Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP will represent a proposed class of investors in a suit alleging Jack Dorsey’s fintech company Block Inc. created a “haven for criminal and illicit activities” on its Cash App and Square payment platforms despite touting its anti-money laundering protocols.
In an order filed Wednesday in California federal court, U.S. District Judge Noël Wise appointed the two firms lead counsel in the putative investor class action, finding that their clients, a group of New York City public sector pension funds, had made “made a reasonable choice of counsel.”
Judge Wise said Wednesday she’d initially questioned the need for two firms to co-lead the litigation, but later determined that in this matter, the choice was “sensible” in part because the firms have a track record of working together to represent the New York City funds.
Among other things, the judge referenced the firms’ argument that having counsel based on the East and West coasts would facilitate better communication with the members of a potentially nationwide class. Judge Wise also noted the firms had been selected by their clients in a bidding process and had agreed to “an extremely competitive single rate” for their work on the case.
The investor suit, which launched in January, alleges that in its public statements, Block claimed its anti-money laundering program was designed to keep money laundering, terrorist financing and other illegal activity off the Cash App and Square platforms.
. . .
The investors are represented by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
The Spring 2025 issue of the Shareholder Advocate, our quarterly securities litigation and investor protection newsletter, features:
- Carol V. Gilden and Benjamin F. Jackson on the Bayer securities litigation settlement
- Molly J. Bowen and Richard E. Lorant on changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law
- Richard A. Speirs on Special Litigation Committees in shareholder derivative litigation
- Daniel S. Sommers on the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
- Suzanne M. Dugan’s interview with Andrew Roth, CEO of Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association
Deloitte and a certified class of SCANA Corp. investors told a South Carolina federal judge Tuesday they’ve settled claims accusing the accounting firm of issuing audit reports that misled investors about the progress the utility company was making on a $9 billion nuclear energy expansion project that never came to fruition.
Attorneys for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension Fund and Deloitte & Touche LLP submitted a joint letter to U.S. District Judge Jacquelyn Austin that said they’ve reached an agreement to resolve the case and that they’ll execute a stipulation within the next 30 days, accompanied by the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval.
“Pending effectuation of the settlement, the parties request that the court stay all deadlines,” the April 29 joint letter to Judge Austin said. “The parties will also be filing a joint motion requesting that the Fourth Circuit stay defendants’ appeal of this court’s order granting class certification.”
Tuesday’s letter brings the dispute closer to its end, approximately six years after SCANA Corp. investors accused Deloitte of violating securities laws for failing to warn investors about financial issues plaguing a $9 billion project to build a pair of nuclear reactors in South Carolina that ultimately went nowhere.
The suit alleged that even after outside contractor Bechtel Corp. was hired to assess the project and found problems, those issues were swept under the rug. When the issues were belatedly revealed over time, SCANA’s stock price correspondingly slid, plunging from $76.12 to $37.39 during the class period, the plaintiffs claimed.
The investors further alleged that, as SCANA’s longtime auditor, Deloitte knew about the Bechtel findings and had other information showing the project wouldn’t be completed in time to take advantage of the tax credits.
The crux of the complaint accused Deloitte of fraudulently rendering false audit opinions on two sets of SCANA’s financial statements, which the plaintiffs alleged didn’t disclose construction challenges at the project.
. . .
The investors are represented by William Tinkler of Tinkler Law Firm LLC and Laura H. Posner, Steven J. Toll, Jan Messerschmidt and Margaret Wydman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
The professors allege that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment and federal law when it threatened to use funding cuts as a cudgel to coerce Harvard University to restrict speech and allow government control over teaching and learning
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. — The Harvard Faculty Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the national AAUP have filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration from demanding that Harvard University restrict speech and restructure its core operations or else face the cancellation of $8.7 billion in federal funding for the university and its affiliated hospitals. With Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Selendy Gay PLLC as counsel, the lawsuit alleges that the administration’s demands violate the Constitution without any federal law authorizing their actions.
