In re Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. Internal Revenue Service § 412(i) Plans Life Insurance Marketing Litig., (MDL No. 1983), was originally created to centralize claims relating to the design, marketing, and sale of specially designed life insurance policies used to fund defined benefit pension plans under § 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code. Indianapolis Life recently requested that the proceeding be expanded to include cases, such as Paul v. Aviva Life and Annuity Company (the successor to Indianapolis Life), which assert claims relating to employee benefit plans formed under § 419 of the tax code because the core factual allegations asserted in these actions are nearly identical, with each asserting a variety of fraud-based claims relating to the design, marketing, and sale of certain Indianapolis Life insurance policies used by the plaintiffs to fund employee benefit plans for their small businesses.
On August 10, 2009, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring Paul to MDL No. 1983 for centralized pretrial proceedings. The MDL Panel recognized the “common questions of fact” between the actions and noted that “[t]he previously centralized MDL No. 1983 actions involve the funding of small business defined benefit pension plans with Indianapolis Life insurance policies which were represented to be in compliance with U.S. Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) § 412(i). Paul involves similar allegations involving Indianapolis Life policies used to fund small business I.R.S. § 419 welfare benefit plans.” The MDL Panel noted that although “Paul may involve some unique questions of fact relating to § 419 plans, the transferee judge can establish a separate track, if necessary, to address any unique factual and legal issues which may arise.” The MDL Panel also renamed MDL No. 1983 “In re Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. I.R.S. § 412(i) and § 419 Plans Life Insurance Marketing Litig.” to reflect the inclusion of cases asserting claims relating to § 419 welfare benefit plans
In re Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. Internal Revenue Service § 412(i) Plans Life Insurance Marketing Litig., (MDL No. 1983), was originally created to centralize claims relating to the design, marketing, and sale of specially designed life insurance policies used to fund defined benefit pension plans under § 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code. Indianapolis Life recently requested that the proceeding be expanded to include cases, such as Paul v. Aviva Life and Annuity Company (the successor to Indianapolis Life), which assert claims relating to employee benefit plans formed under § 419 of the tax code because the core factual allegations asserted in these actions are nearly identical, with each asserting a variety of fraud-based claims relating to the design, marketing, and sale of certain Indianapolis Life insurance policies used by the plaintiffs to fund employee benefit plans for their small businesses.
On August 10, 2009, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring Paul to MDL No. 1983 for centralized pretrial proceedings. The MDL Panel recognized the “common questions of fact” between the actions and noted that “[t]he previously centralized MDL No. 1983 actions involve the funding of small business defined benefit pension plans with Indianapolis Life insurance policies which were represented to be in compliance with U.S. Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) § 412(i). Paul involves similar allegations involving Indianapolis Life policies used to fund small business I.R.S. § 419 welfare benefit plans.” The MDL Panel noted that although “Paul may involve some unique questions of fact relating to § 419 plans, the transferee judge can establish a separate track, if necessary, to address any unique factual and legal issues which may arise.” The MDL Panel also renamed MDL No. 1983 “In re Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. I.R.S. § 412(i) and § 419 Plans Life Insurance Marketing Litig.” to reflect the inclusion of cases asserting claims relating to § 419 welfare benefit plans
John Hancock Life Insurance Co and its law firm, Edwards Wildman Palmer, must face a class action accusing them of violating racketeering laws by marketing a tax shelter, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in reversing a lower court's ruling, found that the insurer's customers had sufficient grounds to pursue a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO).
Federal prosecutors first used RICO to go after mobsters and organized crime, but later used its powers to pursue white collar crime on Wall Street. Victims of an alleged fraud can use RICO to file civil suits and recover triple the amount of damages they suffered.
Judge Jane Stranch, writing for a three-judge panel, said the appellate court recognized that John Hancock, Edwards Wildman and various individuals named as defendants may ultimately be found to have not participated in a RICO enterprise.
