Shareholders claimed the bank and its past leadership were moving slower to address regulatory issues than they acknowledged publicly
Wells Fargo agreed to pay shareholders $1 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the bank of overstating its progress in cleaning up after its 2016 fake-accounts scandal.
The bank’s shareholders alleged Wells Fargo and its past leadership misled them about how swiftly they were fixing the governance issues and risk-management systems that failed to prevent the bank from opening up perhaps millions of phony accounts.
After the 2016 scandal led to a series of regulatory rebukes, the bank moved slower to address the problems than it suggested publicly, the plaintiffs alleged. When the sluggish pace became clear in 2020, the plaintiffs said, stock-price declines cost shareholders, including mutual funds and pension funds.
The preliminary settlement, outlined in a court filing Monday night, still must be approved in the coming months. It would likely be the 17th-largest settlement in a class action brought by shareholders, according to the filing.
“Wells Fargo betrayed the trust of Rhode Island pensioners and now is rightly facing consequences because of that,” James A. Diossa, general treasurer of Rhode Island, whose pension fund is a co-lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement.
The complete story can be read on The Wall Street Journal (subscription required).
Agreement resolves 22-year-old case ahead of trial this month
Exxon Mobil has reached a settlement with Indonesian villagers who sued the oil giant more than 20 years ago for alleged human-rights abuses by contract soldiers hired to guard the company’s operations in Aceh province.
The settlement, announced in a court filing Monday, comes ahead of a widely anticipated trial that was scheduled to begin May 24. The villagers sued in U.S. court in 2001, alleging the soldiers committed atrocities including sexual assault, torture, and murder at or near ExxonMobil’s large natural gas operations in the Arun field.
Terms of the agreement weren’t disclosed.
Agnieszka Fryszman, lead counsel for 11 villagers who were plaintiffs, said, “We are so pleased that now, on the eve of trial, we were able to secure a measure of justice for them and their families.”
“We represented women and children who saw their fathers shot to death, a woman who was forced to jump up and down repeatedly while eight months pregnant and then sexually assaulted, and men who were detained and subjected to electric shocks, burned, and had graffiti scored on their backs with a knife,” Ms. Fryszman said.
Eleven Acehnese villagers who admit they or their families experienced horrific violence more than 20 years ago have received financial compensation from ExxonMobil ahead of a human rights trial due to begin later this month.
In a case filed for lawsuit in 2001 in the Washington DC District Court, United States of America, 11 residents of the village accused ExxonMobil of hiring Indonesian soldiers to maintain security in their operational areas.
Residents however accuse the soldiers of abusing their authority and committing horrific abuses against villagers and their families, including murder, torture, sexual violence and kidnapping.
During this period, ExxonMobil reported one of the largest corporate profits in the world.
“Our client, 11 villagers, bravely faced one of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world and kept fighting for more than 20 years. We are very happy that, at the time of going to court, we were able to get justice for them and their families,” said Agnieszka Fryszman, attorney for the plaintiffs and chief advisor to the Human Rights unit, law firm Cohen Milstein.
“We represent the women and children who saw their fathers shot dead, a woman who was forced to repeatedly jump up and down while eight months pregnant and then sexually abused, and men who were detained and electrocuted, burned, and had their backs smeared with knife,” added Agnieszka.
The 11 villagers – whose identities have been kept secret and who are identified as Jane and John Doe – admit to experiencing severe torture including beatings, rape, shooting and causing death (their family members) by Indonesian soldiers hired by the US oil company, in the 1999- 2003 ago.
They are actually ready to go to Washington DC and testify in a United States court in early June in a case called John Doe Vs ExxonMobil. In fact, videos of witnesses to the violence that have been recorded have also been prepared to be heard in court with this jury system.
Their identities remain confidential and the amount of compensation is also not specified for their safety.
Eleven Indonesian villagers from Aceh province have reached a confidential financial settlement with oil giant ExxonMobil.
The villagers have been at the centre of a two-decade long legal battle over alleged human rights abuses.
They say they endured torture, sexual assault, and beatings by Indonesian soldiers contracted by ExxonMobil.
