Structured settlements

Many Californians, disabled and injured in accidents and product failures, as part of a court settlement, elect to enter into structured settlement agreements which provide a guaranteed stream of payments over time.

These settlements offer stability and certainty to people whose lives have been shattered by tragedy, thereby bringing security and stability to families by providing a regular income stream to meet present and future financial obligations. This is especially important for those with life-long disabilities as studies have shown that 25-30 percent of all lump sum settlement payments are gone within two months and 90 percent are completely gone within five years; structured settlements are intended to prevent this rapid dissipation.

As is evident by the large number of television commercials targeting recipients of these awards, encouraging them to trade in their future payments for cash, now, corporations, some more scrupulous than others, see a ready profit in purchasing these financial instruments for mere pennies on the dollar. As a result, many sellers don't understand the full impact of their decisions.

To protect these recipients from unscrupulous purchasers, California laws require court approval for the transfer of such payments. Unfortunately, courts currently have very little guidance regarding the criteria to consider when deciding whether such a sale is in the "best interests" of the consumer.

To further protect these recipients, and to protect Californians from having to pay future expenses which would be covered by these agreements, the California Legislature should adopt SB 510, which will provide judges with clear guidance when deciding whether the recipient of a structured settlement agreement can sell the rights to future payments.

The Intention of Structured Settlement Agreements and Problems with Buyouts

To understand the need for this legislation, one must first understand the intention and purposes of structured settlements. Structured settlements are used most often where the injured party may be permanently disabled from employment, require future medical treatment, or require long term care. Usually these cases involve significant life changing injuries or the death of a primary financial provider.

Another area where they are frequently used is in the case of a minor child who has been injured. The law requires that funds received on behalf of a minor are secured and invested until that child reaches the age of majority, 18. Structured settlements are often used to plan for the future care needs of the child once they reach adulthood and/or to help pay for their college education.

By spacing payments over time, such agreements ensure that money for medical care is available as it becomes necessary. The structured settlement may pay for college or replace long-term lost wages with regular payments that can be used to meet care needs and/or household expenses. Again, the incremental nature of the payments is a financial planning device that times receipt of funds with the rhythm of needs.

When the beneficiaries of these agreements sell the right to future payments for a present cash buyout, they undermine the intent of the structured settlement and create further instability in a life already fractured by tragedy. By the time surgery is necessary, or the injured person's savings are exhausted, the structured settlement payments may be gone as well. This could potentially shift the burden of care back upon the taxpayers as a provider of last resort.

More than just undermining careful financial planning that goes into structured settlements; the terms of these sales often result in a deep discount being taken on the funds by the seller. In effect, they give up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in future payments for an immediate lump sum payment. Companies charge significant fees ranging from 21 to 70 percent of the total value of the settlement. The predatory practices of these lenders leave many people surrendering much of the settlement without fully recognizing the tradeoffs.

SB 510 Will Protect Beneficiaries of Structured Settlement Agreements

To protect vulnerable individuals, California law requires court approval for the sale of a structured settlement agreement. Current California law requires that the sale be in the "best interests" of the person seeking to sell the settlement. However, the current law lacks detailed guidance for a judge when she is conducting a cost benefit analysis to determine if the liquidation of a structure is in the "best interests" of the seller. This lack of guidance results in inconsistent application of the law with potential disastrous consequences to both the seller and the State, which may become financially responsible for the injured party's medical care in the future.

SB 510, introduced by Senator Ellen Corbett, provides clarity to the petition and sale process providing clear, objective, criteria for the courts to consider when determining whether to permit a sale. Among other things, the court would consider:

• The reasonable preference of the person receiving payment
• Purpose of the transfer;
• Whether structured settlement was intended to cover future income loss or medical expenses;
• Intention of the periodic payments;
• Potential need for future coverage of medical treatment;
• Whether the person receiving payment has other means of support;
• Whether the person receiving payment has received independent legal and financial advice; and
• The impact of such a sale on not just the seller, but his dependants, child support obligations, etc.

Additionally SB 510 requires that the court look at what is referred to as the "discount rate," the rate which is used by the purchaser in determining what fraction of the payment stream they will pay now, to see if it is in line with the current market rate. The law also requires that there be a full and clear disclosure of what the selling party would have received had they kept their structure, and the value of what they are giving up in exchange for immediate lump sum payment.

Some may argue that structured settlement agreements are too paternalistic; when someone is injured, that person should have the freedom to make their own decisions regarding any financial compensation they receive. These people fail to recognize that a structure is never forced upon a party; it is something that they elected as a careful financial plan when they were resolving their legal dispute. As such, these careful financial plans should only be disturbed when unforeseen circumstances dictate that the benefit of the change to the financial plan outweighs the significant costs. A strengthened review process, with clear guidelines and priorities, helps not only the court to make these decisions, it encourages and helps the seller to understand the significance of their decision, creating a time and process for reflection.

The proposed legislation will help to ensure consistency across decisions, force judges to consider all of the relevant factors and ensure that potential sellers understand the terms of the sale. Ultimately, this will help to protect people in California from predatory settlement purchases.

Source

A fixed rate structured settlement annuity is often created in connection with the settlement of a personal injury lawsuit. In a typical transaction, the defendant and plaintiff reach a settlement which provides for the plaintiff to receive periodic payments over a period of time.

The use of structured settlements has risen dramatically in the past twenty years. Previously, claimants were presented with the option of an immediate cash settlement, which created significant tax related burdens, and did not always address the long term needs of the plaintiff. Structured settlement growth is most attributable to the favorable federal income tax treatment that such settlements received as a result of the 1982 amendment of the Internal Revenue Code. These amendments approved a structure under which personal injury tort claimants could receive periodic payments over a term of years in settlement of their claim from insurance companies and assignment companies. These amendments confirmed that the personal injury tort plaintiff could receive the periodic payments under a structured settlement on a tax-free basis, including the ability to receive the “inside build-up” value or gain in investment value over the life of the payments. The Internal Revenue Code was also amended by adding new Section 130, which provided substantial tax clarity to insurance companies that establish “qualified” structured settlements and led to the creation of assignment companies that were affiliated with the insurance companies that issued the annuities.

The most significant downside for a plaintiff with a structured settlement comes from its inherent inflexibility. In ways unforeseen at the settlement table, the plaintiff’s financial needs often change over time resulting in a demand for liquidity options. Beginning in the late 1980s, a few small specialty finance companies started meeting post settlement liquidity demands by offering new flexibility for structured settlement payees through a lump sum cash payment to the plaintiff in return for some or all of the rights to the plaintiff’s structured settlement payments. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, certain legal and tax issues surrounding settlement transactions limited the growth of the assigned structured settlement market.

Federal legislation

In 2001, Congress passed H.R. 2884, which was promptly signed into law by the President. This legislation enacted Internal Revenue Code Section 5891 effective July 1, 2002 which largely eliminated the remaining material tax issues associated with the purchase and sale of Structured Settlements. Through a punitive excise tax penalty imposed on the Structured Settlement purchaser, Code Section 5891 created the de facto regulatory paradigm for the industry. To avoid the excise tax penalty, a state court, in accordance with a qualified state statute, must approve all structured settlement transactions. Qualified state statutes call for certain baseline findings, including a requirement that the transfer is in the best interest of the seller taking into account the welfare and support of any dependents. In response, many states enacted statutes regulating structured settlement transfers in accordance with this mandate.

Post-2002

Today, virtually all transfers are completed through a court order process. As of January 15, 2009, 46 states have transfer laws in place regulating the transfer process. Of these states, 41 are based in whole or in part on the model state law (“Model Act”) enacted by the National Conference of Insurance Legislators. In cases when the state law predates the Model Act, they are substantially similar. Most state transfer laws contain the following similar provisions:

1. Pre-contract disclosures to be made to the seller concerning the essentials of the transaction.
2. Notices to be issued to certain interested parties.
3. An admonition to the seller to seek professional advice concerning the proposed transfer.
4. A court approval of the transfer, including a finding that it is in the best interest of seller, taking into account the welfare and support of any dependents.
   

Imperial Structured Settlements, a leader in the advance funding of structured settlement payment rights and assignable annuities, recently expanded its account executive department to capitalize on the growing demand for its services.

The addition of new employees provides not only an important growth opportunity for the Company, but also positions Imperial as the industry leader.

“We have built a reputation for providing excellent customer service,” stated Senior Vice President, Deborah Benaim. “To continue delivering this level of service and meet the needs of our ever growing customer base, strategically it only made sense for us to continue to add new team members.”

“As the Imperial family continues to grow, employees are enjoying their days more, having fun, and leaving each day with a sense of fulfillment and pride. We take great initiative to ensure that our account executives do not work extended hours or weekends.”

The current economic climate adds to our organization’s momentum for growth. With the nationwide unemployment rate now the highest it’s been in a quarter-century, rising credit card debt and an astonishing amount of foreclosures, people are extremely motivated to address their financial needs.

