Topic: 4th Lawsuit filed in January

I've just read the 4th lawsuit filed on 1/6/10. Wow. I had heard that the laws governing PACT were substantially changed earlier this decade, but had never before been able to read the prior law. I seriously doubt that many of our legislators know what the prior law said, and I bet that until this lawsuit was filed Ivey et al did not know either.

Anyone who purchased a PACT contract prior to 5/9/01 should read this lawsuit.

Everyone who has any doubt that tuition was guaranteed by law should read this lawsuit.

Pay close attention to items 27-31 on pages 7-8.

Kudos to these attorneys for filing a lawsuit that is relevant, worthy of current consideration, and immediately enforceable by the courts. The courts can and should mandate tuition payment, and then the legislature can seek a funding solution without having people wearing green t-shirts always lurking around the corner, watching, and voting. I also encourage anyone reading this to forward a link to their representative.

Additional note - The plaintiff and attorney in this lawsuit is actually the same as w/ Lawsuit #1 filed last March but withdrawn soon thereafter. I suspect it was withdrawn as there was nothing actionable for a court to rule on in that lawsuit since all tuition has been paid. This lawsuit is very different as it cites the differences in interpretation of the law and how that currently impacts the decision to stay w/ PACT or to cancel that the board has forced on all of us to make right now. I suspect that these attorneys would not have re-filed this time w/out feeling strongly that this will be worthy of a court ruling as to whether tuition was guaranteed, at least with respect to the Class A plaintiffs.

Last edited by KBinHoover (02-11-2010 10:35:57 am)

Re: 4th Lawsuit filed in January

Thank you for putting that up KB.  Page 7 and 8 says it all about the how the laws where changed.  Great find!!

Re: 4th Lawsuit filed in January

lrterry wrote:

Great find!!

I'll give credit where credit is due - Ivey has done a very good job of providing info at the PACT website, and has done so w/out regard to whether or not it paints her or her team in a positive light.

I've been hard on Ivey but mostly with regard to her political dancing around the issues and her proposed solution, and partly due to the Board's aggressive investment policies that finally sunk the ship. All of the issues surrounding guarantees and disclosures were inherited by her from prior Treasurers. But, it would have served her well to have taken the time to better understand the chronology of statutory and contractual changes before leaping to the conclusion that nothing has ever been guaranteed. I blame the PACT lawyer more than her - he should never have let her go down this road w/out a proper and thorough review.

Re: 4th Lawsuit filed in January

I've never tried to track a lawsuit before, but I find myself most interested in the status of this one. I'm unsure how/if you can get an update on where this stands. If anyone knows any update on this, please post it.

Re: 4th Lawsuit filed in January

Actually, the PACT website does a decent job of providing updates on lawsuits. Here's some info on Green v Ivey. April 27 is when the courts may determine if a class exists.

Hopefully, w/in the next couple of days our legislators will take care of things and this suit, and others, will be dropped. We'll see.

Re: 4th Lawsuit filed in January

The hearing that had been scheduled for April 27 was postponed. Not sure this will ever make it to court unless SB162 is later challenged.

Re: 4th Lawsuit filed in January

thank you very much for the information that is really helpful big_smile

Re: 4th Lawsuit filed in January

Just received my USPS notice that Green V. Ivey has been certified as a class action.

I don't fully understand the defendant's response filing, but it looks like they're just saying:

  • Yeah, well your facts are right but as to intent... prove it.

  • We haven't harmed anyone (including people that were forced into a decision to cancel their PACT contracts due to the uncertainty of things)

  • And, if we have,... sovereign immunity

Anyone else understand this stuff well enough to put it in plain language?