Compound Planning Lawsuit: Empower, Choreo, and Where Cases Stand

Compound Planning, the registered investment adviser legally known as Atomi Financial Group, Inc., has been the defendant in two federal lawsuits brought by competing wealth managers who accuse it of poaching their advisors and client relationships. Empower sued in March 2024 over 13 advisors who left for Compound Planning; that case ended with an agreed permanent injunction in February 2026. Choreo, LLC sued in March 2025 over four advisors who resigned from its Des Moines office; that case is still active after the Eighth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against Compound Planning in January 2026.

Who Compound Planning Is

Compound Planning is an SEC-registered investment adviser that markets itself as a “digital family office and tech-enabled RIA,” serving high-net-worth entrepreneurs, professionals, families, and retirees. It is registered under CRD number 171787, with an SEC registration effective date of July 1, 2022.¹ Christian Haigh is co-founder and CEO, and Alex Farman-Farmaian is co-founder and managing director.²

The firm has grown through advisor recruitment, reporting more than 50 advisors, over 100 team members, more than $5 billion in assets under management, and 225% year-over-year growth.³ That recruitment-driven model is what has drawn it into court.

The Empower Lawsuit

On March 12, 2024, three Empower entities — Empower Annuity Insurance Company of America, Empower Advisory Group, and Empower Retirement — filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against Atomi Financial Group and 13 individual former advisors. The case number was 1:24-cv-00681.⁴

The 13 advisors had originally worked at Personal Capital, the robo-advisor Empower acquired in 2020 for $1 billion when it held $13 billion in assets.⁵ Empower alleged that the advisors had signed confidentiality, non-solicitation, and intellectual property assignment agreements and had violated all three by joining Compound Planning.

The Allegations

Filed under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the complaint accused Compound Planning of inducing the 13 employees to misappropriate Empower’s “trade secret customer list” and divert clients to their new firm. Empower said the advisors used confidential client information and the Personal Capital brand’s goodwill to market to Empower clients. Empower also alleged Compound Planning ran a “comparative advertising strategy” that inaccurately misrepresented the services and products of competitors, including Empower.⁶

How It Resolved

The case moved quickly. By April 9, 2024, the parties filed a proposed settlement with no admission of wrongdoing and no publicly disclosed payment. The injunctive terms required the former advisors to stop soliciting or communicating with any Empower client they had serviced, and any prospective client they had interacted with in the six months before their departure. The advisors were barred from using Empower or Personal Capital trademarks in a false or misleading way, and specifically prohibited from describing Compound Planning as the “New Personal Capital.” Compound Planning was required to strip all references to Empower and Personal Capital from its website and marketing.⁷

On February 4, 2026, the court entered an “Agreed Permanent Injunction and Dismissal Order,” formally closing the case. Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung approved the order. Terms of the permanent injunction beyond what was known from the preliminary agreement were not made public in the docket.⁴

The Choreo Lawsuit

Less than a year later, Compound Planning faced a strikingly similar suit. On March 5, 2025, Choreo, LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (case number 4:25-cv-00077) against four former advisors — Kevin Lors, Aaron Schomer, Joleen Scheer, and Lindsey O’Neil — and against Atomi Financial Group.⁸ Choreo is a private-equity-backed RIA with over 40 offices and roughly $23 billion in assets under management or advisement.⁹

The Allegations

According to the complaint, the four advisors handled all of Choreo’s business in its Des Moines branch. They resigned on January 30, 2025, and joined Compound Planning. Choreo alleged that Compound Planning then issued a press release advertising the addition of a “$1.2 billion advisor team,” a figure Choreo contended could only have been confirmed through misappropriated confidential data.¹⁰

The 64-page filing brought claims for breach of restrictive covenants, tortious interference with contract, and theft of trade secrets under both federal and Iowa law. Choreo said the advisors breached three contractual covenants: a no-service/no-solicitation clause covering “Covered Clients,” a no-disclosure clause protecting confidential information, and a no-recruitment clause covering other Choreo employees.¹¹

Choreo also alleged the departures were coordinated. Within two weeks, the Des Moines branch lost over 100 clients representing $400 million in assets under management. Several clients submitted 30-day termination notices shortly after the advisors left, which Choreo said suggested the advisors had coached them on how to exit using a specific contractual provision. Beyond the individual defendants, Choreo accused Compound Planning of knowingly encouraging the breaches and engaging in a broader pattern of targeting RIA firms for advisors who bring their client books.¹⁰

