Perdue Farms has agreed to settle employee claims in two separate states where the company plotted to depress wages, according to notices filed by plant employees in both Maryland and Colorado federal courts.
While neither party divulged any details about the potential deals, the proposed class of Perdue employees said in both notices on Wednesday that they plan to move for preliminary approval of the settlement in the “near future.”
. . .
The workers in both cases 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.
A New York federal judge refused to send to arbitration a suit claiming Argent Trust let a barbecue chain’s employee stock ownership plan overpay for company shares, ruling Tuesday that the plan’s arbitration agreement is unenforceable because it denies rights afforded under federal benefits law.
U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote said Jamaal Lloyd and Anastasia Jenkins are not obligated to arbitrate their claims brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Argent, the trustee of W BBQ Holdings Inc.’s ESOP, after finding that the agreement prevents employees from seeking relief that federal benefits law provides.
“The plaintiffs are correct; the plan’s arbitration clause may not be enforced,” Judge Cote said. “The plan’s arbitration procedures prohibit representative actions seeking relief on behalf of a plan even though ERISA expressly provides for such actions.”
Lloyd sued Argent and several of the barbecue chain’s shareholders in May, alleging its workers lost millions of dollars in retirement savings when shareholders sold 400,000 shares of common stock to the ESOP in July 2019 at above fair market value. The shares were sold for $99 million, but by the end of 2016, the value of the shares plummeted to $28.9 million, Lloyd and Jenkins said.
. . .. . .
Lloyd and Jenkins are represented by Michelle C. Yau, Kai H. Richter, Daniel R. Sutter, Ryan A. Wheeler and Michael Eisenkraft of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
A D.C. Circuit panel seemed disinclined Wednesday to say former President Donald Trump has absolute immunity for his Jan. 6, 2021, rally speech given the “colorable case of incitement” at issue, but wrestled with how to structure a limit on presidential immunity.
During a nearly two-hour oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas said several times that the hard thing about the case for him is there being at least a “colorable case of incitement” in the then-president’s Jan. 6 speech before his supporters attacked the Capitol. In a consolidated appeal of three cases brought by Democratic lawmakers and two U.S. Capitol police officers seeking to hold Trump liable for psychological or physical harm they suffered from the Capitol attack, Trump is arguing a D.C. district judge wrongly denied him presidential immunity.
Judge Katsas challenged Trump’s attorney to explain any functional or historical support for immunizing the president against actual incitement of rioting or lawless acts, and said he does not think there would be broad impacts on the office of the presidency if immunity is denied here.
. . .
U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan asked Joseph Sellers of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, who argued for the plaintiffs, to give the court direction on what standard to use when determining whether presidents lose their immunity. Sellers said the test should be whether a complaint plausibly alleges the president took action that “disrupted or blocked the discharge of duties by a co-equal branch of government” — as he says happened here when Trump supporters interrupted the Congressional count of electoral college ballots.
Judge Katsas suggested such a test may clash with First Amendment speech protections, saying it would “seem odd to me to say a president would lose immunity for inciting activity where a private party would have a substantive defense under Brandenburg.”
“To me, that’s where the rubber meets the road,” the judge added.
He said he has printed out Trump’s speech from the rally and read it a number of times. The worst parts of the speech — lines like Trump telling his supporters to “fight like hell”— don’t compare to more explicit statements other courts have determined are incitement, he said.
Sellers said the speech cannot be viewed in a vacuum but must be considered in context with the months Trump spent sowing disbelief about the 2020 election results and riling up his supporters to believe the election had been stolen — what Judge Katsas said can be summed up as the “powder keg.”
Sellers argued that, even if no single set of words spoken by Trump is tantamount to the Brandenburg cases, the whole of the circumstances makes clear the president ignited the situation.
. .
The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph M. Sellers, Brian Corman and Alison S. Deich of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Janette McCarthy-Wallace, Anthony P. Ashton and Anna Kathryn Barnes of the NAACP, Robert B. McDuff of Mississippi Center for Justice, Patrick A. Malone, Daniel Scialpi and Heather J. Kelly of Patrick Malone & Associates PC, Phillip Andonian and Joseph Caleb of Caleb Andonian PLLC, Matthew Kaiser and Sarah R. Fink of Kaiser Dillon PLLC, and Cameron Kistler, Erica Newland, Kristy L. Parker, Jacek Pruski, Anne Tindall, John Paredes, Genevieve C. Nadeau, Benjamin L. Berwick and Helen E. White of United To Protect Democracy.
