An Ohio federal judge on Friday denied Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.’s bid to toss a proposed class action alleging the company breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act through the mismanagement of employees’ pension plan.

In a 14-page opinion, U.S. District Judge James L. Graham denied a request by Nationwide Mutual, its subsidiaries and benefit committee members to end the proposed class action alleging they violated ERISA by transferring assets from the pension plan — called the Guaranteed Investment Fund, which is an investment option under Nationwide’s larger savings plan — to a Nationwide Mutual subsidiary that serviced the plan.

The judge held that the most recent rendition of the complaint sufficiently alleges a fiduciary breach by stating “outright” that the defendants favored the economic interests of Nationwide Mutual over plan participants.
. . .

The plan participants are represented by Eric H. Zagrans of the Zagrans Law Firm LLC and Karen Handorf, Michelle C. Yau, Scott M. Lempert and Daniel R. Sutter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

A New Jersey federal judge adopted a special master’s report Tuesday approving two settlements totaling over $23 million to resolve claims that the former Valeant Pharmaceuticals used a “secret network of captive pharmacies” to stifle generic competition, driving up prices for third-party payors.

The approval ends what U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp in his memorandum opinion called “lengthy and robust” litigation accusing the drug company of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act with an alleged scheme to block its drugs from generic competition.

Citgo Petroleum Corp. must face a proposed class action claiming it shortchanges the pensions of certain married retirees by calculating their benefits using outdated lifespan data, according to a Chicago federal court ruling issued Tuesday.

Citgo retirees Leslie Urlaub and Mark Pellegrini are moving forward with claims that the pensions they received from Citgo, which include post-death benefits for their surviving spouses, aren’t the “actuarial equivalent” of a traditional, single-life pension as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Citgo argued that the statute doesn’t expressly prohibit employers from using unreasonable lifespan data when making these calculations, but the court disagreed, saying it “cannot possibly be the case that ERISA’s actuarial equivalence requirements allow the use of unreasonable mortality assumptions.”

. . .

Urlaub and Pellegrini are represented by Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Stris & Maher LLP, and the University of San Diego Law School.

A federal judge has rejected efforts by former President Donald Trump to toss out conspiracy lawsuits filed by lawmakers and two Capitol police officers, saying in his ruling that the former president’s words “plausibly” led to the riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said in his Friday ruling that Trump’s words during a rally before the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol were likely “words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment.”

“Only in the most extraordinary circumstances could a court not recognize that the First Amendment protects a President’s speech,” Mehta wrote. “But the court believes this is that case.”

. . .

During a planned rally on the Ellipse just hours before Congress was to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, Trump told his supporters to “Fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He said, “(We’re) going to try to and give (weak Republicans) the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country,” and then told the crowd to “walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Mehta said Trump’s speech could have directed people to break the law. But the judge dismissed similar charges made against Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and lawyer Rudy Giuliani, saying their speech was protected by the First Amendment. Mehta did not yet rule on another motion to dismiss from Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, also named in the suits.

Lawyer Joseph Sellers, who along with the NAACP is representing that group of House Democrats, said the ruling was “a major victory for the rule of law, and demonstrates just how important the courts are for ensuring accountability.

The ruling means the plaintiffs in three civil cases will likely be able to seek information from the former president over his role in the attack on the Capitol.

A federal judge in Washington ruled on Friday that three civil lawsuits against Donald J. Trump related to the attack on the Capitol last January were able to move forward, saying that the former president was not shielded by the normal protections of immunity or the First Amendment.

The ruling by the judge, Amit P. Mehta, meant that the plaintiffs in the suits — several members of Congress and police officers who served at the Capitol during the attack — will likely be able to seek information from Mr. Trump about the specific role he played in fostering the chaos at the building on Jan. 6, 2021.

If ultimately found liable, Mr. Trump could also be on the hook for financial damages.

Judge Mehta’s order capped a difficult week for Mr. Trump, one in which a judge in New York ruled that he had to answer questions from state investigators examining his company, the Trump Organization, for evidence of fraud. Officials at the National Archives also said that Mr. Trump had taken classified national security documents from the White House to his private club in Florida.

The lawsuits, all of which were filed last year, accused Mr. Trump of overlapping charges of conspiring with several others — people like his lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, his son Donald Trump Jr. and extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia — to sow doubts about the 2020 election, culminating in the violent storming of the Capitol. Judge Mehta allowed the suits to go ahead against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, but dismissed them against Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump’s son.

. . .

