For decades, artificial intelligence (AI) was the stuff of science fiction. Today, it is fueling one of the biggest investment booms in history. In 2024 alone, venture capitalists poured over $209 billion into AI startups—a 30% jump from the previous year.
PAGE 2
The Amicus Brief: A Powerful Tool for Advocacy
PAGE 12
$375 Million Antitrust Settlement Provides “Life Changing” Money to UFC Fighters
PAGE 8
Investors’ $27 Million Settlement with Senior Care Provider InnovAge Gets Initial Approval
PAGE 18
Fiduciary Focus: A Conversation with Suzanne Dugan
PAGE 21
Team Profile –Brendan Schneiderman
PAGE 28
Managing Corporate Risk During the AI Gold Rush
For decades, artificial intelligence (AI) was the stuff of science fiction. Today, it is fueling one of the biggest investment booms in history. In 2024 alone, venture capitalists poured over $209 billion into AI startups—a 30% jump from the previous year.
Note: This article originally appeared on the CLS Blue Sky Blog , published by Columbia Law School, as “Cohen Milstein Discusses Managing Corporate Risk in the AI Gold Rush.”
Major tech acquisitions, led by Cisco’s $28 billion acquisition of Splunk, focused on expanding AI capabilities, while biotech companies invested $5.6 billion in AI-powered innovation, including a $1 billion deal between Novartis and Generate:Biomedicines. Even the U.S. government is betting big on AI, with the recently announced $500 billion Stargate initiative involving Oracle, OpenAI, SoftBank, and MGX.
But not all the news has been good. In late January, Chinese AI platform DeepSeek sent shockwaves through the market, first by disrupting U.S. chipmakers with its vastly faster and cheaper AI modeling, then by promptly falling victim to a massive cyberattack. The episode raised concerns that some companies may be concealing vulnerabilities or inflating their AI potential, echoing the dot-com bubble of the 1990s.
In this article, we explore the key risks in the AI gold rush, investor expectations for transparency into AI capabilities, and steps corporate boards can take to minimize AI litigation risk.
AI is not just a passing trend—it’s an intrinsic technology that can be woven into every facet of business operations, from optimizing supply chains and financial modeling to revolutionizing drug discovery.
A Brave New World
AI is not just a passing trend—it’s an intrinsic technology that can be woven into every facet of business operations, from optimizing supply chains and financial modeling to revolutionizing drug discovery. For instance, biotech startup Absci uses generative AI to design entirely new antibodies, accelerating drug development in ways previously thought impossible. With AI’s broad applicability and transformative potential, corporate directors should be mindful of how it will evolve and whether they are appropriately navigating the risks inherent in exploiting this technology. For example, observers say the rush to monetize AI has outpaced regulatory
frameworks and risk mitigation efforts. Some industry leaders and experts fear that AI’s rapid evolution could outstrip companies’ ability to control it, creating unforeseen risks both for boards and humankind more broadly.
Potential AI Risks: Just Fool’s Gold for Nerds?
Without meaningful oversight, the AI gold rush might simply lead corporations and their investors to a pot of fool’s gold. Indeed, despite its promise, AI raises several risks corporate boards must navigate.
One major concern is “AI washing” where companies exaggerate or misrepresent their AI capabilities to suggest they have a competitive edge. Similar to “greenwashing,” where companies falsely tout environmental achievements, AI washing can mislead investors and inflate a company’s valuation. In the race to demonstrate supremacy over AI applications, companies may overstate their AI capabilities to the market.
Communication risks also pose a challenge. Generative AI systems, like ChatGPT, are prone to “hallucinations,” producing incorrect, biased, or entirely fabricated information due to input errors. These AI-generated inaccuracies could expose companies to litigation, including fraud, defamation, and consumer protection claims. Legal scholars caution that as businesses increasingly rely on AI for customer service, marketing, and decision-making, the risk of hallucinations could escalate.
Without meaningful oversight, the AI gold rush might simply lead corporations and their investors to a pot of fool’s gold.
Third-party risks are another significant issue. Many businesses rely on external AI-powered tools and APIs, such as PayPal’s API for online payments or GitHub Copilot for software development. These services require companies to upload sensitive and proprietary data onto supposedly secure platforms. However, recent data breaches at OpenAI and DeepSeek highlight vulnerabilities that prompt hackers to target AI-driven systems. The MOVEit data breach involving Progress Software, which relies heavily on AI, is another example of this growing threat. Beyond security concerns, companies that fail to properly vet AI vendors may also introduce unintentional bias into human resources platforms and other enterprise-wide systems, leading to reputational damage and potential legal consequences.
