Steel rebar giant Commercial Metals (CMC.N), opens new tab must face an antitrust lawsuit that accuses it of sidelining a potential competitor by frustrating its efforts to build a mill in Southern California, driving up rebar prices.
In a ruling, opens new tab unsealed on Friday, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. in Oakland, California, denied a request from Commercial Metals for summary judgment in the 2020 lawsuit from plaintiff Pacific Steel.
Gilliam’s order, which also denied Pacific Steel’s summary judgment request, sets the case on course for a trial in October. Pacific Steel has alleged that Commercial Metals’ conduct caused rebar purchasers to overpay by $50 million a year.
. . .
For Pacific Steel: Benjamin Brown of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; and Christopher Wheeler of Farella Braun + Martel
Citgo struck a deal to settle a class action alleging it shorted retirees in early retirement payouts by basing the allowances on outdated mortality tables that used data from the 1970s, according to a joint notice filed in Illinois federal court.
Citgo Petroleum Corp. and a class of retirees alerted the court in a joint notice Tuesday that they reached a tentative deal to resolve the suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, scrapping a bench trial that had been scheduled for Nov. 4. The details of the deal were not shared with the court.
. . .
The retirees are represented by Kai Richter, Michelle C. Yau, Daniel J. Sutter, Ryan Wheeler, Carol V. Gilden and Eleanor Frisch of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Rachana A. Pathak, Peter K. Stris, Victor O’Connell and John Stokes of Stris & Maher LLP, Todd Jackson and Nina Wasow of Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP, and Shaun P. Martin of the University of San Diego Law School.
A class-action complaint claims Aetna violated federal non-discrimination law by denying coverage of certain gender-affirming surgeries.
Why it matters: The lawsuit filed Tuesday cites civil rights protections in the Affordable Care Act that are currently being challenged by conservative-led states.
Driving the news: The lawsuit states Aetna “categorically excludes” coverage for facial reconstruction surgeries when they’re prescribed to treat gender dysphoria, even though it covers the same surgeries for other medical diagnoses.
- Two of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit ended up paying more than $35,000 out of pocket after Aetna denied their claims for surgery, while a third has not yet been able to afford a procedure.
- The complaint estimates this issue affects more than 70,000 people covered by Aetna across the country.
- The American Medical Association and other major medical groups support gender-affirming treatment standards that recognize facial reconstruction surgeries as safe and effective for changing facial features linked to gender dysphoria. The procedures are typically used to make facial features more feminine.
- Gender-affirming care varies by patient, and not all transgender people choose to get facial reconstruction surgery.
Between the lines: These surgeries are usually reserved for adults and haven’t been heavily targeted by recent state bans on transgender care. But systemic barriers still make them hard to access, said Gabriel Arkles, a lawyer for the plaintiffs and co-interim legal director at Advocates for Trans Equality.
What they’re saying: “Facial surgery is important healthcare. It’s also something that helps people be a little bit safer … Your face is so visible. It’s one of the first ways people will try to identify what gender you are.”
“I’m hoping and I’m praying for this lawsuit to make it possible for people to envision asking for their needs to be met because even that wasn’t possible for me at a certain point,” said Binah Gordon, one of the three lead plaintiffs on the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that the insurance giant has covered similar procedures for cisgender patients.
Three transgender women have filed a lawsuit against U.S. health insurance company Aetna, alleging that their claims for gender-affirming facial surgeries have for years been unlawfully denied.
The three women — Binah Gordon, Kay Mayers, and anonymous plaintiff S.N. — filed suit in Connecticut on September 10, each asserting that Aetna improperly denied their claims for “medically necessary gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgeries.” The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Wardenski PC and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, as well as Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE), which was formed in a merger between two national trans rights organizations earlier this year.
. . .
This is only the latest lawsuit leveling discrimination claims against the insurance giant. In 2021, Aetna settled a similar lawsuit (also filed in part by Cohen Milstein) by announcing it would consider trans women’s breast augmentation surgeries to be medically necessary — a reform that clearly was not equally applied to facial surgeries in the aftermath of that settlement. Since then, however, lawsuits against Aetna have surged on multiple other fronts. In the space of one week in October 2023, Aetna was served with 21 separate lawsuits from breast cancer survivors who said the company refused to pay for their reconstructive surgeries. Earlier this year, Bridges Health Partners in Pennsylvania sued Aetna for breach of contract; in May, the company agreed to settle another lawsuit that alleged the company had discriminated against LGBTQ+ families seeking fertility treatments, creating a $2 million reimbursement fund for the impacted parties.
Three transgender women sued Aetna Life Insurance Co. Tuesday for allegedly denying them coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgeries.
Aetna’s categorical exclusion on the treatments constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex in a federally funded health-care program in violation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, a proposed class action complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut said. Aetna generally provides payment for facial reconstruction surgery for diagnoses other than gender dysphoria, and also covers other gender-affirming care, such as chest reconstruction, the plaintiffs said.
. . .
Medical professional groups have deemed facial reconstruction surgeries medically necessary for trans people and distinguished them from cosmetic procedures because they’re meant “solely to align a person’s facial characteristics with their gender identity, and not to ‘improve’ appearance,” the plaintiffs said. The surgery is “an essential component of their gender transition,” they said.
Aetna’s policy is facially discriminatory because it treats transgender people differently from cisgender people, for whom it covers facial reconstruction surgery to treat other medical conditions, the plaintiffs said.
. . .
Wardenski PC, Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund Inc., and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC represent the plaintiffs.
The American Antitrust Institute has announced Daniel A. Small as the 2024 inductee to the Private Antitrust Enforcement Hall of Fame. He will be honored during a luncheon presentation at AAI’s 18th AAI Annual Private Antitrust Enforcement Conference on October 30, 2024, in Washington D.C.
Daniel Small, widely regarded for his intellectual energy, deep study of the economic issues underpinning antitrust disputes and sophisticated understanding of how conspiracies and monopolies operate in a range of complex markets, served as the co-chair of the Cohen Milstein’s Antitrust practice group for ten years. He represented plaintiff classes, and defended unions, as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous antitrust cases and obtained settlements and judgments totaling over one billion dollars.
AAI established the Private Antitrust Enforcement Hall of Fame in 2018 to celebrate the organization’s 20th anniversary and further the goals of progressive competition research, education, and advocacy that have defined AAI’s mission and success since its founding in 1998.
The Hall of Fame recognizes practitioners for three major contributions:
- Distinguished service to the private antitrust enforcement community;
- Commitment to the enforcement of the antitrust laws; an
- Success in fighting for competition, consumers, and workers.
Daniel Small joins AAI Private Antitrust Enforcement Hall of Fame inductees Joseph Goldberg, Roberta D. Liebenberg, H. Laddie Montague Jr., Ellen Meriwether, Michael J. Freed, Jonathan W. Cuneo, and Pamela Gilbert.
Are the technologies that power online advertising all part of one giant market, or are there distinct markets within the multibillion-dollar industry?
The answer is critical to Google’s defense in an antitrust case brought by the US Justice Department that went to trial on Monday in a packed Alexandria, Va., courtroom.
“Market definition, not just in this case, but in most antitrust cases, has potential to be outcome determinative,” said former DOJ antitrust attorney Dan McCuaig, who is now a partner with Cohen Milstein.
The highly anticipated trial comes on the heels of Google’s defeat in August an antitrust case where a Washington, D.C., judge ruled the tech giant illegally monopolized the market for online search engines.
For Google (GOOG), the broader the market, the more likely it can overcome federal prosecutors’ claims that it illegally monopolized markets for online advertising technology in violation of antitrust laws.
. . .
“I think it’s a clever play by Google,” McCuaig said. “I don’t think it ultimately carries the day.”
McCuaig said Google may have relied too strongly on a Supreme Court case involving American Express, in which the high court ruled that credit card networks were one market with two sides.
Meat industry giants Cargill, National Beef Packing and Hormel Foods have agreed to pay a combined $57.4 million to exit a proposed class action accusing them of suppressing workers’ pay at processing plants.
Lawyers for the workers asked, opens new tab a U.S. judge in Colorado to preliminarily approve the three deals, which would push total settlements to more than $200 million since the lawsuit was filed in 2022.
The settlements cover claims from tens of thousands of red meat processing workers at 140 plants alleging a years-long conspiracy among leading processors to keep wages low.
The workers claim the processors and two consulting companies violated antitrust law by sharing confidential compensation data though industry surveys and other means.
Cargill said it will pay $29.75 million, National Beef Packing agreed to pay $14.2 million and Hormel Foods will pay $13.5 million, according to the new settlements.
. . .
For plaintiffs: Shana Scarlett of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Brent Johnson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; and George Farah of Handley Farah & Anderson
A Michigan judge said Monday it would be premature to free the state from liability for two dams’ collapse before further discovery, telling government lawyers he would be reversed “in a nanosecond” if he ended the suit so soon.
The state had filed the motion amid the discovery phase of consolidated mass tort and class actions seeking compensation for disastrous flooding as a result of the dam failures, but Michigan Court of Claims Judge James R. Redford rebuffed the state’s timing.
“I respectfully believe that we need to have discovery,” Judge Redford said during a hearing.
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy had asked the judge in an Aug. 22 motion to toss the case and save both sides the time and expense of exchanging expert reports, arguing that it was already clear from the available evidence that the state did not cause the dam collapses.