“We’ve reached a time when more people than ever are facing financial hardships. I can’t tell you how many people call in and say ‘I can’t believe this is happening to me.’ We are getting more calls from people facing eviction and foreclosure.”

“Our customers are finding that they can better their lives by selling a portion of their future payments to get a lump sum today,” continued Benaim. “With the money they raise from the transaction they can create a brighter future for themselves and their families.”

About Imperial Structured Settlements

Imperial Structured Settlements services help customers enhance their lives and achieve goals they have set for their financial future through the purchase of structured settlement payment rights and certain annuities from individuals in exchange for an agreed-upon amount of cash. People who settle a personal injury, wrongful death, or medical malpractice claim often receive their payments from an insurance company over a predetermined period of time. Imperial Structured Settlements is based in Boca Raton, Florida. For more information, please visit our web site at www.ImperialStructuredSettlements.com.

Source

Another chapter is closed in the story of a 17-year-old North Branch boy who died by carbon monoxide poisoning at his family’s home on 412th Street on Dec. 5, 2006.

In January 2008, Mitchell Carlson and Penny Pliscott, parents of Andrew Carlson, sued the installer and manufacturer of the furnace that was considered at fault for the death.

On Feb. 26 of this year, the family settled out of court for a structured annuity sum of $750,000, according to court documents, a third of which went to Carlson and Pliscott’s attorneys, Burke and Thomas, PLLP. Which plaintiffs paid the settlement is confidential, though.

Incident sparked new state law
The tragic incident was a catalyst for a new law requiring carbon monoxide detectors in homes across the state.

In 2006, the state legislature enacted a law that required new home constructions and multi-family homes to have at least one carbon monoxide detector within 10 feet of each bedroom.

In 2008, that law expanded to include existing single-family homes.

Third-party suit
In response to the January 2008 suit, the installer of the furnace, Indoor Comfort Systems of Wyoming, sued the City of North Branch, alleging that its building inspector negligently issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the home. The manufacturer of the furnace, NY Thermal of Ontario, Canada, joined this suit.

This was dismissed in February 2009. By state law, cities are generally immune from negligence claims because the issuance of certificates of occupancy are considered “discretionary,” according to the court documents. In other words, when a city issues a certificate of occupancy, it is doing so as a general act of public good and not guaranteeing that each structure strictly adheres to safety standards.

Carlson’s and Pliscott’s lawyer, Richard Thomas, said this secondary lawsuit was frustrating because it complicated things, but also said he and his clients are satisfied with settlement.

“The installer claim delayed things,” he said, “but it’s their right to pursue it.”

The timeline
According to court documents, the following occurred:

The timeline of the events begins with Carlson and Pliscott’s intention to build a new modular home on their property.

The couple retained Tony Kubat (doing business as Twin Oaks Construction) to be general contractor, who set Dec. 1, 2006, as the date the city building inspector would come to do a final inspection and presumably issue a certificate of occupancy. Upon issuance, Kubat allegedly told the family they could move into their new home.

The couple’s old home, which was residing on the same property as their new one, had to be rendered uninhabitable because North Branch zoning ordinances did not allow both homes to coexist on the property.

To do this, contractors had to destroy the septic tank.

Kubat was responsible for overseeing the framing of the garage, the insulation of the basement walls, shingling the garage roof, scheduling subcontractors and as an overall supervisor of the project.

He hired Charles Friend of Indoor Comfort Systems to install a boiler in the new home. It was a combination wood-gas furnace.

As he was working on the installation, Friend indicated that the task was going to take longer than he originally had thought.

On Dec. 1 (inspection day), Friend told Kubat and Carlson that he was not sure he would be able to finish the installation by the end of the day.

Mark Jones, a city building inspector at the time, inspected the home and recommended the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

What parties involved were unaware of was, according to court documents, that Friend had not done the following three tasks:

• Installing a natural gas-to-propane conversion kit;

• Hooking up the air intake vent piping from the hole in the wall to the furnace to allow for proper ventilation;

• Installing elbows on the exterior air exhaust and air intake pipes to push the air away from the house.

In court papers, Friend insisted that was given improper instruction on installation at a NY Thermal seminar, and NY Thermal counters that Friend properly installed it.

On Dec. 1, 2006, North Branch issued a certificate of occupancy and, because the Carlson-Pliscott family’s old home was uninhabitable, they moved into the new one.

On Dec. 3, Pliscott and Carlson started becoming sick. Two of their three children complained of headaches and vomiting.

On Dec. 4, Andrew Carlson came home and went to his room.

On Dec. 5, Carlson and Pliscott discovered Andrew Carlson’s body.

An ECM Post Review Web-only story on that same day filled in some of the gaps.

At around 12:36 a.m. on the morning of Dec. 5, Carlson was arrested for a suspected DWI.

According to the North Branch Police Department (NBPD) at the time, the arrest took place after employees of the I-35 interchange Holiday Stationstore called 911. Carlson had apparently hit a post in the parking lot of the gas station with his car.

NBPD Sgt. Rick Sapp responded and performed a breathalyzer test on Carlson.

Although the results of that test were not released, the NBPD said that Carlson displayed probable cause for the arrest through his actions at the time.

He was taken to an area hospital for a blood draw before being booked into the Chisago County Jail for fourth degree DWI at 3:15 a.m.

NBPD Chief Steve Forner speculated Tuesday morning that, in retrospect, what Sapp was observing in Carlson may have been the early signs of CO poisoning.

Upon release, Carlson was transported home from the jail by a relative.

Sometime later, Mitchell Carlson and Pliscott discovered that the two younger children were feeling ill.

At some point in the early morning, NBPD said it was believed that one or both of the heads of the household went to a local gas station to pick up soda or juice to cure the upset stomachs and returned to the home.

Around 6 a.m., Carlson and Pliscott discovered Andrew Carlson, apparently already dead, and transported the younger children to the Conoco gas station in North Branch where they called 911.

The Post Review could not contact Carlson or Pliscott by press time.

Source

Lawsuit Financial Corporation (www.lawsuitfinancial.com), a leading national litigation funding company, today announces that investments with steady returns are available, even in this 'down' market. The company has a long history of steady returns and is now making this investment opportunity available to new investors.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation (www.lawsuitfinancial.com), a leading national litigation funding company, today announces that investments with steady returns are available, even in this 'down' market. The company has a long history of steady returns and is now making this investment opportunity available to new investors.

Lawsuit Financial provides financial relief to pending litigants, who through no fault of their own, need financial assistance, but do not qualify for a traditional loan. Legal Funding is meant to help prevent plaintiffs from settling a case too early - for too little - just to get their bills paid. In this period of credit tightening and loan restrictions, legal finance is more important than ever.

Our goal at Lawsuit Financial is to help those families who are involved in a lawsuit, can no longer pay for the necessities of life, and who may not qualify for a traditional loan
In order to help these people, we rely on having investment
to help provide capital for people in need and who have a lawsuit pending in the court or claims systems. This is an excellent opportunity for people looking to invest in something that serves an important need and, at the same time, has provided excellent investment returns.
"Our goal at Lawsuit Financial is to help those families who are involved in a lawsuit, can no longer pay for the necessities of life, and who may not qualify for a traditional loan," states attorney Mark Bello, owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial. "In order to help these people, we rely on having investment "partners," to help provide capital for people in need and who have a lawsuit pending in the court or claims systems. This is an excellent opportunity for people looking to invest in something that serves an important need and, at the same time, has provided excellent investment returns."

Lawsuit funding is, typically, non-recourse (repayment is contingent upon litigation outcome); the plaintiff gets the money he/she desperately needs without immediate obligation to repay. If the case is resolved successfully, repayment of principal and profit owed is made. Legal finance allows a case to proceed through the legal process without pressure to settle early and attempts to ensure improved case results. If the plaintiff loses the case, the company excuses the advance, but provides insurance for the risk.

"Investors need to know that Lawsuit Financial is one of the most experienced lawsuit finance companies in the marketplace. Underwriting experience is key to producing solid investment returns and our staff has well over 50 years of experience in handling legal issues and legal funding. Investors should see excellent returns in addition to the added pleasure or 'bonus' of providing assistance to people in desperate need of important living expenses such as medical care and prescriptions, food, shelter, transportation, and clothing, as they wait for a settlement or adjudication of their litigation," Bello added.

The availability and amount of funding is based upon case type and strategic timing. Mark Bello, a 32-year trial lawyer veteran, regularly consults with plaintiffs and attorneys to discuss whether litigation funding is the right fit for them.