Internal risks are also a pressing concern. As AI becomes more deeply integrated into business operations, a systemwide failure of a critical AI technology could have far-reaching consequences. Last year’s CrowdStrike outage—though not AI-related—disrupted global travel, healthcare systems, stock markets, and banking services, underscoring the dangers of over-reliance on complex and not
fully understood technologies. New AI systems could pose significant system-wide risks that require heightened board attention and oversight.
Legal risks are another growing concern, particularly in healthcare and insurance, where AI-driven claim denials face increasing scrutiny. Over time, AI models can develop self-reinforcing behaviors that, while initially legal, may evolve into unlawful discrimination. This underscores a key principle of AI governance: companies cannot simply deploy AI and assume it will operate fairly and legally without continuous monitoring.
Stepping Into the Void: Investors’ Role in Holding Companies Accountable for Accurate AI Discussions
Investors are already actively pursuing AI-related securities class action and shareholder derivative litigation. Early signs suggest that AI-washing is currently taking center stage in these lawsuits. According to NERA, 2024 saw 13 AI-washing-related cases, more than double the number in 2023.
One of the most notable AI-washing securities class actions filed to date is a recently certified case against Zillow (Nasdaq: Z) and its derivative lawsuit counterpart. Both cases allege that Zillow overstated the forecasting capabilities of its proprietary AI-driven pricing model used in its now -defunct Zillow Offers program.
Other recent AI-related securities class actions include:
• Oddity Tech (Nasdaq: ODD): The Israeli beauty and wellness platform allegedly misrepresented its proprietary AI technology’s ability to target customer needs and drive sales before its IPO. The “AI” turned out to be little more than a basic questionnaire.
• Innodata (Nasdaq: INOD): The company claimed to have a proprietary AI system, but in reality much of the work was done by thousands of low-wage offshore workers.
• Elastic NV (NYSE: ESTC): Investors allege that this company repeatedly overstated the stability of its sales operations. The lawsuit claims Elastic will likely fail to meet its previously issued FY 2025 revenue guidance.
The rise of AI-washing litigation suggests investors are already pushing back on misinformation and misrepresentations about companies’ AI capabilities. The AI gold rush bears striking similarities to past market bubbles, from the dot-com era to the SPAC frenzy—where exaggerated claims led to market corrections and waves of investor lawsuits. If companies continue to overpromise and underdeliver on their claims of having a competitive advantage with AI, they could face a similar reckoning.
Despite the increasing integration of AI in business operations, in many cases companies’ AI governance remains alarmingly weak.
What’s a Director to Do? Adopting AI Safeguards to Protect Shareholder Value
Corporate boards should take notice of the legal landscape and potential for liability requires a recognition not only of the power of AI, but also the urgency of establishing oversight over AI risk management. Institutional investors will insist on corporate accountability for transparency around AI capabilities, responsible AI deployment, and mechanisms to manage emerging risks.
Despite the increasing integration of AI in business operations, in many cases companies’ AI governance remains alarmingly weak. A 2024 Deloitte Global survey of nearly 500 board members and C-suite executives across 57 countries found that only 14% of boards discuss AI at every meeting, while 45% have yet to include AI on their agendas. Additionally, while 94% of businesses are increasing AI spending, within the last two years only 6% of companies had policies in place for the responsible use of AI, and merely 5% of executives report having implemented any AI governance framework.
To strengthen AI oversight, investors will expect directors to take several key steps. Corporate boards should establish dedicated AI governance committees to assess risks, oversee AI development and implementation, and ensure regulatory compliance. Given the growing use of AI across industries— 72% of organizations worldwide have integrated AI into at least one business function, and 21% have fully embedded AI into their operations—it would be prudent for all or some combination of the company’s Chief Technology Officer, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Risk Officer, and Audit Committee to discuss AI governance at least annually, and perhaps quarterly. Directors should engage third parties to identify risks, vulnerabilities and ethical concerns. Finally, Boards should also enhance AI literacy to ensure directors fully understand the technologies they are tasked with overseeing.
