Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife, Inc.)

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife, Inc.) Summary: Former policyholders of mutual life insurance company brought this action against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company or MetLife, Inc. (defendant) to recover for securities fraud in connection with demutualization and conversion to stock company.

In 2000 MetLife changed from a mutual life insurance company to a stock life insurance company. This demutualization took place with the unanimous approval of the Board of Directors, the imprimatur of the New York State Insurance Commission and the permission of 93% of MetLife's 2,800,000 policyholders that voted (according to the complaint the total number of MetLife's policyholders surpasses 10,000,000).

This transaction converted MetLife's policy holdings into over 700,000,000 shares of stock valued at $14.25 per share, worth over $10 billion at the time. MetLife compensated each former policyholder with ten shares of MetLife stock in return for the policyholders' relinquishing of, inter alia, their voting membership interests in MetLife. Those termed "participating" policyholders, who also possessed interests in MetLife's then $14 billion surplus, received further shares of stock claimed to be commensurate with their policies' contributions to the surplus.

The Second Consolidated Amended and Supplemental Class Action Complaint (the complaint) alleges that the PIB, which set forth the details of the demutualization prior to the vote that approved the transaction, contained material misrepresentations, made through misstatements and omissions, and that MetLife made such misrepresentations with the relevant scienter. More specifically, in the complaint, plaintiffs allege four misrepresentations in the PIB: (i) omitting to state that the actuarial method used to calculate policyholders' contributions to MetLife's surplus arrived at a value of $15.3 billion, far higher than the $8.4 billion in stock that these policyholders received as compensation; (ii) omitting to state that MetLife's method of reorganization, an exchange of policies for stock with the right to elect cash, as opposed to an exchange of policies for cash with the right to elect stock, was chosen for the benefit of MetLife and not the policyholders, because plaintiffs would allegedly have received double the compensation under the latter method; (iii) omitting to state that policyholders would surrender their right to annual dividends from their contributions to MetLife's surplus; and (iv) misstating that reasonable dividends would "continue to be paid as declared," when in plaintiffs' view the assets allocated to pay dividends had been limited. In conclusion, plaintiffs allege that PIB did not explain that policyholders received only 54¢ on the dollar for their policies, that dividends were reduced, and that MetLife engaged in fraud by not stating this in the PIB.

NOTE: Plaintiffs are current MetLife shareholders and former MetLife participating policyholders.

On July 31, 2001, the Court entered the Memorandum and Order signed by U.S. District Judge Thomas C. Platt denying the defendant’s motion for an order dismissing the complaints and the action pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) or (6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and further denying the motion to stay the action pending the completion of related state-court proceedings. On February 12, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended and Supplemental Class Action Complaint, and, on April 26, 2004, the plaintiffs amended the complaint again by filing a Second Consolidated Amended and Supplemental Class Action Complaint. In 2004 the defendant moved to dismiss the second claim for relief, of securities fraud, from the class action second amended complaint. On June 22, 2004, the Judge signed an Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the second consolidated and amended class action complaint. The court stated that plaintiffs allege particular misstatements and omissions in the Policyholder Information Booklet (PIB), and attempt to demonstrate MetLife's scienter through strong circumstantial evidence of recklessness. In the Order the court "accepted plaintiffs allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in their favor," and declared that "plaintiffs may be entitled to the relief they seek, and discovery in this case may therefore continue."

On July 20, 2005, the Judge issued an order granting Motion to Certify Class. According to the Order, “all of the named Plaintiffs are appropriate and adequate class representatives, except Mr. Darrell Murray” given the reasons stated in the order.

According to the docket from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on August 3, 2005, Petitioner Metropolitan Life and Petitioner Metlife, Inc. filed a motion for Leave to Appeal pursuant to 23 (f). On March 29, 2006, the Court entered the Order. According to the Order, Petitioners move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) for an interlocutory appeal of the district court`s order certifying the putative class. Upon due consideration, it is ordered that the petition is denied, because an immediate appeal is not warranted.

