Lottery Receivables
Lottery Receivables
Lottery receivables are a specialized class of financial asset that have periodically been incorporated into the capital markets through securitization and other structured finance techniques in which investors assume the right to receive defined future payment streams derived from state lottery prizes. These payment streams most commonly arise when lottery jackpots are paid in the form of long-term annuities rather than lump-sum distributions, creating contractual receivables that may extend for twenty to thirty years. Because the payment obligations are typically funded through highly rated life insurance companies or state-authorized lottery commissions, the resulting cash flows are often considered sufficiently predictable to support the issuance of asset-backed securities. Transactions backed by lottery receivables occupy a niche segment of the capital markets at the intersection of structured finance, insurance funding agreements, municipal credit, and esoteric asset-backed securities, and their valuation depends primarily on legal enforceability, obligor credit quality, cash-flow timing, and structural protections rather than on the performance of traditional corporate assets.
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/abs-structured-settlement-or-lottery-securities
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securitization
Corvid Partners has been active in the valuation, structuring, trading, restructuring, and advisory of complex structured finance instruments, including lottery receivable securitizations, structured settlement asset-backed securities, insurance-linked securities, catastrophe bonds, and other esoteric cash-flow transactions. Members of Corvid have traded and analyzed these instruments across multiple market cycles, including the expansion of esoteric ABS issuance in the late 1990s, the growth of institutional structured-credit funds in the 2000s, the dislocations associated with the global financial crisis, the post-crisis restructuring of securitization markets, and the more recent environment characterized by reduced dealer balance-sheet capacity, increased reliance on private credit, and the growing role of specialized investors in illiquid asset classes. Work performed by Corvid professionals has included valuation of lottery receivable portfolios, analysis of securitization structures, advisory in restructurings and disputes, expert testimony in litigation involving payment-stream assignments, and market analysis relating to trading levels, discount rates, and expected loss assumptions for thinly traded securities whose prices must often be determined through modeling rather than observable transactions.
What a Lottery Receivable Actually Is — And Why It Ends Up in a Bond
The origin of every lottery receivable is a decision made by a jackpot winner. In most large state lotteries, winners who elect the annuity option receive scheduled payments — typically annual installments — funded through annuity contracts purchased by the state lottery commission from highly rated life insurance companies. The commission does not retain the payment obligation directly: it purchases the annuity at the time of award and thereafter the insurance company is the obligated payor. MetLife, Pacific Life, Allstate, Prudential, and John Hancock have historically been among the primary annuity providers in the lottery-funded annuity market, offering state lottery organizations financing structures that can be shaped to fit virtually any payout design.
https://www.metlife.com/retirement-and-income-solutions/lifetime-income/lotteries/
https://peachtreefinancial.com/what-to-do-if-you-win-the-lottery/
https://www.financestrategists.com/insurance-broker/annuity/is-lottery-annuity-guaranteed/
A winner who subsequently wants liquidity can sell some or all of those future payment rights to a factoring company — a specialty finance firm that purchases the receivable at a discount and pays the winner a lump sum. That transaction produces the raw material for a securitization: a pool of individual payment streams, each backed by a creditworthy insurance company, each court-approved as described below, each with a defined schedule of future cash flows that can be modeled and pledged as collateral for notes issued to institutional investors.
The factoring companies — JG Wentworth, Peachtree Financial Solutions (which operated as JGWPT Holdings in its merged form), and Singer Asset Finance among the most historically active — acquire these receivables at retail from individual winners, aggregate them into portfolios, and then finance those portfolios through the capital markets. JG Wentworth alone completed more than 64 asset-backed securitizations totaling over $6.5 billion in notes across its history, with lottery receivables first incorporated formally into its ABS program in 2013 alongside the structured settlements and annuity contracts that formed the majority of its collateral. Singer Asset Finance, founded in 1995, was one of the earliest industry participants, building financing vehicles in partnership with Industrial Bank of Japan and BMO Nesbitt Burns/MBIA that established structural precedents the market still uses today.
https://www.jgwentworth.com/asset-backed-securitization
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1643584.html
The Legal Framework — Why the Court Is in Every Transaction
The legal architecture governing lottery receivable and structured settlement transfers is more layered than most esoteric ABS sectors, and understanding it is essential before evaluating any transaction. Three distinct legal regimes interact in every deal: state Structured Settlement Protection Acts, federal tax law under IRC Section 5891, and state lottery assignment statutes that govern the transfer of lottery winnings specifically.