Julie G. Reiser, a partner in the firm, is a co-chair of the Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice group. Benjamin F. Jackson is a partner in the Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice group.
$375 Million Antitrust Settlement Provides “Life Changing” Money
to UFC Fighters
Cohen Milstein’s nationally recognized antitrust practice group recently secured a $375 million antitrust settlement benefiting more than a thousand mixed martial arts fighters who had accused promoter Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) of unlawfully achieving market dominance that locked them into unfair, low-paying contracts.
U.S. District Judge Richard F. Boulware granted final approval to the deal on February 6, 2025, six months after saying he wanted a deal that would return “life changing” money to the Plaintiffs. Litigated over more than a decade, the antitrust class action showcases Cohen Milstein’s ability to achieve justice for its clients by outmaneuvering and outlasting deep-pocketed corporate defendants.
The settlement in Le, et al. v. Zuffa LLC (dba UFC), et al. , 15-cv01045-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), covers more than 1,100 fighters who competed in UFC-promoted MMA bouts taking place or broadcast in the United States from December 16, 2010 to June 30, 2017.
Comparing their victory to “the end of a very, very long fight count,” Nate Quarry, one of the six original Le plaintiffs, told an interviewer that he and other plaintiffs broke into applause when the judge announced his approval. “Knowing that we get to split hundreds of millions of dollars between over eleven hundred fighters, that is an amazing feeling,” he said.
Richard E. Lorant Director of Institutional Client Relations
202.408.3622
rlorant@cohenmilstein.com
The result of more than a decade of litigation, the UFC settlement showcases Cohen Milstein’s ability to achieve justice for its clients by outmaneuvering and outlasting deep-pocketed corporate defendants.
Under the settlement, Plaintiffs’ attorneys said 35 fighters should receive more than $1 million, about 100 fighters will get more than $500,000, and most of the remaining fighters in the class will be allocated amounts of between approximately $50,000 and $250,000. According to the Plan of Allocation, the minimum individual recovery is $15,000.
Fighters who have participated in UFC bouts since July 1, 2017 continue to litigate a second antitrust class action, Kajan Johnson, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, which was filed in 2021 by Cohen Milstein and its fellow co-lead counsel.
Quarry, who has been vocal about the physical and financial toll caused by his championship MMA fighting career, said he and other Plaintiffs will continue the legal fight until the rules are changed for current and future MMA fighters. “… [O]ur goal from the very beginning was to hopefully get some monetary relief for the fighters that had been just horribly shortchanged. But then also we wanted to change the sport,” he said.
In certifying the class, a federal judge said plaintiffs established that the UFC’s parent company had “willfully engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain or increase their market power.”
In certifying the Le class in 2023, Judge Boulware said plaintiffs had established that UFC parent company Zuffa had “willfully engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain or increase their market power.”
“Due to this anticompetitive, coercive conduct, fighters were trapped by Zuffa’s exclusionary contracts and their restrictive terms, creating a situation in which Zuffa had unfettered power and opportunity to suppress fighters’ compensation,” the judge wrote..
Dating from at least 2010, Plaintiffs alleged that UFC’s anticompetitive behavior allowed it to retain more than 80% of all revenue generated by MMA events in the U.S., while paying UFC fighters a fraction of what they would earn in a competitive marketplace. That percentage remained unchanged despite the explosive growth of Zuffa, which promoter Dana White and brothers Lorenzo and Frank Fertitta purchased for $2 million in 2001 and sold 15 years later for roughly $4 billion.
According to Judge Boulware, Plaintiffs established that UFC achieved its market power through anticompetitive means like buying and shutting down rival companies and “locking up” fighters into unfavorable and exclusionary three- or four-bout contracts. Fighters had no ability to negotiate terms, since UFC was effectively their only potential employer. And while UFC could drop fighters without explanation, the contracts barred the fighters from going elsewhere.
Under the settlement, plaintiffs’ attorneys estimate that 35 fighters will receive more than $1 million and about 100 more will get more than $500,000. In all, more than 1,000 fighters will benefit.
Moreover, UFC strong-armed fighters into signing new contracts before the old ones expired through its power to match them with unfavorable opponents in their remaining bouts, making the contracts “effectively perpetual,” the judge said.
As Nate Quarry put it in a 2024 interview: “They just get blacklisted, they get cut. They get put on the undercard. They are given opponents that aren’t going to be a good match up for them … The UFC is very vindictive. You’re either with the company or you’re against it.”