“The First Amendment does not permit government officials to use the power of their office to silence critics and suppress speech they don’t like,” said Andrew Manuel Crespo, Morris Wasserstein Professor of Law at Harvard University and general counsel of the AAUPHarvard Faculty Chapter. “Harvard faculty have the constitutional right to speak, teach, and conduct research without fearing that the government will retaliate against their viewpoints by canceling grants.”
In March 2025, the chair of President Trump’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced on Fox News that “the academic system in this country has been hijacked by the left, has been hijacked by the Marxists. They have controlled the mindset of our young people . . . and we have to put an end to it.” He further stated, “We’re going to bankrupt these universities. We’re going to take away every single federal dollar.” On March 31, his task force announced a “comprehensive review” of more than $8.7 billion in federal contracts and grants at Harvard University and its affiliates.
Three days later, the task force issued a demand letter outlining “immediate next steps that we regard as necessary for Harvard University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.” The demands included new speech restrictions on campus, the cancellation of all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and a commitment to “full cooperation” with the Department of Homeland Security. Far beyond measures to combat antisemitism on campus, they seek to force the private university to transform its governance to comply with the administration’s agenda.
Last night’s filing argues that the task force and its demands are part of a pretextual effort to to chill universities and their faculty from engaging in any speech, teaching, and research that President Trump disfavors. The professors filing the suit have asked for an immediate temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from cutting off any funding to Harvard University.
“No law in this country permits President Trump to suspend billions of dollars from universities like Penn, Princeton, or Harvard simply because he doesn’t like their policies on transgender athletes, their research on climate change, or the constitutionally protected speech of their students and faculty,” said Nikolas Bowie, Louis D. Brandeis of Law at Harvard University and the secretary-treasurer of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter. “Eliminating discrimination and protecting all students is important. But Trump is defying the Civil Rights Act, terrifying students, and illegally holding hostage grants for hospitals and scientific research so he can accomplish his real goal of punishing academics for our politics.”
“The research and teaching of Harvard faculty have already been chilled by the Trump administration’s attempt to coerce the university into changing its curriculum and governing structure,” said Kirsten Weld, Professor of History at Harvard University and the president of AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter. “If Trump can threaten to withhold billions of dollars from our colleagues unless we stop teaching about diversity and inclusion, he can make the same threat to try and stop us from teaching about science, his critics, or anything else. An academic community cannot freely exist with such a threat hanging over us.”
“The Trump administration’s not so veiled attempt to destroy the freedom to speak, debate, and research on campuses is an attack on democracy and economic mobility,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors. “The harms will be so irreparable that they will last generations. Where university administrators fail to protect our sector, faculty will stand up and fight.”
“Our students and faculty members across the nation are terrified. If the administration’s lawless and unconstitutional attempts to control speech and governance at Harvard are allowed to proceed, then any one of our institutions could be next,” said Veena Dubal, AAUP General Counsel. “The impact would be catastrophic – fundamentally crushing freedom of speech and academic freedom as hallowed ideals in our democracy.”
Read last night’s complaint here.
Read last night’s motion for a temporary restraining order here.
###
The lawsuit is a joint effort of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the AAUP Harvard Faculty Chapter.
About the American Association of University Professors: The mission of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is to advance academic freedom and shared governance; to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education; to promote the economic security of faculty, academic professionals, graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and all those engaged in teaching and research in higher education; to help the higher education community organize to make our goals a reality; and to ensure higher education’s contribution to the common good. Founded in 1915, the AAUP has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country’s colleges and universities.
The parent company of Silvergate Bank has asked a Delaware bankruptcy judge to approve a new deal to settle a securities class action for $37.5 million and resolve a slew of indemnification issues in its Chapter 11, a resolution that the debtor said would save it potentially millions of dollars in legal fees.