The Structured Settlement Protection Acts — universally referred to as SSPAs — are state statutes enacted in every U.S. jurisdiction, beginning with Illinois in 1998, that require court approval before any structured settlement or lottery payment right can be transferred to a third party. The model legislation developed under the National Council of Insurance Legislators requires a court finding that the transfer is in the best interest of the payee, does not contravene applicable law, and that the payee has been advised to seek independent professional advice. The court approval process typically takes 30 to 60 days and involves filing the transfer agreement, a disclosure statement showing the effective annual interest rate being charged, and notification to the annuity issuer and structured settlement obligor.
https://ncoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/model-struc-settlement.pdf
https://www.annuity.org/selling-payments/structured-settlement-protection-acts/
The federal excise tax provision — IRC Section 5891, enacted as part of the Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001 — imposes a 40% excise tax on the factoring discount in any structured settlement or lottery factoring transaction that does not obtain a court-approved qualified order. The qualified order requirement under Section 5891 mirrors the best-interest and anti-contravention findings required by the state SSPAs, effectively federalizing the court approval requirement and making non-compliant transfers prohibitively expensive. The Ninth Circuit in White v. Symetra Assigned Benefits Service Company (2024) described this court approval requirement as the cornerstone of both state and federal law governing structured settlement transfers.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5891
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-157
https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-8876
https://www.catalinastructuredfunding.com/blog/california-sspa-guide
For lottery receivables specifically, state lottery statutes add a third layer. Most states have explicit lottery prize assignment provisions — separate from the SSPA framework — that govern the transfer of lottery winnings and require their own court or administrative approval process. California, which imposes some of the most stringent requirements in the country, requires a Superior Court order with six express written findings under Insurance Code Section 10139.5. Transactions aggregating receivables from multiple states therefore involve compliance verification across multiple legal regimes, with the legal opinion work at closing covering each jurisdiction's specific requirements for each individual receivable in the pool. A defect in any individual assignment — discovered pre- or post-securitization — can impair the enforceability of the receivable and create losses that flow through the transaction waterfall.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu
The Development of Lottery Receivable Securitization — History and Market Evolution
The development of lottery receivable securitization is closely related to the broader evolution of the asset-backed securities market in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s, when market participants began to recognize that predictable contractual payment streams could be isolated, pooled, and financed through the issuance of securities. Early securitization activity focused on residential mortgages, auto loans, and credit-card receivables, but the same legal and structural techniques were later applied to more specialized assets, including structured settlements, equipment leases, franchise royalties, and lottery payment rights. The ability to convert illiquid receivables into tradable securities allowed originators to monetize long-dated cash flows while transferring credit and timing risk to investors willing to evaluate complex structures and legal frameworks.
https://www.bis.org/publ/joint34.htm
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2018/405
Lottery receivables typically arise when a lottery winner elects to receive periodic payments rather than a lump-sum prize. In many large state lotteries, jackpots are funded through annuity contracts purchased from life insurance companies, which obligate the insurer to make scheduled payments over a period that may exceed twenty years. These payment rights constitute legally enforceable receivables that, in many jurisdictions, may be assigned to third parties subject to court approval and compliance with state statutes governing the transfer of lottery winnings. Once assigned, the payment streams may be aggregated and pledged as collateral for financing transactions, allowing sponsors to issue securities backed by the expected cash flows.
https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/annuities
The first structured settlement ABS offering was completed in 1997 by JG Wentworth, establishing the structural template for the market. By 2012, Barclays characterized the credit performance of the asset class as pristine — noting cumulative charge-off rates of just 0.09% on all payment streams purchased by JG Wentworth since 2002, a period that encompassed the global financial crisis. When JGWPT Holdings — the merged entity combining JG Wentworth and Peachtree Financial Solutions — announced its 35th securitization in March 2013 as the first to formally incorporate lottery receivables, Peachtree's lottery business head noted the firm had already raised more than $800 million in lottery-related transactions over its history. By 2014, deal sizes in the JGWPT program had reached approximately $207 to $233 million per transaction, with Class A notes rated Aaa by Moody's and AAA by DBRS paying coupons in the 3.50% to 3.61% range and Class B notes rated Baa2/BBB paying 4.40% to 4.48%, with Barclays and Credit Suisse as primary structuring advisors and Deutsche Bank and Natixis as co-managers across much of this vintage.