Law360 Pulse Prestige Leaders report has named Cohen Milstein to its annual industry “Prestige Leader” list, recognizing the top 100 law firms most-well regarded by the Law360 editorial team. Notably, Cohen Milstein is only one of two plaintiffs law firms named to the list.
The Law360 Pulse editorial team compiles data from Law360 surveys, proprietary awards and the LexisNexis suite of research tools to measure four equally weighted key indicators of prestige.
Law360 criteria includes: financial performance, which looks at profits per partner and revenue per lawyer (for firms that do not disclose such information, such as Cohen Milstein, this data is assessed via reported settlements and other measurable data that is in the public domain); desirability, which measures how frequently firms were named by law students and attorneys as their top choice firms for work; editorial awards, or the number of Law360 awards a firm has captured over the past year; and news sentiment — the number of positive stories about the firm that appear in more than 20 respected legal publications.
Read more about report on Law360 Pulse.
Lawyers representing Performance Sports Group investors should be awarded $3.6 million for their work in securing a settlement in a proposed class action alleging PSG executives lied to shareholders about the now-bankrupt athletic gear manufacturer’s sales tactics, the attorneys told a New York federal court.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC said Friday that the $3.6 million fee award represents 28% of the total settlement value, putting it in line with what other courts in the Second Circuit have awarded to firms who’ve settled class actions for similar amounts. Cohen Milstein helped a proposed class of PSG shareholders obtain a $13 million settlement, which is awaiting final approval from the court.
“The requested fee is reasonable given the result obtained and is consistent with the fees awarded in similar actions in the Second Circuit and throughout the country,” the firm wrote in a motion for award of attorneys fees.
The firm added that the lead plaintiff in the class action, United Association National Pension Fund, or UANPF, supports the requested fee, and that no one from the class at large has objected to the amount.
Cohen Milstein also pointed to other factors supporting the award, including the “magnitude and complexity” of securities class actions, the quality of its representation and the risk the firm assumed in taking the case on a contingency basis.
“Despite competent efforts of lead counsel, success in contingent-fee litigation, such as this, is never assured,” the firm wrote.
In December, PSG investors told a New York federal court they’d struck a settlement that would see former CEO Kevin Davis and ex-CFO Amir Rosenthal pay $13 million in an all-cash deal, although that amount will be entirely funded by the company’s directors & officers insurance policy. The money will go to thousands of class members who purchased the company’s common stock between January 2015 and October 2016.
U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods granted preliminary approval for the proposed settlement agreement in July. UANPF, the lead class plaintiff, moved for final approval on Friday.
. . .
The proposed class is represented by Carol V. Gilden, S. Douglas Bunch and Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and by Louis P. Malone III of O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue LLP.
A New York federal judge awarded more than $4.8 million in fees to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, granting a request by the attorneys who secured a class action settlement between investors and former executives of the bankrupt Performance Sports Group Ltd. after nearly seven years of litigation.
U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods gave final approval Monday to a $13 million settlement and said the lead counsel for the plaintiffs was entitled to 28% of it, plus 28% of a bankruptcy fund that benefits investors in the defunct athletic gear manufacturer and $855,000 for the firm’s expenses, according to two orders issued in the Southern District of New York.
“The fee sought by lead counsel has been reviewed and approved as fair and reasonable by the court-appointed lead plaintiff, a sophisticated institutional investor,” Judge Woods wrote. “No settlement class member has objected to the fee application.”
The United Association National Pension Fund sued PSG, its former CEO Kevin Davis and former CFO Amir Rosenthal in May 2016, seeking class status on its claims of Exchange Act violations. The class members today are about 19,000 investors who purchased the company’s common stock between January 2015 and October 2016, the month PSG filed for bankruptcy in Delaware.
