STRUCTUREDSETTLEMENT

2009-02-28T10:42:00.000-08:00

A structured settlement is a financial or insurance arrangement, including periodic payments, that a claimant accepts to resolve a personal injury tort claim or to compromise a statutory periodic payment obligation. Structured settlements were first utilized in Canada and the United States during the 1970s as an alternative to lump sum settlements. Structured settlements are now part of the statutory tort law of several common law countries including Australia, Canada, England and the United States। Although some uniformity exists, each of these countries has its own definitions, rules and standards for structured settlements. Structured settlements may include income tax and spendthrift requirements as well as benefits. Structured settlement payments are sometimes called “periodic payments.” A structured settlement incorporated into a trial judgment is called a “periodic payment judgment."

Structured Settlements in the United States

The United States has enacted structured settlement laws and regulations at both the federal and state levels. Federal structured settlement laws include sections of the (federal) Internal Revenue Code. State structured settlement laws include structured settlement protection statutes and periodic payment of judgment statutes. Medicaid and Medicare laws and regulations affect structured settlements. To preserve a claimant’s Medicare and Medicaid benefits, structured settlement payments may be incorporated into “Medicare Set Aside Arrangements” “Special Needs Trusts."

Structured settlements have been endorsed by many of the nation's largest disability rights organizations, including the American Association of People with Disabilities and the National Organization on Disability

Definitions

The United States definition of “structured settlement” for federal income taxation purposes, found in Internal Revenue Code Section 5891(c)(1) (26 U.S.C. § 5891(c)(1)), is an "arrangement" that meets the following requirements:

A structured settlement must be established by:
- A suit or agreement for periodic payment of damages excludable from gross income under Internal Revenue Code Section 104(a)(2) (26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2)); or
- An agreement for the periodic payment of compensation under any workers’ compensation law excludable under Internal Revenue Code Section 104(a)(1) (26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(1)); and
The periodic payments must be of the character described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of Internal Revenue Code Section 130(c)(2) (26 U.S.C. § 130(c)(2))) and must be payable by a person who:
- Is a party to the suit or agreement or to a workers' compensation claim; or
- By a person who has assumed the liability for such periodic payments under a qualified assignment in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 130 Legal Structure

The typical structured settlement arises and is structured as follows: An injured party (the claimant) settles a tort suit with the defendant (or its insurance carrier) pursuant to a settlement agreement that provides that, in exchange for the claimant's securing the dismissal of the lawsuit, the defendant (or, more commonly, its insurer) agrees to make a series of periodic payments over time. The insurer, a property/casualty insurance company, thus finds itself with a long-term payment obligation to the claimant. To fund this obligation, the property/casualty insurer generally takes one of two typical approaches: It either purchases अन from a life insurance company (an arrangement called a "buy and hold" case) or it assigns (or, more properly, delegates) its periodic payment obligation to a third party which in turn purchases an annuity (which arrangement is called an "assigned case").

In an unassigned case, the property/casualty insurer retains the periodic payment obligation and funds it by purchasing an annuity from a life insurance company, thereby offsetting its obligation with a matching asset. The payment stream purchased under the annuity matches exactly, in timing and amounts, the periodic payments agreed to in the settlement agreement. The property/casualty company owns the annuity and names the claimant as the payee under the annuity, thereby directing the annuity issuer to send payments directly to the claimant. If any of the periodic payments are life-contingent (i.e., the obligation to make a payment is contingent on someone continuing to be alive), then the claimant (or whoever is determined to be the measuring life) is named as the annuitant or measuring life under the annuity.

In an assigned case, the property/casualty company does not wish to retain the long-term periodic payment obligation on its books. Accordingly, the property/casualty insurer transfers the obligation, through a legal device called a qualified assignment, to a third party. The third party, called an assignment company, will require the property/casualty company to pay it an amount sufficient to enable it to buy an annuity that will fund its newly accepted periodic payment obligation. If the claimant consents to the transfer of the periodic payment obligation (either in the settlement agreement or, failing that, in a special form of qualified assignment known as a qualified assignment and release), the defendant and/or its property/casualty company has no further liability to make the periodic payments. This method of substituting the obligor is desirable for property/casualty companies that do not want to retain the periodic payment obligation on their books. Typically, an assignment company is an affiliate of the life insurance company from which the annuity is purchased.