https://asreport.americanbanker.com/news/structured-settlement-abs-ready-to-get-respect
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001580185/000110465914083274/a14-25195_1ex99d1.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001580185/000110465914053020/a14-17334_2ex99d1.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001541487/000119312514033865/d668013dabs15g.htm
Structural Mechanics
The securitization of lottery receivables generally follows the same structural framework used in other asset-backed transactions. Payment rights are transferred to a bankruptcy-remote special purpose vehicle, which issues notes to investors and uses the proceeds to acquire the receivables. Cash flows from the underlying annuity payments are applied through a priority-of-payments structure providing for servicing fees, interest, principal repayment, and credit-enhancement mechanisms such as reserve accounts, subordination, or overcollateralization. Because the number of underlying receivables may be relatively small and concentrated, rating agencies typically focus heavily on the credit quality of the insurance companies funding the annuities, the legal validity of the assignments, and the operational integrity of the servicing arrangements.
https://www.sec.gov/education/capitalraising/building-blocks/securitization
https://www.spglobal.com/ratings
The rating methodology for these transactions treats them as primarily an obligor credit analysis — how likely is each annuity-funding insurance company to meet its scheduled payment obligations over the life of the bond? Because lottery annuities are not obligations of the state lottery commission post-transfer, the bondholder is exposed to the financial strength of the insurance carriers in the pool. Transactions where a single insurer funds the majority of the annuities carry meaningful concentration risk; well-diversified pools spread across multiple investment-grade carriers achieve better ratings and tighter spreads. The legal precision of each individual assignment — the court order, the compliance with the state SSPA and IRC Section 5891, the chain of title from winner to factoring company to SPV — is reviewed by transaction counsel and confirmed through legal opinions forming part of the closing conditions.
https://www.moodys.com/researchandratings
The Servicer — and What Happens When It Fails
Servicer risk deserves more prominence in lottery receivable analysis than it typically receives. The servicer — historically the factoring company itself — is responsible for tracking payment schedules, collecting from annuity issuers, administering court orders, managing the operational interface with insurance companies and state lottery commissions, and remitting to the SPV on schedule. When JG Wentworth filed a prepackaged Chapter 11 in November 2017 — seeking to restructure $449.5 million in senior secured credit facility debt through a debt-for-equity swap that handed 95.5% of the equity to term lenders — the critical structural protection that prevented disruption to its 32 Moody's-rated ABS transactions was the presence of Portfolio Financial Servicing Company as backup servicer, with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and U.S. Bank National Association as standby and servicer of last resort. Moody's confirmed at the time of filing that none of the ABS transactions would be affected because JG Wentworth Management Company — the operating subsidiary that served as servicer — was not part of the bankruptcy filing, and the prepackaged agreement was specifically structured to require only the holding company to file.
This episode illustrates both the value of proper structural protections and the tail risk that exists when the servicer and securitization sponsor are the same entity. Investors who had analyzed the transactions at the structural level — understanding what would happen if the servicer became insolvent — were able to distinguish between the headline risk of a sponsor bankruptcy and the actual credit exposure in the ABS, which remained fully intact. Those who had not done that structural analysis conflated corporate distress with ABS impairment and traded accordingly.
