United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
January 17, 2003
IN THE MATTER OF VMS LIMITED
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Zagel, United States District Judge
This is a motion by the CIGNA settling defendants to enforce judgment and enjoin the Brauns from asserting released claims. The Brauns make two arguments in opposition to the motion: (1) the notice failed to comply with due process because it was mailed to the Brauns' previous address instead of their current address, which was in the records of the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, an affiliate of the CIGNA settling defendants; and (2) the Brauns' vanishing premium claims are not Released Claims because they did not accrue until after the settlement.
This court rejected the first argument in In re VMS Limited Partnership Sec. Litig., 1995 WL 355722 (Ali). In Ali, I held that the proper inquiry is whether the procedures used to provide notice to the class as a whole satisfied due process. I have repeatedly held that the procedures used by CIGNA to provide notice complied with due process. Thus, I find that the Brauns, like many other class members before them who have made this identical argument, are bound by the settlement because the means of providing notice to the class as a whole complied with due process.*fn1
Even if I accepted the Brauns' second argument, namely that their vanishing premium claims are not Released Claims because they did not accrue until after the settlement, these claims are still Released Claims because this settlement encompassed future and unknown claims, as I have made clear in many prior cases related to this settlement. As with the first argument, I have rejected this second argument in other cases and see no reason to depart from my prior decisions.
For the reasons stated above, the motion by the CIGNA settling defendants to enforce judgment and enjoin the Brauns from asserting released claims is granted.