Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/30/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: October 21, 2004

On September 30, 2005, the Court entered the Stipulation and Order signed by U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa that pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1). This action is dismissed without prejudice and without costs.

On June 8, 2005, the Court entered the Order by Judge Thomas P. Griesa granting the motion to appoint lead plaintiffs, approval of selection of co-lead counsel, and for consolidation.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts regarding the Company's financial performance throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

The Complaint specifically alleges that during the class period MetLife failed to disclose that in order to steer business its way, the Company paid tens of millions of dollars of contingent commissions "kickbacks." In fact, on October 19, 2004, MetLife admitted that in 2003 alone, it paid $25 million in contingent commissions. In addition, MetLife also paid other fees for data processing, billing and "communication" services.

Note: this lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of MetLife, Inc. between April 5, 2000, through 9:31 a.m., Eastern Time, October 14, 2004, inclusive.


Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Life)
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: MET
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data

"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-8321
JUDGE: Hon. Laura Taylor Swain
DATE FILED: 10/21/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/19/2004
  1. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  2. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
  3. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available