Legal Considerations and State Law Complexity
Legal considerations play a central role in lottery receivable transactions because many states regulate the transfer of lottery winnings to protect prize recipients from predatory factoring arrangements. Statutes frequently require court approval before payment rights can be assigned, and judges may review whether the transfer is in the best interest of the winner. These requirements create additional legal risk for securitizations, since any defect in the assignment process could impair the enforceability of the underlying receivable. As a result, transaction documents typically include detailed representations, warranties, and legal opinions addressing compliance with state law and the validity of each assignment.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu
An important distinction that practitioners must understand is the difference between the SSPA regime — which governs structured settlement transfers and has been applied to lottery payment assignments by analogy in many states — and the specific lottery prize assignment statutes that exist separately in high-volume states. California requires six express written findings from a Superior Court under Insurance Code Section 10139.5, with judges evaluating 15 specific factors including the seller's age, financial situation, the fairness of the discount rate, and whether prior sale applications have been denied. By 2015, an estimated 84,000 tort victims nationwide had surrendered approximately $13 billion in settlements in exchange for roughly $5 billion in immediate cash — a statistic that illustrates both the scale of the factoring industry and the consumer protection concerns that drove the legislative response. For investors evaluating a pool of lottery receivables, the geographic composition of the collateral — which states' winners are represented, and whether assignments were properly executed under each jurisdiction's specific requirements — is a material credit consideration requiring actual legal analysis.
https://www.catalinastructuredfunding.com/blog/california-sspa-guide
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5891
Credit Framework — How Investors Price This Paper
From a credit perspective, lottery receivable securitizations share similarities with structured settlement asset-backed securities because both rely on long-term annuity payments funded by highly rated insurers. Rating agencies evaluate these transactions using methodologies that consider obligor credit quality, diversification, payment timing, structural protections, and operational risk. Transactions may achieve investment-grade ratings when the underlying annuity providers have strong financial strength ratings and when sufficient credit enhancement is included to absorb potential defaults or delays. Because the underlying payment streams are fixed, expected loss is driven primarily by counterparty risk rather than economic performance.
https://www.moodys.com/researchandratings
At the senior tranche level, Barclays noted in 2012 that AAA-rated structured settlement ABS — the same program that would incorporate lottery receivables the following year — was then priced at approximately 200 basis points over swaps, at a time when AAA-rated credit card ABS cleared at approximately 60 basis points over swaps. That 140 basis point premium for comparable rating quality was explicitly attributed to limited issuance and the resulting lack of secondary market liquidity. By the 2014 to 2016 vintage, as spreads tightened across the credit spectrum in a sustained low-rate environment, JGWPT senior notes priced in the 3.26% to 3.61% absolute coupon range — roughly 80 to 130 basis points over equivalent-maturity Treasury benchmarks — with subordinate Class B tranches 90 to 115 basis points wide of the seniors. Esoteric ABS more broadly offered yield advantages of as much as 100 basis points versus similarly rated corporate bonds of comparable duration, a premium that reflected both the illiquidity premium inherent in private placement format and the investor expertise required to evaluate these structures.
https://asreport.americanbanker.com/news/structured-settlement-abs-ready-to-get-respect
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001580185/000158018515000013/pressreleasedatedmarch3120.htm
https://www.conning.com/-/media/marketingsite/documents/product-sheets/esoteric-abs-fact-sheet.pdf
In secondary trading, the discount framework shifts. Individual lottery receivables traded at the consumer level carry effective discount rates of 9% to 18% applied by factoring companies to individual sellers — rates that reflect the cost of capital, legal processing, court timelines, and the factoring company's margin. Securitized notes backed by pools of these receivables trade at far tighter effective yields because the legal processing cost and individual idiosyncrasy have already been absorbed. The spread between what a factoring company pays a winner for their annuity and what institutional investors earn in the rated securities is where the economic engine of this market runs, and it is wide enough to sustain a viable business despite the considerable operational and legal overhead.
https://www.nasp-usa.com/glossary.php
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/abs-structured-settlement-or-lottery-securities
Trading and Secondary Market Dynamics
The market for lottery receivable financing expanded during the late 1990s and early 2000s as structured-settlement factoring companies and specialty finance firms sought funding sources beyond bank credit lines. By pooling receivables and issuing securities, sponsors obtained longer-term financing and transferred risk to institutional investors. These transactions were typically sold in private placements under Rule 144A, limiting the investor base to qualified institutional buyers capable of analyzing complex legal and cash-flow structures.
