On April 18, 2025, Cohen Milstein and Keller Rohrback, on behalf of the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, filed an enforcement action against Coinbase Global, Inc. and Coinbase, Inc. (Coinbase), one of the largest cryptocurrency trading platforms in the United States, for violating Oregon securities law. The action alleges that Coinbase illegally solicits and facilitates the sale of unregistered securities in the form of numerous cryptocurrencies to Oregon residents while reaping millions of dollars in fees from these sales. According to the complaint, the failure to register these securities has deprived Oregonians of important disclosures and protections regarding these highly speculative investments, which are vulnerable to pump-and-dump schemes and fraud, causing Oregonians to incur substantial losses.
The Attorney General brings this action on behalf of Oregon investors harmed by Coinbase’s unlawful conduct, and to protect Oregon investors from further harm.
Case Background
Since 2012, Coinbase has operated its trading platform through which users, including Oregon customers, can buy and sell crypto assets. Indeed, Coinbase is the largest crypto asset trading platform—or “crypto exchange”— in the United States and has serviced over 108 million customers, accounting for billions of dollars in daily trading volume.
The crypto securities sold on Coinbase’s platform are not registered with either the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (“DCBS”), hindering investors’ ability to perform due diligence on their investments. While investors frequently incur devastating losses on these unregistered securities, Coinbase continues to profit on every sale of these securities on its platform.
The Attorney General began investigating Coinbase’s conduct in 2022. The SEC subsequently brought an enforcement action against Coinbase under federal law, which the SEC filed on or about June 6, 2023. In April 2024, a New York federal court denied Coinbase’s motion to dismiss, holding that the SEC adequately alleged that the crypto assets at issue in the SEC’s complaint were securities. Nonetheless, on or about February 27, 2025, the SEC and Coinbase jointly stipulated to the dismissal, with prejudice, of the SEC’s claims against Coinbase. In so doing, the SEC stated that its decision to dismiss the enforcement action was not based “on any assessment of the merits of the claims alleged in the action.” That move came just weeks after the SEC reassigned its head litigator, who had overseen the Coinbase case and the agency’s other crypto-related enforcement efforts, to its IT department. And earlier this month, former crypto lobbyist Paul Atkins was confirmed to serve as the SEC’s new chairman.
The Attorney General now brings this enforcement action under Oregon state law arising from the unlawful sale to Oregonians of the crypto securities at issue in the SEC’s complaint as well as other unregistered crypto securities sold on Coinbase. The Attorney General seeks, among other things, a fine of $20,000 for each of Coinbase’s violations of the Oregon Securities Law, disgorgement of profits Coinbase derived from the sale of unregistered crypto securities to Oregonians, and an award of restitution and/or damages on behalf of Oregonians harmed by Coinbase’s violations.
Cohen Milstein represents The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds and other stockholders in a derivative lawsuit against the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Illumina, Inc. (Nasdaq: ILMN), a genomics biotechnology company.
This lawsuit arises from one of the most flagrant alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and positive law in recent corporate history: Illumina’s $8 billion reacquisition of GRAIL (Nasdaq: GRAL), a healthcare company (the “Merger”). The Illumina Board’s decision to close the Merger violated binding standstill obligations under Article 7(1) of the European Union Merger Regulation and flouted U.S. antitrust law.
Stockholders claim that Illumina’s officers and directors knowingly and unlawfully closed the transaction on August 18, 2021, even though the European Commission’s (“EC”) order barring the Merger was still in effect and despite receiving clear warnings about the risks and consequences breaching the order.
Stockholders allege that this brazen action exposed Illumina to regulatory scrutiny and massive fines. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) successfully sought to unwind the Merger, culminating in a divestment order affirmed by the Fifth Circuit. Ultimately, Illumina divested GRAIL at a huge loss on June 24, 2024.
Stockholders further allege the Board’s priorities were self-serving. Rather than protecting the company or its stockholders, the Board shielded itself from accountability by buying additional D&O insurance because of the significant liability risks associated with closing the Merger without regulatory clearance.
Important Dates
- On December 30, 2024, The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds v. Francis deSouza, et al., was filed before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Prior to filing its complaint, The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds conducted a books and records investigation, which included a trial, where it successfully obtained certain documents protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- On April 17, 2025, during a teleconference, the Court indicated that it will enter an order to consolidate the pending derivative actions, and appoint The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds and Cohen Milstein as co-leads for the consolidated action.
