Skip to main content
Lindsey R. Camp

Lindsey R. Camp

Practice Group Attorney

Litigator and trial lawyer Lindsey R. Camp defends U.S. entities in employment and business disputes. She’s litigated complex cases involving ERISA, federal securities laws, federal whistleblower statutes, anti-discrimination laws, trade secrets, and business disputes. During the course of her career, Lindsey has defended a number of class actions and ERISA breach of fiduciary duty actions.

Prior to attending law school, Lindsey served as the office manager for a non-profit organization. In this capacity, she was responsible for the organization’s compliance with federal and local labor laws as well as the development, implementation, and enforcement of the organization’s workplace policies and procedures.

Concentrations

  • Trial lawyer 
  • ERISA litigation
  • Class actions
  • Medical benefit plans
  • Employee stock option plans
  • Securities fraud
  • Trade secrets and covenants-not-to-compete

主要执业方向

主要执业经验

  • Almont Ambulatory Surgery Center, et al. v. Unitedhealth Group Inc., et al.Central District of California. Represented multiple GT clients, including GlaxoSmithKline and Devry University, as well as their medical benefits plans, against ERISA breach of fiduciary duty, ERISA benefits, and California unfair competition claims arising out of the plans’ denial or partial denial of claims for services provided by out-of-network medical providers. Plaintiffs allege in this mass action filed against more than 400 defendants that the plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties by outsourcing claims administration to United Healthcare (UHC) and by failing to properly monitor UHC. Plaintiffs allege that UHC denied claims in violation of the Plan terms, discriminated against certain medical conditions and disabilities, and engaged in other ERISA violations about which the plan administrators and plans should have known and corrected. We prevailed on or motions to dismiss and the case is now pending on appeal.
  • Bay Area Surgical Group, Inc., et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, et al., Northern District of California. Represented multiple clients, including Xilinx, VmWare, and GlaxoSmithKline, as well as their medical benefits plans, in this mass action alleging ERISA breach of fiduciary duty, ERISA benefits, and various state law claims. Plaintiffs allege that the plans’ claims administrator, Aetna, systematically under-reimbursed participants and providers for out of network services by using falsified data to calculate “usual and customer rates” (UCR) for such services. Plaintiffs allege that the plan administrators and plans knew or should have known Aetna was intentionally underpaying out of network claims and failed to correct Aetna’s fiduciary breaches. All claims have been dismissed with prejudice without our clients paying anything.
  • Dual Diagnosis, Inc., et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of California, et al., Central District of California. Representing multiple clients, including C.R. Bard and Bayhealth Medical Centers, as well as their group welfare plans, in this mass action alleging ERISA breach of fiduciary duty, ERISA benefits, and state law claims. Plaintiffs allege that the plans’ claims administrators, all Blue Cross entities, improperly refused to honor valid patient claims assignments in violation of alleged plan terms and ERISA. Plaintiffs allege that the plan administrators and plans knew or should have known that the claims administrators were improperly refusing to honor valid assignments and therefore paying the wrong party. The court granted our first motion to dismiss but has given plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.
  • Represented the defendants in a class action lawsuit filed by a former participant in the company's employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) on behalf of a putative class of all ESOP participants. The plaintiff alleges that the stock of the company, which was owned by the ESOP, was sold in an ERISA “prohibited transaction” for far less than fair market value. The class was certified and ultimately the court decided the class was not harmed as they received fair market value for their stock.
  • James Bacon, et al. v. Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., et al. (n/k/a Timothy Finnerty. al v. Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., et. al)., Southern District of Florida. We represented Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., which was acquired by GlaxoSmithKline, as well as the Stiefel Board of Directors and several Stiefel officers, against claims that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, breached corporate fiduciary duties, and engaged in federal and state securities fraud. The allegations are centered on stock valuations performed regarding the Employee Stock Bonus Plan, and whether information regarding GSK’s purchase of Stiefel should have been disclosed sooner to plan participants. Plaintiffs alleged damages on behalf of the class in excess of $250 million. After we defeated the motion for class certification, we obtained summary judgment on the claims asserted by all named plaintiffs except Timothy Finnerty, who elected to dismiss with prejudice his ERISA claims and proceed to trial on his federal securities claims only. The case was tried to a jury over a two week period and the jury returned a verdict for Finnerty, which was later affirmed on appeal. The verdict was for a very small fraction of the original amount at stake.