About Lawsuit Financial
Lawsuit Financial (www.lawsuitfinancial.com) is celebrating 10 years as specialists in providing solid litigation investment returns while delivering lawsuit funding to cash-strapped plaintiffs, allowing them to focus on their pending case - not on their financial responsibilities. Lawsuit Financial will provide necessities of life funding for many types of litigation including auto accidents, premises liability/slip & fall, malpractice, personal injury, product liability, wrongful death, auto accident, and employment suits, among others. Because of our significant expertise, we can fund cases that others can't or won't. Lawsuit Financial may also fund litigation costs, structured settlements, expert witness fees, and pending attorney fees.

Source

Patrick and Paul Farber, structured settlement brokers with Ringler Associates, have been named the first corporate diversity partners with the Litigation Counsel of America (LCA).

The LCA is an invitation-only trial lawyer honorary society established in 2005 to reflect the new face of the American bar. Membership is limited to 3,500 Fellows, representing less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers. The LCA is aggressively inclusive embracing all demographics within law, including race, sex, orientation, age and national origin.

Corporate Diversity Partners provide support services and technologies to the LCA's networking gatherings, conferences, scholarship programs and award presentations. Diversity Partners share the LCA's belief that diversity in the legal profession enhances and advances the litigation process, the pursuit and administration of justice and the rule of law.

"Without the commitment from partners like Pat and Paul and their willingness to step forward to champion LCA efforts, we would be limited in our outreach and recognition programs for women and minorities," says G. Steven Henry, Executive Director and General Counsel of LCA. "We hope others who see diversity as a critical component in the practice of law will follow their lead."

“We are honored to have Patrick and Paul Farber as Corporate Diversity Partners,” says Patrick E. Stockalper, partner in the Manhattan Beach, Calif. law firm of Reback, McAndrews, Kjar, Warford & Stockalper, LLP and president of the LCA. Stockalper added, “The strength of the LCA is premised not only on its superb attorney membership, but also on the commitment of its partners.”

Henry notes that although the country has seen substantial growth among women, minorities, cultures and orientations within the bar, recognizing these members for their legal excellence has not kept pace. "The LCA is intent on fostering mutual respect among and across each segment of the legal profession, and to make the future even brighter than the past," says Henry. "The LCA's goal is to create voices of advocacy that are heard without bias and without predisposition."

Ringler Associates is the world's oldest and largest settlement annuity firm. Brothers Patrick and Paul Farber, with offices in Southern California, work with attorneys from around the county in creating structured settlements for medical malpractice, personal injury, product liability, workers' compensation, mass torts and construction defect cases as well as for non-physical injury cases.

"We've been working with attorneys and their clients for more than 25 years and see firsthand the tremendous value that diverse legal representations bring to the negotiating process," says Patrick Farber. "The LCA's inclusive efforts are just what the legal bar needs."

Source

The Association of Kenya Insurers has urged the Minister for Finance to consider changing the law to allow for more time to pay claimants under the third party cover


The Association of Kenya Insurers has appealed to Finance minister Uhuru Kenyatta to change the law that requires insurance companies to pay claimants within 90 days of reporting a claim.

The association’s point of disagreement is not the 90 days but the fact they have to honour a claim from a person, who might not necessarily be their insured.

Currently, it is possible for someone with a third party motor vehicle insurance cover - in case of a minor accident - to claim compensation from the other party’s insurer.

“This is a claimant making a claim and not the insured making it difficult for the insurance to get all documentation within the required 90 days,” said AKI executive director Tom Gichuhi.

“If he presents me with an assessment report, a police abstract and an invoice from the garage, that is the claimant I am supposed to pay even without checking the authenticity of the documents.”

To fight fraud and ensure timely settlement of claims, Mr Gichuhi said, insurers want the minister to replace the word “claimant” with the “insured or his legal representative.”

Section 23 of the Insurance Act says that where a claimant has submitted all relevant documents, every insurer shall in respect of a claim arising from a policy issued by it, admit or deny liability, determine the amounts due, the identity of the claimant and pay the claim within 90 days of the date of the reporting of the claim.

“We wish to propose that this ought to refer to the insured in respect of general insurance business and to a claimant in respect of life insurance business,” the association says in its 2009/10 Budget proposal.

Mr Gichuhi said the special case for life is the possibility that the insured might not be alive.

Insurers would like the clause to be reworded such that where a claimant, in respect of life insurance business or an insured in respect of general insurance business has submitted all relevant documents, every insurer shall in respect of a claim arising from a policy issued by it, admit or deny liability.

Where liability is admitted, the insurer will determine the amounts due, the identity of the claimant and pay the claim within 90 days of the date of the reporting of the claim.

Claim settlement has in the past been an issue of concern leading to stern warning by former Finance minister Amos Kimunya in his 2008/2009 Budget last year.

He said that some insurance companies take too long to pay or in some cases don’t honour claims submitted by the insured person even when the court has ruled in favour of the insured.

To take action on such companies, the minister empowered the Commissioner of Insurance to levy a penalty of five per cent of the amount awarded by the court if the claim is not paid after 90 days.

“To further deter the habit of failure to honour such claims, I propose to give more powers to the commissioner to initiate the process of winding up of such an insurance company in the event that the company fails to pay both the awarded amount and the penalty within the stipulated period,” said the minister.

Specify amount

For the umpteenth time, the association has asked the Finance minister to introduce structured compensation in motor vehicle third party insurance.

Structured compensation would specify the maximum amount an insurer can pay depending on the degree of injury.

The association commended the government’s for introducing a cap on liability for third party injury claims at Sh3 million per person per claim under Section 5 (iv).

There, however, still exists a disparity in the manner in which an injury or death claim is settled under Cap 405, it said.

To address this problem, the association proposes that a mechanism for structured payments be introduced under the Act similar to that prescribed under the recently enacted Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007 which shall not exceed the maximum prescribed under Section 5(iv).

“We further propose that no other proceedings should be filed after a claim is settled in accordance with the requirements of the structured payments under Cap 405,” it said.

The association has requested the minister to recognise by law AKI, Association of Insurance Brokers of Kenya (AIBK) and Insurance Institute of Kenya so that they can enforce their codes of conduct.

With the recent establishment of the Insurance Regulatory Authority, the association says that its legal recognition and that of AIBK, which players have been pursuing for many years, should now be accorded priority.

“This recognition will provide a means of strengthening governance of the industry through these bodies,” Mr Gichuhi said.

“Such recognition should be granted under the Insurance Act, as is the case in both Tanzania and Uganda.”

The recognition is expected to help create a legally acknowledged platform from which the industry would be able to engage the insurance regulator in continuous consultation and dialogue on matters concerning the orderly conduct of insurance business and sustainable growth of the industry.

It would further require every licensed insurer to subscribe to and conform to AKI’s code of conduct.

In addition, an insurer who refuses, neglects or fails to join the association or fails to conduct their business in accordance with sound insurance principles, practices and ethics prescribed by each respective association, may be suspended by the authority from transacting insurance business.

AKI also proposes the introduction of a requirement that every licensed broker should be a member of the Association of Insurance Brokers of Kenya and should subscribe to and conform to the association’s code of conduct.

Suspend broker

The authority may suspend a broker who fails to join the association or defaults in his or her obligation or fails to conduct their business in accordance with sound insurance principles, practices and ethics prescribed by each respective association.

Source

Have you heard that some of the most lucrative financial jobs are not there on Wall Street by any means? These are insurance jobs. Insurance is a multimillion dollar business that hires over 3 million individuals in the United States only. Since the population becomes older and wealth increases, the requirement of insurance professionals would rise significantly. This is really good news if you are mulling over taking up insurance as a career. Insurance jobs involve assisting business and individuals to handle risk for saving themselves from severe losses and to predict risk in the future. A career in the domain of insurance is not only individually satisfying, but also financially satisfactory.

Insurance is a steady but active industry that offers a wealth of progress and career options. From management programs to administrative support, from information technology to sales and marketing, from customer service to accounting – anything you wish to perform in business, you are able to do it in the insurance sector.

You can assist the clients to know their insurance requirements, clarify the choices to them and confidently help them buy suitable insurance policies. You have the option to work in a range of domains in insurance such as a sales representative, an underwriter, a customer service representative, an asset manager or an actuary. An idea that is continuously accentuated by the insurance experts is that the industry is about assisting people when they require it very much. The conventional image of a polished, dodgy and cleverly talking insurance salesperson is mostly an idea of the past.

While industry purchasing drops sharply, company continues lottery payments and annuities.

Woodbridge Investments today announced a 45% reduction in purchasing structured settlement payments from the first quarter of 2008.

Company spokesman Scott Schwartz said, "Although the demand is there from customers seeking to sell their structured settlement payments, the present financial condition of the insurance companies and downgrading of their bond and credit ratings has caused rates to rise making the purchase of structured settlement payments more difficult in today's interest rate environment."

