Eboni Williams, et al v. Gerald Shapiro, et al

Track this case

Case Number:

24-11192

Court:

Appellate - 11th Circuit

Nature of Suit:

3791 Employee Retirement (ERISA)

  1. August 12, 2025

    11th Circ. Wary Of Individual Arbitration Push In ESOP Fight

    The Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday appeared unlikely to force individual arbitration of a federal benefits lawsuit alleging that a legal technology company's employee stock ownership plan shares were undervalued in a plan termination, with multiple judges questioning the validity of an arbitration provision in ESOP plan documents.

  2. August 01, 2025

    4 Argument Sessions Benefits Attys Should Watch In August

    The Ninth and Eleventh circuits in August will hear from employers fighting trial court decisions refusing to kick proposed class actions alleging ERISA violations into individual arbitration. Here's a look at four coming oral argument sessions that should be on benefits lawyers' radar.

  3. November 08, 2024

    Attys Ask 11th Circ. To Affirm Arbitration Denial In ERISA Case

    The American Association for Justice has urged the Eleventh Circuit to find that a legal technology company's arbitration clauses are unenforceable, arguing that the company should face workers' Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit in court.

  4. October 04, 2024

    DOL Urges 11th Circ. To Back Arbitration Denial In ESOP Row

    The U.S. Department of Labor urged the Eleventh Circuit to reject arbitration in a proposed class action alleging a legal technology firm undervalued company shares when it shut down its employee stock ownership plan, arguing that the arbitration provision clashed with federal benefits law.

  5. June 28, 2024

    Legal Tech Co. Seeks Arbitration Of ESOP Row At 11th Circ.

    A legal technology company is urging the Eleventh Circuit to back arbitration of workers' claims that they lost $35.4 million when their employee stock ownership plan bought undervalued company shares, arguing that the lower court misstepped by finding that the agreement flouted rights under federal benefits law.