A federal magistrate judge has called for the partial certification of a proposed class of investors who accused major banks including JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs of colluding to kill competition in the stock loan market, saying that the class meets all the necessary requirements, but the class period should not be expanded.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued a report and recommendation on Thursday after the case was referred to her by U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla. The suit names several major banks as defendants, including Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA.
In her report, she recommended the appointment of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as class counsel and the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, Orange County Employees Retirement System, Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association, Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association and Torus Capital LLC as lead plaintiffs.
According to the report, the investors requested certification of a class of individuals who, directly or through an agent, entered into at least 100 U.S. stock loan transactions as a borrower from the prime brokerage businesses of the U.S.-based entities of the prime broker defendants or at least 100 U.S. stock loan transactions as a lender from Jan. 1, 2012, until Feb. 22, 2021.
. . .
In a statement to Law360, counsel for the plaintiffs said they were pleased with the judge’s ruling and “look forward to continued litigation against the banks to maximize recoveries for the benefit of class members.”
The investor class is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Click through to read Law360’s “Judge Says Stock Loan Antitrust Class Should Be Certified.”
The revelation at a House Jan. 6 hearing could be fodder for cases arguing that Trump knew violence was likely when he sent backers to the Capitol.
A White House aide’s bombshell testimony on Tuesday about then-President Donald Trump’s actions and statements on Jan. 6, 2021, could give a major boost to a series of civil lawsuits against Trump over his liability for the violence that broke out that day.
Trump faces at least six civil suits over Jan. 6 that could gain traction from testimony by the aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, that Trump was told many of his supporters had weapons and that he urged they be allowed through metal detectors anyway.
Hutchinson told the House Jan. 6 select committee that prior to his speech at the Ellipse that day, Trump was mad that the area closest to the stage wasn’t full. Aides told him that was because some of his supporters were choosing not to proceed through Secret Service-staffed magnetometers because they didn’t want to have to give up weapons they had.
“Take the f-ing mags away,” Trump reportedly said. “They’re not here to hurt me.”
A lawyer pressing a suit against Trump and others on behalf of 10 Democratic House members, Joseph Sellers, said the testimony could bolster their case because it supports the idea that Trump was aware violence was likely when he urged his backers to march to the Capitol.
“The testimony that came today I think was very powerful confirmation that Trump knew and expected the crowd that was assembled was going to engage in violent action directed at the Capitol with the intention of interfering with the ability to ratify the results of the election,” Sellers said in an interview.
The new information also seems to dovetail with U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta’s explanation of why he was turning down Trump’s bid to dismiss three of the suits. Mehta said it was plausible Trump countenanced the violence on Jan. 6 through a combination of his public exhortation to the crowd to march to the Capitol and his later resistance to issuing a statement calling on his supporters to retreat.
Sellers said the reported exchanges with Trump about weapons in the crowd were “highly relevant” to the civil suits and reinforced other indications that Trump was intent on using violence and threats to intimidate members of Congress.
“This evidence goes a good deal towards confirming that that was the purpose of Trump’s actions,” Sellers added.
See “Aide’s Testimony That Trump Was Told of Weapons Could Boost Civil Suits,” Politico to read the complete story.
On June 15, 2022, The Washington Post reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced four drinking water health advisories for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the latest action under President Biden’s action plan to deliver clean water and EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap. The EPA also announced that it is inviting states and territories to apply for $1 billion – the first of $5 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grant funding – to address PFAS (sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals”) and other emerging contaminants in drinking water, specifically in small or disadvantaged communities. These actions build on EPA’s progress to safeguard communities from PFAS contamination and scientifically inform upcoming efforts, including EPA’s forthcoming proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFOA and PFOS, set to be released in the fall of 2022.
What’s Covered by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
As part of a government-wide effort to confront PFAS pollution, EPA is making available $1 billion in grant funding through President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help communities that are on the frontlines of PFAS contamination. These funds can be used in small or disadvantaged communities to address emerging contaminants like PFAS in drinking water through technical assistance, water quality testing, contractor training, and installation of centralized treatment technologies and systems.
Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisories for Four PFAS
The EPA is releasing PFAS health advisories in light of newly available science and in accordance with its responsibility to protect public health.
- EPA’s lifetime health advisories identify levels to protect all people, including sensitive populations and life stages, from adverse health effects resulting from a lifetime of exposure to these PFAS in drinking water.
- They also take into account other potential sources of exposure to these PFAS beyond drinking water (for example, food, air, consumer products, etc.), which provides an additional layer of protection.
- EPA is issuing interim, updated drinking water health advisories for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) that replace those it issued in 2016. The updated advisory levels, which are based on new science and consider lifetime exposure, indicate that some negative health effects may occur with concentrations of PFOA or PFOS in water that are near zero and below EPA’s ability to detect at this time.
- For the first time, EPA is issuing final health advisories for perfluorobutane sulfonic acid and its potassium salt (PFBS) and for hexafluoropropylene oxide (HFPO) dimer acid and its ammonium salt (“GenX” chemicals). The GenX chemicals and PFBS health advisory levels are well above the level of detection, based on risk analyses in recent scientific studies.
The agency’s new health advisories provide technical information that federal, state, and local agencies can use when addressing PFAS in drinking water, including water quality monitoring, optimization of existing technologies that reduce PFAS, and strategies to reduce exposure.
Next Steps
The EPA is also moving forward with proposing a PFAS National Drinking Water Regulation in fall 2022. Learn more about the EPA’s new drinking water health advisory for PFAS chemicals and its $1 billion in bipartisan infrastructure law funding.
Learn More About Cohen Milstein’s PFAS & Environmental Toxic Tort Litigation Practices
We are at the forefront of PFAS and environmental toxic tort litigation involving contaminated water. We are currently court-approved co-lead counsel in two of the largest PFAS and water-related toxic tort class actions in the United States: Victoria Carey, et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and The Chemours Company, et al. (E.D.N.C) and In re Flint Water Cases (E.D. Mich.).
Our goal is singular and clear. We are dedicated to representing local communities and citizens who have been impacted by PFAS contamination.
Please contact us at (877) 515-7955 or fill out our free case evaluation form.
ALBUQUERQUE – Today, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas announced a $13.7 million settlement with Centene Corporation regarding the Attorney General’s investigation of the company’s subsidiaries’ pricing and reporting of pharmacy benefits and services provided to the New Mexico Medicaid program which is overseen by the New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD).
“Vulnerable New Mexicans should not have to worry about paying surging prescription drug costs,” said Attorney General Balderas. “This investigation was necessary to shine a light on industry practices, ensure greater accountability and return $13.7 million back to New Mexico.”
Upon referral from the Office of the State Auditor in collaboration with HSD, the Attorney General’s investigation of Centene focused on concerns that Centene was layering fees and not passing on retail discounts to New Mexico’s Medicaid program, also called Centennial Care. Centennial Care provides healthcare services and medications to nearly one million New Mexicans, and Centene’s wholly-owned subsidiaries have provided pharmacy benefits and services to Centennial Care since 2019. Attorney General Balderas and Superintendent of Insurance Russell Toal, plan to work together and continue the investigation of this business sector to identify opportunities for transparency and increased consumer protections. The settlement agreement with Centene includes an assurance of discontinuance related to the investigated conduct and an enhanced commitment from Centene to provide complete pricing transparency on all pharmaceutical benefits and services provided to HSD.
The importance of this settlement and the Attorney General’s ongoing investigation of the Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) servicing the New Mexico Medicaid program is highlighted by the Federal Trade Commission’s recent announcement that it is launching an inquiry into the PBM industry to scrutinize the impact of PBMs on the access and affordability of prescription drugs.
