Employee Ownership Legal Digest
Corey Rosen (20)

Headshot of

NCEO founder and senior staff member

Corey Rosen

March 01, 2021

GE Wins Stock Drop Litigation Appeal

In Varga v. General Electric, No. 1:18-cv-01449-GLS-DJS (2nd Cir., Feb. 4, 2021), the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that the plaintiff did not show plausible alternative courses of actions that would have done more harm than good with respect to the drop in the value of GE stock in the company’s 401(k) plan. The lawsuit was based on GE’s inaccurate claims about reserves for insurance companies it owned, which ultimately caused the stock price to fall. But the court ruled that despite this, the plaintiff did not show that disclosure of the problem or removing the stock as an option would have done more good than harm, thus not meeting the Dudenhoeffer standard.

Corey Rosen

March 01, 2021

Court Allows ESOP Valuation Case to Proceed

In Gamino v. KPC Healthcare Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 5:20-CV-01126-SB-SHK (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021), a district court allowed employees of KPC Healthcare to proceed with their lawsuit over an alleged overvaluation of the shares their ESOP purchased. The ESOP bought 100% of KPC Healthcare in a 2015 transaction. Plaintiffs allege that Alerus, the ESOP trustee, did not sufficiently question the valuation, which was 9 to 15 times higher than the price of company shares on a public market just two years before, when the company went private. The company had declining revenues during those two years, and the stock price fell after the transaction. Alerus said the complaint alleged no specific facts about its fiduciary process, but the court ruled that information and belief were sufficient at this stage of pleading to allow the case to proceed. Company defendants asked for dismissal on the grounds that their job was to appoint an independent trustee, but the court ruled their duty to monitor made them potentially liable in the transaction as well. Third, the court refused to dismiss claims against the former owner, Kali Pradip Chaudhuri, on the grounds that he knew the price he was receiving might be excessive and thus could be deemed a fiduciary. Finally, the court denied a motion to dismiss a claim that participants as plaintiffs should have been able to see the valuation report. The court’s language, if a trial court agrees, could imply that participants in any ESOP have a right to see the report.

Corey Rosen

October 21, 2019

GreatBanc Can’t Use Release to Avoid Fiduciary Litigation

In McMaken v. GreatBanc Tr. Co., No. 1:17-cv-04983 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 21, 2019) a district court ruled that GreatBanc cannot use a release signed by the plaintiff Michael McMaken from claims against Chemonics or any of its fiduciaries when he left the ESOP-owned firm Chemonics. The court ruled that GreatBanc was a fiduciary for the ESOP trust and its reading of the release was too broad. GreatBanc had contended that its status as a fiduciary included being a fiduciary to the company.

Corey Rosen

October 21, 2019

$6.5 Million Judgment in Sentry Equipment Case

In Pizzella v. Vinoskey, No. 6:16-cv-00062, (W.D. Va., Aug. 2, 2019), a district court imposed a $6.5 million judgment in an ESOP valuation case. An ESOP had bought the remaining shares of Sentry Equipment in the transaction for $21 million. The court ruled that the ESOP trustee, Evolve Bank and Trust, relied on an investigation of the transaction that was “rushed and cursory” because of the desire to close the transaction quickly. Part of the dispute revolved around whether to use a capitalization of earnings method, as was the case here, or discounted cash flow (DCF), which the DOL’s expert argued was usually the appropriate standard (generally, which method to use depends on how much past earnings best predict future earnings). The court said that the DCF standard was more common by a “small margin,” although it did not suggest the basis for that. The court also disagreed with the control assumptions because, even though the ESOP had 100% ownership, certain elements of the transaction, such as including the prior owners’ remaining involvement, reduced the trust’s effective control. Other factors included how various costs were calculated and the assumed weighted average cost of capital. The court also said that Evolve showed no evidence that it tried to negotiate the price.

Corey Rosen

October 21, 2019

Wawa Gets Appeal of ESOP Case

In Cunningham v. Wawa, Inc., No. 19-8029, (3rd Cir., order granting petition to appeal, Aug. 13, 2019), Wawa convinced an appeals court to review a lower court ruling that certified a class of 1,000 who claimed they were improperly prevented from keeping their Wawa stock until they turned 68. Wawa agreed the employees could challenge the stock price, but not a change in provisions in the plan to move employees out of stock after termination. Wawa argues that the “right-to-hold” claim is a function of how much individuals relied on information provided by Wawa that members of the loss claim were misleading, so only individuals can sue. For instance, one of the plaintiffs admitted that the information did not support the claim.