“Above all else, it’s about accountability,” said Joseph Sellers, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs. Representatives for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A federal judge on Friday ruled that former President Donald Trump must face allegations that he stoked violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and conspired with extremist groups to disrupt Congress.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta of the District of Columbia found that the plaintiffs, which include Democratic members of Congress and U.S. Capitol police officers, plausibly alleged that Trump had a “tacit agreement” with the leader of the far-right Proud Boys group and members of the Oath Keepers militia to stop the election certification. Mehta determined that Trump’s appeal to his supporters on the morning of Jan. 6 to “fight like hell” against the certification could plausibly be considered incitement to violence.

. . .

The 112-page ruling came in response to three lawsuits filed in the months after the attack on the Capitol that alleged Trump, his associates and members of right-wing extremist groups violated the Ku Klux Klan Act by conspiring to disrupt Congress’ certification and storm the Capitol.

“Today is a major victory for the rule of law, and demonstrates just how important the courts are for ensuring accountability,” said Joseph Sellers, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, who is the co-lead counsel for a group of Democratic members of Congress in one of the cases. “This decision exhibits the finest tradition of our legal system – evaluating cases on their merits, not politics. We will continue to pursue justice through the courts and ensure accountability for this attack on our democracy.

Civil lawsuits seeking to hold Donald Trump accountable for the January 6, 2021, insurrection can move forward in court, a federal judge said Friday in a ruling outlining how the former President could conceivably be responsible for inciting the attack on the US Capitol.

Trump’s statements to his supporters before the riot “is the essence of civil conspiracy,” Judge Amit Mehta wrote in a 112-page opinion, because Trump spoke about himself and rallygoers working “towards a common goal” of fighting and walking down Pennsylvania Avenue.

“The President’s January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action,” Mehta said.

Democratic members of the House and police officers who defended the US Capitol on January 6 sued Trump last year, claiming he prompted his supporters to attack. Friday, Mehta wrote that the three lawsuits could move to the evidence-gathering phase and toward a trial — a major loss in court for Trump.

“To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent,” Mehta wrote.

. . .

Two of the lawsuits were brought by Democratic House members, while a third was filed by Capitol Police officers.

The lawmakers allege that they were threatened by Trump and others as part of a conspiracy to stop the congressional session that would certify the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021, according to the complaints. They argue that Trump should bear responsibility for directing the assaults.

. . .

Lawyers for the Democratic lawmakers and police were elated with the ruling Friday, though they likely face a long road of additional court tangles ahead.

“Today is a major victory for the rule of law, and demonstrates just how important the courts are for ensuring accountability,” said Joseph Sellers, who represents a group of Democratic members of Congress that was first to allege a civil conspiracy against Trump in court.

The NAACP, working alongside Sellers, also applauded the ruling, and the group’s president Derrick Johnson called for accountability for Trump and the right-wing groups.

A D.C. federal judge on Friday rejected former President Donald Trump’s claim that he has “absolute immunity” from a trio of lawsuits seeking to hold him liable for inciting last year’s deadly U.S. Capitol attack, saying the evidence shows that he assembled and directed thousands of supporters to march to the Capitol.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in his 112-page opinion that Jan. 6, 2021, “was supposed to mark the peaceful transition of power” as Congress voted to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory, yet Trump instructed supporters at a “Save America” rally near the White House that “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

This was “an idea he had come up with himself,” Judge Mehta ruled, siding with 11 Democratic lawmakers who sued, as well as two U.S. Capitol Police officers who battled with rioters and are seeking damages for physical injuries and racist abuse they suffered. The lawsuits alleged that the riot, which left five people dead, including a Capitol Police officer, was a direct result of Trump and some of his allies’ actions.

The key argument in Trump’s bid to escape the suits is that the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1982 decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald establishes that a president cannot be sued for official actions during his presidency. But Judge Mehta rejected this argument, saying that denying a president immunity “from civil damages is no small step” but the “alleged facts of this case are without precedent, and the court believes that its decision is consistent with the purposes behind such immunity.”

The judge added that while Trump’s campaign-style speech did touch on matters of public concern — his pledge to work on election laws in a second term — “the main thrust of the speech was not focused on policy or legislation” but to double down on his baseless claim that the election was fraudulent.

. . .

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC partner Joseph Sellers, an attorney for the lawmakers who brought claims under the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan Act, said the ruling is “a major victory for the rule of law, and demonstrates just how important the courts are for ensuring accountability.”

“This decision exhibits the finest tradition of our legal system — evaluating cases on their merits, not politics. We will continue to pursue justice through the courts and ensure accountability for this attack on our democracy,” Sellers added.

• Congress passed a bill banning mandatory arbitration for sexual harassment and assault claims.
• Employment attorneys say it could pave the way for more expansive worker protections.
• Efforts to ban mandatory arbitration clauses have been ramping up for years.

