Mass Arbitration, Injunction Fight, & Federal Appeals
I served as arbitration counsel for hundreds of current and former participants in a large defined-contribution retirement plan pursuing ERISA fiduciary-breach claims through individual AAA arbitrations administered in Kansas City, Missouri. The claims focused on fiduciary misconduct involving the plan’s profit-sharing component—most notably, allegations that the plan’s investment manager concentrated plan assets in Valeant Pharmaceuticals stock (“VRX”), and that the ensuing collapse in VRX’s share price caused the plan to suffer losses exceeding $100 million.
The arbitration program and the “mass arbitration” reality
The plan’s dispute-resolution program required individual arbitration and barred class or representative proceedings. In practice, that framework produced a rare “mass arbitration” posture: over several years, more than 550 plan participants (or beneficiaries) initiated individual arbitrations. As those matters progressed, at least 342 claims were fully arbitrated, at least 214 claimants received monetary awards, and approximately 60 additional claimants completed hearings but were unable to receive awards due to later court intervention. At least 182 awards were confirmed as judgments in the Western District of Missouri.
When the respondent refused to satisfy awards, I led the effort to protect and enforce those results through federal-court proceedings, including confirmation of awards as judgments and litigation over stays, enforcement, and related injunction issues. The work required high-volume case management without “assembly-line lawyering”—keeping the legal theory, evidentiary record, and damages presentation aligned across matters while preserving the individualized proof each claimant needed.
Parallel federal litigation and efforts to halt
the arbitrations
As arbitration exposure increased, parallel federal litigation accelerated in multiple jurisdictions. A key flashpoint arose in the Southern District of New York, where a separate set of plaintiffs sought to certify a mandatory, non-opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(1) intended to absorb the dispute—including claims already adjudicated in arbitration—into a single class proceeding.
The district court certified a mandatory class and entered a preliminary injunction designed to halt pending and future arbitrations and restrict further proceedings related to the same allegations.That injunction created immediate, high-stakes consequences. It threatened to freeze cases midstream (including matters where hearings had already concluded) and raised complex questions about whether and how confirmed federal judgments could be sidelined.
Appeals in
two circuits
Because the dispute implicated both (1) the court enjoining arbitrations in New York and (2) the court supervising and confirming awards in Missouri, it produced coordinated, multi-forum appellate litigation.
-
Second Circuit: I led briefing and oral argument challenging the injunction and related rulings, addressing the limits of federal injunctive power, the Federal Arbitration Act’s pro-arbitration framework, the interaction between Rule 23 mandatory classes and arbitration agreements, and basic fairness concerns where claimants had already invested substantial resources in adjudicated results.
-
Eighth Circuit: In parallel, I served as lead counsel on briefing and argument arising from award-enforcement and confirmation proceedings in the Western District of Missouri, including consolidated issues tied to confirmed awards and attempts to unwind or forestall the practical consequences of completed arbitrations.
What I did
across forums
This matter required a combination of courtroom advocacy and systems-level litigation management. My work included:
-
Developing and prosecuting ERISA fiduciary-breach claims in individual AAA arbitrations at scale;
-
Managing a high-volume docket while maintaining claimant-specific records and damages presentations;
-
Litigating in federal district courts over confirmation, enforcement, stays, and injunction practice;
-
Handling emergency and interlocutory appellate work in multiple circuits, including lead briefing and oral argument; and
-
Coordinating strategy across simultaneous proceedings in different jurisdictions, with careful attention to jurisdiction, comity, and the procedural rules governing arbitration, class actions, and federal equitable relief.
Outcome
After years of parallel arbitration proceedings and related federal litigation—including appellate work in multiple circuits—the dispute was resolved through a global settlement, bringing the related proceedings to a close.