Commercial real estate giant explicitly acknowledged that climate change poses a material threat to its own business operations and moved to insulate its balance sheet, yet allegedly failed to apply similar risk analysis to its 401(k) plan
SEATTLE, WA — A former employee of Cushman & Wakefield U.S. Inc. filed a first-of-its kind class-action lawsuit alleging that the company breached its duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to protect workers’ 401(k) savings from material climate-related financial risks. If successful, the lawsuit could set a significant precedent, forcing a fundamental shift in how risk is managed across the entire $12 trillion U.S. retirement market.
The complaint alleges that Cushman & Wakefield failed to evaluate, monitor and remove the Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund, which exposes retirement savers to dangerous levels of climate-related financial risk while at the same time underperforming and charging unreasonably high fees.
According to the complaint, the Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund expressly disclaims climate risk analysis, while its returns lagged benchmarks by 17% in 2025 and while charging significantly higher fees than comparable funds. By retaining the fund, the lawsuit alleges Cushman & Wakefield exposed workers to inordinate levels of climate-related risk and persistent underperformance compared to available benchmarks.
The complaint also highlights an alleged discrepancy between Cushman & Wakefield’s corporate risk management and its stewardship of employee capital. While the company has explicitly acknowledged that climate change is a financial risk that poses a material threat to its own business operations, has moved to insulate its balance sheet accordingly, and offers expertise to clients on how to manage the risk, the lawsuit claims the company failed to apply similar risk analysis to its 401(k) plan.
The lawsuit also alleges the company failed to guard against conflicts of interest between participants and the financial services firm Fidelity, which both advised and administered the plan.
The case could have profound implications for the $12 trillion in retirement savings held in 401(k)-style plans, potentially establishing a legal precedent that recognizes climate risk management as a mandatory component of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit itself signals to the financial industry that fiduciaries cannot ignore the economic reality of climate change without facing liability.
“When your employer offers you a set of retirement options, you assume they’ve done the work to make sure those options are sound. You pick a fund, you contribute every month, and you trust that someone is paying attention to the risks,” said Renee Kvek, lead plaintiff in this case and former employee for Cushman & Wakefield. “I was disappointed to learn how exposed my savings were to climate-related financial risks, especially when the company clearly understood those risks in its own operations.
“Like most of my colleagues, my ability to retire depends on the growth and safety of my 401(k) account. It’s really important that employers understand what types of investments they are offering through their 401(k) plans and how they can affect their employees’ retirement security.”
“Though often misrepresented as a purely ethical issue, climate risk is actually a severe economic risk,” said Kimberly Blake, attorney at ClientEarth USA. “You cannot claim to be a prudent fiduciary while ignoring the biggest systemic threat to the global economy. Climate risk isn’t just about fossil-fuel stocks and coastal real estate. It’s a broad, interconnected threat that touches huge parts of the economy. What’s striking here is that Cushman & Wakefield understood these risks in its own business operations, but it failed to protect its workers’ retirement savings from the same dangers.”
“This first-of-its-kind legal challenge under ERISA will hopefully show 401(k) plans that the financial risks associated with climate cannot be ignored,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s ERISA & Employee Benefits practice.
The lawsuit, Kvek vs. Cushman & Wakefield U.S. Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Washington. The plaintiff is represented by environmental legal group ClientEarth USA and plaintiffs’ law firm Cohen Milstein.
About ClientEarth:
ClientEarth is a non-profit organization that uses the law to create systemic change that protects the Earth for – and with – its inhabitants. ClientEarth USA is an independent 501(c)(3) organization that works in strategic partnership with ClientEarth Group, a UK-headquartered international group of entities.
About Cohen Milsten:
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.
Today, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) filed an amicus brief calling on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to correct an erroneous interpretation of a core civil rights doctrine in National Fair Housing Alliance v. Bank of America. This case comes after 20 fair housing organizations and three homeowners presented evidence that Bank of America discriminated based on race through, among other things, its practice of failing to maintain and market bank-owned homes in Black and Latino neighborhoods in cities across the country.