Trading in lottery receivable securitizations occurs primarily in the secondary market among institutional investors, specialty finance firms, hedge funds, insurance companies, and private credit funds participating in the broader esoteric ABS market. Unlike large securitization sectors such as RMBS or credit-card ABS, lottery receivable transactions are typically small, privately placed, and infrequently issued, which limits the development of an active dealer market. Trading is negotiated bilaterally rather than through electronic platforms, and pricing depends as much on investor-specific return requirements and legal considerations as on observable market spreads.
https://www.sifma.org/research/statistics/us-asset-backed-securities-statistics
Secondary-market liquidity is generally limited, and pricing relies on discounted cash-flow modeling rather than observable market quotes. The relatively small size of most transactions makes it difficult to assemble large trading positions, and legal transfer restrictions may complicate settlement of secondary trades. Bid-ask spreads are wider than in more liquid securitization markets, and prices vary depending on the specific characteristics of the collateral — payment timing, insurer credit quality, and the jurisdiction governing each assignment.
https://www.bis.org/publ/joint34.htm
Bid levels are determined by applying a discount rate to the projected payment stream, with the discount rate reflecting a combination of risk-free rates, insurer credit spreads, liquidity premium, and adjustment for legal and structural complexity. In distressed situations — the liquidation of a fund, the restructuring of a specialty finance company, forced selling from an estate or bankruptcy proceeding — discounts can increase substantially. The JG Wentworth 2017 restructuring demonstrated this dynamic in clear terms: a sponsor-level event that created headline uncertainty around an ABS program structurally insulated from the corporate reorganization. Dealers and investors who had done the structural work traded the paper accurately through the dislocation; those who conflated sponsor distress with ABS impairment did not.
https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com
Valuation Framework
Valuation of lottery receivable portfolios requires a multidisciplinary approach combining structured-finance modeling, insurance credit analysis, legal review, and knowledge of secondary-market trading levels. Analysts must evaluate the financial strength of the annuity providers, the timing of each payment, the enforceability of each assignment, servicing arrangements, and the structural protections in the securitization. Small differences in discount-rate assumptions, default probabilities, or legal risk factors can have a significant impact on valuation, particularly for long-dated payment streams, and disputes involving these assets frequently require expert testimony regarding expected cash flows and appropriate market discount rates.
https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/future-shock-mortgage-securitization-in-bankruptcy
At the desk level, the primary valuation inputs are: the credit quality and financial strength ratings of each annuity-funding insurance company, the scheduled payment dates and amounts, the remaining legal term of each assignment, the jurisdiction and completeness of each underlying court order, the concentration of the pool across individual obligors and geographies, the adequacy of reserve accounts and overcollateralization relative to stress scenarios, and the prevailing spread environment for comparable esoteric ABS. Duration is straightforward — unlike life settlement portfolios where mortality uncertainty creates terminal duration risk, lottery and structured settlement payment schedules are contractually fixed and precisely defined — which is one of the features that makes these instruments analytically cleaner than other payment-stream securitizations.
In addition to new issuance, lottery receivable assets may become involved in restructurings, litigation, or portfolio sales, particularly when market conditions change or sponsors encounter financial distress. Because the market is specialized and transactions are not standardized, participants rely on advisors with experience in trading, valuation, and restructuring of esoteric ABS to determine fair value and evaluate strategic alternatives.
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2018/405
https://www.bis.org/publ/joint34.htm
Relative Value and the Broader Context
Although the overall size of the lottery receivable securitization market is small compared with major asset-backed sectors, it illustrates the broader capacity of the capital markets to finance unconventional assets. Similar to catastrophe bonds, life-settlement securitizations, and other alternative risk-transfer instruments, lottery receivable transactions demonstrate how defined contractual cash flows can be isolated, modeled, and sold to investors through carefully designed legal structures. These instruments require specialized expertise in structured finance, insurance, and securities law, and their analysis involves the same disciplines used in other complex markets, including CLOs, ILS, and privately negotiated credit instruments.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/finance
In a relative value framework, senior lottery and structured settlement ABS compete with other esoteric payment-stream securities — royalty ABS, healthcare receivable securitizations, ESPC bonds — for allocation from insurance companies, structured credit funds, and specialty fixed-income managers. The primary attractions relative to those alternatives are duration predictability, deterministic payment schedules backed by rated insurance carriers, and the absence of mortality or actuarial uncertainty that characterizes life settlement or longevity instruments. The primary disadvantages are the concentrated obligor structure — a pool of 20 to 40 individual annuity contracts with a handful of insurance company counterparties carries more concentration risk than a mainstream consumer ABS pool with thousands of individual obligors — and the legal complexity of the assignment framework, which adds friction at every stage of the asset lifecycle.