. . .
A trial was scheduled to begin at the end of this month in Washington, DC but has been averted due to the settlement.
The plaintiffs, identified only as Jane and John Doe for their safety, said they were satisfied with the outcome. One of the villagers said that while the victory cannot bring back their loved ones, it represents the justice they fought for over the past two decades.
Agnieszka Fryszman, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, praised their bravery in taking on one of the world’s largest and most profitable corporations. She expressed satisfaction in securing a measure of justice for the plaintiffs and their families, and highlighted the egregious acts they endured.
. . .
Michel Paradis, a lecturer at Columbia Law School, who was not involved in the case, described the outcome as momentous. “Exxon and its lawyers threw everything they could at them, and they overcame it. That is a testament not simply to their perseverance, but to the justness of their cause.”
“They and their lawyers should take tremendous satisfaction in the fact that they not only succeeded in getting accountability for what was done to them, but that they helped advance a sea change of reform to the way corporations govern themselves that will prevent things like this from happening again.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com
American Antitrust Institute and Cohen Milstein Announce Winners of Jerry S. Cohen Award for Antitrust Scholarship
Annual award recognizes outstanding contributions to antitrust scholarship
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In recognition of their outstanding contribution to antitrust scholarship, the authors listed below have been selected as recipients of the 21st Annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award:
- Gopal Das Varma, Vice President, Charles River Associates
- Martino De Stefano, Principal, Charles River Associates
- Erik Hovenkamp, Associate Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law
The award will be presented during the gala luncheon at the American Antitrust Institute’s 24th Annual Policy Conference: Taking Stock of Antitrust’s Pro-Enforcement Movement on May 23, 2023 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
The authors will be honored for their respective articles:
“Entry Deterrence, Concentration, and Merger Policy,” 61 Review of Industrial Organization 199 (2022), by Das Varma, G. De Stefano, M.: In merger enforcement, entry is considered to be a factor that potentially can mitigate otherwise anti-competitive effects of a merger. The current framework for entry analysis evaluates whether potential entrants are likely to have the incentives and ability to enter the industry under the conditions of elevated profitability that are created by an anti-competitive merger. The article argues that missing from entry analysis is the notion that incumbent firms may proactively deter entry and how such incumbent incentives may change as a result of a merger. By modeling entry as the outcome of a game between incumbents and potential entrants, they show that a merger can reduce the likelihood of entry even at elevated profit levels by increasing incumbent incentives to invest in entry deterrence. Through this model, the authors offer two policy implications for merger enforcement.
“The Antitrust Duty to Deal in the Age of Big Tech,” 131 Yale L.J. 1483 (2022), by Hovenkamp, E.: The rise of dominant platforms like Google, Facebook, and Amazon has provoked intense debate over whether the antitrust duty to deal needs a revival. Many such platforms are accused of refusing to deal with (or discriminating against) rivals in adjacent markets. The article argues that any effective reform to the antitrust duty to deal must begin by disentangling two distinct lines of refusal cases. Subjecting these cases to different liability standards would help to address many of the key concerns raised on both sides of the debate. The justifications for this approach, the author argues, are manifold.
The three winners of the two articles will share the $12,400 prize. Each winner will also receive a specially commissioned and inscribed artwork by Lori Milstein, artist and daughter of Herb Milstein, co-founder of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
This year’s award selection committee consisted of Zachary Caplan, Trial Attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division; Warren Grimes, Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School; John Kirkwood, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law; Roger Noll, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Stanford University; Leslie Marx, Professor of Economics at Duke Fuqua School of Business; Robert Lande, Professor of Law at University of Baltimore School of Law; Daniel H. Silverman, Partner at Cohen Milstein; and Daniel A. Small, Of Counsel at Cohen Milstein. (Professor Marx and Professor Kirkwood recused themselves from deliberations relating to their own articles.)
About the Award
The Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award was created through a trust established in memory of Jerry S. Cohen, an outstanding trial lawyer and antitrust scholar. The award is administered by the law firm he founded, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
The award honors the best antitrust writing published during the prior year that is consistent with the values that animated Jerry S. Cohen’s professional life — a genuine concern for economic justice, the dispersal of economic power, effective limitations upon economic power, and the vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws.
About Cohen Milstein
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, handling high-profile and often precedent-setting litigation. With over 100 attorneys across the country, Cohen Milstein has offices in Washington, DC, Chicago, IL, New York, NY, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Philadelphia, PA, Raleigh, NC, Boston, MA and Minneapolis, MN. For more information, call 202.408.4600.
About the American Antitrust Institute
The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) is an independent, nonprofit organization devoted to promoting competition that protects consumers, businesses, and society. AAI serves the public through research, education, and advocacy on the benefits of competition and the use of antitrust enforcement as a vital component of national and international competition policy. For more information, visit www.antitrustinstitute.org or call (202) 828-1226.
Walmart Inc. and Energizer Holdings Inc. schemed to artificially inflate disposable battery prices in violation of antitrust and consumer protection laws, according to at least three proposed class actions filed against them in California.
San Fernando, California-based Portable Power Inc. claims Walmart, the largest disposable battery retailer in the U.S., and Energizer, the largest maker of disposable batteries sold in the U.S., agreed to the scheme in early 2018 to slow price declines because of “a dismal market outlook” for disposable battery products.
According to the suit, Energizer agreed to inflate the wholesale prices it charged Portable Power and other direct-purchase retailers and require them to charge customers at least the same price charged by Walmart, which had agreed to give Energizer products preferential treatment in its stores.
The scheme benefited both Energizer and Walmart, Portable Power said in its proposed class action, filed on Friday.
“Energizer agreed to inflate its wholesale prices to Walmart’s competitors. That enabled Energizer to enjoy inflated prices,” Portable Power said. “It also enabled Walmart to artificially inflate its retail prices for Energizer battery products without being undercut by other retail sellers.”
The arrangement saw Energizer raising its wholesale prices for batteries and Walmart increasing some prices by nearly 20% in the third quarter of 2019 and nearly 40% by the first quarter of 2020, with Energizer continuing to raise prices in 2020 and 2021, according to Portable Power.
. . .
The Copeland plaintiffs are represented by Daniel H. Silverman and Leonardo Chingcuanco of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Sarah Grossman-Swenson and Kimberley C. Weber of McCracken Stemerman & Holsberry LLP.
The article can be read on Law360 (subscription required).
Chemical manufacturer Chemours accused of violating human rights by releasing ‘forever chemicals’ into Cape Fear River basin
A citizens group in North Carolina has formally requested the United Nations to investigate multiple alleged human rights violations stemming from chemical manufacturer Chemours’ toxic PFAS pollution in the region.
About a half million residents live in the Cape Fear River basin between Fayetteville and Wilmington, where Chemours has produced PFAS and polluted the region for over 40 years. The residents face “an environmental human rights crisis … involving pervasive human exposure to toxic chemicals”, according to a communication filed with the UN by Clean Cape Fear and the University of California at Berkeley Environmental Law Clinic.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of about 14,000 chemicals often used to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they are virtually indestructible, and they are linked to cancer, liver problems, thyroid issues, birth defects, kidney disease, decreased immunity and other serious health problems.
A UN human rights commission investigation there would be the first to look into an environmental crisis in the US. Residents say they have been denied the right to clean water, bodily integrity, information, an effective remedy, and a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.’
Read the complete article in The Guardian.
State attorneys general and plaintiffs firms join forces in fight against environmental pollution caused by “forever chemicals,” ushering in a new era of litigation which could cost billions.
Defense and plaintiff attorneys rarely agree on matters of a billion-dollar scale. When it comes to “forever chemicals,” however, both sides concede that the human and environmental cost could be astronomical. In the realm of PFAS (poly- and per-fluoroalkyl substances) litigation, all bets are off.
But being on the same side might end there. Defendants are facing a joint effort by plaintiff firms and state attorneys general in suits with so much in potential damages that some wonder whether a bailout fund akin to what the automobile industry saw will be necessary for those facing PFAS liability.
. . .