Workers alleging sexual assault and harassment scored a key victory last week, when Congress passed a bill that banned employers from forcing those claims to go to arbitration.

Based on the impact of previous legislation that emerged from the #MeToo movement, employment attorneys say it’s likely the bill will pave the way for more worker-friendly workplace changes—specifically policies that ban mandatory arbitration for other types of civil rights violations.

. . .

First introduced in 2017 by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Lindsey Graham, the bipartisan Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 amends the Federal Arbitration Act, so that employers can no longer put mandatory arbitration clauses applicable to sexual assault and harassment claims in employee contracts, offer letters, or handbooks.

The bill also bans clauses waiving a worker’s right to bring these claims on a class basis.

Once signed into law by President Biden, the bill will benefit alleged victims of sexual assault and harassment in several ways, said Julie Goldsmith Reiser, a Washington, D.C., partner at plaintiffs’ firm Cohen Milstein.

Because many companies work with a limited pool of arbitrators, and the arbitrators have an incentive to make sure they remain in that pool and continue to secure business, “mandatory arbitration has a way of … tipping the scales toward a company who is a repeat player with the arbitrator,” Reiser said. Other routes to resolving sexual assault and harassment claims—including litigation—could potentially level the playing field for accusers.

Most critically, however, the bill would give alleged victims a choice in how they want to pursue their claims. While COVID-19 court closures have resulted in delays for workplace sexual assault and harassment litigation nationwide, pushing many plaintiffs to turn to mediation or the quicker arbitration process instead, “what you want to get away from is the mandatory part of it,” Reiser said.

“I’m sure there are excellent arbitrators out there, I’m sure that arbitration can be faster, and I’m sure that in situations where people want to have their litigation resolved quietly and confidentially, that’s a good outcome,” Reiser said. “The only issue then becomes: do they have a choice? Are they making the choice with all the information out there or not?”

But the fact that the new law only covers sexual assault and harassment claims could bring practical challenges. If a single worker simultaneously brought sexual harassment and race discrimination claims against a company, for example, “It’s possible that the courts may end up splitting the claim and say, ‘Well, you can’t go to arbitration for this claim. But you can go to arbitration on that claim,’” said Wasserman. “So are people going to be litigating in two separate forums?”

Both Wasserman and Reiser opined that mandatory arbitration bans could eventually extend to more types of employment claims. The impact of other pieces of legislation spawned by the #MeToo movement may be instructive. In California, for example, a law that went into effect in 2019 banned the use of confidentiality clauses in settlements or severance agreements related to workplace sexual assault or harassment. Last month, another bill in the state known as the Silenced No More Act extended the same ban to all types of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace.

Another California bill that came out of the #MeToo movement, which required corporate boards for certain companies to meet a quota for female board members, was similarly expanded two years after it was passed in 2018. In 2020, the state passed a second bill mandating a similar quota for board members from other underrepresented communities.

. . .

Reiser said she is hopeful the legal landscape will continue to shift. “Everybody should feel safe at work,” Reiser said.

“Usually if somebody is willing to harass, they’re also doing softer forms of discrimination,” she said, adding that, ideally, arbitration bans “will expand to cover these.”

Credit Suisse has agreed to pay investors $81 million to be the first bank to exit a putative New York federal court class action accusing banks of colluding to kill competition in the stock loan market, the investors said in a bid for preliminary approval of the so-called icebreaker deal Friday.

As a part of the deal, Credit Suisse AG has agreed to cooperate with the investors as they go after the remaining banks in the suit, including Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, the investors said in their bid for approval. The settlement represents between 8% and 17% of Credit Suisse’s proportional share of the damages the investors believed they’ve suffered.

. . .

Stock lending is a temporary transfer of a stock from one investor to another, and it serves as the foundation of short selling. The prime broker defendants are all major players in the stock lending business — their market share has reached as much as 80% in recent years, according to the investors — and serve as middlemen between lenders and borrowers.

The suit was filed in 2017 by a group of public pension funds alleging that these prime brokers circled the wagons when innovation threatened their entrenched positions in the form of electronic platforms offered by startups like Quadriserv and SL-x. The prime brokers agreed to boycott the companies to “starve them of liquidity” and then used EquiLend LLC — a stock loan platform they jointly controlled — to buy up their weakened rivals and shut them down, according to the suit.

The antitrust suit has been in discovery since 2018, when U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla rejected the banks’ attempts to dismiss the allegations. In that ruling, she said the investors have alleged sufficient antitrust standing to pursue their claims.

The investors moved for class certification in February 2020 and asked to appoint Quinn Emanuel and Cohen Milstein as co-lead counsel.

. . .

The investors are represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Safirstein Metcalf LLP, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.