Although the demand is there from customers seeking to sell their structured settlement payments, the present financial condition of the insurance companies and downgrading of their bond and credit ratings has caused rates to rise making the purchase of structured settlement payments more difficult in today's interest rate environment.
A friend of mine told me that her guaranteed period had expired and she would only be able to receive payments while she was alive. Despite being previously turned down by other companies, Woodbridge was able to buy ten full years of payments, even though they were outside of the guaranteed period. She gave me a toll free number to call, and told me to at least check it out. I am so glad I did...
Schwartz further added, "Every day more and more articles appear to make our customers want to sell structured settlements and Woodbridge is continuing to purchase structured settlements in spite of the contraction in the economy.

A recent customer testimonial stated, "A friend of mine told me that her guaranteed period had expired and she would only be able to receive payments while she was alive. Despite being previously turned down by other companies, Woodbridge was able to buy ten full years of payments, even though they were outside of the guaranteed period. She gave me a toll free number to call, and told me to at least check it out. I am so glad I did..."-Virginia M. MO

Woodbridge and its predecessor companies have been helping customers sell lottery payments, annuities and structured settlements since 1993. Woodbridge has helped thousands of people gain access to their future payments. Woodbridge has a comprehensive Free Advice Center for helping people research their choices at its website http://www.woodbridgeinvestments.com

Imperial Finance & Trading (“Imperial”) employees, through its affiliate Imperial Structured Settlements, recently gathered to listen to a lecture presented by cardiac surgeon Mercedes K.C. Dullum, M. D. of the Cleveland Clinic located in Weston, Florida.

Having previously listened to her speak, Imperial’s Senior Vice President Deborah Benaim snagged the first opportunity available to have Dr. Dullum as a guest. “Mercedes has shown great perseverance throughout her career as one of the few women in the country that can perform minimally invasive robotic surgery. We are thrilled at the opportunity to hear from a true pioneer in such a male-dominated field.”

Dullum, the only female board-certified cardiothoracic surgeon in South Florida, spoke for an hour on her life’s accomplishments. Her speech touched on her close family upbringing in Jamaica, to her extensive medical schooling and practice in Washington D.C., ending with her move to Florida to join the Cleveland Clinic.

At the core of the presentation beat her true passion: the human heart. Not only by sharing her years of schooling and experience, but also through wisdom and career experiences, Dr. Dullum educated over 120 employees on the important role a healthy heart plays in a happy and successful life.

“I am so happy you guys asked me to come,” Dullum expressed. “It’s great to see such a turnout at events like this; it means a lot of you are concerned about your health.” That concern demonstrated itself in a flood of follow-up questions from many who attended.

For more information on the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Mercedes Dullum, or to assess your risk of heart disease, please visit http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/women/assess_risk.aspx.

About Imperial Structured Settlements

Imperial Structured Settlements is a specialty finance company that purchases structured settlement payment rights and certain annuities from individuals. People who settle a personal injury, wrongful death, or medical malpractice claim often receive their payments from an insurance company over a predetermined period of time. Imperial Structured Settlements is based in Boca Raton, Florida. For more information, please visit our web site at www.ImperialStructuredSettlements.com.

For further information contact Darcy Sullivan at dsullivan@imprl.com or (561) 995-4350.

Source

Trial attorneys are pressuring the structured settlement industry to pay kickbacks in exchange for clients, an industry expert said Sunday.

Mark Wahlstrom, president of Wahlstrom & Associates, wrote on his blog Sunday that settlement companies are facing "relentless pressure to from some unscrupulous plaintiffs' attorneys.

"I've always felt that any time we participate in something as shady as rebating or kicking back commissions, no matter how you dress it up or try to justify it, we are devaluing our professional services in the eyes of our customers," he wrote.

Wahlstrom, founder of The Settlement Channel, said pay-to-play practices leads to an "endless cycle of professional debasement, deterioration of our profit margins and in ability to invest in other business lines or services to help the end consumer."

He said what he finds to be "really upsetting" is the widespread pressure structured settlement brokers have on them to either make contributions to a trial lawyer association or pressure to directly pay kickback commissions in return for writing an annuity for their clients.

Wahlstrom noted that he has never been solicited to make a kickback to a trial lawyer nor does he make contributions to plaintiffs' attorney groups beyond the "modest" membership fee, he said.

"I'm not sure what I find most appalling about this practice of demanding kickbacks from structured settlement brokers, the disgusting ethics of the lawyers involved or the pure stupidity of the settlement professionals who cave in to this pressure and write checks to these ethically challenged bags of dirt," he wrote.

He offers some advice to his colleagues in the structured settlement industry. Chief among his suggestions is not to compromise one's integrity.

"In short, don't sell out. I promise you, you will hate yourself for it later. Most of these brokers who do it, if you look at their lives are a string of fail marriages, broken business relationships, substance abuse and other addiction problems," he said. "They are miserable people pretending they are living a life they can be proud of, but at the end of the day the money means nothing and they are forced to deal with who they really are."

Jeff Booth: What creates the need for a Structured Settlement?

If you or a loved one has been in an accident resulting in a personal injury and you are in the process of negotiating a settlement, you are about to make decisions that could impact you financially for the rest of your life.

Depending on the extent of the injury, you're ability to earn income for you and your family may have been cut short or stopped depending on the severity of the injuries. The result will be that you will receive compensation. This could be a few thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The issue is what do you do with that money? The facts are that most people burn through that money in less than five years. Ninety percent lose the money.

Jeff Booth: So what is a structured settlement annuity?

Thankfully our congress recognized the problem and in 1982 amended the tax code to provide 100 percent of every structured settlement annuity to be exempt from federal and state taxes. To qualify, the money must be taken in the form of a structured settlement annuity. An insurance company receives the lump and sends you a tax free check as agreed to. So it is a financial plan for an injured person.

Jeff Booth: So why take a structured settlement annuity versus a lump sum?

In today's financial market, if you were about to awarded $25,000 or $2,500,000 what would you do with the money? Buy that large flat screen TV, that new car you have been waiting for and surely "friends" would come forth to provide you many suggestions.

But instead you met with a member of our team and developed a financial plan that would provide you $6,000 per month increasing annually four percent compound interest to keep pace with inflation and guaranteed for life or 30 years, whichever is longer. In addition, you and your wife want to guarantee your new child the best education from preschool through college.

So you agree to the following:

* For each year in life, $72,000 with a 30 year guarantee and each year it would increase by four percent.
* For preschool through high school, you would be guaranteed $24,000 for 12 years also with four percent annual increases.
* And for college $50,000 for five years would be increased for inflation of percent.
* With a structured settlement annuity the above can be completed with a settlement of $2.5 million. You would be guaranteed an income of $5.1 million. And if you lived to life expectancy, you would receive $8.2 million and again all tax free.

I am not wishing anyone to be faced with a personal injury, but if it did happen, it is important to make prudent decisions and you could have your income replaced with guaranteed raises and the best education for your child all tax free, that would be tremendous peace of mind.

* Jeff Booth: When should one consider a structured settlement annuity?
* Always.
* Whenever the amount exceeds $10,000.
* If minor is involved - yes always because a little money can be guaranteed to provide a significant amount of money for college etc.
* If a life income is needed, then yes again.

Source

Lawsuits brought against landlords and others as the result of elevated levels of lead in children will be the subject of a one-day seminar designed for attorneys and in-house counsel on May 19, 2009.

The Lead Paint Litigation Conference, which will be held at the convenient, state-of-the-art Hub Cira Centre at Philadelphia's landmark 30th Street Station, is sponsored by HB Litigation Conferences LLC, formerly Mealey's Conferences, which has been running lead litigation programs since 1992.

HB selected two highly experienced litigators to chair the event.

Steven J. Rice of Harris Beach PLLC (www.harrisbeach.com) in New York brings to the program a diverse two decades of practice in mass torts, industry-wide litigation, insurance actions, product liability, business and commercial litigation, as well as construction and surety law. He has been at the forefront of toxic tort litigation having defended hundreds of lead paint and toxic mold cases. Rice also has handled multiple-chemical sensitivity, sick building and asbestos abatement cases.

"Rice has been a leader in toxic torts and a key player we turn to when assessing the most urgent topics for attorneys and companies," said Tom Hagy, president of HB Litigation Conferences.

"Lead paint litigation, which was supposed to be dead several times in the past 20 years, has developed another life," Rice said. "As recent studies regarding low levels of lead implicate exposure to lead as a cause of many childhood illnesses and deficits, landlords continue to face lawsuits, some of which have resulted in multi-million dollar settlements and verdicts."

Rice cites examples from Mealey's Litigation Report on Lead, the leading periodical covering the litigation, which in 2007 reported a $12.7 million settlement in Kings County, N.Y. for multiple plaintiffs in one family against the City of New York and others. The reporter also detailed a $3.7 million verdict for a single plaintiff in Queens, N.Y. and a $4 million verdict for two children in Baltimore.