###
The case, in which 68,000 women alleged unfair pay and promotion practices, had become a hallmark of #MeToo activism
Sterling Jewelers, the American diamond empire that owns Jared and Kay Jewelers, has agreed to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought class-action lawsuit alleging that the company had for years discriminated against tens of thousands of women in their pay and promotion practices.
The case, filed in 2008, became a hallmark of #MeToo activism after some of the women revealed to The Washington Post in 2017 that they had been pressured to cater to their bosses’ sexual demands to get promoted or stay employed.
The class was composed of about 68,000 women who had worked, mostly as sales associates, in the jewelry stores between 2004 and 2018. Their lawyers argued that the company’s rules on pay rates adversely affected women and that women got promotions far less often they deserved.
A trial in private arbitration was scheduled for this September, said the women’s lawyers, who announced the settlement Thursday. The lawsuit has faced so many years of delays that one of the case’s 15 named claimants passed away before it was resolved.
Sterling runs some of the country’s biggest retail jewelry chains and has for years been famous for its shopping-mall boutiques and TV ads, including “Every kiss begins with Kay.”
The suit’s claims were limited to sexual discrimination in pay and promotion, not sexual harassment or assault. But as part of the case, women filed sworn statements saying they had been regularly groped, harassed and coaxed into providing sexual favors, including at boozy corporate retreats.
. . .
The plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Joseph Sellers of the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, said the legal team had seen no evidence that the misconduct women had spoken of in their previous statements had happened in recent years since the company had announced a series of reforms.
Signet, which did not admit liability as part of the settlement, said it has discontinued the pay and promotion practices at the heart of the suit. The company said it now also offers mentorship and leadership training programs for women and has strengthened a system for reporting and investigating complaints of workplace abuse.
Sellers said in an interview that the settlement would “ensure the practices that gave rise to the case are never going to happen again” at the company.
Sterling discrimination case highlights differences between arbitration, litigation
. . .
The case also threw a spotlight on the then-widespread corporate rules that forced victims of sexual harassment or assault to file claims against their employers only in private arbitration, where the proceedings were largely confidential.
President Biden in March signed into law a bill ending forced arbitration in such cases, allowing survivors to file lawsuits in public courts.
A group of AT&T Inc. employees and retirees asked a California federal judge to certify two classes containing nearly 300,000 people total in a suit alleging the company miscalculates married couples’ pension plans.
The workers said in a motion filed Monday that their case accusing AT&T of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by systemically underpaying pension benefits to married couples is “tailor made” for class treatment. The telecom giant uses all the same factors to determine benefits amounts for married joint survivor annuity recipients as it does for single life annuity benefits, they said.
“In one fell swoop, this court can determine what ERISA’s ‘actuarial equivalence’ obligation requires, whether AT&T has been and is delivering actuarially equivalent JSA benefits consistent with ERISA’s requirements, and the appropriate yardstick for determining future benefits and measuring the amount of past underpayments,” the workers said in their memorandum in support of class certification.
They are seeking to certify one class of about 38,340 AT&T retirees with currently active JSAs and another containing 260,000 plan participants who have not yet retired or begun to receive benefits.
. . .
The proposed class is represented by Peter K. Stris, Rachana A. Pathak, Victor O’Connell, John Stokes and Colleen R. Smith of Stris & Maher LLP; Michelle C. Yau, Mary J. Bortscheller, Kai Richter and Daniel R. Sutter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Todd Jackson and Nina Wasow of Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP; and Shaun P. Martin of University of San Diego School of Law.
Two doctors allege in a lawsuit that the country’s largest dialysis provider performed potentially thousands of unnecessary, invasive vascular procedures on late-stage kidney disease patients and fraudulently charged Medicare and Medicaid for these procedures.
The Department of Justice has now joined the False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuit filed against dialysis giant Fresenius Medical Care, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2014 in New York, claims Fresenius Medical Care and its business unit, Azura Vascular Care, violated the federal False Claims Act. The case remained under seal until the court lifted the seal May 9. The federal government has 60 days to file its complaint.