Case Background
The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds seek to hold Illumina’s leadership accountable for the corporate trauma it inflicted on Illumina by its Board’s decision to close the Merger in contravention of an EC standstill order and the FTC’s assumption that Illumina would not violate the EC’s order, while the Merger remained subject to regulatory review in the U.S.
The complaint alleges that Illumina’s directors and officers failed to uphold their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by advocating for and/or voting to approve closing the Merger in knowing violation of the EU Standstill Obligations. The directors compounded their misconduct by justifying their illegal actions under a pretext of “moral obligation,” asserting that the Merger would accelerate GRAIL’s cancer detection technology and therefore would “save lives.” This emotionally compelling rhetoric was proven in court to lack any factual basis. Instead, it masked a bad faith decision to prioritize Illumina’s directors’ and officers’ personal and speculative interests over sound corporate governance.
The complaint also alleges that the Board prioritized shielding itself from liability for closing the Merger instead of protecting the Company or its stockholders. During the Audit Committee’s deliberations about closing the Merger in the summer of 2021, Illumina’s legal advisors from Covington & Burling LLP emphasized the need to protect directors and officers from claims related to the fallout that closing the Merger—as a violation of positive law—was anticipated to produce. Based on that advice, the Board decided to revamp the Company’s D&O insurance coverage by dramatically increasing its Side A coverage—which protects the Board and officers from personal liability—while eliminating Side B and C coverage, which would have protected Illumina. This new policy cost the Company tens of millions of dollars in increased premiums.
The consequences of the Merger have been devastating for Illumina and its stockholders. Illumina incurred extraordinary financial penalties and obligations, legal fees, and administrative expenses as a direct result of its decision to close the Merger in defiance of regulatory orders. Legal challenges by the EC and FTC—as well as the Board’s decision to fight those challenges—have drained Illumina’s resources, forcing it to divert critical time and capital from its core operations.
Specifically, the Board’s fiduciary breaches have already directly caused Illumina to incur at least $3,643,700,000 in monetary damages. The deal’s structure also included massive contingent obligations tied to GRAIL revenue milestones that remain Illumina’s responsibility even after divesting GRAIL, burdening Illumina’s balance sheet for more than a decade to come and, if triggered, subjecting it to billions in additional payments.
Moreover, the Board’s decision to close the Merger has irreparably harmed Illumina’s relationships with regulators, investors, and clients, severely undermined the Company’s market position, and tarnished its reputation as a leader in next generation sequencing technology.
Since the Merger’s close, GRAIL has plummeted in value, a further indicator of the extraordinary harm to Illumina flowing from the Board’s illegal actions. Illumina acquired GRAIL at a valuation of over $8 billion, but was forced to divest it earlier this year at a valuation of $2.74 billion, while more recent disclosures value GRAIL at approximately $915 million. The market responded accordingly. Illumina stock, which closed at $508.65 the day before the Merger, dropped by more than 80% when the Company finalized its divestment of GRAIL.
Cohen Milstein represents the NAACP and parents of public school students in a case brought with the National Education Association that challenges the efforts by the U.S. Department of Education to dismantle the agency, pursuant to an Executive Order issued on March 20, 2025.
Plaintiffs allege that since January 20, 2025, the Administration has taken drastic, escalating steps to incapacitate the Department, including the cancelation of $1.5 billion in grants and contracts for the performance of core functions and mass layoffs of half its workforce. Taken together, Plaintiffs claim, these actions constitute a de facto dismantling of the Department by executive fiat. These actions are alleged to be unconstitutional and to violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
Plaintiffs seek an order declaring the Department’s actions to be unlawful and enjoining the Department from any additional efforts to dismantle offices and restoring the services that have been effectively discontinued.
Important Dates
- On March 25, 2025, plaintiffs filed NAACP, et al. v. U.S. and U.S. Dept. of Education, et al. before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Case Background
Created in 1979, the U.S. Department of Education is charged by Congress with advancing educational opportunity and quality by implementing the nation’s federal education laws in all fifty states and in hundreds of thousands of schools, colleges and universities.
Despite Congress’s mandates and the Department’s successes, President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly insisted he will “eliminate the federal Department of Education,” and give “education back to the States.”
To fulfill that stated goal, Department officers have taken a series of escalating steps since January 20, 2025, to abolish the Congressionally created, constituted and funded agency. They terminated at least $1.5 billion in awarded contracts and grants for required research, evaluation, and data collection as well as teacher training and recruitment programs established by Congress. They have brought to a grinding halt the Department’s enforcement of federal civil rights laws. And Defendants have eviscerated the Department’s workforce, cutting the staff in half since January 20, 2025, through a combination of deferred resignations, early retirement incentives, and staff terminations, culminating on March 11, 2025, in a massive reduction in force (“RIF”) of approximately 1,300 Department workers.