Corey Rosen

October 21, 2019

Claim Based on Post-ESOP Drop in Shares Due to Leverage is Decisively Rejected

In Lee v. Argent Trust, No. 5:19-cv-00156-BO (W.D.N.C., Aug. 7, 2019) a district court ruled that a post-transaction drop in the value of Choate Construction’s ESOP stock value from $198 million to $65 million did not indicate a fiduciary violation by the plan’s trustee, Argent Trust. The court ruled that the drop was due to the leverage used to buy the shares. The court said the plaintiff was not harmed by the transaction, nor did she allege any additional harm from the post-transaction drop in value. Moreover, the judge said that she “fundamentally misunderstood” the nature of the transaction. The judge wrote that rather than focusing on a simple before and after comparison, “it is better to conceive of this transaction, as defendants have argued, as being comparable to the purchase of a mortgage-financed house” in which the equity value naturally declines.

Corey Rosen

October 21, 2019

Department of Labor Brief in IBM Stock Case Argues Securities Law Rules Should Be the Basis for Whether to Disclose Adverse Information

In an Aug. 18, 2019, amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Jander v. IBM, the Department of Labor argued that the proper standard for determining if a fiduciary should disclose insider information affecting company stock in a retirement plan should be what securities law requires.

Corey Rosen

September 23, 2019

Former Wawa Employees Certified as a Class in Suit Over Change in ESOP Distribution Rules

In Cunningham v. Wawa et. al., No. 218-cv-03355-PD (E.D., Pa., July 2, 2019), over 1,000 former Wawa employees were granted class action in a lawsuit over changes in Wawa’s ESOP distribution rules. The same issue was the subject of a prior settlement that did not include these employees. Wawa is a very large chain of convenience markets whose ESOP owns over 40% of the stock. In the past, employees could hold onto shares after they left the company through age 68. That was changed to provide for account segregation when employees terminated. Account segregation moves funds into other investments—in this case Wawa’s 401(k) plan—prior to distribution. It is a common ESOP practice designed both to protect former participants from investment concentration risk and to make more shares available to current employees. ERISA allows companies to change the form of investment.

Corey Rosen

September 23, 2019

Trustee, Board Members Must Defend Actions in ESOP Valuation Case

In Zavala v. Kruse-Western, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00239-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal., July 26, 2019), a district court ruled that GreatBanc Trust and the board of Kruse-Western must defend themselves in a lawsuit over the 90% drop in stock price following a $244 million ESOP buyout. The share price fell both because of leverage and a poisoning of horses that resulted from feed from Kruse-Western’s Western Milling division. The court said that GreatBanc was not exempt just because it obtained a proper valuation. It also ruled that the Dudenhoeffer standard, which allows trustees to defend themselves by arguing they cannot be presumed to be able to outguess the market, does not apply to private companies because it assumes public market information.

Corey Rosen

September 23, 2019

Two SunEdison Stock-Drop Cases Result in Wins for Defendants

In O’Day v. Chatila, No. 18-2621 (2nd Cir., June 7, 2019, unpublished), the Second Circuit affirmed a lowa court ruling stating that employees had not alleged a sufficient claim to overcome the Dudenhoeffer rule that plaintiffs must show that defendants had a plausible alternative course of action with regard to company stock investments in a retirement plan that would not have done more harm than good. Plaintiffs contended SunEdison executives knew or should have known that the company was on the verge of bankruptcy and should have taken actions to protect employee interests with respect to the stock they had purchased or could have purchased in the company’s 401(k) plan. The court ruled that the defendants could not have been assumed to be able to outguess the market and that even if the defendants had inside information regarding SunEdison’s financial problems, disclosing this information could have done more harm than good. The court distinguished this case from the IBM case discussed above where the Sixth Circuit ruled that plaintiffs could proceed because such early disclosure might have done more good than harm. The court also ruled that the fact that the compensation of SunEdison defendants was linked to the
stock price was evidence that they acted imprudently.

Page 20 of 26