Greensboro, NC – On September 4, 2025, District Judge William Osteen Jr., of the Middle District of North Carolina rejected defendants’ motion to dismiss, and held that a federal False Claims Act lawsuit which Cohen Milstein whistleblower client, Leslie Carico, filed on behalf of the United States government against Veterans Guardian, a veterans’ disability payment claim consulting firm, Scott Greenblatt, its founder and CEO, William Taylor, its COO (as to conspiracy only), and  Gregory Villarosa, a psychologist who worked with Veterans Guardian, could proceed. Notably, the court rejected the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the whistleblower’s conspiracy claims as lacking in the requisite specificity.

Veterans Guardian calls itself a “pre-filing consulting firm” that seeks to increase its military veteran clients’ monthly disability payments from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It markets itself to and serves veterans nationwide. 

The whistleblower, a former Veterans Guardian employee, alleges that in the course of preparing disability applications and submitting them to the VA on veteran clients’ behalf, Veterans Guardian, an unaccredited, for-profit company, fraudulently and without any reasonable basis, routinely assigns new veteran clients a mental illness, typically depression or PTSD, in order to inflate their disability level. Defendants then manipulate the veteran-specific information contained in the various forms required for submission to the VA to fraudulently ensure that the veteran can achieve a 100% disability rating or as close to that rating as possible. Furthermore, the whistleblower claims that individuals at Dr. Villarosa’s psychology practice lack the professional credentials required under applicable law to conduct psychological evaluations of the veterans but nevertheless conduct them.

In exchange for Veterans Guardian’s services, the veteran, who has chosen Veterans Guardian in good faith, agrees to pay the first five months of any increase in any disability payments which he/she receives as a result of the submission Veterans Guardian makes to the VA.

Gary Azorsky, Jeanne Markey, Casey Preston, and Adnan Toric, attorneys in Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower practice, have been prosecuting this lawsuit on behalf of the whistleblower. “Veterans Guardian has not been shy in promoting its interests publicly, both as part of its ongoing marketing efforts but also as part of its aggressive lobbying campaign to prevent its business model from being jeopardized by recent legislative efforts to curb fraud in this industry,” the Whistleblower team stated. “Cohen Milstein emphatically believes veterans and taxpayers deserve a veterans disability system free from fraud and waste. We intend to play a role in achieving that worthy goal by proceeding with this lawsuit.”     

The whistleblower in the case is also represented by Gary Jackson of the Law Offices of James Scott Farrin and by Bill Nettles, John Warren, and Fran Trapp of The Law Offices of Bill Nettles. The case name is U.S. ex rel. Leslie Carico v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 20-784-WO-LPA, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

About Cohen Milstein

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

In the wake of FTX cryptocurrency fraud, investors claim Silvergate Bank misled the public about its customer vetting and anti-money laundering programs.

Subsequent run on the bank led to Silvergate Bank’s demise and Silvergate Capital’s bankruptcy.

SAN DIEGO, CA – Today, a federal judge in California granted final approval of a $37.5 million cash settlement between investors and Silvergate Capital Corporation, the holding company for Silvergate Bank, resolving a securities fraud class action against the bank. A premier banking service provider to cryptocurrency platforms, Silvergate Bank allegedly made materially false and misleading statements about the integrity of the bank’s compliance framework, particularly its customer monitoring and anti-money laundering assurance programs.

Originally filed on December 7, 2022, Silvergate investors’ complaint claimed they incurred significant losses beginning in November 2022 as the truth emerged about the bank’s lax customer vetting and monitoring program – a critical bank safeguard to prevent exposure to money laundering and criminal activity. Then, on January 5, 2023, Silvergate disclosed that the collapse of FTX, one of its largest clients, had led to a run on the bank, causing its deposits to decline by $8.1 billion – more than 68% – over a three-month period. As a result, Silvergate was forced to sell off illiquid securities for a loss of more than $700 million and to borrow $4.3 billion from Federal Home Loan Banks to address its massive liquidity crunch. Eventually, Silvergate Capital filed for bankruptcy.

“In light of Silvergate Capital’s bankruptcy, the settlement is a highly favorable resolution that ensures an immediate recovery for impacted investors,” said Carol Gilden, a partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed co-lead counsel in this matter. “We are proud that the pension and union funds we represented had the resolve to step forward on behalf of investors and demand accountability from Silvergate Capital.”

