Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Philadelphia-Corporate defendants are not entitled to know the identity of confidential informants in securities fraud cases if the plaintiff is able to plead sufficient “other facts” that support the claim, but the plaintiffs are nonetheless required to turn over the names and addresses of every witness with “relevant information,” a federal judge has ruled. “Requiring specific identification of confidential sources from among the universe of individuals with relevant knowledge in a securities fraud case would chill informants from providing critical information which may end up being in the public eye,” U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson wrote in In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 02-8088 (E.D. Pa.). Baylson, who sits in Philadelphia, concluded that the lead plaintiff had adequately supported the claim by citing statements from CIGNA officials and internal documents, and that the case therefore did not hinge on the testimony from the confidential informants. As a result, Baylson concluded that the lead plaintiff “should not be put under any compulsion to disclose the specific identity of its confidential informants.” Instead, Baylson said, “fairness compels only that if an individual who is a confidential informant does have relevant information, that person’s identity should be disclosed as a discoverable matter, but without disclosing that he or she is a confidential informant.” ‘Knowingly false’ estimates In the suit, investors who purchased CIGNA common stock between Nov. 2, 2001, and Oct. 24, 2002, allege that the company and three of its top executives made a series of false and misleading statements about the company’s finances. The suit alleges that CIGNA repeatedly said it expected its 2002 earnings in health care to be in the range of $925 million to $955 million. Those estimates, the suit alleges, were “knowingly false” at the time they were issued because, “at this time, CIGNA was actually expecting 2002 health care earnings to be down sharply.” On Oct. 24, 2002, the suit says, CIGNA admitted that it expected its 2002 operating earnings to be in the range of $725 million to $750 million. Stock prices fell sharply on the news of the revised estimates, the suit says, and CIGNA stock fell by 45%, losing almost $30 per share. The lead plaintiff in the suit is the Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS), which is represented by a team of 16 lawyers led by Sherrie R. Savett of Philadelphia’s Berger & Montague and Mel E. Lifshitz of New York’s Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, along with Pennsylvania Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett Jr. and SERS chief counsel Michael A. Budin.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.