For the plaintiffs' perspective, co-chair Peter Danziger of O'Connell & Aronowitz (www.oalaw.com) lays claim to an impressive list of million-dollar plus verdicts and settlements in New York. He is supervising partner of the firm's Lead Poisoning Litigation Department, which has reviewed more than a thousand cases of childhood and adult lead poisoning. His background also includes a variety of other mass tort and product cases, including pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, of the roughly three million U.S. children tested each year from 2003 to 2006, the number of children with elevated blood-lead levels was: 59,759 in 2003; 52,682 in 2004; 47,147 in 2005; and 39,526 in 2006. More information can be found at the CDC site: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/surv/stats.htm.

The sessions for the program, compressed to cut down on travel time for attendees and speakers, are:

"Pre-Action Issues" will cover potential defendants, notice of claim, statutes of limitation, potential plaintiffs, and insurance coverage. The speaker will be Delsia Marshall of Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald P.C.

"Defending the Landlord" will address factual investigations, answer and demands, records analysis, evaluation of damages, deposition, independent medical examinations, and expert retention. Thomas Cullen of Goodell DeVries Leech & Dann LLP will present.

"Notice & Regulatory Issues" will address constructive notice, Section 8 and HUD Housing Quality standards, federal disclosure requirements, local regulations, and notice requirements in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Rice and Danziger will moderate the panel which will comprise Thomas Cullen of Goodell DeVries Leech & Dann LLP, Delsia Marshall of Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald P.C., Lawrence Cohan of Anapol Schwartz, and Paul Bottari of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edleman & Dicker LLP.

"Pre-Trial Issues" will cover "confounding factors," such as drugs, alcohol, smoking, abuse, domestic violence, genetic correlations, alternate causes, and socioeconomic factors. This session also will address independent medical examinations (IME's), discovery disputes, motions in limine, and proximate cause. Lawrence Cohan of Anapol Schwartz and Paul Bottari of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP will present.

"National Lead Litigation Update: Public Nuisance, Municipal Cases and Lead in Toys," a keynote address, will be presented by Christopher Gannon of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney.

"Special Settlement Issues" will cover structured settlement annuities, supplemental needs trusts, and liens. Edward Wilcenski of Jones Wilcenski & Pleat PLLC will present.

"Update on Science & Medicine" will address low-level lead exposure and injuries to other systems and organs. Presenting will be Carla Campbell, M.D., M.S., Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Attending Pediatrician, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

"Practical Overview of Neuropsychological Testing" will cover the "what, why and how" of administered tests, and how the results are interpreted. Carmen Vazquez, Ph.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, NYU School of Medicine will present.

Finally, "Lead Inspection & Risk Assessment Protocols for Childhood Lead Exposure Cases" will cover the methodologies and interpreting findings, differences in public agency versus expert consultant practices, and assessing exposures to low lead levels. Presenting will be Vincent Coluccio, DrPH, Senior Environmental Health Consultant, TRC Corp.

Source

Some shareholders seem to have unusually rotten luck. They repeatedly invest in companies where management is allegedly inept -- or worse. Some head to court, filing suit after suit in a seeming quest to hold corporate officers and directors accountable.

Some judges see it differently: that some plaintiffs are little more than pawns for lawyers in search of big settlements. Last year, New York federal judge Denise Cote dismissed a suit against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., after the lead plaintiff, an elderly Arizona investor, admitted he thought his owns claims lacked merit.
[Some Shareholder Plaintiffs Have Little at Stake] Michelle White

Should courthouse doors be closed, at least slightly, to some shareholder plaintiffs? A number of lawyers and academics say they should. They argue that too many shareholder suits are filed by repeat or unqualified plaintiffs -- investors whose efforts generate fees for lawyers but don't do enough to address genuine grievances.

A federal law enacted more than a decade ago helped thin the number of cases filed by suspect shareholders. Passed by Congress in 1995, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, or PSLRA, encourages courts to appoint institutional investors, such as state pension funds, as lead plaintiff in securities suits.

Congress believed that investors with relatively large stakes in companies would be more apt to pursue worthy suits and to ensure that plaintiffs lawyers were competent and charged reasonable fees. The legislation also gives judges the power to block any investors from serving as lead plaintiffs in more than five federal securities class-action suits in a three-year period. Since the legislation was passed, there have been fewer suits pursued by unqualified plaintiffs, attorneys for both investors and companies say.

But problems persist because the legislation doesn't apply in state court or to all types of federal shareholders suits. As a result, corporate defense lawyers say, shareholder litigation still often is brought by individual investors who know little about the claims they have asserted.

Plaintiffs lawyers and shareholder advocates respond that small stockholders are entitled to bring these suits, and that many do so in good faith, with the goal of improving corporate governance.

Steven Staehr is one of many frequent filers in the world of shareholder litigation. The Nevada businessman reached a settlement this month in a state shareholder suit that alleged that Cash Systems Inc. structured a deal unfavorable to shareholders when it was acquired last year by Global Cash Access Inc., a provider of services to casinos. If approved by the judge, the settlement will generate no money for the plaintiffs and $175,000 for the plaintiffs' attorneys at San Diego law firm Robbins Umeda LLP.

Cash Systems denied wrongdoing, but as part of the settlement agreed to disclose more information about the sale. Global Cash didn't return a call seeking comment, and Robbins Umeda declined to comment on the case.

In the past five years, Mr. Staehr, who also didn't return calls seeking comment, has filed at least seven other shareholder suits. Most of Mr. Staehr's suits were filed as state suits or shareholder-derivative actions, a common type of litigation in which investors sue on behalf of a company itself, claiming that mismanagement by the company's officers and directors has harmed shareholders. These suits are popular, lawyers say, partly because stock losses aren't required to file a claim, as they are in securities-fraud class actions.

Plaintiffs often don't recover monetary damages in derivative cases. Instead, they often settle for a promise by a company to enact some type of governance reform, such as making some important disclosure.

Plaintiffs lawyers say that derivative suits serve a useful purpose, allowing companies to self-police. "Officers and directors want to avoid this type of litigation, so it does motivate improved corporate conduct," says Kevin M. LaCroix, a partner in OakBridge Insurance Services, which advises companies on the purchase of directors' and officers' insurance.

These cases, however, can prove costly and distracting to defend. "The same plaintiffs file derivative actions in case after case; that suggests they are purely lawyer-driven litigation," says Robert Giuffra Jr., a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP in New York who helped draft the PSLRA bill. "There is a risk that there will be improper bonus payments or bounty payments given to the plaintiffs."

San Diego law firm Robbins Umeda, which specializes in derivative litigation, was chastised in two separate cases last year by judges who raised harsh questions about suits filed on behalf of individual investors.

In the J.P. Morgan Chase suit in which Judge Cote took issue with the elderly Arizona plaintiff, Robbins Umeda then substituted a Pittsburgh man as lead plaintiff. But the court later determined that this individual had filed 25 other suits against companies, many of which he knew little about.

"From the start, this litigation has been controlled by counsel with absentee plaintiffs," Judge Cote wrote in a September opinion, in which she decried the "scandalous" origins of the case. "The very abuses that led to the reform embodied by the PSLRA permeate the world of derivative litigation."

Jeffrey Fink, a former Robbins Umeda partner who took the lead in the J.P. Morgan case, told The Wall Street Journal last September that the firm acted properly in the case. Investors aren't suspect, he added, merely because they have filed repeated suits. Robbins Umeda declined to elaborate on the case but noted that it is "ridiculous" to suggest that derivative suits are lawyer-driven. J.P. Morgan declined to comment.

In the second case, a state-court judge in North Carolina last year ruled that Robbins Umeda had filed a derivative suit against officers and directors of software company Red Hat Inc. in a "needless rush" on behalf of a young Kansas shareholder who "possessed neither a significant ownership interest in Red Hat nor any experience to prepare him to act as a fiduciary seeking recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars." The judge dismissed the claims. Red Hat declined to comment.

"Robbins Umeda had a significant amount of contact with [the plaintiff]...and they told him what was going on" in the litigation," says Ed Gaskins, an attorney who represented Robbins Umeda in the matter. Marc Umeda, a partner of the firm, adds that "in light of the serious problems facing our financial systems and the renewed vigor of shareholder activism, individual shareholders require that voice more than ever."

Some judges also have more directly questioned the motives of plaintiffs. In a shareholder suit last year against SS&C Technologies Inc., a Delaware judge berated New York plaintiffs' lawyer Richard Brualdi for allegedly filing the suit on behalf of an individual who managed investment partnerships that owned only minuscule stakes in public companies. Delaware Vice Chancellor Stephen Lamb wrote in an opinion that the investments were made to spawn shareholder suits. The plaintiffs withdrew the claim. SS&C said it was glad the judge found the plaintiffs' claims without merit.

Mr. Brualdi says all stockholders, no matter the size of their investment, have an equal right to file suits. "Shareholder activism has a real role to play in our system," Mr. Brualdi says.

Indeed, some plaintiffs attorneys say that an investor's knowledge of the ins and outs of the case isn't what matters. Plaintiffs' attorneys, after all, are the experts; they usually pay the expenses for litigation up front and bear the financial risks if a suit is unsuccessful. And judges can always step in and dismiss bogus claims.