In a motion filed Tuesday, Silvergate Capital Corp. urged the court to greenlight a two-pronged global settlement addressing the securities lawsuit and its obligations to indemnify executives and others.
The deal calls for Silvergate to pay $37.5 million to plaintiffs in a class action alleging the collapsed cryptocurrency-focused bank failed to vet its customers, including FTX, and misrepresented its commitment to regulatory compliance before a run on the bank in late 2022. About $27.5 million of the settlement amount would be paid using Silvergate’s remaining directors and officers insurance coverage.
. . .
The securities litigation class is represented by Carol V. Gilden, Steven J. Toll, Jan Messerschmidt, Brendan Schneiderman and Christina Saler of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Jonathan D. Uslaner, Lauren M. Cruz and John Rizio-Hamilton of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.
RealPage Inc. and 10 of New Jersey’s largest landlords are colluding to raise rents in violation of state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws, forcing Garden State residents to overpay for housing, Attorney General Matt Platkin claimed Wednesday in a federal lawsuit.
Platkin alleges the defendants conspired to set rents in New Jersey using the company’s algorithms, exchanging private data to align prices and stifle competition. Filed under seal in New Jersey federal court, the complaint charges violations of the Sherman Act, the New Jersey Antitrust Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
“The defendants in this case unlawfully lined their pockets at the expense of New Jersey renters who struggled to pay the increasingly unlivable price levels imposed by this cartel,” Platkin said in a news conference Wednesday. “Today we’re holding them accountable for unlawful conduct that fueled the state’s affordable housing crisis and deprived New Jerseyans of their fundamental right to shelter.”
Garden State average rents are among the highest in the nation and New Jersey has a shortage of more than 200,000 affordable rental homes, the attorney general said. He added that landlords named in the complaint control a significant portion of rental properties.
“This case is about restoring competition to New Jersey’s multifamily housing market and state residents’ right to competitive rental rates,” Platkin and the acting director of the Division of Consumer Affairs, Jeremy E. Hollander, said in the 78-page complaint.
In many cases, landlords did not tell potential tenants about their use of the pricing software, the lawsuit said. In other instances, landlords told lease applicants that the software was used to calculate the market rate of the units but did not reveal that the software was intended to maximize rents.
. . .
Representing the state of New Jersey are Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, Assistant Attorney General Brian F. McDonough, Deputy Attorneys General David Reichenberg, Jesse J. Sierant, Leslie Prentice and Blair Gerold, and Brent Johnson, Emmy L. Levens, Robert A. Braun and Aaron J. Marks of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
A proposed class of nearly 2,000 Intel Corp. retirees urged a California federal judge on Monday to certify the retirees’ Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims alleging Intel relied on outdated mortality assumptions when it converted their single life annuities to a joint and survivor design, resulting in lower payouts.
Although lead plaintiff Gregg Berkeley initially filed a redacted version of the class certification motion in January, he filed an unredacted motion Monday. The unredacted motion asked U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila to certify a class of plan participants and their beneficiaries who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity that is less than the value of the single life annuity using the relevant interest rates and mortality tables as required under ERISA with an annual stability and August look-back period.
The motion also asked Judge Davila to appoint Berkeley as class representative and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and University of San Diego Law School professor Shaun Martin as class counsel.
The certification fight is the latest development in a lawsuit Berkeley filed in January 2023, alleging Intel and the plan’s administrative committee violated multiple ERISA provisions by underpaying pension benefits to married retirees under the Intel Minimum Pension Plan.
Under ERISA, joint and survivor annuities for married retirees must be “actuarially equivalent” to single life annuities paid to single retirees, and therefore, pension plan administrators must use certain “reasonable actuarial factors” to convert SLA payments to JSA payments, according to the lawsuit.
. . .
Berkeley is represented by Michelle C. Yau, Daniel R. Sutter, Caroline E. Bressman and Allison C. Pienta of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and by Shaun P. Martin.
