|
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
FILED ON YOUR BEHALF
The United States District Court authorized this Notice to be sent to you.
This Notice is being sent to you in the belief that you are
a former participant in the Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan
(the “Plan”) and a member of one of two Subclasses (described below). The
Court presiding over this case has ordered that you and all other members of
the two Subclasses receive notification that:
- A case has been filed
on your behalf under the federal pension law known as “ERISA” (the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §
1001 et seq.).
- The case claims that
the Plan underpaid lump sum distributions to you and other Plan
participants between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006.
- The case has been
certified a class action.
- The case will decide
whether you and other Subclass members are entitled to an additional
payment and if so, how much. The lawsuit does not put at risk the
payment that you or any other Subclass member already received.
- You can learn more
about the case by contacting Class Counsel whose contact information is
listed below.
BASIC INFORMATION
1. What is this lawsuit about?
This lawsuit is about whether the defendant, the Alliant Energy Cash Balance
Pension Plan (the “Plan”), violated the federal pension laws by paying you
less than you were legally due when it paid you your pension benefit in the
form of a lump sum. The lawsuit covers lump sums paid between January 1, 1998
and August 17, 2006. The named Plaintiffs, former Alliant employees Lawrence Ruppert and Thomas Larson, allege that the Plan, a “cash
balance” defined benefit pension plan, underpaid you and other class members
by paying you the then-current balance of your notional Plan account, which
the named Plaintiffs say is less than the actuarial equivalent of the benefit
to which you were entitled at normal retirement age (age 65 under the Plan).
The Plan denies that it violated ERISA or paid you less than you were owed.
It contends that your then-current notional account balance was the actuarial
equivalent of your pension benefit.
At this time, the Court has not decided whether Plaintiffs or the Plan are
correct. The Court has, however, decided that the case should proceed as a
class action, that you should be informed of that, about the issues involved
in the suit, about the potential effect of the suit on your rights and about
how to contact Class Counsel for more information about the case.
2. What is a class action and who is involved?
In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called “Class Representatives”
(in this case, the two named Plaintiffs mentioned above) sue on behalf of
other people who have the same or similar claims. The people together are a
“Class” or “Class Members.” In this case, the Court has certified two classes
(here referred to as “Subclass[es]”).
The definition of the two Subclasses is found in Section 4 below. The Class
Representatives who sued - and all the Class Members like them - are called
the Plaintiffs. The entity that they sued (in this case, the Plan) is called
the Defendant. The United States District Court in Madison, Wisconsin will
resolve the issues for all parties: the Plaintiffs (including all members of
the two Subclasses), and the Defendant (the Plan).
3. Why is this lawsuit a class action?
On February 12, 2009, the Court ruled that the case should proceed as a class
action because it met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
which governs class actions in federal courts. Specifically, the Court found
that:
- The number of members
in the Subclasses is sufficiently large as to make joining everyone in
either Subclass in one lawsuit impracticable;
- There are legal
questions and facts that are common to each of the members of each
Subclass;
- Mr. Larson’s claims
are typical of the claims of the Subclass A (persons receiving lump sums
between January 1, 1998 and February 28, 2002) and Mr. Ruppert’s claims are typical of the claims of the
Subclass B (persons receiving lump sums between February 29, 2002 and
August 17, 2006);
- The Class Representatives
and the lawyer representing the two Subclasses will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the Subclasses; and
- The allegations
alleged in the Complaint apply generally to each of the Subclasses so
the final injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate respecting
each Subclass as a whole.
4. How are the Subclasses defined?
The Court certified two “non-opt out” Subclasses of participants – Subclass A
and Subclass B. Generally speaking, Subclass A consists of persons receiving
a lump sum from the Plan between January 1, 1998 and February 28, 2002 (more
than six years prior to the date this lawsuit was filed); whereas Subclass B
consists of persons receiving a lump sum between February 29, 2002 and August
17, 2006 (within six years of the date this lawsuit was filed).
More specifically, the Court has defined the Subclasses A and B as follows:
|
(A)
|
All
persons who, since January 1, 1998, accrued under the terms of the Alliant
Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (the “Plan”), a vested or partially vested
interest in a notional account balance established in their name by the
Plan, including all persons who, at any time between January 1, 1998 and
February 28, 2002, either (a) received a lump sum distribution of his or
her cash balance formula benefit and/or (b) received any form of
distribution calculated under the Plan’s (or a related, prior plan’s) prior
formula after that benefit was determined to be more valuable than their
benefit calculated under the Plan’s cash balance formula and the estates of
such persons and alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations
Order.
|
|
(B)
|
All
persons who, since January 1, 1998, accrued under the terms of the Alliant
Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (the “Plan”), a vested or partially vested
interest in a notional account balance established in their name by the
Plan, including all persons who, at any time between February 29, 2002 and
August 17, 2006, either (a) received a lump sum distribution of his or her
cash balance formula benefit and/or (b) received any form of distribution
calculated under the Plan’s (or a related, prior plan’s) prior formula
after that benefit was determined to be more valuable than their benefit
calculated under the Plan’s cash balance formula and the estates of such
persons and alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.
|
To represent members of Subclass A, the Court
appointed Mr. Larson, who is a member of Subclass A. Mr. Larson, like
the other members of Subclass A, received his lump sum more than six
years prior to the date suit was filed. To represent members of Subclass B,
the Court appointed Mr. Ruppert. Mr. Ruppert, like the other members of Subclass B,
received his lump sum within six years of the date suit was filed.
The reason for the creation of the two different Subclasses is related to the
Plan’s statute of limitations defense. The Court has not ruled on this or any
other defense but determined that it was advisable that these two subgroups
of participants be represented by a member of their own group to ensure
everyone is adequately represented.
