- Suit stems from Deloitte’s auditing for Scana nuclear project
- Meets typicality, predominance certification requirements
Deloitte & Touche LLP failed to convince a federal court to deny certification of a class of investors suing over its audit reports on the ultimately abandoned $9 billion Scana Corp. nuclear reactor project.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension Fund was typical of other class members in relying on alleged misrepresentations from the consulting firm, and Deloitte failed to shake a predominance finding when it argued those misrepresentations weren’t connected to later corrective notices, according to the US District Court for the District of South Carolina.
IBEW alleged that Deloitte, Scana’s longtime auditor, knew the V.C. Summer project couldn’t meet a federal tax credit deadline but continued to issue clean audit reports. The South Carolina project was abandoned in 2017 after running years behind schedule and costing more than $20 billion.
The project’s collapse has also brought securities and criminal charges, and civil litigation, against various parties over the past several years—from a $25 million settlement Scana reached with the SEC, to Scana executives pleading guilty to fraud charges.
Deloitte failed with its argument that the truth was revealed in a 10-K issued Feb. 24, 2017, or when the project was publicly abandoned in Jul. 31, 2017. “Questions of fact remain as to whether any disclosure before” Dec. 20, 2017 “completely cured the market,” the court said.
. . .
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is class counsel. Tinkler Law Firm LLC is liaison counsel. Moore & Van Allen and Milbank LLP represents Deloitte.
A South Carolina federal judge on Tuesday certified a class of SCANA Corp. investors accusing Deloitte of issuing audit reports that misled them about the progress the utility company was making on a $9 billion nuclear energy expansion project that failed.
U.S. District Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, in a 32-page order, granted the class certification motion brought by the lead plaintiff, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension Fund, finding that it meets the requirements of a typical and adequate class representative. Even though IBEW bought SCANA shares after alleged partial corrective disclosures were made, the judge determined that does not make it atypical.
“Multiple courts have held that ‘a stock purchase after a partial corrective disclosure is not per se evidence that a class representative is atypical and did not rely on the alleged fraudulent representations,'” Judge Austin said, pointing to the 2022 case In re Under Armour Securities Litigation , in which a Maryland federal judge found that the plaintiffs’ allegations suggested the price they paid still “reflected their reliance on the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions.”
“Similarly, here, IBEW alleges that it relied on Deloitte’s material misrepresentations and omissions when purchasing SCANA’s common stock in an efficient market” after a partially corrective disclosure was made, she added. “Further, as IBEW points out, there is no suggestion that it is the only class member who bought stock after the partial disclosures.”
. . .
IBEW in January moved for class certification and to appoint Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as class counsel and Tinkler Law Firm LLC as liaison counsel.
In her order Tuesday, Judge Austin also determined that IBEW has shown that questions common to class members predominate over any questions affecting just individual members. The judge found that Deloitte hasn’t proven that “the asserted misrepresentation (or its correction) did not affect the market price of the defendant’s stock,” the order states.
“Deloitte has not established that the alleged misstatements in its audit reports … are not related or relevant to the alleged corrective disclosures, which revealed that the nuclear project would not be completed on time or at all; that the costs of the nuclear project were significantly higher than projected; that SCANA knew of and actively misrepresented clear risks to regulators; and that the [Base Load Review Act] rate recovery was at risk,” the judge said.
Judge Austin also approved IBEW’s choice of Cohen Milstein as class counsel and Tinkler as liaison counsel, according to the order.
Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
SCANA has faced multiple suits over the nuclear power work. It was part of a $520 million settlement with utility customers that was granted preliminary approval in March 2020. Its investors in January 2020 asked a federal judge to sign off on a $192 million settlement resolving allegations the company and its executives misled the public about project delays.
IBEW Local 98 is represented by Laura H. Posner, Steven J. Toll and Jan Messerschmidt of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and William Tinkler of Tinkler Law Firm LLC.
A Maryland federal judge refused Friday to toss an antitrust suit accusing Actelion Pharmaceuticals of illegally denying generics companies the samples they needed to produce generic versions of its hypertension drug Tracleer, while separately certifying a class composed of “hundreds” of insurers and self-funded employers.
