A Governance Imperative: Why Pension Funds Need a Dynamic AI Policy
AI capability is advancing rapidly. As it improves, pension funds and their vendors are embedding AI into core investment and operational functions to enhance returns and improve efficiencies.
Reprinted with permission from National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS). Originally published in NCPERS PERSist Spring 2026 magazine.
AI tools now draft investment memoranda, summarize manager reports, model portfolio risk, analyze actuarial data, support benefits calculations and automate member communications. Fund staff also use generative AI to accelerate research, interpret statutes and draft internal documents.
Given these efficiencies, the question is no longer whether pension systems will use AI. It is how quickly they will establish AI governance and how often those policies should be reassessed. For pension fund leadership, AI is not simply a technology initiative. It is a fiduciary imperative.
Pension system AI risk is broad, extending across benefits administration, statutory compliance, data privacy and cybersecurity, investment oversight, board reporting and public disclosures.
If AI produces an incorrect benefits calculation, who catches it? If a model misinterprets statutory language governing eligibility or cost-of-living adjustments, who verifies the result? If staff upload confidential member data into a public AI tool, what are the privacy implications? If an investment decision is influenced by an AI-generated summary that omits key risk factors, how is that detected?
These risks are not theoretical. McKinsey reports that 88% of organizations now use AI in at least one business function, yet only about one-quarter have mature AI governance frameworks. That gap between adoption and oversight is particularly concerning for pension systems, which manage substantial assets and highly sensitive member data under strict fiduciary obligations.
AI Exposure Extends Beyond Investments
AI conversations often focus too narrowly on portfolio analytics. Pension system risk is far broader, extending across benefits administration, statutory compliance, data privacy and cybersecurity, investment oversight, board reporting and
public disclosures. AI is already influencing each of these functions, and errors can go undetected and scale quickly.
Large language models can generate confident but inaccurate outputs that may oversimplify statutory language or summarize complex documents while missing material details. If not properly configured, they may also retain or expose sensitive data. In a pension system, such failures have tangible consequences: incorrect payments to beneficiaries, misstated disclosures, regulatory scrutiny, litigation exposure and reputational harm.
Fiduciary oversight requires understanding the tools that influence decisions, define boundaries of use, train personnel, and ensure vendor standards. Governance is not about slowing innovation; it is about preventing avoidable risk and demonstrating institutional oversight.
AI risk should be integrated into existing risk management and compliance structures rather than treated as a standalone initiative.
A “No AI” Policy Is Not a Solution
Refusing to adopt AI or discouraging its use is not effective oversight. Employees are already experimenting with AI tools. Research by Microsoft and LinkedIn found that 75% of knowledge workers use AI at work, and 78% of those users do so without employer approval, significantly increasing the risk that sensitive information will be shared with unvetted platforms.
Gartner projects that by 2030, 40% of enterprises will experience security or compliance incidents tied to unauthorized or “shadow AI” use. Prohibitions tend to drive usage underground rather than eliminate it. The absence of a policy does not prevent AI use; it prevents visibility into AI use. For pension funds, that visibility is essential.
AI Governance Is a Risk Management Function
An effective AI policy should answer three questions: Where is AI being used? What risks does that use create? Who is accountable for oversight?
Leading funds are beginning to evaluate AI use enterprise-wide and developing internal AI policies and governance frameworks. Essentially, AI deployment must be accompanied by institutional guardrails.
Pension system governance discussions should align with fiduciary duties: Is AI use consistent with statutory requirements? Are outputs verified before influencing decisions? Are member data protections clearly defined? Is the board receiving updates on AI initiatives and associated risks?
This requires acknowledging that AI is already embedded in work product and bringing it within formal oversight structures. In many cases, this also means engaging experienced governance and fiduciary advisors who understand both pension system operations and the legal obligations.
Practical First Steps
AI governance should be principle-based and dynamic. Initial steps include conducting an enterprise-wide inventory of AI use, clarifying privacy and confidentiality rules, establishing review protocols for AI-generated outputs and assigning executive-level accountability. Importantly, AI risk should be integrated into existing risk management and compliance structures rather than treated as a standalone initiative.
The technology sector’s mantra “move quickly and break things” is incompatible with the mission of pension systems. The retirement security of public employees depends on stability, accuracy and trust.
Adopting a dynamic AI policy is not about resisting innovation. It is about protecting beneficiaries, preserving institutional credibility and ensuring that technological progress advances—rather than undermines—fiduciary duty.
