Western Milling ESOP Litigation
Zavala v. Kruse-Western Inc. et al. (E.D. Cal.): We represent participants and beneficiaries of the Western Milling Employee Stock Ownership Plan, who allege that the ESOP’s trustees breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in risky investments in violation of ERISA, including purchasing 100% of Kruse-Western, Inc. company stock, which was valued at approximately 90% of the purchase price for several years after the ESOP Transaction.
AT&T Pension Benefit Plan Litigation
Scott, et al. v. AT&T Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Cohen Milstein represents participants and beneficiaries in the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan who allege that AT&T failed comply with ERISA’s actuarial equivalence requirements when providing married participants joint and survivor annuities.
Envision Management Holding, Inc. ESOP Litigation
Harrison v. Envision Management Holding, Inc. Board of Directors, et al. (D. Col.): Cohen Milstein represents Envision Management Holding ESOP participants, who allege the ESOP purchased Envision Management Holding stock at an inflated price, causing a multi-million-dollar loss to the ESOP. On February 9, 2023, A three-judge panel for the Tenth Circuit, in a 41-page published opinion, sided with Plaintiffs’ argument, which was backed up by a U.S. Department of Labor amicus brief, that an arbitration provision tucked in Envision workers’ ESOP plan impermissibly blocked remedies under ERISA, triggering an exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act, which permits a court to overrule an arbitration agreement if it blocks a party from being able to bring claims under federal law. On October 10, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Defendants’ petition to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision, thereby affirming the lower court’s March 24, 2022 ruling, which denied Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
Nationwide Savings Plan Litigation
Sweeney, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al. (D. Mass.): We represent participants and beneficiaries of the MassMutual Thrift Plan in a class action against Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance and other fiduciaries responsible for managing the MassMutual Thrift Plan, a defined contribution retirement plan. Plaintiffs allege that MassMutual and other fiduciaries engaged in self-dealing in violation of ERISA, cost its employees tens of millions of dollars in retirement savings.
Luxottica Group Pension Plan Litigation
Duke v. Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., et al. (E.D.N.Y.): Cohen Milstein represents Luxottica pension plan participants in a lawsuit, alleging that the plan used outdated mortality tables to determine the value of participants’ joint and survivor annuities, resulting in married retirees receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of the benefit that ERISA protects.
IBM Personal Pension Plan Litigation
Knight v. International Business Machines Corporation, et al. (S.D.N.Y.): Cohen Milstein represents participants and beneficiaries of the IBM Personal Pension Plan, who allege that the IBM Personal Pension Plan uses outdated mortality tables to determine the value of joint and survivor annuities, resulting in married retirees receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of the benefit that ERISA protects in violation of ERISA.
WBBQ ESOP Litigation
Lloyd, et al. v. Argent Trust Company, et al. (S.D.N.Y): Cohen Milstein represents participants and beneficiaries of the W BBQ Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, who allege that the trustee of the WBBQ ESOP, Argent Trust Company and the company’s owner, and controlling managers and shareholders breached their fiduciary duties, causing the ESOP to engage in transactions that are prohibited under ERISA and in connection with the sale of the company to the ESOP for an inflated purchase price that far exceeded its fair market value.
Southern Company Pension Plan Litigation
Drummond, et al. v. Southern Company, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ga.): Cohen Milstein represents participants and beneficiaries of the Southern Company Pension Plan, alleging that the Southern Company Pension Plan uses outdated mortality tables to determine the value of joint and survivor annuities and the amount it charges retirees for pre-retirement survivor annuities, resulting in married retirees receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of the benefit that ERISA protects.
Intel Minimum Pension Plan Litigation
Berkeley v. Intel Corporation et al (N.D. Cal.): Cohen Milstein represents a putative class of pension plan participants and beneficiaries, who allege that the Intel Minimum Pension Plan utilized outdated mortality tables to determine the value of joint and survivor annuities, resulting in married retirees receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of the benefit that ERISA protects.