Month: January 2019

Structured Settlement LawyerOriginally Posted on January 13, 2015 and reposted on January 31, 2019

Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights

Most Misunderstood Courthouse Terms, R-V

Remand – Return the defendant to custody to await further action.

Satisfaction of Judgment – The discharge of an obligation by a paying party what is awarded to him, by the judgment of a court or otherwise.

Stay – The act of stopping a proceeding by a court order.

Stipulation – An agreement between the parties or their atttorneys.

Summary Judgment – When the judge decides a case without going to trial.  The decision is based on the papers filed by both parties.

Transcript – The official record of proceedings in court, taken verbatim by the court reporter, and then transcribed into booklet form upon request or order of the court.

Unlawful Detainer – The process to force someone to move out of your property; eviction.

Verdict – The jury’s final decision  In criminal cases, the verdict must be unanimous in favor of conviction (guilty) or acquittal (not guilty).  In civil cases, the verdict must be at least 9-3 in order to convict or acquit the defendant.

Voir Dire – (Vwaa-deer) – Prospective jurors are questioned by the court and counsel to determine their qualifications to act ass fair and impartial jurors.  (From the French: “to see, to speak”)

Courtesy of Los Angeles Superior Court 2014

 
Law Offices of Eugene Ahtirski
Structured Settlement Lawyer

The post Structured Settlement Lawyer<span class="entry-meta">Originally Posted on January 13, 2015 and reposted on January 31, 2019</span> appeared first on Structured Settlement Expert.

PART II of IV of §10135. “Transfers governed by article; RequirementsOriginally Posted on January 15, 2015 and reposted on January 30, 2019

PART II of IV of §10135. “Transfers governed by article; Requirements

  • 10135 second subsection is (b), and it is the second out of three types of transfers that fall under this subsection:
  1. Second type of transfer

“(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the changes to this article made by the act amending this section in the 2001-02 Regular Session shall only be applicable to transfers entered into on or after January 1, 2002.

October 9, 2001 urgency and nonurgency legislation for California Assembly Bill 268 became effective law January 1, 2002, and this was also a game-changer for the structured settlement transfer industry.

Six (6) sections were amended, two (2) sections were added to, and two (1) sections was completely repealed, with another section pending.

What was changed in brief in 2002-and what the 2nd type of transfer will need:

  1. 10134, (amended) the definitions code amended the definitions of: (a) “BUYERS FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL”, (b) “DEPENDENTS”, (d) “EFFECTIVE EQUIVALENT INTEREST RATE”, (f) “INDEPENDENT PROFESIONAL ADVICE”, (i) “QUALIFIED ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT”, (k) “STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT OBLIGOR”, and (m) “TERMS OF THE STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT”, also, (g) added “beneficiary” and (o) effectuation of transfer
  2. 10135, (amended) we already went over this in PART I. It stated “…transfers entered into on or after January 1,2000 are applicable to this code only” (§10135)
  3. 10136 (a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(A)(B)(C)(b)(1)(2)(3)(4)(amend-ed) amended about 28 subdivisions of very specific instructions on how to present and draft the Terms, Disclosure, Contract, and the timing of receipt by payee therein. Every subdivision MUST be met, or the transfer WILL NOT go through
  4. 10137(a)(b)(c)(amended) The amendments clarify what exactly would “void” a transfer of structured settlement payment rights. All litigants must meet all of the conditions.
  5. 10138 (a)(1)(8)(11)(12)(b) (amended) This protects the payee or consumer from unreasonable, unfair, and overreaching provisions being put in any contract by any company with whom the consumer is dealing. There were only six (6) amendments, but this section powerfully protects the consumer.
  6. 10139.1 (repealed), and an entirely NEW 10139.1 was added-it is stating that everything must comply with Article 2.3.
  7. 3 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) (added) This has to do with non waiving of any of the provisions in this Article, and other closing statements.
  8. 10139.4 This punishes any company that fails to comply with this article by the authority of Section 17200 of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.
  9. 10139.5 (added) This is essentially a 15 step checklist for the judge.

 

Originally posted 2015-01-15 21:43:01. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The post PART II of IV of §10135. “Transfers governed by article; Requirements<span class="entry-meta">Originally Posted on January 15, 2015 and reposted on January 30, 2019</span> appeared first on Structured Settlement Expert.

PG&E Corp. files for bankruptcy following wildfire claims

Pacific Gas & Electric, the largest U.S. utility, filed for bankruptcy protection on Tuesday and aims to reorganize its debts while its threatened with billions in potential liabilities after recent California wildfires.

The company cited hundreds of lawsuits from victims impacted by California wildfires from 2017 and 2018 when it announced this month that it planned to file for bankruptcy.

The utility filed documents in a U.S. court seeking Chapter 11 reorganization despite state investigators determining last week that its equipment was not to blame for a 2017 fire that killed 22 people in Northern California wine country.

The company cited hundreds of lawsuits from victims of that blaze and others in 2017 and 2018 when it announced this month that it planned to file for bankruptcy. The fires included the nation’s deadliest in a century — a November blaze that killed at least 86 people and destroyed 15,000 homes in Paradise and surrounding communities.

The cause of that fire remains under investigation, but speculation has centered on PG&E after the utility reported power line problems nearby around the time it started.

The bankruptcy filing immediately puts a halt to the wildfire lawsuits and consolidates them in bankruptcy court, where legal experts say victims will likely receive less money.

'Paradise Strong': Paradise High School students return to class in temporary campus following devastating wildfire

Wildfire victims have little chance of getting punitive damages or taking their claims to a jury in a bankruptcy proceeding. Instead, they will have to tussle with PG&E’s creditors, including bondholders, for a payout from the company.

Consumer activist Erin Brockovich, who famously took on PG&E in the 1990s, had urged California lawmakers not to let the utility go bankrupt because it could mean less money for wildfire victims.

PG&E faced additional pressure not to move forward with the bankruptcy after state fire investigators said a private electrical system, not utility equipment, caused the wine country blaze that destroyed more than 5,600 buildings in Sonoma and Napa counties in October 2017.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office estimated that more than half of the roughly $30 billion in potential damages that PG&E said it was facing was from that fire.

Legal experts say the bankruptcy will likely take years to resolve and will result in higher rates for PG&E customers.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

The post PG&E Corp. files for bankruptcy following wildfire claims appeared first on Cardinal Tax Group.