Two Johnson & Johnson units have agreed to pay $65 million to settle a proposed antitrust class action by health plans and others claiming they were overcharged for the pulmonary hypertension drug Tracleer.
The plaintiffs, including the Government Employees Health Association and other entities that paid or provided reimbursement for their members’ use of Tracleer, alleged in their lawsuit that the drugmakers delayed competition for a generic version of the medication.
Sharon Robertson, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said the settlement will provide “meaningful relief” for the class of so-called third-party payors that purchased Tracleer and its generic version over the span of nearly a decade.
The settlement covers Tracleer purchases in 31 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico between December 2015 and September 2024.
For plaintiffs: Sharon Robertson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; and Thomas Sobol of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
A family-owned Nebraska bank has agreed to pay $2.4 million to resolve its part in a MOVEit software security incident affecting customers’ personal data, according to a consumer’s bid for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement in Massachusetts federal court.
Settlement class representative Paul F. Bender moved Tuesday for an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement agreement between himself and Union Bank and Trust Co., headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska, in the multidistrict litigation over the May 2023 cyberattack on Progress Software Corp.’s MOVEit file-transfer software.
…
The plaintiffs are represented by Kristen A. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague PC, Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter LLP, Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP.
Cushman & Wakefield mismanaged its employee retirement plan by ignoring “glaring red flags” in its selection of an underperforming fund that exposed investors to climate-related risks, according to what the plaintiff’s counsel called a “first-of-its-kind” class action that accuses the commercial estate firm of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Cushman breached its duties as a fiduciary when it selected the Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund “in spite of numerous glaring red flags, including chronic underperformance, [and] dangerous aggregation of climate change-related financial risk,” resulting in losses to employee retirement savings, according to the complaint filed Tuesday in Seattle federal court by 401(k) participant Renee Kvek.
…
Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC’s ERISA and employee benefits practice and counsel for Kvek, said the suit is a “first-of-its-kind legal challenge under ERISA” that “will hopefully show 401(k) plans that the financial risks associated with climate cannot be ignored.”
…
Kvek and the proposed class are represented by Jay Rossiter, Kimberly Blake and Benjamin Segal of Client Earth USA Inc. and Michelle C. Yau, Daniel R. Sutter and Ryan A. Wheeler of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Deloitte & Touche LLP‘s $34 million class settlement with Scana Corp. investors who sued to hold the auditor liable for nuclear reactor project losses is fair, a federal court said in granting final approval.
Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin of the US District Court for the District of South Carolina also approved a more than $6 million fee for the investors’ attorneys, one-third of the settlement amount. Austin’s orders Monday bring an end to the six-year-old litigation in which Deloitte sought review of class certification at the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and reached a settlement while the appeal was pending.
Laura Posner, who represents the investors and is a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, hailed the settlement as particularly important in the context of the Securities and Exchange Commission “scaling back” the power of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The case, and its settlement, show “the power institutional investors wield in holding auditors accountable and safeguarding our capital markets,” she said.
“In addition to being one of the top five auditor settlements in the last decade and ever in the District of South Carolina, this case sets important legal precedent for establishing liability against auditors,” Posner said. “It is rare for auditor cases to withstand motions to dismiss, let alone achieve class certification.”
The case even went to a full briefing for summary judgment, she said.
. . .
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is lead counsel for the investors. Milbank LLP and Moore & Van Allen PLLC represent Deloitte LLP and Deloitte & Touche.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to resolve a multi-circuit conflict regarding the standard for issuing collective action notice could lead to forum shopping, some attorneys said, while others said the justices’ refusal to tackle whether out-of-state workers can join collectives will rein in such efforts.
The high court’s Monday related certiorari denials in Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc. v. Andrew Harrington et al. and Andrew Harrington et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc. stemmed from the same Ninth Circuit decision. This left intact four different approaches across circuits to issuing notice in proposed collective actions and also the view of numerous circuits that only in-state workers can join a collective unless it is brought where the defendant is headquartered or incorporated.
…
“Between this and the Eli Lilly ruling, they’re crystal clear that they don’t want to weigh in on this question at this point in time,” said Rebecca Ojserkis of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, who represents workers. “There’s a four-way circuit split, so it’s not the case that this hasn’t really bubbled up to the courts of appeals yet.”
…
But when considering the two issues taken together, forum-shopping by workers seems less likely, Cohen Milstein’s Ojserkis said.
