FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Flint Residents Will Start to Receive Financial Relief from the $626 Million Settlement

FLINT, MI. – Interim Co-lead Class Counsel in the Flint water crisis litigation announced today that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has granted final approval for the landmark $626 million partial settlement resulting from the class action and individual lawsuits brought on behalf of Flint residents. The ruling means that Flint residents can now begin to receive financial relief from the settlement. 80 percent of the funds will go to those who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crisis, with a large majority of that amount to be paid for claims of children aged 6 and younger. The remaining funds will go to special education services in Genesee County, adults, business owners and property owners for property damage.

“This is a historic and momentous day for the residents of Flint, who will finally begin to see justice served. None of this would have been possible without the tireless advocacy from residents, who never gave up the fight. Though we can never undo what has occurred, this settlement makes clear that those who egregiously violate the law and harm their communities will be held accountable,” Ted Leopold, court-appointed co-lead counsel and Partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

In August, the court entered an order granting Class Certification on liability claims in the ongoing litigation against private engineering firms Lockwood, Andrews & Newman (LAN) and Veolia, LLC; Veolia, Inc, and Veolia Water (VNA). Each allegedly failed to give appropriate professional advice, greatly adding to the widespread lead contamination of the water that flowed into class members homes and businesses. Separate litigation against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will also continue.

The parties to the settlement include the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) all individual governmental defendants including former Governor Rick Snyder, the City of Flint, McLaren Regional Medical Center and Rowe Professional Services Co.

Claimants presenting the same profile of injuries will receive the same awards without regard to whether they are represented by an attorney or law firm. The Special Master and Plaintiffs’ lawyers will help supervise this part of the process.

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.

About Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers
Located in Royal Oak, Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC is Michigan’s largest law firm specializing in civil rights litigation exclusively on behalf of the victims of governmental, corporate and workplace abuse Its. attorneys represent clients in a broad range of actions, including sexual harassment, wrongful discharge, whistleblower issues and discrimination based on age, gender, disability, race, religion and national origin.

Park 7 tenants have experienced prolonged racial and economic mistreatment

from the building owners and property management company

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON – The Superior Court of the District of Columbia has approved a first-of-its kind tenant right to organize consent agreement between Park 7 Tenant Union and tenants of Park 7 Apartments, an affordable housing apartment building located in D.C.’s Ward 7 comprised mainly of Black residents, and the property’s owner, Park 7 Residential LP, and its management company, 3801 Management LP. The agreement applies the District’s Tenants’ Right to Organize Law and solidifies Park 7 tenants’ unhindered right to organize in order to address the conditions of the property that have been unsafe and unsanitary for years. In addition, the agreement provides procedural steps that require management to respond to and participate in meetings to address and resolve Park 7 Tenant Union concerns.

The original suit claims Defendants have waged a years-long obstruction campaign against tenants who have actively organized to protest the deteriorating conditions in the Park 7 Apartment building. Since opening in 2014, Park 7 has lapsed into deterioration, including hallways piled with garbage, chronic leaks and water damage, pervasive mold, security hazards, inoperable appliances, and widespread pest infestations.

The right of tenants to organize and collectively address problems in their buildings is particularly acute as the District of Columbia faces the multiple crises of expiring eviction moratoria, increasing displacement, and patterns of gentrification that are exacerbating racial segregation in housing. It is one of many important tools to protect the power of tenants to live in safe, decent and affordable housing of choice.

“This agreement will help tenants stand on more even footing with the management and allow us to negotiate for better living conditions without interference or fear of retaliation,” said Tara Maxwell, President of the Park 7 Tenant Union.

“This court-enforceable consent agreement will cement the right of Park 7 tenants to collectively organize to push the owner and property manager to address unsafe and unsanitary conditions tenants have been living with for years. The agreement protects tenants’ right to meet without landlord interference, as well as requires the owner and property manager to confer with and respond to tenant representatives’ concerns on a regular basis. This consent decree is the first court order applying and enforcing the DC Tenants’ Right to Organize statute,” said Brook Hill, counsel at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

“Tenant rights laws in Washington, D.C. are clear: residents have a right to freely organize,” said Brian Corman, the Cohen Milstein attorney handling the case. “We are pleased the court agrees and approved this groundbreaking consent agreement that ensures Park 7 tenants can safely organize, meet, and distribute literature in order to advocate for improved building conditions and hold management accountable. This consent decree will serve as a model for other tenants in the District of Columbia and provide a pathway for advocacy and organizing without the threat of retaliation.”