An assignment is said to be "qualified" if it satisfies the criteria set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 130 . Qualification of the assignment is important to assignment companies because without it the amount they receive to induce them to accept periodic payment obligations would be considered income for federal income tax purposes. If an assignment qualifies under Section 130, however, the amount received is excluded from the income of the assignment company. This provision of the tax code was enacted to encourage assigned cases; without it, assignment companies would owe federal income taxes but would typically have no source from which to make the पेमेंट

A structured settlement factoring transaction describes the selling of future structured settlement payments (or, more accurately, rights to receive the future structured settlement payments). People who receive structured settlement payments (for example, the payment of personal injury damages over time instead of in a lump sum at settlement) may decide at some point that they need more money in the short term than the periodic payment provides over time. People's reasons are varied but can include unforeseen medical expenses for oneself or a dependent, the need for improved housing or transportation, education expenses and the like. To meet this need, the structured settlement recipient can sell (or, less commonly, encumber) all or part of their future periodic payments for a present lump sum.

History

Structured settlements experienced an explosion in use beginning in the 1980s.[1] The growth is most likely attributable to the favorable federal income tax treatment such settlements receive as a result of the 1982 amendment of the tax code to add § 130.[2] [3] Internal Revenue Code § 130 provides, inter alia, substantial tax incentives to insurance companies that establish “qualified” structured settlements.[4] There are other advantages for the original tort defendant (or casualty insurer) in settling for payments over time, in that they benefit from the time value of money (most demonstrable in the fact that an annuity can be purchased to fund the payment of future periodic payments, and the cost of such annuity is far less than the sum total of all payments to be made over time). Finally, the tort plaintiff also benefits in several ways from a structured settlement, notably in the ability to receive the periodic payments from an annuity that gains investment value over the life of the payments, and the settling plaintiff receives the total payments, including that “inside build-up” value, tax-free.[5]

However, a substantial downside to structured settlements comes from their inherent inflexibility.[6] To take advantage of the tax benefits allotted to defendants who choose to settle cases using structured settlements, the periodic payments must be set up to meet basic requirements [set forth in IRC 130(c)]. Among other things, the payments must be fixed and determinable, and cannot be accelerated, deferred, increased or decreased by the recipient.[7] For many structured settlement recipients, the periodic payment stream is their only asset. Therefore, over time and as recipients’ personal situations change in ways unpredicted at the settlement table, demand for liquidity options rises. To offset the liquidity issue, most structured settlement recipients, as a part of their total settlement, will receive an immediate sum to be invested to meet the needs not best addressed through the use of a structured settlement. Beginning in the late 1980s, a few small financial institutions started to meet this demand and offer new flexibility for structured settlement payees.[8]

Process

Pre-2002

Congress enacted law to provide special tax breaks for payments received by tort victims in structured settlements, and for the companies that funded them. The payments were tax free, whereas if the tort victim had been given a lump sum and invested it themselves, the payments from those investments would be taxable.

Companies liked structured settlements because it allowed them to avoid taxes to a certain extent, and plaintiffs liked them because it allowed them to receive tax-free payments of what became, over time, a much larger amount of money than the original amount paid out by the settling party. Such settlements were also considered an especially good idea for minors, as they held the money safe for adulthood and ensured that youth would not find the money wasted or ill-spent. “Despite the best intentions of plaintiffs, lump sum settlement awards are often quickly dissipated because of excessive spending, poor financial management, or a combination of both. Statistics showed that twenty-five to thirty percent of all cash awards are exhausted within two months, and ninety percent are exhausted within five years.” Andrada, “Structured Settlements – The Assignability Problem,” 9 S. Cal. Interdis. L.J. 465, 468 (Spring 2000).

An explanation of IRS Code section 130 was given during discussions of possible taxation of companies that bought future payments under those structured settlements. “By enacting the PPSA, Congress expressed its support of structured settlements, and sought to shield victims and their families from pressures to prematurely dissipate their recoveries.” 145 Cong. Rec. S52281-01 (daily ed. May 13, 1999) (statement of Sen. Chaffee).

Congress was willing to afford such tax advantages based on the belief that the loss in income taxes would be more than made up by lower expenditures on public assistance programs for those who suffered significant injuries. A strict requirement for a structured settlement to qualify for this tax break was that the tort victim was barred from accessing their periodic payments before they came due. It was for this reason that the annuity had to be owned by another who had control over it. The tort victim could not be seen to have “constructive receipt” of the annuity funds prior to their periodic payments. If the tort victim could cash in the annuity at any time, it was possible that the IRS might find constructive receipt.