Julie Goldsmith Reiser is co-chair of the Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice. Suzanne M. Dugan is Special Counsel at Cohen Milstein and heads the firm’s Ethics & Fiduciary Counseling practice group.
Locked Out: How Changing Post-IPO Lockup Practices
Threaten Section 11 Recovery
The SpaceX IPO in mid-June was historic— and not merely for its scale. The offering also departed from conventional practices for going public in a variety of ways that meaningfully affect the rights of minority shareholders.
This article examines one such departure: the erosion of traditional lockup protections that have become critical to investors’ ability to pursue securities claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Section 11 was designed by Congress to ensure truthful public offerings, such as an initial public offering (IPO). The law imposes a stringent standard of liability on the parties who play a direct role in a registered offering, including issuers, their directors, and their underwriters
Traditionally, underwriters require that companies going public agree to a lockup period, usually 180 days after the IPO, during which pre-IPO shareholders—such as employees, executives, and early investors—are prohibited from selling their shares. Lockups serve multiple purposes, including stock price stability, signaling confidence, and deterrence of insider trading. But in recent years, lockups have also emerged as a critical safeguard for preserving claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act.
Jan E. Messerschmidt Partner
jmesserschmidt@cohenmilstein.com
Lockups serve multiple purposes, including stock price stability, signaling confidence, and deterrence of insider trading. But in recent years, lockups have also emerged as a critical safeguard for preserving claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act.
The importance of lockups to Section 11 claims became more acute in June 2023, when the Supreme Court decided Slack Technologies v. Pirani. That decision reaffirmed that Section 11 plaintiffs must “trace” their shares to the allegedly defective registration statement. For investors who purchased directly from underwriters in the initial distribution, tracing is straightforward. For secondary-market purchasers, though, it is far more difficult. Once pre-IPO shareholders sell their unregistered shares into the open market, those shares commingle with the registered shares issued pursuant to the registration statement. At that point, it is hard (and, many argue, nearly impossible) for a secondary-market purchaser to
prove that the shares they acquired are traceable to the defective registration statement, effectively precluding recovery under Section 11.
Lockups have been an essential bulwark against this traceability problem. During the lockup period, pre-IPO shareholders cannot sell their shares, so the only shares available in the secondary market are the registered shares from the IPO that are necessarily traceable to the registration statement. Investors who purchase during this window can typically establish traceability with relative ease. Once the lockup expires and unregistered shares enter the market, traceability—and with it, the prospect of Section 11 recovery—becomes far more uncertain. But, again, the traditional 180-day lockup provided some measure of protection for secondary-market purchasers.
During the lockup period, pre-IPO shareholders cannot sell their shares, so the only shares available in the secondary market are the registered shares from the IPO that are necessarily traceable to the registration statement.
In recent years, however, companies have increasingly experimented with alternative lockup structures that shorten or all-but eliminate this protective window. These variations, employed predominantly by companies in the technology sector, include blackout pull-forwards, staggered releases, performance-based early releases, and day-one releases.
• Blackout pull-forwards. Companies typically impose quarterly trading blackouts before earnings announcements to prevent insider trading. When a lockup would otherwise expire during such a blackout, some companies—including Snap, Peloton, Lyft, and Pinterest—have permitted insiders to sell earlier, before the blackout begins. When blackout pull-forward provisions apply, the lockup period can thus effectively expire earlier for eligible shareholders.
• Staggered releases. To avoid one large wave of sales following a single lockup expiration, which commonly puts downward pressure on the company’s stock price, some companies have implemented staggered releases designed to spread out insider sales at various dates in the first six months after the IPO. Snowflake, for example, allowed 25% of locked-up shares to be sold after 91 days and Doordash permitted 40% after the same period.
• Performance-based early releases. One variant of the staggered approach, these provisions tie early sales to stock price thresholds. Datadog and Instacart, among others, have permitted insiders to sell a specified percentage of shares once the stock reaches a predetermined price.
• Day-one releases. Some companies, such Allbirds and Airbnb, have allowed non-executive employees to sell a portion of their shares even on the first trading day. Securities law restrictions generally prevent executive officers, directors, and affiliates from selling in the first 90 days, so these provisions typically apply only to non-executive employees.