As the structured-finance market continues to evolve, niche asset classes such as lottery receivables remain relevant because they provide funding flexibility for originators and diversification opportunities for investors willing to analyze illiquid and complex securities. The techniques developed in these transactions — bankruptcy-remote vehicles, cash-flow waterfalls, credit enhancement, legal isolation of assets, model-based valuation — are fundamental to modern securitization, and their application here represents one of the cleaner demonstrations of those tools operating on genuinely simple underlying cash flows.
Conclusion
Lottery receivables sit at an unusual intersection in the fixed-income world: the underlying economics are simple — a contractually fixed schedule of payments from a rated insurance company — but the legal, structural, and operational complexity of getting those payments into a bond and trading them efficiently is substantial enough to have kept the market small and the investor base narrow for its entire history. That complexity is a feature, not a bug, for investors with the expertise to navigate it. The same barriers that limit participation also limit competition and support wider spreads and more favorable entry pricing than the credit fundamentals alone would justify.
Corvid Partners brings to lottery receivable and structured settlement ABS the combination of structured credit expertise, legal framework fluency, and active trading experience across the full range of esoteric payment-stream securitizations. The firm's involvement in valuations, disputes, restructurings, and advisory work in this sector reflects a practitioner-level understanding of where the real risks in these transactions reside — the legal enforceability of individual assignments, the servicer backup framework, the concentration of annuity obligors — and where they do not. In a market where the gap between correctly and incorrectly analyzed credit exposure can be large, and where headline events like a sponsor bankruptcy can be confused with actual ABS impairment by investors who have not done the structural work, that analytical precision is where value is created and preserved.
https://www.sifma.org/research/statistics/us-asset-backed-securities-statistics
See Also:
Asset-Backed Securities — Lottery receivables securitization is a government-backed ABS application in which state-guaranteed annuity payments provide the collateral cash flows. The ABS chapter covers the securitization mechanics — true sale, SPV structure, cash flow waterfall — that underpin the legal architecture of lottery securitizations alongside the broader ABS market context.
PPP — Lottery securitizations involve the monetization of public-sector cash flows by private capital, a structural relationship that parallels the public-private partnership framework even though lottery securitizations do not involve ongoing service delivery obligations. The PPP chapter covers the broader framework of public-sector cash flow monetization that provides analytical context for lottery receivables transactions.
GSA Lease-Backed Securities — Both lottery receivables and GSA lease-backed securities are government cash flow monetization instruments in which the credit quality of the underlying government obligation is the primary structural support. The GSA chapter covers the federal real estate leasing counterpart that operates on the same fundamental government-credit-backed logic.
Bibliography
Bank for International Settlements — Joint Forum on Credit Risk Transfer
https://www.bis.org/publ/joint34.htm
Federal Reserve / Chicago Fed — Securitization and Credit Markets
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2018/405
SEC — Securitization Guidance
https://www.sec.gov/education/capitalraising/building-blocks/securitization
SEC — Rule 144A Guidance
SEC — ABS Markets Study 2014–2024
https://www.sec.gov/files/dera-abs-mkt-2504.pdf
SEC EDGAR — JG Wentworth XXXII LLC 8-K (2014 deal, Class A 3.61%)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001580185/000110465914053020/a14-17334_2ex99d1.htm
SEC EDGAR — JG Wentworth XXXIII LLC 8-K (2014 deal, Class A 3.50%)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001580185/000110465914083274/a14-25195_1ex99d1.htm
SEC EDGAR — JG Wentworth XXXIV LLC 8-K (2015 deal, Class A 3.26%)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001580185/000158018515000013/pressreleasedatedmarch3120.htm
SEC EDGAR — JG Wentworth XXXVII LLC 8-K (2016 deal)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001580185/000158018516000148/a8-kpressrelese10x26x16sec.htm
SEC EDGAR — JG Wentworth XL LLC 8-K (2017 deal, filed during Chapter 11)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001580185/000158018517000110/a8-kpressrelese12x19x17sec.htm