Nineteen states also are included in the lawsuit and potentially could join the case.
The U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York will be taking over the case against Fresenius’ New York facilities, according to law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, which is representing the plaintiffs in the case.
Molly J. Bowen of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC played a key role in shareholder derivative litigation against Pinterest that led to major commitments to governance reform at the social media company and convinced a Manhattan federal judge to keep investor claims alive against Wells Fargo in a suit over the company’s noncompliance with federal consent decrees. These accomplishments and others have earned her a spot among the securities law practitioners under age 40 honored by Law360 as Rising Stars.
The biggest case of her career:
Bowen drafted the brief that allowed Wells Fargo investors to avoid dismissal of a proposed securities class action claiming the bank hurt investors by concealing its noncompliance with federal consent decrees.
In its January 2021 dismissal bid, Bowen told Law360, Wells Fargo had argued that because of certain confidentiality restrictions that apply to banks, it had to keep material information from its investors.
“If that argument was accepted, it would obviously have really problematic implications,” Bowen said. “It would mean that banks could conceal problems they were having with their regulators, which are some of the most important issues that investors care about.”
Bowen recalled the moment that her team got the decision on the matter from U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods.
“It was thrilling,” she said. “It’s very exciting when you get a decision back from a judge who you respect and who you know took a careful look at everything and ultimately agreed with you.”
The most interesting case she’s worked on lately:
Bowen has played a central role in shareholder derivative litigation against social media company Pinterest alleging the company’s brass turned a blind eye to, or participated in, discrimination on the basis of race and sex.
Cohen Milstein described the settlement reached with the company, which a judge initially signed off on in February, as “a first of its kind,” with the company making significant commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and corporate governance reforms as part of its $50 million deal with investors.
“Pinterest is a company that really targets women and people of color as some of the most important users of the product, so being consistent with anti-discrimination principles internally is really important for their business success — as well as following the law and doing the right thing,” Bowen told Law360.
Bowen, who took a lead role in the firm’s investigation, drafting the complaint and settlement talks, said that it was “incredibly satisfying to feel like we were able to come to a resolve that would make a material difference for people who had been through a bad experience to ensure that investors really knew what’s happening in the company.”
Her proudest moment as an attorney:
Bowen cited the Pinterest case as a source of great pride.
“Getting through all these hurdles and reaching a resolution that is very meaningful, that is directly tied to allegations in our case, and that is changing structurally how the board of a company and a public company operates, is something I’m incredibly proud of,” she said.
What motivates her:
Bowen said she’s motivated by her clients and by the nature of her practice as a plaintiffs lawyer.
“We primarily represent public pension funds, who are protecting the assets of often just regular working folks like nurses, firefighters and teachers who work their [whole] lives and put money into a pension or their 401(k)s, who have been harmed by the corporate fraud and misconduct that is at issue in cases,” she said. “So being able to stand up and recover money for people who have been harmed [is a] very tangible outcome and is very motivating — particularly in this time that is, you know, precarious for so many people, it feels really significant to be able to do that.”
She added that being able “to expose misconduct that has happened, and to try and push the law to become more expansive and more protective, is incredibly inspiring.”
“It’s hard to think of what can be more exciting than getting to do that as a lawyer — to be able to help more people and to protect people through your work,” she said.
Why she is a securities attorney:
“I really love securities because the legal issues are so complicated, the stakes are so high, and you always are learning something new: our cases involve such a varied subject matter and all these different industries, so there’s always a chance to become an expert in a new field,” Bowen said.
In particular, she said, “with the derivative cases, working with experts to design settlement terms and corporate governance — practices that will cause better board oversight — has been a really exciting and stimulating part of our practice that I’ve really enjoyed.”
Daniel H. Silverman has scored important class certification wins, including on behalf of animators who successfully forced major film studios to settle no-poach allegations, making him one of the competition attorneys under age 40 honored by Law360 as Rising Stars.
