Browsed by
Tag: “interested parties”

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…

Read More Read More

No Proof That Factoring Company Notified California Attorney General, Payee, Others, Says Court In Rejecting Proposed Transfer

No Proof That Factoring Company Notified California Attorney General, Payee, Others, Says Court In Rejecting Proposed Transfer

The payee changed his mind about selling his settlement payment rights, and the factoring company provided the court with no proof of service on interesting parties and included a prohibited provision in its proposed contract, so a California court recently issued a ruling rejecting a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights. Orange County, California, Superior Court Judge Robert J. Moss issued a May 18, 2018 tentative order denying the petition for court approval, under the California Structured Settlement Protection…

Read More Read More