Several thousand MetLife policyholders have been improperly excluded
from relief in the class action suit described at
www.demutualization.org
Who is a qualified attorney who will assist me in writing and filing a
Amicus brief seeking to expand the class definition to include all
those policyholders who were members of the mutual association that
was MetLife before the fraud and who no longer have "insurance at
cost"...which was provided by contract but was abrogated via the
illegal demutualization plan implimentation. |
Request for Question Clarification by
denco-ga
on
22 Oct 2005 14:39 PDT
Howdy unclelarry1-ga,
I'll ask the obvious. How about one of the attorneys for the plantiffs
of the original case?
http://policyholder.info/SecondAmendedMetLifeComplaintFinal.pdf
Jared B. Stamell
STAMELL & SCHAGER, LLP
One Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10006
(212) 566-4047
Robert A. Skirnick, Esq. (RS 2636)
Maria A. Skirnick, Esq.
MEREDITH COHEN GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK, P.C.
One Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10006-1404
(212) 240-0020
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq. (JT 1994)
BERMAN, DeVALERIO, PEASE, TABACCO, BURT & PUCILLO, LLP
425 California Street, Suite 2025
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 433-3200
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
One Boca Place
2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
(561) 750-3000
Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
(212) 545-4600
Wallace A. Showman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MALCOLM S. TAUB
1350 Avenue of the Americas, 29th Floor
New York, New York 10019
(212) 265-8600
Looking Forward, denco-ga - Google Answers Researcher
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
22 Oct 2005 14:54 PDT
In addition to denco-ga's suggestion, I have to ask another fairly
obvious question:
Are you sure an Amicus is the action you want at this point?
A lawyer familiar with class actions may be able to advise you on
other options as well. If you're limiting yourself to an amicus, it
would be helpful to understand why.
Thanks.
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
unclelarry1-ga
on
22 Oct 2005 18:40 PDT
Good question.
Unfortunately, not a simple answer.
I have asked the lead plaintiff, Jared Stamell, to represent me (and
those similarily situated) or to suggest a qualified attorney to do
so.
He declined. He explained that the six named representative plaintiffs
in his complaint had in common the fact that MetLife allocated each of
them more than 10 MetLife shares (called the fixed component of the
shares allocation). i.e. they were allocated some shares as a variable
component. This implies that for their life insurance policies,
MetLife calculated a "positive actuarial equity share".
I have six MetLife policies. Two policies were allocated more than 10
shares each. Four polcies (second-to-die policies)were allocated 10
shares each.
Part of Mr. Stamell's complaint says that MetLife, in order to buy
"yes" votes for their demutualization plan, allocated 10 shares to
policyholders who should not have received any....because they did not
have a "positive actuarial share". MetLife even alocated the fixed
component to policyholders with term life insurance. I agree this was
part of the fraud.
Anyway, Mr. Stamell did not deny that participating policyholders for
whom MetLife apparently calculated a less than positive actuarial
equity share...were damaged. Mr. Stamell probably went for the low
hanging fruit since there was a risk the judge would not have
certified the case for the more broadly defined class.
The participating policyholders who got 10 shares only, and who were
members of the mutual association, were unjustly enriched (assuming
MetLife's actuarial accounting was accurate) (it was not). However, if
their policy was of any size...they lost far more due to no longer
having "insurance at cost" than they gained from $142.50 (10 shares of
MetLife at $14.25....the IPO price).
MetLife under-funded the closed block...as explained in the blog
www.demutualization.org and our ownership of MetLife has been diluted.
Had MetLife not demutualized, my cost of insurance would be lower that
it now is.
Look at the second paragraph of the letter from MetLife's Chairman,
also in the blog. It is not truthful. Also, see the surplus diversion
complaint in the blog.
Thanks for your good question.
|
Clarification of Question by
unclelarry1-ga
on
22 Oct 2005 19:05 PDT
I am not limiting myself to the Amicus brief.
I think there is an ongoing breach of contract. Each dividend paid
from the under-funded closed block is another breach so the statute of
limitations has not run out.
Both the Amicus brief in the securities fraud case and a separate
class action for breach of contract are called for.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
denco-ga
on
22 Oct 2005 19:48 PDT
Have you contacted the other five attorneys, unclelarry1-ga?
I still think they are going to be your best bet, as they are no doubt
intimate with the case.
Apologies if I am pushing the obvious too hard.
Looking Forward, denco-ga - Google Answers Researcher
|
Clarification of Question by
unclelarry1-ga
on
23 Oct 2005 08:51 PDT
Dear genco-ga,
See http://securities.stanford.edu/top_ten_list.html to put this
securities fraud case in prespective.
The amount of capital surplus MetLife failed to mention in its
prospectus that is was not distributing to the company's owners in its
demutualization process is by itself enough to make this case rank #1.
There are other big financial damages in addition to this.
Because of the huge amount of legal fees that are assured to be
distributed to the law firms in the list and because the lead firm
usually has influence in that distribution...I have been assuming that
none of them would risk breaking ranks with the lead plaintiff firm to
represent a class of victims who the lead plaintiff firm says might
end up having a competing claim.
However, I agree that this case is complex enough that those firms
that are already up to speed should be consulted to make sure that my
assumption is correct about them not being willing to put some of
their fee at risk.
How could the blog explain the issue better?
Thank you for your input.
|
