Disability Law

SSPA Non-Contravention Standards

By Patrick Hindert

State courts play an important "gatekeeper" role for structured settlement factoring transactions. IRC section 5891 imposes a 40 percent federal excise tax if a factoring transaction does not receive required state court approval. State structured settlement protection acts (SSPAs) make factoring transactions ineffective unless such transfers receive court approval.

When evaluating a proposed transfer, state courts must address these issues:

• Payee's best interest - taking into account the welfare of the payee's dependents;
• Compliance with SSPA requirements - including notice, disclosure and independent professional advice; and
• Non-contravention of applicable laws - including other statutes and court orders.

In the lead article of its Fall 2007 edition of "Structured Settlement Insights", Pullman & Comley summarizes growing judicial authority for what constitutes non-contravention of a statute or order - as well as the related issue of what information is required for a court to make a non-contravention finding.  The article distinguishes these types of non-contravention issues from contractual anti-assignment restrictions.

The Pullman & Comley newsletter article highlights:

• New Pennsylvania Rule 229.2.  Among other provisions, this judicial rule requires the "transferee" (factoring company attorney) to certify to the court "to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, that the transfer will comply with the requirements of the [Pennsylvania] Act and will not contravene any other applicable federal or state statute or regulation or the order of any court or administrative authority."
• Different standards established by courts in other states including Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana and Florida.
• Workers compensation laws.  Although most state workers compensation statutes prohibit or restrict assignments, both IRC sections 5891 and 130 reference and incorporate workers compensation cases.
  

For additional information:

• SSPA non-contravention standards: see Section 16.05 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments".
• Pullman & Comley: see this earlier S2KM blog post.
• Pennsylvania Rule 229.2: see this earlier S2KM blog post.

Full post as published by Beyond Structured Settlements on December 20, 2007 (boomark / email).