Category: Press Releases - Page 12

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Shore Health System, Inc., had been overbilling government health care programs from 2014 to 2018

BALTIMORE, MD — National plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll announced today that the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office and the State of Maryland reached a nearly $9.5 million settlement with Shore Health System, Inc. (Shore Health) to resolve False Claims Act allegations filed by a whistleblower. Shore Health, a subsidiary of the University of Maryland Medical System that operates two hospitals and several non-hospital outpatient centers located on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, was alleged to have overcharged the Medicare and Maryland Medicaid programs between 2014 and 2018 for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll represented the whistleblower who brought forward the case.

The whistleblower filed the civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in 2016. The case is captioned The United States of America and The State of Maryland ex rel. J. Doe v. Shore Health System, Inc., Civil No. CCB-16-2605 (D. Md.), and was unsealed on Friday by U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake.

“This settlement is a reminder about the important role that whistleblowers play in identifying and rooting out fraud in the healthcare industry,” said Gary Azorsky, co-lead counsel for the whistleblower and Co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower/False Claims Act Practice Group. “This case would not have been possible without this brave individual coming forward and reporting this improper billing practice to the government.”

“Our client is a person of strong integrity, who, by coming forward, brought an end to Shore Health’s practice of overcharging Medicare and Maryland Medicaid,” said Casey Preston, co-lead counsel for the whistleblower and also a member of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC’s Whistleblower/False Claims Act practice group. “We thank the District of Maryland’s U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Maryland Attorney General’s Office for their diligent and thorough investigation of our client’s allegations and for protecting taxpayers and government health care programs by recovering the substantial overpayments.”

The system for compensating Maryland hospitals for services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries is unique. Under Maryland’s system, the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission (HSCRC) sets the amount that the federal Medicare program pays for inpatient and outpatient services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries at Maryland hospitals and affiliated health care facilities that are located on the campus of a hospital. The HSCRC does not have authority to set the rates Medicare pays for outpatient services provided to Medicare beneficiaries at hospital-owned outpatient centers that are off the hospital’s campus. The HSCRC’s reimbursement rates for outpatient services furnished at Maryland hospitals are generally higher than the rates Medicare pays for outpatient services.

The qui tam lawsuit alleged that since mid-2014, Shore Health had been billing Medicare for outpatient services furnished at its non-hospital facilities as though the services had been provided at one of its hospitals, causing Medicare to pay it the higher HSCRC reimbursement rates for services. According to the whistleblower, Shore Health continued billing for services provided at its non-hospital centers at the higher HSCRC rates even after the health system’s leaders were notified that Medicare was overpaying for services provided at the non-hospital centers. In total, Shore Health overbilled Medicare and Maryland Medicaid by approximately $9.5 million.

The United States settled the federal government’s claims in June 2019, and the State of Maryland subsequently settled the State’s claims in June 2021. The U.S. District Court ordered that the action be unsealed on July 16. In settling, Shore Health did not admit liability.

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, TRICARE, and the FEHB Program. Whistleblowers, like the individual who brought this lawsuit, are entitled to receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment awarded against a defendant.

Joining Gary Azorsky and Casey Preston as co-lead counsel representing the whistleblower is Jeanne Markey, who with Azorsky serves as co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower/False Claims Act practice group.

Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower/False Claims Act practice group has decades of experience successfully pursuing whistleblower cases under the federal and state false claims act statutes in the health care, pharmaceutical, and defense contractor industries, and in other industries that transact business with the government. In 2016, they represented one of two whistleblowers in United States et al. ex rel. Lauren Kieff v. Wyeth, which resulted in one of the largest qui tam settlements in U.S. history – Wyeth agreed to pay $784.6 million to the U.S. government and the over 35 intervening states.

Learn more about Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower practice.