The amicus brief – on behalf of LDF, the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, the National Housing Law Project, and the Poverty and Race Research Action Council – highlights how the District Court decision misapplied disparate impact doctrine. Specifically, it states the court incorrectly concluded that only express policies that cause unjustified discrimination can support claims brought under the Fair Housing Act. Brian Corman, Rebecca Ojserkis, and Dana Busgang of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll appeared on behalf of the four organizations.
“This misinterpretation of long-standing civil rights doctrine cannot go uncorrected,” said Jennifer A. Holmes, Deputy Director of Litigation at LDF. “Treating inaction as a safe harbor would discourage housing providers and employers from taking steps to prevent discrimination or bias from infecting their practices. Years of legal precedent hold that a practice of inaction or omission that leads to unjustified discriminatory effects is subject to legal action. We call on the Fourth Circuit to correct the District Court’s conclusion to the contrary.”
“A company’s lack of a policy on important issues can lead to unchecked discrimination,” said Hayley Hahn, Assistant Counsel at LDF. “And that’s exactly what the plaintiffs allege here – that property management decisions informally deprioritized maintenance in Black and Latino neighborhoods, with no justification or reason why. That’s something that our nation’s civil rights laws don’t allow.”
“Nearly 60 years ago, Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act to address the kinds of discriminatory policies and practices alleged in this case against Bank of America,” said Brian Corman, a partner at Cohen Milstein who focuses on Fair Housing Act litigation. “The District Court’s misapplication of the disparate impact doctrine undermines the remedial aims of the Fair Housing Act and similar civil rights laws, threatening to unwind essential civil rights protections that have enabled communities to access housing and build generational wealth. We urge the Fourth Circuit to correct this interpretation of the Fair Housing Act and reaffirm the law’s core protections to ensure that discriminatory and unlawful policies and practices are brought to an end.”
Throughout its history, LDF has challenged public and private policies and practices that deny Black people opportunities and choices in housing and employment. The organization has also spent decades advancing the correct interpretation of the doctrine of disparate impact discrimination, including its representation of the plaintiffs in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, the seminal Title VII disparate impact case that the Supreme Court decided in 1971.
Today’s brief continues this advocacy by highlighting how the district’s court interpretation of disparate impact ignores well-established precedent which holds that informal practices or a failure to act can also violate the Fair Housing Act when, as here, they cause unjustified discriminatory effects on Black and Latino individuals and neighborhoods.
Concord, NH – Attorney General John M. Formella today announces that his office has negotiated a settlement with PayPal, Inc. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. (collectively PayPal) that includes injunctive relief requiring PayPal to make significant changes to its popular e-payment platforms, PayPal and Venmo, both of which are owned by PayPal, Inc., as well as a monetary payment of $1.75 million.
“Today’s settlement with PayPal sends a strong message that companies who encourage consumers to trust them with their financial resources must be transparent regarding the ability of its customers to freely access their funds,” said Attorney General Formella. “I am proud that this agreement includes meaningful measures to ensure that consumers who depend on these e-payment platforms receive clear, accurate information and that their privacy is protected.”
New Hampshire consumers regularly rely on prominent e-payment platforms PayPal and Venmo to pay for essentials like rent, groceries, and childcare, and receive paychecks and government assistance funds. These platforms are particularly critical to low-income residents who lack access to traditional banking.
A New Hampshire Department of Justice investigation raised serious concerns that PayPal had violated New Hampshire’s consumer protection laws by, among other things:
- deceptively advertising that customers would be able to access their funds anytime when in fact, many consumers reported difficulty in doing so when PayPal wrongfully froze their accounts;
- advertising “Purchase Protection” for goods-and-services transactions, but imposing significant hurdles that prevented many consumers from receiving the “protection” they were promised; and
- implementing inadequate disclosures regarding the privacy of Venmo users’ sensitive financial information.
Under the terms of an assurance of discontinuance filed with the Merrimack County Superior Court, PayPal will make key changes to its marketing and app interfaces on PayPal and Venmo, including:
- Revising Venmo’s “Purchase Protection” interfaces to remove misleading language and the “shield” icon, accurately define the term “purchase,” and provide direct links to eligibility limitations;
- Enabling consumers to choose privacy as a default setting during Venmo sign-up, through an improved onboarding flow and notifications to existing Venmo users about how to adjust their privacy settings;
- Incorporating risk-based scam and fraud warnings on PayPal and Venmo to alert consumers to potential scams and plainly disclose that users may not get their money back if they are scammed; and
- Providing consumers with clear information about their ability to access funds and steps to lift restrictions when PayPal freezes their PayPal or Venmo accounts.
The New Hampshire Department of Justice Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau investigates unfair, deceptive, or unreasonable practices involving New Hampshire consumers. To file a complaint with the New Hampshire Department of Justice, call the Consumer Protection Hotline at 1-888-468-4454 or file a complaint online at https://www.doj.nh.gov/consumer/complaints.
HONOLULU – The Hawaiʻi Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Office of Consumer Protection (OCP), on behalf of the state of Hawaiʻi, announced today a settlement with PayPal, Inc. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. (PayPal). The settlement resolves OCP’s lawsuit, filed in December 2022, alleging unfair and deceptive acts or practices through PayPal’s operation of the PayPal and Venmo e-payment platforms. PayPal has denied the claims, but will pay $6 million to OCP to resolve the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleged violations of Hawaiʻi’s consumer protection laws, including that, to encourage consumers to make and receive payments on PayPal and Venmo, PayPal deceptively advertises that it provides broad “Purchase Protection” for goods-and-services transactions on Venmo, privacy for Venmo users’ sensitive financial information, consistent and easy access to funds, and platforms safe from scams and fraud.
“Hawaiʻi consumers depend on PayPal and Venmo for critical daily tasks like paying rent, receiving wages and compensating child care providers. This settlement is an important step forward in safeguarding the financial marketplace,” stated Executive Director of the Office of Consumer Protection, Mana Moriarty.
A representative from PayPal added, “PayPal takes our responsibility to our customers very seriously, and we continually enhance our products and communications to improve the customer experience. We share the same goal as the state of Hawaiʻi to empower and protect consumers, and are pleased to have reached an agreement on this matter.”
The Hawaiʻi Office of Consumer Protection was assisted in this action by L. Richard Fried, Jr. and Patrick McTernan of Cronin, Fried, Sekiya, Kekina & Fairbanks and Emmy Levens, Molly Bowen, and Diane Kee of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
# # #
Media Contact:
William Nhieu
Communications Officer
Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, State of Hawaiʻi
Phone: 808-586-7582
Email: wnhieu@dcca.hawaii.gov
Partners Elected in the Consumer Protection and Whistleblower Practices.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, one of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms, has named Karina G. Puttieva and Raymond M. Sarola to the firm’s partnership, effective January 1, 2026.
“Karina and Ray have consistently demonstrated the highest level of skill and judgment, along with the dedication required to succeed in complex, high-stakes litigation,” said Benjamin Brown, managing partner at Cohen Milstein. “Their leadership, creativity, and unwavering commitment to our clients and the pursuit of justice exemplify the values that define our firm.”
Karina G. Puttieva, a member of the firm’sConsumer Protection practice, litigates some of the most pressing issues in the digital age—data privacy, cybersecurity breaches, data broker accountability, and other issues that dominate headlines and shape consumer protection law today. She is involved in several of the nation’s most closely watched cybersecurity class actions.
A member of the firm’s Hiring and Diversity Committee, Karina plays an integral role in the firm’s hiring and annual fellowship program. She is also a board member with Public Justice, a national nonprofit legal advocacy organization that uses impact litigation and strategic advocacy to tackle major systemic threats—such as abusive corporate power, predatory practices, civil rights violations, and environmental degradation.
Karina earned her B.A., magna cum laude, at Haverford College in 2011, and her J.D. at University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 2017.
Raymond M. Sarola, a member of the firm’s Whistleblower practice, represents whistleblowers in False Claims Act cases and in matters brought under the whistleblower programs of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Internal Revenue Service, and other federal and state agencies. Ray’s experience spans all major industries, with a particular focus on the healthcare, financial services, and asset management sectors.
Ray also litigates cutting-edge securities cases alleging manipulative stock and bond trading. Prior to joining the firm, Ray served as Senior Policy Advisor & Counsel in the New York City Mayor’s Office, where he represented the city on the boards of its pension plans, and he applies that experience as a member of the firm’s Ethics & Fiduciary Counseling practice.
Ray earned his B.A. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2002, and his J.D. at the University of Pennsylvania in 2005.
###
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.
D.C.-based medical driver allegedly terminated for misdemeanor that happened 20 years ago.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (“Washington Lawyers’ Committee”), and the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll LLP, today filed a lawsuit against Medical Transportation Management, Inc. (“MTM”) and one of its contractors, OnTime Transportation, Inc. (“OnTime”), challenging their use of an overly broad and unnecessarily punitive criminal background screening policy that goes far beyond any legitimate public safety concerns, to permanently stigmatize and bar from employment well-qualified individuals, a disproportionate number of whom are African Americans.
Plaintiff James Blakney worked as a medical transportation driver for the defendants for three years without issue. During this time, he disclosed his conviction record during annual criminal background checks. In 2024, Mr. Blakney submitted his regular, and unchanged, background check. MTM’s internal credentialing system disqualified him from transportation services due to a two-decade old arrest, effectively terminating Mr. Blakney.
Today’s lawsuit argues that the policy violates the local antidiscrimination laws as well as guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). MTM’s policy resulted in Mr. Blakney’s termination without the opportunity to appeal, and with no consideration of relevant factors including the amount of time that had passed since the arrest, the relationship of the arrest to the job requirements, and Mr. Blakney’s demonstrated ability to perform in the position. Mr. Blakney argues that MTM’s policy disparately impacts Black individuals.
“I was floored that MTM fired me. I’ve been driving for them for years and loved helping the patients they serve throughout the District,” said James Blakney, the former MTM driver and plaintiff in this case. “Each year MTM conducts its background check, I’ve been forthcoming about the misdemeanor I got 20 years ago. It’s important to be honest, and it’s never been an issue. Plus, I had a successful driving record, and the patients really liked me. So, I was floored that MTM’s policy just terminated me. No discussion. Done. Just like that.”
Mr. Blakney began working as a full-time van driver for MTM and OnTime in 2021. In this role, he transported clients – typically dialysis patients and adults with intellectual disabilities – to and from their health appointments and classes in D.C. Mr. Blakney drove clients every Monday to Friday and every other Saturday for over three years. This added up to over 8,000 hours of driving across some of the busiest parts of D.C., ensuring that clients made their appointments on time and that they returned safely home afterwards.
Decades of empirical research confirm that facially neutral criminal background screening policies can produce unlawful disparate impacts when they disproportionately exclude otherwise qualified workers of a particular race. D.C. discrimination law consequently prohibits employers from relying on selection criteria that systematically and unjustifiably disadvantage Black workers. When employers adopt blanket disqualification rules untethered to job-relatedness or business necessity, those rules fall squarely within the category of practices that antidiscrimination laws deem unlawful.
“While criminal background information can be a legitimate tool for employers, MTM’s policy unfairly and disproportionately limits opportunities for qualified Black employees. The over-criminalization of D.C.’s Black residents means that they are much more likely to be impacted by MTM’s overly punitive background check policy,” said Sarah L. Bessell of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee, who is also representing Mr. Blakney in this case.
Black individuals in D.C. are arrested at rates 10 times higher than that of whites. Since the 1990s, over 90% of adults sentenced for felonies in D.C. were Black, despite only making up an average of 50% of the general population.
“MTM’s decision to terminate Mr. Blakney is incredibly disheartening, and clearly symptomatic of a larger and inherently biased business issue,” said Harini Srinivasan, a partner at Cohen Milstein, who is representing the plaintiff in this case. “Disparate impact doesn’t arise in a vacuum. Black Americans are disproportionately burdened by the criminal justice system because of long-standing structural inequities and are far more likely to have a criminal record. The use of expansive, overbroad, or stale criminal background screens thus predictably and disproportionately screens out or terminates qualified Black applicants and employees.”
If you believe that you were denied employment or wrongfully terminated by MTM because of your arrest and conviction record in the last two years, please contact the Washington Lawyers’ Committee: Get Legal Help – The Washington Lawyers’ Committee.
Media Contact: Washington Lawyers’ Committee, linda_paris@washlaw.org, 202-308-5186; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com
# # #
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 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. For more information, please visit https://www.washlaw.org.
Certified investor class alleged InnovAge’s IPO registration statement and subsequent public statements were materially false and misleading, prompting a 78% stock drop.
DENVER – A federal judge in Colorado granted final approval of a $27 million cash settlement between investors and InnovAge Holding Corp., a national senior-living healthcare company, its former CEO and CFO, board of directors, underwriters, and two private equity backers, resolving this high-profile certified securities fraud class action.
The Honorable William J. Martinez of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado commended counsel and the results achieved. In the order, he wrote, “the Court has been particularly impressed by the lawyers litigating this case, and most notably the exceptional results achieved by Plaintiffs’ counsel in this litigation. The briefs and arguments . . . were particularly well-written and were very helpful to the Court in resolving this complex case.” Pg. 7
Originally filed in 2021, El Paso Firemen & Policemen’s Pension Fund, et al. v. InnovAge Holding Corp. alleged that InnovAge made false and misleading statements to investors in its IPO materials and throughout the class period.
Following a federal lobbying effort to allow for-profit entities to participate in the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (“PACE”), InnovAge became the first for-profit PACE provider. With the backing of private entity firms, InnovAge went public. Plaintiffs alleged that while InnovAge’s enrollment numbers soared, patients suffered and the Company concealed critical information from investors, including inadequate staffing levels and inability to provide adequate care to patients. Ultimately, the truth was revealed through state and federal regulatory sanctions on InnovAge, which when announced led to a 78% stock drop, making InnovAge one of the five worst-performing IPOs of 2021.
Defendants included InnovAge, former CEO Maureen Hewitt, former CFO Barbara Gutierrez, John Ellis Bush, Andrew Cavanna, Caroline Dechert, Edward Kennedy, Jr., Pavithra Mahesh, Thomas Scully, Marilyn Tavenner, Sean Traynor, Richard Zoretic, WCAS Management Corporation, WCAS Management, L.P., WCAS Management, LLC, Apax Partners US LLC, TCO Group Holdings, L.P., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Piper Sandler & Co., Capital One Securities, Inc., Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC, and Roberts & Ryan Investments, Inc.
The certified class of investors was led by the El Paso Firemen & Policemen’s Pension Fund, the San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund, and the Indiana Public Retirement System. Cohen Milstein was appointed sole Lead Counsel in 2022.
The case name is: El Paso Firemen & Policemen’s Pension Fund, et al. v. InnovAge Holding Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-02770, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
###
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.
Legal Notice
Jien v. Perdue Farms, No. 1:19-cv-002521 (D. Md.)
Those who Worked in Poultry Processing between 2000 and 2021,
Could Be Affected by a Settlement.
Notice has been sent advising about $398.05 million in settlements in this lawsuit. Agri Stats, Inc. (“Agri Stats”) has now agreed to a Settlement. This notice is about the Agri Stats Settlement.
Learn more: Visit www.PoultryWages.com, email info@PoultryWages.com, or call 1-877-311-3745 (toll-free).
What is this lawsuit about?
Poultry workers sued their employers and two other companies (called the “Defendants”). This lawsuit says that some poultry companies talked to each other about how much to pay their workers in a way that is against the law and allowed them to pay workers less money than they should have. It says that Agri Stats created reports that helped poultry companies do this. Defendants deny these claims.
