Browsed by
Tag: antiassignment “anti-assignment”

Judge Overseeing Concussion Settlement Invalidates Litigation Funding Agreements with NFL Players

Judge Overseeing Concussion Settlement Invalidates Litigation Funding Agreements with NFL Players

A federal judge ruled last week that litigation funding agreements with National Football League players who are seeking to recover under the NFL’s concussion settlement agreement. In a sweeping ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Anita Broady held that the anti-assignment provision in the settlement agreement precluded the agreements where by the players sold their right to receive future settlement payments in order to receive more immediate sums from the litigation funders. The high-profile concussion settlement involves former NFL players who settled…

Read More Read More

Anomalous: One Way to Describe Kentucky Intermediate Appellate Court’s 2-1 Opinion in Structured Settlement Protection Act Case

Anomalous: One Way to Describe Kentucky Intermediate Appellate Court’s 2-1 Opinion in Structured Settlement Protection Act Case

  “Anomalous” is, according to the Dictionary.com, an adjective that has several meanings.  One “deviating from or inconsistent with the common order, form, or rule; irregular; abnormal.”  A second definition is “not fitting into a common or familiar type, classification, or pattern; unusual.”  And a third is “incongruous or inconsistent.” An opinion released by the Kentucky intermediate appellate court can be described as anomalous.  There are no other appellate opinions like it, and the those that address similar issues – even…

Read More Read More

Appeals Court in Texas – In Line with Appellate Rulings in Other States – Upholds Anti-Assignment Provision to Preclude Secondary Market Transaction

Appeals Court in Texas – In Line with Appellate Rulings in Other States – Upholds Anti-Assignment Provision to Preclude Secondary Market Transaction

An anti-assignment provision in a structured settlement agreement is valid and enforceable and precludes a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights, in a case where the annuity issuer and structured settlement obligor have asserted their rights under the provision. That was the holding in an opinion issued last week by a panel of the Texas Court of Appeals. The holding is consistent with appellate court rulings in state structured settlement protection act proceedings a number of other states, including California,…

Read More Read More

Appeals Court Reverses Split-Payment Order

Appeals Court Reverses Split-Payment Order

A California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s order approving a transfer of structured settlement payment rights because the order would have required that the future payments be split. In RSL Funding, LLC v. Alford, 239 Cal. App. 4th 741 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2015), the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, reversed the decision of a Riverside County, California, Superior Court that approved a transfer. The appellate court held that the approval violated the provision of the California…

Read More Read More

Revised Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act Recognizes Contractual Anti-Assignment Provisions May Be Waived, Or Not

Revised Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act Recognizes Contractual Anti-Assignment Provisions May Be Waived, Or Not

Some important provisions of the Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act deal with contractual anti-assignment provisions, addressing some issues that arose following a 2013 Illinois appellate court opinion. The opinion, Settlement Funding, LLC v. Brenston, 998 N.E.2d 111 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013), said that the trial court that approved certain structured settlement factoring transactions was without authority to approve those transfers of settlement payments because the Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act did not apply when the settlement agreement contained an enforceable…

Read More Read More