The March 11 RIF, for instance, reached every corner of the Department and eliminated all or nearly all employees in certain Department offices. Debilitating cuts were made to the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), the Office of Federal Student Aid (“FSA”), and the Institute for Education Sciences (“IES”). The RIF’s effects have been so devastating that the Department can no longer discharge its mandatory statutory functions.
Plaintiffs claim that the Constitution gives power over “the establishment of offices [and] the determination of their functions and jurisdiction” to Congress—not to the President or any officer working under him. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 129 (1926). Executive agencies like the Department “are creatures of statute,” brought into existence by Congress and taken out of existence only by Congress, through bicameralism and presentment. Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. OSHA, 595 U.S. 109, 117 (2022). And if Congress cannot delegate far more modest grants of regulatory authority through “modest words,” “vague terms,” or “subtle devices,” West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 723 (2022), then an agency surely lacks any constitutional or statutory authority to cease its statutorily mandated functions, or hollow out its workforce so dramatically that it lacks the capacity to execute them, without any direction from Congress at all.
Plaintiffs claim that the Department’s unlawful elimination of its congressionally-mandated services violates the separation of powers and the Constitution’s Take Care, Spending, and Appropriations Clauses. It is also contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
If allowed to stand, Defendants’ actions will irrevocably harm the Plaintiffs members who are parents, students and teachers engaged in PK-12 and postsecondary education across the United States.
Cohen Milstein and Fairmark Partners represent participants in the JPMorgan Chase Health Care Insurance Program for Active Employees and its component Medical Plan (Health Plan) in a proposed class action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase (JPMorgan) for systematically mismanaging its prescription-drug benefits program in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The plaintiffs claim that JPMorgan breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to pay its pharmacy benefit manager, CVS Caremark (Caremark), grossly inflated prescription drug prices, costing the Health Plan and its participants millions of dollars through higher payments for prescription drugs, higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs, higher deductibles, higher coinsurance, higher copays, and suppressed wages.
Plaintiffs further allege that JPMorgan knew that Caremark and other large PBMs charge inflated prices for prescription drugs, but contracted with Caremark (instead of a less expensive vendor) anyway and failed to take action to lower costs because it did not want to jeopardize its lucrative investment banking business in the health care space.
Case Background
JPMorgan Chase, a Fortune 500 financial services company with approximately $240 billion in FY 2023 revenue, oversees the JPMorgan Health Plan. Plaintiffs claim that JPMorgan bears fault for accepting and allowing the overcharges to Health Plan participants through its PBM vendor, Caremark, which sets the prices for the prescription drugs administered through the Health Plan.
The stark disparity in prices is illustrated by the multiple sclerosis drug Teriflunomide (generic form of Aubagio). A 30-unit prescription for Teriflunomide can be filled without insurance at Rite Aid for $32.96, Wegmans for $34.71, ShopRite for $29.24, or from Cost Plus Drugs online pharmacy for $11.05. However, the complaint alleges that JPMorgan permitted the Caremark to charge the Health Plan and its participants $6,229 for each 30-unit Teriflunomide prescription.
This mismanagement, plaintiffs claim, extends across the entire prescription-drug plan. For all 366 generic drugs on the Health Plan’s formulary for which drug acquisition cost data is publicly available, plaintiffs allege that the Health Plan and its participants pay an average markup of over 211% above what it costs pharmacies to acquire those same drugs. In some cases, the alleged markups were over 5,000% or even over 10,000%.
The proposed class action seeks to stop JPMorgan from mismanaging its prescription drug program and to recover excess payments on behalf of the Health Plan and the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan.
Case name: Stern v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.., Case No. 1:25-cv-02097, U.S. District, Southern District of New York
Cohen Milstein represents four Indonesian men in a Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPRA) lawsuit against Bumble Bee Foods. The suit was filed in the Southern District of California, where Bumble Bee is located, on March 12, 2025.
The men, who are from rural villages in Indonesia, applied for commercial fishermen jobs but, instead allege that they were subjected to forced labor on vessels that are part of Bumble Bee Food’s “trusted fleet” of longline tuna fishing vessels.
