Milberg Weiss not required to notify all clients about Class Action against MetLife
August 31, 2007
Aug 31, 2007 -- /prbuzz/ --The Court has decided that the victims of Met Life's scheme do not need to be contacted by Milberg Weiss individually. Class members that are not part of the five percent selected “at random” will have to rely on published notice that the case is proceeding, that they are a member of the class, and that they have the right to "opt out" of the case. New York Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn has determined that the cost of giving individual mail notice to all class members is too expensive. A “random sample” of five percent of Class members will be notified by mail. The rest will have to rely on one weekly notice published for three consecutive weeks in the The Wall Street Journal and in the New York Post. Unless the Judge makes a later determination that the number of opt outs from the 5% sample justifies the expense of notifying all Class members many MetLife policyholders will not have notice of the existence of the case or who has been authorized in New York Supreme Court to represent them.

The case alleges that the Company had an undisclosed plan to issue excess shares of MetLife stock and then buy them back before deciding to take MetLife public. This plan resulted in a lower initial public offering price for the shares of Met Life stock allotted to Class members and diluted their interest in the resulting company. The plan also precluded informed decisions on the vote authorizing conversion of the company, affected evaluation of the fairness of the plan and the choice between taking policy credits or shares. MetLife stands accused of intentional deceit or actual or constructive fraud and violating §7312 of the New York State Insurance Law yet most of those effected by these activities will remain in the dark with Milberg Weiss running their case without their knowledge.

Mel Weiss and his co counsel convinced Justice Cahn that individual notice would effectively tax Class members millions of dollars. The cost of a bulk rate letter for each “client” to inform them of the case was not considered a reasonable and necessecary cost for an opportunity to earn many millions of Dollars in legal fees. The lawyers and the defendant could not absorb the cost of notice. It just had to come from the client recovery. The Company is even willing to share the cost of the notice yet even that is too much for Milberg Weiss. The client always comes last.

Justice Cahn was persuaded by partners of the indicted firm that he should rely on the Court's prior determination that Class counsel adequately represents the interests of all Class members. Unless this determination was made after both the indictment of Milberg Weiss and the plea agreement of David Bershad continued reliance on a previous determination seems inadvisable. Nonetheless New York State Supreme Court has again approved the exercise of fiduciary duties by an indicted racketeering enterprise on behalf of an uninformed public.

Justice Cahn said that CPLR 904(b) is silent on the form of notice that must be given to potential class members. Considering the resources of Milberg Weiss and its co counsel, the willingness of the Company to share the costs of notice and the enormous fees these firms will earn from the case paying the cost of a single bulk mailing to all "clients" seems entirely reasonable. The fact that counsel has been indicted and partners have admitted to crimes which effected the representation provided by the firm makes exclusion requests and objections by Class members highly likely. I am certain we will be filing additional cases, objections and opt outs. Once the public understands that New York Supreme Court is allowing indicted felons to run multimillion Dollar cases on their behalf without assuring all class members are informed of their right to opt out Class members are very likely to respond to protect their interests.

Given the record of Milberg Weiss and its partners even the random nature of the names selected from Met Life records should be strictly scrutinized. The comprehensive nature of the fraud confirmed by the plea agreement of David Bershad mandates extraordinary safeguards to prevent further victimization of the public. The lead plaintiffs used in Class action cases are supposed to protect the interests of absent Class members. Under the present circumstances reliance on such parties to provide the required oversight of counsel in this case seems inadvisable. Justice Cahn appears indifferent to the effects on the public from the continued exercise of fiduciary duties by indicted felons and their associates. Unfortunately Class members in any case involving Milberg Weiss cannot afford the luxury of indifference. Prompt action is required.

If you purchased and/or had an outstanding life insurance policy, annuity or any other policies issued by MetLife or its subsidiaries as of Sept. 28, 1999 you are a Class member in this case. Your case being run by an indicted racketeering enterprise with the authorization of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The Court has essentially decided that personal notification of Class members will cost Mel Weiss too much money and that nobody is likely to object to his running the case in any event. If you are a Class member and are concerned with being represented by indicted felons in New York State Courts that are allowing such counsel to represent you without your knowledge you are advised to call Theodore A. Bechtold Esq. at 347 - 668 4218 to discuss your rights. You may retain Theodore A. Bechtold or any attorney you choose to represent you. E Mail This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it .
About the Press Release
In Fiala v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 601181/2000 New York Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn agreed with Milberg Weiss that notification of all Class members was not required


 
< Prev   Next >