Do You Have Concerns About Your 401(k) Plan Fees or How Your Plan Is Being Managed?

Your 401(k) is supposed to help you build retirement savings. But concerns about plan fees, the selection and monitoring of plan investments, service-provider relationships, or potential conflicts of interest may raise questions about how your retirement plan is being managed.

Federal law requires 401(k) plan fiduciaries to act prudently and in the interests of plan participants, including when selecting and monitoring investments, service providers, and plan expenses.

What 401(k) Participants Should Watch For

Investment performance or the amount of a particular fee, standing alone, does not establish that a 401(k) plan fiduciary violated the law. Participants may nevertheless have questions about whether their plan’s investments and service providers are being prudently selected and monitored and whether plan fees and expenses are reasonable.

Issues 401(k) participants may want to consider include:

• Recordkeeping or administrative fees and whether those costs are being appropriately monitored;
• Investment options with persistent performance or cost concerns and whether those investments are being prudently monitored;
• Plan investments or service-provider arrangements that may involve potential conflicts of interest;
• Financial products or services being marketed to participants through the plan’s recordkeeper; or
• Whether the plan’s investment and service-provider arrangements are being periodically evaluated.

The U.S. Department of Labor explains that 401(k) fiduciaries must use a prudent process to select investments and service providers, ensure plan expenses are reasonable in light of the services provided, and continue monitoring those choices.

A Recent 401(k) Case Shows Why These Issues Matter

A recent settlement involving the Liberty Mutual 401(k) Plan illustrates several of these concerns. On September 9, 2026, a federal court in Massachusetts granted final approval of a settlement resolving an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) class action concerning the management, operation, and administration of the plan. The settlement does not mean the court found that Liberty Mutual violated ERISA.

According to Law360, the plan participants alleged that Liberty Mutual failed to monitor the plan’s recordkeeping costs, resulting in fees that were at least double what comparable plans were being charged. Law360 also reported that the participants alleged Liberty Mutual retained several funds in the plan to improve its business relationships with other financial institutions and drive revenue for the company, even though other investment options would have provided better returns.

Law360 also reported that, in addition to the $13.4 million monetary settlement, Liberty Mutual agreed for three years to direct its plan recordkeeper to avoid soliciting 401(k) participants for cross-selling proprietary products and to conduct a request for proposal for investment and administrative consulting services.

For 401(k) participants generally, the case highlights an important point: fiduciary oversight is not limited to investment returns. It can also involve fees, service-provider relationships, potential conflicts, and whether plan arrangements are being periodically evaluated.

What You Can Check in Your Own 401(k)

You do not need to know every detail of ERISA to start looking at your plan. Review your account statements and annual fee disclosures and consider:

• What administrative or recordkeeping fees are being deducted from your account?
• What expense ratios or other fees apply to the investments you hold?
• What information does your plan provide about the performance, fees, and expenses of its investment options?
• Has your recordkeeper or another plan provider marketed additional investment, insurance, rollover, or advisory products to you?
• Have the plan’s fees, investments, or service providers changed over time?

Keep copies of account statements, fee disclosures, investment materials, and communications from the plan or its service providers. Those records may help show how fees, investments, and provider relationships have changed over time.

Questions About Your 401(k) Plan?

If you have concerns about your 401(k) plan’s fees, the selection or monitoring of plan investments, recordkeeping costs, service providers, or potential conflicts of interest, contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to learn more about your potential rights under ERISA.

Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Is Your Ford Edge Experiencing Coolant Intrusion or Engine Power Loss?

Federal auto-safety regulators are evaluating a defect petition involving approximately 499,603 model-year 2015-2018 Ford Edge vehicles equipped with 2.0-liter EcoBoost engines. The petition alleges that coolant intrusion into the engine may result in a significant loss of engine power.

On September 3, 2026, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Defect Petition DP26008 to evaluate the issue and determine whether to grant or deny the petition. The opening of the defect petition is not a finding that a safety defect exists and is not a recall.

