Lindsey Camp headshot
Lindsey R. Camp
+1.404.817.8439

Overview

Lindsey R. Camp is a litigation attorney in Holland & Knight's West Palm Beach and Atlanta offices. Ms. Camp defends companies, fiduciaries and executives throughout the United States in Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), labor and employment, and business disputes.

Ms. Camp has experience litigating complex cases involving ERISA, federal securities laws, federal whistleblower statutes, anti-discrimination laws, trade secrets and business disputes. During the course of her career, she has defended a number of class actions and ERISA breach of fiduciary duty actions. She also has experience with matters involving employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), 401(k) plans, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) notices, medical benefit plans, securities fraud, and trade secrets and covenants-not-to-compete. She has significant experience successfully litigating these cases to settlement, summary judgment and verdict.

In addition, Ms. Camp is a frequent lecturer and writer on a wide range of ESOP, employee benefits, employment- and business-related issues, including ERISA compliance and preemption, and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) audits and investigations.

Representative Experience

  • Defending a lawsuit filed by the secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) against the plan sponsor of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), as well as its board of directors and selling shareholders, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in connection with the formation of the ESOP and sale of stock in the plan sponsor to the ESOP. In particular, the DOL alleges that the independent trustee engaged to represent the ESOP in connection with the sale of the stock to the ESOP failed to perform sufficient diligence and relied upon a flawed stock valuation in violation of its ERISA fiduciary duties when it approved the stock transaction at a price that the DOL alleges was tens of millions of dollars too high and that the ESOP was damaged as a result; the DOL further alleges that company's board of directors violated ERISA by allegedly failing to monitor the independent fiduciary and by enabling and otherwise participating in the trustee's breach of ERISA fiduciary duties; the case is set for trial in early 2024
  • Defending a putative class action lawsuit filed against the plan sponsor of an ESOP, its board of directors and other alleged fiduciaries accused of violating ERISA in connection with the termination of the ESOP in 2017, the redemption of the ESOP's stock in 2017, the distribution of benefits to ESOP participants and the sale of the plan sponsor's assets to a private equity group; in particular, plaintiffs allege that the valuation used in purchasing the company stock held by the ESOP was too low and that the ESOP's participants suffered millions of dollars in damages as a result of defendants' actions; this case is in the early stages of litigation
  • Representing the plan sponsor and plan fiduciaries of a 401(k) defined contribution retirement plan against claims that the sponsor allowed investment options to be included in the plan that charge excessive fees
  • Defending the independent board member of an ESOP-owned company accused of violating fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection with the administration and the termination of the ESOP; dispositive motion is pending
  • Defended client against the trustees of a large, multi-employer pension plan (Plan) alleging that the client violated ERISA and breached the parties' Investment Management Agreement (IMA) when it invested approximately $115 million of Plan assets into proprietary funds managed by the client; the Plan's trustees also assert that the client violated the most-favored nations provisions of the IMA when it failed to apply more favorable management and performance fee terms to the Plan's investments; the trustees are seeking in excess of $8 million for alleged harm to the Plan; the client denies any violations of ERISA or the IMA and contends that the investment of Plan assets into the client's proprietary funds was done with the approval and direction of the Plan's trustees; the client filed a counterclaim against the Plan's trustees on the grounds that any alleged violation of ERISA was done with the full knowledge and consent of the trustees and, as such, the trustees should be held jointly and severally liable with the client for any alleged harm to the Plan
  • Represented multiple clients, as well as their medical benefits plans, against ERISA breach of fiduciary duty, ERISA benefits and California unfair competition claims arising out of each plan's denial or partial denial of claims for services provided by out-of-network medical providers; prevailed on motions to dismiss, which was affirmed on appeal
  • Obtained a historic settlement in putative ERISA class action in which the trial court ultimately certified a non-opt-out class action and dismissed all class members claims with prejudice and without defendants paying anything of value to absent class members; plaintiff's counsel also received nothing of value from the defendants; the case started in 2014, when a former participant of the ESOP filed a putative class action lawsuit against plan sponsor, the ESOP and several of the ESOP's former fiduciaries and affiliates alleging violations of ERISA in connection with the termination of the ESOP in 2011 and the distribution of benefits to ESOP participants; in particular, plaintiff alleged that the valuation used in purchasing the sponsor's stock held by the ESOP was too low and that the ESOP's participants suffered millions of dollars in damages as a result of defendants' actions; on June 30, 2015, the ESOP was dismissed from the case on defendants' motion to dismiss; discovery in the case then proceeded with both sides taking depositions of key witnesses and exchanging expert reports; convinced plaintiff's counsel and the court that the key issue in the case was the valuation of the sponsor's stock held by the ESOP and that the valuation issue could be decided by an independent valuation expert appointed by the court as a special master; the parties agreed to a valuation process, which included presenting the independent valuator with copies of all prior valuations, argument by the parties and the parties' expert reports; process also called for all parties to be bound by the independent valuator's determination and the certification of a non-opt-out settlement class regardless of the outcome of the valuation; the independent valuator ultimately agreed with sponsor's position and determined that the ESOP was paid at least fair market value for the stock bought from it; as a result, the independent valuator determined the class members suffered no damages; following a class action fairness hearing, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved the settlement, settled the case as a non-opt-out class action for settlement purposes and dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by the class; defendants paid no money or anything else of value in connection with the settlement and plaintiff's counsel received nothing; plaintiff's alleged damages, interest and attorneys' fees of approximately $10 million
  • Represented a national airline in a putative class action in which the plaintiff asserted that the client's Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) enrollment and eligibility notices failed to comply with U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations; DOL filed amicus brief for the first time on evolving and disputed notification issue that supported defendant’s position; federal district court recognized appellate court had "not directly addressed" the issue, expressly declined to follow decisions that allowed claims to proceed and granted motion to dismiss before plaintiff dismissed claims with prejudice without settlement
  • Represented multiple clients, as well as their medical benefits plans, in a mass action alleging ERISA breach of fiduciary duty, ERISA benefits and various state law claims; all claims were dismissed with prejudice without the clients paying anything
  • Represented a client, its board of directors and several officers against claims that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, breached corporate fiduciary duties, and engaged in federal and state securities fraud; after the motion for class certification was defeated, obtained summary judgment on the claims asserted by all named plaintiffs except one, who elected to dismiss with prejudice his ERISA claims and proceed to trial on his federal securities claims only; the case was tried over a two-week period, which was later affirmed on appeal for a small fraction of the original amount at stake
  • Represented a client and several of its former officers and directors in an ERISA derivative action brought on behalf of the company's employee stock bonus plan and hundreds of the plan's participants; convinced the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia that plaintiffs could not represent the plan and absent plan participants, and could only proceed on their individual claims; prevailed on summary judgment on four of the five named plaintiffs' claims, and settled the last plaintiff's claim for a fraction of the alleged damages
  • Defended a client and several of its officers and directors in a lawsuit filed by its former chief financial officer, who alleged securities fraud and various violations of ERISA related to his sale of common stock back to the company; obtained a complete jury verdict in our clients' favor; the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied a motion for a new trial, and the verdict was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • Defended a client and several of its officers and directors in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in which the SEC alleges our clients defrauded shareholders out of more than $110 million; the SEC moved for summary judgment on collateral estoppel grounds and we defeated that argument; the case settled for a fraction of the amount sought just before trial
  • Represented the primary defendant in very contentious lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, as well as in a related U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) investigation. Client was the former owner and CEO of a hospice. Client established the 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan in 2004 and served as the Plan's initial trustee. Client later sold the business, repurchased it and sold it a second time. After the second sale, the newly installed trustees of the Plan brought more than a dozen claims against our client accusing him of stealing Plan money, breaching various ERISA fiduciary duties, engaging in a prohibited transaction with the Plan, failing to advise participants of their rights under the Plan, and other alleged misconduct. DOL also initiated an investigation of the Plan's administration by our client. We were successful in getting the worst of the claims against our client dismissed, and the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied
  • Representation of most of the board of directors of a major sugar corporation and certain other defendants in four putative ERISA and shareholder class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; obtained summary judgment on all but one of the claims, and the cases ultimately settled on favorable terms for the clients
  • Represented numerous clients involved in DOL investigations or benefits litigation
  • Defended several plans and plan sponsors in an ERISA action alleging loss of benefits and breach of fiduciary duty claims related to the administration of medical benefits plans and reimbursement of out-of-network medical expenses
  • Represented medium and large organizations in federal litigation involving ERISA and a variety of employment-related claims, including non-compete issues, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Section 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