Two of this year’s most prominent technology IPOs—Cerebras and SpaceX—are only the latest examples of this trend. Cerebras, which went public in May, permitted non-executive employees to sell 7.5% of their shares on day one and, if the stock closed by more than 33% above the IPO price on that day, an additional 7.5% on day two. Additional tranches were permitted following first-quarter 2025 earnings (announced in late June) and at intervals through October.
SpaceX, for its part, permits up to 20% of eligible shares to be sold after the company reports its first quarterly results as a public company, with an additional 10% available if the stock trades at least 30% above the IPO price for five of ten consecutive trading days before the earnings release. Quarterly results are expected by early August—roughly 60 days after the IPO. Additional staggered releases follow at 10-to-20-day intervals until the full lockup expires on December 8, 2026.
In recent years, however, companies have increasingly experimented with alternative lockup structures that shorten or all-but eliminate this protective window.
From the companies’ perspectives, these structures have appeal. Staggered releases may smooth out selling pressure on the stock. For companies that have relied heavily on equity compensation, shorter lockups can serve to reward and retain talent in a highly competitive environment. These are legitimate corporate objectives. But for other investors, these shorter lockups shrink, if not eliminate, the window during which secondary-market purchasers can establish traceability—and with it, their ability to recover under Section 11 if material misstatements or omissions are later revealed.
Investors should expect this trend to continue. That has two major implications. First, when deciding whether to buy shares in a newly public company, investors should pay close attention to the terms of the lockup agreement, which may impact their rights to recover under Section 11. Second, continued erosion in the traditional 180-day agreement illustrates that lockups cannot be relied upon to solve the traceability problem. Investors will increasingly need to look to other solutions, such as developing technological innovations and evidentiary methods or new regulatory and congressional action.
Jan E. Messerschmidt is a partner in the Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice.
How Recent Changes at the SEC Are Impacting Investors
When President Trump named Paul S. Atkins as SEC Chair, we had a good sense of what institutional investors could expect to see from the second Trump Administration’s version of the Commission.
This article was adapted from June 18 remarks at the National Association of Pension Attorneys (NAPPA) 2026 Legal Education Conference, where Dan participated in a panel titled “The Evolving Enforcement Priorities of the SEC and Its Impact on Institutional Investors.”
As SEC Commissioner from 2002-2008, Chair Atkins favored measures that encouraged capital formation and vigorously opposed what he saw as overzealous enforcement and burdensome regulation. So, we certainly expected to see these characteristics impact the agency’s direction.
With 18 months of data now in hand, we no longer need to speculate. SEC enforcement actions against publicly traded companies and their subsidiaries have declined sharply under the current administration. Accompanying that shift, the SEC has proposed or enacted policy and process changes that further erode investor protections.
Under the current administration, SEC enforcement actions against publicly traded companies and their subsidiaries have declined sharply. Accompanying that shift, the SEC has proposed or enacted policy and process changes that further erode investor protections.
A Shift from Enforcement Actions Against Public Companies
During the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, the SEC brought 30% fewer enforcement actions against public companies and subsidiaries than the year before, according to analysis of the agency’s own data.1 Strikingly, outgoing Chair Gary Gensler initiated 52 of the 56 cases filed in fiscal year 2025. The Atkins SEC initiated only four new enforcement actions in the second half of fiscal year 2025, the lowest total in a changeover year since at least 2013. 2 Monetary settlements for FY2025 totaled $808 million, half the average annual amount over the previous decade.
The pattern has continued into this year, with the SEC starting enforcement actions against only five public companies in the first half of 2026. Further, the SEC dismissed three
1. See: SEC Enforcement Activity: Public Companies and Subsidiaries—Fiscal Year 2025 Update
2. See id.
enforcement actions against public companies and subsidiaries during FY2025 and the first half of FY2026, including one against crypto company Coinbase. There had been no such dismissals for at least 16 years, the report noted.3
As it has deemphasized its enforcement role, the SEC also has reduced its workforce, encouraging employees to leave by offering voluntary departure incentives and imposing unpopular requirements, such as requiring employees to work in the office full-time. These measures contributed to 18% of SEC Enforcement employees leaving during the 2025 fiscal year, the Government Accountability Office reported in March. The SEC overall lost approximately 1,300 employees during that same period.
Less SEC enforcement will allow more unlawful conduct to go unaddressed. Moreover, SEC actions often serve as a trigger or notice to investors of potential misconduct. Without notice of SEC investigations or enforcement actions, some misconduct will never be unearthed by private plaintiffs or will be discovered later, meaning more investor losses and harm.
