In a special edition of Speaking of Settlements we have posted an interview with Matt Bracy on the recent decision in California regarding the issues surrounding JG Wentworth and their 321 Henderson Receivable's affiliate.
The California Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal suprised some commentators and reversed decisions by two Superior Court judges in Fresno County, CA regarding the performance and actions of the JG Wentworth affilate in relation to the California Structured Settlement Transfer Act.
There is a lot more to this case then meets the eye, as it is largely a procedural decision regarding Wentworths attempt to withdraw a transfer petition in court and the refusal of the judges to allow that attempt. At it's core this was an important decision for both the structured settlement industry as well as the factoring companies as it helped to clarify the issue that a transfer order approved by another California judge could not be over ruled by another judge and that settlement transfer orders are final. Both sides of the settlement industry depend on the premise that transfer orders are final and can't be over ruled so this is good news, but I would hardly mark it up as a victory for anyone. A clarification of process certainly and a welcome one at that.
Listen to Matt Bracy report on the impact and details of this matter on The Settlement Channel.
In this weeks edition of Speaking of Settlements, Matt Bracy of Settlement Capital joins host Scott Drake to discuss the implications in the factoring community of the Allstate vs Rapid Settlements case that went strongly against certain practices in factoring.
We have already covered some of this news in earlier posts, but Matt's concern was over the black eye and gratuitous bashing the factoring industry is taking in the press, when the vast majority of factoring firms in his opinion follow the clearly outlined state procedures they are required by law to follow.
This is a two part interview and commentary, with both parts included in this blog post.
I am sure there are a lot of people in the structured settlement industry who are delighted with this outcome, I know that personally I am as any factoring company that attempts to circumvent the court approval process and substitute it with a process of their own is a clear menace. Annuitants need and deserve the protection of court oversight and this is only one of several similar cases against Rapid Settlements nationally.
However, I do agree with Matt that as usual, the national press and some of the commentators are a bit over board in condemning the entire process instead of focusing on the fact that this is a clearly rogue operation that is getting the appropriate treatment in courts when life markets like Allstate, Symetra and others stand up to them and contest their procedure.
View this video and judge for yourself.
A federal appeals court, ruling in a case linked to the 1985 MOVE bombing in Philadelphia, blasted a Texas company that offers lump-sum advances to plaintiffs who settle lawsuits. Rapid Settlements had been sending cases to a Texas Arbitration group when state courts had rejected them. Matt Bracy comments.
A federal appeals court, ruling in a case linked to the 1985 MOVE bombing in Philadelphia, blasted a Texas company that offers lump-sum advances to plaintiffs who settle lawsuits. Rapid Settlements had been sending cases to a Texas Arbitration group when state courts had rejected them. Matt Bracy comments.
In this video Mark Wahlstrom and Matt Bracy discuss the issue of factoring company advertising and it's impact on the structured settlement profession.
It is Matt Bracy's opinion that many of the worst advertising tactics and tools can indirectly be blamed on the structured settlement industry through their on going refusal to discuss with plaintiffs and annuity holders at the time of settlement their rights to factor or obtain liquidity from their structured settlement.
His point is, how else can the factoring business get the word out when the primary sellers of the annuity refuse to discuss it or make a safe, secure means of learning about it available through the settlement profession.
An intriguing interview on factoring, structured settlements, structured settlement factoring advertising and other issues from two industry leaders.
In today's edition of The Settlement Channel, I sit down with factoring industry leader and the general counsel of Settlement Capital, Matt Bracy.
We discuss at length in this video interview the issues facing factoring companies in reaching their target market and how that need to find clients is often at cross purposes with the structured settlement industry.
You can view the entire video by clicking the link and going to The Settlement Channel.
In one of the most closely watched
legislative sessions of the year, the state of West Virginia proposed,
wrote and looks to pass legislation further controlling the process of
factoring a structured settlement. A lot of rumor and speculation
regarding the origin of the legislation, the intent of the sponsors and
the impact on factoring are swirling around this soon to be signed
legislation. 
On this weeks edition of Speaking of Settlements, host Scott Drake and frequent contributor Matt Bracy, General Counsel of Settlement Capital of Dallas, TX go over the details of the bill as it was proposed, the actual end result of the revised bill as it comes out of the West Virginia House and Senate and what it's impact should be on the factoring of structured settlements in WV. In addition they look ahead to the determine whether or not this single states actions portend additional action in other states and what the impact is to structured settlement professionals both locally and nationally.
As to the motives of what brought this law change to the forefront of the state legislators Matt speculates that this is most likely a local issue being pushed by a few determined legislators in the state, and that there is no covert influence by NSSTA or other trade groups to try and restrict factoring through individual state law changes.