Licensing, Laws, & Regulations

As described here, a New York trial court denied a request for court approval of a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights in the case of In the Matter of the Petition of Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC v. Myricks, No. 114406/11, 34 Misc.3d 1236(A), 20120 N.Y. Slip Op. 50388(U), 2012 WL 752622 (Table) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 15, 2012). The court court concluded that the transfer would not be in the best interests of the payee, and was not fair and reasonable. The court also reviewed a number of other opinions under the New York Structured Settlement Protection Act,... Peter Vodola

In the Matter of the Petition of Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC v. Myricks, No. 114406/11, 34 Misc.3d 1236(A), 20120 N.Y. Slip Op. 50388(U), 2012 WL 752622 (Table) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 15, 2012), is a 2012 opinion in which the court denied a request for court approval of a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights. The decision, in this New York Structured Settlement Protection Act case, highlights how judges in SSPA matters have often focused on a structured settlement's history - and, in particular, whether there have been prior transfers or prior attempts at transfers: Mr. Myricks[, the payee,]... Peter Vodola

"Payments are postponed over time in order that the young beneficiaries may get access to the proceeds of their settlements only as they progressively mature." That is the policy underlying both the establishment of structured settlements for minor personal injury claimants and the Massachusetts Structured Settlement Protection Act, a Bay State trial court said in an opinion earlier this year in an SSPA case. In Derochea v. Kane, No. BRCV2005-01327-B, 2012 WL 447623 (Mass. Super. Ct. Feb. 7, 2012), the court denied a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights from payee Ashley Derochea to factoring company J.G. Wentworth Originations,... Peter Vodola

The Massachusetts Structured Settlement Protection Act case of Derochea v. Kane, No. BRCV2005-01327-B, 2012 WL 447623 (Mass. Super. Ct. Feb. 7, 2012), is described in this post. Derochea involved a Massachusetts trial court's decision to deny a request for court approval of a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights. The court said the proposed transfer was not in the payee's best interest, and was not fair and reasonable. Relevant to the court's decision was the history of prior transfer attempts concerning the same structured settlement. The payee had already assigned a portion of her payment rights, in two prior... Peter Vodola

The first problem was that the life insurance agent had an ownership interest in a life settlements business. The second was that he faced felony criminal charges. (The charges were later dismissed.) The result was that the insurance company told the agent to resign as an insurance agent, with the possibility of later seeking reinstatement - after, for instance, he sold any interest in the life settlements company. The agent was not reinstated, and later sued, saying that he had a valid contract for reinstatement. But he did not, said the court in Silber v. New York Life Ins. Co.,... Peter Vodola

What does a life settlement company do? The court in Silber v. New York Life Ins. Co., 2012 Slip Op. 00816, 2012 WL 371887 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., 1st Dep't Feb. 7, 2012) (discussed in this post), included this description of the life settlements business. A life settlement or viatical insurance company purchases life insurance policies from policy owners before the policies mature. A policy typically sells at a price discounted from the face amount of the policy but in excess of the premiums paid or cash surrender value. This allows a terminally ill or elderly policy holder access... Peter Vodola

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered, in the context of debtors who argued that benefits under structured settlement annuity were eligible for exemption, whether the Arizona Structured Settlement Protection Act acted as a spendthrift trust provision. In re Messer, Nos. AZ-11-1505-JuPaD, 11-03007, 2012 WL 762828 (B.A.P. 9th. Cir. Mar. 9, 2012), involved arguments by the debtors that the structured settlement payments fell within a spendthrift trust exemption. The appeals court did not agree, saying that the Arizona Structured Settlement Protection Act’s authorization for court’s to approve transfers under certain circumstances “is contrary to... Peter Vodola

Litigation funding agreements sometimes appear legally questionable, at best, due to legal prohibitions against assignment of certain types of claims. In Feingold v. Liberty Mut. Group, Civil Action No. 11-5364 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2012), involved a bad faith tort claim, which the court said was non-assignable under the circumstances of the case. For an extended excerpt from the opinion, please see below the break. Pro se plaintiffs Allen L. Feingold ('Feingold') and Barbara Quinn as Executrix of the Estate of Theresa Thompson ('Thompson') bring this diversity action for punitive and other damages against Liberty Mutual Group, Liberty Mutual Insurance... Peter Vodola

As discussed here, Kelly v. Legacy Benefits Corp., No. 104485/10, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50510(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 12, 2012), is an opinion where the court concluded that the claims alleged by the plaintiff's claims, arising from a viatical investment transaction, were barred by applicable statutes of limitations. Besides other comments, the court had this to say about how viatical settlements can be risky: 'Viatical settlements can be risky investments' primarily because no one can predict with absolute certainty the timing of any insured’s death. Sec & Exch Comm’n ('SEC'), Viatical Settlements,(last visited March 5, 2012), http:// www.sec.gov/answers/viaticalsettle.htm. Once... Peter Vodola

Kelly v. Legacy Benefits Corp., No. 104485/10, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50510(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 12, 2012), is a judicial opinion where the court concluded that the claims alleged by the plaintiff were barred by applicable statutes of limitations. Those claims were for, among other things, deceptive trade practices, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the plaintiff's agreement with the defendant to invest in two viatical policies. The allegations hinged on whether the defendant had misrepresented life expectancy information. The court said in conclusion: Kelly bases all his claims on the same factual theory: that proper... Peter Vodola