About Cohen Milstein

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and litigation. As one of the premier firms in the country handling major complex cases, Cohen Milstein, with 90 attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, Philadelphia, PA, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, and Raleigh, NC. For more information, visit http://www.cohenmilstein.com or call 267.479.5700.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In recognition of their outstanding contribution to antitrust scholarship, the authors listed below have been selected as recipients of the 19th Annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award:

C. Scott Hemphill, Moses H. Grossman Professor of Law, New York University School of Law;
Tim Wu, Julius Silver Professor of Law, Science and Technology, Columbia Law School;
Nancy Rose, Charles P. Kindleberger Professor of Applied Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Jonathan Sallet, Senior Fellow at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society.

If circumstances allow, the Award will be presented at an American Antitrust Institute event held later this year.

C. Scott Hemphill and Tim Wu are honored for their article, “Nascent Competitors,” 168 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1879 (2020). The article defines nascent competition as a distinct analytical category and outlines a program of antitrust enforcement to protect it. The authors make the case for antitrust enforcement even where the ultimate competitive significance of an acquisition target is uncertain and explain why a contrary view is mistaken as a matter of policy and precedent.

Nancy Rose and Jonathan Sallet are honored for their article, “The Dichotomous Treatment of Efficiencies in Horizontal Mergers: Too Much? Too Little? Getting It Right,” 168 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1941 (2020). The article evaluates economic analyses of merger efficiencies and concludes that a substantial body of work casts doubt on their presumptive existence and magnitude. The authors argue this implies that the current standards used by federal antitrust agencies to determine whether to investigate a horizontal merger likely are too permissive and that criticisms of the high burden courts impose on merging parties to show efficiencies are misplaced.

The four winners will share a $10,700 prize and will each receive an inscribed original artwork created by Lori Milstein.

In addition, this year’s award selection committee has conferred seven category awards, as follows:

Best Antitrust Article of 2020 on Vertical Agreements: David Gilo and Yaron Yehezkel, “Vertical Collusion,” 51 Rand. J. of Econ. 133 (2020)
Best Article of 2020 on Labor Antitrust: Ioana Marinescu and Eric A. Posner, “Why Has Antitrust Law Failed Workers?” 105 Cornell L. Rev. 1343 (2020)
Best Antitrust Article of 2020 on Tacit Collusion: Jonathan B. Baker and Joseph Farrell, “Oligopoly Coordination, Economic Analysis, and the Prophylactic Role of Horizontal Merger Enforcement,” 168 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1985 (2020)
Best Article of 2020 on Antitrust History: Herbert Hovenkamp and Fiona Scott Morton, “Framing the Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis,” 168 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1843 (2020)
Best Article of 2020 on the Rule of Reason: Michael L. Katz and A. Douglas Melamed, “Competition Law as Common Law: American Express and the Evolution of Antitrust,” 168 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2061 (2020)
Best Antitrust Article of 2020 on Cartel Enforcement: Christopher R. Leslie, “The Decline and Fall of Circumstantial Evidence in Antitrust Law,” 69 Am. U. L. Rev. 1713 (2020)
Best Antitrust Article of 2020 on Platforms: John B. Kirkwood, “Antitrust and Two-Sided Platforms: The Failure of American Express,” 41 Cardozo L. Rev. 1805 (2020)

This year’s award selection committee consisted of Zachary Caplan, Senior Counsel at Berger Montague; Warren Grimes, Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School; John Kirkwood, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law; Christopher Leslie, Professor of Law at University of California, Irvine School of Law; Roger Noll, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Stanford University; Daniel H. Silverman, Partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; and Daniel A. Small, Partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. (Professors Kirkwood and Leslie recused themselves from deliberations relating to their own articles.)

About the Award:

The Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award was created through a trust established in memory of Jerry S. Cohen, an outstanding trial lawyer and antitrust scholar. The award is administered by the law firm he founded, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The award honors the best antitrust writing published during the prior year that is consistent with the values that animated Jerry S. Cohen’s professional life: a genuine concern for economic justice, the dispersal of economic power, effective limitations upon economic power, and the vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Philadelphia, PA – June 24, 2021) – Kajan Johnson and C.B. Dollaway, two long-time veterans of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”), filed a proposed class action antitrust lawsuit against Zuffa, LLC (d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC) and its parent company Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc.

The lawsuit is similar to the class action brought by Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury against the UFC currently pending in federal district court in Nevada. See Cung Le, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) (“Le”). Like the Le action, the lawsuit filed by Johnson and Dollaway alleges that Zuffa violated antitrust laws by paying UFC fighters far less than they were entitled to receive and eliminating or hurting other MMA promoters. The class period ultimately proposed by the plaintiffs in the Le action closed on June 30, 2017. Plaintiffs Johnson and Dollaway bring this case on behalf of those like themselves who fought in a bout promoted by the UFC on or after July 1, 2017.

The fighters claim that Zuffa and Endeavor engaged in the following anticompetitive practices:

locking fighters into long-term, exclusive contracts which, the fighters say, prevents them from competing elsewhere;
using its market dominance to coerce fighters to re-sign contracts, allegedly making the contracts effectively perpetual and preventing fighters from reaching free agency; and
acquiring and then closing down other MMA promoters that threatened the UFC’s dominance.

The fighters contend that by locking up the vast majority of top fighters in each weight class and buying out its biggest rivals, Zuffa’s scheme prevented potential competitors from obtaining the critical mass of top fighters necessary to compete with the UFC, rendering other promotions to the “minor leagues.” In MMA, athletes obtain fame by competing against ranked opponents, ascending the rankings, and vying for titles. The fighters argue that by acquiring all potential competitors and signing virtually all top Fighters to long-term exclusive contracts, Zuffa left the top Fighters and aspiring top Fighters with nowhere else to go to compete at the top level of the sport. Due to this lack of competition, according to the fighters, Zuffa pays UFC fighters significantly lower share of revenues than they otherwise would if the fighters had more options.

“Like Carlos Newton, Cung Le, Nathan Quarry and Jon Fitch before me, I am honored to bring this lawsuit not only on behalf of myself but all those fighters in the proposed bout class who are afraid to speak out against the injustice we have endured. I feel obligated to do my part to leave the sport better off for my students and all future mixed martial artists to come,” said Plaintiff Kajan Johnson.

“We train hard and risk our bodies to succeed in this sport. Every time we step into that Octagon, we leave a piece of ourselves behind. The UFC should have to pay us competitive compensation for our services, just like professional athletes in other sports get paid based on competitive markets,” said Plaintiff C.B. Dollaway.

In December 2020, Judge Richard F. Boulware, a U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Nevada, who is overseeing the Le action, indicated that the Court would be granting class certification to professional mixed martial artists who competed in bouts for the UFC. This ruling would allow the ground-breaking antitrust lawsuit to proceed as a class action. Specifically, the proposed class in the Le action would include:

“All persons who competed in one or more live professional UFC-promoted MMA bouts taking place or broadcast in the United States from December 16, 2010, to June 30, 2017.”

“By filing this action, we are bringing the proposed class period forward to also cover all fighters who competed in bouts between June 30, 2017 and the present,” said Eric L. Cramer, one of the lead counsel for the proposed class.

The case Kajan Johnson, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, et al., No. 2:21-cv-01189 (D. Nev.) was filed in federal district court in Nevada. The law firms representing the fighters are Berger Montague PC, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Kemp Jones LLP, and Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek PLC.

For more information about Johnson, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, et al., and Le, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, contact Richard Koffman at rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Settlement is the Largest Ever Payout From the Federal Government for Age Discrimination Claims

Hundreds of Flight Service Specialists Sued FAA After Their Roles Were Contracted Out in 2005 Because of Their Age

WASHINGTON D.C. – Attorneys representing 670 former flight service (FS) specialists employees announced a record-breaking $43.8 million settlement today with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over an age discrimination lawsuit. In 2005, the FAA announced that all FS specialists positions would be outsourced to Lockheed Martin, a decision that was made because the majority of workers in these positions were over the age of 40. It is the largest settlement ever reached in an age discrimination lawsuit involving the federal government. The plaintiffs were represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Gary M. Gilbert & Associates, P.C.

“It has been a long journey, but I am thrilled that justice will finally be served in this case,” said Kathleen Breen, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Sixteen years ago, I lost my job due to a discriminatory choice by our federal government, despite our loyalty and commitment to keeping our skies safe. The consequences of that decision are still with so many of us to this day, which is why we never gave up our fight.”

“The FAA committed a serious violation of the law by deciding to cut loose hundreds of employees because of their age,” said Joseph Sellers, partner at Cohen Milstein, chair of the firm’s Executive Committee and chair of the Civil Rights & Employment Practice Group. “Whenever the government breaks the law there must be accountability, and that is exactly what this settlement accomplishes. This case should serve as a reminder that no agency is above the law, and violating the rights of federal employees will have serious consequences.”

“This was among the most egregious acts of mistreatment of employees by our government that I have seen in my more than 40 years of practice. The FAA lured these folks into a profession that had little transferable skills with promises of enhanced retirement benefits. It then discarded them after private industry sought to contract to provide the same work cheaper only by using the same workforce without any retirement benefits. In an unprecedented act, the FAA promised private industry these employees would be available as a workforce and then frustrated efforts for the displaced workers to find other jobs in the Federal sector,” said Gary M. Gilbert.

FS specialists provide critical information to pilots about meteorological and aeronautical conditions before planes take off in order to ensure safe flights. Changes in the role of FS specialists caused the FAA to consider cost-saving measures and conduct a reduction in force (RIF) process in the early 2000’s. As the FAA assessed the future of FS specialists, it argued that a reason to outsource these positions was because the roles were filled by an “aging” and “retirement eligible workforce,” meaning that keeping older workers would make it more difficult to train and recruit new people, while also causing the government to pay out full retirement benefits.

The FAA eventually sent out a request for bids to private companies to take over the workforce, which Lockheed Martin won in 2005. As a direct result, thousands of FS specialists lost their jobs and pension benefits. Many of these positions were eventually consolidated or eliminated completely, and hundreds of FS specialists lost their jobs. Roughly 92 percent of the workers impacted were over the age of 40. The settlement covers FS specialists who live in nearly all 50 states.

In 2017, the plaintiffs changed counsel, bringing in Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Gary M. Gilbert & Associates, P.C. From there, the case moved quickly, coming close to trial just before the pandemic struck and ultimately reaching the settlement being announced today.

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is recognized as one of the premier law firms in the country handling major, complex plaintiff-side litigation. With more than 100 attorneys, Cohen Milstein has offices in Washington, D.C., Chicago, Ill., New York, N.Y., Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., Philadelphia, Pa. and Raleigh, N.C.

For Immediate Release:

Lawsuit focuses on materially false and misleading statements about Credit Suisse’s VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes

NEW YORK – The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an order Tuesday that reopened a high-profile lawsuit alleging that Credit Suisse knowingly defrauded investors and caused hundreds of millions in losses.

The decision means that the Southern District of New York must vacate its dismissal of Chahal v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, et al, and that the case will proceed. Credit Suisse’s misstatements on its VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes, commonly known as and trading under the name XIV, are the central focus of the lawsuit, which was first filed in 2018.

“We believe that Credit Suisse and its former CEO intentionally misled and manipulated investors so that they could profit while investors suffered devastating losses, and we are pleased that this critical case is moving forward,” said Michael B. Eisenkraft, a Partner at Cohen Milstein and a member of the firm’s Securities Litigation & Investor Protection and Antitrust practice groups and a leading attorney on the case against Credit Suisse. “We look forward to prosecuting these claims vigorously on behalf of our clients and the class.”

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that after observing prior episodes of market volatility, Credit Suisse discerned an ability to depress prices for XIV Notes by purchasing VIX futures contracts on days when volatility spiked. Credit Suisse used this knowledge as part of a scheme to sell millions of XIV Notes before engineering a near-total collapse in their price through just 15 minutes of its own trading. Set Capital further alleges that Janus, although not directly involved in this manipulative scheme, exacerbated the damage by failing to publish accurate prices for XIV Notes during the window of time when the value of those notes collapsed.

The Second Circuit found that “If proven at trial, this alleged conduct was manipulative under our precedents.”

Notably, the Second Circuit also credited the arguments presented by the plaintiffs surrounding the knowledge and motive of former Credit Suisse CEO Tidjane Thiam as part of its reasoning to send this lawsuit back to the Southern District of New York. Citing the plaintiffs’ complaint, the order reads:

“…the complaint plausibly alleges that Thiam was under significant pressure to shift Credit Suisse’s investment arm away from volatile assets like XIV Notes. Accepting these allegations as true, Credit Suisse’s scheme to expand and then destroy the value of XIV Notes would have allowed the bank to profit substantially while realizing Thiam’s strategic goal of “right-sizing” Credit Suisse’s investment division.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael B. Eisenkraft, Carol V. Gilden, Laura H. Posner and Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and attorneys at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

###

About Cohen Milstein

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is recognized as one of the premier law firms in the country handling major, complex plaintiff-side litigation. With more than 100 attorneys, Cohen Milstein has offices in Washington, D.C., Chicago, Ill., New York, N.Y., Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., Philadelphia, Pa. and Raleigh, N.C. For additional information, visit www.cohenmilstein.com or call 202.408.4600.

Le et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a/ Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC

Case No. 2:15-cv-01045 RFB-BNW (D. Nev.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Philadelphia, PA – April 13, 2021) – The representatives for a proposed class of professional mixed martial arts fighters in an antitrust lawsuit against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”) today announced the launch of a new case website—www.UFCclassaction.com—dedicated to informing members of the proposed class and the general public about the case.

“To inform fighters who are members of the proposed class and others about the status of and key developments in the case, today the plaintiffs are announcing the launch of the website UFCclassaction.com. We plan to use this site to update and inform fighters of the status of our lawsuit,” said named plaintiff Cung Le.

In December 2020, Judge Richard F. Boulware, a U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Nevada, who is overseeing the UFC antitrust class action, indicated that the Court would be granting class certification to professional mixed martial artists who competed in bouts for the UFC. This ruling would allow the ground-breaking antitrust lawsuit filed by MMAFA members Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury to proceed as a class action. Specifically, the class would include:

“All persons who competed in one or more live professional UFC-promoted MMA bouts taking place or broadcast in the United States from December 16, 2010, to June 30, 2017.”

Further, in January 2021, the Court indicated its intent to unseal and make public many of the documents that have become part of the record in this case with the publication of its anticipated class certification order.

The UFCclassaction.com website contains explanations of what has happened to date in the case, answers to frequently asked questions about participating in the class action, and key documents from the litigation, such as the public versions of legal filings, exhibits, and expert reports.

“We encourage all current and former UFC fighters to visit UFCclassaction.com to learn more about the status and key developments in this ground-breaking case,” said Eric L. Cramer, one of the lead counsel for the proposed class.

In December 2014, a group of current and former UFC fighters filed a class action lawsuit against the UFC. The lawsuit alleges that Zuffa (which owns the UFC) violated antitrust laws by paying UFC fighters far less than they were entitled to receive, unfairly restricting the use of their identities, and eliminating or hurting other MMA promoters. The fighters claim that Zuffa engaged in the following anticompetitive practices:

locking fighters into long-term, exclusive contracts which, the fighters say, prevents them from competing elsewhere;
using its market dominance to coerce fighters to re-sign contracts, allegedly making the contracts effectively perpetual and preventing fighters from reaching free agency; and
acquiring and then closing down other MMA promoters that threatened the UFC’s dominance.

The fighters contend that by locking up the vast majority of top fighters in each weight class and buying out its biggest rivals, Zuffa’s scheme prevented potential competitors from obtaining the critical mass of top fighters necessary to compete with the UFC, rendering other promotions to the “minor leagues.” In MMA, athletes obtain fame by competing against ranked opponents, ascending the rankings, and vying for titles. The fighters argue that by acquiring all potential competitors and signing virtually all top Fighters to Exclusive Contracts, Zuffa left the top Fighters and aspiring top Fighters with nowhere else to go. Due to this lack of competition, according to the fighters, Zuffa pays UFC fighters significantly less than they otherwise would if the fighters had more options.

The law firms representing the fighters are Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Berger Montague PC, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Kemp Jones LLP, and Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek PLC.

For more information about Le et al. v. Zuffa LLC, Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, contact Richard Koffman at rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

WASHINGTON, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, one of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms, has named Mary J. Bortscheller, Brian E. Bowcut and Christina D. Saler as the firm’s newest partners, effective January 1, 2021.

Mary J. Bortscheller, as a member of the firm’s Employee Benefits practice group, represents employees in complex breach of fiduciary duty litigation under ERISA involving employer-sponsored defined benefit plans, 401(k) plans and Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). In 2019, she was named a Law360 “Rising Star,” recognizing lawyers under the age of 40 whose professional accomplishments transcend their age.

Ms. Bortscheller graduated from Gustavus Adolphus College with a B.A., cum laude, in Political Science, and received her J.D., cum laude, from American University, Washington College of Law.

Brian E. Bowcut is a member of the firm’s Public Client practice group, where he represents state attorneys general and other public-sector clients as outside counsel in investigations and lawsuits involving deceptive and unfair trade practices. He has deep experience in government investigations and, among other matters, has represented several states in their efforts to hold to account the various companies responsible for the opioid crisis.

Prior to joining Cohen Milstein, Mr. Bowcut was a Trial Attorney and Senior Trial Counsel in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Bowcut also practiced at a preeminent national law firm, where he specialized in pharmaceutical product liability and commercial litigation. He has argued cases in state and federal courts around the country. Mr. Bowcut attended Utah State University, graduating summa cum laude with a B.A. in Journalism and Political Science, and earned his J.D. from Duke Law School, graduating cum laude and Order of the Coif.

Christina D. Saler, a member of the firm’s Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice group, represents clients in a broad range of securities, shareholder rights and derivative actions, as well as other complex litigation. Ms. Saler serves as the Editor of Cohen Milstein’s Shareholder Advocate, a quarterly publication focused on issues relevant to the public retirement systems and institutional investor community.

Prior to joining Cohen Milstein in 2017, Ms. Saler was a securities class action litigator at a nationally recognized plaintiffs’ firm, where she distinguished herself as a trusted client counselor of public pension funds and other institutional investors. In 2016, Governor Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania appointed Ms. Saler to the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania Humanities Council which, in partnership with the National Endowment for the Arts, uses the humanities to foster civic engagement, education and community development. Ms. Saler earned her B.A. from Fairfield University and her J.D., with honors, from Rutgers University Law School.

“We’re excited to announce our newest partners, all of whom are integral members of the Cohen Milstein family,” said Cohen Milstein Managing Partner Steven J. Toll. “Mary, Brian and Christina are exceptional attorneys who have proven themselves to their colleagues and clients. Their work has been critical to furthering our ongoing quest for justice, and we look forward to seeing their continued success as partners.”

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national leader in plaintiff-side class action litigation. As one of the premier law firms in the country handling major complex lawsuits, Cohen Milstein, with more than 100 attorneys, has offices in Washington, DC; Chicago, IL; New York, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Palm Beach Gardens, FL; and Raleigh, NC.

For Immediate Release:

Alphabet Board to Form Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Advisory Council Comprised of Executives,
Including CEO Sundar Pichai, and Renowned Outside Experts

Settlement Ends Mandatory Arbitration in Harassment, Discrimination and
Retaliation-Related Disputes for all Alphabet Entities

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. – Google parent company Alphabet, Inc. (GOOG, GOOGL) will commit a record-setting $310 million to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives under a settlement with shareholders announced today. The agreement institutes sweeping policy reforms to ensure workplace equity and improve board oversight. It also establishes a DEI Advisory Council comprised of outside experts and Alphabet executives, including Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai.

The settlement resolves derivative litigation filed in three jurisdictions, including a derivative lawsuit filed last year against certain Alphabet officers and directors by national law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. Alphabet stockholders alleged that the tech giant violated their fiduciary duties by enabling a double standard at Alphabet that allowed powerful executives to sexually harass and discriminate against women without consequence. Appointed co-lead counsel, Cohen Milstein represented lead plaintiffs Northern California Pipe Trades Pension Plan and Teamsters Local 272 Labor Management Pension Fund in the lawsuit.

Through the settlement, Alphabet will implement sweeping reforms to the company’s employment policies, eliminating practices that silence victims and implementing measures to fairly apply workplace policies even for the most senior executives. Among other things, the settlement:

Ends mandatory arbitration in harassment, discrimination and retaliation-related disputes between any Alphabet company and an employee or extended workforce member;
Limits Google’s use of non-disclosure agreements, so that employees are able to discuss the underlying facts and circumstances of an incident and the reporting process; and
Calibrates corrective action recommendations across business units to ensure consistent consequences for the same misconduct.

“The settlement fundamentally alters Alphabet’s workplace policies, including eliminating mandatory arbitration in harassment, discrimination and retaliation-related disputes and the use of one-sided non-disclosure agreements that silence victims and enable powerful harassers,” said Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and one of four plaintiffs’ counsel appointed to lead the global settlement negotiations. “These changes, along with the financial commitment to DEI initiatives, position Alphabet to lead as much in workplace equity as it is does in technology and innovation.”

Alphabet’s $310 million commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion over ten years constitutes the largest public commitment any tech company has made in this regard. The Advisory Council’s oversight of the creation, implementation and ongoing operation of initiatives that support diversity, equity and inclusion will be guided by Hon. Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge and Harvard Law School lecturer; Grace Speights, global leader of Morgan Lewis’s labor and employment practice and chair of the board of trustees at George Washington University; and Fred Alvarez, a former member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and monitor of Uber’s settlement with the EEOC. Internal members will include Pichai; Kent Walker (Chief Legal Officer), Melonie Parker (Chief Diversity Officer) and Jen Fitzpatrick (SVP).

The Alphabet settlement also institutes governance measures to ensure that Alphabet’s board is informed of and accountable for overseeing risks arising from sexual harassment by executives and, more broadly, fostering a diverse, equitable and inclusive culture. Key changes include:

Expanding the Audit Committee’s charter to Audit and Compliance, with quarterly reports to the full board on legal and regulatory compliance; and,
Preventing employees with 10b5-1 stock purchase plans from amending the plans while they are subject to investigations or a lawsuit for sexual misconduct.

The case name in the Alphabet matter is: In re Alphabet Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 19CV341522, Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara. It was heard by Superior Court Judge Brian C. Walsh.

See a copy of the complaint and a copy of the settlement.

Ms. Reiser led the Cohen Milstein team that, earlier this year, received final approval for the $90 million settlement of a derivative lawsuit against the Wynn Resorts Ltd. board of directors. That settlement, stemming from the Wynn board’s alleged failure to properly handle longstanding allegations of sexual assault and harassment by founder Steven A. Wynn, also included landmark corporate governance reforms.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Virginia Governor Ralph S. Northam (D-VA) announced today the reappointment of Cohen Milstein partner S. Douglas Bunch to a second four-year term on the Board of Visitors of William & Mary, the second oldest university – and first law school – in the nation. The appointment comes as the university, like all academic institutions, reimagines what learning looks like in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Serving on William & Mary’s Board of Visitors for the last four years has been an incredible privilege that’s allowed me to give back to an institution that has had such a profound impact on my life,” said S. Douglas Bunch, a Partner at Cohen Milstein and a member of the Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice group. “I’m grateful to Governor Northam for his continued trust and confidence in me, and I don’t take lightly the responsibility I carry in helping William & Mary navigate a new reality in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

A member of Phi Beta Kappa, Mr. Bunch graduated summa cum laude from William & Mary in 2002, where he earned a B.A. in Government and Classical Studies. Subsequently, Mr. Bunch attended Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education, from which he graduated in 2003 with an Ed.M. in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy. Following his return to William & Mary, Mr. Bunch earned a J.D. from William & Mary Law School in 2006.

Mr. Bunch joined Cohen Milstein in 2006 and became a partner of the firm in January 2016. He is a member of the firm’s Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice, where he litigates federal securities class actions on behalf of defrauded investors. He was instrumental in successfully litigating the suits that followed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, including on behalf of public pension funds and other institutions that purchased defectively-issued mortgage-backed securities. His work in the courtroom has been recognized on numerous occasions, most recently by Benchmark Litigation, which named him to its 2019 “40 & Under Hot List,” and Super Lawyers Magazine, which designated him a 2020 “Super Lawyer.”

Mr. Bunch is also co-founder and chairman of Global Playground, Inc., a nonprofit that builds schools in the developing world, and serves on the board of Virginia21, an organization that advocates on behalf of the interests of college and university students in Virginia. In 2011, Mr. Bunch received William & Mary Law School’s inaugural W. Taylor Reveley III award, recognizing alumni who have demonstrated a sustained commitment to public service.

William & Mary is one of eight U.S. institutions to be designated a “public ivy,” and has consistently been ranked by U.S. News & World Report as one of the nation’s top public universities. Included among its alumni are three presidents of the United States, namely Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Tyler. Former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates currently serves as the university’s Chancellor. The Board of Visitors, which governs the university, is composed of seventeen individuals appointed to four-year terms by the Governor of Virginia.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and litigation. As one of the premier firms in the country handling major complex cases, Cohen Milstein, with 90 attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Ill.; New York, N.Y.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Palm Beach Gardens, Fl.; and Raleigh, N.C.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

WASHINGTON, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, one of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ firms, has named Robert A. Braun as the firm’s newest partner, effective January 1, 2020.

Robert A. Braun specializes in cutting-edge and high-profile antitrust and class action litigation on behalf of individuals and small businesses harmed by price-fixing and other illegal corporate behavior. He recently helped obtain more than $50 million in settlements in In re Resistors Antitrust Litigation, and has also played significant roles in cases involving anticompetitive behavior in the real estate services industry, LIBOR manipulation, price-fixing by manufacturers of metal pipes and fittings, and “pay-for-delay” and other practices by pharmaceutical companies to limit access to cheaper generic drugs. Mr. Braun also has extensive experience in international claims litigation, including representing the victims of state-sponsored terrorism in suits amounting to nearly $1 billion in judgments.

Prior to joining Cohen Milstein, Mr. Braun served as a law clerk for the Honorable Carolyn Dineen King of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and for the Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He earned his J.D. at Yale Law School and attended Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude.

“We’re thrilled to welcome Robby to the partnership,” said Cohen Milstein Managing Partner Steven J. Toll. “He has been a powerful advocate for his clients and a valued member of the Cohen Milstein team. I look forward to his continued success and positive contributions to the firm and to the important work we undertake.”

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Media Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com