What NHTSA Is Evaluating

According to NHTSA’s ODI resume, the petition was received on August 5, 2026, and concerns 2015-2018 Ford Edge vehicles equipped with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine.

The petition alleges that coolant intrusion into the engine may result in:

• A significant loss of engine power;
• An “Engine Coolant Over Temperature” warning message;
• Rough engine operation after the vehicle has been allowed to sit and cool down; and
• A check-engine light associated with a cylinder misfire.

The ODI resume identifies an estimated population of 499,603 vehicles and lists 1,563 incidents. It reports no crashes or fires, injury incidents, injuries, fatality incidents, or fatalities in its failure-report summary.

Ford Previously Addressed Coolant Intrusion in a Technical Service Bulletin

Ford previously issued Technical Service Bulletin 19-2346 concerning certain vehicles equipped with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine, including 2015-2018 Ford Edge vehicles. The bulletin states that some affected vehicles may exhibit low coolant, white exhaust smoke, rough running, or an illuminated malfunction indicator lamp, and that the condition may be due to coolant intrusion into a cylinder. For vehicles meeting the bulletin’s criteria, Ford’s service procedure called for replacement of the long-block engine assembly.

What Ford Edge Owners Should Know

At this stage, NHTSA is evaluating whether to grant or deny the defect petition. The agency has not, through DP26008, determined that the covered Ford Edge vehicles contain a safety defect or ordered a recall.

Owners of 2015-2018 Ford Edge vehicles with a 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine may want to preserve repair orders, diagnostic records, invoices, warranty communications, and other records concerning coolant loss, overheating warnings, misfires, rough running, engine-power loss, or engine replacement.

Questions About This Information?

Consumers who have questions about the information discussed on this page may contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Are You a Victim of Wage Theft in California?

Wage theft occurs when employers do not pay workers according to the law. The California Labor Commissioner identifies examples including paying less than minimum wage, failing to pay overtime, denying required meal or rest breaks, requiring off-the-clock work, or taking workers’ tips.

California also restricts deductions from wages and generally requires employers to reimburse employees for necessary expenditures or losses incurred in direct consequence of performing their job duties.

If you believe you have not been paid all wages you earned, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your legal rights without cost or obligation.

What Are Common Examples of Wage Theft?

Workers may have wage-and-hour claims when an employer:

• Pays less than the applicable minimum wage;
• Fails to pay required overtime;
• Requires employees to perform work before clocking in, after clocking out, or during unpaid time;
• Fails to provide legally required meal or rest periods;
• Improperly keeps or takes workers’ tips;
• Makes unlawful deductions from wages;
• Fails to reimburse required business expenses; or
• Fails to pay promised or earned wages.

California Minimum Wage in 2026

Effective January 1, 2026, California’s statewide minimum wage is $16.90 per hour for all employers. Most California employees must be paid at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked, subject to limited exceptions. Tips are separate and cannot be counted toward the minimum wage.

Some California cities and counties, as well as covered fast food restaurant employees and certain health care workers, are subject to higher minimum wage requirements. When a higher applicable minimum wage applies, workers may be entitled to that higher rate. Learn more about California minimum-wage requirements.

Off-the-Clock Work Can Result in Unpaid Wages

Employers generally must pay covered employees for compensable work they require or permit. Depending on the facts and applicable law, unpaid work may include required pre-shift or post-shift activities, meetings, training, equipment preparation, responding to work communications outside scheduled hours, or performing job duties during an unpaid meal period.

Workers who regularly perform tasks outside recorded work hours should consider whether all of that time appears on their time records and pay statements. Kehoe Law Firm discusses similar issues in its Security Guard Unpaid Wages & Break Rights resource.

California Overtime Pay

Most California workers who are covered by the general overtime rules must receive 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over eight in a workday or over 40 in a workweek, and double their regular rate for hours worked over 12 in a workday. Seventh-day overtime rules also may apply. Overtime laws do not apply the same way to every worker, and different rules or exemptions may apply.