Those enforcement actions the agency has brought target investment advisor fraud, Ponzi schemes, and other small cases affecting retail investors rather than the cases against major public companies that are most important to institutional investors. All these actions are consistent with the SEC’s view of its role. In his public remarks, Chair Atkins has emphasized the agency’s focus on capital formation—pledging to “Make IPOs great again,” for example—and his desire to leave corporate governance standards to the states. “We must stay in our lane as a disclosure agency and not a merit regulator,” he said in May.
Finally, a procedural change requiring staff to get Commission approval before starting any investigation will certainly slow, if not completely block, investigations sought by the Division of Enforcement.
Political Considerations
Fueling the perception that some enforcement decisions may be based more on political considerations than merits is a series of cases in which the SEC either dropped investigations after criminally convicted defendants received presidential pardons or resolved cases for relatively small amounts.
They include actions involving Elon Musk, who paid $1.5 million to settle a case alleging he saved 10 times that amount by misleading investors at the time of his acquisition of Twitter; Justin Sun, a Chinese businessman who invested at least $75 million into Trump-backed crypto tokens and
3. See: SEC Enforcement Against Public Companies and Subsidiaries in 1H FY 2026 | Cornerstone Research.
likewise resolved SEC claims for a relatively modest amount; and Trevor Milton, the founder of hydrogen truck startup Nikola. Milton donated $1.8 million to President Trump’s re-election campaign and received a pardon after being convicted of multiple counts of securities fraud. The SEC later dropped its enforcement action against him.
Reuters also reported that SEC Director of Enforcement Meg Ryan resigned after serving for approximately six months due to her concerns that political considerations were impacting SEC enforcement decisions.
Policy Changes
Finally, the SEC under Atkins has proposed or carried out policy changes that could further diminish long-established investor protections and rights to sue in court.
• In September 2025, it published a policy statement saying it would no longer refuse to accelerate its approval of IPOs that included mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers in IPO documents.
• In November 2025, the SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance announced a policy shift that gives companies more leeway to exclude shareholder proposals from proxy materials, saying it would no longer respond to most requests for no-action letters—assurances that it would not take enforcement action against issuers for excluding the proposal.
• In May, the SEC rescinded a longstanding policy that had prohibited settling defendants in enforcement actions from denying allegations contained in the written settlement. Now defendants can settle with the SEC while maintaining their innocence.
• The SEC has recently proposed allowing public companies to file semi-annual financial reports, rather than the quarterly disclosures required for many decades. This change, if adopted, would result in less disclosure and less timely information for investors.
The Irreplaceable SEC
Why is the SEC’s evolution away from enforcement actions against public companies and robust regulation a threat to institutional investors? After all, investors—at least for now—retain their ability to sue publicly traded companies under federal securities law. Can’t they just fill the void left by the shrinking regulatory agency? The simple answer is no.
Private litigants lack many of the substantive and procedural tools available to the government agency. The SEC has the authority to obtain federal injunctions to combat securities law violations; the SEC can bring fraud claims without pleading or proving reliance or loss causation; and the SEC does not need to maintain their cases as class actions. Investors have none of these advantages in litigation.
With the SEC voluntarily reducing its enforcement of federal securities laws against public companies, pension funds and other institutional investors are now the last line of defense against securities fraud.
Nor does the SEC need to comply with any of the stringent requirements imposed on private plaintiffs by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The SEC can conduct fact discovery before it files a complaint while securities class action plaintiffs must overcome a motion to dismiss before gaining access to internal company documents and testimony. And the SEC need not show judges a strong inference of scienter—fraudulent intent—to overcome that motion to dismiss.
In short, less SEC enforcement will allow more unlawful conduct to go unaddressed or escape consequences for longer periods of time. Moreover, SEC actions often serve as a trigger or notice to investors of potential misconduct. Without notice of SEC investigations or enforcement actions, some misconduct will never be unearthed by private plaintiffs or will be discovered later, meaning more investor losses and harm.