"But that is a matter to be fleshed out in discovery and to be resolved through motion practice or by the jury," she wrote
Ralph Canada, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, welcomed the decision.
"We're obviously delighted to go back to do discovery and go forward with our case," he said.
Representatives for John Hancock, the U.S. unit of Canada's Manulife Financial Corp, did not respond to requests for comment.
John Tuerck, a spokesman for Edwards Wildman, said the law firm looks "forward to the opportunity to show...that there is no basis for the plaintiffs' claims against the firm."
The lawsuit, filed in 2009 in the U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, Mich., stemmed from a purported tax-deductible welfare benefit plan called
John Hancock Life Insurance Co and its law firm, Edwards Wildman Palmer, must face a class action accusing them of violating racketeering laws by marketing a tax shelter, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in reversing a lower court's ruling, found that the insurer's customers had sufficient grounds to pursue a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO).
Federal prosecutors first used RICO to go after mobsters and organized crime, but later used its powers to pursue white collar crime on Wall Street. Victims of an alleged fraud can use RICO to file civil suits and recover triple the amount of damages they suffered.
Judge Jane Stranch, writing for a three-judge panel, said the appellate court recognized that John Hancock, Edwards Wildman and various individuals named as defendants may ultimately be found to have not participated in a RICO enterprise.
"But that is a matter to be fleshed out in discovery and to be resolved through motion practice or by the jury," she wrote
Ralph Canada, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, welcomed the decision.
"We're obviously delighted to go back to do discovery and go forward with our case," he said.
Representatives for John Hancock, the U.S. unit of Canada's Manulife Financial Corp, did not respond to requests for comment.
John Tuerck, a spokesman for Edwards Wildman, said the law firm looks "forward to the opportunity to show...that there is no basis for the plaintiffs' claims against the firm."
The lawsuit, filed in 2009 in the U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, Mich., stemmed from a purported tax-deductible welfare benefit plan called
In re Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. Internal Revenue Service § 412(i) Plans Life Insurance Marketing Litig., (MDL No. 1983), was originally created to centralize claims relating to the design, marketing, and sale of specially designed life insurance policies used to fund defined benefit pension plans under § 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code. Indianapolis Life recently requested that the proceeding be expanded to include cases, such as Paul v. Aviva Life and Annuity Company (the successor to Indianapolis Life), which assert claims relating to employee benefit plans formed under § 419 of the tax code because the core factual allegations asserted in these actions are nearly identical, with each asserting a variety of fraud-based claims relating to the design, marketing, and sale of certain Indianapolis Life insurance policies used by the plaintiffs to fund employee benefit plans for their small businesses.
ReplyDeleteOn August 10, 2009, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring Paul to MDL No. 1983 for centralized pretrial proceedings. The MDL Panel recognized the “common questions of fact” between the actions and noted that “[t]he previously centralized MDL No. 1983 actions involve the funding of small business defined benefit pension plans with Indianapolis Life insurance policies which were represented to be in compliance with U.S. Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) § 412(i). Paul involves similar allegations involving Indianapolis Life policies used to fund small business I.R.S. § 419 welfare benefit plans.” The MDL Panel noted that although “Paul may involve some unique questions of fact relating to § 419 plans, the transferee judge can establish a separate track, if necessary, to address any unique factual and legal issues which may arise.” The MDL Panel also renamed MDL No. 1983 “In re Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. I.R.S. § 412(i) and § 419 Plans Life Insurance Marketing Litig.” to reflect the inclusion of cases asserting claims relating to § 419 welfare benefit plans
In re Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. Internal Revenue Service § 412(i) Plans Life Insurance Marketing Litig., (MDL No. 1983), was originally created to centralize claims relating to the design, marketing, and sale of specially designed life insurance policies used to fund defined benefit pension plans under § 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code. Indianapolis Life recently requested that the proceeding be expanded to include cases, such as Paul v. Aviva Life and Annuity Company (the successor to Indianapolis Life), which assert claims relating to employee benefit plans formed under § 419 of the tax code because the core factual allegations asserted in these actions are nearly identical, with each asserting a variety of fraud-based claims relating to the design, marketing, and sale of certain Indianapolis Life insurance policies used by the plaintiffs to fund employee benefit plans for their small businesses.