“It means that the standard for notice to issue … will vary based on where the suit is brought, and where the suit is brought is going to largely hinge, if it’s a nationwide collective, on where the employer has chosen to make its headquarters or to be incorporated,” she said.
“It’s not the case that workers are going to be able to cherry-pick where in the country they want to file their nationwide collective action because of the personal jurisdiction ruling that the Ninth Circuit and many other circuits also reached,” she said. One potential way around this debate is that some state legislatures have considered or passed “registration by consent” legislation saying that if a company has registered to do business in their state, the company has consented to more specific personal jurisdiction. “That, I think, is a potentially different way that courts might have to address this issue, if state legislatures start passing more of those laws,” Ojserkis said.
The full Ninth Circuit ruled on Friday that Congress’ 2023 bill clarifying civil liability for companies that “attempt to benefit” from human trafficking retroactively applies to a group of Cambodian workers’ lawsuit against a California importer, overturning a district court’s refusal to vacate the importer’s 2017 summary judgment win.
The en banc panel’s majority opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber reversed the California federal court’s decision to uphold Rubicon Resources LLC’s summary judgment win after Congress in 2023 passed the Abolish Trafficking Reauthorization Act, which clarified that defendants are civilly liable under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act “when they attempt to benefit, but do not succeed in benefiting, from human trafficking.”
. . .
On Friday, the en banc majority held that the ATRA “was not simply labeled ‘clarifying’; it actually clarified an ambiguous statute,” noting that the TVPRA had been subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. It also was the subject of a circuit split, with two circuits concluding that civil liability attaches for attempting to benefit from human trafficking and the Ninth Circuit earlier holding the opposite.
In addition, following the workers’ unsuccessful appeals to the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, Congress “acted swiftly” to pass the ATRA, “adding the precise words that we had held were missing the statute,” the majority said.
“That timeline strongly suggests that Congress acted to resolve the disagreement between circuit courts and to correct [the 2022 panel’s] error,” it said. “Congress’ speed and its minimal discussion strongly suggest that Congress intended to clarify retroactively what the law already meant, not to make a substantive change in the law.”
The majority held that the district court erred in denying the workers’ bid to overturn Rubicon’s summary judgment win and remanded the case for further proceedings.
. . .
Agnieszka M. Fryszman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, representing the workers, told Law360 on Friday,” We are grateful for the Ninth Circuit’s careful review. Our clients’ claims fall within the core protections of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and they are looking forward to proving their claims at trial.”
. . .
The workers are represented by Agnieszka M. Fryszman, Madeleine Gates, Emily Ray and Nicholas J. Jacques of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Paul L. Hoffman, Catherine Sweetser and John C. Washington of Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP and Dan Stormer of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is making extensive changes in the auditing and accounting fields as it continues to deregulate and shows greater openness to cryptocurrency investing in the Trump administration.
. . .
Atkins and the Commission have already acted on an overhaul of the PCAOB, naming a new chairman, Demetrios Logothetis and three other board members, last month. They are expected to move the PCAOB to a more industry-friendly approach, while also accepting a steep reduction in compensation.
Atkins and SEC chief accountant Kurt Hohl discussed some of the changes at an AICPA conference in December, where they pointed to the need for PCAOB inspections to focus more on a firm’s overall system of quality management as opposed to deficiencies in specific audits. Atkins wants accountants and auditors to “get back to basics,” focusing on integrity, objectivity and professional skepticism. But the new approach toward deregulation could be a problem for investors.
“It is not often that you see the industry and all various interested parties agreeing that those moves are a bad idea,” said Laura Posner, a partner at Cohen Milstein’s Securities and Investor Protection practice. “I think there is real merit to ensuring that the PCAOB conducts audits, that it has independence, that it is reviewing the independence of auditors. And I think even the industry recognizes that, even if they disagree with the specifics of how audits have proceeded in the past, and they want perhaps some clarity or specificity, or more definitive answers at the end of a given audit. But my understanding is even the industry thinks that there is real value in having an independent PCAOB conduct these types of reviews, and that’s not surprising to me. I don’t think the auditing industry wants a replay of what led up to the creation of the PCAOB back when we were dealing with WorldCom and Enron and the destruction of Arthur Andersen. I think they’ve recognized that the changes that have been made have been largely really beneficial and helpful in ensuring that not only the auditors but the issuers are acting more appropriately.”