As a federally regulated bank, Silvergate was subject to anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulations in accordance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Investors claimed that Silverglate did not vet, perform due diligence on, or monitor its clients who participated on its one-of-a-kind service called the Silvergate Exchange Network (SEN), which allowed Silvergate customers to send U.S. dollars and euros between eligible counterparty SEN accounts at any time of day using the bank’s programming interface. SEN Network participants included FTX, Alameda, Binance.US, Huobi Global, and other cryptocurrency platforms which were subsequently investigated, shut down, fined or in bankruptcy due to money laundering allegations.

On February 28, 2023, the court appointed Cohen Milstein and Bernstein Litowitz, jointly, as Lead Counsel. The court also appointed, as Lead Plaintiffs, Indiana Public Retirement System, Boston Retirement System, Public School Teachers’ Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, UMC Benefit Board, Inc., and Wespath Institutional Investments LLC., as administrative trustees of the Wespath Funds Trust. The case is styled: In re Silvergate Capital Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-01936-JES-MSB, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California.

###

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 investors, along with consumers, small business owners, workers and whistleblowers, – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com

The former U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commissioner will represent state attorneys general and other public sector clients.

WASHINGTON, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, one of the leading plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States, announced today that Rich Trumka Jr. has joined as Of Counsel in the firm’s Public Client practice. Trumka most recently served as a Commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission – beginning in 2021 following his nomination by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and confirmation by the United States Senate. There, he championed efforts to ensure consumer protection from hidden hazards and deter corporate misconduct.

“I have long admired Cohen Milstein’s leadership in consumer advocacy on behalf of state attorneys general, and have been impressed by the firm’s deft navigation of complex legal challenges and its securing of landmark results,” said Rich Trumka Jr. “It is an honor to join the firm. I believe my years of public sector experience will strengthen the firm’s already formidable Public Client team.”

Prior to joining the Commission, Trumka worked for the United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform under the leadership of civil rights champion and then-Chairman Elijah E. Cummings. Trumka was General Counsel & Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy. Before that he was an Assistant Attorney General in the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General.

“Rich brings impressive and diverse government experience that complements our firm’s services and our clients’ interests perfectly,” said Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner at Cohen Milstein. “He also brings valuable insights into new forms of consumer fraud that will help expand our ability to protect public client interests.”

Trumka began his career clerking for the Honorable Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

###

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. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com/

WASHINGTON — Georgetown Law announced today that Agnieszka Fryszman, L’96, one of the nation’s preeminent human rights litigators and founder of the Human Rights practice at Cohen Milstein, has been appointed the 2025-2026 Robert F. Drinan, S.J, Chair in Human Rights.

“We are honored to welcome Agnieszka Fryszman back to Georgetown as this year’s Drinan Chair in Human Rights,” said Interim Dean Joshua C. Teitelbaum. “Agnieszka’s career is marked by both legal innovation and a tenacious commitment to amplifying the voices of survivors. Her work embodies Georgetown Law’s guiding principle that ‘law is but the means; justice is the end.’”

For more than two decades, Fryszman has been at the forefront of landmark litigation on behalf of survivors of grave human rights abuses. She has led cases against corporations, government contractors and other actors accused of complicity in forced labor, human trafficking, torture and other human rights violations.

Her groundbreaking victories include securing billions in compensation for Holocaust survivors from German and Austrian companies, and exposing Swiss banks’ role in laundering assets during the Nazi era. Most recently, Fryszman and her team at Cohen Milstein secured a landmark settlement from ExxonMobil for Indonesian villagers who alleged that soldiers retained to protect the company’s facilities in Aceh had tortured, raped or killed local residents.

Fryszman also filed one of the earliest civil suits under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and won the first successful U.S. judgment for men enslaved aboard fishing vessels, spotlighting abuses in the seafood supply chain. She has represented Nepali laborers trafficked onto U.S. military bases in Iraq, survivors of the Japanese military’s World War II-era sexual slavery system (“comfort women”) and former detainees seeking redress for abuse at Guantánamo Bay.

Her achievements have earned wide recognition, including the National Law Journal’s Lifetime Achievement Award, Public Justice’s Trial Lawyer of the Year, Human Trafficking Advocate of the Year from the Human Trafficking Legal Center, recognition as a Lawdragon Legend and inclusion in Forbes’s “50 Over 50” list of changemakers improving the world.

Human Rights Institute Executive Director and 2019-2021 Drinan Chair Elisa Massimino expressed enthusiasm for Fryszman’s appointment. “Agnieszka is one of the most formidable human rights litigators of her generation. Her groundbreaking work has expanded the boundaries of accountability for corporations and governments alike, and her victories have delivered justice to survivors of some of the world’s gravest abuses. We are thrilled to welcome her to Georgetown this academic year. As our students prepare to enter the profession, I know Agnieszka will inspire them to pursue bold, creative strategies to uphold human dignity and the rule of law in the face of complex global challenges.”

As Drinan Chair, Fryszman will teach a course in the spring semester on human rights litigation in United States courts. She will also engage deeply with the Georgetown Law community by mentoring students and participating in the Human Rights Institute’s programs and events. She will deliver the annual Drinan Lecture on Human Rights on Thursday, November 13, 2025.

“I am excited to return to Georgetown Law where, as a night student, I was fortunate to take Father Drinan’s class,” said Fryszman. “He was a wonderful teacher and a great storyteller, and had an inspirational career fighting for human rights. Father Drinan became my faculty mentor, so it’s a huge honor to have the opportunity to carry on his legacy and help equip the next generation of lawyers to tackle the challenges ahead.”

The Drinan Chair was established in 2006 in honor of Professor Robert F. Drinan, S.J. Father Drinan was a professor at Georgetown Law for over 25 years, where he taught international human rights and constitutional law, among other topics. He was a priest, scholar, lawyer, politician, activist, ethicist and one of the nation’s leading advocates for international human rights. He dedicated his life to humanitarian causes and to improving the legal profession. The Human Rights Institute at Georgetown Law honors his legacy through its mission of being a premier training ground for future human rights lawyers and advocates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

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

About Equal Rights Center

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

About Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

About Langer Grogan & Diver P.C.

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

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

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

CHICAGO, July 21, 2025  —

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dated: July 21, 2025                                                                                                                                      By Order of the Court

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

SOURCE Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC

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

PALM BEACH, FL – A Florida state court ruled that a lawsuit against Caron Treatment Centers’ Florida facility must proceed to a jury trial for the wrongful death of Nathan Mann, an eighteen-year-old Philadelphia teen who died after leaving Caron’s facility in September 2020. The court denied Caron’s motion for summary judgment, finding sufficient evidence that the facility may have breached its duty of care to Nathan, resulting in his death.

“I’m relieved that our claims will be heard by a jury,” said Denise Mann, Nathan’s mother. “Caron repeatedly encouraged us to trust them because they are the ‘experts.’ We trusted them with our son and, three months later, he was gone. He had such a promising future ahead of him.”

High school valedictorian and aspiring professional cellist, Nathan had been accepted to Temple University’s Boyer College of Music on a full-ride scholarship for the 2020 fall semester. While he had a well-documented history of mental health conditions, including ADHD, OCD, anxiety, and depression, Nathan was a high-functioning teen, exceptional student, and accomplished musician.

Concerned about Nathan’s misuse of cough syrup and alcohol, in May 2020, his parents enrolled him in Caron of Pennsylvania’s 30-day detox and treatment program. After successfully completing the program, Caron’s treatment team recommended that his parents send him to Caron Renaissance in Palm Beach County for further treatment. They reluctantly agreed, and Nathan was admitted to that facility on June 15, 2020.

Nathan spent three months in Caron’s day/night community housing program. On September 12, 2020, he left the facility without his cellphone or any money. Two days later, on the morning of September 14, Nathan was struck by a Tri-Rail train in Broward County. He died almost immediately of blunt force trauma. His body was not identified until September 25 – 13 days after he went missing.

“We appreciate the court’s thoughtful review of the case and its finding that Caron owed Nathan a duty of care,” said Leslie Kroeger, a partner at Cohen Milstein, who is representing Nathan’s family. “We look forward to presenting the evidence to a jury and demonstrating that instead of helping Nathan get better in order to navigate the next step of a promising life, Caron caused him harm.”

In denying Caron’s motion for summary judgment, the court outlined plaintiffs’ allegations that Caron deviated from multiple standards of care and negligently treated Nathan by, among other things, misdiagnosing him, failing to prescribe and treat his known disorders, alienating and confining him, and, on the afternoon he left the facility and did not return, failing to take proper steps to notify law enforcement. Nathan’s parents further allege that when they contacted Delray Beach Police on their own, Caron refused to cooperate.

The case, Estate of Nathan Mann v. Caron of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Caron Renaissance, Case No. 2023-CA-009963, is pending in Palm Beach County Circuit Court (15th Circ.). The court’s ruling sets the stage for plaintiffs’ claims to proceed to trial, where a jury will determine whether Caron’s treatment of Nathan contributed to his death.

###

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.