Richard E. Lorant is the firm’s Director of Institutional Client Relations.
The Amicus Brief: A Powerful Tool for Advocacy
This past June, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted (colloquially know as a “DIG”) in an appeal brought by Labcorp Holdings, Inc.
The diagnostics company had asked the Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming class certification in a disability discrimination class action, arguing that federal courts were improperly certifying classes that included uninjured members.
Friend of the Court
Among the pleadings distributed to the Justices before the Supreme Court issued its rejection were nine amicus curae briefs, including one that expressly addressed whether the Court should consider the case or if the Court (and the rule of law) would be better served to DIG it. This 29-page brief was submitted by federal jurisdiction scholars, whose expertise include Supreme Court jurisdiction and procedure. Cohen Milstein’s Alison Deich, an antitrust partner and former law clerk for the DC Circuit, led the amicus team.
In high-stakes cases like Labcorp and recent securities class actions NVIDIA v. Fonder AB and Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, amicus curiae briefs are critical advocacy tools. Amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs, allow non-parties to provide legal arguments or policy perspectives to assist the Court in its analysis and decision-making on important questions.
Kate Fitzgerald Senior Manager Marketing Communications
202.408.4600
kfitzgerald@cohenmilstein.com
Alison Deich, an antitrust partner and former law clerk for the DC Circuit, led the Cohen Milstein team that drafted an amicus brief submitted by federal jurisdiction scholars to the Supreme Court in the high-stakes Labcorp class action. The Court declined to review Labcorp’s appeal, deciding it had been improvidently granted, avoiding a ruling that could have trimmed plaintiffs’ legal rights.
Labcorp had the potential to make it significantly difficult for investors, workers, consumers, and other injured parties to bring class actions. Given the far-reaching significance of the question before the Court, advocates recognized that the Court declining to rule in the case might be the best route to preserve plaintiffs’ rights. Deich identified a path to that result—zeroing
in on a detail in the respondents’ brief that Labcorp only appealed one of the two class certification orders that had been issued.
“We did not want the Court to decide a question with such far-reaching implications when it was unclear that it had jurisdiction to do so,” said Deich.
In the amicus brief by legal scholars, her team explained how Labcorp’s decision to appeal just one of the two class certification orders created a tangle of jurisdictional, prudential, and factual problems that justified a DIG. Those problems became the focus of the Court’s attention at oral argument—and resulted in a DIG that preserved important aspects of the legal status quo.
“The Court has limited capacity to analyze all the facets of a case,” said Laura Posner, a partner who shepherds amicus work in Cohen Milstein’s Securities Group. “So, amicus briefs play a uniquely important role, providing a deeper analysis or broader perspective beyond those advanced by the parties.”
Highlighting Unheard Perspectives
“What Ali and her team did in Labcorp is emblematic of the firm’s amicus practice,” said Laura Posner, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice group. Posner shepherds the firm’s amicus work in securities class actions and has spearheaded more than a dozen Supreme Court amicus briefs, including several on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association—the association of all state securities regulators in the United States—and former SEC officials.
“The Court has limited capacity to analyze all the facets of a case. So, amicus briefs play a uniquely important role, providing a deeper analysis or broader perspective beyond those advanced by the parties.”
Posner, who is also the president of the Institute for Law & Economic Policy, an investor protection public policy think tank, noted that amicus briefs in securities class actions are especially potent. Such briefs often provide economic data, industry insight, policy arguments, or legal analysis from experts and scholars in those fields that inform the Court of a case’s stakes and practical implications. Further, they allow interested parties, such as institutional investors, economists, and former members
of the Securities Exchange Commission, to share their points of view in cases that may not directly involve them but could nonetheless reshape the rules governing investor rights, market conduct, and corporate disclosures.
“Amicus briefs offer practical benefits for both institutional investors and the courts,” noted Posner. For example, had NVIDIA or Facebook not been DIG’d by the Court, both could have significantly weakened securities laws and undermined investors' ability to hold corporations accountable for fraud. In NVIDIA, potentially the most damaging case, Posner led an amicus team of distinguished scholars of economics, accounting, and other data sciences in support of the respondent in this case that, among other things, sought to undermine investors' ability to use experts at the pleading stage.