“Congress conditioned the favorable rules on a requirement that the periodic payments cannot be accelerated, deferred, increased or decreased by the injured person. Both the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committee Reports stated that the periodic payments as personal injury damages are still excludable fro income only if the recipient is not in constructive receipt of or does not have the current economic benefit of the sum required to produce the periodic payments.”

Testimony of Tax Legislative Counsel Joseph M. Mikrut to the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee of Ways and Means, March 18, 1999. “These factoring transactions directly undermine the policy objective underlying the structured settlement tax regime, that of protecting the long term financial needs of injuries persons . . . “ (Id.)

Mr. Mikrut was testifying in favor of imposing a punitive tax on factoring companies that engaged in pursuit of structured settlement payments. Despite the use of non-assignment clauses in annuity contracts to secure the tax advantages for tort victims. companies cropped up that tried to advantage of these individuals in ”factoring” transactions, purchasing their periodic payments in return for a deeply discounted lump sump payment. Congress felt that factoring company purchases of structured settlement payments “so directly subvert the Congressional policy underlying structured settlements and raise such serious concerns for the injured victims,” that bills were proposed in both the Senate and the House to penalize companies which engage in such transactions. (Id.)

Before the enactment of IRC 5891, which became effective on July 1, 2002, some states regulated the transfer of structured settlement payment rights, while others did not. Most states that regulated transfers at this time followed a general pattern, substantially similar to the present day process which is mandated in IRC 5891 (see below for more details of the post-2002 process). However, the majority of the transfers processed from 1988 to 2002 were not court ordered.[9] After negotiating the terms of the transaction (including the payments to be sold and the price to be paid for those payments), a formal purchase contract was executed, effecting an assignment of the subject payments upon closing. Part of this assignment process also included the grant of a security interest in the structured settlement payments, to secure performance of the seller’s obligations. Filing a public lien based on that security agreement created notice of this assignment and interest. The insurance company issuing the structured settlement annuity checks was typically not given actual notice of the transfer, due to antagonism by the insurance industry against factoring and transfer companies. Many annuity issuers were concerned that factoring transactions, which were not contemplated when Congress enacted IRC 130, might upset the tax treatment of qualified assignments. HR 2884 (discussed below) resolved this question for annuity issuers.

Federal legislation

In January 2002, Congress accepted Mr. Mikrut’s suggestion and changed tax law to make a statement about sales of structured settlement payments. It decided that the IRS would be able to impose a 40% tax on any difference between the value of the future payments sold and the amount paid to the person who wanted to sell. The sole exception was where the sale was approved by a Court under certain conditions. IRS Code section 5891 became effective in July 2002.

In 2001, Congress passed HR 2884, signed into law by the President in 2002 and effective July 1, 2002, codified at Internal Revenue Code § 5891.[10] Through a punitive excise tax penalty, this has created the de facto regulatory paradigm for the factoring industry. In essence, to avoid the excise tax penalty, IRC 5891 requires that all structured settlement factoring transactions be approved by a state court, in accordance with a qualified state statute. Qualified state statutes must make certain baseline findings, including that the transfer is in the best interest of the seller, taking into account the welfare and support of any dependents. In response, many states enacted statutes regulating structured settlement transfers in accord with this mandate

Today, all transfers are completed through a court order process. As of November 11, 2008, 46 states(Map). have transfer laws in place regulating the transfer process. Of these, 41 are based in whole or in part on the model state law enacted by NCOIL, the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (or, in cases when the state law predates the model act, they are substantially similar).

Most state transfer laws contain similar provisions, as follows: (1) pre-contract disclosures to be made to the seller concerning the essentials of the transaction; (2) notice to certain interested parties; (3) an admonition to seek professional advice concerning the proposed transfer; and (4) court approval of the transfer, including a finding that it is in the best interest of seller, taking into account the welfare and support of any dependents.

Factoring Terminology

Best Interest Standard

Internal Revenue Code Sec. 5891 and most state laws require that a court find that a proposed settlement factoring transaction be in the best interest of the seller, taking into account the welfare and support of any dependents. [11] “Best interest” is generally not defined, which gives judges flexibility to make a subjective determination on a case-by-case basis. Some state laws may require that the judge look at factors such as the “purpose of the intended use of the funds,” the payee’s mental and physical capacity, and the seller’s potential need for future medical treatment. [12] [13]. One Minnesota court described the “best interest standard” as a determination involving “a global consideration of the facts, circumstances, and means of support available to the payee and his or her dependents.” [14]

Courts have consistently found that the “best interest standard” is not limited to financial hardship cases. [15] Hence, a transfer may be in a seller’s best interest because it allows him to take advantage of an opportunity (i.e., buy a new home, start a business, attend college, etc.) or to avoid disaster (i.e., pay for a family member’s unexpected medical care, pay off mounting debt, etc.). For example, a New Jersey court found that a transaction was in a seller’s best interest where the funds were used to “pay off bills…and to buy a home and get married.” [16]

Although sometimes criticized for being vague, the best interest standard’s lack of precise definition allows considerable latitude in judicial review. Courts can consider on a case-by-case basis the totality of the circumstances surrounding the transfer to determine whether it should be approved.