Learn more about California overtime pay and employee rights. Federal law also generally requires covered, nonexempt employees to receive overtime at not less than one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. See Kehoe Law Firm’s FLSA overtime-pay overview.

Meal and Rest Break Rights

Most California workers covered by the applicable meal- and rest-period requirements must receive a 30-minute meal period when working more than five hours in a day and a second 30-minute meal period when working more than 10 hours in a day. California also generally requires a paid 10-minute rest period for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof. Meal-period waivers and different rules or exceptions may apply depending on the circumstances, worker, and industry.

Required work during an unpaid meal period can raise both break and unpaid-wage issues. When an employer fails to provide a required meal or rest period, additional pay may be available under California law.

Promised Wages, Deductions, and Final Pay

The California Labor Commissioner states that employers must pay promised wages whether the promise was oral or written. California law also restricts certain deductions from employees’ wages.

Final-pay rules also matter. According to the California Labor Commissioner, a worker who is fired generally must receive final wages on the last day of work. A worker who quits with at least 72 hours’ notice generally must be paid on the last day; without that notice, final wages generally are due within 72 hours. Waiting-time penalties may be available when final wages are willfully unpaid, subject to applicable law and defenses.

Can an Employer Retaliate Against a Worker for Asserting Wage Rights?

Workers may have legal protections against retaliation for asserting wage-and-hour rights. The California Labor Commissioner identifies adverse actions such as discharge, demotion, suspension, reduction in pay or hours, and certain other employment actions as potential retaliation when taken because a worker engaged in protected activity. Federal law also prohibits retaliation against employees for certain protected activity under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Are You Owed Unpaid Wages?

If you believe you were not paid for all hours worked, denied overtime pay, required to work off the clock, denied required meal or rest periods, improperly classified, or otherwise denied wages you earned, you may have legal rights. Contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your circumstances.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

SEC Warns Investors About ERA Form ADV Filing Scams

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed enforcement actions against 38 entities that allegedly made material misrepresentations in Forms ADV to falsely portray themselves as legitimate advisory firms to U.S. investors.

The SEC also issued an investor alert warning that scammers may use exempt reporting adviser (“ERA”) filings to create a false impression that they are SEC-registered, approved, or otherwise legitimate.

The Key Point for Investors: An ERA Filing Is Not SEC Registration

An ERA is an investment adviser that is not registered with the SEC. ERAs are subject to certain SEC reporting obligations and are required to report some information on Form ADV. That filing obligation does not make an ERA an SEC-registered investment adviser.

The SEC’s Investor Alert states: “An ERA is not registered with the SEC.” It further explains that an ERA can provide investment advice only to private funds, such as hedge funds, venture capital funds, and private equity funds, and legally cannot provide investment advice directly to an individual investor.

How the Form ADV and ERA Issues Are Connected

The SEC’s enforcement actions and its investor warning address the same alleged scheme. ERAs report certain information to the SEC on Form ADV. According to the SEC, the 38 defendants purported to be ERAs and allegedly used Form ADV filings containing material misrepresentations or information that could not be substantiated. The SEC alleges that the filings helped the entities falsely portray themselves as legitimate advisory firms.

The SEC Litigation Release No. 26622 states that the Commission charged 38 entities over alleged material misrepresentations in Forms ADV filed between 2025 and 2026. The SEC alleges, among other things, that defendants listed Colorado business addresses where they had no presence and provided disconnected telephone numbers or numbers belonging to unrelated businesses.

Fake SEC Registration Claims and Certificates

The SEC further alleges that certain defendants were marketed on websites displaying fake certificates indicating that the entities were registered with the SEC even though they were not. According to the Investor Alert, some alleged fake certificates included CRD and SEC file numbers assigned when the entity filed its Form ADV and falsely stated that “SEC RIA permission” had been granted.

Investor.gov warns: “Do not trust any individual or firm that claims to be an ERA and directs you to a filing or website as evidence of SEC registration.”