The complaint alleges that instead of good jobs at the promised wages, the men were subjected to physical abuse and violence, deprived of adequate food, and denied medical care even when seriously injured (and then put back to work). The men were ensnared by debt bondage, which meant they would owe money if they quit their jobs. The fees, deductions, and penalties left them with little to no wages for their months of hard labor. Because the supply chain was structured so that the vessels stayed at sea – supply ships restocked the fishing vessel and collected the catch on the high seas, a practice called transshipment – the men were isolated, at the mercy of the captain and cut off from sources of potential assistance. The men asked to go home, even banding together in work stoppages, but were not permitted to leave their vessel.
Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000, and over the two-and-a-half decades since has repeatedly reauthorized and expanded it to provide a meaningful tool to combat human trafficking and forced labor. Among the tools Congress created was a civil remedy for victims of trafficking and forced labor, which in 2008 it expanded to authorize survivors to bring suit against persons, including corporations, that knew or should have known that they were benefitting from participation in a venture engaged in forced labor, debt bondage, and other abuses.
For decades, governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and the media have reported on the problem of forced labor on distant water fishing vessels, particularly longline tuna vessels that rely on migrant fishers.
The complaint alleges that the tuna harvested with their forced labor was subsequently imported by Bumble Bee into the United States and delivered to grocery store shelves, bearing Bumble Bee’s label, where it was bought by American consumers.
The men are seeking damages for mental anguish, pain and suffering; punitive and exemplary damages; and equitable relief, including, among other things: free, accessible and secure WiFi so fishers can access sources of assistance; a ban on recruitment fees, guarantee fees or other penalties for terminating a contract; a ban on transshipment at sea; a requirement that vessels return to port every three months; ensure that workers are paid in full at least monthly; and designated rest hours consistent with international treaty provisions.
Case Background
Bumble Bee is one of the top canned albacore tuna brands in the United States, with a 41% share of the market in 2019. Annually, Bumble Bee’s revenues exceed $ 1 billion.
Since 2020, Bumble Bee has been wholly owned by FCF Co. Ltd. FCF, incorporated in Taiwan, is one of the three largest global tuna traders. Bumble Bee has purchased almost all its albacore from FCF for years, dating back to at least 2010. In 2019, Bumble Bee’s then CFO testified that FCF supplied between 95% to 100% of Bumble Bee’s albacore tuna.
The complaint describes in detail how Bumble Bee, FCF and the tuna fishing fleet owners participate in an interlocking venture to harvest tuna for import into the United States, and explains how that venture relies on and benefits from forced labor.
For many years, the United States, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and the media have reported on the widespread and pervasive problem of forced labor on distant-water fishing vessels. The United States has identified the red flags that indicate human trafficking and forced labor, identified Indonesia as a source country for rural men exploited in the fishing industry, and highlighted the prevalence of that conduct on the fleets relevant to this case.
The United States has gone so far as to bar tuna from certain Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese vessels citing, for example in the case of the Da Wang evidence that the tuna had been harvested using forced labor “including physical violence, debt bondage, withholding of wages, and abusive living and working conditions.”
The plaintiffs, who are residents of Indonesia, claim that they had applied for work in the commercial fishing industry but allege they were instead subjected to forced labor on three boats that were a part of Bumble Bee’s “trusted fleet.” Among other things, the complaint describes the violence the men were subjected to on board, including being lashed, beaten with a metal hook, and stabbed with a metal needle. The complaint also describes the severe injuries suffered by the men. In each case, the captains failed to provide medical attention and ordered them back to work, resulting in permanent injury. Finally, the plaintiffs’ detail having so little food they resorted to eating the bait fish and the long hours, with as little as three hours sleep, that they worked seven days a week.
According to the complaint, the men were ensnared by debt bondage, which meant they would owe money if they quit their jobs. The fees, deductions, and penalties left them with little to no wages for their months of hard labor. Nonetheless, the fishermen repeatedly asked to leave the ship, but were not permitted to do so.