U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III issued two omnibus opinions Friday, including a sealed decision rejecting Actelion’s bid to nix the case on summary judgment. Publicly, Judge Russell also granted the class certification sought by the Government Employees Health Association, rejecting Actelion arguments that the contours of the proposed class of third-party payors were too hard to define.
. . .
“We are pleased that members of the third-party payor class who paid higher prices for branded and generic Tracleer as a result of Actelion’s alleged conduct will have their day in court,” said Sharon K. Robertson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
. . .
The plaintiffs are represented by Sharon K. Robertson, Donna M. Evans, Aaron J. Marks and Joseph M. Sellers of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Thomas M. Sobol, Hannah Schwarzschild, Rachel A. Downey and Erin C. Burns of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John D. Radice, A. Luke Smith and Rishi Raithatha of Radice Law Firm PC and Archana Tamoshunas of Taus Cebulash & Landau LLP.
A California federal jury hit Commercial Metals Co. with a $110 million antitrust verdict on Tuesday, finding the Texas rebar giant liable for multiple antitrust violations and awarding Pacific Steel Group millions of dollars in lost profits and other damages.
A unanimous nine-member jury handed down the verdict in favor of San Diego-based steel fabricator PSG after less than 3 hours of jury deliberations in the high-stakes jury trial that began Oct. 22 in Oakland, California, according to court documents.
During trial, PSG accused Texas-based CMC of suppressing competition by pushing micromill-maker Danieli Corp. into a three-year exclusivity contract barring Danieli from developing most rival mills within 500 miles around CMC’s since-shuttered Rancho Cucamonga, California mill.
Jurors found Tuesday that PSG has proven “by a preponderance of the evidence” that there is a relevant steel rebar market 500 miles around the mill, and that CMC’s exclusivity contract with Danieli was an unreasonable restraint of trade in that market, according to the verdict form.
Jurors also concluded that CMC attempted to monopolize the market and that its conduct harmed PSG, which acquired land north of Los Angeles to build a new cutting edge rival “micromill” with Danieli, the verdict form says.
In light of CMC’s misconduct, jurors awarded PSG $74 million in lost profits from its mill operations; $12.9 million in lost rebar transportation savings; $10.8 million in lost fabrication cost savings and $12.28 million in increased costs to purchase the mill due to inflation, according to the verdict form.
That brings PSG’s total potential damages award to $110 million, which is the full amount PSG’s counsel had sought during trial closings.
. . .
Pacific Steel Group is represented by William C. Price of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Benjamin D. Brown, Daniel McCuaig, Nathaniel D. Regenold and Daniel A. Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
The Fall 2024 issue of the Shareholder Advocate, our quarterly securities litigation and investor protection newsletter, features:
- $580 Million Stock Lending Settlement Earns Final Approval – Michael Eisenkraft and Julie Reiser
- Abbott Investors Secure Important Ruling – Carol Gilden and Molly Bowen
- Investors Settle SPAC Litigation – Richard Speirs
- SEC Heightens Liability for Individual Auditors Who Break Accounting Rules – Richard Lorant
- Fiduciary Focus: Court Rules Members Lack Standing to Sue Defined Benefit Plan Over Investment Choices – Suzanne Dugan
- Team Profile: Susan Greenwood
We are also pleased to announce our selection and retention of the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll who will work with Savage Law Partners under the direction of the Attorney General’s Office, to represent the State in the Washington Bridge lawsuit. Cohen Milstein has an extensive track record, which includes successfully navigating complex, high-profile matters, such as the landmark Flint, Michigan Water Contamination litigation. We are looking forward to working with Cohen Milstein and are confident that their expertise will be instrumental in steering this matter to a successful outcome.”
Prison phone company Global*Tel Link Corp will pay $17 million to escape claims that it colluded with two other companies to inflate the cost of calls made from inside U.S. prisons after a Maryland federal judge gave the deal her preliminary seal of approval Wednesday afternoon.
