The $138.5 million in antitrust settlements that home sellers reached with Realogy Holdings Corp. and Re/Max will also include injunctive relief requiring business-practice changes that aim to add more transparency around the existence and offering of broker commissions, according to the docket and a statement from one of the parties.

Among the business practice changes in the sellers’ $83.5 million deal with Realogy, which now operates as Anywhere Real Estate Inc., and their $55 million deal with Re/Max are requirements that the companies and their affiliated agents refrain from setting any minimum commission requirements and remove software that allows the companies to filter home listings by a broker’s compensation, according to court documents entered last week and a Friday announcement by Anywhere Real Estate.

Anywhere and Re/Max have also agreed to make clear that broker commissions are negotiable and not set by law, advise and remind franchises and affiliated agents of their obligation to show and market properties regardless of the existence or amount of a broker commission, and not to require their franchisees and affiliated agents to join the National Association of Realtors or follow its code of ethics or multiple listing service handbook.

Anywhere’s settlement terms will sunset after five years, while Re/Max’s terms are not subject to a sunset, according to settlement documents.

The details of the real estate companies’ settlements came just weeks after they’d struck a deal in the home sellers’ antitrust cases claiming the NAR, Anywhere, Re/Max and several other real estate companies violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to get higher broker fees by requiring sellers to pay buyer broker commissions.

. . .

In Moehrl, the classes are represented by Susman Godfrey LLP, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Justice Catalyst Law and Teske Katz PLLP.

Read Broker Commission Practices Change In Antitrust Settlements.

Defense contractors General Dynamics (GD.N) and Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII.N) have been sued in U.S. court by naval engineers who allege industry-wide curbs on employee mobility have artificially reduced worker compensation by hundreds of millions of dollars.

The prospective class action lawsuit filed on Friday against General Dynamics, Huntington and various subsidiaries of the two companies alleged a decades-long conspiracy among them and others to refrain from hiring engineers and architects from rival companies. The employees design vessels’ structure, propulsion and other systems.

The “no-poach” agreements at the heart of the case led to what the lawsuit called a “persistent shortage” of qualified naval engineers. Other smaller shipbuilders and some industry consulting firms were also named as defendants.

“The purpose and effect of such agreements is to cheat the highly skilled workers who design the most powerful military fleet in the world out of the competitive wages they deserve,” according to the 75-page complaint in Alexandra, Virginia, federal court.

General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls declined to comment. Lawyers have not yet made appearances for them in the case.

Antitrust lawsuits focused on labor and employment practices have flourished in recent years. In one of the major cases, engineers accused aerospace companies in Connecticut federal court of wage suppression.

The complaint was filed by plaintiffs’ firms including Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; and Handley Farah & Anderson.

The lawsuit is a “fight for fair compensation,” said Robert Cobbs of Cohen Milstein, an attorney for the naval engineers. “Defense contractors have profited from their labor while allegedly suppressing their wages below competitive levels,” he said.

. . .

For plaintiffs: Steven Toll of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Shana Scarlett of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; and George Farah of Handley Farah & Anderson

Read General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls Sued in Engineers’ ‘No Poach’ Lawsuit.

New Jersey was joined in the lawsuit by New York and Georgia. The case was initiated by two doctors, the AG said.

CHERRY HILL, NJ – New Jersey has joined two other states in suing a group of medical centers for allegedly subjecting Medicare and Medicaid recipients to unnecessary surgeries and defrauding both federal health insurance programs, Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said.

New York, New Jersey and Georgia have filed a civil complaint against Fresenius Vascular Care (FVC), one of its New York-based executives, Dr. Gregg Miller, and several affiliates.

According to the suit, FVC scheduled end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients for appointments every three to four months to preserve their dialysis access sites.

At these appointments, FVC sedated the patients and performed invasive procedures on their veins and arteries, putting vulnerable patients at a heightened risk of grave complications, the lawsuit said.

In reality, most of these patients had no problems receiving dialysis and did not need these surgeries, Platkin said.

. . .

The lawsuit comes after a joint investigation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

The case was initiated by two doctors, who are pursuing claims on behalf of 16 additional states pursuant to those states’ false claims acts, Platkin said.

Read Medical Company Gave Patients ‘Unnecessary’ Surgeries, Sued: NJ AG.

WILMINGTON, N.C. (WECT) – A lawsuit against Chemours and DuPont is moving forward after a federal judge granted class action certification to over 100,000 North Carolina residents.