SEC EDGAR — JG Wentworth Originations ABS-15G (2013 Form covering lottery asset class)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001541487/000119312514033865/d668013dabs15g.htm
Asset Securitization Report — Structured Settlement ABS: Ready to Get Respect (2012 spread color, Barclays commentary)
https://asreport.americanbanker.com/news/structured-settlement-abs-ready-to-get-respect
Asset Securitization Report — JG Wentworth Tapping Securitization Market While in Chapter 11 (2017)
Business Wire — JGWPT Holdings First Securitization Including Lottery Receivables (April 2013)
Business Wire — JGWPT Holdings $232 Million ABS (March 2013)
JG Wentworth — ABS Program Overview
https://www.jgwentworth.com/asset-backed-securitization
JG Wentworth — Restructuring Will Not Disrupt ABS Servicing (November 2017)
ABL Advisor — JG Wentworth Chapter 11 Filing (2017)
Singer Asset Finance — About Us
Turton v. Singer Asset Finance Company — FindLaw (Singer IBJ/MBIA structure)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1643584.html
MetLife — Lottery Annuity Products for State Lottery Organizations
https://www.metlife.com/retirement-and-income-solutions/lifetime-income/lotteries/
Peachtree Financial — Lottery Annuity Payout Structures
https://peachtreefinancial.com/what-to-do-if-you-win-the-lottery/
Finance Strategists — Is Lottery Annuity Guaranteed?
https://www.financestrategists.com/insurance-broker/annuity/is-lottery-annuity-guaranteed/
Internal Revenue Code Section 5891 — Structured Settlement Factoring Transactions
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5891
26 CFR Part 157 — Excise Tax Regulations
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-157
IRS Form 8876 — Excise Tax on Structured Settlement Factoring Transactions
https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-8876
NCOIL — Model Structured Settlement Protection Act
https://ncoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/model-struc-settlement.pdf
Annuity.org — State-by-State SSPA Guide
https://www.annuity.org/selling-payments/structured-settlement-protection-acts/
Catalina Structured Funding — California SSPA Guide (White v. Symetra reference)
https://www.catalinastructuredfunding.com/blog/california-sspa-guide
Columbia Law Review — Enforcing and Reforming Structured Settlement Protection Acts
Uniform Law Commission
University of Pennsylvania Law Review
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu
National Association of Settlement Purchasers — Glossary and Discount Rate Framework
https://www.nasp-usa.com/glossary.php
Law Insider — ABS Structured Settlement or Lottery Securities Definition
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/abs-structured-settlement-or-lottery-securities
Sidley Austin — Structured Settlements, Lottery Prize Receivables, and Securitization
Conning — Esoteric ABS Strategy Fact Sheet (NAIC treatment, yield premium vs. corporates)
https://www.conning.com/-/media/marketingsite/documents/product-sheets/esoteric-abs-fact-sheet.pdf
Conning — Esoteric ABS: A Clear Opportunity for Uncertain Times (100bps premium to corporates)
ABI — Securitization and Servicer Dynamics in Bankruptcy
https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/future-shock-mortgage-securitization-in-bankruptcy
CFA Institute — ABS Instrument and Market Features
SIFMA — US ABS Market Statistics
https://www.sifma.org/research/statistics/us-asset-backed-securities-statistics
Moody's — Structured Finance Research
https://www.moodys.com/researchandratings
KBRA — Structured Finance Ratings
S&P Global Ratings — ABS Methodology
https://www.spglobal.com/ratings
International Capital Market Association
IMF — Capital Markets Reports
Turnaround Management Association
Norton Rose Fulbright — Structured Finance Publications
https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com
Swiss Re Institute — Insurance-Linked Securities
World Bank Treasury
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/finance
Corvid Partners
The sources cited above have been referenced in good faith from publicly available materials. Corvid Partners Limited makes no warranty as to their accuracy, completeness, or currency. Transaction details, market data, spread levels, recovery figures, and historical figures cited in this chapter should be independently verified before being relied upon for any investment, structuring, or advisory purpose. Legal frameworks, market conventions, and regulatory requirements referenced herein reflect conditions as understood at the time of writing and may no longer be current. Nothing in this chapter constitutes investment, financial, legal, or tax advice. For full disclaimer see “Disclaimer” page via the Corvid Field Guide landing page. © Corvid Partners Limited 2026.