Since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the establishment of the PCAOB, she noted there are fewer financial restatements now by companies. “When there are restatements, they are typically much smaller on average than they used to be,” Posner added. “The success of these changes has been borne out by the evidence. All the participants don’t see any reason to go back to the laissez faire world in which we were all operating that led to those huge scandals.”
Posner has led several shareholder and auditor class-action lawsuits, including a $1 billion lawsuit against Wells Fargo, a $35 million lawsuit against KPMG, and a $34 million settlement in a case involving Deloitte that recently received preliminary approval from the court.
“We just settled, at least preliminarily, litigation against Deloitte for its audits of SCANA, which was a big electricity company in South Carolina,” said Posner in an interview last month. “It was one of the largest frauds ever in South Carolina history, and we just resolved that case. There were a number of these issues that actually kind of came up. The conflict of interest rules were really interesting to look at, specifically with regard to what we alleged there. We had a situation where Deloitte made up all of the executives of SCANA, who were former Deloitte people. It had been SCANA’s auditor for I think 70 years. On top of that, Deloitte had been auditing SCANA, but also had been auditing or doing consulting work for all of the various entities that were involved in this humongous project, and we allege that they knew information from those audits and that consulting work that were relevant to their audits here. It plays into my thinking about the conflict of interest rules and what they should look like and why they matter.”
She believes it’s important for the SEC to continue to enforce rules designed to prevent conflicts of interest between clients and auditors.
“That is clearly a 360 from what was being contemplated during the last administration,” said Posner. “If anything, the conflict of interest rules need to be strengthened, not watered down. And I think that’s particularly true given the proliferation and expansion of the consulting arms, for lack of a better word, of all of these Big Four accounting firms. There are real considerations that should be put into place beyond those dealing with conflicts of interest, for example, situations in which you have a given auditor not only auditing the company, the issuer that is the subject of the audit, but also doing consulting work or other audit type work for related entities that impact that issuer, and I really think that is an area that has not been explored nearly enough, and would have real material impacts on the quality of the audits that are conducted.”
With an increase in labor trafficking litigation, this article provides an overview of recent examples as well as the elements needed to prove a claim. With this knowledge, companies can implement proper policies and procedures to defend against a labor trafficking allegation, should one arise.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581–1597, is a federal statute addressing human trafficking, including labor trafficking and forced labor. While the TVPRA initially focused on criminal liability for traffickers, Congress expanded its reach to include a civil remedy for victims. Especially important is the “beneficiary” or “venture” liability provision, which allows victims to bring civil actions not only against direct perpetrators but also against entities that knowingly benefit from participation in ventures that engage in trafficking or forced labor.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), a victim may bring a civil action against “the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits, or attempts or conspires to benefit, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter).” This provision has become a focal point for litigation against companies alleged to have benefitted from labor trafficking in their supply chains or through contractors.
Recent trends in labor trafficking lawsuits
The last few years have seen a surge in Section 1595 litigation targeting companies for alleged labor trafficking in their supply chains.
Examples include:
- Doe v. Starbucks (United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-01261): Plaintiffs alleged that Starbucks knowingly benefited from forced labor and trafficking on Brazilian coffee farms, citing deceptive recruitment, debt bondage, and abusive working conditions. The complaint emphasized Starbucks’ long-term relationship with a supplier cooperative and alleged that Starbucks’ monitoring program was ineffective. Starbucks has until Sept. 1, 2025, to file a Motion to Dismiss.
- Bumble Bee Foods (United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:25-cv-00583): Indonesian migrant fishers alleged that Bumble Bee Foods benefited from forced labor and human trafficking on tuna fishing vessels supplying the U.S. market. The complaint detailed physical violence, debt bondage, and wage theft, and referenced widespread reports of forced labor in the global tuna industry. Bumble Bee Foods moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 2, 2025.
. . .
Knowledge, actual or constructive
The TVPRA requires that the defendant knew or should have known that the venture engaged in trafficking or forced labor. Courts have found that the knowledge must relate to the specific venture at issue, not to the industry or region as a whole. In Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood, 35 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022) the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “sweeping generalities about the [relevant] industry are too attenuated to support an inference that [the defendant] knew or should have known of the specifically alleged TVPRA violations at the [relevant facility].”
