Kentucky Structured Settlement Protection Act Applies To Tort Settlements, Not Workers’ Compensation Settlements, Says Court

Kentucky Structured Settlement Protection Act Applies To Tort Settlements, Not Workers’ Compensation Settlements, Says Court

The Kentucky Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to transfer the rights to future workers’ compensation settlement payments. American Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. DRB Capital, LLC, 2017-SC-000329-DG, 2018 Ky. LEXIS 535 (Ky. Dec. 13, 2018), is the citation for the Kentucky highest court’s opinion in which it held that the Kentucky Structured Settlement Protection Act did not apply to workers’ compensation settlement payments, and therefore the trial court did not have authority to approve a transfer of such payments…

Read More Read More

Kentucky Supreme Court Joins Other State Appeals Courts In Enforcing Contractual Anti-Assignment Provisions In Structured Settlements

Kentucky Supreme Court Joins Other State Appeals Courts In Enforcing Contractual Anti-Assignment Provisions In Structured Settlements

As discussed here, the Kentucky Supreme Court recently held that that state’s structured settlement protection act does not apply to workers’ compensation settlements. In reversing an opinion of an intermediate appellate court, the Kentucky Supreme Court in American Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. DRB Capital, LLC, 2017-SC-000329-DG, 2018 Ky. LEXIS 535 (Ky. Dec. 13, 2018), also extensively discussed anti-assignment provisions in structured settlements.  In concluding that the anti-assignment clauses in the structured settlement agreement, qualified assignment agreement, and annuity contract were…

Read More Read More

Kentucky Supreme Court Rejects Factoring Of Workers’ Compensation Settlement Payments

Kentucky Supreme Court Rejects Factoring Of Workers’ Compensation Settlement Payments

The Kentucky Supreme Court has reversed a lower appeals court decision involving the Kentucky Structured Settlement Protection Act, and rejected an attempt by a factoring company to effectuate a transfer of workers’ compensation settlement. In American Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. DRB Capital, LLC, 2017-SC-000329-DG, 2018 Ky. LEXIS 535 (Ky. Dec. 13, 2018), Kentucky’s highest court held that the Kentucky Structured Settlement Protection Act did not apply to workers’ compensation settlement payments. The matter involved a proposed transfer of structured…

Read More Read More

Jury Convicts Upstate New York Man Of Hiring Hit Men In Murder-For-Hire/Life Settlements Scheme

Jury Convicts Upstate New York Man Of Hiring Hit Men In Murder-For-Hire/Life Settlements Scheme

A New York jury has found that an employer hired hit men to kill his one-time employee so he could collect the man’s life insurance proceeds. The Albany Times-Union reported that a jury this week concluded that Tarchand Lall, a Schenectady, New York, contractor, hired two hit men to kill Charles Dembrosky two years ago. The newspaper reported that “[t]he jury convicted Lall of first-degree murder and life settlement fraud, finding that he wanted Dembrosky dead for $150,000 in life…

Read More Read More

Judge Points Out That Courts Are Not Meant To Be Rubber Stamps In Structured Settlement Protection Act Proceedings

Judge Points Out That Courts Are Not Meant To Be Rubber Stamps In Structured Settlement Protection Act Proceedings

As described here, a New York judge concluded it was not fair and reasonable for a structured settlement payee to sell more than $470,000 in future settlement payments for an immediate sum of $10,000. In Matter of J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC (Kwant), Index No. 52903/2018, 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5584 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 4, 2018), the judge, Dutchess County, New York, Supreme Court Justice James D. Pagones, also pointed out that, in a New York Structured Settlement Protection Act proceeding,…

Read More Read More

New York Judge: Selling $478,000 In Future Payments For $10,000 Is Not Fair, Reasonable

New York Judge: Selling $478,000 In Future Payments For $10,000 Is Not Fair, Reasonable

A factoring company provided a disclosure statement to structured settlement payee that explained the terms of the transaction: $478,590.82 was the aggregate amount of all the future structured settlement payments that would be sold from the payee to the factoring company. In exchange for those payments, the payee would receive $10,000. The reviewing court rejected the request for judicial approval of the transaction – a prerequisite for the transaction to become legally effective under the New York Structured Settlement Protection…

Read More Read More

Competing Opinions Favor Regulation Of Lawsuit Funding, Differ On Interest Rate Cap

Competing Opinions Favor Regulation Of Lawsuit Funding, Differ On Interest Rate Cap

Two separate opinion pieces in the Albany, New York, Times-Union newspaper take up the issue of regulation of litigation funding.  As to regulation generally, they are in agreement that new governance of the business is called for.  But the commentators differ on a key point: one says that an interest rate cap in such deals is necessary, while the other says it would hurt individual claimants. The two pieces are as follows: A November 15, 2018 op-ed, “New York Must…

Read More Read More

‘Underwriter’ And ‘Guarantor’ Of Factoring Transaction? Third Circuit Mistakenly Looks To Non-Party

‘Underwriter’ And ‘Guarantor’ Of Factoring Transaction? Third Circuit Mistakenly Looks To Non-Party

In Wall v. Corona Capital, LLC, Nos. 17-2275 and 17-2361, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33071 (3rdCir. Nov. 23, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that Altium Group, LLC, did not breach its contract with Robert and Linda Wall, in a dispute over a structured settlement factoring transaction that the Walls invested in before it turned out that the transaction documents had been forged. As described in posts here and here, in 2012, Altium and the Walls…

Read More Read More

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

Appellate Court Deals Setback To Couple Trying To Recover More Than $150,000 Invested In Structured Settlement Factoring Transaction That Later Unraveled

Appellate Court Deals Setback To Couple Trying To Recover More Than $150,000 Invested In Structured Settlement Factoring Transaction That Later Unraveled

In 2012, Robert and Linda Wall signed a contract with Altium Group, LLC, as part of a deal for the purchase of the right to receive structured settlement payments. The Walls were to pay Altium more than $150,000 for these payments, which – once purchased – would be paid to them from 2014 to 2019. Altium agreed to provide the Walls with a “Closing Package” that was to include a certified copy of an order approving the transfer of the…

Read More Read More