Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC will represent a proposed class of Perrigo Company PLC investors who allege the company failed to disclose critical issues with infant formula operations that it purchased from Nestlé and caused stock prices to drop as the issues came to light.
In a Friday order in Manhattan federal court, U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett appointed Cohen Milstein lead counsel for the proposed class, finding that the firm’s pension fund client had the greatest financial interest in the suit with about $2.8 million in alleged losses.
“[The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund]’s selected counsel, Cohen Milstein, is an established firm with significant experience representing plaintiffs in complex securities fraud class actions, there is no evidence that Teamsters 710 has interests adverse to the class, and the court is confident that the nearly $2.8 million in claimed losses will motivate Teamsters 710 to vigorously prosecute the case,” Judge Garnett said Friday.
Cohen Milstein’s client beat out three other would-be lead plaintiffs for the chance to represent the class.
. . .
On Tuesday, Carol Gilden, an attorney for the pension fund, told Law360 via email that “We are pleased the court appointed our client Teamster 710 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved the firm as lead counsel.”
“We look forward to pursuing this action and holding Perrigo and its officers accountable for the allegedly false and misleading statements made to investors regarding the company’s infant formula business,” Gilden said.
. . .
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund is represented by Michael Eisenkraft, Carol V. Gilden, Steven J. Toll and Claire Marsden of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Fighters who accuse the Ultimate Fighting Championship of suppressing wages asked a Nevada federal judge to order a third-party talent agency to explain why it should not be held in contempt for violating a discovery order.
The fighters, led by Kajan Johnson, said Dominance MMA LLC has inexplicably refused to comply with an August 2025 court order that directed it to turn over materials responsive to a half-dozen discovery requests.
According to the fighters, Dominance MMA initially went along with agreements related to search terms, lists of devices that could contain responsive materials, and schedules. But it then started to delay and, in early January, indicated it would not produce any materials without a second court order.
…
Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L. Young, Kevin E. Rayhill, Itak Moradi and T. Brent Jordan of Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, Eric L. Cramer, Michael Dell’Angelo, Patrick F. Madden and Joshua P. Davis of Berger Montague PC, Benjamin D. Brown, Richard A. Koffman and Daniel H. Silverman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, W. Joseph Bruckner, Brian D. Clark and Kyle Pozan of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Michael J. Gayan of Clagget & Sykes.
Pegasystems has agreed to pay $7 million to settle three shareholder derivative suits in Massachusetts state and federal courts alleging the software company’s top officials sat on details of a 2020 trade secrets suit that led to a now-overturned $2 billion verdict.
The deal, if approved by judges in the two courts, would resolve claims against Pegasystems founder and CEO Alan Trefler and board members stemming from the suit filed by competitor Appian Corp. in Virginia.Â
The plaintiffs alleged in the three cases that the board’s failure to prevent alleged corporate espionage by Pegasystems employees, and a “corporate culture that encouraged and protected illegal activity and unethical conduct in pursuit of profits,” which led to the lawsuit, eroded the value of the company and their shares.
…
Jayne Birch and Robert Garfield are represented by Richard Speirs of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Peretz Bronstein of Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, Rusty E. Glenn and Brett D. Stecker of Shuman Glenn & Stecker, and Michele Carino of Greenwich Legal Associates LLC.
Former nuclear power plant workers urged a Maryland federal judge not to let Constellation Energy, DTE Energy, Duke Energy, NextEra Energy and others duck a proposed class action alleging a wage-fixing conspiracy that allegedly spanned “100% of the nuclear power generation labor market.”
In a series of opposition briefs filed Friday, the former workers said their amended complaint has all the necessary detail to survive motions to dismiss contesting their allegations of a 23-year conspiracy to “suppress wages, salaries, bonuses, and benefits.” According to their main brief, that includes statements of former human resources executives admitting that the companies discussed and collaborated on compensation, details on the sharing of compensation data and collective bargaining agreements and “parallel conduct” showing pay increases in lockstep.
…
The workers are represented by Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Berger Montague PC and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. must face a trimmed class action pursued by employee 401(k) plan participants alleging mismanagement, an Ohio federal judge ruled in an opinion unsealed Monday, telling the parties to prepare for a bench trial on the surviving claims.
…
Kai H. Richter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, an attorney for the class, in a statement to Law360 on Monday applauded Judge Morrison’s “careful attention to the important issues raised in this case.”
“We are pleased with the court’s ruling denying Nationwide’s motion to exclude our experts and denying its motion for summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction claims for the period at issue,” Richter said. “We wholeheartedly agree with the court’s observation that the ‘dissonance’ in Nationwide’s position ‘demands further exploration,’ and look forward to the upcoming trial.”
…
The class is represented by Kai H. Richter, Michelle C. Yau and Daniel R. Sutter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Eric H. Zagrans of Zagrans Law Firm LLC.
