Welcome to the CIGNA Pension Plan Class Action Lawsuit web site providing up to date information and court documents relating to the CIGNA class action lawsuit about cash balance pension conversions: Amara v. Cigna Pension Plan, C.A. 01-2361 (D.Conn.)  Note: To read pdf links you may click to download Adobe Reader, which reads pdf files.

IMPORTANT: The trial in this case took place on September 11-15, 2006 and January 24-25, 2007 in New Haven, CT, before Judge Mark Kravitz. On February 15, 2008, the Court ruled that CIGNA misled plan participants by failing to provide them “with the information they needed to understand the conversion from a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan and its effect on their retirement benefits.” Read the article about the decision featured in the Hartford Courant on February 20, 2008. Read key quotes from the Court’s decision about CIGNA’s misleading communications. You can also read Judge Kravitz’s 122-page decision. 

On June 5, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a trial brief for the bench trial (see above). The Proposed Findings of Fact are attached as a pdf file (please note that this document is 111 pages).

See the Third Amended Complaint for Relief adding two additional named plaintiffs filed on February 17, 2006 (pdf).  And see the expert actuarial report of Claude Poulin, FSA (pdf).

See the November 10, 2004 Appeals Court ruling (pdf) on Cigna's change to an older employee's pension through the cash balance amendments and the Wall Street Journal article of November 12, 2004 (pdf) about the ruling.

The CIGNA lawsuit was certified as a class action in December, 2002. The court denied CIGNA's motion to decertify the class (pdf) in October 2004.

Do you qualify as a member of the class in this lawsuit? See below.

The CIGNA class action centers on the conversion of the CIGNA pension plan, which significantly reduced the value of benefits for long term older workers. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that the pension plan conversion is inconsistent with ERISA requirements and disclosure rules.

The class definition as adopted by the U.S. District Court includes "any and all persons who:

1. Are former and current CIGNA employees;
2. Participated in the CIGNA Pension Plan before January 1, 1998; and
3. Have participated in the CIGNA "Part B" pension plan at any time since January 1, 1998."

Attorneys handling the class action are:

• Stephen R. Bruce, Washington, D.C., lead counsel
• Thomas Moukawsher, Groton, CN