What Investors Should Watch For

• A person or firm claiming to be an ERA offers investment advice directly to you as an individual investor.
• A person or firm claims that its Form ADV or ERA filing means it is registered with, approved by, or endorsed by the SEC.
• A website or representative displays an SEC “certificate” as evidence that an adviser is SEC-registered or legitimate.
• You are directed to a CRD number, SEC file number, Form ADV, or SEC website as supposed proof that the SEC has vetted or approved the adviser.
• You are asked to send money, transfer crypto assets, or provide personal information based on claims of SEC registration or approval.

The SEC’s Enforcement Actions

The SEC’s complaints, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, charge the 38 defendants with violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, conduct-based injunctions prohibiting the defendants from filing Forms ADV as exempt reporting advisers, and civil penalties. The Forms ADV for the 38 entities have been removed from the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure website. The allegations have not been proven.

SEC Sources

SEC Litigation Release No. 26622 – False Forms ADV Filings (August 27, 2026)

Investor.gov – Scammers Using SEC Exempt Reporting Adviser (ERA) Filings to Look Legitimate – Investor Alert (August 27, 2026)

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally-recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Are You a Salaried Manager Working More Than 40 Hours Without Overtime?

Being called a “Manager” or “Assistant Manager” – or being paid a salary – does not necessarily mean you are exempt from overtime pay.

Managers in restaurants, retail stores, hospitality businesses, and other workplaces may spend much of their time performing the same hands-on work as hourly employees while regularly working more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.

Whether a salaried manager is entitled to overtime can depend on the employee’s actual job duties, authority, and responsibilities – not simply the employee’s title or the fact that the employee receives a salary.

Shake Shack Lawsuit Highlights Manager Overtime Misclassification

A collective action complaint filed on August 17, 2026 against Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC illustrates the type of manager misclassification allegations that can arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint alleges that the plaintiff worked as a Shake Shack Manager from approximately September 2019 until February 2026.

According to the complaint, Shake Shack allegedly classified salaried Managers and Assistant Managers as exempt from overtime, even though their primary duties consisted of non-exempt work. The complaint alleges that these employees typically worked approximately 45 to 55 hours per week while receiving a salary, but no overtime compensation for hours worked over 40.

The complaint further alleges that Managers and Assistant Managers spent the substantial majority of their working time – approximately 90% or more – performing non-exempt work because of staffing shortages and the need to provide breaks to hourly employees. That work allegedly included running food and drink stations, preparing and serving food, taking orders, assisting guests, and covering staffing shortages.

The lawsuit also alleges that routine tasks were performed under Shake Shack’s predetermined templates, policies, procedures, and operational plans, and that Managers and Assistant Managers did not exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

What Does the Shake Shack Complaint Seek?

The complaint seeks to pursue FLSA claims on behalf of a proposed collective of current and former salaried Managers and Assistant Managers employed by Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC anywhere in the United States from August 17, 2023 through the final disposition of the matter. It seeks, among other things, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Do You Have a Manager Title But Spend Most of Your Time Doing Hourly Work?

Salaried employees with management titles may warrant an overtime review when their actual day-to-day work is primarily non-managerial.

Your circumstances may warrant legal review if, for example:

• You regularly work more than 40 hours per week but do not receive overtime pay;
• You are paid a salary and classified as exempt from overtime;
• You spend much of your workday performing the same hands-on tasks as hourly employees;
• Staffing shortages require you to regularly fill hourly positions or perform frontline work;
• Your hiring, firing, scheduling, disciplinary, or other personnel authority is limited or controlled by corporate policies or senior management; or
• You have a management title but limited discretion or authority to make significant independent decisions.

A Salary or Manager Title Does Not Automatically Determine Overtime Eligibility

Under the FLSA, whether an overtime exemption applies generally depends on the requirements of the particular exemption and the employee’s actual duties and compensation. A job title alone does not establish that an employee is exempt from overtime.

