Skip to content

Employee Ownership Legal Digest (12) Archive

Stay informed on the latest legal developments impacting employee ownership. This page provides timely and concise summaries of key cases and rulings, contributed by experienced attorneys, to help the entire employee ownership community understand their implications, and also offers access to NCEO's archive of prior content.



Corey Rosen

World Travel Lawsuit Settled

In Ahrendsen, et al. v. Prudent Fiduciary Services, LLC, et al., No. 2:21-cv-02157 (E.D., PA, Nov. 7, 2022), the plaintiffs agreed to settle a lawsuit in dispute over the company’s ESOP valuation.


Corey Rosen

Stout Risius Must Pay Fiduciary Insurer

In Great American Fidelity Insurance Company v. Stout Risius Ross, Inc. et al., No. 2:19-cv-11294 (E.D. Mi, Nov. 1, 2022), a district court ruled the ESOP valuation firm Stout Risius must pay $60,000 in costs the company argued should have been covered by its insurer, Great American Fidelity Insurance Company.




Corey Rosen

ISCO plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims

In Best et al v. James., No. 320-cv-299-JRW (W.D. Ky., Sept. 22, 2022) a court ruled that plaintiffs must agree to arbitrate their claims against executives of ISCO Industries concerning the buyback of company shares from the ESOP. In a prior 2019 decision, Swain v. Wilmington Trust N.A., a federal judge approved a $5 million settlement with a class of employees at ISCO Industries who alleged the ESOP had overpaid for the shares.



Corey Rosen

State court upholds sale to ESOP

In Eichhoff et. al. v. New Glarus Brewing (WI, No. 2021CV002011 (Cir. Ct., Dane County, Oct. 6, 2022), a Wisconsin court dismissed a lawsuit against ESOP-owned New Glarus Brewing over the price three of its early investors got when they sold their stock after the ESOP was formed.


Corey Rosen

Johnson & Johnson Prevails in Stock Drop Suit

In Perrone v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 21-1885 (3d Cir. Sept. 7, 2022) the Third Circuit ruled that the trustees of Johnson & Johnson’s 401(k) plan could reasonably argue that to remove Johnson & Johnson stock from the plan’s investment options in light of litigation over asbestos in its talcum powder could arguably have “done more harm than good” and thus were not obligated to make changes under the doctrine of the Dudenhoeffer decision.