Even in cases where the Supreme Court does not rule in investors’ favor, amicus briefs can play a critical role. For example, in Slack v. Pirani, distinguished legal and economic scholars represented by Cohen Milstein and Professors John C. Coffee Jr. and Joshua Mitts from Columbia Law School submitted a brief demonstrating how tracing under the Securities Act of 1933 was possible, helping guide the Court to a narrow, fact-specific result that would have limited impact, Posner said.
“Similarly, in Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, we submitted a brief that was successful in emphasizing how generic corporate statements, even if vague, can have material price impacts when later revealed to be false.”
Not all institutional investor amicus briefs are focused on securities class actions. This past November Molly Bowen, also a partner in the firm’s Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice group, filed amicus briefs in two federal circuits supporting a federal regulation involving an employment issue that signatories believed impacted fair competition and the open markets. Amici, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, California State Teachers’ Retirement System, and Comptroller of the City of New York, argued that human capital management impacted longterm value of investments and that a uniform, national approach through regulation was superior to individual adjudication of the issue.
A Pragmatic Strategy
Institutional investors are critical amicus signatories. These institutions—and the public employees, teachers, firefighters, police officers they represent—are impacted the most by securities fraud and unfair markets. Courts have recognized their ability to lead securities fraud lawsuits with care and to ensure the best result for the class. Facebook, Nvidia, and Goldman, for instance, were all led by institutional investors.
“It’s important for the Court to see the name of institutional investors on these briefs and the trillions of dollars in assets under management they represent in the markets,” Posner said. “I firmly believe we have survived a series of existential crises at the Supreme Court because we have been able to convince the Court, primarily through amicus briefs, that the narrowing of investor rights will have dire consequences on institutional investors and the markets in which they invest.”
Amicus participation offers fiduciaries acting in the best interests of their plan beneficiaries another way to protect the integrity and transparency of financial markets, with a very limited expenditure of time or resources.
Moreover, by publicizing their positions on key legal issues, institutional investors can help build consensus and a normative vision within the investment community about the values and principles that should guide investor rights.
Cases on the Radar
Cohen Milstein’s amicus practice is interdisciplinary and takes a broad interest in cases that may impact our clients’ interests or that matter to the broader landscape of fair markets and the rule of law.
Currently, Posner is watching BDO USA v. New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and Pension Funds, which addresses whether clean audit reports are material to investors. “If the Court reverses the Second Circuit, I think it would be devastating to investors,” she said. If the Supreme Court does grant cert, she believes it would provide a good opportunity for investors to sign on to an amicus brief.
Kate Fitzgerald is a Senior Manager Marketing Communications at Cohen Milstein.
Investors’ $27 Million Settlement with Senior Care Provider InnovAge Gets Initial Approval
A federal judge in Colorado has granted preliminary approval of a $27 million settlement in a securities lawsuit brought against InnovAge Holding Corp. by Cohen Milstein on behalf of its clients the El Paso Firemen & Policemen’s Pension Fund, the San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund, and the Indiana Public Retirement System.
The settlement would end three years of hard-fought litigation against multiple defendants: InnovAge, a healthcare provider specializing in senior care; certain of its former executives; private equity firms— Apax Partners and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe—who owned controlling stakes in InnovAge; and underwriters of InnovAge’s initial public offering.
“When private equity pushes for profits in the healthcare space, it raises risks for patients and shareholders alike,” said Molly Bowen, a partner on Cohen Milstein’s InnovAge team. “By fighting for and obtaining this excellent result, our clients showed how engaged pension funds can hold public companies accountable for fraud and benefit their fellow investors.”
Lead Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding InnovAge’s regulatory compliance, the quality of its care model, and the viability of its growth strategy. Government audits uncovered significant compliance violations, including woefully understaffed care centers. The sanctions that followed, including an enrollment freeze, hindered InnovAge’s ability to grow and caused the stock price to plummet, according to Lead Plaintiffs’ complaint.
“When private equity pushes for profits in the healthcare space, it raises risks for patients and shareholders alike,” said Molly Bowen, a partner on Cohen Milstein’s InnovAge team. “By fighting for and obtaining this excellent result, our clients showed how engaged pension funds can hold public companies accountable for fraud and benefit their fellow investors.”
