A federal appeals court last week reinstated a 2004 securities class-action lawsuit against The Hartford, alleging stockholders were misled because the company did not disclose it had paid insurance brokers kickbacks in the form of contingency fees to win business.
The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York throws out a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Christopher F. Droney in Hartford, Conn., and remands the case for trial. Judge Droney dismissed the case in 2006, finding that the statute of limitations had run out for the plaintiffs to file an action.
Plaintiffs in the case–Staehr vs. The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.–include the Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund and The Communication Workers of America Plan for Employees' Pensions and Death Benefits.
Their action was brought against the insurer on Oct. 15, 2004–the day after New York's attorney general at the time, Eliot Spitzer, filed his lawsuit against the Marsh brokerage, charging brokers were fixing commercial insurance prices in exchange for kickbacks paid as contingency fees by major insurers, including The Hartford and American International Group.
The Hartford argued that the two-year time limit for a stockholders lawsuit had run out because prior legal actions and news accounts in National Underwriter and other media outlets years before should have alerted stockholders to the activity they complained about.
In a decision written by Judge Colleen McMahon, the appeals court said it agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that The Hartford's material to support this claim was "too vague and non-specific to suggest to an investor of ordinary intelligence the probability of fraud by The Hartford."
Shareholders alleged they were misled because they believed they were investing in a company whose success and high stock price was premised on the strength of its business, when it was in fact the product of kickbacks and bid-rigging schemes that were not disclosed to investors.
Their complaint charged that The Hartford was able to report earned premium growth and high premium renewal retention rates directly as a result of its involvement with the brokers in the commission kickback and bid-rigging schemes.
The appeals court disagreed with Judge Droney's conclusion that the total mix of information before him was sufficient to rule, as a matter of law, that an investor of ordinary intelligence was on inquiry notice of The Hartford's allegedly fraudulent conduct by July 2001.
Among its evidence, the insurer submitted four articles from general news outlets and 13 from trade publications such as National Underwriter, which dealt with controversy over contingent commissions.
Among all the publications, only one article from National Underwriter actually mentioned The Hartford, and it was not specific enough to alert investors, the appeals court found.
Nearly all of the stories in the record "are devoid of company-specific information," thus "the argument that they constitute 'storm warnings' is far from compelling," the appeals court found.
In addition, the appeals court said a 2001 lawsuit filed in San Francisco, which made many of the same allegations later raised by the stockholders, was not "reasonably accessible to an ordinary investor."
"…[T]he argument that [news stories] constitute 'storm warnings' is far from compelling," the appeals court found.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.