On December 29, 2005, the Court signed an Order to Show Cause as to why an Injunction should not issue barring the Fiala litigation in State court. On August 11, 2006, the Court entered the Memorandum and Order denying the Federal Plaintiffs' Motion to Enjoin a State Action. Further, on August 30, 2006, the Court entered the Amended Memorandum and Order denying the Federal Plaintiffs' Motion to Enjoin a State Action. According to the Order, the Federal Plaintiffs’ arguments fail and Section78bb(f)(3)(A)(ii)(II) excludes the Fiala action from Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA).

On March 30, 2007, the Court entered the Order denying the plaintiffs’ June 21, 2006 motion to compel production of documents, denying the plaintiffs’ July 10, 2006 discovery motion to compel, and granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ August 2, 2006 motion to compel production of tax documents. On April 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to the District Court regarding the Order denying the motions to compel.

On May 9, 2007, the Court issued the Memorandum and Order denying MetLife's motion to vacate this Court's July 19, 2005 Order certifying a class in this action.

On June 18, 2007, the Court entered the Memorandum and Order as to the April 16, 2007 and May 14, 2007 Appeals of the Magistrate Judge Decision. According to the Order by Judge Thomas C. Platt, plaintiffs may seek from MetLife documents relevant to plaintiffs' allegation that MetLife misstated or omitted from the public disclosures information that its senior executives and board considered in approving the demutualization.

On December 13, 2007, the Court entered the U.S. Court of Appeals Mandate. According to the mandate, Petitioner [Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and Metlife, Inc.], through counsel has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ordered that the mandamus petition is denied because Petitioner has not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances warrant the requested relief.

On February 14, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for discovery. On August 2, 2008, Senior Judge Thomas C. Platt issued a modified order approving the class action notice plan. On August 25, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. That day, the defendants also filed a fully briefed motion for summary judgment. On September 18, 2008, the plaintiffs’ motion for discovery was denied. On March 30, 2009, Judge Thomas C. Platt denied both the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The accompanying Memorandum and Order was entered on May 27, 2009.

On April 27, 2009, Senior Judge Thomas C. Platt issued the Order to Show Cause ordering the defendants to show cause why an order should not be issued permitting notice of the pendency of this action by publication to class members who are "Industrial" policyholders, other than those Industrial policyholders whose names and addresses can be updated by the notice administrator. The defendants responded on May 21, 2009.

On June 8, 2009, Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson issued the Joint Pre-Trial Order. According to the Order, the Joint Pre-Trial Order is accepted for filing and the action is deemed ready for trial. The action will be tried in accordance with the discretion and trial calendar of District Judge Thomas C. Platt.

On August 4, 2009, Senior Judge Thomas C. Platt issued the Order to Show Cause. According to the Order, the defendants in this action, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife, Inc., and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, shall show cause why an order should not be issued disqualifying Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and all attorneys at that firm from representing defendants at the trial of this action.

On August 6, 2009, Senior Judge Thomas C. Platt ordered that the the Court reopens discovery in this matter for the limited purpose of resolving questions related to the alleged conflict of interest concerning MetLife's counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton.

On September 1, 2009, Senior Judge Thomas C. Platt ordered that the Plaintiffs motion to disqualify Debevoise & Plimpton from representing MetLife in the above-captioned action is hereby granted. The Court hereby certifies the following question for appeal: Should Debevoise & Plimpton be disqualified from representing MetLife in this case based on a conflict of interest.

On September 24, 2009, the Court entered the Mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals, reversing the order of United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, disqualifying Debevoise & Plimpton from representing defendant, MetLife. It is further ordered that the stay of the USCA, Second Circuit, remain in effect.

According to an Order signed by Senior Judge Jack B. Weinstein on October 14, 2009, pursuant to the request of the parties, the court has made inquiry about available persons to act as special settlement master. Once the parties agree, they should inform the court so that an order appointing a special settlement master can be entered.

On November 13, 2009, the parties in the instant class action and a related class action have agreed on a settlement of both actions, subject to the approval of this court and the federal court.

On December 22, 2009, three separate settlement agreements were filed with the court.