The plaintiffs are represented by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

See the consent agreement.

See the original filed complaint.

###

ABOUT THE WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE: Founded in 1968, The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs works to create legal, economic and social equity through litigation, client and public education and public policy advocacy. While we fight discrimination against all people, we recognize the central role that current and historic race discrimination plays in sustaining inequity and recognize the critical importance of identifying, exposing, combatting and dismantling the systems that sustain racial oppression. For more information, call 202.319.1000. Follow us on Twitter at @WashLaw4CR.

ABOUT COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC: Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and civil rights-related litigation. As one of the premier plaintiffs in the United States, Cohen Milstein has more than 100 attorneys in offices in Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, Philadelphia, PA, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, and Raleigh, NC. For more information call 202.408.4600.

PRESS CONTACT:    

Gregg Kelley, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Gregg_Kelley@washlaw.org, 202-319-1070

Representatives of Nutrition & Education International Met with Pentagon Officials to Discuss the U.S. Drone Strike that Killed Their Employee Zemari Ahmadi and Nine of His Family Members in Kabul

NEW YORK — Nutrition & Education International (NEI) had a meeting with the U.S. Department of Defense yesterday to discuss what the government can do to make amends after a U.S. drone strike killed aid worker Zemari Ahmadi and nine members of his family in Kabul on Aug. 29, 2021. Mr. Ahmadi was one of NEI’s first six Afghan employees, a key leader on its staff, and held the position of technical engineer with NEI. The American Civil Liberties Union and Cohen Milstein are now representing NEI.

“Zemari was like a son to me, and I join his family in grieving his loss, the deaths of his three sons, and six other family members,” said Dr. Steven Kwon, President & CEO of Nutrition & Education International. “When Zemari started with NEI in 2006, he was a handyman who had never attended school. But he was extraordinarily smart, a gifted engineer, and he became an essential part of our operations and successes. Nothing can bring Zemari or these other precious people back, but we appreciate the opportunity to discuss these devastating losses in detail with senior Defense Department officials. We hope they will act urgently to get surviving family members and impacted NEI employees to safety and to help them to rebuild their lives.”

NEI’s primary concern is for the safety and welfare of Mr. Ahmadi’s remaining relatives, as well as for NEI’s Afghan colleagues. NEI is asking the Department of Defense to urgently evacuate and resettle Ahmadi family members and NEI’s employees at risk, compensate survivors, and conduct a meaningful investigation into the strike.

“It is a privilege for us to support NEI and the Ahmadi family members in this traumatic time,” said Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “The U.S. wrongly killed their loved ones, and what makes this tragedy different from so many others during the war in Afghanistan is that because of public attention, top Pentagon officials met with NEI and explicitly promised to help. We also hope that the investigation into the strike provides NEI and the Ahmadi family meaningful transparency and accountability.”

++++++++++++++++++++++

ACLU Press Contact:

media@aclu.org

125 Broad Street

18th Floor

New York, NY 10004

United States

(212) 549-2666

Complaints allege that the meal delivery companies deceived consumers and shortchanged restaurants already reeling from the pandemic shutdown

CHICAGO – Mayor Lori E. Lightfoot, Acting Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP) Commissioner Kenneth Meyer, and Corporation Counsel Celia Meza today announced that the City of Chicago has filed two lawsuits against meal delivery giants Grubhub and DoorDash. These lawsuits are the result of a collaborative investigation led by BACP and the City’s Law Department. They are the first comprehensive law enforcement actions against meal delivery companies in the United States.

The lawsuits assert claims under the Chicago Municipal Code for engaging in deceptive and unfair business practices that harm restaurants and mislead consumers. They seek injunctive relief in the form of greater transparency and other key conduct modifications, restitution for restaurants and consumers hurt by these predatory tactics, and civil penalties for violations of the law.

“As we stared down a global pandemic that shuttered businesses and drove people indoors, the defendants’ meal delivery service apps became a primary way for people to feed themselves and their families, as well as support local restaurants,” said Mayor Lightfoot. “It is deeply concerning and unfortunate that these companies broke the law during these incredibly difficult times, using unfair and deceptive tactics to take advantage of restaurants and consumers who were struggling to stay afloat.”