His biggest case:
Silverman was part of the Cohen Milstein team that negotiated nearly $170 million in deals with major Hollywood studios such as The Walt Disney Co., Pixar and Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC to resolve allegations that they agreed not to poach each other’s animators. Labor-side antitrust cases hadn’t yet fully become an important feature of class action litigation, meaning that to win class certification, Silverman said his team had to navigate “novel and interesting and challenging issues,” especially in trying to show that an array of different workers in different jobs earning different salaries all suffered the same kind of injury that could be lumped together.
“What makes it kind of unusual there is that we’re trying to get a class certified that involved these animation workers with hundreds if not thousands of different job titles,” Silverman said. “So there were people in all sorts of different jobs in that industry. All part of the same class. That’s unusual as compared to a normal antitrust class action where you’re representing consumers who all bought the same product.”
Another notable case:
Silverman is one of the attorneys representing Ultimate Fighting Championship fighters suing UFC over an alleged anti-competitive “scheme” to keep their earnings low by buying up competitors or locking up top fighters in exclusive multiyear contracts, and they are now hoping for a long-awaited decision for formal class certification.
Working with UFC fighters has meant navigating a case “full of drama and intrigue,” said Silverman, who’s been fascinated by the world of the sport. Silverman had watched some UFC fights beforehand, but he said supporting the expert work, his main role in the case, involved a considerable learning curve. He read everything he could on the economics of mixed martial arts and of professional sports amid an industry shift to a free-agent system.
“It was really important to get a really granular understanding of how the sport actually works, the business of the sport and how the sport functions,” he said.
Silverman is particularly proud that U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware has said he plans to grant class certification. He pointed to the dedication of the fighters he represents.
“They work so hard, they get injured,” he said. “They really put everything on the line every time they get in the octagon. And to feel that we were able to have some success on their behalf was just really gratifying.”
What motivates him:
Silverman says he is driven by digging deep to understand legal and economic issues that intersect in the antitrust practice.
“Getting to the precise, correct answer and actually figuring out how to explain complicated economic concepts to lay judges, I think that’s fundamentally what motivates me,” he said. “Being able to really take complicated ideas and boil them down in language that lawyers and judges can understand.”
Why he’s an antitrust attorney:
Silverman said he particularly enjoyed science and math as an undergraduate physics major, and he even spent a year before law school working at an engineering lab affiliated with MIT.
“One of the things that I found fascinating about antitrust law is the way that social science and economics and econometrics can actually drive the evolution of the law itself,” he said. “I don’t know if there’s any other area of the law I can think of where social scientific work has played such [an] influential role in actually driving the path of the doctrine itself. The Supreme Court itself has often been persuaded by arguments from economists and social scientists in terms of how we should think about the normative goals of the antitrust laws.”
Tenant-screening service allegedly discriminated against voucher holders
A tenant-screening service is being accused of violating fair housing laws by discriminating against low-income tenants of color.
The National Consumer Law Center filed a lawsuit in federal court last week against Texas-based SafeRent Solutions, Law360 reported. The center alleged SafeRent violated the Fair Housing Act and state laws by giving poor risk-profile scores to Black and Hispanic rental applicants with housing vouchers, the suit claimed.
The risk scores resulted in some of those carrying vouchers to be denied housing, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claimed SafeRent Scores accounts for credit history and non-tenancy debts but not the benefits provided by housing vouchers. According to the suit, this disproportionately hurts Black and Hispanic applicants, who typically had lower credit scores than white ones.
“Credit scores and conventional credit history are not accurate predictors of a successful tenancy,” Christine Webber, co-chair of the Civil Rights and Employment practice at law firm Cohen Milstein, stated in a release. Greater Boston Legal Services and Cohen Milstein are also representing the plaintiffs.
. . .
This is not the first time Cohen Milstein and SafeRent have found themselves on the opposite sides of litigation. In 2018, the law firm filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the screening service related to artificial intelligence. That case is still being litigated.