July 13, 2026
JPMorgan employees urged a New York federal judge on Friday not to end their Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit alleging they paid too much for prescription drugs, arguing JPMorgan still has not shown that its contract with its pharmacy benefit manager was reasonable.
The proposed class alleges JPMorgan breached its fiduciary duties of loyalty and caused prohibited transactions by failing to rein in the excessive prescription drug costs in its employee health plan, which were imposed by its pharmacy benefit manager, CVS Caremark. Caremark isn’t named as a defendant in the case.
In the motion on Friday opposing JPMorgan’s request for a judgment on the pleadings, the plaintiffs said the company had not met its burden of proof to show its third-party arrangement with Caremark was necessary for the establishment or operation of the plan.
The plaintiffs argued JPMorgan incorrectly attempted to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision from April 2025 in Cunningham v. Cornell University , which revived prohibited transaction claims against Cornell from workers who alleged the university allowed excessive recordkeeping fees in its employee retirement plan.
The motion claimed that JPMorgan used Cunningham to argue the plaintiffs failed to disprove that the transactions were allowed by federal benefits law, but the plaintiffs said the Supreme Court did not shift the burden of proof to the plaintiffs with the ruling.
. . .
The proposed class is represented by Michael Eisenkraft, Michelle Yau, Daniel Sutter and Kai Richter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Michael Lieberman of Fairmark Partners LLP.
Read JPMorgan Workers Defend ERISA Suit Over High Drug Costs.