nor the structured settlement obligor may be required to divide any periodic payment between the payee and any transferee or assignee or between two (2) (or more) transferees or assignees; and

    (4) Any further transfer of structured settlement payment rights by the payee may be made only after compliance with all of the requirements of this chapter.

    Key Takeaway When Someone is Selling Part of Their Structured Settlement Payment Streams?

    Think before you act and always seek Independent Professional Advice

     

     

     

     

  • Structured Settlement Quotes | Guide to Structured Settlement Quotes

    Structured Settlement Quotes | Guide to Structured Settlement Quotes

    by John Darer® CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC

    How do you obtain Structured Settlement Quotes? 

    First, make sure that you are speaking to a true structured settlement broker, expert or consultant and not a factoring company or cash flow company representative masquerading under any of these terms.

    Most state insurance departments in the United States have consumer protection regulations which require actuaries at insurance companies to certify that each liability has an asset to match it on an annual basis. Therefore, the insurance companies issuing structured settlement annuities must be careful in rate setting to assure that they have a balance of assets to meet their obligations. Should it take on too much premium and the corresponding liability, without assets to match, an insurance company could find itself in hot water with the regulators.

    What flavors do Structured Settlement Quotes come in?

    On a very basic level there are several types of quotes: Book Rates, Daily Rates and either of the two with a Rated Age or special impaired risk pricing .

    • Book rates are the published rates of the structured settlement annuity issuer. The “book” refers to the fact that in the pre-computer era, rates literally came from a rate book or rate sheet. Today most companies make such rates are available for download online to its appointed agents/brokers so that your structured settlement broker, expert, consultant or settlement planner should have in his/her office or installed on his/her note book computer. Book rates change periodically. Generally book rates are good for a certain number of days
    • Daily rates, as you might assume, are generally good “for the day of quote only”, a ” blue plate special”. Given that bond markets fluctuate daily there may be bonds out there on a particular day that will permit the annuity issuer to issue a more aggressive rate. In part because of the asset/liability matching requirement most annuity issuers require daily rate pricing on very large cases (definition of “very large” varies by company).  Note that some structured settlement annuity issuers will hold daily rate pricing for 24 hours.
    • Rated age pricing applies to book rates or daily rates. A rated age affects the cost of any life contingent structured settlement annuity benefit. Rated ages are opinions based on medical information concerning the annuitant that causes the underwriter to believe that the plaintiff or annuitant has a shorter than normal life expectancy. Based on this opinion the annuity issuer is wiling to issue the annuity at a lower cost/higher yield an absorb the mortality risk. A rated age can either reduce of the cost of providing a known life contingent benefit or it can boost the yield per claim dollar if buying a life contingent benefit and the contribution is known. Rated ages vary by annuity issuer and the effect of the rated age on the pricing of the annuity will vary by company and even by the type of benefit desired. If you are seeking a benefit that is for a certain period of years or is a guaranteed lump sum  payment then the rated age has no effect on the cost of the structured settlement.
    Infographic explaining structured settlement quotes with sections on book rates vs daily rates, rated ages, split funding, pre-funding possibilities, and lock-ins.

    Structured settlement annuity issuers may have an appetite for different types of cash flows at different types of cash flows at different times

    • Some structured settlement annuity issuers may be better short term.
    • Some may be better long term.
    • Some may specialize in lump sums.
    • Others may be more competitive at older ages or with deferred start dates.
    • It seems complex, but a good structured settlement broker, expert, or consultant should be skilled at weaving the best plan/offer together for you or your client. Such plan/offer may involve one or more structured settlement annuity issuers.

    Most structured settlement brokers today have the ability to send you structured settlement quotes via email for speed, ease of storage and re-transmission (to clients or other advisers) and reduce your paper clutter.

    It is important to note that a quote for “selling your structured settlement annuity payment rights” is not the same as a “structured settlement quote.” To clarify any confusion caused by factoring company internet advertising, it should be referred to as a “factoring quote.”

    Updated February 8, 2026

     

  • Structured Settlement Factors Engage in Financial Hortivulture When Targeting Annuitants

    Structured Settlement Factors Engage in Financial Hortivulture When Targeting Annuitants

    by Structured Settlement Watchdog

    Certain structured settlement factoring companies are using pictures of small change on dirt that have sprouted plant saplings to peck away at people with structured settlements to sell their structured settlement payments for pennies on the dollar and THEN, "hocus pocus" fertilize and grow the resulting cash now "horde" of pennies. 

    Structured settlement cash now pennies on dollar

    It's just silly billy advertising. Till Till your mound of pennies, hoping to get a break. Not so merrilly your payments snatched, to the cash now shake and bake.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Why Factored Structured Settlements Are Not Annuities

    Why Factored Structured Settlements Are Not Annuities

    by Structured Settlement Watchdog

    Calling Factored Structured Settlements Payment Streams Annuities

    Is Simply not Grounded in Reality

    Factored structured settlements are structured settlement receivables not structured settlement annuities.

    Regulation of Sales Practices

    Unlike the market for factored structured settlements, fixed and variable annuities are governed by a comprehensive state regulatory framework. State laws govern the organization and licensing of insurance companies, and state insurance departments oversee insurance company operations.