The Injunction and Its Reversal

The district court moved swiftly in Choreo’s favor. It issued a temporary restraining order on March 18, 2025, and Chief Judge Stephanie M. Rose granted a full preliminary injunction on April 1, 2025. The injunction barred the former advisors from using Choreo’s confidential information, servicing or contacting Choreo clients they had previously worked with, and recruiting other Choreo employees. Compound Planning was enjoined from permitting its new Iowa employees to violate their prior contracts.¹² Choreo posted a $50,000 surety bond and later a $200,000 injunction bond.⁸

The defendants appealed. On January 12, 2026, the Eighth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case, ruling that the lower court had abused its discretion because Choreo failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for that remedy.¹¹

The reasoning turned on two points. Choreo’s financial losses were calculable, not irreparable. Citing MPAY Inc. v. Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc., the panel noted that the financial services industry is “uniquely skilled at computing the economic value of a given client,” and because Choreo’s fee structure and asset values were in the record, the harm could be measured and compensated through money damages at trial.¹¹ The court also found that the alleged destruction of Choreo’s Des Moines branch had already happened by the time the injunction was granted, with no evidence of imminent further harm the injunction could prevent.¹³

Where the Case Stands

Despite the injunction’s reversal, Choreo’s underlying claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and tortious interference remain live. As of mid-2026, the case is in discovery. On June 10, 2026, Choreo filed a renewed motion to compel documents it alleges the defendants improperly withheld, with responses due by June 24.¹⁴ The case has not settled.

Why These Cases Keep Happening

Both lawsuits reflect a growing tension in wealth management over who owns the client relationship when an advisor leaves. Unlike broker-dealer employees, who can take employment disputes through FINRA arbitration, RIA clients technically contract with the firm rather than the individual advisor, and departing advisors are typically bound by non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements signed at hire.¹² Private-equity-backed RIAs that grow through acquisition have strong incentives to enforce those agreements, because the advisors and their books are what made the acquired practices valuable. Compound Planning’s recruitment model puts it directly in the path of that enforcement trend.

Courts have not been uniformly receptive. The Eighth Circuit’s ruling in Choreo tracks a broader skepticism about whether lost client revenue, in an industry built on quantifiable fees and assets, can constitute irreparable harm. A Pennsylvania appellate court reached a similar conclusion in February 2026, denying an injunction to FNB Wealth Management against three breakaway advisors in First National Trust Company v. English, finding non-solicitation provisions unenforceable for lacking geographic limitations and holding that the firm could track its own asset losses.¹⁵ These rulings do not defeat the underlying claims; they mean firms must prove their case at trial and recover money damages rather than halting advisors from working in the meantime.

One note on federal law: the FTC’s 2024 rule attempting to ban non-competes was blocked by a federal court in Texas, and the FTC abandoned its appeal in September 2025. That rule would not have applied to non-solicitation agreements in any event, so the core legal tool used against Compound Planning remains untouched by the federal effort.¹⁶

1
SEC IAPD. Compound Planning, Inc. Firm Summary
2
BusinessWire. Compound Planning Builds on 2024 Success, Adds Five Experienced Advisors
3
Compound Planning. Advisors
4
PACER Monitor. Empower Annuity Insurance Company of America et al v. Atomi Financial Group, Inc. et al
5
ThinkAdvisor. Empower Sues 13 Advisors Who Broke Away
6
InsuranceNewsNet. Empower Reaches Tentative Deal With 13 Ex-Advisors It Sued for Poaching
7
InvestmentNews. Empower Settles With Former Advisors in Poaching Case
8
CourtListener. Choreo, LLC v. Lors
9
Choreo Advisors. Choreo Announces Acquisition of Wealth Management Business From BDO
10
InvestmentNews. Choreo Sues Compound Planning, Claims It Poached $1.2B Iowa Advisor Team
11
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Choreo, LLC v. Kevin Lors, et al.
12
InvestmentNews. What Non-Compete Lawsuits Mean for RIA Firms
13
Missouri Lawyers Media. 8th Circuit Reverses Injunction in Choreo v. Compound
14
PACER Monitor. Choreo, LLC v. Lors et al
15
Financial Advisor Magazine. Court Slams the Door on Noncompetes, Backs Breakaway Advisors
16
SmartAsset. Non-Competes and Financial Advisors