Still, says Jonathan Rosenberg, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP in New York: "The system would work better if these cases were only brought by shareholders with real skin in the game."

Source

In a sign of the economic times, the total value of structured settlements -- in which plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits accept periodic payments rather than one lump sum of cash -- jumped by 25 percent during the fourth quarter of 2008, compared to the previous quarter, according to statistics from Structured Financial Associates, a structured settlement brokerage firm based in Atlanta.

The fourth quarter's increase, to a total dollar value of nearly $1.8 billion, could indicate the beginning of another significant increase similar to that of previous economic downturns, such as the Internet bust, when structured settlements rose by 40 percent during eight quarters in 2000 and 2001, said Randy Dyer, a consultant in Rockville, Md., and former executive vice president of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association. Dyer spoke about the rise in structured settlements this month to members of the American Insurance Association.

"The largest growth always occurs in a time of economic turmoil," Dyer told The National Law Journal. "I see a real growth in the use of structures in 2009."

Structured settlements provide tax benefits for plaintiffs. In a $600,000 structured settlement, for example, a defendant purchases a financial vehicle, such as an annuity, to provide a plaintiff with periodic payments that are tax free, he said. Although a cash settlement also is tax free, the earnings on that income, once invested, are taxed.

With a cash settlement, a poor investment could obliterate a plaintiff's income from the lawsuit, he said. "The tendency in tougher economic times is to start thinking: 'What is the securest way I can take care of myself and my family?' " he said.

To correct a typo from last week, the d4A, not the d4C, first party trust requires a clause that states that any funds remaining on the death of the disabled person must be paid to the state Medicaid recovery program prior to payment to relatives or certain expenses caused by the disabled person's death, such as funeral expenses.
Advertisement

The d4C trust is administered by a tax-exempt, non-profit organization that is allowed to keep all or most of the funds after the disabled person's death.

Both of these trusts are quite different from the third party trust. The third party trust is set up by someone other than the disabled person, and funded with funds that do not belong to the disabled person, for the benefit of the disabled person, as well as any other beneficiaries. It may be a lifetime gifting trust set up solely for the disabled person, which can be named as the beneficiary of a gift from Aunt Mary's last will, as well as receive gifts from other relatives.

The third party special needs trust can also be created by language inserted in a parent's or sibling's dynasty trust. In both cases the trust will have certain language restricting distributions to the supplemental or special needs of the disabled person from their share of the trust, in the sole discretion of the trustee. Neither third party trust will require the d4A "pay-back" clause. The trust will say who the funds go to on the death of the disabled person, such as to their lineal descendants, if any, or to their siblings, to other persons, or to a specific charity. A parent can set up a fund for their disabled child, consisting of all of their estate or that child's portion of the estate, and ensure to whom any unspent funds will go, without the obligation of the pay-back clause to Medicaid.

If, mistakenly, the grandparents name that disabled grandchild in their will, or in certain trusts, the funds will vest, or become the property of the disabled person, and disqualify him or her from benefits until the funds are spent-down or are transferred to a d4A special needs trust with the pay-back clause. I cannot over-emphasize how important it is that the parents of a disabled child warn the grandparents and other relatives, that they need to consider this language in their trust, or name the disabled child's parent's trust as the beneficiary of the disabled person's share. No one should ever make a gift to the disabled person directly.

The third party trust may come under review of the Social Security Administration, or SSA, case worker who will evaluate the trust by the Program Operations Manual System, or POMS. If the disabled individual has the power to revoke the third party trust and claim the assets, the assets will be considered a countable resource. It is wrong to disinherit the disabled child, or to trust their care and money to the other siblings, when these documents are available.
Advertisement

In Attorney David Lillesand's analysis of the January 2009 revisions of the POMS at the recent conference of the Academy of Special Needs Planners, he also mentioned that the revisions make it clear that the pay-back obligation of the d4A trust must not limit the payback to only Florida reimbursement, but must include the obligation to pay-back all states proportionately that provided medical care. The trust also cannot attempt to limit the pay-back to those medical expenses incurred after the trust was established, but must include those expenses incurred by any state prior to the trust.

To be approved as a first party d4A special needs trust by SSA, the caseworker must find that the trust was signed as trustmaker by a parent, grandparent, or a court, for the sole benefit of a disabled person, while under the age of 65, and contains a pay-back clause. The question had arisen of whether annuity payments from a personal injury settlement that will continue after age 65 would disqualify the applicant. The revisions make it clear that such are permitted if the annuity contains that restriction, not a standard clause and the trust contains an irrevocable assignment of the right to receive annuity payments made when the beneficiary was under age 65. If a person over age 65 has other funds, such as an inheritance, a d4A trust is not permitted. They must either use a d4C pooled trust, where the funds do not go to named beneficiaries, but are used to pay-back or remain in the trust for other disabled beneficiaries, or they must use some other strategy to shelter the funds.
(3 of 3)

Although certain administrative expenses may be paid after the death of the disabled person prior to the pay-back to the state, the amendments to the POMS require language in the trust prohibiting payment of estate tax not due to the inclusion of trust assets in the estate, payment of debts to third parties, payments of funeral expenses and payments to residuary beneficiaries. Funeral expenses should be pre-paid by the trustee during the life of the disabled person.
Advertisement

The revisions to the POMS do not answer the controversy raised in some states where a minor could redirect the annuity payments from a structured settlement after they reach the age of majority under the state's guardianship law. If they can redirect the payments to themselves, the trust fails the pay-back requirement and the assets will count as income or a resource. It is important that the trust contain an irrevocable assignment to the trust, not a standard clause, and does not allow the parents or child when becoming an adult to sell the remaining payments to avoid the pay-back.

Finally, Lillesand reminded the attorneys present of the importance of including a savings clause in every trust. The clause would state that if any provision of the trust would disqualify the beneficiary from public benefits, then that offending clause would be void, permitting the trust to meet the requirements for a special needs trust. Any provision of the trust which is inconsistent with the statute would be void. He calls this clause the "get out of jail free card."

If you’ve received this windfall, it might sound like you’re fixed for life. The reality is that your financial life has changed drastically, and you need to plan for it.

A structured settlement is a way of receiving partial payments for a major amount of money you’ve won or received in a lottery, a court or insurance case. You hear a lot of commercials on the air for getting cash from structured settlements, but it’s important to understand what they are and how they should be handled if you’re ever the recipient.

A good place to start is with a tax expert like a certified public accountant, a financial planning expert like a certified financial planner professional, or an attorney or structured settlement consultant who has significant experience dealing with these payment structures. When there is big money at stake, it might make sense to consult all three. Some ideas:

First, the definition: A structured settlement is structured like an annuity. It is a contract written by an insurance company that provides periodic payments to a winner in a lottery, a lawsuit or some other settlement arrangement over time. Amounts can be paid out weekly, monthly or yearly.

The benefits: Structured correctly – and with the right oversight going in – a structured settlement annuity provides a payment stream that may be tax-free over a period of time during the winner’s lifetime and remaining payments may be bequeathed to his or her survivors after their death.

The pitfalls: One should never accept a structured settlement agreement without vetting it against their own tax situation or estate needs. Also, it helps to have an expert who understands these agreements well enough to know whether certain fees or charges connected with that settlement are appropriate to the overall size of the award. Keep it in mind that the structured settlement must be purchased by the person or company that is at fault or is making the award. This is why it’s particularly important to have an expert watching over that selection process from the moment the award is announced.

The lump sum alternative: If a winner chooses a lump sum payment over a periodic payment based on the full amount of the award, that payment will likely be handled with an insurance contract that physically pays the lump sum but at a much heftier chunk of the full total – they get a big payoff for giving you a big one-time payoff. Keep in mind that the lump-sum payoff idea may not be worth pursuing unless it’s large enough to throw off substantial investment income in the future and that you have talented management making sure that lump sum makes money over time. This is why it’s always a good reason to confer with tax, financial and investment experts on the best way to go with either a lump sum or a periodic payment from the moment you’ve been informed you won the money.

Keep in mind that others get an advantage too: Many attorneys are also structuring their fees that are taken directly out of a court award. This allows them to postpone receiving their share of an award on a tax-deferred basis so they can build their own retirement funds. There’s nothing wrong with this, but it’s important to know who else in the process might benefit from any decisions that get made.

Source

A lawsuit against The Hartford accusing it of fraudulently keeping millions in settlement money that should have gone to accident victims will proceed as a nationwide class action under a ruling this week by a federal judge in Bridgeport.

The 2005 case was filed on behalf of three people in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma who had been injured in motor vehicle accidents by people insured by companies that are part of The Hartford Financial Services Group.