Water utilities are facing major challenges facilitating and ultimately financing large-scale cleanup of its drinking water resources. “They have to redo their infrastructure, and that costs a lot of money,” Cohen Milstein partner Theodore Leopold said. Most providers are shying away from passing the cost on to the consumer through rate increases. “Charging the taxpayer is really not fair,” so they try to find other avenues to get reimbursed, litigation being one of them.
“It’s a really, really difficult burden for smaller communities, cities and water utilities,” Leopold added, noting he has been having ongoing conversations and consultations with municipalities across the United States.
. . .
So far, “we’re just scratching the surface on the amount of damages that has occurred to water systems by manufacturers of these toxic chemicals,” Leopold said.
Read the complete story on The National Law Journal.
Retail display maker Triad Manufacturing and employee stock ownership plan trustee GreatBanc agreed to a $14.8 million deal to end a lawsuit from workers claiming they were overcharged for Triad stock, teeing up an end to a court battle that the Seventh Circuit refused to kick to arbitration.
Proposed class representatives James Smith and Jerry Honse on Thursday asked an Illinois federal judge for preliminary approval on the deal reached with Triad Manufacturing Inc. and the ESOP’s trustee, GreatBanc Trust Co. The deal, if approved, would resolve the suit claiming the trustee prompted the ESOP to purchase company shares through a $106 million deal after Triad failed to find an external buyer.
“The settlement provides substantial economic benefit to the class,” the workers said. “The settlement provides approximately $14.8 million of economic value to the ESOP by increasing the value of the ESOP’s Triad stock — and thereby the value of class members’ individual accounts in the ESOP.”
The workers filed the proposed class action against GreatBanc and Triad — which designs, manufactures and distributes retail display fixtures — in March 2020. They said that when the company failed to find a buyer for the business, it turned to the ESOP and sold 1.83 million shares of Triad’s common stock to the plan in a $106 million deal.
The lower court, and then the Seventh Circuit, denied the company’s push to force the Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit into arbitration. The appeals court held in September 2021 that the arbitration agreement the company relied upon improperly blocked relief provided by ERISA.
. . .
The workers are represented by Michelle C. Yau, Daniel R. Sutter, Caroline E. Bressman and Carol V. Gilden of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and by Nina Wasow and Dan Feinberg of Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP.
Read the complete story on Law360.
Emerging Voices Staff Writer Dan Kent had the chance to sit down with S. Douglas Bunch, a Public Delegate at the United States Mission to the United Nations. Below is a lightly edited transcript of their conversation.
Thank you for taking the time to talk to us! First, can you give me an overview of your career thus far, and what brought you to the United Nations?
Certainly. I am a partner at a law firm in Washington DC called Cohen Milstein, where I litigate securities class actions on the plaintiffs’ side. I also sit on my university’s board of trustees at William & Mary in Virginia. I’m also cofounder of a nonprofit called Global Playground that builds schools in developing countries and then connects those schools with each other. Then, as of last September, I was fortunate to be appointed by President Biden to serve as part of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations.
What is the position that you hold and what are your day-to-day responsibilities? Are there other public delegates and how do you collaborate with them, if at all?
I am a U.S. Public Delegate, and in that capacity, I represent the American public broadly at the United Nations. I essentially serve as an ambassador for purposes of the UN General Assembly session, which runs from September to September. Some of my responsibilities include visits to foreign missions alongside ambassadors at the U.S. Mission, delivering the position of the United States, negotiating the language of resolutions, and speaking on the floor of the General Assembly, both in committee and in the full body.
Are there other public delegates to the U.S. Mission to the UN? Do you collaborate with them at all?
Yes, there are two other public delegates. Generally the White House appoints two or three public delegates every year. We work together on a regular basis, sometimes on projects in common, and sometimes independently. I can give you one example of collaboration: right now, I’m spearheading a consortium of colleges and universities with which the U.S. Mission to the UN can regularly engage. We have briefings on topics of mutual interest to both the U.S. Mission and these institutions. And one of our upcoming briefings will be on food security, which another public delegate has a significant interest in. So we’re thinking about ways to collaborate on that particular briefing.