On June 5, 2025, the Court approved settlements with all Defendants except Agri Stats. Agri Stats has now agreed to settle the claims against it in this lawsuit.
Who are the Defendants?
The poultry companies being sued in this lawsuit are: Tyson Foods; Keystone Foods; Pilgrim’s Pride; Perdue Farms; Perdue Foods; Sanderson Farms; Koch Foods; Wayne Farms; Cargill Meat Solutions; Mountaire Farms; Simmons Foods; Fieldale Farms; George’s; George’s Foods; Peco Foods; Foster Farms; Case Foods; Case Farms; O.K. Foods; Allen Harim; Amick Farms; Butterball; Jennie-O Turkey Store; Agri Stats; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company. For more information, please visit www.PoultryWages.com.
Who is a part of the lawsuit?
In a class action lawsuit, one or more people sue on behalf of a larger group. The people who represent the group are called “Class Representatives.” The whole group of people is called a “Class.”
Individuals are included in the Class for this Settlement if they were employed by any Defendant (except Agri Stats and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company) or a company controlled by them, and worked at their poultry processing plants, poultry hatcheries, poultry feed mills, and/or poultry complexes in the United States at any point from January 1, 2000 until July 20, 2021.
What does the Settlement provide?
There is no money available from this Settlement, but Agri Stats will remove some labor-related information from the reports it provides to poultry companies.
Class Members may still be able to participate and get money from the previous settlements. To learn more, please visit the website, www.PoultryWages.com.
What are my rights?
Even if a Class Member does nothing, they will be bound by the Court’s decisions. If the Settlement is approved, included individuals will give up any rights to sue Agri Stats on their own for the claims in this lawsuit. Individuals may object to the Settlement by January 12, 2026. More information about how to object is available on the website, www.PoultryWages.com.
The Court will hold a hearing on March 10, 2026, to consider if it will approve this Settlement. Class Members, or their own lawyer, may appear and speak at the hearing at their own expense.
Learn More: 1-877-311-3745 info@PoultryWages.com
www.PoultryWages.com
Ranked among the top 5 auditor settlements in the last decade.
Investors alleged that Deloitte aided SCANA in deceiving the public and regulators by concealing financial fraud for its South Carolina nuclear energy expansion project.
NEW YORK, N.Y. – A federal judge in South Carolina granted preliminary approval of a $34 million cash settlement between International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension Fund and Deloitte & Touche LLP to resolve a certified securities fraud class action against the accounting giant, ranking it among the top 5 auditor settlements in the last decade.
Originally filed in 2019, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Deloitte alleged Deloitte helped SCANA Corporation commit massive financial fraud related to the multi-billion-dollar expansion of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina. It follows on the heels of In re SCANA Corporation Securities Litigation, bringing total shareholder recoveries to $226.5 million in this massive fraud. However, IBEW was the only case to address auditor liability issues.
“This settlement is a significant victory for investors and a testament to their role in holding auditors accountable and safeguarding our capital markets,” said Laura Posner, a partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed lead counsel in this matter. “This case also sets an important precedent. Despite the SCANA fraud being widely reported, Deloitte was not originally sued by SCANA investors because there is such a high bar to establishing liability against auditors. It’s rare for auditor cases to withstand motions to dismiss, let alone achieve class certification, and to fully brief summary judgment as we did here. I’m very pleased with the trail we have blazed to hold auditors liable and the recovery we have obtained for investors and look forward to presenting to the court why the settlement should receive final approval.”
Shareholders alleged that Deloitte breached its duties as SCANA’s external, independent auditor and trusted gatekeeper by deceiving investors, regulators, and the public about SCANA’s accounting for, and expected completion of, the nuclear energy expansion project. Shareholders further alleged that despite possessing voluminous evidence that SCANA could not achieve its goals, including findings from a whistleblower investigation, Deloitte gave unqualified, “clean” audit reports on SCANA’s financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. As a result, shareholders alleged, Deloitte misled investors into believing that SCANA would complete the Nuclear Project in time to obtain $1.4 billion in nuclear tax credits.
