MetLife Securities Litigation
HomeCase DocumentsFrequently Asked QuestionsContact Us

Welcome to the MetLife Securities Litigation Website

This website has been established to provide general information related to the MetLife Securities Litigation.

This is a securities class action against MetLife, Inc. ("Metlife" or the "Company"), certain of MetLife’s current and former officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters involved with the offerings of MetLife common stock on August 3, 2010 and March 4, 2011 (the "Offerings"), for alleged misrepresentations and omissions made in connection with the Offerings and during the Class Period (defined below). The case is presently pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) and is styled City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00256-LAK (the “Litigation”).

On March 29, 2012, the Court appointed Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (“Central States”) as “Lead Plaintiff” pursuant to the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Two plaintiff classes (the “Classes”) were certified by the Court.  The Court also appointed Central States as Class Representative and the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel for both Classes.

The Securities Act of 1933 class (the “1933 Act Class”) is defined as follows:

All persons who purchased or acquired MetLife common stock in the Company’s August 3, 2010 Offering or the Company’s March 4, 2011 Offering (the “Offerings”). Excluded from the 1933 Act Class are: (i) Defendants and their families; (ii) the officers and directors of MetLife at all relevant times; (iii) members of their immediate families; (iv) their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (v) any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 class (the “1934 Act Class”) is defined as follows:

All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded MetLife common stock between February 9, 2011, after the publication of MetLife’s fourth quarter and full year 2010 results, and October 6, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and who were damaged by Defendants’ alleged violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Excluded from the 1934 Act Class are: (i) MetLife; (ii) the Individual Defendants; (iii) the Underwriter Defendants; (iv) the members of the families of each Individual Defendant; (v) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; (vi) the officers and directors of MetLife; and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party.

If you or someone acting on your behalf purchased or otherwise acquired MetLife common stock in the Offerings, or during the Class Period, unless you are a person or entity excluded above, you are a “Class Member” entitled to participate in any benefits that may eventually be obtained for the Classes as a result of this Litigation.

Background and Description of the Litigation

This is a securities class action alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 are brought against MetLife, certain of MetLife’s current and former officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters involved with the Offerings of MetLife stock.  The alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are brought against MetLife and certain of MetLife’s current and former officers and directors.

Lead Plaintiff alleges that MetLife is a global provider of insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs.  At the time of the Offerings and throughout the Class Period, MetLife, Inc. common stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “MET.”  Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing material false statements and omissions concerning the Company’s financial condition.  Specifically, Lead Plaintiff alleges that the Company misrepresented the adequacy of its incurred but not reported (“IBNR”) reserves to meet policyholder obligations.  Lead Plaintiff alleges that for decades the Company had access to and used the Social Security Administration Death Master File (“SSA-DMF”), a database maintained by the Social Security Administration that contains a list of deaths that have been reported to that agency, and that the Company knew but failed to disclose that its methodology for calculating IBNR reserves failed to account for money owed to policyholder beneficiaries or states, under relevant state escheatment laws, because it knew or had credible information that insured individuals had died.  Lead Plaintiff alleges that by failing to account for these known liabilities, the Company’s public financial statements materially overstated reported income and understated reported expenses.  Lead Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants failed to adequately disclose ongoing regulatory investigations into MetLife’s abandoned property practices, including its use or non-use of the SSA-DMF and that when the true facts concerning the nature, scope and financial impact of these alleged misrepresentations and omissions were revealed, the Company’s stock price declined and members of the Classes suffered damages.  Lead Plaintiff seeks to recover money damages for members of the Classes.

Defendants deny Lead Plaintiff’s allegations.  Defendants contend that they did not make any false or misleading statements and that they disclosed all information required to be disclosed by the federal securities laws.  Defendants also contend that any decline in the price of MetLife common stock was due to reasons other than disclosures related to the alleged false or misleading statements or omissions.  Defendants also assert that they have other valid defenses to Lead Plaintiff’s claims.  Defendants filed answers to Lead Plaintiff’s operative complaint denying the allegations and asserting multiple defenses. Litigation is ongoing.  No trial date has yet been set by the Court.

Additional Information

Although the information on this website is intended to assist you, it does not replace the information contained in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action which can be found and downloaded on the Case Documents page of this website. We recommend that you read the Notice and other relevant case documents carefully. You may also wish to read the answers to Frequently Asked Questions provided on this website. If you have not received a notice and would like to confirm that you are on the mailing list for further notice mailings in this matter, please contact the Notice Administrator and request that a notice be sent to you at your current mailing address.

Important Dates and Deadlines

Request Exclusion September 16, 2019