A Missouri federal judge granted final approval for $42 million worth of class action settlements to resolve antitrust claims accusing the National Association of Realtors and multiple brokerages of conspiring to charge home sellers with excessive broker commission fees.
In his order filed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Bough approved settlements for claims lodged against William Raveis Real Estate Inc., Hanna Holdings Inc., Windermere Real Estate Services Company Inc. Exit Realty Corp. International, Exit Realty Corp. USA and William L. Lyon & Associates Inc. after granting preliminary approval back in October 2025.
. . .
The class is represented by Alexander Aiken, Beatrice Franklin, Floyd Short, Marc M. Seltzer and Matthew R. Berry of Susman Godfrey LLP, Robert A. Braun, Daniel H. Silverman and Sabrina Merold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brandon J.B. Boulware and Jeremy M. Suhr of Boulware Law LLC, Eric L. Dirks and Michael A. Williams of Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, Michael S. Ketchmark and Scott A. McCreight of Ketchmark & McCreight PC and Steve W. Berman, Jeannie Evans, Nathan Emmons and Rio Pierce of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Consumer groups pursuing price-fixing allegations against the nation’s leading frozen potato product producers and certain others have urged an Illinois federal judge to let their claims proceed, arguing they’ve plausibly outlined a “classic antitrust story” that should be allowed to enter the evidence-gathering stage.
The plaintiff groups argued Wednesday that they’ve alleged more than enough circumstantial evidence for U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings to infer that the companies commanding 98% of the nation’s frozen potato product market illegally raised their prices during economic hard times, kept them high once those struggles eased and shared sensitive information to help facilitate their scheme.
…
The indirect purchasing consumers are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro LLP.
The Winter 2026 edition of the Shareholder Advocate, our quarterly securities litigation and investor protection newsletter, is now available. This issue features:
- Richard Lorant on investors’ $34 million preliminary settlement with Deloitte over audits of a nuclear energy project
- Benjamin Jackson and Kay Jewler on investors’ lawsuit against Block, parent company of Square and Cash App
- Suzanne Dugan on how pension plan fiduciaries can rededicate themselves the best practices in the new year
- A team profile of Benjamin Brown, Cohen Milstein’s Managing Partner
The Second Circuit on Thursday backed a lower court’s refusal to compel individual arbitration of a former Luxottica worker’s proposed class action alleging pension underpayments, finding she had standing to sue for plan reformation but couldn’t seek monetary payments on the plan’s behalf.
A three-judge panel in a published opinion reversed in part and affirmed in part a New York federal judge’s decision from 2024, saying the trial court was correct to hold that Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims ex-Luxottica worker Janet Duke had brought as a representative of other pension plan participants couldn’t be forced into individual arbitration.
The panel said that, under the appellate court’s 2024 decision in Cedeno v. Sasson, Duke wasn’t compelled to individually arbitrate claims against the eyewear company that were brought under Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, which authorizes individual benefit plan participants to sue for breaches of fiduciary duty.Â
Kai Richter, an attorney for Duke and the proposed class, told Law360 they were “pleased with the court’s decision holding that Ms. Duke has standing to pursue her claim for reformation of the plan under Section 502(a)(2) and that the claim is not subject to individual arbitration. This was a clear victory, and we look forward to pursuing the litigation in the district court.”
The U.S. Department of Labor’s new proposal to require pharmacy benefit managers to give employer-provided health plans detailed information on fees and compensation is a welcome development, benefits attorneys on both sides of the bar say.
The DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration on Friday proposed a rule on fee disclosure targeting PBMs — which are intermediaries between drugmakers, insurers and pharmacies — as well as other affiliated providers of brokerage and consulting services that recommend their services.
If finalized, PBMs would be required to give comprehensive disclosures to managers of self-insured employer-provided group health plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. PBMs would also have to update that information twice a year and upon plan sponsors’ request, and submit to plan audits.
. . .
The proposed rule earned praise from both sides of the employee benefits bar, including attorneys representing workers who point out how retirement plans have benefited from greater sunlight into their service providers’ fees for more than a decade.
“It looks like a positive development, and frankly, one that’s long overdue,” said Kai Richter, a plaintiff-side benefits attorney and of counsel at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Richter said the proposed rule, if finalized, could help fiduciaries of employer-provided health plans monitor the fees they pay health plan service providers.
Even without any policy changes, ERISA plan fiduciaries could ask for some of the information subject to the proposed disclosure requirements contemplated by EBSA’s proposal in contract negotiations, Richter said, including requiring that a PBM must submit to an audit.
“Even under existing law, even before the regulations, it’s abundantly clear that plan fiduciaries have a duty to monitor their PBMs and the compensation they receive, and are subject to liability under ERISA if they fail to do that,” he said.
Even still, the proposal contains some significant exemptions, including by carving out fully insured group health plans, where employers buy coverage through a commercial insurer that pays the claims. The DOL noted in its proposal that they were reserving disclosure obligations for those plans for future action.