The complaints allege that DoorDash and Grubhub’s misconduct has been ongoing for years and continues to this day.  Specifically, both DoorDash and Grubhub:

• Advertise order and delivery services from unaffiliated restaurants without their consent, leaving restaurants to repair reputational damage and resolve consumer complaints caused by Defendants.
• Lure consumers into a bait-and-switch with deceptively small delivery fees upfront, only to charge misleading fees at the end of the transaction.  This increases the total cost of delivery by as much as six times the amount initially advertised.
• Hide that menu prices on their platforms are often significantly higher than the prices available if ordering directly from the restaurant.

Other misconduct is specific to each company. Grubhub’s exploitative tactics have included:

• Publishing deceptive “routing” telephone numbers that Grubhub represented as the restaurant’s direct number, and regularly charging commissions even when calls to these numbers did not result in an order.
• Creating and maintaining “impostor websites” for restaurants, which look like the restaurant’s actual website but route unsuspecting consumers to Grubhub.
• Launching deceptive, promotional campaigns to “save restaurants” during the pandemic, while forcing participating restaurants to extend their contracts, cover the cost of the promotions, and pay Grubhub its full commission on all orders.
• Violating the City’s emergency cap of 15% on restaurant commissions.

DoorDash’s specific misconduct has included:

• Misleading consumers to believe they were tipping drivers directly, when in fact the customer “tip” was used to subsidize DoorDash’s own payment to its drivers.
• Imposing a misleading “Chicago Fee” of $1.50 on every order in the City, deceptively implying the fee was required by, or paid to, Chicago—when in fact DoorDash was the sole beneficiary.

At the height of the 2020 lockdown, approximately half of Chicago’s 7,500 restaurants had closed either temporarily or permanently. The Federal Reserve estimated that approximately 44,000 restaurant workers in the Chicago area lost their jobs in 2020.  Meanwhile, sales for meal delivery service platforms have soared since pandemic-related health restrictions forced restaurants to close or severely limit indoor dining.  From 2019-2020, year-over-year total orders placed with meal delivery service platforms have more than tripled nationally – from 263 million to 816 million.  As Defendants’ business surged, their predatory practices persisted.

“We discovered that Grubhub and DoorDash have been engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices that harm consumers and exploit restaurants. These practices continued unabated during the pandemic when restaurants were struggling to survive,” said Acting BACP Commissioner Kenneth Meyer.  “We heard from the hospitality industry and Chicago’s consumers about these unfair practices and this action demonstrates we will hold non-complying businesses accountable.”

The City is represented in these lawsuits by in-house counsel from the Affirmative Litigation Division in its Department of Law and by the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The Grubhub complaint and DoorDash complaint were filed today.  If any Chicago restaurant or consumer wishes to inform the City about their experience with meal delivery companies, they can do so by emailing mealdelivery@cityofchicago.org.

###

MEDIA CONTACT:

Mayor’s Press Office

312.744.3334

press@cityofchicago.org

No Immunity for Republic of Turkey in Sheridan Circle Attack on Pro-Democracy and Ethnic Kurd Protestors.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, D.C.: A unanimous panel of the District of Columbia Circuit court of Appeals agreed with the district court that Turkey is not entitled to foreign sovereign immunity for its attack on pro-democracy and ethnic Kurd protestors, including children and senior citizens, who were kicked and beaten by President Erdoğan’s security detail.  The attack occurred on a busy Washington, DC street, and was captured on video and police body camera footage that was viewed worldwide. The Court of Appeals also rejected Turkey’s political question and comity defenses. See the U.S. Court of Appeals opinion.

Select quotes from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion:  20-7017 Lusik Usoyan, et al v. Republic of Turkey (1:18-cv-01141-CKK)

When viewed up close, we believe the decisions by the Turkish security detail giving rise to the plaintiffs’ suit were not the kind of security-related decisions that are “‘fraught with’ economic, political, or social judgments. Cope, 45 F.3d at 450. The nature of the challenged conduct was not plausibly related to protecting President Erdogan, which is the only authority Turkey had to use force against United States citizens and residents. Our analysis might have been affected if Turkey had consulted with the United States regarding the specific decisions giving rise to the plaintiffs’ suit, see Macharia, 334 F.3d at 67, but there is no such allegation here and, as noted earlier, the United States has indicted fifteen Turkish security officials as a result of their actions. Turkey’s claim to sovereign immunity thereby fails.” (pg. 24)

. . .