  • Wagner, et al. v. Stiefel Labs., Inc., et al.Northern District of Georgia. We represented Stiefel Laboratories 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. Plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $250 million. Plaintiffs filed the action alleging multiple violations of ERISA on September 14, 2012. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants caused the Company stock held by the Plan to be undervalued and allowed participants to sell their Stiefel stock to the Company at a fraction of the actual fair market value of the stock, which allowed defendants to reap a higher portion of the proceeds of a $3.6 billion sale of the Company to GlaxoSmithKline. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants should have disclosed to Plan participants the potential sale to GlaxoSmithKline prior to participants deciding to sell their stock and the process by which the stock sales occurred constituted a “prohibited transaction” under ERISA. We were able to convince the district court that plaintiffs could not represent the plan and absent plan participants, and could only proceed on their individual claims. We were also able to prevail on summary judgment on four of the five named plaintiffs’ claims. The last plaintiff’s alleged damages were less than $250,000 and he settled his remaining claims.
  • Richard I. Fried v. Stiefel Laboratories Inc., et al.Southern District of FloridaStiefel Labs’ former Chief Financial Officer, Richard Fried, sued the Company and several of its officers and directors alleging securities fraud and breach of ERISA fiduciary duties related to Fried’s March 2008 and January 2009 sales of shares of Stiefel Labs common stock back to the Company. After obtaining a directed verdict on the claims related to the March 2008 transaction, we obtained a complete jury verdict in our clients’ favor on the claims related to the January 2009 transaction. The district court denied Fried’s motion for a new trial and the verdict was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit.
  • Fiduciaries of the Premier Hospice 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan v. Jeff Smith, et al., District of Kansas. We represented the primary defendant in this very contentious lawsuit filed in the District of Kansas, as well as in a related Department of Labor investigation. Our client was the former owner and CEO of Premier Hospice. He established the Premier Hospice 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan in 2004 and served as the Plan’s initial Trustee. He 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. The Department of Labor also initiated an investigation of the Plan’s administration by our client. We were able to get the worst of the allegations against our client dismissed. The plaintiffs asked for reconsideration and the district court denied that request.
  • In re United States Sugar Corporation ESOP Litigation, Southern District of Florida. 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 Southern District of Florida. We were able to obtain summary judgment on all but one of the claims and the cases ultimately settled on very favorable terms for our clients.
  • Represented numerous clients involved in Department of Labor investigations or benefits litigation.
  • Defending 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.
  • Represents medium and large organizations in federal litigation involving ERISA and a variety of employment-related claims, including non-compete issues, Fair Labor Standards Act, Section 1981, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination Act.
  • Represented Southeastern Mechanical Services, Inc. (SMS) in a case involving theft of trade secrets and unfair competition brought by SMS against a direct competitor, as well as three former SMS employees who had joined the competitor. SMS alleged that the defendants stole SMS’s trade secrets, violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and committed other unlawful acts under Florida law. SMS obtained a TRO and preliminary injunction against all defendants. The injunction ordered Defendants to return all SMS property within 24 hours and enjoined the Defendants from using SMS’s trade secrets or calling on SMS’s customers. It was the first time this judge had recommended preliminary injunctive relief in her more than 20 years as a jurist. Pursuing an aggressive discovery strategy, established that the three former employees had stolen SMS’s computerized trade secrets and used them to expand the competitor’s business into the Florida market, where SMS was located. Discovered that the former employees had secretly funneled customers and corporate opportunities to the competitor while still employed by SMS. The employees and others had also secretly wiped various computers and PDAs in an effort to hide their wrongdoing. Moved for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence, and the court ordered that an adverse inference jury instruction would be given. Immediately prior to trial, the matter settled on favorable financial terms, as well as the defendants’ agreement to extend both the time and scope of the already-sweeping preliminary injunctive relief. All the individual defendants, as well as the CEO, COO, and a division president of the competitor, were terminated during or as a result of this litigation.
  • Represented a sizeable dental practice in retrieving a customer list stolen by a form dentist-employee and used to set up a competing practice. After we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against the former dentist-employee and all of his employees, we obtained evidence that the defendants spoliated evidence and likely perjured themselves. While our motion for sanctions and contempt was pending, defendants offered to settle the case by agreeing to a permanent injunction and the payment of a significant sum of money.
  • Defended Emory University against a multitude of claims brought by a former professor, including breach of contract, retaliation, defamation, fraud and various whistleblower allegations. Asserted a number of claims against the former professor on behalf of the University. We 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.

荣誉和领导力

  • Member, State Bar of Florida
  • Member, State Bar of Georgia

资历

教育
  • J.D., Wake Forest University School of Law, 2004
  • B.S., Vanderbilt University, 1999
获准执业地区
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Supreme Court of Florida
  • Supreme Court of Georgia
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida