In-depth investigations reveal apartments in Navy Yard, Shaw, and NoMa allegedly discriminated against potential renters

Washington, D.C. – The Equal Rights Center (ERC), the premier fair housing organization representing the greater Washington, D.C. region, today filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court against JAG Management Company (JAG) and Jefferson Apartment Group, the companies behind several luxury residential properties across the District. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants engage in widespread discriminatory housing practices that unlawfully exclude applicants with housing vouchers and implemented tenant screening criteria that violate D.C. housing, consumer protection, and civil rights laws.

The complaint alleges violations at four JAG-managed properties in or near D.C.’s Shaw, NoMa, and Navy Yard neighborhoods: J. Coopers Row, Jefferson MarketPlace, J Linea, and Pinnacle. Investigations conducted by the ERC found that JAG imposes numerous unlawful requirements on prospective renters, including minimum income requirements for voucher holders and overly broad eviction records and criminal background screenings. 

“Housing discrimination isn’t always blatant—it’s often hidden and systematized in unfair tenant screening policies—but the harm it causes is clear,” said Kate Scott, Executive Director of the Equal Rights Center. “Our investigation shows that renters with vouchers, outdated evictions, and irrelevant criminal records are being discriminated against at buildings in D.C.’s fastest-growing neighborhoods. That’s unacceptable, and we’re taking action.”

Under D.C. law, landlords are prohibited from denying housing to individuals based on source of income—including housing vouchers—and must adhere to strict limits when considering eviction and criminal records in tenant screenings. Yet, as the complaint details, across three JAG properties, ERC testing revealed that voucher holders are subject to minimum income requirements, which is prohibited by the D.C. Human Rights Act. At the fourth property, an ERC tester was told outright that vouchers were not accepted.

The Housing Choice Voucher Program, a federally funded rental subsidy program, currently supports over 11,000 low-income D.C. families. Designed to provide housing access in safe, high-opportunity neighborhoods, the program is undermined when landlords illegally reject applicants simply because of how they pay rent.

The ERC also uncovered illegal criminal background and eviction record screening practices. Testing revealed that multiple JAG properties inquire about any evictions, regardless of how long ago they were resolved, in clear violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act and the Rental Housing Act. One JAG property applied a blanket ban on applicants with criminal records, regardless of context or the amount of time elapsed, in direct defiance of the District’s Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act.

“The law is clear: you cannot require a voucher holder to prove income beyond what’s legally required, and you cannot disqualify people based on sealed evictions or irrelevant criminal records,” said Brian Corman, Partner at Cohen Milstein. “These are not just suggestions; they are civil rights protections, meant to address persistent and pervasive discrimination in the District, and this lawsuit demands these laws be enforced.”

“Screening practices that exclude voucher holders and people with certain criminal histories function as modern-day redlining,” said Mirela Missova, Supervising Counsel at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee. “They reinforce segregation, deepen inequality, and block families from accessing opportunity. We’re proud to stand with the ERC in this fight.”

The ERC is represented by Brian Corman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and Ryan Downer, Mirela Missova, and Rebecca Guterman of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee.

The case name is Equal Rights Center v. Jefferson Apartment Group, et al., Superior Court of the District of Columbia. ERC brings these claims under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, which incorporates the requirements of the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Rental Housing Act, D.C. Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act, and the D.C. Security Deposit Act.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. We have litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continue to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States.

About Equal Rights Center

The ERC is a civil rights organization that identifies and seeks to eliminate unlawful and unfair discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations in its home community of Greater Washington D.C. and nationwide. The ERC’s core strategy for identifying unlawful and unfair discrimination is civil rights testing. When the ERC identifies discrimination, it seeks to eliminate it through the use of testing data to educate the public and business community, support policy advocacy, conduct compliance testing and training, and, if necessary, take enforcement action.

About Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs

The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs partners with community members and organizations on scores of cases to combat discrimination in housing, employment, education, immigration, criminal justice reform, and public accommodations based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. For over 50 years, the Committee has delivered a steady stream of civil rights victories to advance justice in the District and beyond.

BOSTON, MA – An antitrust class action lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts accuses some of the nation’s most prestigious colleges and universities of participating in an illegal conspiracy to inflate the cost of higher education through the collective enforcement of Early Decision admissions policies.

The complaint, filed by four students and a recent graduate, names as defendants 32 elite colleges and universities, two major college application platforms, and a private, highly secretive membership-only organization of private liberal arts colleges and universities, whose stated purpose is to share admissions and financial aid information among its members.    

Under Early Decision, students must agree to attend a specific institution if admitted, forfeiting the ability to consider competing offers or compare financial aid packages. The lawsuit alleges that schools that participate in the Early Decision scheme entered into a coordinated agreement not to recruit or admit students accepted through Early Decision elsewhere despite their shared understanding that Early Decision offers are not legally binding.      

According to Jude Robinson, a named plaintiff and current Vassar College student, “It does not seem fair that, in order to put my chances of admission on a level playing field with my peers, I had to give up the right to compare the cost of attendance at different schools. I thought I would get more financial aid than I did, but I never got a chance to weigh other options.” 

The students allege that under the current Early Decision system, the colleges lock Early Decision candidates into commitments before they can see the price of attendance. These commitments, which the schools misleadingly present as binding agreements, prevent students from weighing their options and seeing what competing institutions might offer in financial support. This allows the schools to charge higher prices and disproportionately harms students from middle- and lower-income families.      

“Early Decision is widely recognized to be unfair and harmful to students, even by the schools themselves,” said Edward Diver, partner at Langer Grogan & Diver P.C., which represents the plaintiffs. “It’s also a textbook antitrust violation—a horizontal agreement between competing schools not to compete.”

In addition to 32 named colleges and universities—including Columbia University, Cornell University, Duke University, and the University of Pennsylvania—defendants include the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE), Common Application Inc., and Scoir Inc., which operates the Coalition App. The students allege that these entities facilitated the information sharing and policy coordination among the school defendants, which contributed to artificially inflated tuition and suppressed financial aid.

“Early Decision applicants lose choice and negotiation leverage, while Regular Decision applicants are left to scramble for an artificially diminished number of admission slots doled out at lower acceptance rates. We contend that all of this is only made possible by an agreement not to compete that violates bedrock antitrust law,” said Benjamin Brown, co-chair of the Antitrust practice and managing partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, who also represents the plaintiffs.

The antitrust class action seeks an injunction to end the use of binding Early Decision, past damages for students forced to pay more than they would have, and broad structural reforms in how colleges conduct admissions and deliver financial aid going forward.    

“At a time when higher education is more expensive than ever, learning of this scheme among elite schools and organizations was disheartening,” said Alayna D’Amico, a recent graduate of Wesleyan University and named plaintiff. “I hope this lawsuit puts an end to practices that hurt hardworking students and families.”    

The students are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Langer Grogan & Diver. The case name isD’Amico, et al. v. Consortium on Financing Higher Education, et al.

###

About Langer Grogan & Diver P.C.

Langer Grogan & Diver P.C. is a Philadelphia-based litigation boutique focusing on antitrust, consumer fraud, trials and appeals, and high-stakes commercial disputes.

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

MDL bellwether cases are the first to address the largest data breach in 2023

BOSTON, MA – Today, a Massachusetts federal court largely denied the motions to dismiss in two bellwether cases against Progress Software Corporation and other defendants in In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation – a large multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving dozens of class actions from around the country and hundreds of defendants. The massive data breach, which was discovered in May 2023 and allegedly linked to Progress Software Corp.’s file-sharing software, MOVEit Transfer, impacted more than 2,500 organizations and more than 67 million individuals worldwide.

Allegedly starting as early as 2021, a ransomware group known as Clop (aka C10p) hacked the MOVEit Transfer servers, stealing customers’ sensitive data stored within. Affected entities include hospitals, banks, businesses, governments, pension funds, universities, among others. Plaintiffs in the MDL accuse Progress of failing to reasonably secure consumers’ personal information.

“Today’s ruling is an incredibly important and promising first step toward justice for the thousands of organizations and millions of individuals impacted by the MOVEit data breach,” said Doug McNamara, a consumer protection partner at Cohen Milstein and one of five co-leads overseeing the MDL.

For each of the two bellwether cases, the court issued one order that largely complemented each other. In MDL Order No. 22 (Progress Software), the court largely denied Progress Software’s motion to dismiss, including plaintiffs’ claims related to negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and many of the state-related unfair business practices and breach of consumer protection claims. In MDL Order No. 23 (PBI, Delta Dental, Maximus, Welltok), the court largely denied bellwether defendants PBI, Delta Dental, Maximus, and Welltok’s motions to dismiss largely along the same lines as Progress Software.

The five-member court-appointed leadership team includes Doug McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Charlie Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP; Karen Reibel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP; Gary Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, LLP; E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague; and Kristen Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

CHICAGO, July 21, 2025  —

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TO:     All persons who purchased or acquired Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (“Bayer”) American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) from May 23, 2016 to July 6, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby (the “Class”). ¹

• PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that Court-appointed Class Representatives Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund (collectively, “Lead Plaintiffs”), and additional named plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware (collectively with Lead Plaintiffs, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the certified Class; and Defendants Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (“Bayer” or the “Company”), Werner Baumann, Werner Wenning, Liam Condon, Johannes Dietsch, and Wolfgang Nickl (collectively with Bayer, “Defendants”), have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned class action (the “Action”) and related claims in the amount of $38,000,000 in cash (the “Settlement”) that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on October 30, 2025 at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Richard Seeborg either in person at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 3 – 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by telephone or videoconference, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 23, 2025 (and in the Notice), should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable, and (iv) whether Lead Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses should be approved. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

 If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the proposed Settlement, and you may be entitled to a monetary payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form (“Claim Form”), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Bayer Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173084, Milwaukee, WI 53217; calling toll-free (800) 524-0614; or emailing info@BayerADRSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.BayerADRSecuritiesLitigation.com. 

If you are a member of the Class, to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked (or submitted online) no later than October 16, 2025. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice mailed in 2023 and want to opt back into the Class and be eligible to receive a payment, you must request to opt back into the Class by submitting a written request in accordance with the instructions in the Settlement Notice such that the request is received no later than October 9, 2025. If you previously excluded yourself from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and do not opt back into the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court related to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel such that they are received no later than October 9, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

 Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk’s Office, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Bayer ADR Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173084
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Tel.: (800) 524-0614
info@BayerADRSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.BayerADRSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Attn: Carol V. Gilden
200 S. Wacker Drive
Suite 2375
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel.: (312) 357-0370
Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

Dated: July 21, 2025                                                                                                                                      By Order of the Court

¹ Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Proposed Class Action Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses (the “Notice”), available at www.BayerADRSecuritiesLitigation.com.  All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Notice have the meanings given in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of April 23, 2025 (the “Stipulation”). The Stipulation is available for Class Members to review at the above website.

SOURCE Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

This is the third motion for summary judgment that the court has struck down in the past two weeks.

Palm Beach County, FL — A Palm Beach County court has denied a motion by Caron Renaissance, a Delray Beach-based substance use treatment facility, that sought to invoke a Florida statute designed to prevent impaired individuals from recovering damages in civil lawsuits.

Florida Statute § 768.36, sometimes called the “alcohol or drug defense,” was enacted to limit civil liability when a person’s injuries are primarily the result of their own intoxication. However, courts have consistently held that it is up to a jury—not a judge—to decide whether the statute applies in a particular case.

That distinction proved critical in the wrongful death lawsuit brought by the parents of 18-year-old Nathan Mann. Nathan died in September 2020 after leaving Caron Renaissance without his phone or financial resources. He was struck by a train two days later in Oakland Park.

Caron argued that because postmortem toxicology showed Nathan had alcohol and substances in his system at the time of his death, the family should be barred from recovering damages for its alleged negligence in treating Nathan. The court rejected that argument, emphasizing that factual disputes remain as to Nathan’s level of impairment and whether he was more than 50 percent at fault for his death.

Nathan’s family alleges that Caron failed to take appropriate steps to protect their son, who had been admitted for treatment of mental health and substance use issues. “It’s hard to understand how a facility charged with helping young people recover could try to avoid responsibility by pointing to the very harm they were supposed to prevent,” said Ryan P. Ingraham of McLaughlin & Stern LLP.

This is Caron’s third motion seeking summary judgment to be denied in the last two weeks. The first order denying summary judgment on negligence was issued July 6, 2025.

The Mann’s are represented by Leslie M. Kroeger, Rachael Flanagan, and Takisha Richardson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC and Susan Ramsey and Ryan P. Ingraham of McLaughlin & Stern, LLP. The trial will take place in Palm Beach County later this year.

The name of the case is: Estate of Nathan Mann v. Caron of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Caron Renaissance, Case No. 2023-CA-009963, Palm Beach Cnty. Circuit Court (15th Circ.).

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

Certified class includes approximately 1,850 Intel retirees or their surviving spouses, who allege that Intel violated ERISA by converting their single life annuity to a joint and survivor annuity using unreasonable actuarial assumption.

SAN JOSE, CA – A federal judge certified a class of participants and beneficiaries in the Intel Minimum Pension Plan in a nationwide lawsuit against Intel Corporation for violating the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

The plaintiff alleges that the Intel Minimum Pension Plan penalized him and other married retirees when calculating their joint and survivor annuities. As a result, Intel deprived them of accrued, vested pension benefits when they receive their pension benefit in the default form of benefit for married participants. This error allegedly has cost these retirees millions in pension funds.

“We are pleased the judge granted class certification in this hard-fought lawsuit against Intel for violating ERISA,” said Daniel R. Sutter, partner of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “Intel’s retirees should not be shortchanged because of their marital status. We look forward to advancing claims on behalf of the class of joint and survivor annuity recipients to ensure they receive all the retirement benefits they earned through their years of work.”

Under ERISA, a joint and survivor annuity for married retirees must be “actuarily equivalent” to single life annuities for single retirees. To accomplish this, pension plan administrators use mortality rates and interest rates published by the U.S. Department of Treasury to convert single life annuity payments to joint and survivor annuity payments. However, the plaintiff in this case has argued that Intel used an outdated mortality table – dating back to 1983 – and therefore the plan participants and beneficiaries received less than the actuarial equivalent of their vested accrued benefit, in violation of ERISA.

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of nearly 1,850 Intel retirees and their surviving spouses who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity Intel Minimum Pension Plan.

The case, Berkeley v. Intel Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00343 was first filed on January 23, 2023 before the United States District Court of the Northern District of California.

This is one of six such cases the firm has filed against many the largest companies in the U.S. addressing similar claims, including against AT&T, IBM, Luxottica, and Southern Company. A certified marriage penalty class action against Citgo Petroleum was settled this past January.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com

Whistleblower in False Claims Act case alleged nursing homes were severely understaffed and provided grossly substandard care to residents, and submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid

DETROIT – The United States government and the State of Michigan have reached a $4.5 million settlement with Villa Financial Services LLC (“VFS”), Villa Olympia Investment LLC (“VOI”) and six Villa nursing homes they owned and operated throughout the greater Detroit area to resolve a legal action alleging violations of the False Claims Act filed by a whistleblower.  

The Villa nursing homes owned and operated by VFS and VOI include The Ambassador, Father Murray, Imperial, Regency, St. Joseph’s and Westland. The whistleblower alleged that VFS and VOI and the nursing homes defrauded the Medicare and Medicaid programs by not providing the level and quality of care that the government healthcare programs require and pay for.

“We commend our clients for blowing the whistle and bringing this lawsuit on behalf of the government to redress the severe understaffing and grossly substandard care that they allege pervaded the Villa nursing homes,” said Casey Preston, co-counsel for the whistleblower and member of Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower Practice. “This settlement illustrates the positive impact whistleblowers can achieve when they step forward and report conduct by nursing homes that deprives vulnerable residents of appropriate care and cheats government programs like Medicare or Medicaid.”

The whistleblower in the case is Detroit Integrity Partners, which brought claims under the False Claims Act and Michigan Medicaid False Claim Act.  

The nursing home residents included elderly, disabled, and bedridden individuals who require basic care to carry out their daily functions and maintain their physical, mental, and psychological well-being.  Detroit Integrity Partners alleged that from July 1, 2018 through January 31, 2021, the defendants (i) failed to provide a sufficient number of appropriately trained staff to adequately care for the residents, (ii) failed to take adequate measures to prevent, control, and provide care related to infections, such as pneumonia, sepsis, urinary tract infections, and wound infections, (iii) failed to take adequate measures to prevent and follow appropriate protocols related to resident falls, (iv) failed to appropriately provide for residents’ activities of daily living, including residents’ toileting needs, and (v) failed to follow appropriate protocols for the treatment of pressure ulcers – all in violation of federal and state law.

Detroit Integrity Partners alleged that by knowingly and systematically failing to provide these services and/or providing them in a materially and grossly substandard way, defendants violated Medicare’s and Medicaid’s requirements. Detroit Integrity Partners alleged that, as a result, the bills the defendants submitted to Medicare and Medicaid for the care and services they provided to the residents were materially false in violation of the federal False Claims Act and the Michigan Medicaid False Claim Act.  

Detroit Integrity Partners filed its qui tam action on October 16, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, captioned United States and the State of Michigan ex rel. Detroit Integrity Partners v. Detroit Nursing Center, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-13046-MAG-RSW.

The federal government filed its notice of intervention in the whistleblower’s action on June 17, 2024.

In settling, the defendants did not admit liability.

The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Jerome F. Gorgon, Jr., highlighted the Villa nursing home settlement in a June 30, 2025 announcement of criminal charges and civil resolutions in multiple health care fraud enforcement actions.

The federal False Claims Act and its state law equivalents permit private citizens to bring lawsuits on behalf of the government against persons who present false or fraudulent claims for payment under government contracts or programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE. Whistleblowers are entitled to receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment awarded against a defendant.

Detroit Integrity Partners is represented by national plaintiffs’ law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Michigan-based law firm Hertz Schram PC.

About Cohen Milstein

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Proton AG, a Swiss privacy-first technology company, today joined an antitrust class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. The suit, brought on behalf of a proposed class of app developers, alleges that Apple engages in illegal, anti-competitive policies and practices through its App Store that harm developers, consumers, and the public interest.

The complaint details how Apple has abused its monopoly control over app distribution on iOS devices to impose predatory policies and tariffs through its App Store, resulting in inflated prices, diminished privacy protections, and degraded user experience. The legal action comes in the wake of recent rulings against Apple, including a €500 million fine issued by the European Commission, and a U.S. court decision finding Apple in willful defiance of court orders in Epic Games v. Apple. The latter noted that Apple’s misconduct was so extreme that the judge referred the company for criminal prosecution.

By joining that lawsuit, Proton aims to ensure that this suit will not only be about monetary damages to compensate app developers for Apple’s conduct, but also changes to App Store policies that will permanently end anti-competitive behavior on the App Store. Proton will donate any money it receives from the lawsuit to organizations fighting for democracy and human rights so that some portion of Apple’s profits are redirected to freedom.

The complaint alleges that Apple’s App Store practices—including mandatory 30% commission fees, censorship of privacy-first apps, and technical restrictions on competitors—constitute monopolistic behavior that stifles innovation.

It is widely reported that Apple has removed or censored apps at the behest of authoritarian governments, in order to continue profiting from those markets. The advocacy group GreatFire.org has found that 66 out of the 100 most popular apps worldwide, including news, social networking and messaging apps are unavailable to iOS users in China. Apple has also removed apps to help suppress protests, such as the 2019 case of HKmaps.org which was removed at the height of the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

Just last year Apple removed dozens of VPN apps from the Russian App Store, a particularly concerning step considering how vital these services are for Russian citizens trying to access independent media and bypass censorship by the Russian government. In 2020, Apple threatened to take Proton VPN off the App Store unless the company removed language that said the app could be used to “unblock censored websites.” 

“It is critical for the future of the internet to end the monopoly on app distribution. Apple wields complete control over iOS app distribution and has time and time again used this power to harm competition and degrade users’ rights and experience for its own financial gain,” said Proton founder and CEO Andy Yen. “While it’s clearly a risk for Proton to take this stand, joining this lawsuit is the only way to push for tangible changes to Apple’s policies that will benefit developers and American consumers alike. Any money we receive from our participation in this lawsuit will be donated to organizations fighting for democracy and human rights so that some portion of Apple’s profits are redirected to causes that advance freedom around the world.”

Apple requires all developers pay a $99/year fee to be in the App Store, and takes a 30% cut from all revenue from all payments made through iOS apps. Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse user privacy aren’t affected by this as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier towards the adoption of privacy-first business models. In many cases these are also the very companies Apple is directly competing with through its disingenuous “privacy” marketing campaigns.

“Our client, Proton, is bravely stepping forward to fight for meaningful change. Agreeing to lead a class action is inherently a selfless act as it requires doing work for the benefit of others,” said Michael Eisenkraft, partner at Cohen Milstein, one of the law firms representing Proton and the proposed class. “Without accountability, Apple could get away with behavior in the U.S. that stifles both competition and innovation.” 

Apple claims the 30% fee is necessary to pay for the maintenance of the App Store, but evidence presented in Epic Games v. Apple indicated that Apple makes a staggering 78% profit margin on App Store fees. The company also prohibits developers from linking out to their websites, where users may be able to purchase service subscriptions directly from the developer, which has a negative impact on the user experience. Apple is able to bring in these steep profits at the expense of privacy-first developers due to the lack of competition in iOS app distribution.

Proton and the proposed class are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. The case was filed in the Northern District of California. 

### 

About Proton AG

Proton was founded in 2014 in Switzerland by scientists from CERN. Our vision is an internet where privacy is the norm – supported by an ecosystem of services that are accessible to everyone, anywhere, anytime.

Our first product, Proton Mail, is now the largest encrypted email service in the world. Complementary products like Proton VPN, Proton Calendar, Proton Drive, and Proton Pass also use advanced encryption technologies to give users full control over their data. All our products are open-source and are developed by a dedicated team of over 500 people, supported by an active community in more than 180 countries. The Proton Foundation, a nonprofit organization based in Geneva, is the main shareholder of Proton. Today, we make privacy accessible to everyone and protect over 100 million accounts, including those of journalists, major international organizations, and ordinary people around the world.

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

About Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is the largest law firm in the world devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration. Quinn Emanuel has been deemed the “most feared” law firm in BTI Consulting Group’s 2025 “Most Feared Law Firms in Litigation” guide in both 2024 and 2025.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Cohen Milstein is pleased to announce that public pension fund investors and EQT Corporation have reached an agreement to settle In re EQT Corporation Securities Litigation, a certified securities class action, in its entirety, for a cash payment of $167.5 million.

The settlement agreement, pending court approval, provides a favorable result for investor class members because it provides for a cash recovery and resolves any further litigation. The $167.5 million settlement is particularly significant given that, among other things, it is the largest securities class action recovery ever in the history of the Western District of Pennsylvania and the 14th largest in the history of the Third Circuit.

Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel believe that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members and represents a favorable result.

As court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel, Cohen Milstein represents the lead plaintiff group consisting of the Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Annuity Fund (f/k/a Northeast Carpenters Annuity Fund), Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Pension Fund (f/k/a Northeast Carpenters Pension Fund), Government of Guam Retirement Fund, and Cambridge Retirement System.

Background of Case and Settlement

In re EQT Corporation Securities Litigation is a certified securities class action brought against EQT and certain of the company’s current and former senior executives for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of the following class:

all persons and entities who: (i) purchased the common stock of EQT Corporation (“EQT”) during the period from June 19, 2017 through June 17, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”); (ii) held EQT shares as of the record date of September 25, 2017 and were entitled to vote with respect to the Acquisition at the November 9, 2017 special meeting of EQT shareholders; (iii) held Rice Energy Inc. (“Rice”) shares as of the record date of September 21, 2017 and were entitled to vote with respect to the Acquisition at the November 9, 2017 special meeting of Rice shareholders; and/or (iv) acquired the common stock of EQT in exchange for their shares of Rice common stock in connection with the Acquisition, and were damaged thereby.

The amended complaint alleged that from June 19, 2017 through June 17, 2019, the defendants made materially false or misleading representations and omissions regarding EQT’s drilling performance and capability, as well as the purported benefits of EQT’s acquisition of competing oil and gas company Rice Energy. The alleged false and misleading statements concerned, among other things, the combined company’s ability to drill 1,200 lateral wells at an average lateral length of 12,000 feet, and to realize $2.5 billion in synergies. The complaint asserted that the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions caused investors to purchase EQT common stock at artificially inflated prices and/or to approve EQT’s proposed acquisition, and to suffer damages when the truth was revealed.

In arriving at this settlement, lead counsel, including Cohen Milstein and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, reviewed over 5 million pages of documents, participated in depositions of 33 fact witnesses and 9 expert witnesses, retained and worked with experts on the subjects of damages, loss causation, natural gas drilling, and corporate due diligence, and thoroughly reviewed the applicable facts and law. Furthermore, the Parties extensively briefed motions (i) to dismiss, (ii) for class certification, (iii) for summary judgment, and (iv) to exclude expert opinions and testimony.

During the course of the hard-fought litigation, the court certified the class on August 11, 2022, and on September 23, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied defendants’ petition for interlocutory review of the court’s order granting class certification.

The case team at Cohen Milstein included Steven J. Toll, Daniel S. Sommers, S. Douglas Bunch, Christina D. Saler, Benjamin F. Jackson, and Alexandra Gray.

Following the Bayer-Monsanto merger, litigation has resulted in a valuable settlement that, pending final approval, affirms the rights of ADR investors to hold foreign companies accountable under U.S. securities laws.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today, a federal judge in California granted preliminary approval of a $38 million cash settlement between Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund, and International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware, and Bayer AG to resolve a certified securities class action against the pharmaceutical giant and certain executives.

Originally filed in 2020, the lawsuit stems from Bayer’s highly controversial acquisition of Monsanto in 2018. Plaintiffs alleged that Bayer, along with its CEO, the chairman of its Supervisory Board, and several other senior executives made false and misleading statements concerning the company’s due diligence on the risks associated with an ongoing large mass tort litigation alleging that Roundup, Monsanto’s flagship glyphosate-based herbicide, causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Following the merger, Bayer sustained a barrage of court defeats in that toxic tort litigation, forcing it to establish a $10.9 billion settlement fund.

The settlement follows nearly five years of intensive cross-border litigation and brings closure to, pending final approval, an important case that addressed critical questions about the adequacy and transparency of disclosures concerning due diligence in high-profile corporate mergers. The litigation also reaffirms that investors who purchase American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) on the over-the-counter market have enforceable rights under U.S. securities laws.

“This is an important settlement and resolution for our clients and investors who invest in publicly traded foreign companies through the U.S. over-the-counter markets,” said Carol Gilden, a partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed lead counsel in this matter. “This has been a hard-fought dispute. After years of litigation and international discovery, this resolution, pending final approval by the court, will help ensure accountability of a foreign company under U.S. securities laws. It will also provide closure for ADR investors harmed by Bayer’s alleged misleading statements.”

Central to the case were novel and complex questions about whether the plaintiffs’ and the class’s purchases were foreign transactions outside the scope of U.S. securities laws.

In May 2023, the court granted class certification, appointing Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund, and the International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as class representatives and Cohen Milstein as sole class counsel. Notably, the court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on the extraterritoriality issue, resulting in a landmark decision affirming the rights of ADR purchasers on the over-the-counter market—and particularly those of sponsored ADRs like Bayer’s.

Discovery was also expansive and complex, spanning multiple continents and legal systems. Among other things, plaintiffs were required to initiate proceedings under the Hague Convention to obtain the testimony of Bayer’s former general counsel in Germany—a process that demanded significant coordination with German counsel and judicial oversight from both U.S. and German courts.

The case is styled: Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, et al. v. Bayer Aktiengelsellchaft, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04737, U.S. District Court, District of Northern California.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices, Cohen Milstein is one of the largest plaintiff-side law firms in the United States. With more than four decades of experience litigating securities fraud class actions, we have recovered billions of dollars to investors. We are perennially recognized as among the top securities practices in the country by legal publications such as The National Law Journal, Law360, Chambers USA, and The Legal 500.