Underscoring the need for robust SEC enforcement, a 2020 article in the Administrative Law Review concluded that parallel SEC enforcement actions benefited private securities litigation. From 2009 to 2018, about 20% of securities class action settlements had parallel SEC enforcement actions. Those securities class actions were less likely to be dismissed, settled faster, settled for more money, and were more likely to attract institutional lead plaintiff, the study found.4
Conclusion
With the SEC voluntarily reducing its enforcement of federal securities laws against public companies, pension funds and other institutional investors are now the last line of defense against securities fraud. As such, they should factor in the SEC’s diminished role as enforcers when considering whether to pursue federal securities class actions or file shareholder derivative actions that address corporate misconduct.
At this high-stakes inflection point, it falls to institutional investors to act assertively to preserve their rights and the rights of all investors.
Daniel S. Sommers is a partner in the Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice.
4. Alexander Platt, “Gatekeeping’ In the Dark: SEC Control Over Private Securities Litigation Revisited,” p. 48. 2020 Administrative Law Review.
Fiduciary Focus: What
Public Pension Lawyers
Are Focused on in 2026: Key Takeaways from the NAPPA Legal Education Conference
The program for the recent National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA) 2026 Legal Education Conference provides useful insight into the issues currently occupying the attention of public pension lawyers across the country.
While conference agendas never tell the whole story, the topics offer a glimpse of the legal, regulatory, governance, and investment challenges public pension systems now confront.
Held June 15-18 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, this year’s conference featured several themes: the rapid integration of artificial intelligence, growing complexity in investment regulation, heightened focus on plan governance and fiduciary duties, continued concern over funding and benefit administration, and increased attention to regulatory enforcement and litigation risk.
Artificial Intelligence Has Moved from Theory to Implementation
First and foremost, the agenda highlighted how much artificial intelligence (AI) has become a mainstream legal issue for public pensions. Where discussion once focused on whether plans should use the technology, the multiple sessions on AI at this year’s event grappled with how public funds can use it responsibly.
Suzanne M. Dugan Special Counsel
202.408.4600
sdugan@cohenmilstein.com
Several sessions at the 2026 NAPPA Legal Education Conference dealt with artificial intelligence, highlighting how responsible use of AI has become a mainstream legal issue for public pensions.
One general session examined how public pension systems have implemented AI while safeguarding data privacy and cybersecurity and tracking developments in the evolving state and federal legal landscape. An ethics session addressed lawyers’ professional responsibilities when using generative AI, including duties relating to competence, confidentiality, supervision, client communications, and bias mitigation. A third session focused on practical implementation of AI in investment legal review, including governance frameworks, privilege concerns, contract review processes, and AI-assisted negotiation playbooks.
Taken together, these sessions suggest that AI governance is quickly becoming a core concern for public pension counsel, who increasingly are being asked not only to understand the technology but also to help develop policies that manage legal, ethical, and operational risks associated with its adoption.
Regulatory Change and Enforcement Risk Are Top of Mind
The conference also reflected concern about shifting regulatory priorities and enforcement trends. One general session was devoted to helping attendees stay current with rapidly changing regulatory developments affecting pension systems, from ADA compliance and HIPAA updates to reporting requirements and the SEC’s policy shift in favor of forced arbitration.
Another panel, led by Cohen Milstein partner Daniel S. Sommers, examined evolving SEC enforcement priorities and the impact on institutional investors, including the resulting implications for securities litigation, corporate governance matters, and institutional investor protections. The panel highlighted ways for pension counsel to navigate the increasingly complex and uncertain regulatory enforcement environment. (See Dan’s article on the subject elsewhere in this issue.)
While emerging issues were certainly featured, the conference agenda also reflected the fact that traditional fiduciary and governance concerns remain at the heart of public pension practice.
The focus on regulatory developments suggests that public pension lawyers are preparing for a period of continued uncertainty. Changes at federal agencies, evolving securities enforcement priorities, and shifting governance expectations all have the potential to affect pension fund operations and investment programs.
Fiduciary Duties and Governance Remain Foundational
Despite the focus on emerging issues, the conference agenda demonstrated that traditional fiduciary and governance concerns remain at the heart of public pension practice.
The conference opened with a comprehensive series of introductory sessions addressing fiduciary duties, benefits administration, actuarial concepts, investment governance, and the legal framework governing public pension plans. These sessions emphasized duties of loyalty and prudence, plan administration principles, funding concepts, and the legal considerations associated with investment oversight.
The prominence of these topics reflects a continuing reality: regardless of technological innovation or regulatory change, pension boards and their counsel remain accountable for ensuring that core fiduciary obligations are met. Public pension attorneys continue to view governance excellence as the foundation upon which all other legal and investment decisions rest.