Discount Rate

In the beginning, the factoring industry had some relatively high discount rates due to heavy expenses caused by costly litigation battles and limited access to traditional investors. However, once state and federal legislation was enacted, the industry’s interest rates decreased dramatically. There is much confusion with the terminology “discount rate” because the term is used in different ways. The discount rate referred to in a factoring transaction is similar to an interest rate associated with home loans, credit cards and car loans where the interest rate is applied to the payment stream itself. In a factoring transaction, the factoring company knows the payment stream they are going to purchase and applies an interest rate to the payment stream itself and solves for the funding amount, as though it was a loan. Discount rates from factoring companies to consumers can range anywhere between 13% up to over 18% but usually average somewhere in the middle (link to a discount rate calculator can be found here). Factoring discount rates can be a bit higher when compared to home loan interest rates, due to the fact the factoring transactions are more of a boutique product for investors opposed to the mainstream collateralized mortgage transactions. One common mistake in calculating the discount rate is to use “elementary school math” where you take the funding/loan amount and divide it by the total price of all the payments being purchased. Because this method disregards the concept of time (and the time value of money), the resulting percentage is useless. For example, the court in In Re Henderson Receivables Origination v. Campos noted an annual discount rate of 16.8% where the annuitant received $36,500 for the assignment of payments totaling $63,364.94 over 84 months (two monthly payments of $672.32 each, beginning September 30, 2006 and ending on October 31, 2006; eighty-two monthly payments of $692.49 each, increasing 3% every twelve months, beginning on November 30, 2006 and ending on August 31, 2013). However, had the court in Henderson Receivables Origination applied the illogical formula of discounting from “elementary school math” ($36,500/ $63,364.94), the discount rate would have been an astronomical (and nonsensical) 61%. [17]

Discounted Present Value

Another term commonly used in factoring transactions is “discounted present value,” which is defined in the NCOIL model transfer act as “the present value of future payments determined by discounting such payments to the present using the most recently published Applicable Federal Rate for determining the present value of an annuity, as issued by the United States Internal Revenue Service.” [18] The IRS discount rate, also known as the Applicable Federal Rate (AFR), is used to determine the charitable deduction for many types of planned gifts, such as charitable remainder trusts and gift annuities. The rate is the annual rate of return that the IRS assumes the gift assets will earn during the gift term. The IRS discount rate is published monthly (link to current rate may be found here). In Henderson Receivables Origination (above), the court calculated the discounted present value of the $63,364.94 to be transferred as $50,933.18 based on the applicable federal rate of 6.00%. [18] The “discounted present value” is a measuring stick for determining what the value of a future payment (i.e., a payment that is due in the year 2057) is today. Hence, the discounted present value of a payment corrects for inflation and the principle that money available today is worth more than money not accessible for 50 years (or some future time). However, the discounted present value is not the same thing as market value (what someone is willing to pay). Basically, a calculation that discounts a future payment based on IRS rates is an artificial number since it has no bearing on the payment’s actual selling price. For example, in Henderson Receivables Origination, it is somewhat confusing for the court to evaluate future payments totaling $63,364,94 based the discounted present value of $50,933.18 because that is not the market value of the payments. In other words, the annuitant couldn’t go out and get $50,933.18 for his future payments because no person or company would be willing to pay that much. Some states will require a quotient to be listed on the disclosure that is sent to the customer prior to entering into a contract with a factoring company. The quotient is calculated by dividing the purchase price by the discounted present value. The quotient (like the discounted present value) provides no relevance in the pricing of a settlement factoring transaction. In Henderson Receivables Origination (above), the court did consider this quotient which was calculated as 71.70% ($36,500/ $50,933.18). [19]

Settlement (of securities) is the process whereby securities or interests in securities are delivered, usually against payment, to fulfill contractual obligations, such as those arising under securities trades.

This involves the delivery of securities to perform contractual delivery obligations. It usually also involves the corresponding payment of a purchase price. Usually settlement is preceded by trading, which involves entering into contracts of sale and purchase.