According to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, the residents “allege that The Chemours Company (Chemours) and DuPont Chemical (DuPont) illegally discharged toxic wastewater containing PFAS and GenX chemicals, aka ‘forever chemicals,’ from its Fayetteville Works plant into the Cape Fear River, failed to inform residents, failed to inform government officials after learning of its damaging impacts, and continued these harmful practices for decades. The plaintiffs claim that they unknowingly consumed drinking water contaminated with these chemicals, that they now suffer from and face the risk of serious health problems, and that Chemours and DuPont should pay the cost of eliminating the contamination of these PFAS chemicals from their homes.”

The class certification was granted by United States District Judge James Dever III on Wednesday, Oct. 4.

“The class action was first brought in 2017 in the Eastern District of North Carolina,” the announcement states. “In 2018, Cohen Milstein and Susman Godfrey were court appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel.

“Since filing the case, Cohen Milstein and Susman Godfrey have provided information to DEQ in support of the development and enforcement of the consent order while seeking additional relief through the class action.”

. . .

See the full order.

Watch Lawsuit Against Chemours, DuPont Moves Forward Following Class Action Certification

• Judge rejected arguments that identifying class members will be difficult
• Class attorney says decision brings case closer to trial

A federal judge has allowed more than 100,000 North Carolina residents and property owners to bring claims over toxic water pollution against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co and The Chemours Co (CC.N) as a class action.

U.S. District Judge James Dever in Raleigh on Wednesday certified two classes of plaintiffs that include water utility customers and private well owners near a Chemours-owned chemical plant that they claim dumped wastewater containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, into the Cape Fear River south of Fayetteville for decades.

PFAS are a class of chemicals used in a wide range of consumer products from non-stick pans to fabrics and have been linked to certain cancers and other health problems. In March the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed regulations to address the chemicals, calling them an “urgent public health and environmental issue.”

The plaintiffs sued in 2017, alleging that the 2,000-acre Fayetteville Works chemical plant has discharged massive amounts of PFAS since 1980, polluting more than 100 miles of river, contaminating their drinking water and causing extensive damage to thousands of miles of municipal and residential piping.

The plaintiffs claim that they have developed various diseases associated with PFAS exposure, including cancers and bowel disease, and that counties near the plant have higher rates of some of those diseases than is normal.

The lawsuit seeks punitive and compensatory damages for various things including the cost to install and maintain water filtration systems, the cost of bottled water some residents have been forced to buy and the cost of replacing water pipes and plumbing fixtures.

Dever rejected arguments by the chemical companies that identifying individual class members suing would be too onerous, and arguments that each plaintiff is impacted in unique ways that would require them to sue individually.

Theodore Leopold, an attorney for the class with the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, praised the decision on Thursday, saying it brings the case closer to a trial.

. . .

For the class: Theodore Leopold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; and Stephen Morrissey of Susman Godfrey

Read Judge Greenlights North Carolina PFAS Class Action Against DuPont, Chemours

A unit of UBS Group AG was accused in a New York lawsuit of using deceptive spoof orders to manipulate the shares of a software company that worked on Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign.

Phunware Inc., based in Austin, Texas, sued UBS Securities LLC Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan, alleging it “deliberately engaged in repeated spoofing that interfered with the natural forces of supply and demand” from January 2021 to March 2023, and repeatedly drove the shares lower.

UBS placed “baiting orders” that were never intended to be executed and had “no legitimate economic purpose” other than to create a “false illusion of market interest,” Phunware said in its complaint. UBS quickly canceled those sell orders and executed buy orders once prices fell, the software company said.

Phunware “sold over 34 million shares at manipulated prices as a result of defendant’s actions,” causing “significant losses” from “artificially depressed prices,” according to the suit.

A Colorado federal judge has denied bids by major meat producers to toss a putative class action accusing them of illegally coordinating to keep wages in the red meat industry low.

The decision Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer rejected a joint dismissal motion by a group of meat companies that included JBS USA Food Co., Cargill Inc. and Tyson Foods Inc., along with individual motions to dismiss by many of the same companies.

Meat plant workers sued nearly a dozen meat processors in November, alleging they shared compensation studies and data and worked together to ensure uniform pay policies across the industry in violation of federal antitrust laws.

In one of his orders Wednesday, Judge Brimmer concluded that the meat plant workers had plausibly alleged violations of the Sherman Act by meat processors, noting that they claimed processors capped wage increases in parallel with competitors. Beyond that, Judge Brimmer ruled that by alleging the companies exchanged information, communicating with high-level employees, it was enough to make their allegations plausible.

