IBM Corp. and 16 former employees have resolved a lawsuit claiming the technology giant unlawfully fired older workers to make room for millennials, according to New York federal court filings.

The workers and IBM in a joint stipulation Friday asked the court to dismiss the Age Discrimination in Employment Act case, just under two months after counsel for the former employees told U.S. District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti that all 16 workers had signed written settlement agreements.

Terms of the agreements were not immediately available Monday.

. . .

The workers are represented by Joseph M. Sellers and Brian C. Corman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, David G. Webbert of Johnson & Webbert LLP and Steven M. Tindall and Ashleigh Alexa Musser of Gibbs Law Group LLP.

The competition team at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC helped secure settlements worth hundreds of millions of dollars last year for groups of home sellers, mixed martial arts fighters, poultry plant workers and others, earning a spot among the 2024 Law360 Competition Groups of the Year.

Among other noteworthy work, Cohen Milstein’s competition group has helped a class of home sellers to win settlement awards totaling more than $1 billion with the National Association of Realtors and major brokerages over real estate industry rules governing broker commissions.

The largest of the deals was a $418 million settlement with the trade association inked in March 2024 and finalized in November.

The suit alleged that commission rules caused sellers to overpay by requiring them to pay the fees of brokers working for both the buyer and the seller on a deal. The National Association of Realtors settlement calls for rule changes that are meant to create more competition for buyer-side brokers and to make the process more transparent.

Benjamin D. Brown, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s competition practice and the firm’s managing partner, told Law360 the case is important because the purchase or sale of a home is the largest transaction most people ever engage in.

“The opportunity to create a more competitive market for broker services is a chance to really make an impact on people’s lives,” Brown said.

. . .

Cohen Milstein is representing processing plant workers who accused the country’s largest chicken and turkey producers of fixing wages by exchanging competitively sensitive information, including through the data firm Agri Stats Inc. The workers have now settled with all the processors allegedly involved, including Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., Perdue Farms Inc. and Tyson Foods, for a total of around $398 million.

In another case, the firm is representing beef and pork plant workers accusing processing companies and Agri Stats of suppressing wages at red meat facilities. Workers have reached $200 million in settlements, including $127.2 million in deals with Tyson Foods and JBS USA Food Co. inked last year.

Brent W. Johnson, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s competition group, told Law360 he loves doing antitrust work and getting consumers back money that has been essentially stolen by corporations breaking the rules. But, he said, representing the plant workers has also been rewarding in a different way.

“The greatest privilege that I’ve had practicing law is representing those workers, getting money back for folks that they should have been paid, especially when they’re in really, really difficult jobs,” Johnson said. “Our body of work over the last number of years in the antitrust labor area is second to none.”

Cohen Milstein is also representing mixed martial arts fighters who reached a $375 million settlement last year with the Ultimate Fighting Championship over allegations that it underpaid match participants. Brown said the average recovery is “going to be meaningful, in many instances life changing” for the fighters, making the outcome extremely rewarding.

“We’re dealing with a population of folks who work really hard,” he said. “In the case of UFC fighters, they literally took a beating doing their jobs, and because of antitrust violations, they were paid less than they would have in a competitive market.”

Brown said Cohen Milstein has played a seminal role in the rise of antitrust wage cases generally, noting past work on cases involving nurses and workers in the tech industry, and said the firm has long made it a priority to represent workers who have been shortchanged.

A California federal judge considering sanctions against Meta for deleting data in privacy litigation over a Facebook tool’s collection of patient health information said Wednesday that he’s not convinced Meta had “malintent,” but said, “I do think this information should have been preserved.”

The comments from U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick came at the conclusion of oral arguments on the healthcare consumers’ motion for sanctions against Meta Platforms Inc. over the destroyed data.

The missing information is what’s known as “click button” or “button click” data that the plaintiffs say Meta failed to save for several months after the case was filed in June 2022. At the heart of the case is Meta’s Pixel tool, which captures data about patient portal logins and the online scheduling of medical appointments by tracking when a patient clicks buttons on healthcare websites, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs say Meta is not allowed to have that information under state and federal law and its terms of service.

At the start of Wednesday’s hearing, held over Zoom, Judge Orrick said Meta had a duty to not delete the information and failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, but he wasn’t sure that he could say at this stage of the case that there was prejudice.

. . .

A lawyer for the plaintiffs and the proposed class, Geoffrey Graber of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, said the deleted data is relevant to the case.

“There was no excuse for the destruction of this data,” Graber told the court.

Further, Meta realized in January 2023 that the data hadn’t been saved, and didn’t immediately inform the court or the plaintiffs, the lawyer said.

“The destroyed button click records are proof of millions of privacy violations,” Graber said. “They’re gone.”

At the very least, the court should let Meta know that it can’t take advantage of the situation it created at the certification stage.

. . .

The healthcare plaintiffs and the proposed class are represented by Geoffrey Graber of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Jason “Jay” Barnes of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Jeffrey A. Koncius of Kiesel Law LLP, Beth E. Terrell of Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC and Andre M. Mura of Gibbs Law Group LLP.

