IBJNews

WellPoint prevails in shareholder suit over 2001 restructuring

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has dismissed a shareholder class-action lawsuit against WellPoint stemming from the company’s 2001 conversion from a mutual insurer to a publicly traded company.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted summary judgment in favor of WellPoint on Dec. 23. She sided with attorneys for Indianapolis-based WellPoint who had argued that plaintiff Jeffrey D. Jorling’s claims should be barred by a federal law, which is designed to prevent state-law claims in cases involving securities transactions.

Jorling, who filed his case in 2009, alleged that policyholders of the company, then known as Anthem, who received stock in the restructuring weren't adequately compensated.

"We are pleased that the court has ... found that the plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law," WellPoint said in a prepared statement. "Anthem strongly believes that the demutualization was conducted properly and in a manner that was fair, reasonable, and equitable to Anthem’s former members. It was one of the most closely reviewed transactions in Indiana history and was approved by a special committee of Anthem’s Board of Directors, the Board itself, and by government regulators."

The Jorling case was an offshoot of a similar, class-action lawsuit filed in 2005 by Mary D. Ormond, which is still pending before Pratt.  The Ormond lawsuit covers Anthem policyholders who opted for cash, rather than stock, in the conversion.

Because mutual insurers are owned by their policyholders, they were due compensation when the company restructured and launched its initial public offering in October 2001. That conversion resulted in Anthem's shelling out nearly $2.1 billion in cash to more than 740,000 policyholders.

The court already sided with WellPoint on half the Ormond case. Eric Zagrans, a Cleveland attorney representing Jorling and Ormond, noted that the remaining claim in the Ormond case, which represents hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, is scheduled to be heard at trial in June.

 

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. I could be wrong, but I don't think Butler views the new dorm as mere replacements for Schwitzer and or Ross.

  2. An increase of only 5% is awesome compared to what most consumers face or used to face before passage of the ACA. Imagine if the Medicaid program had been expanded to the 400k Hoosiers that would be eligible, the savings would have been substantial to the state and other policy holders. The GOP predictions of plan death spirals, astronomical premium hikes and shortages of care are all bunk. Hopefully voters are paying attention. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare), where fully implemented, has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured and helped contained the growth in healthcare costs.

  3. So much for competition lowering costs.

  4. As I understand the proposal, Keystone would take on the debt, not the city/CRC. So the $104K would not be used to service the $3.8M bond. Keystone would do that with its share.

  5. Adam C, if anything in Carmel is "packed in like sardines", you'll have to show me where you shop for groceries. Based on 2014 population estimates, Carmel has around 85,000 people spread across about 48 square miles, which puts its density at well below 1800 persons/sq mi, which is well below Indianapolis (already a very low-density city). Noblesville is minimally less dense than Carmel as well. The initiatives over the last few years have taken what was previously a provincial crossroads with no real identity beyond lack of poverty (and the predictably above-average school system) and turned it into a place with a discernible look, feel, and a center. Seriously, if you think Carmel is crowded, couldn't you opt to live in the remaining 95% of Indiana that still has an ultra-low density development pattern? Moreover, if you see Carmel as "over-saturated" have you ever been to Chicago--or just about any city outside of Indiana?

ADVERTISEMENT