5. Am I a member of one of the two Subclasses?
If you fit the definition of Subclass A or Subclass B as stated in Section 4
above, then you are a member of one of the two Subclasses in this case.
POTENTIAL EFFECT OF CLASS RULING
6. What potential effect will the Court’s class ruling
have on my rights?
The ruling by the Court that this case is a class action means that the final
outcome of this lawsuit, whether favorable to the Plaintiffs or the Plan,
will apply in like manner to every member of the Subclasses. Thus, for
example, you will be legally bound by any ruling that determines that the
members of one or both Subclasses are not entitled to any additional payment.
At the same time, you need do nothing to participate in the case. So, for
example, you need take no action in order to receive an additional payment if
such additional payments are ordered or result from a Court-approved settlement.
(In the event of a proposed settlement, you will be given notice of the
proposal and an opportunity to be heard regarding its adequacy and fairness.
If there are additional payments to be made either as a result of a decision
by the Court or a Court-approved settlement, you will also receive notice and
an opportunity to be heard as to the reasonableness of any fees and expenses
Class Counsel may request the Court approve to be paid out of such award.)
ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
7. What does the lawsuit complain about and what is the
Defendant’s response?
Plaintiffs allege that in cashing out your pension benefit, the Plan ignored
the value of your right to continue to receive annual interest credits
through age 65, equal to the greater of: (i) 4% or
(ii) 75% of the Plan’s asset returns, whether or not you left your benefit in
the Plan until that time. Plaintiffs allege that the Plan’s crediting rate is
an “above-market” rate that was designed and expected to provide you with a
growth rate of, on average, approximately 9% to 10% per year. Plaintiffs
allege that the Plan’s use of the low-yielding 30-year Treasury bond to
replicate the growth rate that you would have experienced had you left your
benefit in the Plan to age 65 caused you to forfeit a substantial portion of
your ERISA-protected accrued benefit.
The Plan denies Plaintiffs’ allegations and contends that Plaintiffs have
received the benefits they were due. In particular, the Plan contends that
the Plan’s use of the 30-year Treasury bond was an unbiased estimator of the
actual plan crediting rate, and has produced results close to the actually
credited rates. In the Plan’s view, the bond rate has not been consistently
higher or lower than the actually credited rates and its use was therefore fair
and reasonable. The Plan maintains that it is properly drafted and was and is
being properly administered to pay out lump sums. The Plan also contends that
some of the class claims are barred by releases signed by a number of Class
Members and the applicable statute of limitations. Both of the named
Plaintiffs are among those who signed releases.
8. Has the Court decided who is right?
The Court has not decided whether Plaintiffs or the Plan are correct as to
either their claims or defenses.
CASE HISTORY – CURRENT STATUS
9. What has happened in the case so far?
The case was filed in February 2008. The Plan moved to dismiss the complaint
and amended complaint. The Court denied that motion in August 2008. Following
that ruling, “discovery” commenced but the parties could not reach agreement
on the proper scope of discovery. Plaintiffs moved to compel complete
responses to their written discovery requests. The Court granted that motion
in December 2008.
Plaintiffs moved for class certification in November 2008. The Plan opposed
the motion and took the depositions of Mr. Ruppert
and Mr. Larson, the named Plaintiffs in this case, in December 2008. In
February 2009, the Court certified the case as a class action.
10. What is the current status of the case and what happens next?
The case is currently in the “discovery” phase. If the Court cannot decide
the case based on any additional motion papers, a trial will be held.
Following trial, one or both sides may appeal. The case will end after all
appeals are exhausted, unless an order of the trial court is reversed for
further proceedings. (Another manner in which the case may conclude is by
agreement, via a settlement. Because the case is a class action, in order to
protect the interests of absent Class Members such as yourself,
no settlement can be accomplished without the approval of the Court.)
THE LAWYER REPRESENTING YOU AND THE SUBCLASSES
11. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
The Court has decided that Eli Gottesdiener of the Gottesdiener Law Firm,
PLLC is qualified to represent you and the members of the two Subclasses. Mr.
Gottesdiener is referred to as “Class Counsel.” He is experienced in handling
similar cases. The website for Class Counsel’s firm is available at www.gottesdienerlaw.com.
Class Counsel’s contact information is as follows:
|
Eli
Gottesdiener
Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC
498 7th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Tel: (718) 788-1500
Fax: (718) 788-1650
eli@gottesdienerlaw.com
|
12. Should I get my own attorney?
You do not need to hire your own lawyer because Class Counsel is working on
your behalf. If you want your own lawyer, you will have to retain and pay for
that lawyer. For example, you can ask him or her to appear in Court for you
if you want someone other than Class Counsel to speak for you. You do not
have to do anything now if you want to continue being represented by Class
Counsel. By doing nothing, you will continue to be represented by Class
Counsel.
MORE INFORMATION
13. How can I get more information on the case?
There are several ways you can obtain more information regarding the lawsuit:
- You may visit the
website Class Counsel has created dedicated to the suit in an effort to
keep Class Members informed about the case, www.alliantpensionclassaction.com.
(Note: The Court does not indicate its agreement with the content of
Class Counsel’s website by informing Subclass members of its existence.)
- You may also inspect
all the papers concerning this lawsuit at the Office of the Clerk,
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, 120
North Henry Street, Room 320, P.O. Box 432, Madison, WI 53701-0432,
(608) 264-5156, during regular business hours. See also www.wiwd.uscourts.gov.
- The case filings may
also be viewed on the Court’s electronic filing website, PACER, at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov.
(To use PACER, you must first set up an account and pay $0.08 per page
for downloading court documents.)
ALL INQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS NOTICE SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO CLASS COUNSEL, NOT TO THE COURT.
|
Approved
by the Honorable Barbara B. Crabb
of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin
by an Order dated June 2, 2009
|
|