Litigation

Standard & Poors  issued new credit ratings on Peach Holdings, the parent of cash now pusher Peachtree Settlement Funding on August 26, 2009.

As stated on the Standard & Poors website, an obligation rated 'CCC' is currently vulnerable to nonpayment, and is dependent upon favorable business,financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitment on the obligation. In the event of adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, the obligor is not likely to have the capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation.

This author would never suggest anyone sell their structured settlement payment rights to Peachtree Settlement Funding in the first place.

1. The company has engaged and continues to engage in false advertising. Simply read the tab on Peachtree Settlement Funding to the right of this blog for our archive.
2. The company does not have a reputation for competitive discount rates. While riding the gravy train, Peachtree charged rates in the mid to high teens when others were considerably lower. Great for investors, sucks for consumers  with structured settlements in need of the type of service Peachtree and others offer.
3. Upon information and belief the company engages in the servicing of structured settlement payments.

Questions

• Should annuitants whose payments are being serviced by Peachtree Settlement Funding be worried?
• Should any life insurance companies who entered into servicing agreements with Peachtree Settlement Funding be rethinking their strategy not to split payments?
• At one point Peachtree Settlement Funding was a member or sponsor of the Society of Settlement Planners ( see Download Peachtree Still in SSP 10-10-2006 Google)  Did any SSP members refer their clients, or any annuitant to Peachtree Settlement Funding during the time that Peachtree was a member of the SSP, or at any other time?
  
• Given that the S&P ratings for Peachtree , the JG Wentworth "close call" and the fact that Bentzen Funding Solutions (one of its "friends") business inevitably ends up in servicing agreement,  doesn't  the SSP and/or those members of the SSP feel it might be a good time to legally determine what happens to their client in the event the servicer goes belly up?
  

"Peach's funding options remain strained because the company has no access to revolving warehouse lines.The outlook is negative, reflecting the company's funding of new originations with forward flow arrangements"  Standard & Poors (on Peach) August 26, 2009