Additional Issues Continue to Demand Attention
The conference also reflected the increasingly complex environment surrounding institutional investing. One prominent session addressed the impact of new laws and regulations affecting alternative investments, including outbound investment restrictions, national security-related
regulations, “countries of concern” legislation, anti-boycott measures, and state laws requiring investment decisions to be based on pecuniary factors. The discussion highlighted the growing intersection of investment management, geopolitics, and public policy.
Other investment-focused sessions examined negotiating private fund documentation, while one panel explored the emergence of retail investment opportunities in private markets and the implications for institutional investors and fiduciaries. These topics underscore a broader trend: public pension attorneys are increasingly engaged in investment transactions in new ways, helping systems navigate both traditional fiduciary concerns and emerging regulatory pressures affecting private markets.
Another notable theme was the ongoing focus on pension funding and benefit administration. Sessions examined strategies for reducing unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities; addressed employer withdrawals, mergers, outsourcing arrangements; and covered corrections of plan failures under SECURE 2.0, tax qualification requirements for governmental plans, federal garnishments, and IRS levies.
The breadth of these sessions suggests that pension counsel continue to devote significant attention to maintaining plan qualification, ensuring accurate benefit administration, and addressing funding challenges—areas that remain central to the long-term sustainability of public retirement systems.
Conclusion
The 2026 NAPPA Legal Education Conference suggests that public pension attorneys are navigating an environment characterized by rapid technological change, increasingly complex investment regulation, evolving enforcement priorities, and continuing pressure to maintain sound governance, funding, and fiduciary practices.
For public pension systems, trustees, asset managers, and service providers, the conference agenda offers a useful roadmap of the issues likely to occupy public pension legal departments and outside counsel throughout the coming year. Far from replacing traditional pension law concerns, emerging issues such as AI and geopolitical investment restrictions are being layered onto an already demanding fiduciary and regulatory framework—expanding the role of public pension counsel as both trusted legal advisor and strategic risk manager.
On a personal note, this conference marked the conclusion of my term as President of NAPPA. It was an honor to serve alongside an exceptional board and membership dedicated to advancing education, collaboration, and professional excellence within the public pension community. The discussions throughout the conference reinforced the critical role public pension attorneys play in helping retirement systems navigate an increasingly complex legal and regulatory landscape.
Suzanne M. Dugan is Special Counsel at Cohen Milstein and heads the firm’s Ethics & Fiduciary Counseling practice group.
Team Profile
Richard L. Trumka Jr. | Of Counsel
202.408.4600 | rtrumka@cohenmilstein.com
Richard L. Trumka Jr. joined the firm in 2025 as of counsel in the Public Client practice. Rich is a former Commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). He joined the CPSC after serving as General Counsel & Staff Director of the U. S. House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy and as a Maryland Assistant Attorney General. Rich represents state attorneys general and other public sector clients in investigations and lawsuits involving a wide range of claims including consumer protection, false claims, and fraudulent and deceptive trade practices. For this issue of the Shareholder Advocate, Richard spoke with editor Christina Saler.
I grew up in … Rockville, Maryland but Southwest Pennsylvania feels like home too. All of our extended family live there and we have a hunting cabin there (with no internet, no TV, just time with family). Growing up, we spent a lot of weekends and vacations back that way enjoying all things outdoors from trout fishing to riding ATVs. Other than living in upstate New York during college and in Philadelphia for a federal clerkship, I’ve spent all my life in Maryland and D.C. My wife and I are raising our two kids ten minutes from my childhood home.
My practice has always focused … on protecting consumers from the abuses of corporate greed, both when working in government and in private practice. When I was with the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, we were leading multi-state litigation against companies like Equifax, Nationwide, and Uber for failing to put safeguards in place to prevent the massive data breaches that occurred. Breaches of their size had not happened before, so we were navigating new territory. After working for the Maryland government, I transitioned to the federal government, first for the Oversight Committee, where we forced both industry and government to protect consumer safety, like driving for the elimination of toxic heavy metals in baby foods. Then for the CPSC, where we set standards and put out recalls to eliminate tragic infant sleep deaths in unsafe products. At Cohen Milstein, I get to continue this important work.