. . .
The plaintiffs are represented by Denenberg Tuffley PLLC, Johnson Law PLC, Dubin Law PLLC, Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC, Fieger Law, Sommers Schwartz PC, The Miller Law Firm PC, Buckfire Law Firm, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, McAlpine PC, Olsman MacKenzie Peacock & Wallace, Giroux Trial Attorneys PC, The Rasor Law Firm PLLC, Gruel Mills Nims & Pylman PLLC, Behm & Behm, Turfe Law, Cozen O’Connor PC, Stern Law PLLC and Fegan Scott LLC.
A partner at Cohen Milstein, Posner has recovered billions on behalf of defrauded investors. Her cases include six of the top 100 securities fraud class action settlements of all time.
A courtroom sketch from In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation hangs on the wall in Laura Posner’s office in lower Manhattan.
The work, drawn by Andrea and Shirley Sheperd in the Delaware Court of Chancery nearly 20 years ago, was Posner’s first-ever case—and trial.
Posner, representing the plaintiffs, alleged that a $140 million severance payout to outgoing Disney president Michael Ovitz was a waste of assets and constituted various breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties.
“It was an extremely difficult trial,” Posner recalled. “It was a veritable who’s who of Big Law in the courthouse for the defendants every single day.”
While the defense had dozens of bold-faced legal names, Posner said her team typically had two people at bat daily, switching off to prep the witnesses for the next day.
Posner recounted the case to the New York Law Journal in response to a question about her first win in the courtroom. But she didn’t win that case.
“I think it was a 70-page decision,” she said. “If you read 69 of those pages,…you would have thought we won. And then you get to the last page, and we lost.”
“It was a very hard blow,” she explained. “It’s never fun to lose, but it was a hard blow because I firmly believe that what the Disney company did was not appropriate, that it was corporate waste and that it should have been the kind of behavior that corporations are not supposed to engage in to the detriment of their investors and shareholders.”
Impact Litigation
But in the decades since, Posner has recovered billions on behalf of defrauded investors. Her cases include six of the top 100 securities fraud class action settlements of all time. Last year, she settled In Re Wells Fargo for a historic $1 billion.
But those who know her have made clear she’s driven not by money or rankings, but by true passion to affect meaningful outcomes for the greater good.
Prior to joining Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in 2017 as a partner, Posner served as the Bureau Chief for New Jersey’s Bureau of Securities—the top securities enforcer and regulator in the state.
Chad Johnson, now a partner at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, worked with Posner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman. He also served as her counterpart in New York during the same period Posner was securities regulator for NJ.
“She knows the law and the cases cold,” Johnson said. “But beyond that, she brings to all these cases a level of passion and commitment that is something unique. She’s always looking for new ways to advance cases in the interest of the public.”
“And in the private sector you just don’t see that everyday,” he added.
Posner grew up in the Bay Area, completing her undergraduate degree at UCLA (magna cum laude) and then earning her J.D. from Harvard Law School.
She then moved to New York, and still lives in Manhattan with her husband, who works in education, and their young son.
Posner went to law school thinking she would go into civil rights litigation at the Department of Justice.
But when it came time, the DOJ under the then-new George W. Bush administration wasn’t prioritizing that kind of work, Posner recalled. She tried non-profits, but found that a lot of the job was not as legal as she might have hoped. For example, fixing a broken copier.
“I had a professor who introduced me to the world of plaintiffs class action firms,” she said, referencing Harvard Law’s Jon D. Hanson. “I was really interested in the kind of impact litigation, a lot of which was getting farmed out on the nonprofit stage, to other firms to litigate.”
She began as a summer associate at Millberg, later returning as an associate. And there she discovered the impact of shareholder derivative litigation.
“Along the way I came to a kind of realization that ensuring that people have a financial ability that withstands the ups and downs of life, they have to have a secure retirement,” Posner shared. “That people having the money to pay for everyday necessities was absolutely as crucial to ensuring everyone had equal rights in this country as anything else.”
Capt. Sean Coffey is now general counsel for the U.S. Navy, but he clearly recalls when Posner arrived at Bernstein Litowitz in the early 2000s. A senior partner then, Coffey said it was clear that the new hire “was a future leader of the plaintiffs bar.”
“She had a great sense of humor and a really great bullshit detector,” he said. “She didn’t put up with nonsense, in a good way.”
“She had outstanding judgment, just smart as a whip,” Coffey continued. “She plays well with others, she’s a very good leader. People gravitate toward her when she offers an opinion. We’re talking 20 years ago now, the smartest people in the room would stop and listen when she contributed.”
These days, Coffey said he’d be loath to go toe-to-toe with Posner.