Plaintiffs’ Allegations Presented in the Complaint
| Akhmad | Akhmad’s contract provided for a salary of $300 per month. But approximately $200 a month was deducted for the first eight months (one third of the contract period) to repay recruitment and administrative costs along with another deduction of $50 per month for living costs while on board.” In addition, “Akhmad learned that his family would be subject to punishment if he left the ship early.” (¶ 98) Once on board, Akhmad worked 18 hours per day, 7 days per week. Once a month, the crew had a “break day.” On that day, they worked only 10 or 12 hours. (¶ 99)The captain beat Akhmad and the other workers, including with a metal hook. Akhmad was hit too often to count. (¶ 100) The workers did not receive needed medical attention for their injuries. Akhmad was seriously injured twice while hauling fish on board. One time, the rope holding the weighing gear broke, dropping a load of fish on Akhmad. Akhmad’s leg was gashed open from mid-shin to thigh. The captain ordered Akhmad to keep working, although the blood kept gushing. Akhmad thought his boot was full of water, but soon realized that blood, not water, was filling his boot. The captain allowed Akhmad to sit down, at which point Akhmad realized the gash was so deep, he could see the bone in his leg. Akhmad was left to clean and bandage his leg himself, without sterile medical supplies. His leg bled for two weeks and he is still in pain, years later.” (¶ 102) The captain refused to let Akhmad leave. The captain responded with a threat, “if you want to go home, you can swim in the ocean.” (¶ 105) |
| Angga | Angga was lined up with other workers and rushed through the contract signing. Instead of the promised $700 a month, the contract provided he would get only $300 a month – less than half of what he had been promised. He also learned that $250 a month would be deducted for the first six months for the onboarding expenses, leaving him with only $50 in salary. (¶ 109) The contract also provided for a $1,000 guarantee to be forfeited if the two-year contract was not completed as well as a penalty to be levied against Angga’s family: (¶ 110) The food provided was inadequate and Angga was often hungry. Sometimes the men resorted to eating the bait used for catching fish. (¶ 115) The captain hit the fishers, often about the head, and kicked them. … The captain also punched the fishers, including Angga, with a needle. The jab felt like a shot. Angga saw another fisher getting stabbed, so he ran away, but the captain chased him holding the needle. (¶ 116) The fishers discussed their plight and repeatedly asked to leave the vessel. The first time they asked, the captain told them to keep working. They asked again and again. Eventually, the men banded together and joined in a work stoppage. (¶ 118) When Angga returned home, he learned that no money had been transferred to his brother’s account, the bank account he had provided to receive his salary payments. As a result, his family received no salary at all for his forced labor at sea. (¶ 119) |
| Muhammad Sahrudin | Sahrudin borrowed money from his mother to pay the recruitment fee to a manning agency. His mother was in the hospital at the time and had to sell her jewelry to raise the funds, so Sahrudin felt under pressure to obtain the job and make it work. He promised to repay his mother. (¶ 121) Sahrudin was rushed through the contract signing. He was required to sign letter authorizing $700 in salary deductions. Another letter provided that if he terminated his contract, he would pay $20,000 – a huge sum – as a penalty and be responsible for all costs incurred by the recruitment agency. The size of the penalty took Sahrudin aback, but he had already borrowed funds from his mother for the job and felt compelled to continue. (¶ 123-124) Sahrudin was beaten so many times, he cannot recall the exact number. One time, the captain chased him with a needle, while Sahrudin begged to be spared. Sahrudin suffered nightmares about the chase. When the captain stabbed the fishers, he would jab up to three times. The wounds bled and often got infected, leading to pus and swelling. (¶ 127) Sahrudin was also whipped. He was lashed on his back, with the main line, as were other fishers. The crew shared their experiences and decided to leave. The men requested to leave several times, but were refused, even though supply ships came and went. Eventually, they decided to stay in their quarters and refused to work. When the captain came by, they responded “go home, go home.” Their joint action was ultimately successful, and the men were permitted to go home. (¶ 129-130) In the end, Sahrudin did not earn any money from his forced labor at sea (¶ 131) |
| Muhammad Syafi’i | Syafi’i was in a group of 40 men waiting to depart when he was given a contract to sign. They all felt rushed. At that time, he learned that $170 per month would be deducted each month from his pay for the first five months. He also learned that he would have to deposit $100 a month for 10 months as a guarantee that he would finish his contract term and that he would only be paid the “guarantee” portion of his salary if he finished the two year contract. Finally, he was told that if he refused to sign, he would have to pay a penalty of $850. (¶ 133) Once on board, Syafi’i worked long hours. There were times Syafi’i was only able to sleep 3 hours a day. He was ordered to cook two different meals at each mealtime. He would cook one meal, for example with chicken or duck, for the captain and Chinese crew. The Indonesian fishers would get different, inferior food. In addition to his work as a cook, Syafi’i was assigned fishing work. He was also responsible for laundering the captain’s clothes every day. (¶ 134-135) The food provided was inadequate. Often, the food the fishers were given was expired. They were so hungry that they resorted to eating the bait fish, including bait fish that he could tell was old. Several of the workers became ill from the lack of fruits and vegetables. (¶ 136) The fishers did not receive medical attention for their injuries. Syafi’i was severely