The court rejected the notion that evidence, such as government and NGO reports about widespread labor abuses in the Thai shrimp industry, was sufficient to establish knowledge that the defendant knew or should have known about abuses at the particular factory at issue.
Cohen Milstein’s benefits team struck a $14.75 million deal with Citgo to end an outdated mortality data suit and secured a $7.9 million settlement in a 401(k) mismanagement case, earning the firm a place among the 2025 Law360 Benefit Groups of the Year.
Michelle Yau, who chairs Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC’s employee benefits and ERISA practice group, pointed to the $7.9 million settlement her team secured with George Weiss Associates Inc. that was finalized in September 2025 as one of the practice group’s most impressive achievements of the year.
She chose it not only because the recovery was so strong — class members walked away with whopping individual payouts estimated at an average of $26,000 each — but because she had never before dealt with the mix of allegations at play.
A class of retirees accused the hedge fund and owner George A. Weiss of not only investing their savings into risky funds, but also of funneling 100% of its employees’ retirement savings into its proprietary funds, which Yau said created an unprecedented mix of mismanagement, diversification and self-dealing issues.
As the case was being litigated, the hedge fund and its owner also declared bankruptcy. This created another challenge for Yau and her team — having to go before the bankruptcy court in order to ensure her clients saw a recovery. Ultimately, she said, she successfully convinced a judge that her clients deserved payment under an insurance policy, amid other creditors also seeking payment.
“I appeared before two different bankruptcy judges explaining what our claims were and how we needed to preserve them for the class,” Yau said. “To state the obvious, I’m not a bankruptcy lawyer. But I definitely feel like after this experience, I could at least play one on TV.”
Yau also highlighted her clients’ $14.75 million recovery, finalized in January 2025, in a class action claiming Citgo Petroleum Corp. shorted retirees on benefit payouts by using outdated mortality data from the 1970s to calculate how much they were owed. This incorrect data informed how Citgo converted retirees’ single life annuity benefits to joint and survivor annuity benefits, which would provide payments to a retiree’s spouse in the event of their death, the retirees claimed.
Those who retired within six years of the lawsuit’s filing recovered 87% of their estimated losses — double the highest recovery rate secured in any similar mortality data case so far, the firm said. Yau said this outcome was particularly rewarding because while the claims behind the case were fairly simple, the math used to assess the pension calculations is complicated and difficult for the average worker to sort out on their own.
“I personally, and my team, feel very comfortable fighting through the numbers to see how retirees are getting underpaid, and then proving that to the court if need be,” Yau said. “I think that’s why these cases are so meaningful to us, because we can see clear as day the underpayment.”
Yau said her team, as demonstrated in the Citgo case, doesn’t bluff when they prepare for trial in these complex ERISA cases. The class struck a deal with Citgo just weeks before the case was set to go to a bench trial. Yau said she thinks the strength of the settlements the benefits practice group has been able to secure for her clients is the direct result of her team’s commitment to try these cases in an area of law where trials don’t often take place.
That commitment also sets Cohen Milstein’s benefits group apart from its competitors, she said.
“We just work harder than anyone else,” Yau said. “We leave everything out on the field.”
A certified class of participants in a barbecue company’s employee stock ownership program is seeking assurance that a $15 million settlement among the U.S. Department of Labor, the company’s executives and the ESOP’s caretaker won’t affect a coming trial on the matter.
The certified class in the W BBQ Holdings Inc. ESOP filed a letter Monday in its Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit requesting assurance from the court. The letter requests information about the DOL’s consent order and judgment in a different enforcement case, which the DOL separately docketed Friday. U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote signed off on the deal on Tuesday.
The DOL filed an enforcement case in December 2024 against Argent Trust Co. and Herbert Wetanson and Gregor Wetanson, the president and vice president of W BBQ Holdings Inc., aimed at the same $99 million private stock purchase by the ESOP in 2016 that the certified class targeted in 2022 with its suit. The consent judgment proposed Friday came after the DOL, Argent and the executives told the court Jan. 30 they’d reached a deal to end the case.
The class, which won certification in May, asked in its letter filed Monday for the court to confirm that the deal wouldn’t bar it from bringing claims in their dispute.
. . .
The class is represented by Michelle C. Yau, Daniel R. Sutter, Caroline E. Bressman, Elizabeth McDermott, Michael Eisenkraft and Ryan A. Wheeler of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.