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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT