“It comes down to the dogged pursuit of the class’ interests. It’s the Cohen Milstein way,” Michelle Yau, partner at Cohen Milstein and counsel for the class, said.

A Connecticut federal judge approved a $7.9 million class action settlement to resolve claims against hedge fund GWA LLC and its founder, George A. Weiss.

GWA and Weiss allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and misused the employee retirement plan assets to further their own pecuniary interests in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The retirement plan investments, 401(k) assets, were allegedly 100%invested in “The Weiss Funds,” which includes GWA’s flagship hedge fund, Weiss Multi-Strategy Partners (Cayman) Ltd., and the company’s mutual fund, Weiss Alternative Multi-Strategy Fund.

“We had never seen a retirement plan 100% invested in this niche investment product,” Michelle Yau, partner at Cohen Milstein and counsel for the class, said. “Every once in a while, you’ll see an alternative fund in a 401(k) plan, but participants have the choice as to what they can invest in.”

The class action was filed in 2023, but during the course of litigation, both defendants filed for bankruptcy in New York and Florida.

“That was not something anyone could predict, but it ultimately left us with no solvent party that could pay judgment,” Yau said. “The action became way more complicated and risky due to the tow bankruptcies.”

However, the parties found a way to settle the case, and each class member will receive around $26,000. Yau said the legal team fought to preserve the class’ rights to the insurance policy, and now, the class does not have to wait for a resolution in the bankruptcy proceedings.

“It comes down to the dogged pursuit of the class’ interests. It’s the Cohen Milstein way,” Yau said.

. . .

“This was a case where the client sought us out,” Yau said. “She was laser-focused on protecting all the employees; she wasn’t in it just for herself. I just had to take it. Every once in a while, you’re asked or presented with the right thing to do. Even if it’s, from a business perspective, substantially riskier, it’s the right thing to do.”

. . .

“This is not a case that would have been brought but for our client pounding the pavement, looking for experienced ERISA counsel to bring to this case,” Yau said.

A District of Columbia Superior Court judge has rejected landlord AvalonBay Communities Inc.’s bid to escape D.C.’s rent-fixing antitrust suit against property management software company RealPage Inc., AvalonBay and several landlords.

. . .

DC is represented in-house by Brian L. Schwalb, Will Stephens, Adam Gitlin, Mehreen Imtiaz and Ashley Walters of the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia and Emmy L. Levens, Robert A. Braun, Alison S. Deich, Amanda K. Chuzi, Zachary Krowitz, Laura K. Follansbee, Alexander J. Noronha and Aaron J. Marks of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The suit alleges the portal “tricks” buyers into using a Flex agent, which inflates commissions, and calls its private listing ban a “scheme to defraud buyers.”

The law firms that filed one of the original class-action lawsuits challenging real estate commissions nationwide have a new target: Zillow.

In a draft complaint shared exclusively with Real Estate News, attorneys from Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein allege the home search giant inflated costs for homebuyers through its Zillow Flex referral program, which charges agents up to 40% for a successful transaction. The suit claims Zillow’s referrals to agents, which garnered more than $2 billion in revenue last year, illegally maintain “high and inflexible commissions.”

. . .

‘Tricks’ and a lack of disclosure: The Sept. 19 complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges Zillow is a “monopoly” in the U.S. market for residential real estate online search services, stating that it claims 66% of the U.S. real estate audience share.

“Zillow’s ability to monetize this dominance is based on deceptive and illegal conduct,” the complaint says.

“When potential buyers are on Zillow’s website, Zillow tricks them into signing up with a Zillow agent. If the agent is part of Zillow’s ‘Flex’ program, Zillow gets 40% of the agent’s commission — a payment on the back end that is undisclosed to all parties involved” — including the buyer and seller who might want to know that information as they negotiate the sale and close of the listing.

Buyer claims he didn’t have ‘any other option’: The plaintiff, Alucard Taylor, is a resident of Portland, Oregon, who bought a home using a Zillow Flex agent — identified in the suit as “R.H.” — in 2022.

“In [the plaintiff’s] dealings with R.H. prior to and during the purchase of his home, he did not believe he had any other option than to use R.H. to make the purchase,” the complaint says.

The complaint alleges that when buyers press the “Contact Agent” button on a Zillow listing, they believe they are contacting the listing agent, not a Zillow-affiliated buyer agent.

“If buyers were directed to sellers’ agents, they would be better positioned to negotiate a lower purchase price, because the seller would not have to pay commissions to the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent,” the complaint says.

The program “incentivizes Zillow Flex agents to prioritize receiving his/her full commission at all costs,” the complaint alleges, because those agents are netting a lower commission after paying referral fees.

“Sellers are stuck with paying 6% commission (or more) because the buyer Flex agent is receiving such a paltry sum in return, thereby increasing the purchase price of the home.”

Zillow’s listing rules ‘defraud buyers’: The suit also attacks Zillow’s new Listing Access Standards, which bar listings that have been publicly marketed for more than a day but are not widely available via the MLS or syndication.

The complaint alleges the policy is part of Zillow’s “scheme to defraud buyers by effectively forcing home sellers and their agents to post on Zillow.com immediately after advertising the home for sale,” thereby inflating “the unjustly earned profits Zillow receives from its deceptive conduct.”

Listing agents who don’t comply after three warnings will not be able to repost the listing, the filing notes, “effectively forcing the seller to fire her agent and find someone else who will acquiesce to Zillow’s coercive tactics.”

. . .

Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein are two of the major law firms that filed the Moehrl antitrust lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors, Keller Williams, Anywhere, HomeServices of America and RE/MAX. Those entities and others ended up settling for more than $1 billion.

 Zillow (ZG.O), the largest U.S. online real estate portal, is facing a new proposed class action accusing the company of deceptively using property listings to steer home buyers to its network of affiliated agents.

The lawsuit, filed on Friday in Seattle, claims Zillow is misleading prospective buyers into contacting agents working with Zillow and not the agent who listed the home for sale.

The plaintiff, an Oregon resident, alleged Zillow’s practices violate a Washington state consumer protection law and a federal real estate law.

. . .

The plaintiff seeks to represent at least tens of thousands of home buyers who used Zillow-affiliated agents since 2021.

According to the lawsuit, Zillow takes 40% of the commission from some of its agents, a cut that is hidden from the buyer and seller. The complaint said the alleged arrangement incentivizes agents to prioritize their commissions at all costs.

“Zillow’s scheme has the intent and the effect of unlawfully maintaining high and inflexible commissions that drive up the prices that buyers must pay,” the lawsuit said.

. . .

For plaintiff: Steve Berman and Jerrod Patterson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, and Douglas McNamara and Theodore Leopold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

Investors of failed, cryptocurrency-focused Silvergate Bank secured a California federal judge’s final approval Wednesday for their $37.5 million settlement of claims alleging the bank misrepresented its safeguards against onboarding customers like the collapsed, fraud-ridden crypto exchange FTX.

U.S. District Judge James E. Simmons Jr. granted final approval of the deal in an order, finding it, “in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to the settlement class” and dismissing the claims with prejudice.

. . .

In an email, Carol Gilden, an attorney for the investors, told Law360 that “In light of Silvergate Capital’s bankruptcy, the settlement is a highly favorable resolution that ensures an immediate recovery for impacted investors.”

“We are proud that the pension and union funds we represented had the resolve to step forward on behalf of investors and demand accountability from Silvergate Capital,” she added.

The investors are represented by Carol V. Gilden, Steven J. Toll, S. Douglas Bunch, Jan Messerschmidt, Brendan Schneiderman and Christina D. Saler of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Jonathan D. Uslaner, Lauren M. Cruz, John J. Rizio-Hamilton and Shane D. Avidan of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The Eleventh Circuit on Wednesday seemed open to reviving a proposed class action from married energy company retirees who claim outdated life expectancy data caused them to lose out on benefits, with judges questioning the lower court’s holding that actuarial assumptions don’t have to be reasonable.

A three-judge panel heard arguments in the appeal from married Southern Company Services Inc. retirees seeking to revive allegations that their pension annuity benefits were lowballed due to outdated mortality tables used in conversions, violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The proposed class of Southern Company pension plan participants, led by ex-workers William Drummond and Richard Odom, appealed after U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones in July 2024 dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim against Southern Company, its pension plan and its benefits administration committee.

During the proceedings, judges on the panel focused their questions on whether the lower court correctly held that ERISA allowed any actuarial assumptions to be used to convert single-life annuities to joint-and-survivor annuity form, as long as the process was spelled out in the plan terms.

. . .

The retirees are represented by Michelle C. Yau and Daniel R. Sutter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, by Peter K. Stris, Radha (Rachana) Pathak and Douglas Geyser of Stris & Maher LLP and by John T. Sparks Sr. of Austin & Sparks PC.

A maritime jobs recruitment company has settled claims it participated in an illegal no-poach conspiracy to suppress wages among some of the country’s biggest warship makers and naval engineering consultants, court records show.

U.K.-based Faststream Recruitment Ltd. negotiated a deal to end its involvement in the proposed class action brought by former naval engineers, according to a notice filed Monday in Virginia federal court. The notice followed a judge’s order seeking clarification as to the status of the settlement.

In the order, which was also filed Monday, U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga noted Faststream and the naval engineers first mentioned a settlement in March 2024. But the deal was rendered moot after the case was tossed for being time-barred in April 2024.

. . .

Scharpf and D’Armiento are represented by Brent W. Johnson, Zachary R. Glubiak, Steven J. Toll, Robert W. Cobbs, Alison S. Deich and Sabrina S. Merold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shana E. Scarlett, Rio S. Pierce, Steve W. Berman and Elaine T. Byszewski of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, George F. Farah, Nicholas J. Jackson and Simon Wiener of Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Candice J. Enders and Julia R. McGrath of Berger Montague PC and Brian D. Clark, Arielle S. Wagner and Stephen J. Teti of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Cohen Milstein has once again been recognized as a leader in advancing women in the legal profession. In Law360’s 2025 Women in Law Report, the firm is ranked among the top for the number of female attorneys and for its strong representation of female equity partners. 

Ceiling Smashers Recognition: For the ninth time since the inaugural report was released in 2014, Cohen Milstein earned the distinction of “Ceiling Smasher,” ranking 3rd among firms with 101 – 250 attorneys for the highest percentage of female equity partners. 

Overall Ranking: Cohen Milstein ranked 15th among firms of its size for the overall percentage of female attorneys. The stats include: 

  • 46.7% of all equity partners are women 
  • 35% of all partners are women 
  • 23.3% of all non-equity partners are women 
  • 55% of all associates are women 
  • 55% of all other lawyers, including of counsel, discovery counsel, and staff attorneys are women 

These rankings underscore our firm’s long-standing commitment to fostering equity, opportunity, and leadership for women in law. 

Read more:

A California judge granted final approval Monday of Disney’s $43.25 million class action settlement with over 15,000 female midlevel managers over allegations the entertainment giant paid them less than their male colleagues.

At a morning hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle read aloud an order granting final approval of the settlement, which stems from a 2019 suit alleging that the company systematically paid female employees in California less than men for substantially similar jobs, regularly passed women over for promotion and loaded them with extra work without providing additional pay.

The class size is 15,241, according to the motion for final approval submitted by the class. 

. . .

The workers are represented by Lori Andrus of Andrus Anderson LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, Christine E. Webber and Phoebe Wolfe of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and James Kan and Stephanie E. Tilden of Dadrian Ho Kan & Lee.

UBS’ investment banking division can’t shed claims that it manipulated trading prices for a software company by means of spoofing, or placing trades it later canceled, though a Manhattan federal judge on Friday tossed the software company’s allegations relating to the alleged scheme’s long-term effect on its trading prices.

In a partial dismissal order, U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho of the Southern District of New York found that the company, Phunware Inc., had failed to show in the latest version of its complaint that the alleged trading price manipulation had what Phunware described as “a long-term adverse effect on the market price of [Phunware] stock.”

“Phunware’s allegations with respect to such purported long-term effects … are too conclusory to suffice on a motion to dismiss,” Judge Ho said Friday.

However, he noted that certain claims about the short-term effect of the spoofing, “when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient at this stage.”

. . .

Phunware is represented by Laura H. Posner, Michael B. Eisenkraft and Raymond M. Sarola of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.