The lawsuit accused PSG and its executives of misleading investors about the impact of certain market conditions on the company’s value, such as the consolidation of seven large customers into five companies and the bankruptcy of Sports Authority Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that PSG also pressured retailers to increase their order sizes to improve quarterly profits, which ultimately caused a drop in demand and stock price.
. . .
The $4.8 million fee award represents slightly less than 60% of the total estimated cost of the litigation, according to Cohen Milstein’s request. The settlement will be funded by PSG’s directors and officers insurance policy.
The parties reached a settlement last year through JAMS arbitration.
“This was a hard-fought, highly contested matter. We’re pleased with the outcome on behalf of investors,” lead plaintiff’s attorney Carol Gilden said Tuesday. “The claims administration process is currently ongoing. We anticipate it will be completed by late spring. At that time, we will seek court approval to distribute the proceeds from the district court settlement and the earlier bankruptcy settlement on a pro-rata basis to investors with valid claims.”
. . .
The class is represented by Carol V. Gilden, S. Douglas Bunch and Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Louis P. Malone III of O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue LLP.
Read the article on Law360.
CHICAGO– Today, the City of Chicago announces that Uber has agreed to a settlement stemming from the City’s investigation into UberEats’ and Postmates’ practices of listing Chicago restaurants on their platforms without the restaurants’ consent, being in violation of the City’s emergency fee cap ordinance, and other advertising-related conduct. The City acknowledges Uber’s cooperation in bringing this investigation to closure.
“Today’s settlement reflects the City’s commitment to creating a fair and honest marketplace that protects both consumers and businesses from unlawful conduct,” said Mayor Lightfoot. “Chicago’s restaurant owners and workers work diligently to build their reputations and serve our residents and visitors. That’s why our hospitality industry is so critical to our economy, and it only works when there is transparency and fair pricing. There is no room for deceptive and unfair practices.”
Under the settlement terms:
- In September 2021, in response to the City’s discovery of unlawful conduct, Uber quickly repaid $3,331,892 to Chicago restaurants that had been charged commissions exceeding 15%, in violation of the City’s emergency fee cap ordinance.
- Uber will pay an additional $2,250,000 to Chicago restaurants that were charged commissions in excess of the limits set by the City’s emergency fee cap.
- After reaching out to Uber in 2021, the company removed all remaining Chicago restaurants that had been listed on Uber’s platforms without consent and agreed not to list Chicago restaurants without consent in the future.
- Uber will pay $500,000 to Chicago restaurants that Uber listed on its meal delivery platforms without consent and that do not currently contract with Uber.
- Uber will provide $2,500,000 in commission waivers to Chicago restaurants that were listed on Uber’s platforms without consent and that do not currently contract with Uber.
- Uber will pay $1,500,000 to the City to cover the costs and fees of its investigation.
“We delivered on our commitment to protect consumers and businesses,” said Kenneth J. Meyer, Commissioner, Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection. “The settlement is the result of the City acting swiftly and holding companies accountable for deceitful practices.”
“We welcome any relief provided to the independent restaurants that struggled throughout the pandemic and continue to shoulder the rising costs of doing business,” said Sam Toia, President and CEO, Illinois Restaurant Association. “No third party delivery company should be listing restaurants without their consent and all third party companies should have been following the emergency cap imposed during the pandemic. Our restaurants will receive immediate benefit from this settlement.”
Restaurants previously listed on Uber’s platforms without consent should visit Chicago.gov/UberSettlement and follow the instructions to receive financial relief and commission waivers. Restaurants that were charged commissions in excess of the fee cap in 2021 will receive payment automatically from Uber.
A link to the complete Settlement Agreement can be found at Chicago.gov/UberSettlement.
###
The City of Chicago has reached a $10 million settlement with Uber Technologies Inc. stemming from allegations that Uber Eats and Postmates listed restaurants on their platforms without consent, and that restaurants were charged more than legally allowed.
Uber, which owns Postmates, and Chicago reached the deal after a two-year investigation by the city, the mayor’s office announced Monday. Chicago put in place an emergency 15% delivery-fee cap related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and is suing other delivery-app companies for not living up to that law and other local rules meant to protect restaurants and consumers.
. . .