On February 12, 2010, a memorandum order and judgment on final approval of settlement, fees, expenses and compensation awards was approved as fair and reasonable. The case was dismissed on the merits.

On March 03, 2010, a final judgment in this action, including all individual claims and class claims presented by this action and all actions consolidated in this action, were dismissed on the merits, with prejudice, and without costs. All plaintiffs' counsel associated with the Federal Action and the State Action have agreed on a division of fees and expenses in this case.

On March 15, 2010, a Notice was filed by the plaintiffs in this action to appeal the District Court's Memorandum, Order, and judgment of Final Approval of Settlement, Fees, Expenses, and Compensation Awards.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6411
Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Life)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	MET
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.metlife.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Darren F. Murray, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-02258
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Thomas C. Platt
DATE FILED: 04/18/2000	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/28/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/18/2000
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA) 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA, 94104 (voice) 415.433.3200, (fax) 415.433.6382, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates (Boca Raton, FL) 2255 Glades Road Suite 421A, Boca Raton, FL, 33431 (voice) 561.750.3000, (fax) , Meredith, Cohen & Greenfogel, P.C. 63 Wall St., 32nd Floor , New York, NY, 10006 (voice) 212.482.1250, (fax) 212.482.1300, Stamell & Schager, LLP One Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor, New York, NY, 10006-1004 (voice) 212.566.4047, (fax) 212.566.4061, stamellschager@ssnyc.com Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York) 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 5

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/18/2000
Order
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 08/03/2000

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: MetLife Demutualization Litigation

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-02258
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Michael L. Orenstein
DATE FILED: 04/26/2004	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/28/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/18/2000
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Stamell & Schager, LLP One Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor, New York, NY, 10006-1004 (voice) 212.566.4047, (fax) 212.566.4061, stamellschager@ssnyc.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Second Consolidated Amended and Supplemental Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 4/26/2004
Memorandum And Order : Motion to Dismiss is Denied
Type: Order		Date on the document: 6/22/2004
Memorandum And Order : Class Certification
Type: Order		Date on the document: 7/20/2005
Mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 01/29/2006
Memorandum and Order : Motion to Enjoin a State Action Denied
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/07/2006
Amended Memorandum and Order : Motion to Enjoin a State Action Denied
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/28/2006
Memorandum and Order : Motion for a Determination Regarding the Membership of the Certified Class Denied
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/29/2006
Memorandum and Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/30/2007
Memorandum and Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/09/2007
Modified Proposed Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/02/2008
Memorandum And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/18/2008
Order
Type: Summary Judgment		Date on the document: 03/30/2009
Memorandum and Order
Type: Summary Judgment		Date on the document: 05/27/2009
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Disqualify Debevoise & Plimpton
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 07/31/2009
Judgment in a Civil Action
Type: Other		Date on the document: 08/04/2009
Opinion and Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/04/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/07/2009
Order [from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/04/2009
Memorandum And Order Regarding Notice And Hearing On Approval Of Proposed Settlement
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/04/2009
Order Regarding Notice & Hearing on Approval of Proposed Settlement [From Supreme Court Of The State Of New York County Of New York]
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/13/2009
Application Of Lead Plaintiffs In The Federal Action For Awards Under The PSLRA
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 12/22/2009
Lead Counsel's Joint Application For An Award Of Attorneys' Fees And Reimbursements Of Expenses
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 12/22/2009
Memorandum In Support of Final Approval Of Settlement And Plan Of Allocation Of Settlement Proceeds
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 12/22/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/03/2010
Memorandum, Order And Judgment On Final Approval Of Settlement, Fees, Expenses And Compensation Awards
Type: Order Approving AF&E		Date on the document: 02/12/2010
Final Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 03/03/2010
Notice Of Appeal
Type: Notice of Appeal		Date on the document: 03/15/2010

OTHER DOCUMENTS
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit General Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Darren F. Murray, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/21/2006
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket
Case Name and/or Number: In Re: MetLife Demutualization Litigation
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/07/2007
From the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case Name and/or Number: In Re: MetLife Demutualization Litigation
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/13/2007
Mandate
Case Name and/or Number: In Re: MetLife Demutualization Litigation
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/24/2009

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