Since 2005 and passage of the Class Action Fairness Act, scholars have bemoaned the ongoing attack on class action procedures. Much of this work has focused on judicial reinterpretations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiffs face new prerequisites to aggregating their claims such as: (1) stricter pleading standards; (2) the judicially created “ascertainability requirement”; and (3) earlier and more frequent Daubert motions, just to name a few. These increased procedural hurdles are already hampering private enforcement efforts. In 2022, the Eleventh Circuit lobbed a new challenge when it banned incentive awards for class representatives in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC. Alexander J. Noronha explores the decision—warts and all—in his student note (On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated: Class Representatives & Equitable Compensation, 122 Mich. L. Rev. 733 (2024)).

. . .

Noronha argues that the Eleventh Circuit “overlooked crucial historical and legal context.” This dismantling of the Eleventh Circuit’s rationale represents the article’s biggest contribution. First, Greenough is the product of an anachronistic form of litigation, too distinguishable from the modern class action to warrant barring incentive awards. Relatedly, Greenough was an “equity receivership” suit, a form of litigation once commonplace but now obsolete. Thus, the decision proves a faulty foundation from which to render a blanket prohibition against class action incentive awards. As Noronha points out, equity receiverships are a closer analogue to Chapter 11 reorganizations than class actions.

. . .

By debunking the primary authority on which the Eleventh Circuit relied, Noronha provides other circuits ample justification to reach a contrary conclusion. Nonetheless, Noronha proposes additional solutions should Johnson spread. One novel idea reconceptualizes incentive awards as costs, moving them squarely within the purview of costs and fees recoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). Unlike incentive awards, which lack statutory grounding, Rule 54 affords courts clear authority to permit discretionary cost awards to class representatives. Although attorneys have yet to rely on this rule to request incentive awards, Noronha convincingly argues how this approach is both historically and legally defensible.

On Behalf of All Others reminds us of the value of student notes in legal scholarship. Noronha’s article offers new insights, particularly regarding the history of incentive awards—limited as that history may be. When well done, as here, a note can illuminate corners of procedure heretofore

A New York federal judge has granted class certification to investors alleging that Credit Suisse manipulated the market for its XIV notes, while denying certification for those claiming losses from misrepresentations, finding that the suggested class failed to resolve previous deficiencies in its proposal.

The four lead plaintiffs — Set Capital LLC, Apollo Asset Ltd., Aleksandr Gamburg and Stefan Jager — intended to represent a Securities Act class, which has already been certified, as well as the misrepresentation and manipulation classes, according to the order signed Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres.

In their suit, the investors claimed that Credit Suisse plotted to trigger a liquidity crunch that caused the price of its exchange-traded notes to drop nearly 96% after the close of regular trading on Feb. 5, 2018. The crash caused an “acceleration event” that allowed Credit Suisse to redeem those notes at a cratered price, earning what investors said were $475 million to $542 million in profits.

Some investors were damaged by Credit Suisse’s misrepresentations, and others were damaged based on Credit Suisse’s market manipulation, the suit alleged.

The investors are represented by Michael B. Eisenkraft, Laura H. Posner, Steven J. Toll, Brendan Schneiderman and Carol V. Gilden of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Eduard Korsinsky, Nicholas I. Porritt, Adam M. Apton and Alexander Krot of Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Adam David Hollander and Kimberly Alice Grinberg of Slarskey LLC.

A Maryland federal judge gave her blessing to several settlements totaling approximately $180 million in a suit accusing a slew of poultry companies of conspiring to keep wages low at their plants, greenlighting what the workers called “a historic recovery.”

U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher granted the workers’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlements Tuesday, saying the deals are “sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to authorize dissemination of notice” to the settlement class.

The companies the workers reached the deals with are Allen Harim Foods LLC, Amick Farms LLC, Butterball LLC, Fieldale Farms Corp., Foster Poultry Farms, Jennie-O Turkey Store Inc., Koch Foods Inc., O.K. Foods Inc., Tyson Foods Inc. and Keystone Foods LLC.

The companies agreed to pay different amounts: Allen Harim Foods $5 million, Amick Farms $6.25 million, Butterball $8.5 million, Fieldale Farms $5.5 million, Foster Poultry Farms $13.3 million, Jennie-O Turkey Store $3.5 million, Koch Foods $18.5 million, O.K. Foods $4.75 million and Tyson and Keystone $115.5 million.

The settlement class includes all workers those companies, their subsidiaries and related entities employed at their poultry processing plants, poultry hatcheries, poultry feed mills and poultry complexes in the U.S. from Jan. 1, 2000, to July 20, 2021, according to the order.

Those settlements add up to other deals the workers have already reached and the court preliminarily approved, according to the workers’ December motion for preliminary approval.

All combined, the workers’ recovery is set at approximately $398 million, “the second-largest recovery ever in a labor antitrust class action,” the workers said in the motion.