The three Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel Cohen Milstein conducted extensive discovery and motions practice that provided ample evidence about the strengths and risks of the case. Lead Plaintiffs investigated, drafted, and filed a detailed amended complaint and defeated, in large part, Defendants’ repeated motions to dismiss. They engaged in substantial fact discovery, including exchange of document requests and interrogatories, production of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, serving subpoenas on third parties, and conducting Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of the Lead Plaintiffs and their three investment managers—a total of eight individuals representing six different entities. Lead Plaintiffs also successfully moved for class certification, supported by an expert report on market efficiency and damages.
The $27 million settlement is a class-wide recovery that exceeds the typical recovery in securities class actions, particularly for a case where most damages stem from claims arising under a company’s statements in connection with an initial public offering.
Lead plaintiffs represented by Cohen Milstein were the El Paso Firemen & Policemen’s Pension Fund, the San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund, and the Indiana Public Retirement System.
The result is even more remarkable considering the particular challenges presented by InnovAge’s precarious financial state. In virtually all cases, extending litigation for years—through additional dispositive motions, trial, and appeals—carries a risk that the class might recover less (or even nothing). Here, InnovAge’s limited insurance and a significant decline in its stock price during the litigation heightened that risk. During the litigation, InnovAge’s stock price fell from around $6.50 per share to as low as $2.75 per share, raising a risk that the company would have difficulty funding a settlement.
On June 17, 2025, US District Judge William J. Martinez granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the case, which is captioned El Paso Firemen & Policemen’s Pension Fund v. InnovAge Holding Corp. (21-cv-02270-WJM-SBP (D. Colo.).
The $27 million settlement is a class-wide recovery that exceeds the typical recovery in securities class actions, particularly for a case where most damages stem from claims arising under a company’s statements in connection with an initial public offering.
In the coming months, Cohen Milstein will work with the court-approved claims administrator to oversee the process of disseminating notice of the settlement. Impacted investors can find more information at https://www.strategicclaims.net/innovage/. Judge Martinez scheduled a final approval hearing for November 26, 2025
Fiduciary Focus
A Conversation with Suzanne Dugan
Interviewer’s Note: This column about fiduciary issues affecting public pension systems is the general responsibility of Suzanne Dugan, who usually writes the column or invites guests to offer some helpful commentary. Suzanne is the founder and head of the firm’s Ethics and Fiduciary Counseling practice, one of the country’s most active and recognized practices providing trusted counsel to public pension trustees and staff. Suzanne was recently named President of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA). NAPPA is almost 40 years old and provides an important opportunity for public pension lawyers to come together to learn about the most critical matters affecting their work.
As Suzanne begins her one-year term as President of NAPPA, she thought this a good moment to flip the seats so she can share a little bit about her work on your behalf and as the leader of this group. Since she and I have spent the last couple of decades working on and discussing public pensions, I’ll serve as the foil in this conversation. Hope you enjoy.
Luke Bierman: You’ve been chosen by your peers to lead NAPPA. Tell us a bit about the organization—how you became involved, how it’s organized, and how NAPPA is different from other organizations that work with public pensions.
Suzanne M. Dugan: NAPPA is the only national professional association focused exclusively on public pension attorneys. The beauty of the organization is that it provides an opportunity to exchange information, advance knowledge and education, and foster best principles and sound practices in the field of public employee retirement systems. Public pension plans are a bit unique as they are not governed by ERISA but rather by provisions enacted in their home jurisdictions. These laws might be similar across states and municipalities, allowing members to share their experiences very neatly, but can also vary across the country, giving legal practitioners opportunities to learn about these differences and apply those lessons by analogy. NAPPA’s singular focus on public pensions and its approach of similarity and difference separates it from other organizations.
NAPPA’s singular focus on public pensions and its approach of similarity and difference separates it from other organizations.
The organization hosts two educational programs each year. The Winter Seminar devotes a half-day each to NAPPA’s four sections— Benefits, Fiduciary and Plan Governance (my personal favorite), Investments, and Tax—as well as general interest topics on the final morning of the program. The Legal Education Conference, which runs for four days, focuses more about the law and legal issues affecting public pension plans on a wide range of topics and provides public pension attorneys with an opportunity to obtain continuing legal education credit. It is not unusual for several hundred lawyers to attend these programs, which are organized by the four sections I mentioned, as well as our education committees on topics such a cybersecurity and data privacy, funding challenges, public safety, securities litigation, and new member education. NAPPA also publishes a semi-annual newsletter, The NAPPA Report, that allows members to provide articles relevant for their peers in the public pension world.
