Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, CLASS ACTIONS—D. Kan.: $25.5 million settlement approved in a significant no-poach recovery in the wealth-management sector, (Dec 12, 2025)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

A group of asset and wealth management companies allegedly entered into a no-poach agreement that suppressed employee compensation.

The federal court in Wichita. Kansas granted final approval of a $25.5 million class action settlement resolving antitrust “no-poach” claims brought by former employees against Mariner, Tortoise, American Century, and related entities, finding the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 and Tenth Circuit standards. The order detailed why each Rule 23(e)(2) factor is satisfied, emphasized the substantial class relief and high-quality, arm’s-length negotiations, and approved a one-third attorney fee award, $396,212.51 in litigation expenses, and $15,000 service awards to each of the two class representatives for their significant time commitments and professional risks. With no objections from class members and only two timely opt-outs, the court concluded that the settlement provides strong, equitable relief and rewards counsel’s substantial contingent effort in a complex, novel antitrust matter (Tobler v. 1248 Holdings, LLC f/k/a Bicknell Family Holding Co., No. 2:24-cv-02068-EFM-GEB (D. Kan. Dec. 5, 2025)).

Background. The U.S. asset and wealth management industry oversees more than $50 trillion in client assets. It employs a broad range of professionals, including those who hold the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) credential. This elite designation requires extensive examinations, experience, and substantial financial and time commitments, and is often a prerequisite for senior roles within major firms. American Century Companies, Inc. (together with its investment-management and investment-services subsidiaries, “American Century”) is one of the industry’s major participants. Mariner Wealth Advisors, LLC and its affiliated entities (Mariner), wholly owned by 1248 Holdings, LLC and led by CEO Martin Bicknell, have likewise been ranked among the nation’s top five investment advisors.

The dispute traces back to 2008, when a senior American Century executive left for a higher-level position at a Mariner subsidiary and brought several American Century employees with him. In response, American Century’s president and CEO, Jonathan Thomas, contacted Bicknell, and the two ultimately agreed to a clandestine mutual no-poach arrangement. The Department of Justice later investigated both firms for Sherman Act violations arising from these non-poaching practices, and each company entered into a non-prosecution agreement admitting to antitrust misconduct.

On February 23, 2024, two former employees of a Mariner-controlled entity filed this putative class action against American Century, Mariner, and 1248 Holdings. They asserted federal Sherman Act and Kansas antitrust claims on behalf of asset and wealth management professionals employed by either firm, alleging that the no-poach agreement (1) suppressed their compensation during employment; (2) continued to injure them post-employment by reducing the amounts they could invest in their 401(k) plans; and (3) hindered both current and future career advancement by depriving them of funding and experiential opportunities needed to pursue or accelerate the attainment of the CFA charter.

Findings. The court noted that the plaintiffs sought final approval of the settlement, certification of a settlement class, and approval of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and service awards. The defendants did not oppose the motion, and no class member filed an objection. Rule 23(e) requires that a class settlement be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” and the Tenth Circuit evaluates similar overlapping factors focused on the fairness and reasonableness of the compromise.

First, the court found that the class representatives and class counsel adequately represented the class; the named plaintiffs suffered the same alleged compensation-suppression injury as all class members; and counsel devoted extensive time to investigating claims, drafting pleadings, litigating discovery, responding to motions, and negotiating the settlement. Second, the court concluded that the settlement was negotiated at arm’s length, noting that the parties participated in a full-day mediation with the court and continued negotiations for several months before reaching an agreement. Third, the court found that the relief was adequate; that continued litigation would be costly and risky; that the notice program reached over 99% of the class; that payments would be distributed automatically without a claims process; and that the attorneys’ fee request is appropriate. Fourth, the court determined that the settlement treats class members equitably because payments will be allocated objectively based on each member’s compensation during the class period.

Finally, the court addresses the sole non-subsumed Tenth Circuit factor that the parties’ own judgment that the settlement is fair. The plaintiffs’ endorsement of the settlement and the complete absence of objections reinforce that conclusion. As a result, the court held that because all Rule 23(e)(2) and Tenth Circuit factors favored approval, it granted final approval of the settlement.

