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. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.

  2. One option is to redistribute the payroll tax already collected by the State. A greater share could be allocated to the county of the workplace location as opposed to the county of residency. Not a new tax, just re-allocate what is currently collected.

  3. Have to agree with Mal Burgess. The biggest problem is massive family breakdown in these neighborhoods. While there are a lot of similiarities, there is a MASSIVE difference between 46218 and 46219. 46219 is diluted by some stable areas, and that's probably where the officers live. Incentivizing is fine, but don't criticize officers for choosing not to live in these neighbor hoods. They have to have a break from what is arguably one of the highest stress job in the land. And you'll have to give me hard evidence that putting officers there is going to make a significant difference. Solid family units, responsible fathers, siblings with the same fathers, engaged parents, commitment to education, respect for the rule of law and the importance of work/a job. If the families and the schools (and society) will support these, THEN we can make a difference.

  4. @Agreed, when you dine in Marion County, the taxes paid on that meal go to state coffers (in the form of the normal sales taxes) and to the sports/entertainment venues operated by the CIB. The sales taxes on your clothing and supplies just go to the state. The ONLY way those purchases help out Indianapolis is through the payroll taxes paid by the (generally low-wage) hourly workers serving you.

  5. The government leaders of Carmel wouldn't last a week trying to manage Indianapolis. There's a major difference between running a suburb with virtually no one below the poverty level and running a city in which 21+% are below the poverty level. (http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/interactive/#view=StateAndCounty&utilBtn=&yLB=0&stLB=15&cLB=49&dLB=0&gLB=0&usSts_cbSelected=false&usTot_cbSelected=true&stateTot_cbSelected=true&pLB=0?ltiYearSelected=false?ltiYearAlertFlag=false?StateFlag=false?validSDYearsFlag=false)

ADVERTISEMENT