Judge Brimmer rejected arguments from meat companies that the workers hadn’t plausibly asserted there were anti-competitive effects, finding that “allegations of specific wage suppression provide sufficient support at the pleading stage for plaintiffs’ broader claims of industry-wide wage suppression.”

The judge also found that in regards to Seaboard Foods LLC and Triumph Foods LLC, the motion was moot as they’ve already asked for approval of a settlement. Purdue has also settled claims with workers, including in a similar suit in Maryland.

In another order Wednesday, Judge Brimmer similarly rejected various arguments for why individual companies, such as Smithfield Foods and Hormel, should be able to get out of the case, finding workers’ allegations were detailed enough to allege they were part of the conspiracy to keep wages down.

. . .

The workers are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Berger Montague PC.

Read Major Meat Cos. Must Face Wage-Fixing Suit In Colo.

New York City’s pension funds and Oregon’s state retirement fund sued Fox Corp. and its board of directors on Tuesday, alleging they ignored the risk of Fox News’ persistent false reporting and “chose to invite robust defamation claims” at the expense of the company’s shareholders.

Unlike other media companies that try to minimize their exposure to defamation claims, Fox News promotes political narratives without regard for whether its broadcasts are based on facts or credible sources and chooses to profit from defamation, according to a partial copy of the complaint provided by the New York City Comptroller’s Office.

The full complaint was filed under seal in Delaware state court by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, New York City Board of Education Retirement System, New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, New York City Police Pension Fund, New York City Teachers’ Retirement System and the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund.

. . .

The pension funds are represented by Julie G. Reiser, Molly J. Bowen and Brendan Schneiderman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris and Christopher M. Foulds of Friedlander & Gorris PA, and Katherine L. Benson, Nicholas Diamand and Gabriel Panek of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Read NYC Pensions Say Fox ‘Chose To Invite’ Defamation Suits.

The 2023 Law360 Pulse Women in Law Report names Cohen Milstein a top ranked firm for the number of female attorneys, as well as a “ceiling smasher” for having the highest representation of female equity partners.

Ceiling Smashers – Cohen Milstein is ranked 2^nd in the nation for firms with 101 – 250 attorneys for having the highest representation of female equity partners.

Overall, Cohen Milstein ranks 11^th in the nation for firms with 101 – 250 attorneys for having the highest percentage of female attorneys in the ranks, including:

• 41.5% of all partners are women
• 52.9% of all equity partners are women
• 33.3% of all non-equity partners are women
• 43.3% of all associates are women
• 56.1% of all other lawyers, including of counsel, discovery counsel, and staff attorneys are women

Read How Firms Stack Up On Gender Equity.

Read These Firms Have The Most Women In Equity Partnerships.

Participants in a radiology company’s employee stock ownership plan urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a management-side petition for certiorari seeking to force arbitration of their benefits lawsuit, arguing the Tenth Circuit rightly found a provision in ESOP plan documents unenforceable because it purported to eliminate statutory remedies.

The proposed class of participants in an ESOP for employees of radiology company Envision, led by ESOP participant and former Envision MRI and CT scan technician Robert Harrison, entered a brief on Friday in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit. Defendants named in Harrison’s suit include Envision’s holding company; the company’s ESOP committee, board of directors and individual executives; and ESOP trustee Argent Trust Co. The Supreme Court requested a response from the proposed class after ESOP trustee Argent Trust Co., Envision Management Holding and others overseeing the plan petitioned for certiorari on July 7.

Harrison said in the response brief that petitioners couldn’t justify their bid to overturn a Tenth Circuit decision from February upholding a Colorado district court’s March 2022 arbitration denial in the workers’ case. The suit, first filed in January 2021, accuses the companies and selling shareholders of breaching their duty to participants in the ESOP, an ERISA-protected defined contribution plan created in 2017, by overcharging the plan in a $163.7 million sale of company stock in a transaction approved by Argent.

“They drafted an arbitration clause that purports to eliminate substantive statutory remedies that an individual participant may pursue in court, including removal of a breaching fiduciary. Every court of appeals to consider this particular arbitration clause has invalidated it for that reason, and that reason alone,” the participants said in their 32-page filing.

. . .

Robert Harrison and the proposed class are represented by Bridget C. Asay, Rachana Pathak, John Stokes and Peter K. Stris of Stris and Maher LLP and Michelle C. Yau and Kai H. Richter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Read ESOP Participants Urge Justices to Reject Arbitration Plea.