U.S. Circuit Judge Lydia K. Griggsby conducted the entire fairness hearing top to bottom in under 30 minutes, saying at the end that she was satisfied that the settlement was fair and that the proposed class — which could number in the tens of thousands — was good for preliminary certification.
In closing, she reminded the parties that there was still “quite a bit of work to be done in this case” to identify who all the class members are and figure out how to notify them, since the parties are not yet sure exactly how many people will fit the bill.
The class will comprise anyone who received a call from a loved one from a facility with phone service run by GTL during a certain period and paid for that call, since the provisionally certified class argues they paid an inflated rate.
. . .
The family members of prisoners and the proposed class are represented by Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Justice Catalyst Law Inc., the Human Rights Defense Center and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
Most Californians are now eligible for a class action settlement claim and could receive an estimated $19 to $48, after a $27.5 million was reached between two Oakland activists and Thomson Reuters over its Clear platform.
U.S. District Court Judge Edward M. Chen tentatively approved the settlement in the Northern District of California on Oct. 11. Chen will decide whether to finally approve the settlement on Feb. 13, 2025.
The law firms, Gibbs Law Group and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed the lawsuit in 2020 on behalf of Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, alleging that Thomson Reuters collected millions of California residents’ personal and confidential information, and then it sold access to it without their knowledge or consent.
Thomson Reuters is best known for its news agency, Reuters, and its online legal-research service, Westlaw.
But the company makes money in another, lesser-known way: It collects photos, identifying information and personal data – without their consent – and sells that information to law enforcement, corporations and government agencies through a platform called Clear, the suit alleges.
The company advertises that Clear enables its users to access “both surface and deep web data to examine intelligence” about people “not found in public records or traditional search engines.”
“Because of CLEAR, Californians’ identities are up for sale without their knowledge,” the suit states, “let alone consent.”
The company, which did not admit wrongdoing, also agreed to limit the data it keeps on state residents and to make that data easier to delete.
. . .
Anyone who has lived in California anytime since December 3, 2016, may qualify. Learn more and file a claim here.
At least four antitrust class actions allege Visa forced merchants and consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for debit card transactions, mirroring the allegations of a U.S. Department of Justice complaint.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed multiple antitrust class actions against Visa Inc. following the Sept. 24 U.S. Department of Justice complaint alleging the global payments company maintains an unlawful monopoly in U.S. debit card network services markets.
At least four class actions filed in New York or California federal courts since Oct. 1 allege Visa has forced merchants and consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for debit card transactions. All of these lawsuits demand treble or triple damages and an injunction that would end Visa’s alleged anticompetitive practices.
The litigation surge was surfaced by Law.com Radar.
Burns Charest sued Visa in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Yabla Inc. Oct. 22—the same date Bathaee Dunne filed a class action in the Northern District of California on behalf of TD Bank Visa debit card customer Richard Pantano.
“Visa prevents innovators and rivals from meaningfully competing with Visa, forcing merchants to remain in overpriced contracts and try to recoup those absurd costs from their customers through surcharges and higher prices,” Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy alleged in a complaint filed Oct. 21 on behalf of Nuts for Candy in the SDNY.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll accused Visa of violating the Sherman Act in an antitrust complaint filed in the SDNY Oct. 1 on behalf of All Wrapped Up Signs and Graphix.
Similar to the DOJ complaint, all four class actions accuse Visa of using exclusionary and anticompetitive conduct without any legal justification.
“The settlement we helped MMA fighters achieve recovers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost compensation from the UFC,” said Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-chair of its antitrust practice.
A Nevada federal judge has approved a preliminary $375 million settlement agreement between the Ultimate Fighting Championship and several UFC fighters who accused the mixed martial arts company of unlawful wage suppression.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Latham & Watkins represented UFC in this antitrust class action filed in 2014 by Berger Montague, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm.
“The settlement we helped MMA fighters achieve recovers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost compensation from the UFC,” Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner of Cohen Milstein and co-chair of its antitrust practice, said Wednesday in a press statement.