Another Reason To Reject Proposed Transaction: No Proof That Settlement Factoring Company Served Payee, Says Court

Another Reason To Reject Proposed Transaction: No Proof That Settlement Factoring Company Served Payee, Says Court

As described here, a New York court this year rejected an “unconscionable” proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights as failing to meet either the “best interest” or “fair and reasonable” standard of the New York Structured Settlement Protection Act.

Acting Supreme Court Justice John H. Rouse, in In the Matter of the Petition of J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC (Sanders), Index No. 001145, Supreme Court, Suffolk County, N.Y. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 21, 2018), also said that the factoring company failed to meet a key requirement of the New York SSPA.

Said Justice Rouse: “[T]here has been no proof that this petition, brought by order to show cause, was served upon Frank Sanders in accordance with the order of the court.”

The requirement is spelled out in New York General Obligations Law § 5-1705(c), which provides that the factoring company must serve “upon all interested parties” the petition seeking judicial approval of the transfer pursuant to the New York SSPA.

The New York SSPA also defines “interested parties” as including the payee – in this case, Frank Sanders.  Thus, without service on the payee, Justice Rouse could not find that the transfer complied with the New York SSPA – a prerequisite to judicial approval (as per New York General Obligations Law § 5-1706(a)).

The opinion is available in full here.

Comments are closed.