  • Represented an industrial, commercial and institutional construction company in a case involving theft of trade secrets and unfair competition against a direct competitor, as well as three former employees who had joined the competitor; the individual defendants, as well as the chief executive officer, chief operating officer and a division president of the competitor, were terminated during or as a result of litigation
  • Represented a sizeable dental practice in retrieving a customer list stolen by a former dentist-employee and used to set up a competing practice; obtained a preliminary injunction against the former dentist-employee and all of his employees; defendants offered to settle the case by agreeing to a permanent injunction and the payment of a significant sum of money

  • Defended a private university against a multitude of claims brought by a former professor, including breach of contract, retaliation, defamation, fraud and various whistleblower allegations; obtained two contempt orders and a sanctions order against the former professor and have obtained a sanctions award in excess of $1.3 million for the university

Credentials

Education
  • Wake Forest University School of Law, J.D.
  • Vanderbilt University, B.S.
Bar Admissions/Licenses
  • Florida
  • Georgia
Court Admissions
  • Florida Supreme Court
  • Supreme Court of Georgia
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • U.S. Supreme Court
Memberships
  • National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO)
  • The ESOP Association
  • The Florida Bar
  • State Bar of Georgia
Honors & Awards
  • The Legal 500 USA, Labor and Employment – ERISA Litigation, 2021, 2022, 2024

Publications

Speaking Engagements

News