Plaintiffs lawyers at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll reached a $1 billion settlement with Wells Fargo & Co. in what’s poised to be one of the 20 largest shareholder settlements of all-time if approved.
First up are lawyers at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, the co-lead counsel in shareholder litigation against Wells Fargo & Co. claiming the bank misled investors about reforms after its 2016 fake accounts scandal. The bank this week agreed to pay $1 billion, which would be one of the 20 largest shareholder settlements of all-time if approved. The deal got preliminary sign-off from U.S. District Judge Gregory Woods in Manhattan within 24 hours of filing. The Bernstein Litowitz team includes Max Berger, who led settlement negotiations, John Browne, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Hannah Ross, Jonathan Uslaner and senior associate Lauren Cruz. The Cohen Milstein team includes Steven Toll, Laura Posner and Molly Bowen.
Read the complete article on Law.com.
The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act continues to be a bulwark against worker exploitation, but several pillars of the statute and its regulations — from subminimum wages to collective action certification — need refreshing to meet today’s workforce, attorneys said.
Employment law practitioners often bemoan how the FLSA does not jibe well with the contemporary economy. While this is true in some respects, the FLSA still serves its underlying purpose of protecting workers, said D. Michael Hancock, of counsel with worker-side firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and former assistant administrator for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division.
“I may be the only one that believes this,” he said, “But I think fundamentally it has continued to serve an important role in this society, in this economy.”
But there are key provisions that need to be tweaked, he said.
Here, Law360 explores four aspects of the FLSA that merit reconsideration and reformulation.
Subminimum Wages
The FLSA permits employers to pay certain categories of workers below the federal minimum wage of $7.25.
One such allowance is the tipped minimum wage, where employers can take a so-called tip credit and pay gratuities-earning workers as little as $2.13 per hour as long as tips carry the worker to the standard federal minimum wage of $7.25.
The tipped credit “has no place in a modern economy,” said Sarah Arendt, a partner with Werman Salas PC.
“It’s ridiculous that employees who make up a large portion of the economy are paid subminimum wages,” she said.
The precarity of low-wage work came into sharp relief amid the pandemic when many such employees were lauded as essential workers.
Hancock said he was struck by how farmworkers were identified as essential workers even though the FLSA excludes agricultural workers from its overtime protections.
Experts say this exclusion is rooted in racism because when Congress enacted the FLSA, lawmakers largely cut out agricultural, domestic and hospitality sectors, fields dominated by Black workers.
“A farmworker can work 60, 70 hours a week doing grueling work, under really harsh conditions, and they’re denied overtime,” he said. “And there’s just no rational reason why.”
Employers can also pay people with cognitive or physical disabilities less than the minimum wage if the employer secures certificates from the U.S. Department of Labor under Section 14(c) of the FLSA.
That is another “gross injustice,” Hancock said.
“We’ve learned enough that we now know that most of the people who are labeled Section 14 workers are very productive, are perfectly capable of doing productive work,” he said. “It’s signaling to them that we value them less and that they’re not as good as others, and I just think it’s morally wrong.”
ExxonMobil has settled a long-running lawsuit brought by villagers who alleged soldiers the oil giant hired to guard a natural gas facility in the Indonesian province of Aceh committed murder and torture.
The two sides agreed to resolve “all matters”, according to a joint filing on Monday.
Agnieszka Fryszman, a lawyer for the villagers, said the terms were confidential.
A spokesperson for Exxon Mobil said the settlement “brings closure for all parties”.
Filed in 2001, the case was brought by 11 villagers in Aceh who alleged they were victims of human rights abuses committed by Indonesian soldiers brought in to guard the oil and gas plant in the city of Lhoksukon between 1999 and 2003. The allegations included sexual assault, battery and unlawful detention.
A trial to decide whether the company was negligent in contracting the Indonesian soldiers had been scheduled to start in Washington, DC on May 24. ExxonMobil had denied being aware of any human rights violations and said the company could not be held responsible for any abuses that did occur as it did not order or authorise them.
The alleged abuses took place at a time when the Indonesian military had deployed thousands of troops in the province to crush a long-running rebellion by pro-independence fighters. A peace agreement came only after the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 killed at least 170,000 people in Aceh, on the northern tip of Sumatra island.
“Our clients … bravely took on one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world and stuck with the fight for more than 20 years,” said Fryszman, a lawyer at Cohen Milstein.
“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.”
The plaintiffs, who broke down in tears at the settlement, have remained anonymous “in the face of grave threats to themselves and their fellow villagers”, the law firm said in a news release.
A group of shareholders had claimed that the bank misled investors about its progress in cleaning up after a sham accounts scandal a decade ago.
Wells Fargo has agreed to pay $1 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing the bank of overstating how much progress it had made in fixing the unlawful practices that regulators said had hurt millions of customers.
The agreement, detailed in court filings on Monday, is the latest in a succession of settlements and penalties the bank has paid stemming from a fraud scandal that came to light nearly a decade ago. From 2002 to 2016, bank employees, facing unrealistic sales goals imposed by their bosses, opened millions of accounts in customers’ names without their knowledge.
. . .
“If approved, this settlement will help compensate hundreds of thousands of investors — state employees, nurses, teachers, police, firefighters and others — whose critical retirement savings were impacted by Wells Fargo’s fraudulent business practices,” Steven J. Toll, managing partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, which represented the investors in the suit, said in a statement.
The complete article can be read on The New York Times.
Several pension funds had accused the bank of misleading investors about the extent of its reform efforts after the 2016 fake-accounts scandal
Wells Fargo has agreed to pay $1 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit brought on by shareholders who had accused the lender of overstating the progress of reforms initiated after the 2016 fake-accounts scandal.
The settlement was filed late Monday in federal court in Manhattan, where litigation had been in progress for three years. If it secures the judge’s approval, it would be among the 20 largest securities class-action deals on record, according to plaintiffs.
. . .
The class-action lawsuit was led by pension administrators in Rhode Island and Mississippi, who said their holdings were affected by the bank’s misleading statements.
“The pension fund lost money because of their lies, so we’re holding them accountable,” Rhode Island General Treasurer James Diossa said in an interview Tuesday.
He added that he hoped the settlement would cause the bank to be more careful about future statements to investors.
“I strongly believe that this is an important case historically, too, because it’s going to help shape the next years to come for Wells Fargo and their behavior,” Diossa said.
Laura Posner, an attorney with the law firm Cohen Milstein, which represented the plaintiffs, called the settlement “quite impressive” in terms of what the plaintiffs thought realistic damages were. “More broadly, it is hopefully a way of deterring … other companies from engaging in fraud,” Posner said.
Read Wells Fargo Agrees to $1 Billion Shareholder Settlement.
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.”
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.
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.