My work is … mission driven. Over the years, I have been able to hold companies accountable for defrauding and harming consumers through litigation, regulation, and the promotion of legislation. Since the federal government has pulled back in its consumer protection work, we have been able to work with state attorneys general to fill this void.
This summer … has been filled with baseball. I coach my 10-year-old son’s team and our season wrapped up with a tournament in Pennsylvania near Hershey Park. In between games, we headed to the park. My son and 7-year-old daughter had a great time on the rides, playing games, and eating an unreasonable amount of chocolate. We’ve got a pilgrimage to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY planned for later this summer.
Recent Highlights
IN THE NEWS
Mortality Table ERISA Lawsuits Face New Legal Landscape — What It Means for Sponsors
Pensions & Investments – July 6, 2026
Landlords To Pay $1.4M To End DC’s RealPage Claims
Law360 – June 12, 2026
DOL Clarifies OT Obligations for Quarterly Bonuses
Law360 – June 1, 2026
SEC Semiannual Reporting Option Stirs Friction
Accounting Today – May 20, 2026
2nd Circ. Ruling Will Restrict Where Workers Bring Collectives
Law360 Employment Authority – May 7, 2026
Hartford HealthCare Misused Privilege, Teamsters Plan Says
Law360 – April 28, 2026
Plumbing Co. ESOP Trial Averted by Settlement Deal
Law360 – June 30, 2026
Corteva Strikes $85M Deal in Farmer Pesticide Antitrust MDL
Law360 – June 11, 2026
Takeda Antitrust Verdict Seen as Big Win in Generic-Drug Fight
Bloomberg Law – May 21, 2026
NextEra Cuts $9.5M Deal in Nuclear Power Wage-Fixing Case
Law360 – May 13, 2026
Uber’s Latest Bellwether Loss Could Portend Trouble For Co.
Law360 – April 30, 2026
Businesses Face More Than a Litigation Risk if They Leave Shareholder Proposals Off the Proxy, Experts Say
Law360 – April 8, 2026
AWARDS & ACCOLADES
Cohen Milstein Ranked Top PlaintiffSide Firm Nationwide
Legal 500 – Recognizing Steven Toll, Michael Eisenkraft, Laura Posner, and Julie Reiser –June 11, 2026
Fourteen
Cohen Milstein Attorneys
Recognized as Super Lawyers & Rising Stars
Super Lawyers – Recognizing S. Douglas Bunch, Julie Reiser, Daniel Sommers, and Steven Toll –May 29, 2026
Ten
Lawyers Selected for 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers Guide
Lawdragon – Recognizing S. Douglas Bunch, Julie Reiser, and Steven Toll – April 24, 2026
Chambers USA Ranks Cohen Milstein
Attorneys & Practices Among Top in Country
Chambers USA – Recognizing Securities Litigation practice, Michael Eisenkraft, Molly Bowen, and Laura Posner – June 8, 2026
Cohen Milstein Named Winner & Finalist in 2026 Elite Trial Lawyer Awards
The National Law Journal – Practice Group of the Year Finalist for Securities Litigation/Shareholder Rights; Carol Gilden named to Elite Women of the Plaintiffs Bar – May 27, 2026
UPCOMING EVENTS
August 2-4 | Texas Association of Public Employee Retirement Summer Educational Forum
San Antonio, TX – Richard Lorant, J.D. Davis, and Cristine Turner
August 8-12 | National Association of State Retirement Administrators Annual Conference
Boston, MA – Richard Lorant
September 15 | National Coordinating Committee for Multi-Employer Plans
Lawyers and Administrators Meeting
Washington, DC – Molly Bowen
September 27-30 | National Association of State Treasurers Annual Conference
Detroit, MI – Jay Chaudhuri
September 30-October 2 | Council of Institution Investors Fall Conference
Boston, MA – Jay Chaudhuri
August 2-5 | County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania Annual Conference and Trade Show
Pocono Manor, PA – David Maser
September 13-15 | Louisiana Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems Annual Seminar
New Orleans, LA – J.D. Davis and Tom Straw
September 23-25 | Oklahoma Public Funds Trustee Education Conference
Durant, OK – Richard Lorant and Cristine Turner
September 27-30 | Georgia Association of Public Plan Trustees Twelfth Annual Trustee School
Macon, GA – Cristine Turner
October 3-6 | Michigan Association of Public Employee Retirement Systems Fall Conference
Kalamazoo, MI – Richard Lorant and Cristine Turner
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.