Attorney fees. Taking all applicable factors together, the court concluded that a one-third fee was fully justified. The court explained that attorneys whose work results in a monetary recovery for a class are entitled to seek a reasonable percentage of that fund, and that the Tenth Circuit uses the 12 factors delineated in Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), to assess the reasonableness of such awards, though not all factors apply in every case. Two factors, time limitations imposed by circumstances and the length of the attorney-client relationship, are deemed irrelevant in class actions.

The court then applied the remaining Johnson factors, beginning with what it considered the most important: the amount involved and the results obtained. It emphasized that Class Counsel secured a $25.5 million recovery for approximately 4,410 class members, yielding an average gross recovery of more than $5,700 per person. This outcome compared favorably to other no-poach settlements and even exceeds, by an order of magnitude, the $2.5 million victims’ fund obtained by the Department of Justice in related non-prosecution agreements. Because the recovery was substantial, entirely contingent, and achieved in a high-risk posture, the court found that this factor strongly supported awarding one-third of the fund.

The court next explained that several other Johnson factors, novelty and difficulty of the issues, the skill required, and counsel’s experience, also weighed heavily in favor of the award. Antitrust class actions are among the most complex types of federal litigation, and no-poach class actions are relatively recent developments. This case was likely the only no-poach antitrust class action involving the asset and wealth management industry. It required experienced counsel capable of navigating complex class-certification issues and novel legal questions.

The court also found that the customary fee, the contingent nature of the work, and awards in comparable cases strongly supported a one-third fee. Counsel prosecuted the case entirely on contingency, invested more than $390,000 in out-of-pocket expert and litigation costs, and faced a significant risk of no compensation. Within the District of Kansas, one-third contingency fees are common in complex class actions, and courts regularly approve even larger percentages in high-risk matters.

Finally, the court considered the time and labor required and whether the case precluded other work. Although a lodestar cross-check is unnecessary here, the court noted that counsel spent thousands of hours litigating the matter, which substantially limited their ability to take on other work. Prior cases in the district have found significantly smaller hour totals sufficient to satisfy these factors.

Taking all applicable Johnson factors together, the court concluded that a one-third fee was fully justified. Accordingly, the court awarded attorney's fees equal to one-third of the $25,500,000 Settlement Amount, together with any interest earned on that amount.

Litigation expenses. The court then addresses litigation expenses, finding that the expenses incurred by Class Counsel, primarily for expert fees and other necessary litigation costs, were reasonable, typical of complex antitrust litigation, and authorized by both Rule 23(h) and the Settlement Agreement. It therefore approves reimbursement in full. The court explained that Rule 23(h) permits reimbursement of reasonable, non-taxable litigation costs, and the Settlement Agreement explicitly authorizes Class Counsel to recover expenses incurred for the benefit of the class, subject to a $430,000 cap disclosed in the class notice. Class Counsel reported $396,212.51 in necessary and customary litigation expenses, primarily expert and case-related costs, and the court found these expenses fair, reasonable, and fully reimbursable under the Settlement Agreement.

Service awards. The court approved $15,000 in service awards for class representatives Jakob Tobler and Michelle McNitt. The court found the awards justified because both individuals played an essential role in advancing the litigation when other class members were unwilling to come forward, exposing themselves to professional and reputational risk by suing a former employer. Tobler contributed roughly 65 hours and McNitt about 50 hours to investigation, discovery, and settlement efforts, and McNitt experienced industry backlash on social media. The court noted that similar no-poach antitrust cases often awarded amounts equal to or greater than those requested and concluded that the requested awards are reasonable given the plaintiffs’ efforts, risks, and the importance of their participation.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-02068-EFM-GEB.

Judge: Melgren, E.

Attorneys: Bradley Wilders (Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP) for Jakob Tobler. Daniel E. Blegen (Spencer Fane, LLP) for 1248 Holdings, LLC.

Companies: 1248 Holdings, LLC

Cases: ClassActions ContractClaims Procedure AttorneysFees KansasNews