A search for a “Russell Inc. lawsuit” doesn’t land on one case. Several unrelated federal lawsuits carry a “Russell” caption, and which one you want depends on the industry. The most likely match is a consumer class action against the cash-advance app Dave Inc. brought by a plaintiff named Michael Russell. Three others come up often enough to mention: an ERISA class action against the Russell family over the Russelectric employee stock ownership plan, an ERISA case against Russell Investments tied to the Caesars Entertainment retirement plan, and a 401(k) forfeiture suit against Illinois Tool Works with a lead plaintiff named Russell.
Russell v. Dave Inc.
Michael Russell, together with co-plaintiffs Joseph Preston and James Tosches, filed a class action complaint against Dave Inc. and Evolve Bank & Trust in California state court on April 1, 2025. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California the following month as Case No. 2:25-cv-04029.1CourtListener. Michael Russell v. Dave Inc. Dave Inc. is a publicly traded fintech company (NASDAQ: DAVE) that offers cash advances through a mobile app. Evolve Bank & Trust is the banking partner behind many of Dave’s financial products.
Dave and Evolve moved to dismiss the class claims and to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ individual claims. After the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in July 2025, the defendants renewed that motion.1CourtListener. Michael Russell v. Dave Inc. The defendants then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the case was docketed as No. 26-12 on January 2, 2026.2CourtListener. Russell, et al. v. Dave Inc., et al. The appeal was released from mediation in March 2026 and is on a briefing schedule, with the opening brief due in April and the answering brief due in May.
Enforcement Actions Against Dave
The Russell case runs alongside federal enforcement. The FTC sued Dave in the Central District of California in November 2024, alleging deceptive advertising of cash advances “up to $500,” undisclosed “Express Fees” of $3 to $25, and “tips” extracted without meaningful consent; the agency put tip revenue at more than $149 million between 2022 and mid-2024.3FTC. FTC Takes Action Against Online Cash Advance App Dave On December 30, 2024, the Department of Justice filed an amended complaint that added CEO Jason Wilk as a personal defendant and added claims tied to a $1 monthly membership the government said was hard to cancel.4DOJ. United States Files Complaint Against Dave Inc. and CEO Jason Wilk Dave and Wilk moved to dismiss in February 2025, and as of June 2026 no ruling on the merits or consent order has been entered.5CourtListener. Federal Trade Commission v. Dave, Inc.
Bowers v. Russell: The Russelectric ESOP Case
A separate ERISA class action targets members of the Russell family and other fiduciaries of the Russelectric Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan. In Bowers et al. v. Russell et al. (D. Mass., Case No. 22-cv-10457), four former employees allege that after founder Raymond Russell died in 2013, the board orchestrated an unlawful buyback of company stock from the ESOP, depriving roughly 400 participants of tens of millions of dollars in retirement benefits.6FindLaw. Bowers, et al. v. Russell, et al.
The plan was terminated effective June 30, 2016. Three years later, the Russell heirs sold Russelectric to Siemens for roughly $335 million gross. A 2016 clawback provision entitled participants to the difference between the termination payment and the final per-share sale price, but the plaintiffs allege the defendants improperly deducted about $65 million in “transaction expenses,” including $25 million in bonuses to Russell family members, before calculating the per-share figure.7Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Bowers v. Russell, Memorandum and Order on Motion to Dismiss The complaint estimates the Russell heirs received roughly $38 million in excess proceeds from the discounted repurchase of unallocated shares.8Engstrom Lee. Bowers et al. v. Russell et al., Complaint
Rulings, Settlements, and Trial
The case has survived two motions to dismiss before Judge Patti B. Saris. In February 2024, she found the participants plausibly alleged they did not know about their interest in the unallocated shares when they signed 2018 releases.9FindLaw. Bowers v. Russell, Memorandum and Order In January 2025, she rejected a second motion covering four counts tied to the clawback, finding the directors acted as “functional fiduciaries” when choosing which expenses to deduct.6FindLaw. Bowers, et al. v. Russell, et al. The court certified a class of 394 participants on January 30, 2025.10Justia. Bowers et al v. Russell et al, Class Certification Order
Two defendants have reached partial settlements. Denise D. Wyatt agreed to pay $3 million into a common fund.11Engstrom Lee. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law Seeking Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement With Denise D. Wyatt Argent Trust Company agreed to pay $4.5 million, or roughly $11,400 per class member before fee deductions.12Bloomberg Law. Russelectric Stock Plan Suit Yields Another Partial Settlement Neither settlement releases the remaining defendants, the Russell family members and director Dennis J. Long.13Engstrom Lee. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law Seeking Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement With Argent Trust Company According to plaintiffs’ counsel, a trial against the non-settling defendants has concluded, though no trial order has been issued.14Engstrom Lee. Russelectric ESOP Case
Wanek v. Russell Investments: The Caesars Retirement Plan Case
A third case involves Russell Investments Trust Company, which served as outside investment manager for the Caesars Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan. In Wanek et al. v. Russell Investments Trust Co. et al. (D. Nev., Case No. 2:21-cv-00961), plan participants allege that after Russell was hired as a 3(38) fiduciary with full discretion over investment selections, it swapped the plan’s State Street target-date funds and other diversified options for Russell’s own proprietary products, costing participants more than $100 million.15Plan Sponsor. Fiduciary Liability Critical in Russell Investments ERISA Case Plaintiffs point to internal communications they say show Russell was driven by a need to grow assets under management rather than by participants’ interests.16Knobbe Martens. Caesars Fiduciaries Hit Jackpot Due to Prudent Processes
In September 2025, Judge Cristina D. Silva granted summary judgment for the Caesars plan committee, finding it acted prudently when hiring Russell through a formal RFP process with outside due diligence. The court denied Russell Investments’ own summary judgment motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained over whether Russell breached its duties of loyalty and prudence by favoring its proprietary funds.17Justia. Wanek et al. v. Russell Investments Trust Company, et al., Summary Judgment Order Those claims are set to proceed to trial absent a settlement.16Knobbe Martens. Caesars Fiduciaries Hit Jackpot Due to Prudent Processes
Russell v. Illinois Tool Works: 401(k) Forfeiture Dispute
The fourth case, Russell et al. v. Illinois Tool Works Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill., Case No. 1:22-cv-02492), tests a theory of ERISA liability that has gained traction in federal courts: whether an employer breaches its fiduciary duty by using forfeited 401(k) balances to offset the company’s own required plan contributions instead of reducing participant fees.18Bloomberg Tax. Illinois Tool Works Ordered to Defend 401k Forfeiture Claims
Named plaintiff Stacy Russell is joined by four other current or former employees. On February 9, 2026, Judge Sunil R. Harjani denied Illinois Tool Works’ motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs adequately alleged the company “acted with an eye towards themselves rather than Plan participants” in exercising discretion over how forfeitures were allocated.19Law360. Tool Co. Can’t Escape Workers’ 401(k) Forfeiture Suit The case is in discovery, with a magistrate judge overseeing settlement discussions.20CourtListener. Russell v. Illinois Tool Works Inc.