20 Aug Cruz v. Raytheon Company
Plaintiff brought this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all participants and beneficiaries of several Raytheon retirement plans (the “Plans”) who retired between June 27, 2013 and December 31, 2020, and are receiving a pension in the form of a joint and survivor annuity (“JSA”) or a pre-retirement survivor annuity (“PSA”). The Plans at issue in the litigation are the Raytheon Retirement Plan for Engineers & Contractors, Inc. and Aircraft Credit Employees, the Raytheon Bargaining Retirement Plan, the Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Hourly Employees, the Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, and the Raytheon Nonbargaining Retirement Plan (collectively, “the Plans”). Plaintiff alleged that the JSA and PSA benefit amounts are not actuarially equivalent to the Single Life Annuity offered under the Plan, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).
On January 17, 2020, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, allowing the case to proceed. The parties conducted discovery, retained and deposed actuarial experts, and briefed cross-motions for summary judgment.
While the summary judgment motions were pending with the Court, the Parties engaged in settlement discussions, which were ultimately successful. On February 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval, which the Court granted on February 23, 2021. The Settlement provides increased monthly pension benefits to Class Members whose monthly JSA or PSA benefit payments are less than actuarially equivalent to the single-life annuity they could have selected at retirement, based on reasonable actuarial assumptions selected by Plaintiff’s actuary. The present value of these increased benefits, less amounts awarded for attorneys’ fees, costs, and a case contribution award, is approximately $59 million.
On June 11, 2021, the Court gave final approval. Details of the Settlement, as well as other documents concerning the litigation, are attached below.
Attach:
- COMPLAINT
- MEMORANDUM & ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
- SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
- CLASS NOTICE
- PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER
- MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
- MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FEES, EXPENSES, AND CASE CONTRIBUTION AWARD
- DOUGLAS NEEDHAM DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL, FEES, AND CASE CONTRIBUTION AWARD
- DECLARATION OF MITCHELL I. SEROTA
- DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR CHARLES SILVER
- CLASS MEMBER NAGUI MANKARUSE’S OPPOSITION IN PART TO CLASS ATTORNEY’S MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN HEARING
- CLASS MEMBER DANIEL MOORE’S OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
- CLASS MEMBER STEPHEN TIMOTHY KERTIS’ OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND A CASE CONTRIBUTION AWARD
- MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
- MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND A CASE CONTRIBUTION AWARD
- FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Class Actions
Our Class Action practice provides access to court for people who otherwise could not afford to vindicate their rights.
Complex Litigation Practice
IKR clients choose us because of our skill in complex business disputes.
Fill out our contact form and we will get back to you as soon as possible.
For immediate assistance, please call us at (855) 202-0260.