burned when he was working in the kitchen. Hot cooking oil splashed all over his stomach, groin, and down his legs, resulting in severe burns over much of his lower body. The burns were the most pain he had ever experienced. He screamed in pain, but when the crew rushed to see what had happened, the captain told them to leave him be and to get back to work. Syafi’i was left lying on the kitchen bench, alone. His skin swelled, popped, and turned white. (¶ 139) There were no sterile medical supplies or pain relievers available. Syafi’i crawled, despite the severe burns on his hands and knees, to his bunk to get some Vaseline he had brought on board. He was left to treat the burn himself, by dabbing his skin with Vaseline. Doing so was so excruciatingly painful; he is surprised he survived. (¶ 140) Despite his injuries Syafi’i was put back to work. When he did not die, the captain told him to get back to work. The captain also told him, if he did not work, he would have to pay for his meals and bed. At the time he was put back to work, the burns were still so bad, he was unable to put on clothes. Syafi’i resorted to going back to work wearing a sarong instead of trousers. (¶ 141) Syafi’i repeatedly asked to go home but was not allowed to leave the ship. At one point, he asked to leave almost every day. During the time he was requesting to leave, the ship rendezvoused three times with a transhipper or collecting vessel. One time, another worker had died on board, and his body was picked up by a collecting vessel. However, Syafi’i was not permitted to leave with the collecting vessel. (¶ 142) Even after Syafi’i suffered the burns, the captain continued to beat him. (¶ 143) |
Case name: Akhmad, et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00583-MMA-DEB, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Cohen Milstein represents more than 40 online community and marketplace creators and influencers throughout the United States in this high-profile consolidated fintech consumer protection class action against Capital One.
The plaintiffs include online marketplace creators, influencers, YouTubers, website operators, and online publications, among others. They work hand-in-hand with online merchants to market and sell specific products and services.
The plaintiffs allege that the Capital One Shopping browser extension, that an estimated 10 million people in the United States download and use onto their laptops and mobile devices for discounted online shopping, is designed to steal plaintiffs’ commissions. Specifically, they claim that when a consumer makes a purchase via the Capital One Shopping browser extension, instead of crediting the creator’s affiliate marketing identify code, it automatically substitutes its own affiliate marketing identity code to receive the commission – even if the consumer made the purchase directly from the creator’s affiliate web link.
The plaintiffs seek to recover the damages they have sustained and enjoin Capital One’s wrongful conduct going forward.
Important Rulings
- On March 5, 2025, the Honorable Anthony J. Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Douglas J. McNamara, a partner at Cohen Milstein, as one of four Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Case Background
According to Capital One, the Capital One Shopping browser extension is a free tool that automatically looks for coupons and discounts, offers consumers a price comparison tool, and incorporates a built-in rewards point system wherein points can be redeemed by consumers for gift cards.
An estimated 10 million people in the United States download and use the Capital One Shopping browser extension because of its discount and points appeal.
Plaintiffs claim that the Capital One Shopping browser extension is designed to steal their commissions from online marketplace creators and influencers who earn money by directing their followers to specific products and services they market on behalf of online merchants with whom they collaborate thought affiliate marketing programs.
Specifically, when a consumer purchases products and services via the creator’s “affiliate link,” designed specifically for that creator by the online merchant, the creator earns commissions on the sale and/or gets credits for any referrals.
The plaintiffs claim that during the checkout process, the Capital One Shopping browser extension cheats these creators out of commissions to which they are entitled. As described in more detail throughout this complaint, Capital One programmed the Capital One Shopping browser extension to systematically appropriate commissions that belong to the creators. It does so by substituting its own affiliate marketing identity code into a consumer’s cookie in place of the creator’s affiliate marketing identity code, and this happens even though the consumer used the creator’s specific affiliate web link to purchase a product or service.
Cohen Milstein and Kator, Parks, Weiser & Wright are representing overseas contractors who were removed from their positions during or after April 2020, when the Department of Defense deemed those over the age of 65 unfit for duty because of the risk of COVID-19.
The complaint alleges that U.S. Central Command discriminated on the bases of disability and age when it updated its fitness qualification standards for civilian personnel on overseas bases in April 2020. According to the updated standard, anyone over the age of 65 was no longer “Fit for Duty” because of the “direct threat presented by COVID-19.” The complaint alleges the updated standard violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Rehabilitation Act by automatically terminating anyone age 65 or older from their overseas assignment without conducting an individual inquiry into their health.
Plaintiffs seeks lost pay, money damages, and other relief on behalf of all civilian personnel who were removed pursuant to the updated qualification standard.
Important Rulings
- On February 4, 2025, the EEOC ordered the DOD to show cause by February 20, 2025 of why it should not impose sanctions on the agency for failing to comply with EEOC instructions.