Suzanne
M. Dugan Special Counsel
202.408.4600
sdugan@cohenmilstein.com
202.408.4600
lbierman@cohenmilstein.com
Luke Bierman Of Counsel
I began my involvement as a member while working as Special Counsel for Ethics in the Office of the New York State Comptroller in the mid-2000s. After joining Cohen Milstein in 2011, I became involved with the section on Fiduciary and Plan Governance, presenting and organizing programs, and then was asked to assist with the New Member Education Committee. In 2024, I was thrilled when then-NAPPA President Laura Gilson, the General Counsel of the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, asked me to serve as Vice President. I’ve been lucky to see NAPPA from the perspectives of both in-house and outside counsel to public pension plans, which I think enhances my capacity to have a positive impact as President.
What really distinguishes NAPPA members is their commitment to the mission—protecting the retirement security of educators, public safety officers, and other government employees—at a time when it feels as though they’re under attack.
What really distinguishes NAPPA members is their commitment to the mission. Protecting the retirement security of educators, public safety officers, and other government employees is critically important, especially at a time when it feels as though government employees are under attack. It’s meaningful work for these attorneys, whose efforts benefit millions of retirees and the beneficiaries who depend on public pensions. Indeed, I’m a member of a public pension system after 20 years of public service in New York State, so I fully appreciate how important that pension check is to the beneficiaries of our clients. It's essential to ensure that those checks get to those who devoted their careers to public service. We’re all proud to play a role in that important work.
LB: I know what you mean: I get one of those checks every month and share your enthusiasm and commitment to the beneficiaries of the public pension systems. To keep up to date with your practice, you recently attended NAPPA’s annual summer conference, which is where you became President. What were the most salient issues on the agenda?
SMD: There are some issues that are perennial, so NAPPA covers them at each meeting–professional ethics, recent litigation, federal legislation, and tax changes, for example. Other topics are more, well, topical— dependent on current trends. For example, cybersecurity and data privacy is top of mind these days, and we had a panel on that topic. I moderated a panel discussing the challenges of public comment periods on Board meeting agendas, and how to craft written policies that satisfy the First Amendment while allowing boards to function efficiently and effectively. We had a very well-received panel with Julie Reiser, co-chair of the firm’s securities practice, discussing the implications for public pension plans wrought by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron deference doctrine. It was a wide-ranging agenda designed to keep public pension attorneys well informed.
LB: How does your work, and now leadership, at NAPPA complement your practice?
SMD: The best part is getting to know lawyers from around the country doing public pension law. I have learned so much from these people over the years. Of course, as I’ve gotten to know them, I feel comfortable calling them to ask questions, finding out how they approach challenges, learning what is new and coming my way. And I do like to help other attorneys, especially the new generation of lawyers who will be representing public pension systems for decades to come; the trust funds at the heart of the public pension world are not just long-term investors but are essentially perpetual ones, so it is not that hard to imagine that some of these lawyers new to NAPPA will be leaders of NAPPA in 2050. I enjoy that aspect of the organization and I hope that will be a part of the membership initiative I can foster as President.
LB: Thanks, Suzanne, for sharing more about NAPPA. Good luck in leading the organization.
Suzanne M. Dugan is special counsel at Cohen Milstein and chairs the firm’s Ethics & Fiduciary Counseling practice group. Luke Bierman is of counsel to the firm and advises the Ethics & Fiduciary Counseling and Securities Litigation & Investor Protection groups.
Cohen Milstein: Leading Securities Litigators – 2025
Chambers USA – June 9, 2025
2025 Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar: Benjamin Brown
Law360 – May 27, 2025
Michelle Yau Named to Elite Women of the Plaintiffs Bar
The National Law Journal – May 12, 2025
Intel Retirees Seek Cert. In ERISA Suit Over Annuity Changes
Law360 – April 22, 2025
This Company Is Spending Millions to Profit Off Veterans’ Benefits. Why Won’t Lawmakers Stop It?