Oregon’s attorney general on Friday sued crypto exchange Coinbase and called on states to fill the “enforcement vacuum left by federal regulators” like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which have dropped cases under the Trump administration.
The lawsuit, filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, claims Coinbase created and operated an exchange that supports the sale of unregistered securities, “or in other words, risky investments,” state Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a public statement.
Among other things, the suit alleges that assets for sale on the Coinbase exchange “are vulnerable to pump-and-dump schemes and fraud, which often end in devastating losses for investors,” Rayfield’s office said in a press release. One such asset plunged almost 99% since it was launched on Coinbase, from $700 to about $7 a share, the office said.
The complaint also claims Coinbase reaped millions of dollars in fees while Oregon residents suffered losses.
. . .
Oregon is represented by assistant attorney general Brian A. de Haan and trial and special assistant attorneys general Keil M. Mueller, Jennifer S. Wagner, Yoona Park, Norjmoo Battulga of Keller Rohrback LLP and special assistant attorneys general Julie G. Reiser, Margaret Wydman and Christopher J. Bateman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s revival of Cornell University workers’ class action alleging excessive retirement plan fees will likely spur a rise in lawsuits zeroing in on employers’ arrangements with recordkeepers and other service providers, and could make those cases tougher to knock out of court, attorneys say.
Thursday’s unanimous decision breathed new life into allegations that costly plan recordkeepers caused transactions that are prohibited under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, reversing a district court’s dismissal from 2017 that a Second Circuit panel had affirmed in 2023. The court rejected Cornell’s argument that in order to advance a prohibited transaction claim under ERISA, workers had to plead elements of a prohibited transaction as well as pleading that their employer did not meet the conditions of an exemption.
Justice Sotomayor’s opinion said that reading was backed by ERISA’s text and court precedent.
. . .
Michelle Yau, who chairs the employee benefits and ERISA practice at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, complimented the decision: “I love the fact that it was a nice, crisp, clear holding to compare it to Hughes,” she said, referring to the Supreme Court’s Thursday decision compared to its 2022 ruling on ERISA pleading standards in Hughes v. Northwestern. In Hughes, the justices revived Northwestern employee retirement plan participants’ suit alleging mismanagement after concluding a district court erred in dismissing claims over allegedly imprudent investment options because better options were also offered in their plans.
Yau said the court’s ruling that workers don’t have to plead around exemptions to prohibited transactions in ERISA was “incredibly relevant” to active class action litigation.
“We really did need the Supreme Court to make clear what the law is,” Yau said. She pushed back on characterizations from the defense that the high court’s reversal would spur a “monsoon” in new class actions being filed against employers, but said she expected motion practice to speed up.
“I don’t actually think it’s going to create more litigation. I think it’s actually just going to be helpful for the courts to dispense with Rule 12 motions quickly, because before you were seeing them sit,” sometimes for a year or longer, Yau said. “I just think they’re going to move much more efficiently,” she added.
A class of drivers alleging a medical transportation services company didn’t pay full wages succeeded on its claim that the firm is a general contractor to other companies that directly employed the drivers, but failed to show the firm was the workers’ joint employer, a D.C. federal judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta granted the drivers’ motion for summary judgment Friday as it pertained to Medical Transportation Management Inc.’s status as a general contractor, but denied the motion as to the drivers’ claims that MTM was their joint employer.
The class of hundreds of drivers alleged that MTM — which contracts with D.C. to deliver nonemergency medical transportation services to Medicaid recipients — paid them a flat rate that regularly fell below the legally required minimum wage and failed to pay them overtime wages.
The drivers said MTM did not directly employ them, but the company has many subcontractor transportation service providers, or TSPs, that in turn employ the class of drivers who take patients to and from their medical appointments.
. . .
The drivers are represented by Wendy Liu and Michael T. Kirkpatrick of Public Citizen Litigation Group and Harini Srinivasan and Joseph M. Sellers of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.