- On September 26, 2024, the EEOC denied DOD’s request for reconsideration of its February 15, 2023 class certification.
- On February 15, 2023, the EEOC certified the class action.
More Information
If you believe you may be eligible to participate in this case, please visit U.S. Department of Defense Overseas Contractor Litigation to sign up for more information.
This matter is being litigated by Joseph M. Sellers (admitted in DC) and Alisa Tiwari (admitted in DC) of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, as well as Michael Kator (admitted in DC, MD, and TX), Jeremy D. Wright (admitted in DC and TX), and David Weiser (admitted in DC and TX) of Kator, Parks, Weiser & Wright, PLLC.
Case Name: Schildgen v. Hegseth, EEOC No. 570-2025-00473X, Agency No. 2020-CONF-070
Cohen Milstein represents the whistleblower in a False Claims Act case against a skilled nursing management company, RegalCare, and its affiliated companies and executives, alleging that they systematically overbilled Medicare and Medicaid for years. On February 18, 2025, the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts intervened in the case with the filing of their own complaint.
The whistleblower – and now the government – allege that between 2017 and 2023, RegalCare and the other defendants fraudulently caused the submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid for medically unreasonable and unnecessary services to patients of RegalCare’s SNFs. Specifically, it is alleged that Defendants systematically defrauded the government healthcare programs by billing for the highest (and most expensive) level of skilled rehabilitation therapy services provided to patients who did not need those services. During just three years of the relevant period, RegalCare received nearly $260 million in reimbursement for claims that were billed at the highest-level of therapy services.
This scheme has allegedly resulted in many millions of dollars in damages to the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Important Dates
- On February 18, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office intervened and filed a joint complaint the under the federal and Massachusetts False Claims Acts.
Case Background
SNFs are inpatient facilities that provide transitional care to patients following a hospital stay. Federal healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, reimburse providers for medically reasonable and necessary services rendered to SNF patients. Both the federal and Massachusetts False Claims Acts prohibit individuals or entities from submitting, or causing the submission of, false claims for payment and false statements material to a claim for payment from the respective governments.
Specifically, the allegations in this case are that RegalCare and the other Defendants systematically caused Medicare to be billed for the highest level of skilled rehabilitation therapy services at RegalCare’s SNFs in Massachusetts and Connecticut, despite patients not clinically needing those services. In furtherance of this scheme, it is alleged that RegalCare altered patient records to support billing for such unnecessary services, without having assessed or spoken to the patients, and often without having spoken to clinicians about the changes. It is also alleged that RegalCare improperly directed its third-party billing company to bill Medicare for the highest-level skilled rehabilitation therapy services before the underlying necessary clinical documentation was even complete.
The allegations in this case further claim that Stern, a New York long-term care consulting company, conspired with RegalCare to cause the submission of fraudulent claims to Medicare by scheduling therapists to provide unnecessary services, contrary to patients’ medical needs, to justify billing at the highest-level. When Stern therapists refused to provide services they deemed unnecessary or unreasonable, Stern managers threatened to take employment action against those therapists to pressure them to capitulate.
Cohen Milstein represents construction workers in a class action case brought against Elite Wall Systems LLC and multiple general contractors that retained Elite, in a wage theft action involving numerous construction projects across Maryland and Washington, D.C.
The construction workers claim that Elite has engaged in an unlawful scheme to steal their wages by: (a) misclassifying them as independent contractors rather than as employees; (b) failing to pay required overtime wages; and (c) failing, on certain public works projects, to pay workers the required prevailing wages for their work.
The workers claim that Elite cheated its employees out of a fair wage through this manipulation of the labor market, enabling Elite to gain significant market share by undercutting law-abiding businesses.
Case Background
Elite Wall Systems is a construction subcontractor that works on construction projects throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia. Elite is hired by general contractors, including the defendants Gilbane Building Company, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, HITT Contracting, Inc., and Suffolk Construction Company, Inc., to complete specific, time-sensitive construction projects.
The construction workers claim that Elite’s wage theft scheme involves misclassifying workers and failing to pay them the required wages in some of the most high-profile construction projects in the greater District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia (DMV) area for well over a decade. Some of the projects included university buildings, public schools, downtown D.C. hotels, and the MGM National Harbor Casino.
The plaintiffs further claim that Elite cheated hundreds of workers out of a fair wage directly and as a result of this manipulation of the labor market. Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that construction contractors that played by the rules lost contracts because of Elite’s unlawful pay practices.
