Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) : State Street Research and/or CDC Nvest Funds and Others

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) : State Street Research and/or CDC Nvest Funds and Others Summary: According to a press release dated February 5, 2007, on January 31, 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, MetLife Securities , Inc. and MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of federal securities laws Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 206 of the Advisors Act. The class includes those individuals who invested in proprietary mutual funds wholly owned by MetLife (including, but not limited to, State Street Research and/or CDC Nvest Funds), and/or clients who purchased MetLife proprietary term life insurance products.

On April 27, 2007, an Order Appointing Lead Plaintiffs And Approving Lead Plaintiffs Selection Of Lead Counsel was approved by the court.

On April 27, 2007 the judge appointed lead plaintiffs in the case and approved their selection of lead counsel. Shortly after, on May 9, 2007, the judge entered an order staying discovery against MetLife until further notice. On August 31, 2007 the plaintiffs entered a motion for leave to file a Second Amended complaint against the defendants, which they filed 4 days later on September 4, 2007. The defendants responded by filing a sealed motion to dismiss on September 24, 2007.

On August 31, 2009, an order conclude that all prerequisites to the application of the brokerdealer exception, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11)(C) were satisfied as a matter of law. MetLife’s motion for summary judgment was accordingly granted. A subsequent judgment was entered reflecting the summary judgment.

On September 29, 2009, a notice of appeal was to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the District Court’s ruling on the following: (1) Minute Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Second Amended Complaint to add five additional Plaintiffs to serve as named Plaintiffs entered on April 24, 2008. (2) Order granting Defendant MetLife's Motion for Summary Judgment entered on August 31, 2009. (3) Judgment in favor of Defendants MetLife Securities Inc, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and against plaintiffs, Amanda Thomas, Robert L Thomas entered on August 31, 2009.

On February 02, 2011, an opinion and judgment were issued by the Tenth Circuit United States Court Of Appeals affirming the decision of the Western District of Oklahoma.

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

Robert L. Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company , et al.

COURT: W.D. Oklahoma	DOCKET NUMBER: 07-CV-00121
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Stephen P. Friot
DATE FILED: 01/31/2007	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/01/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City) 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 (voice) 405-235-1560, (fax) , wfederman@aol.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/31/2007
Order Appointing Lead Plaintiffs And Approving Lead Plaintiffs Selection Of Lead Counsel
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 04/27/2007

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Robert L. Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al.

COURT: W.D. Oklahoma	DOCKET NUMBER: 07-CV-00121
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Stephen P. Friot
DATE FILED: 09/04/2007	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/01/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City) 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 (voice) 405-235-1560, (fax) , wfederman@aol.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 10/16/2008
Metlife's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 03/06/2009
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/31/2009
Plaintiffs' Notice Of Appeal
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 09/29/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/29/2009
Mandate
Type: Other		Date on the document: 02/24/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/24/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Appeal From The United States District Court For The Western District Of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 07-CV-00121-F)
Case Name and/or Number: Thomas et al v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
Type: Other		Date on the document: 02/02/2011
Judgment
Case Name and/or Number: Thomas et al v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
Type: Other		Date on the document: 02/02/2011

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