Chicago sued Uber competitors DoorDash Inc. and Grubhub last year, alleging deceptive fees and predatory practices that include behavior similar to some of the allegations against Uber. For example, the lawsuits allege that the companies cause problems for nonpartner restaurants when they scrape information about them online and don’t verify their accuracy. The lawsuit against DoorDash is in the discovery process, while there will be a hearing in the suit against Grubhub next week, according to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, the law firm working with the city on the case.
Read Uber Agrees to Pay $10 Million for Listing Chicago Restaurants Without Their Consent.
Northwest Biotherapeutics claims Citadel Securities, Virtu and others drove down its share price
A cancer-focused biotechnology company has sued eight of the US’s largest market making traders including Citadel Securities, Susquehanna and Virtu, alleging that they deliberately drove down its share price by placing sell orders they had no intention of executing.
The complaint, filed by Northwest Biotherapeutics in a federal court in New York on Thursday, claimed that the traders “deliberately engaged in repeated spoofing that interfered with the natural forces of supply and demand” by placing tens of millions of fake orders between December 2017 and August of this year.
The trading companies would then cancel those orders and buy Northwest’s shares at an artificially lower price, the complaint alleged.
Lawyers for the clinical-stage biotechnology firm claimed a “particularly egregious example” of this activity took place in May, after the publication of positive trial data for Northwest’s DCVax-L brain cancer drug.
The news “should have caused NWBO’s share price to increase, absent manipulation in the market”, they wrote, referring to the company’s stock symbol. Instead it dropped from $1.73 to a low of $0.3862.
“This staggering decline of 78 per cent in the price on a day with extremely positive news about the company was caused by defendants’ relentless and brazen manipulation of the market for NWBO shares,” lawyers at Cohen Milstein Sellers &Toll added.
. . .
“It’s already underhanded to engage in market manipulation, but to do so at the expense of cancer patients, some of whom have no other treatments to place their hopes on, is unconscionable,” said Laura Posner, a partner at Cohen Milstein.
In a new lawsuit, Northwest Biotherapeutics accuses market makers of illicit ‘spoofing’ trades
A biotechnology company accused Citadel Securities LLC, Susquehanna International Group LLP and other Wall Street firms of driving down its stock price through a series of illicit trades.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court, Northwest Biotherapeutics Inc. alleged the market makers had repeatedly engaged in “spoofing,” where traders place orders with an intent to fool other investors about a stock’s demand and manipulate the price.
Northwest, whose shares trade over the counter, also sued Canaccord Genuity Inc. G1 Execution Services LLC, GTS Securities LLC, Instinet LLC, Lime Trading Corp. and Virtu Americas LLC.
Spokesmen for Citadel and Virtu didn’t immediately comment. The other firms didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
Spoofing, which was outlawed in 2010, has been at the center of a yearslong campaign by U.S. authorities to root out market manipulation. In August, a federal jury in Chicago convicted two former JPMorgan Chase & Co. traders who had been charged with spoofing in the gold market.
In the modern stock market, high-speed trading firms like Citadel and Susquehanna provide stock quotes throughout the day, executing orders from other investors while collecting a thin spread between the buying and selling price of the shares.
It’s unclear from the data cited in the suit whether the alleged spoofing trades were placed on behalf of other investors, or by the firms themselves.
But Northwest argued that these market makers knew it was unlawful to execute the alleged trades and should have had procedures in place to detect and prevent them.
The market makers, Northwest wrote, “deliberately engaged in repeated spoofing that interfered with the natural forces of supply and demand and drove (the company’s) share price downward over the course of the relevant period.”
Northwest said the alleged spoofing trades, which occurred between December 2017 and August 2022, battered the stock price even as the company released positive results from the trial of its lead product, a brain cancer treatment. In its suit, the company wrote that it had sold more than 49 million shares to raise money “at artificially depressed prices.”
“One of the tell-tale signs of a manipulative spoofer is a rapid reversal of trading direction — a lot of sell orders, followed by buy orders, followed by the cancellation of sell orders — which suggest the original sell orders were not intended to be executed, but were merely a ploy to drive the price down to `buy low,’” Northwest said in its complaint.
The company said it found thousands of spoofing episodes involving tens of millions of “baiting orders” over a five-year span, and was able to identify the market participants using trading data.