. . .

Brent W. Johnson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, who is representing the workers, declined to comment Wednesday.

. . .

The workers are represented by Brent W. Johnson, Benjamin D. Brown, Daniel H. Silverman and Alison S. Deich of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shana E. Scarlett, Rio R. Pierce, Steve W. Berman, Breanna Van Engelen and Elaine T. Byszewski of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Matthew K. Handley, Rachel E. Nadas, George F. Farah, Rebecca P. Chang and William Anderson of Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Brian D. Clark and Stephen J. Teti of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Candice J. Ender and Julia R. McGrath of Berger Montague.

A New York federal judge kept alive a lawsuit brought by former participants in the Salvation Army’s work therapy program accusing the Christian nonprofit organization of failing to pay them minimum wage, and asked the Salvation Army to respond to the workers’ renewed complaint.

U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman in a two-page order Wednesday denied the Salvation Army’s motion to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act suit for failure to state a claim and directed it to file an answer to workers’ second amended complaint within the next 14 days.

. . .

The workers are represented by Christine Webber, Dennis M. Hancock, Joseph M. Sellers, Rebecca Ojserkis and Kalpana Kotagal of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Gay Grunfeld, Michael Freedman and Priyah Kaul of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP and Jessica Lee Riggin of Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP.

Investors in the Utah ‘unicorn’ say Pluralsight misled them.

Pluralsight will pay $20 million to a group of early investors to settle claims the Utah tech giant misrepresented its success to investors in its early days as a public company.

The settlement ends a nearly five-year and “very hard-fought” legal battle between Pluralsight, one of Silicon Slopes’ flagship tech companies, and a group of investors responsible for public employees’ retirement funds in the Midwest, said plaintiff’s lead attorney Carol Gilden at the final settlement hearing Tuesday morning.

The class action lawsuit, first filed in 2019 and revived in 2022, claimed Pluralsight and its founding executives knowingly misled investors about their company’s success, artificially inflated stock prices and cashed out before stock prices plummeted.

The lead plaintiffs in the case are two funds responsible for managing retirement and benefit accounts for public employees in Indiana and Chicago, Illinois. Each fund bought thousands of common stock shares when Pluralsight went public in 2018, according to court documents, and lost millions of dollars as a result.

A federal judge dismissed the claims initially, but an appeals court in Denver revived many of them in 2022. The revived case also names founder and then-CEO Aaron Skonnard, and former Chief Financial Officer James Budge, as defendants.

Pluralsight will pay $20 million to a group of early investors to settle claims the Utah tech giant misrepresented its success to investors in its early days as a public company.

The settlement ends a nearly five-year and “very hard-fought” legal battle between Pluralsight, one of Silicon Slopes’ flagship tech companies, and a group of investors responsible for public employees’ retirement funds in the Midwest, said plaintiff’s lead attorney Carol Gilden at the final settlement hearing Tuesday morning.

The class action lawsuit, first filed in 2019 and revived in 2022, claimed Pluralsight and its founding executives knowingly misled investors about their company’s success, artificially inflated stock prices and cashed out before stock prices plummeted.

The lead plaintiffs in the case are two funds responsible for managing retirement and benefit accounts for public employees in Indiana and Chicago, Illinois. Each fund bought thousands of common stock shares when Pluralsight went public in 2018, according to court documents, and lost millions of dollars as a result.

A federal judge dismissed the claims initially, but an appeals court in Denver revived many of them in 2022. The revived case also names founder and then-CEO Aaron Skonnard, and former Chief Financial Officer James Budge, as defendants.

The Winter 2025 issue of the Shareholder Advocate, our quarterly securities litigation and investor protection newsletter, features:

Download the issue (PDF).

A Colorado federal judge on Friday certified an ERISA class action accusing a radiology company and its trustee of overcharging its employee stock ownership plan for purchase of company stock.

U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, in a 24-page order, granted a motion for class certification by former Envision Management Holding employees Robert Harrison and Grace Heath, who allege that their employee stock ownership plan, or ESOP, was up-charged more than $300 per share for nearly two-thirds of Envision stock.

Judge Sweeney found that the plaintiffs had met their burden of showing common questions among the proposed class, including whether the ESOP paid more than fair market value for company stock, whether each defendant breached fiduciary duties owed to the plan, and whether the plan suffered losses from those breaches, the order says.

The judge also determined that Harrison and Heath’s claims are typical of those of the proposed class members, which are based on the same underlying allegation that the ESOP paid an excessive price of $177 million for Envision stock, according to the order.

She certified a class of about 1,000 “participants in the Envision ESOP on or after September 1, 2017, who vested under the terms of the ESOP,” naming Harrison and Heath as class representatives, and appointing their attorneys at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as class counsel.

“The court finds that Plaintiffs and their counsel will vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the class,” Judge Sweeney said.

. . .

Harrison and Heath are represented by Michelle C. Yau, Caroline E. Bressman and Ryan Wheeler of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.