In the same way that speeding down a residential street may occasionally be justifiable but is not an execution of policy, the Turkish security detail’s actions may have been justified in some circumstances but cannot be said in this case to have been plausibly grounded in considerations of security-related policy and thus do not fall within the discretionary function exception. (pg. 24)

“Our clients include parents with young children and retirees who were peacefully protesting Turkey’s abuse of the Kurd community when they were kicked, punched and stomped by Turkish security officials – right here on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington DC.  We are pleased with the thoughtful and unanimous opinion issued today by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals finding that Turkey is not entitled to sovereign immunity for its attack.” stated Agnieszka Fryszman, plaintiffs’ counsel from Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, who argued the case to a three-judge panel at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2021. “On behalf of our clients, we look forward to pursuing justice at trial.”

“We and our clients are very pleased with the Court’s decision,” said Doug Bregman, of Bregman, Berbert, Schwartz & Gilday, LLC. “Our clients, while exercising their First Amendment rights, were beaten by President Erdogan’s guards, in Washington D.C. of all places. Turkey needs to be brought to justice for the sake of our injured clients and to prevent similar incidents in the future. The Court has sent a message, Turkey needs to hear it.”

“This result was a resounding rejection of Turkey’s assertion that it has nearly limitless discretion to inflict violence on protestors within the United States. It was heartening to see the judicial branch, and both political branches unanimously reject this dangerous argument,” stated Steven R. Perles of Perles Law Firm, PC.

“I’d like to express my deep gratitude to American people, for building a system that is just and fair,” said Lusik Usoyan, one of the Sheridan Circle protesters injured by Turkish President Erdoğan’s security detail. “Turkey has committed many crimes and has always managed to get away with it smoothly. When it comes to American people we stand out for our commitment to freedoms we have chosen to protect and to enjoy and no foreign government can force their housekeeping on our land and our people.”

“I am very happy with the court’s decision that the Republic of Turkey does not have immunity for its attack on peaceful protestors in the United States,” said Murat Yasa, also a Sheridan Circle protester injured by Turkish President Erdoğan’s security detail. “I came to this country thirty years ago to escape the persecution faced by Kurds in Turkey but the brutal attack at Sheridan Circle brought these injustices to America’s doorstep.”

“I am proud to be a member of the team in this case,” stated Michael E. Tigar, Professor Emeritus (retired) of Duke Law School and American University, Washington College of Law and world-renowned human rights lawyer. “I was counsel in the case of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt, assassinated 45 years ago at Sheridan Circle by agents of the Pinochet regime.  We obtained a measure of justice for the Orlando’s and Ronni’s family.  Once again, the courts have held that there is neither impunity nor immunity for lawless violence against dissenters.”

As detailed in the complaint, on May 16, 2017, approximately 20 people gathered in front of the Turkish Chief of Mission Residence in Sheridan Circle on Embassy Row. Hoping to call attention to Turkey’s mistreatment of the Kurdish people – an ethnic minority population long subjected to persecution and human rights violations in that country, as detailed in a U.S. State Department report. Many of the demonstrators – who included young children and the elderly – were of Kurdish descent.

The Turkish security personnel and their civilian sympathizers taunted the peaceful demonstrators and ultimately charged past the U.S. law enforcement personnel on the scene to attack the peaceful protestors, viciously kicking and beating the group. The attack left many of the protesters badly injured

The victims are represented by Agnieszka Fryszman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Mark Sullivan, Joshua Colangelo-Bryan of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Steven Perles of the Perles Law Firm, PC, Doug Bregman of Bregman, Berbert, Schwartz & Gilday, LLC, and Michael Tigar, Professor Emeritus of American University Washington College of Law.

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

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, please call 202.408.4600 or visit our website at www.cohenmilstein.com.

About Bregman, Berbert, Schwartz & Gilday, LLC

For more than four decades, Bregman, Berbert, Schwartz & Gilday, LLC has been devoted to serving the interests of its clients in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C. and nationwide. For additional information, please call (301) 656-2707 or visit www.bregmanlaw.com.

About Perles Law Firm, PC

The Perles Law Firm specializes in foreign sovereign immunity litigation, civil antiterrorism law, and transnational judgment enforcement. Over several decades it has represented thousands of victims of international terrorism in their pursuit of justice against state sponsors of terrorism, non-governmental terrorist organizations, and terrorism financiers. For additional information, please call (202) 955-9055.

###

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:

1. locking fighters into long-term, exclusive contracts which, the fighters say, prevents them from competing elsewhere;
2. 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
3. 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.