A former Senior Vice President of the Church Pension Group (CPG) has filed a lawsuit against the Episcopal Church-related financial services company, but the reasons for the litigation are unclear as the case is under seal before the Federal Court of the Southern District of New York.
Listed on the docket as ABC v. DEF, 21-cv-2228, the case is before the Hon. Lewis Liman. On 27 May 2021, Judge Liman entered an order agreeing in part to the motion by the CPG to seal, or in the alternative to redact, the Complaint and to resubmit the redacted pleadings by June 1.
On 25 June 2021, Judge Liman held a hearing, and according to the Inner City Press “asked both sides’ counsel why they had not acted on his May 27 order in the docket. Both said they hadn’t seen it.”
The Inner City Press further reported a summary of the case was given to the Court and the claim by the plaintiff, William F. Murray, that Murra was “saving” the CPG and “filing a malpractice lawsuit against one of the firm’s outside counsel, without the consent of the Legal Department.”
The Inner City Press further reported on 28 June 2021 the CPG sought further redactions in the complaint, which it opined were “more about embarrassment at pension losses”.
In September 2016 the CPG appointed the plaintiff, William “Bill” F. Murray as Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Church Insurance Companies and would be based in Bennington, Vt.
Before joining the CPG, Mr. Murray served as Chief Underwriting Officer, Casualty/Public Risk, of Houston Casualty Company. He holds a Bachelor of Business Administration from Loyola University of Chicago and is a graduate of the Executive Management Program of the Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College.
C. Curtis Ritter, the CPG’s director of corporate communications told Anglican.Ink: “We do not comment on the specifics of pending litigation. The requested redactions relate to proprietary business information and attorney client privilege. We find no merit in the complaint and will fully refute the allegations of this disgruntled former employee in court.”
The case continues.
