A dispute over stock repurchase rights and alleged discriminatory termination has led to a lawsuit involving a long-serving executive and several companies in the intimate apparel industry. The case was filed by Kenneth D. Langston in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 26, 2026, naming Cupid Foundations, Inc., Southwest Corset Corporation, A&T Nicaragua SA, Cupid Free Trade Zone SA, CU Foundations SA de CV (collectively referred to as the ‘Cupid Defendants’), as well as David Welsch and Adam Welsch as defendants.
According to the civil action complaint prepared by attorney Brad M. Kushner of Stevens & Lee P.C., Mr. Langston alleges that his employment was wrongfully terminated shortly after he disclosed significant health concerns and announced his intention to retire upon reaching age 62. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and references forthcoming claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which are being initially filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The filing outlines that Mr. Langston worked for more than 20 years with the Cupid Defendants, receiving positive performance reviews and multiple promotions up to Senior Vice President of Operations. In January 2019, he entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA) with the defendants, which awarded him non-voting shares in several corporate entities as recognition for his service and an inducement to continue working under certain restrictive covenants.
The SPA included provisions specifying how Mr. Langston’s stock would be repurchased upon various events such as retirement or termination for cause. If Mr. Langston retired at age 62 or older, he would be entitled to sell back his shares at a premium—specifically at 125 percent of book value according to paragraph 2.8 of the agreement. However, if terminated for cause before reaching this milestone, the repurchase price would drop significantly to 80 percent of the purchase price per paragraph 2.6.
Mr. Langston states that in spring 2025 he began experiencing neurological symptoms that led his physician to suspect possible Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). After discussions with family members about his health challenges, he decided to retire following his 62nd birthday on February 14, 2026—timing chosen specifically because it would trigger more favorable terms under the SPA.
On August 21, 2025, Mr. Langston formally notified Cupid Foundations’ Chief Operating Officer Christen Pierce of his intent to retire six months later due to recent health challenges: “I am writing to formally announce my retirement from my position at Cupid Foundations, Inc. effective six months from today on February 21, 2026… I have decided that it is time for me to step back and focus on my personal health and well-being due to recent health challenges.” Ms. Pierce subsequently asked Mr. Langston for details about his condition; he responded via email on August 24 explaining ongoing medical tests related to ALS concerns.
Just two days later—on August 26—Adam Welsch sent Mr. Langston a letter stating: “Pursuant to Section 3.1.3 of the Stock Purchase Agreement…the Company is terminating your employment for Cause, effective August 26, 2025.” The complaint contends that this action was taken without providing written notice specifying reasons or offering an opportunity for Mr. Langston to respond or cure any alleged deficiencies as required by section 1.6 of the SPA.
Mr. Langston alleges there was no legitimate basis under either company policy or contract terms for terminating him “for Cause” at this time; rather, he claims this decision was made deliberately after learning about his planned retirement date so as “to avoid paying the higher price for Mr. Langston’s stock as required by paragraph 2.8.” Initially offered only an option at the lower rate specified in cases of termination for cause (80 percent), defendants later refused any repurchase until litigation is resolved after being contacted by plaintiff’s counsel.
In addition to breach of contract allegations against all corporate defendants and David Welsch personally—as both party and signatory—the complaint includes a claim against Adam Welsch individually for tortious interference with contractual relations: “By pretextually [terminating] Mr. Langston’s employment for ‘Cause’ in order to avoid paying…the full repurchase price…Adam Welsch maliciously and intentionally interfered with Mr. Langston’s contract.” The filing also asserts that these actions constitute retaliation based on actual or perceived disability.
Mr. Langston seeks judgment against all named defendants jointly or severally in excess of $75,000 along with statutory damages (including punitive damages), compensatory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting further violations or retaliation regarding stock repurchase rights or employment status; interest; costs; attorneys’ fees; and any additional relief deemed just by the court.
The complaint demands a jury trial on all triable issues pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 38(b). Attorney Brad M. Kushner represents Mr. Langston in this matter under case number 1:26-cv-03205.
Source: 126cv03205_Langston_v_Cupid_Foundation_Inc_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