ReplyDeleteOn August 10, 2009, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring Paul to MDL No. 1983 for centralized pretrial proceedings. The MDL Panel recognized the “common questions of fact” between the actions and noted that “[t]he previously centralized MDL No. 1983 actions involve the funding of small business defined benefit pension plans with Indianapolis Life insurance policies which were represented to be in compliance with U.S. Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) § 412(i). Paul involves similar allegations involving Indianapolis Life policies used to fund small business I.R.S. § 419 welfare benefit plans.” The MDL Panel noted that although “Paul may involve some unique questions of fact relating to § 419 plans, the transferee judge can establish a separate track, if necessary, to address any unique factual and legal issues which may arise.” The MDL Panel also renamed MDL No. 1983 “In re Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. I.R.S. § 412(i) and § 419 Plans Life Insurance Marketing Litig.” to reflect the inclusion of cases asserting claims relating to § 419 welfare benefit plans
John Hancock Life Insurance Co and its law firm, Edwards Wildman Palmer, must face a class action accusing them of violating racketeering laws by marketing a tax shelter, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteThe 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in reversing a lower court's ruling, found that the insurer's customers had sufficient grounds to pursue a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO).
Federal prosecutors first used RICO to go after mobsters and organized crime, but later used its powers to pursue white collar crime on Wall Street. Victims of an alleged fraud can use RICO to file civil suits and recover triple the amount of damages they suffered.
Judge Jane Stranch, writing for a three-judge panel, said the appellate court recognized that John Hancock, Edwards Wildman and various individuals named as defendants may ultimately be found to have not participated in a RICO enterprise.
"But that is a matter to be fleshed out in discovery and to be resolved through motion practice or by the jury," she wrote
Ralph Canada, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, welcomed the decision.
"We're obviously delighted to go back to do discovery and go forward with our case," he said.
Representatives for John Hancock, the U.S. unit of Canada's Manulife Financial Corp, did not respond to requests for comment.
John Tuerck, a spokesman for Edwards Wildman, said the law firm looks "forward to the opportunity to show...that there is no basis for the plaintiffs' claims against the firm."
The lawsuit, filed in 2009 in the U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, Mich., stemmed from a purported tax-deductible welfare benefit plan called
John Hancock Life Insurance Co and its law firm, Edwards Wildman Palmer, must face a class action accusing them of violating racketeering laws by marketing a tax shelter, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteThe 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in reversing a lower court's ruling, found that the insurer's customers had sufficient grounds to pursue a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO).
Federal prosecutors first used RICO to go after mobsters and organized crime, but later used its powers to pursue white collar crime on Wall Street. Victims of an alleged fraud can use RICO to file civil suits and recover triple the amount of damages they suffered.
Judge Jane Stranch, writing for a three-judge panel, said the appellate court recognized that John Hancock, Edwards Wildman and various individuals named as defendants may ultimately be found to have not participated in a RICO enterprise.
"But that is a matter to be fleshed out in discovery and to be resolved through motion practice or by the jury," she wrote
Ralph Canada, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, welcomed the decision.
"We're obviously delighted to go back to do discovery and go forward with our case," he said.
Representatives for John Hancock, the U.S. unit of Canada's Manulife Financial Corp, did not respond to requests for comment.
John Tuerck, a spokesman for Edwards Wildman, said the law firm looks "forward to the opportunity to show...that there is no basis for the plaintiffs' claims against the firm."
The lawsuit, filed in 2009 in the U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, Mich., stemmed from a purported tax-deductible welfare benefit plan called