The suit involves "structured settlements," which resolve personal injury and workers' compensation claims and often use annuities to provide the payments. The Hartford allegedly gave people written statements of the cost or value of their settlement or annuity without indicating the company would take at least 15 percent of the amount for various fees, taxes, and profit.

The Hartford figured it could benefit by having its Hartford Life division provide the annuities for such settlements. The company started a program in 1997 using selected brokers to ensure the annuities for settlements that would be procured from Hartford Life instead of competitors, the suit says.

The Hartford "has profited enormously from its uniform policy, pattern and practice to deceive claimants and their representatives," plaintiffs alleged.

U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall this week ruled the case could proceed as a class action under alleged fraud and federal racketeering violations but not on unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims. Plaintiffs believe there are more than 9,400 people affected.

The class involves people who entered into structured settlements with The Hartford from 1997 and that included annuities from Hartford Life.

The Hartford declined to comment.


Source

Parents of two of the child victims of Jon White settled their claims against the Urbana school district on Friday morning.

Parents of the first child, identified only as Jane Doe-4, were awarded guardianship over a settlement of $398,500 present-day dollars, an amount that Judge Brian McPheters said "is the highest present value that I've heard of (in White-related cases)."

Jane Doe-4's father, called John Doe-4, said he first learned of the possible abuse of his daughter, now 10, in January 2007.

Parents of the second child, called Jane Doe-6, were awarded $190,000 present-day dollars, a smaller amount because the parents had moved from the Urbana school district before the 2006-07 school year, when the school district was first notified of parental concerns about White's actions with children. Jane Doe-6 is now 9 years old.

The money from both suits settles the parents' claims against the Urbana school district, but not claims against White or the Normal school district, where White taught before coming to Urbana.

White, a former Urbana elementary school teacher, has been convicted of 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, including eight for actions against minors in Champaign County, and two for actions in McLean County. He is serving a sentence of 60 years in prison.

Urbana lawyers Tom Bruno and Denny Mickunas represented the parents of both Does. Both lawyers will receive one-third of each settlement.

Speaking at Jane Doe-4's case, Bruno said he and Mickunas spent nearly 700 hours on the case. He said some costs, like transcription fees, were split among lawyers representing all of the victims of Jon White to reduce cost on any one girl's family.

Bruno, speaking about his fees, said that when the parents of Jane Doe-4 initially received a settlement offer from the Urbana school's insurer, it was for $20,000. Through mediation, the amount rose to $60,000. After that, Bruno said, there was the "somewhat dramatic walking out of the mediation."

Then the civil suit was filed. "Ultimately, the offer went from $60,000 to $398,000," Bruno said. "We decided that was fair and reasonable."

Speaking at Jane Doe-6's case, Bruno said "the school district was claiming they were not responsible at all" because the actions occurred before they were notified about White.

In both cases, Bruno said lawyer fees were contingent upon winning money in the case either through settlement or court decision.

Urbana attorney Larry Silkwood was the girls' guardian ad litem, in court to represent the girls' interests. He earned $275 in fees from each case.

Dennis Weedman, the Collinsville attorney representing the Urbana school district, did not attend the settlement hearings. He did not return a message for comment on Friday afternoon.

Urbana school board President Mark Netter said he could not comment on the matter.

Both settlements will pay out in large part through structured payments which, with their accruals over time, will add up to far more than the settlement's present-day amounts.

For Jane Doe-4, she'll begin receiving payments of $30,000 a year for four years, starting when she turns 18 in 2017. For 15 years, she'll receive payments of $3,150 a month, starting in 2023. She'll also receive two lump sums, one in 2023 and one in 2028, each for $25,000.

An additional $15,667 will be paid immediately and divided among the parents, the lawyers and other fees.

For Jane Doe-6, she'll begin receiving payments of $25,000 a year for four years, also beginning when she turns 18. For 15 years starting in 2024, she'll receive payments of $750 a month. She'll also receive one lump sum in 2029 of $31,807.

As well, Bruno and Mickunas will receive an immediate amount of about $21,000 and the parents will receive about $13,000 to cover costs of mediation and other fees, with the remainder going to the couple to compensate for their emotional pain.

Source

A Cumberland County judge has approved a $525,000 insurance settlement that will benefit a 12-year-old West Shore boy whose mother died while undergoing medical treatment for allergies in August 2003.

The deal was sanctioned Wednesday by Judge Edward E. Guido nearly five years after Frances Angeloff of Summerdale filed a malpractice lawsuit over the death of her 25-year-old daughter, Selena Angeloff.

In the suit, Frances Angeloff claimed her daughter, who suffered from multiple allergies, died because of a lack of proper medical supervision by personnel of Medical Arts Allergy of Hampden Township, where she was being treated.

Frances Angeloff told Guido she agreed to the settlement "for the good of" her grandson, who lives with her. More than $300,000 will go into a structured settlement for Selena Angeloff's son. Most of that money won't be available to the boy until he becomes an adult.

The rest of the settlement proceeds will go to Villari, Brandes & Kline, the Conshohocken law firm that represented Frances Angeloff.

Source

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, a national law firm with offices in New York, Los Angeles and Miami, announced today that Christopher McGlashan has joined Stroock's Insurance Practice Group as Special Counsel effective immediately. Mr. McGlashan's focus will be corporate insurance work.

Stroock's Insurance Practice Group represents financial institutions, insurers, brokers and other corporate clients in mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, company formation, public and private securities transactions, and financing and derivative transactions involving the insurance industry. Stroock's attorneys work with insurance and reinsurance company and investment banking clients to develop innovative products, often combining insurance or reinsurance risk transfer methods with capital market risk-transfer devices.

Mr. McGlashan has over 20 years of experience as a lawyer and banker in both corporate and private practice. He was most recently the Managing Director (Group Head Insurance Solutions Group/Global Capital Markets) at Citigroup. Mr. McGlashan has expertise in insurance and reinsurance financing transactions, including life insurance reserve funding, capital markets and bank programs, and property catastrophe bonds. Mr. McGlashan has developed variable annuity, life settlement, structured settlement and other capital/surplus relief products. He has also represented financial institutions and other entities in the acquisition, sale, merger and reorganization of insurance companies, brokerage firms and holding company systems. Mr. McGlashan has been active in the regulatory arena as well, co-authoring the special purpose financial captive legislation adopted in South Carolina.

Prior to Citigroup, Mr. McGlashan worked as an in-house counsel and Senior Vice President at Lehman Brothers in the Structured Finance Insurance Solutions Group. Mr. McGlashan's experience also includes five years as an attorney at Dewey LeBoeuf (formerly LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green and Macrae) in the Corporate and Insurance departments, and five years as a corporate/mergers and acquisitions solicitor at Speechly Bircham in London, England.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP is a law firm providing transactional and litigation guidance to leading multinational corporations, investment banks and venture capital firms in the U.S. and abroad. Stroock's emphasis on client service and innovation has made it one of the nation's leading law firms for 130 years. Stroock's practice areas include capital markets/securities, commercial finance, mergers and acquisitions and joint ventures, venture capital, private funds, derivatives and commodities, employment law and benefits, energy and project finance, entertainment, environmental law, financial restructuring, financial services litigation, insurance, intellectual property, investment management, litigation, personal client services, real estate, structured finance and tax.

Source

Public Service Commission not pleased with possible agreement after hundreds of filed complaints from customers.


Verizon's John R. Gilbert testifies as the company's David A. DeWalle (left) and Harold E. West III listen.

State utility regulators and union officials questioned yesterday what consumers will gain from a proposed agreement with telephone provider Verizon in settling concerns over delayed repairs as well as deregulating some services.

The settlement stems from a 2007 Maryland Public Service Commission investigation into hundreds of complaints that Verizon technicians routinely missed repair appointments with customers, leaving thousands without service for more than four days.

Verizon and PSC staff members structured a settlement that must be approved by the five-member commission. Commission members began hearings yesterday in Baltimore that will continue today. A ruling will be issued later.

"What I see here is a lot of benefit for Verizon, and not for consumers," said Commission Chairman Douglas Nazarian. "What's in it for the people?"

If approved, the settlement calls for Verizon to pay $10.88 to current residential customers who were without service for more than four days, as well as $2.77 to those whose appointments were not honored. In addition, in the future, if the average time to restore service is more than two calendar days, the company would pay up to $4 million, to be divided among affected residents.

Verizon, Maryland's largest telephone provider, would also lower the price customers in the region pay to avoid long-distance charges to areas such as Washington and Baltimore if they sign up for bundled telephone packages. That fee would be lowered to $2 from its current $14 under the settlement.

Also, the company would raise basic dial-tone service rates by $1 in June, in addition to 38 cents under the existing price-cap plan. That service is typically the bare-bones calling plan that ranges from $6 to $15. In exchange, the company would agree to freeze rates for the next three years for that service. That would bring in about $14 million, company officials testified yesterday.