But across all the public delegates, we are different people from different walks of life. We carry with us different skill sets and interests to leverage for the purposes of the diplomatic work that we do at the U.S. Mission.
On that note, how has your career thus far prepared you for your position in the UN?
I think the common thread across all my different roles has been building relationships.
As a lawyer, I build relationships. As the founder and chair of a nonprofit, I build relationships. And certainly as a diplomat, cultivating relationships globally is what enables us to advance US foreign policy interests. Our ambassador at the US Mission, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, has coined the idea of “gumbo diplomacy” — the idea being when you bring different people from diverse backgrounds together around a table and share a meal, you can connect meaningfully with them, and advance what is in their common interests. The careful attention paid to cultivating relationships has always been core to my career and continues to be today.
How have you applied this for yourself?
To me, any time you can connect with people on their own level and meet them where they are is an opening for dialogue. Something like 75% to 85% of leadership is listening. Even in my work abroad in international development, imposing an outsider’s view on a particular problem or an outside solution on a particular issue without listening to the people on the ground is a mistake. The valuable part in connecting with people is that you can genuinely listen to them and solve the problem from the grassroots. That ability to connect and understand people genuinely is core to success as a diplomat.
Like many institutions, the UN gets frequently criticized for a lack of effectiveness in preventing and dealing with crises. What is your perspective on this issue and has serving at the UN itself changed your perspective in any way?
Well, certainly the present is an example of a time when the UN’s credibility is on the line. Certain countries, in particular Russia, violate the core precepts of what the institution stands for. But even if there is a problem that the UN can’t solve in a permanent way, the platform of giving voice to member states that might not normally have a voice, or shedding light on a problem that might not normally get attention, has its own value. Opening the conversation is one thing the UN does really powerfully. Setting standards is something that the UN does really powerfully. The very fact that we are engaged in dialogue and having the conversation is of tremendous value. Even if we can’t solve the problem in a day, it’s important that we engage in dialogue with each other. The UN provides that platform.
Putting aside the war in Ukraine, for now, what do you think the greatest challenge facing the UN is today?
Representation. The U.S. has been a strong advocate for representation of the Global South in the Security Council in particular. Representation across the board, though, is critical.
Take climate change for example. In the U.S. domestic context, we might think of it as one of a number of political issues that doesn’t always get the prioritization that it should. But for island nations in the Pacific, or countries like Bangladesh, in South and Central Asia, climate change is existential. It really does mean the difference between survival and severe detriment.
Listening to opening statements made by heads of state at the General Assembly session, I was struck by the constant refrain of issues of climate change and issues of food insecurity. Listening to their perspectives reframes the way I think about international priorities and certainly the role of the U.S. in addressing those challenges.
How about the greatest opportunity for the UN?
Maybe I’m biased in taking a particular interest in this topic, but the UN has a huge opportunity to embrace the importance of diversity and inclusion. On this issue, sometimes just having the conversation is half the battle.
Last Monday, for example, I was part of an effort to host an informal meeting of the Security Council (what we call an Arria-formula meeting), on the lives of LGBTI people in armed conflict. The chance to hear voices of people, for example from Afghanistan, who had lived through the Taliban’s attack on their identities, was really powerful. To give voice to that in the Security Council set an example of the types of dialogue we should be having on equity and inclusion globally. It was inspiring to hear every country commit to the idea of equality for LGBTI people. And especially, it was inspiring to hear confirmation of that in such a prominent place. I think that the UN can do more of that. Sometimes it is the only common voice of member states—in terms of embracing equity and inclusion, through independent experts and rapporteurs. The fact that we had that conversation at the UN was a huge step forward.
Especially in an era where presidents (who have wide discretion over foreign policy) differ markedly in their perspective on world affairs and the US role in them, what is, and should be, the United States’ role at the UN?
We certainly have always functioned as one of the leaders of the institution as a permanent member of the Security Council. But I think one of our important roles is also to turn to the side and invite other countries that might not normally get a voice into the conversation. It was the U.S. who hosted the Arria on LGBTI rights in times of conflict, but we intentionally put a spotlight on the plight of people in Afghanistan, and the experiences of people in Colombia.