Investment Fraud Lawyer Blog

A four-year class action lawsuit brought on behalf of hundreds of thousands of American consumers against insurance giant Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America has come to a confusing and contradictory end, reported the Minnesota StarTribune in its October 14, 2009 article entitled, “A split decision in Allianz Life annuity lawsuit.” Or has it?

A Minnesota jury found earlier this week, on Monday, October 12th, that Allianz Life Insurance Company used a misrepresentation or deceptive practice in the course of selling its two-tiered annuities by falsely promising in its pre-sale marketing materials that consumers would receive a 10% “upfront” bonus when they purchased those annuities. In reality, the class action complaint alleged, the bonus was not “upfront” and was not available to policyholders for 15 years, if ever.

Continue reading "Jury Finds That Allianz Life Insurance Company Used Misrepresentation Or Deceptive Practice In Selling Its Two-Tiered Annuities" »

Scammed investors are often shocked to discover that they face insurmountable barriers when they seek to recover their losses in court, says Jane Bryant Quinn in a February 11, 2009 article on Bloomberg.com entitled “Madoff Victims Face Grim Prospects in Court.” Investors have filed suits against “feeder funds” that, unbeknownst to investors, funneled their money to Madoff. Investors may think that the securities laws are there to help and protect them. They are mistaken. “The securities laws may be your worst enemy if you lost money in the Madoff scam,” said Ms. Quinn, adding “Those laws may turn out to be feeder fund protection acts.” The same would apply to any securities scam, including, more recently, the Stanford scam.

Ms. Quinn cites the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) as one of the unfair barriers keeping scammed investors out of court. This statute requires plaintiffs, in the initial complaint that is filed to begin the lawsuit, to allege “with particularity” facts supporting a “strong inference” that the defendant acted with fraudulent intent. But that is a nearly impossible thing to do at the initial stage of a lawsuit, and it is not the way it works in most lawsuits.

Continue reading "It Is Time To Give Investors Back Their Rights" »

In an article in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Andy Miller reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia (“Blue Cross”), Georgia’s largest health insurer, sent an estimated 202,000 “Explanation of Benefit” (“EOB”) and other letters to the wrong addresses last week, exposing patient names, social security numbers, medical conditions, treatment information, and other health and personal information to potential identity thieves. State insurance commissioner John Oxendine called the security breach “very, very serious” and ordered Blue Cross to notify affected policyholders in writing, according to the article. The breach, which may violate federal law, as well as Blue Cross’s obligations to its policyholders, occurred statewide and affected both employer and individual health benefit plans.

Page Perry, LLC is an Atlanta-based law firm with significant experience in consumer and class action litigation. Page Perry, LLC is presently co-lead counsel in a certified class action against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America arising out of the marketing of annuity products. Page Perry, LLC attorneys have worked on numerous other class action cases with co-counsel from all over the country. While past results are not indicative of future success, Page Perry’s attorneys have recovered over $1,000,000 for clients on more than 30 occasions. For further information, please contact us.

Andrew Frye of Bloomberg.com has reported that the North American subsidiary of Allianz, Europe’s largest insurer, has agreed to a settlement with California’s insurance regulator under which it will pay $10.1 million and change its annuities sales practices. California alleged that Allianz misled investors and pushed unsuitable products onto thousands of elderly persons. In a statement, Commissioner Steve Poizner noted, ``The fact that Allianz used deceptive practices and high-pressure sales tactics to lure and cajole seniors into buying unsuitable products is appalling.''

Page Perry has reviewed the California settlement document. In sum, the settlement requires Allianz to (1) pay a $3,000,000 monetary penalty, (2) pay $300,000 in attorneys fees, (3) make a $3,750,000 contribution over five years to the Life and Annuity Consumer Protection Fund special account within the California Insurance Fund, (4) make a $3,000,000 "High Impact" investment in the California Organized Investment Network, (5) establish annuity suitability systems, standards and procedures, and (6) conduct a claims review process for current or former owners of certain annuities. The claims review process will give policyholders (regardless of age) the opportunity to request rescission of their policies or receive "other specified restitution" from Allianz.

Continue reading "Allianz Agrees To $10.1 Million Settlement With California Insurance Regulator But Still Faces Class Action Claims" »

On February 7, 2008, the American Equity Investment Life Holding Company reached a settlement of a lawsuit over variable annuities with the Minnesota Attorney General. Hennepin County District Court Judge Kevin S. Burke approved the settlement that resolved all the issues raised in the lawsuit.

The settlement’s two primary components are (i) a defined suitability process for Minnesota consumers and (ii) a claims process for the past sales of certain variable annuity products where the senior consumers were either misinformed or received an unsuitable product.

Continue reading "American Equity And Minnesota AG Settle Annuity Lawsuit" »

According to an article in Business Week in the Fall of 2007, equity-indexed annuities – which lets the investors share in the stock market gains with a minimal risk of loss – are getting the worst press and the most regulatory scrutiny of any financial product pitched to individual investors. Most of the regulatory scrutiny focuses not on the investment itself but on the hardball sales pitches that fail adequately to explain the fee structure, especially the early withdrawal penalties.

In 2007, attorneys general in two states filed suits against equity-indexed annuities insurers for inappropriate sales tactics. Likewise, a federal judge in Minnesota certified a class action against the largest purveyor of such annuities, Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, for faulty disclosures. (Page Perry is serving as one of the colead counsel for the plaintiffs in that class action).

Continue reading "Complex Annuity Products Make Retirement Investing Difficult" »

On October 10, 2007, a panel of federal judges denied a motion to centralize five Allianz class action lawsuits currently pending against Allianz related to its deferred annuity sales practices.  Plaintiffs’ counsel in two of the five cases filed the motion in the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”).  Allianz, along with plaintiffs’ counsel in the other three actions, opposed the motion.  Page Perry, LLC, Chestnut & Cambronne, P.C. and the Nygaard Law Firm, co-lead counsel in the largest of the five class actions, opposed centralization on behalf of the certified class action pending in Minnesota.  Page Perry name partner Alan Perry argued before the MDL Panel on behalf of the Minnesota class in New York City on September 27, 2007.

In its Order denying transfer, the MDL Panel stated that it was not persuaded that centralization would serve the convenience of the parties or further the efficient conduct of the overall litigation.  The Panel pointed out that four of the five actions “are at a significantly advanced stage.  Classes have been certified in those four actions, and fact discovery has been completed (or is nearing completion) in three of them.”  The Panel went on to state that the “proponents of centralization have failed to convince us that any remaining and unresolved common questions of fact among these five actions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time.”

Alan Perry stated, “We are pleased that the Panel recognized that centralization would not promote the efficient resolution of these different and advanced cases.” 

Also significant to some Allianz policyholders, the Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson this week reached a settlement with Allianz Life that provides the opportunity for Minnesota purchasers of Allianz deferred annuities age 65 or older to receive refunds.  

According to the terms of the settlement, Minnesotans age 65 or older who purchased an Allianz deferred annuity between January 1, 2001 and the present will receive a letter from AG Swanson giving them the opportunity to submit a claim for a refund without penalty.  For more information visit the Minnesota Attorney General’s website at www.ag.state.mn.us.

Similar to the complaint filed by Page Perry, LLC and co-counsel in early 2006, the Attorney General’s office alleged in a complaint filed in January 2007 that Allianz offered false promises of immediate bonuses to lure investors into purchasing its deferred annuities that locked their money up, in some cases, past the policyholders’ life expectancy. The Minnesota Attorney General’s settlement does not affect any of the five class actions mentioned above.