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, one of the nation’s largest retirement plans, who allege that AT&T failed comply with ERISA’s actuarial equivalence requirements when providing married participants joint and survivor annuities. On July 9, 2025, the court largely denied AT&T’s motion for summary judgment. While Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was pending, on April 10, 2026, parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement-in-principle.
Envision Management Holding, Inc. ESOP Litigation
Harrison v. Envision Management Holding, Inc. Board of Directors, et al. (D. Colo.): Cohen Milstein represents a certified class of 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.
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. On March 28, 2024, the court granted class certification.
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and beneficiaries of the Southern Company Pension Plan, alleging that the Southern Company Pension Plan uses outdated mortality tables to determine the value of joint and survivor annuities and the amount it charges retirees for pre-retirement survivor annuities, resulting in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 certified 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.
AMPAM Parks Mechanical ESOP Litigation
Ramirez, et al. v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al. (S.D. Cal.): Cohen Milstein represents employee participants and beneficiaries of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan in a certified class action lawsuit alleging that AMPAM Parks Mechanical and the founders of AMPAM, Buddy Parks, John D. Parks, James Parks, and Jason Parks breached their fiduciary duties in the management of the ESOP in violation of ERISA.
Litigio ESOP de Western Milling
Resumen de la Demanda Esta demanda, Zavala v. Kruse-Western Inc. et al., presentada en nombre de los participantes y beneficiarios del Plan de Propiedad de Acciones para Empleados de Western Milling (“ESOP”), alega numerosas violaciones de la Ley de Seguridad de los Ingresos de Jubilación de los Empleados Retirados (“ERISA”) en relación con la venta […]
Johnson & Johnson Prescription Drug Litigation
Lewandowski v. Johnson and Johnson (D.N.J.): Cohen Milstein represents participants in Johnson & Johnson’s Group Health Benefits Plan in a putative ERISA class action, accusing the pharmaceutical giant of mismanaging its own health plans’ prescription drug program, costing employees millions of dollars in the form of higher payments for prescription drugs, higher out-of-pocket costs and co-pays, and, ultimately, lower wages in violation of ERISA.