Vincent Trivelli, an attorney for the Communication Workers of America, which represents 5,000 Verizon employees, questioned how company representatives will ensure reliable and available service. He complained that the agreement did not specify how much money will be spent on the existing copper wire network or staffing levels.

He said the company has offered some staff retirement packages and has said that they have too many workers."We don't know exactly what will be required going forward," said John R. Gilbert, Verizon's vice president for regulatory affairs. "We need to have freedom to run the business as appropriate at the time."

Nazarian took issue with the settlement's limit on penalties for meeting service benchmarks. For example, the proposed agreement says penalties will not be enforced if Verizon's market share drops below 50 percent. Gilbert would not detail how much market share Verizon currently has in Maryland.

The company wants regulators to allow it some flexibility in pricing on bundled packages so it can better compete with cable companies and others that offer telephone services but are not subject to PSC oversight.

During questioning, Gilbert said the two-day average repair time would include fixes for business customers, who are given priority over residential lines.

"How should we have any confidence that the market will demand adequate service quality of Verizon if these [penalty] payments go away?" Nazarian asked.

Gilbert said after the hearing that even if the terms of the agreement are accepted, the commission still has the authority to penalize Verizon for poor service. "They can still enforce all of the existing regulations," he said.

source

A federal judge this afternoon approved the city's $150,000 settlement to the family of a man killed during a 2005 traffic stop.

U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich said the settlement is "fair, adequate and reasonable," despite disagreements among Musa Yazid's relatives as to how the money is being divided.

The settlement also includes a provision that Police Chief Stephen Hogue write a letter to the family that will be "at least an acknowledgement, if not apologizing for the conduct of the officers that night," said Chad Pilon, an attorney for the family. That aspect was not subject to the judge's approval.

Ursula Richardson, an attorney for the city, said the letter, which has not been finalized, will not be an apology. Rather, she described it as "an acknowledgement that even though we believe the officers did what they were supposed to do, that we understand that they lost somebody who was important to them."

Yazid was pulled over for a traffic violation May 19, 2005, and police said the stop went awry after he gave a false name. They said there was a struggle and two officers, David Joyner and Jason Brocato, used stun guns to try to control Yazid.

Yazid, of Tampa, got back in his car and tried to drive off, police said. When his car headed toward one of the officers, they shot Yazid.

The lawsuit, filed in 2007, alleged police tried to take Yazid into custody with "no information or probable cause to believe Yazid was dangerous, violent or a threat to anyone."

Yazid questioned and argued with the officers, the lawsuit states, but was gathering his belongings to prepare to leave his vehicle.

"Impatient with the speed at which Yazid was exiting the vehicle, defendants Joyner and Brocato forcefully began to pull him from the vehicle, assaulting and battering him in the process," the suit says.

An internal investigation found the use of deadly force was justified and states witnesses said Yazid didn't comply with officers' repeated commands.

Yazid's wife, Virginia "Tracey" Deneed Yazid, and two children, Khalid Earl Alphonso Yazid, 9, and Jameisha Williams, 19, will divide approximately $100,000 of the settlement left after $16,500 in attorneys' fees is deducted, along with other costs. Pilon stressed that the attorneys' fees amount to about 11 percent of the award, while state law allows up to 25 percent.

Yazid's widow is to receive 60 percent of the remaining award and his children 20 percent each.

Khalid Yazid's guardian ad litem, Michael A. Tonelli, said in a report that the agreement is in the child's best interests in light of issues as to whether the officers violated Musa Yazid's constitutional rights or used excessive force.

Tonelli recommended that the $20,406 for Khalid Yazid be divided, with $13,225 being paid to the state's College Prepaid Fund and the remaining $7,181 to be placed in a structured annuity from which the child will receive monthly payments of $226 for four years, beginning in 2017.

But the boy's mother, Enriqita Marshall, questioned why the children aren't receiving the same share as Virginia Yazid.

"She can replace her spouse," Marshall told the judge. "The children can't replace their father."

After the hearing, Marshall said she wasn't happy with the outcome but respected the judge's decision. Williams said she was "at a loss of words."

Yazid's widow did not speak at the hearing and declined to talk to a reporter.

That aspect was not subject to the judge's approval. Ursula Richardson, an attorney for the city, said the letter, which has not been finalized, will not be an apology. Rather, she described it as "an acknowledgement that even though we believe the officers did what they were supposed to do, that we understand that they lost somebody who was important to them." Yazid was pulled over for a traffic violation May 19, 2005, and police said the stop went awry after he gave a false name. They said there was a struggle and two officers, David Joyner and Jason Brocato, used stun guns to try to control Yazid. Yazid, of Tampa, got back in his car and tried to drive off, police said. When his car headed toward one of the officers, they shot Yazid. The lawsuit, filed in 2007, alleged police tried to take Yazid into custody with "no information or probable cause to believe Yazid was dangerous, violent or a threat to anyone."

Yazid questioned and argued with the officers, the lawsuit states, but was gathering his belongings to prepare to leave his vehicle. "Impatient with the speed at which Yazid was exiting the vehicle, defendants Joyner and Brocato forcefully began to pull him from the vehicle, assaulting and battering him in the process," the suit says. An internal investigation found the use of deadly force was justified and states witnesses said Yazid didn't comply with officers' repeated commands.

Yazid's wife, Virginia "Tracey" Deneed Yazid, and two children, Khalid Earl Alphonso Yazid, 9, and Jameisha Williams, 19, will divide approximately $100,000 of the settlement left after $16,500 in attorneys' fees is deducted, along with other costs. Pilon stressed that the attorneys' fees amount to about 11 percent of the award, while state law allows up to 25 percent. Yazid's widow is to receive 60 percent of the remaining award and his children 20 percent each. Khalid Yazid's guardian ad litem, Michael A. Tonelli, said in a report that the agreement is in the child's best interests in light of issues as to whether the officers violated Musa Yazid's constitutional rights or used excessive force.

Tonelli recommended that the $20,406 for Khalid Yazid be divided, with $13,225 being paid to the state's College Prepaid Fund and the remaining $7,181 to be placed in a structured annuity from which the child will receive monthly payments of $226 for four years, beginning in 2017. But the boy's mother, Enriqita Marshall, questioned why the children aren't receiving the same share as Virginia Yazid. "She can replace her spouse," Marshall told the judge. "The children can't replace their father."

After the hearing, Marshall said she wasn't happy with the outcome but respected the judge's decision. Williams said she was "at a loss of words." Yazid's widow did not speak at the hearing and declined to talk to a reporter.">read more

Lawyers for ConnectU are bragging about winning a $65 million settlement for their clients from Facebook. But what did Divya Narendra and Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss really get from Mark Zuckerberg? Almost nothing.

The Winklevosses and Narendra, Harvard classmates of Zuckerberg, sued him after he launched Facebook, claiming he had done work for their project and then stolen code from it to start Facebook. They reached a settlement last summer in which Facebook agreed to acquire ConnectU for cash and stock — $20 million in cash and 1.25 million shares of Facebook. But then they fired their former lawyers, Quinn Emanuel, amid a contest over legal fees, the value of the settelement, and new evidence they said they'd discovered.

Based on the price Microsoft paid for its 1.6 percent stake in Facebook in the fall of 2007, the stock component of that settlement was worth $45 million. Quinn Emanuel is seeking $13 million in a contingency fee — 20 percent of the total take, which is $65 million as far as ConnectU's former lawyers are concerned.

But the appraised value of the stock last summer was far less — $11 million, based on a valuation Facebook sought for its own stock-option plan. That's $34 million of $65 million gone.

Even on that lower value for the stock, plus the cash, ConnectU's founders owed taxes. (We hear the deal was structured as a taxable acquisition.) Assuming a capital gains rate of 15 percent and a negligible cost basis for the startup, 15 percent of $31 million. That rounds up to $4.7 million.

Their lawyers want $13 million, leaving them with $2.7 million from the cash component — which they have likely already spent in legal fees.

What about those 1.25 million shares of Facebook? They are essentially worthless. If they could sell them, they would likely get $2.50 to $3 a share. But Facebook recently changed its bylaws to forbid private transfers of its stock without board approval. ConnectU's founders cannot sell them, nor can they give them to their lawyers in lieu of cash, without Facebook's okay. And it is hard to imagine a board of directors essentially controlled by Zuckerberg voting to make life easy for his college rivals. Unless Facebook sells or goes public — both unlikely prospects in the short term — ConnectU's founders have no way of realizing value from their stake. So we can discount their $11 million in notional value from the ConnectU take.

What's left: $2.7 million. Here's a chart showing how you go from $65 million to less than $3 million in four easy steps:



Which explains why the Winklevosses are dragging this thing out. After years of fighting in court, they have essentially nothing to show for their troubles. They come from a wealthy family. Their father, Howard, has a fortune from his company, Winklevoss Technologies, which makes software for analyzing pension plans. So they can afford to fight, and it's not like they need Mark Zuckerberg's money. But how else do the rich keep score? read more