Alliant Pension Class Action Website

This website concerns the federal district court class action known as Ruppert v. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan, No. 08-cv-127-bbc (W.D. Wis.), challenging the manner in which the Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan calculated pension benefits between 1998 and August 2006. Counsel for the two named plaintiffs (Lawrence Ruppert and Thomas Larson) and two groups of former Alliant Energy employees they represent covered by the lawsuit created the site to keep class members informed as to the case’s progress. From the information available to us supplied by the Plan, there are 957 lump sum recipient class members and 137 annuity recipient class members.

Since the site was last updated there have been significant developments in the case and in the operation and administration of the Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan. As some of you know, the Plan was amended in May 2011 to recalculate all affected class members’ benefits by projecting members’ cash balance accounts to normal retirement age (age 65 under the Plan) using a “projection rate” equal to the up-to-5 year average interest crediting rate instead of the 30-year Treasury bond rate the Plan originally used for calculating benefits between 1998 and August 17, 2006. This led to the Plan making payments to some 539 lump sum recipient class members and 4 annuity recipient class members on July 31, 2011 or December 1, 2011. However, Plaintiffs contend the May 2011 amendment, adopted by Alliant in connection with the resolution of a dispute with the IRS, again violated the ERISA statute because it provided for a projection rate less than that required by the statute (and found required by the Court after trial) and, also in violation of the Court’s orders, the Plan used a “pre-retirement mortality discount” in calculating lump sums. Plaintiffs therefore requested in September 2011, and were granted leave by the Court in its Order of November 23, 2011, to file a Supplemental Complaint. The Supplemental Complaint, filed November 30, 2011, seeks damages or increased benefits for all class members, including those who received an additional payment in 2011.

On December 21, 2011, the Court set the following schedule for the remainder of the case:

As noted in an earlier version of this website (reproduced further below, the Court has already ruled on a number of contested liability and damages (or calculations) issues. Plaintiffs contend those rulings dictate the outcome of the remainder of the case under the Supplemental Complaint. However, there is one issue that the Court did not reach when deciding contested matters under the First Amended Complaint (raising claims under the pre-May 2011 Plan): that is, how relief (if any) for the 137 participants electing annuities should be calculated. That issue was the subject of extensive briefing and expert reports and an in-court evidentiary hearing in 2011. A ruling is expected sometime early this year (2012).

Once final judgment is entered, both sides have 30 days to file a notice of appeal from some or all of Judge Crabb’s rulings. The Plan is likely to appeal any adverse rulings and Plaintiffs on behalf of the class may file cross-appeals to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Thus, whether, the extent to which and when class members will actually receive the additional payments we believe they are due may not be known for some time.

Further background on the case may be found below.

Following the June 3, 2010 ruling of the Court (the Honorable Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin) on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, in which the Court agreed with the Plaintiffs that the Plan miscalculated participants’ benefits, a trial was held during the third week of June 2010 to establish how benefits should have been calculated. On December 29, 2010, Judge Crabb issued her verdict, in the form of an Opinion and Order. In the December 29, 2010 ruling, the Court held that the Plan should have projected the notional accounts of participants taking pre-age 65 distributions before making final calculations at the rate of 8.2% per annum instead of the rate the Plan used (which was the yield on the applicable 30 year Treasury bond during the relevant January 1, 1998 to August 17, 2006 time, which averaged around 5%). This rate was much closer to the rate Plaintiffs proposed than the Plan had proposed. The Court also rejected a second alternative projection rate proposed by the Plan at trial, involving the use of a 5-year rolling average. In addition, the Court denied the Plan’s request to apply a pre-retirement mortality discount in recalculating lump sum benefits.

On December 30, 2010, the Court issued a further Order denying the Plan's motion to re-open the trial record to introduce IRS correspondence in support of its 5-year rolling average proposal, explaining that even assuming the IRS accepted the Plan's proposal for resolving the Plan's alleged Tax Code violations, that did not control the outcome of Plaintiffs' ERISA claim. The Court explained that even if the IRS's position were considered, the Court would still the 5-year rolling average because it would retroactively and unfairly “deprive[] [participants’] of the ability to choose when to receive their benefits.” On March 30, 2011, the Court denied the Plan’s motion to reconsider its December 30, 2010 ruling.

We will update this site as often as we can with further information. Do not hesitate to contact us via the site or by calling our offices and asking to speak to a staff member assigned to the Alliant case. Our contact information is:

If you are on this webpage it is likely as a result of receiving a June 2009 Notice in the mail about the pendency of the lawsuit. The notice was approved by the Court. The Court ordered that the notice be sent to you. It is an objective statement of the case as the case stood as of June 2009, initially drafted by the parties and approved with modifications by the Court.

The case was filed in February 2008. The most recent Complaint was filed on April 28, 2008. The Plan moved to dismiss the Complaint. The Court denied that motion in its Order of August 25, 2008. The Plan's Answer was filed on February 13, 2009.

Following the Court’s denial of the Plan’s motion to dismiss, 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 Plaintiffs’ motion in its Order of December 18, 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. The Court certified the case as a class action in its Order of February 12, 2009. In so doing, it appointed Eli Gottesdiener of the Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, as Class Counsel to represent members of the two Subclasses.

Discovery was conducted between December 18, 2008 and May 2010. The Court ruled on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in its Order and Opinion of June 3, 2010.