Kehoe Law Firm is investigating potential overtime misclassification of managers and assistant managers. Learn more about manager overtime misclassification and whether your job duties and hours worked may warrant legal review.

Managers and Assistant Managers: Questions About Unpaid Overtime?

If you are or were a salaried Manager or Assistant Manager and regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay – particularly if much of your time was spent performing the same work as hourly employees – Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is available to discuss your circumstances and potential rights.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, send us a message or contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Are You a Salaried “Manager” Working Overtime Without Overtime Pay?

A proposed $7.5 million settlement involving Festival Foods department managers highlights an important wage-and-hour issue: a managerial title and a salary do not automatically make a worker exempt from overtime.

Why Worker Misclassification Matters

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), covered, nonexempt employees generally are entitled to overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Fact Sheet #23 on overtime pay explains the general overtime requirements. Certain executive, administrative, and professional employees may be exempt, but exemption depends on the employee’s compensation and actual job duties—not simply a job title or the fact that the employee receives a salary. The DOL’s Fact Sheet #17B on the executive exemption states that job titles do not determine exempt status.

For the executive exemption, the DOL states that an employee’s primary duty generally must be management; the employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two full-time employees or their equivalent; and the employee must have authority to hire or fire other employees, or the employee’s suggestions and recommendations regarding specified changes in employee status must be given particular weight, in addition to satisfying applicable salary requirements.

Festival Foods Managers Seek Approval of $7.5 Million Settlement

On August 24, 2026, Law360 reported that Festival Foods and a group of department managers asked a Wisconsin federal court to preliminarily approve a $7.5 million settlement of claims that salaried department managers were misclassified as exempt from overtime. The proposed settlement is expected to cover roughly 1,000 current and former employees.

According to Law360, the workers alleged that Festival Foods uniformly classified salaried department managers as overtime-exempt, even though they spent most of their time performing manual labor and customer service and allegedly did not perform the duties necessary to qualify for the exemption. Festival Foods has denied the allegations and maintains that the managers were properly classified.

The settlement is proposed and remains subject to court approval. Law360 reported that the parties estimated an average gross recovery of approximately $7,418 per person, with individual allocations reaching roughly $10,150.

A “Manager” Title Does Not Decide Overtime Rights

The allegations in the Festival Foods case illustrates a broader issue for workers in retail, restaurants, hospitality, warehouses, and other industries. An employee may be called a manager, assistant manager, department manager, or supervisor and still potentially be entitled to overtime if the employee does not satisfy the legal requirements for an exemption.

Questions may arise when a salaried manager regularly works more than 40 hours per week, but spends substantial time performing the same customer-service, stocking, cleaning, production, or other non-management work as hourly employees, while having limited genuine management authority. Whether a particular employee is exempt is fact-specific, and performing some non-management work does not by itself make a manager nonexempt.

Signs Your Overtime Classification May Be Worth Reviewing

• You are paid a salary and routinely work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay.
• Your title includes “manager” or “supervisor,” but much of your work is manual, customer-facing, stocking, cleaning, production, or other non-management work.
• You have little authority to hire or fire employees, or your recommendations about hiring, firing, promotion, or other changes in employee status are given little weight.
• Your schedule, staffing, policies, and important decisions are largely controlled by higher-level managers or corporate rules.
• You perform duties similar to hourly employees, but are classified differently for overtime purposes.

These are indicators for further review—not a determination that a worker has been misclassified. Exemption status depends on the employee’s actual duties, compensation, and applicable federal and state law.

What Records Should Workers Preserve?

Workers concerned about possible overtime misclassification should consider preserving records they lawfully possess, including pay stubs, schedules, time records, job descriptions, emails or messages concerning duties, and records showing hours worked. Do not take confidential business information or materials you are not authorized to possess.

Concerned About Overtime Misclassification?

If you are a salaried manager or supervisor who regularly works more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is available to evaluate whether your classification and job duties may raise wage-and-hour concerns.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, send us a message or contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses may be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]