    Secondary market annuity is not an annuity

    A “secondary market annuity” is not an annuity. It’s a receivable
    • Generally, annuity contracts and amendments must be filed with, and approved by, each state in which contracts are sold.
    • Insurance agents (often referred to as “producers”) need to be licensed in each state in which they operate. Only licensed insurance agents may sell annuity contracts Source: Insured Retirement Institute.

    The Insured Retirement Institute (IRI) is the leading financial services trade association for the retirement income industry. Members represent the entire supply chain of insured retirement strategies, including Insurers, Banks, Asset Managers, Broker-Dealers, Distributors, Financial Advisors and Solution Providers.

    1. Insurance Company Licensing

    • In order to offer annuity products in a state, an insurance company must be licensed in that state.
    • A company needs to be licensed regardless of whether it is a “domestic” insurance company (i.e., organized in the state) or a “foreign” insurance company (i.e., organized in another state).
    • To be licensed, an insurance company must be organized according to specific state laws.
    • Before it is granted a license, an insurance company must demonstrate compliance with strict capital, surplus, and financial requirements.
    • In addition, the state scrutinizes the experience and character of the company’s management.
    • The state issues a license only if it determines that the company is organized in such a way that it will protect the interests of its contract owners.  Source: Ibid.

    Comments:

    • A factored structured settlement payment stream, is not an annuity or an insurance product according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Source: Statutory Issue Paper No. 160, introduced December 2018 and finalized April 6, 2019.
    • A factored structured settlement payment stream is created as a result of a structured settlement factoring transaction that complies with state and federal law. 
    • The intermediaries and/or merchants of factored structured settlement payment streams are not insurance companies. 
    • Unfortunately this does not stop these entities and their employees and/or affiliates from using the term annuity to describe what they are selling.
    • SuttonPark Nightmare victims had no idea what hit them

    2. Agent Licensing and Carrier Appointments

    Insurance agents must be licensed by state insurance departments. Applicants must submit a form to the state providing information about their experience, character, and financial responsibility. They also have to pass a written examination. (Agents selling variable annuities are also regulated by the SEC and FINRA.) Insurance agents also must be appointed by each insurance company for which he or she serves as agent.  Source: Ibid

    Comments:

    • The travesty of some merchants of structured settlement receivables is that they hold insurance licenses and should know better, yet they choose to scam consumers and call them annuities anyway. The potential for confusion is very obvious.

    3. Contract Requirements and Prior Regulatory Approval

    • Annuity contracts and related forms generally must be filed and approved in every state where they will be sold.
    • An alternative, more streamlined method of obtaining state approval is to file through the Interstate Insurance Product Commission (IIPRC), of which 41 states are currently members. While there is no standard required form for annuity contracts, states and the IIPRC mandate that certain provisions be included in all contracts, such as a free-look provision that allows a contract owner to examine the contract for a period of time and return it for a refund if dissatisfied for any reason.
    • Generally, contracts need to be readable and cover all of the contract’s basic features before the state will approve the contract for sale.
    • Amendments to contracts also must be filed and approved. If the amendment could adversely affect existing contract owners’ rights, prior approval from the contract owners may be required.  Source: Ibid.

    Comments

    • If the factored structured settlement payment streams (payment receivables) were annuity policies,  they would generally have to be filed and approved in every state where they will be sold. 
    • What is being sold to retirees is not an annuity or an insurance contract.

    4. Regulation of Annuity Sales Practices

    A. Advertising Rules

    Most states have adopted advertising rules governing the marketing of annuity contracts. State insurance departments review advertising materials periodically. Advertising rules are designed to prevent misleading, deceptive, or confusing advertisements, based on the overall impression that the advertisement may reasonably be expected to create upon a person of average intelligence within the segment of the public to which the advertisement is directed.

    Comments

    • Annuities are a term familiar to retirees. “Based on the overall impression that the advertisement may reasonably be expected to create upon a person of average intelligence within the segment of the public to which the advertisement is directed”, marketers of secondary market “annuities” hoover up the imprimatur of the term annuity to draw in retirees for a potential sucker play.
    • Misleading, deceptive or confusing advertisements are the rule rather than the exception in the structured settlement secondary market, which makes ample use of shiny objects to divert attention from the value proposition of pennies on the dollar for your structured settlement.
    • Annuitants are scammed with mail solicitations from real sounding but scam labeled non existent associations made to look like government agencies or registries. With only a few state exceptions, there isn’t a means to fine, suspend or revoke authority of the scammers to transact business. Standards and enforcement of standards is sorely needed. Right now for the most part “ass backwards” rules. Where are regulators? 

     B. Unfair Trade Practices Rules

    All states have adopted unfair trade practices acts with provisions that apply to an insurer’s activities. These laws define and prohibit unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive business practices, including those involved with the issuance, sale, and administration of annuity contracts.

    There is no reason to use the term ” annuity” to describe factored structured settlement payments when marketing them to consumers/investors, except for an intent to deceive. That being said the “charlatans” who use the term “annuity” can’t have it both ways. If they call it an annuity and the intent is/was for their customers to believe it is an annuity then the remedy should be that they are subject to the same or similar punishment as if it were an annuity.

    Structured settlement receivables ass backward regulation of sales