Over the course of more than five years of litigation, the plaintiffs achieved several important court rulings. In 2020, the court denied Deloitte’s motion to dismiss, stating among other things that shareholders plausibly alleged that Deloitte helped conceal the fraud from investors and did so in a manner that amounted “to basically no audit at all.” In November 2024, the court certified the class.
Heralded as one of the country’s most promising nuclear expansion projects, the $9 billion Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Power Expansion Project was abandoned by SCANA in 2017. It soon became clear that the abandonment was due to SCANA’s deliberately or recklessly concealing cost overruns and construction delays in what turned into the largest fraud in South Carolina history.
The case is styled: IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Deloitte, Case No. 3:19-cv-03304, U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina.
###
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.
Settlement provides restitution for delivery drivers, restaurants, and consumers following City-led investigation.
CHICAGO – The City of Chicago today announced an $18 million settlement with DoorDash, resolving the City’s lawsuit asserting claims that the company engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices at the expense of restaurants, consumers, and delivery drivers.
“This settlement demonstrates Chicago’s commitment to standing up for workers and small businesses while maintaining a fair and honest marketplace,” said Mayor Brandon Johnson. “Our hospitality industry is critical to our economy, and it works best when companies play by the rules, workers are treated fairly, and consumers see transparent pricing. We are proud to have delivered justice and relief to the Chicago workers, small businesses, and residents who’ve been affected by these practices.”
The City’s lawsuit arose out of an investigation into the practices of third-party meal delivery companies, which gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the City’s complaint, DoorDash violated the Chicago Municipal Code by listing restaurants on its platform without their consent. The City also alleged that DoorDash did not initially present upfront the full cost of its service to consumers; imposed a misleadingly named “Chicago Fee” that was not a City-mandated charge; and did not disclose that menu prices on the platform were often higher than prices available directly from the restaurant. The City further alleged that DoorDash misled consumers to believe they were tipping drivers directly, when DoorDash actually used the tips to subsidize its own payment of drivers.
“Chicagoans deserve transparency, honest service, and confidence that their tips support workers and local business,” said Corporation Counsel Mary B. Richardson-Lowry. “This settlement affirms those principles.”
Under the settlement terms:
- DoorDash will pay $3.25 million to restaurants that had been listed on DoorDash’s platform without consent and are not currently on the platform. Eligible restaurants will receive instructions from DoorDash on how to sign up for payment. DoorDash also agreed not to list Chicago restaurants without their consent in the future.
- DoorDash will provide $5.8 million in delivery commission and marketing credits to eligible restaurants currently on the DoorDash platform. Eligible restaurants that DoorDash initially listed without consent, but have since joined the platform, will receive an additional share of these credits. Eligible restaurants will receive further information about this relief from DoorDash.
- DoorDash will provide $4 million in credits, which can be applied to food delivery orders, to eligible Chicago users with active accounts on the platform. DoorDash will make these credits automatically available to eligible Chicago users beginning January 28, 2026.
- DoorDash will pay $500,000 to drivers who were delivering food orders in Chicago as of September 2019, the last month that DoorDash’s practice of using tips to subsidize driver pay was in effect. These payments will supplement amounts that eligible drivers already received through DoorDash’s settlement with the Illinois Attorney General over the same practice. Eligible drivers will receive notification and payment from the claims administrator for that settlement, Atticus Administration, LLC.
- DoorDash will pay $4.5 million to the City to cover the City’s costs and fees in bringing the lawsuit.
“The City of Chicago is committed to protecting consumers from unlawful business practices,” said Ivan Capifali, Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection. “This settlement reflects our ongoing efforts to ensure compliance by holding businesses accountable. When businesses operate responsibly, consumers gain trust, and the marketplace becomes stronger and more equitable for all.”
The City was represented in this lawsuit by attorneys from the Department of Law’s Affirmative Litigation Division and by the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.