Section 16 Filings
Updated as of April, 18 2019 4:00 p.m. ET
Minimum 20 Minute Delay
ALLSTATE CORP filed this Form 10-Q on 05/01/2018
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
results or cash flows for a particular quarterly or annual period. However, based on information currently known to it, management believes that the ultimate outcome of all matters described below, as they are resolved over time, is not likely to have a material effect on the financial position of the Company.
Claims related proceedings
he case of
Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2010. Plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims and other California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs seek recovery of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court certified a class that includes all adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters, from September 29, 2006 to final judgment. Allstate’s appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court did not result in decertification. No trial date is calendared.
The case of
Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in April 2011. Plaintiffs allege that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters. The parties have concluded discovery and the court scheduled a jury trial on June 25, 2018.
The Company is defending a consolidated proceeding relating to the reorganization of its agent sales force in 2000, when the Company discontinued employee agent programs, terminated the contracts of its employee agents, and offered those agents the opportunity to become Allstate Exclusive Agent independent contractors or to take severance benefits in exchange for a release of claims. The consolidated proceeding, captioned Gene Romero, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The consolidated proceeding includes
separate cases filed in August 2001, December 2001, and December 2003.
The Court opted to resolve these proceedings in 4 phases. Phases 1, 2 and 3 are complete although the Company awaits final disposition in Phase 1. On January 30, 2018, the court decided
summary judgment motions filed by Allstate with respect to the Phase 4 claims. The court (i) granted summary judgment in Allstate’s favor on the claims by
Phase 4 plaintiffs alleging that Allstate improperly retaliated against them by filing counterclaims to their original complaint; and (ii) declined to decide whether the remaining Phase 4 plaintiffs’ age discrimination (disparate treatment) claims should be dismissed due to their failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
In March 2018, the Company reached agreements to settle the claims of additional plaintiffs on a confidential basis, subject to negotiating and executing appropriate written settlement agreements, resulting in a total of
individual settlements to date. As a result of these settlements, plus several voluntary and involuntary dismissals of individual plaintiffs’ claims, there are
individual plaintiffs with claims remaining in the litigation. On April 11, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment as to the state law breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims for
of the remaining plaintiffs asserting that those claims are barred by statutes of limitations.
The court has established a Phase 4 schedule contemplating resolving this matter through trial, if necessary, by the end of 2018. The court has yet to decide the proper venue for such trials. The final resolution of these matters is subject to various uncertainties and complexities including how trials, post-trial motions, possible appeals with respect to the validity of the release, and any rulings on the merits will be resolved.
The two shareholder derivative actions described below are disclosed pursuant to SEC disclosure requirements for these types of matters, and the putative class action has been disclosed because these matters involve similar allegations.
Biefeldt v. Wilson, et al.
, a plaintiff alleging to be a stockholder in the Company filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division on August 3, 2017. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the Company, an unspecified amount of damages and various forms of equitable relief. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty based on allegations similar to those asserted in
re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation
. The complaint names as defendants the Company’s chairman and chief executive officer, its former president, its former chief financial officer, who is now the Company’s vice chairman, and the members of the board of directors during the relevant period. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is scheduled to be heard on May 8, 2018.
IBEW Local No. 98 Pension Fund v. Wilson, et al.
, another plaintiff alleging to be a stockholder in the Company filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division on April 12, 2018. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the Company, an unspecified amount of damages and various forms of equitable relief. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty based on allegations similar to those asserted in
re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation
. The complaint also includes allegations concerning the exercise of stock options by the Company’s chairman and several other members of our board of directors during the relevant period. The complaint names as defendants the Company’s chairman and chief executive officer, its former president and the members of the board of directors during the relevant period.
First Quarter 2018 Form 10-Q
© 2019 The Allstate Corporation.