The War Horse – April 18, 2025
Five Cohen Milstein Attorneys Recognized as Super Lawyers & Rising Stars in Florida
Super Lawyers – June 26, 2025
Cohen Milstein: Leading Product Liability Litigators – 2025
Chambers USA – June 9, 2025
24 Cohen Milstein Attorneys Named to the 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers List Lawdragon – June 7, 2025
Harini Srinivasan Named to National Law Journals’ 2025 Elite Trial Lawyers – Rising Stars
The National Law Journal – May 12, 2025
Cohen Milstein Named Winner & Finalist in 2025 Elite Trial Lawyer Competition
The National Law Journal – May 6, 2025
UPCOMING EVENTS
August 3-5 | Texas Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems Summer Education Forum
El Paso, TX – J.D. Davis, John Dominguez, and Richard Lorant
August 17-20 | County Commissioners
Association of Pennsylvania Annual Conference and Trade Show
Somerset, PA – David Maser
September 8-10 | Council of Institutional Investors Fall Conference
San Francisco, CA – Jay Chaudhuri and Carol Gilden
September 14-17 | National Association of State Treasurers Annual Conference and Trade Show
Denver, CO – Jay Chaudhuri
August 9-13 | National Association of State Retirement Administrators Annual Conference
Seattle, WA – Richard Lorant
September 7-9 | Louisiana Association of Public Employees’ Retirement Systems Annual Seminar
New Orleans, LA - J.D. Davis and Tom Straw
September 13-16 | Michigan Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems Fall Conference
Grand Rapids, MI – Richard Lorant
September 17 | Oklahoma State Firefighters’ Association Annual Memorial Golf Tournament
Oklahoma City, OK – Richard Lorant
Our new Chicago office at 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2375.
Team Profile
Brendan Schneiderman | Associate
202.408.4600
| bschneiderman@cohenmilstein.com
Brendan Schneiderman is an associate in the Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice group. Brendan joined the group in 2022 after a one-year term as a Cohen Milstein Law Fellow, where he worked on various cases for different practice groups. Brendan recently moved from the firm’s Washington DC office to the New York office, and is in the process of applying to the New York Bar. For this issue of the Shareholder Advocate, Brendan talked with Editor Christina Saler. I grew up … outside of Boston. I was born in Brooklyn but we moved when I was young enough that a sports affiliation had not yet developed. There is no divided loyalty between New York and Boston: I got the Boston sports bug into my system, and that was that. I was lucky that my arrival coincided with a very successful time for Boston sports: the Patriots won their first Super Bowl in 2001, and the rest is history. I started playing baseball at the age of five, which was the earliest my parents could get me on a team. As a lefty, my choices were pretty much to play first base or pitch. Pitching was way more fun, so I went with that and played up until college. My shoulder reminds me every morning.
I decided I wanted to be a lawyer … a few years after graduating from college. I was working in San Francisco as a quantitative consultant for an energy policy consulting group where I interacted with legislatures, regulators, lobbyists, and lawyers on energy economics issues. I came to realize over time that everyone really seemed to listen to the lawyers when trying to push forward or quash a particular policy or initiative. So, I reached out to all the lawyers I knew and asked them about their law school experience and their practice. I wasn’t sure if law school was right for me, but it turns out it absolutely was. I headed home to Boston for law school where I took every opportunity I could to explore the different avenues of work as an attorney. I worked with the state attorney general, a nonprofit, I did academic research, and spent a summer with Cohen Milstein. It was my summer at Cohen Milstein that made me realize this is where I wanted to be—working with really talented lawyers who hold the most powerful corporations accountable for illegal harm they cause.
The law we practice … is challenging and rewarding. As the son of two retirees, it is very motivating to know that the complex issues we’re litigating have the real-world effect of protecting pension benefits for the members of public retirement systems and unions. One of my favorite matters is a pro bono
matter that is fighting to provide medical treatment and accommodations for some of the most marginalized individuals in our healthcare system; that has been a tremendous experience.
I’m currently reading … Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate written by historian Mary E. Sarotte which goes deep into the diplomacy that America, NATO, and Russia engaged in after the fall of the Berlin Wall. I tend to look for periods in history that I don’t know much about and do a deep dive. As someone who studied abroad in Eastern Europe, this book is fascinating in explaining how policy in that region developed into what it is today, which is obviously topical right now.
BOSTON, MA
CHICAGO, IL
Editor: Christina D. Saler
Editorial Team: Richard E. Lorant and Samuel P. Waite
Please contact us with questions or comments at 202.408.4600.
The materials in this edition of the Shareholder Advocate are for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be, nor should they be taken as, legal advice. The opinions expressed herein reflect those of the respective author.