The plaintiffs also claim that Elite misrepresented to the governments of Maryland and D.C. that its employees working on public works projects were paid correctly. Taxpayers were cheated out of tax revenue by the naked misclassification of Elite’s employees.
This lawsuit is brought under Maryland Workplace Fraud Act (MWFA); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL); the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL); the Maryland Prevailing Wage Statute (MWPCL); Maryland Prevailing Wage Statute (MPWS); the D.C. Workplace Fraud Act, D.C. Code (DCWFA); the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act (DCMWRA); and the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law (DCWPCL).
Cohen Milstein represents investors in a securities class action against Nike, Inc. (NYSE: NKE) and certain directors and officers, including Nike’s former CEO, John J. Donahoe II, Nike’s current CFO, Mathew Friend, and Nike’s current Executive Chair, Mark G. Parker.
Investors allege that Nike, its CEO, CFO, and Chairman, and other defendants violated the federal securities laws by making misstatements and omissions about the success of a key corporate strategy called “Consumer Direct Acceleration” (CDA), which emphasized a digitally enabled direct-to-consumer (DTC) business model. The CDA strategy, according to Nike, had the purpose and effect of propelling long-term sustainable financial growth for the benefit of Nike and its shareholders.
When Nike’s alleged fraud was finally revealed over a series of four partial disclosures of the truth, starting in December 2023, investors saw the extent of Nike’s CDA strategy failures and its disastrous impact on Nike’s financial performance. As a result, Nike’s stock collapsed nearly 20%—the largest stock price drop in Nike’s history, wiping out billions of dollars in shareholder value
Impacted investors purchased Nike Class B Common Stock from March 19, 2021 – October 1, 2024, inclusive.
Case Background
Nike is one of the world’s largest active footwear companies, with sales of $51.5 billion in 2023. Sales made through Nike’s wholesale and DTC channels were Nike’s lifeblood, as revenues from those two channels constituted approximately 95% of Nike’s total revenue throughout the class period.
As alleged in the complaint, Nike announced its CDA strategy on June 25, 2020. CDA focused on increasing Nike’s innovative product pipeline while investing in and building out the company’s DTC channels by (1) increasing Nike’s focus on digitally-led DTC operations, including through its website and apps; (2) increasing Nike’s technological capabilities to enable those DTC operations; and (3) engaging in a massive corporate restructuring to streamline and reorganize the company’s business around key demographic categories—specifically, “Men’s,” “Women’s,” and “Kids’.” This represented a pivotal shift away from Nike’s prior approach of orienting its business around sport-based categories (e.g., running and basketball, among other sports).
During the class period, Nike repeatedly and falsely assured investors that the CDA strategy was achieving its key objectives—including, for example, that Nike had developed the technological capabilities and supply chain infrastructure necessary to effectively execute such DTC operations—and thus was succeeding in driving the promised sustainable growth. Unbeknownst to investors, however, the CDA strategy suffered from multiple, severe problems in key underlying areas—including Nike’s failure to build out the critical DTC technological and supply chain capabilities—and thus was a ticking timebomb.
When Nike’s fraud was finally revealed, it showed the extent of Nike’s CDA strategy failures and the disastrous impact on the Company’s financial performance.
- On December 21, 2023, Nike announced disappointing financial results for the second quarter of FY 2024. On this news, Nike’s stock declined nearly 12%.
- On March 21, 2024, when Nike announced another quarter of disappointing financial results (for the third quarter of FY 2024), these disclosures partially revealed the failures of the CDA strategy—the shift away from sports categorization, product innovation, brand strength, and need to pivot back to wholesale partners. On this news, Nike’s stock declined nearly 7%.
- On June 27, 2024, when Nike announced a third consecutive quarter of disappointing financial results (for the fourth quarter of FY 2024 and for full FY 2024), Nike’s stock collapsed by nearly 20%—the largest stock price drop in NIKE’s history.
- On September 19, 2024, mere weeks before the end of the Class Period, Nike’s Board of Directors announced the abrupt departure of John J. Donahoe II, CEO and key architect of the CDA strategy and a purveyor of myriad misstatements about its success.
- Finally, the full extent and financial impact of Nike’s fraud was revealed on October 1, 2024, when Nike announced yet another quarter of poor financial results (for the first quarter of FY 2025), including total revenue that was below analyst consensus estimates. On this news, Nike’s stock dropped approximately 6.8%.
From November 5, 2021, Nike’s stock dropped from $177.51 to $83.10 on October 2, 2024, wiping out billions of dollars in shareholder value.