IBJNews

Judge stays decision in WellPoint policyholder case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former policyholders of WellPoint Inc., who won the right to a class-action trial over their claims that they were shortchanged when the company went public a decade ago, will have to put their plans on hold after a federal judge in Indianapolis stayed the case pending an unusual request for appeal by WellPoint.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt stayed the case on Wednesday after WellPoint earlier this month asked for permission to appeal Pratt’s granting of a trial. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to decide whether to hear WellPoint’s appeal.

Pratt had dismissed most of the policyholders’ claims in July, but said two of those claims deserved to be heard by a jury at a trial. Attorneys for WellPoint appealed that decision on Sept. 12, leading to Pratt’s stay order this week.

The policyholders covered by the class-action suit were part-owners of WellPoint’s predecessor, Anthem Inc., before it converted from a mutual insurance company to a publicly traded one in October 2001. That conversion resulted in Anthem shelling out nearly $2.1 billion in cash to more than 740,000 policyholders.

Other policyholders elected to receive stock in the conversion, and they have sued WellPoint in a separate lawsuit.

Anthem’s stock price rose rapidly after its IPO, gaining 20 percent in its first four days of trading. Policyholders sued in 2005, claiming Anthem’s directors under-priced the IPO, thereby cheating policyholders out of money.

In fact, if Anthem had calculated its cash payouts on Nov. 2—the day the state of Indiana officially approved Anthem’s conversion—instead of on Oct. 30—the day Anthem went public—the policyholders would have reaped an extra $167 million, they claim.

The policyholders also note that in the days leading up to the IPO Anthem directors increased the number of shares to be sold by nearly 20 million, but they did not appear to have seriously considered raising the price of the IPO, which would have generated more cash for the policyholders.

Pratt ruled that the policyholders had a right to have a jury decide whether Anthem had breached its fiduciary duty and been negligent. She rejected the policyholders’ other claims, which said Anthem had breached its contract with policyholders and had improperly included some employer groups in its distribution of cash.

It is unusual for an appeal to be made in the middle of an ongoing case, which is why WellPoint must first win permission from the appeals court. If the appeals court refuses to hear WellPoint’s appeal or if it affirms Pratt’s decision, then the case would proceed to a trial, scheduled for June 2012.

But if WellPoint is allowed to appeal and the appeals court reverses Pratt’s decision outright, it would end the policyholders’ case. However, the appeals court could also reject Pratt’s ruling in such a way that would still send the case back to her for further proceedings.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed an amicus brief with the appeals court, as his office had with the federal court in Indianapolis. The state claims that the Anthem policyholders should have brought their case to the Indiana Department of Insurance immediately after it approved Anthem's IPO. The fact that they did not, Zoeller and WellPoint claim, should invalidate their lawsuit.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Why not take some time to do some research before traveling to that Indiana town or city, and find the ones that are no smoking either inside, or have a patio? People like yourself are just being selfish, and unnecessarily trying to take away all indoor venues that smokers can enjoy themselves at. Last time I checked, it is still a free country, and businesses do respond to market pressure and will ban smoking, if there's enough demand by customers for it(i.e. Linebacker Lounge in South Bend, and Rack and Helen's in New Haven, IN, outside of Fort Wayne). Indiana law already unnecessarily forced restaurants with a bar area to be no smoking, so why not support those restaurants that were forced to ban smoking against their will? Also, I'm always surprised at the number of bars that chose to ban smoking on their own, in non-ban parts of Indiana I'll sometimes travel into. Whiting, IN(just southeast of Chicago) has at least a few bars that went no smoking on their own accord, and despite no selfish government ban forcing those bars to make that move against their will! I'd much rather have a balance of both smoking and non-smoking bars, rather than a complete bar smoking ban that'll only force more bars to close their doors. And besides IMO, there are much worser things to worry about, than cigarette smoke inside a bar. If you feel a bar is too smoky, then simply walk out and take your business to a different bar!

  2. As other states are realizing the harm in jailing offenders of marijuana...Indiana steps backwards into the script of Reefer Madness. Well...you guys voted for your Gov...up to you to vote him out. Signed, Citizen of Florida...the next state to have medical marijuana.

  3. It's empowering for this niche community to know that they have an advocate on their side in case things go awry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrst9VXVKfE

  4. Apparently the settlement over Angie's List "bundling" charges hasn't stopped the practice! My membership is up for renewal, and I'm on my third email trying to get a "basic" membership rather than the "bundled" version they're trying to charge me for. Frustrating!!

  5. Well....as a vendor to both of these builders I guess I have the right to comment. Davis closed his doors with integrity.He paid me every penny he owed me. Estridge,STILL owes me thousands and thousands of dollars. The last few years of my life have been spent working 2 jobs, paying off the suppliers I used to work on Estridge jobs and just struggling to survive. Shame on you Paul...and shame on you IBJ! Maybe you should have contacted the hundreds of vendors that Paul stiffed. I'm sure your "rises from the ashes" spin on reporting would have contained true stories of real people who have struggled to find work and pay of their debts (something that Paul didn't even attempt to do).

ADVERTISEMENT