Although settlement is generally becoming quicker, in most markets a number of business days still elapse between trading and settlement (the settlement date). The settlement date for marketable stocks is usually three business days after the trade was executed and for listed options and government securities it is usually one day. A number of risks arise for the parties during the settlement interval, which are managed by the process of clearing, which follows trading and precedes settlement. Clearing involves modifying those contractual obligations so as to facilitate settlement, often by netting and novation.

Nature of settlement

Settlement involves the delivery of securities from one party to another. Delivery usually takes place against payment, but some deliveries are made without a corresponding payment. Examples are the delivery of securities collateral against a loan of securities, and a delivery made pursuant to a margin call.

Traditional settlement

Traditionally, securities settlement has involved the physical movement of paper instruments, or certificates and transfer forms. Payment was usually made by cheque. It was also risky, inasmuch as paper instruments, certificates, and transfer forms were relatively easy to lose, steal, and forge (see indirect holding system). the United States markets experienced what has become known as "the paper crunch," as settlement delays threatened to disrupt the operations of the securities markets.

This led to the formation of the Depository Trust Company (DTC), and ultimately its parent, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. In the United Kingdom, the weakness of paper-based settlement was exposed by a programme of privatisation of nationalised industries in the 1980s, and the Big Bang of 1986 led to an explosion in the volume of trades, and settlement delays became significant. In the market crash of 1987, many investors sought to limit their losses by selling their securities, but found that the failure of timely settlement left them exposed.

Electronic settlement

The electronic settlement system came about largely as a result of Clearance and Settlement Systems in the World's Securities Markets, a major report in 1989 by the Washington-based think tank, the Group of Thirty. This report made nine recommendations with a view to achieving more efficient settlement. This was followed up in 2003 with a report, Clearing and Settlement: A Plan of Action, with 20 recommendations.

In an electronic settlement system, electronic settlement takes place between participants. If a non-participant wishes to settle its interests, it must do so through a participant acting as a custodian. The interests of participants are recorded by credit entries in securities accounts maintained in their names by the operator of the system. It permits both quick and efficient settlement by removing the need for paperwork, and the synchronisation of the delivery of securities with the payment of a corresponding cash sum (called delivery versus payment, or DVP).

The recent development of electronic securities trading has brought about settlement pressures akin to the paper crunch of the 1970s and 1980s, rendering the need for further efficiencies urgent.

Legal significance

After the trade and before settlement, the rights of the purchaser are contractual and therefore personal. Because they are merely personal, their rights are at risk in the event of the insolvency of the vendor. After settlement, the purchaser owns securities and their rights are proprietary. Settlement is the delivery of securities to complete trades. It involves upgrading personal rights into property rights and thus protects market participants from the risk of the default of their counterparties.

Immobilisation and dematerialisation

Immobilisation and dematerialisation are the two broad goals of electronic settlement. Both were identified by the influential report by the Group of Thirty in 1989.

Immobilisation

Immobilisation entails the use of securities in paper form and the use of depositaries, which are electronically linked to a settlement system. Securities (either constituted by paper instruments or represented by paper certificates) are immobilised in the sense that they are held by the depositary at all times. In the historic transition from paper-based to electronic practice, immoblisation often serves as a transitional phase prior to dematerialisation.

The Depository Trust Company in New York is the largest immobilizer of securities in the world. Euroclear and Clearstream Banking, Luxembourg are two important examples of international immobilisation systems. Both originally settled eurobonds, but now a wide range of international securities are settled through them including many types of sovereign debt and equity securities.

Dematerialisation

Dematerialisation involves dispensing of paper instruments and certificates altogether. Dematerialised securities exist only in the form of electronic records. The legal impact of dematerialisation differs in relation to bearer and registered securities respectively.

Direct and indirect holding systems

In a direct holding system, participants hold the underlying securities directly. The settlement system does not stand in the chain of ownership, but merely serves as a conduit for communications of participants to issuers.

The field of finance refers to the concepts of time, money and risk and how they are interrelated. Banks are the main facilitators of funding through the provision of credit, although private equity, mutual funds, hedge funds, and other organizations have become important. Financial assets, known as investments, are financially managed with careful attention to financial risk management to control financial risk. Financial instruments allow many forms of securitized assets to be traded on securities exchanges such as stock exchanges, including debt such as bonds as well as equity in publicly-traded corporations.

ANITHA DANCING ON THE FLOOR

STRUCTUREDSETTLEMENT