NJ Opinion Makes Waves in Structured Settlement Industry

, New Jersey Law Journal


An eight-page opinion out of Atlantic County imploring courts to carefully vet the sale of structured settlements has caught the attention of industry players nationwide—and highlighted a dearth of useful guidance for judges even 15 years after model legislation was crafted to tame a Wild West marketplace.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • John Darer

    Elucidation of the transfer laws will only get half the job done. As Craig notes , decisions like the above help to cure abuses (of the transfer laws). Nothing under current laws however, addresses business conduct. For example, it‘s outrageous that there are a number of felons who participate in the space. A growing number of secondary market participants seem to be in favor of a licensing standard.

  • Peter Arnold

    Well written article, David. But it‘s also worth noting that the line between the primary and secondary structured settlement industries has gotten more porous since approval of the 2001 federal law. Economic realities are driving greater cooperation among companies in the respective marketplaces.

  • Andrew S. Hillman

    To clarify my quote regarding regulation was referring elucidation of the transfer laws. I am concerned that traditional regulation could have a deleterious impact on those smaller originators that do a good job and follow the rules. This in turn could hurt consumers by having less choice and competition would be stifled.

  • John Darer 4structures.com LLC

    A someone who has studied and written prolifcally about this market sector for 10 years, I was happy to see Andy Hillman expressly state that "Regulation begets legitimacy," he said. "It also weeds out bad actors." I could not agree more. The structured settlement secondary market is essentially the only financial market place where those that solicit business from consumers (annuitants in this case) and investors without any license. There is also no regulator with the power to fine, suspend or revoke authority to transact business in the state. It is high time that such regulation be put in place to heighten the legitimacy of the profession and to weed out the bad actors who, due to lack of adequate regulation, have been allowed to participate in the business and engage in conduct that would more likely that not be illegal in any other regulated financial profession. Consumers and participants in the industry should have an independent regulator that they can turn to if necessary. Unfortunately such a regulator does not exist, however existing regulatory structures in insurance could be used, for example in the same way that life settlements have become regulated by the insurance regulator,

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202740982701

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.