Browsed by
Tag: “court order” “vacatur”

In Wall v. Corona Capital, Federal Appeals Court Did Not Make Distinction Between Sale Of Structured Settlement Payment Rights (Which Was At Issue) And Sale Of Annuity (Which Was Not)

In Wall v. Corona Capital, Federal Appeals Court Did Not Make Distinction Between Sale Of Structured Settlement Payment Rights (Which Was At Issue) And Sale Of Annuity (Which Was Not)

As discussed in this post, a federal appeals court has ruled against investors in a structured settlement factoring transaction, reversing a lower court ruling that said they could recover from an investment company that had sold them its putative rights to future structured settlement payments. The opinion contains some statements that are, at best, difficult to square with applicable law, including prior precedent from the same federal appeals court.  Those statements are worth reviewing, and some are looked at more…

Read More Read More

Latest Development in Lawsuit Over Invalidated Settlement Factoring Order: Court Awards Fees to Re-Assignees

Latest Development in Lawsuit Over Invalidated Settlement Factoring Order: Court Awards Fees to Re-Assignees

The Wall v. Altium litigation’s latest development is another win for the Walls, the re-assignee investors who did not receive the settlement payments that they thought they had purchased because the order approving the sale was later deemed to be void. In a May 10, 2017, opinion, the federal court for the Western District of Pennsylvania awarded the Walls attorneys’ fees and costs in their lawsuit against the financial advisors who connected them with factoring company Corona Capital. As set…

Read More Read More

After Court Invalidates Structured Settlement Payment Transfer Order, Re-Assignees Sue Financial Advisors, Factoring Company

After Court Invalidates Structured Settlement Payment Transfer Order, Re-Assignees Sue Financial Advisors, Factoring Company

The federal court’s ruling last week in a lawsuit captioned Wall v. Corona Capital, Civil Action No. 16-1044, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161683 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2016), has to do primarily with whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Corona in Pennsylvania, and also whether the court should agree with a financial advisor company’s request to transfer to federal court in New Jersey. And the decision can be summed up by saying that the court found that it did not…

Read More Read More