BOSTON – Judge Angel Kelley on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of an IBM worker who was let go because of his age along with about 20,000 other workers as part of discriminatory mass layoffs. Judge Kelley held that his age discrimination claim is timely even though it was not filed by a contractual deadline imposed by IBM. The judge also found that the statute of limitations in the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is a “substantive” right that cannot be shortened by contract.

Michael Rumsey was laid off by IBM in 2016 as part of what the EEOC later found to be a years-long systematic “top-down” scheme devised by IBM’s “highest ranks” to replace older workers with younger workers in violation of the ADEA. As described in court filings made public in February 2022, internal IBM emails showed its top leaders discussing the “need to hire early professionals” to keep up with competitors with a larger share of younger employees and to make “the progress we need to make demographically.” In these same emails, its chief executive and other senior officials planned for making about 20,000 or more of their older employees an “extinct species,” while denigrating them as “dinobabies” and a “dated maternal workforce.”

When Mr. Rumsey and other IBM workers tried to join to enforce their rights by filing a collective age discrimination lawsuit, IBM forced them into individual arbitration based on separation agreements they signed when they were laid off. Hundreds of workers then filed their claims in arbitration, but IBM argued that their claims were barred by a vague provision in its separation agreement, which IBM interpreted to mean that the workers were required to file their claims within 300 days of the layoff, rather than the more than four years they would have had to file their claims under the ADEA.

Mr. Rumsey then filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court in Boston, asking the court to rule that his claims (and therefore the claims of the other IBM workers) were not time barred by IBM’s severance agreement. He argued that the contract could not waive the ADEA’s statute of limitations, which provides that a worker must sue within 90 days of receiving a notice from the EEOC that its investigation and conciliation efforts have ended and the worker is entitled to sue. If the deadline could be shortened so dramatically, that would mean that workers would have to file their claims in arbitration at the same time they would normally start the administrative process for age discrimination claims at the EEOC, preventing them from benefiting from that process — including the investigation that uncovered systematic age discrimination in Mr. Rumsey’s case — before filing suit.

This is one of the first courts to rule on whether the ADEA’s statute of limitations can be shortened by an employer. Judge Kelley emphasized that the result was compelled by precedent of the federal court of appeals in Boston: “The First Circuit’s guidance is clear: an arbitration agreement cannot shorten a statute’s limitations period when legislative intent is to the contrary.” And Judge Kelley found that Congress had intentionally structured the statute of limitations in the ADEA to require workers to file suit only after the EEOC had fully investigated their claims and sent them a notice saying they could sue, a structure that would be entirely undermined by requiring workers to sue within 300 days, which is long before the EEOC usually completes its investigations.

This decision means that Mr. Rumsey and other workers who have been fighting IBM’s discrimination for nearly a decade may finally get to have the merits of their claims heard.

“This is a win for workers,” said Shelby Leighton of Public Justice, one of the attorneys who represents Mr. Rumsey. “This decision affirms that companies like IBM cannot use opaque fine print in contracts to deny workers their day in court.”

“IBM’s top executives covered up their underhanded scheme to fire thousands of workers because of their age and keep them from suing over it,” said David Webbert, the lead counsel for Mr. Rumsey who successfully argued the case to the Court. “It is long overdue for IBM to be held accountable and for Mr. Rumsey and others like him to get the justice they deserve.”

The plaintiff is represented by Public Justice; Johnson & Webbert, LLP; Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll; Gibbs Mura; and Solidarity Law.

###

Public Justice takes on the biggest systemic threats to justice of our time—abusive corporate power and predatory practices, the assault on civil rights and liberties, and the destruction of the earth’s sustainability. We connect high-impact litigation with strategic communications and the strength of our partnerships to fight these abusive and discriminatory systems and win social and economic justice.

Johnson & Webbert, LLP, is the largest workers’ and civil rights law firm in Northern New England and prosecutes human rights cases nationwide including employment discrimination and wage theft class actions.

Cohen Milstein is one of the largest and most diversified plaintiff-side litigation firms in the country—with over 100 attorneys in offices nationwide.

Gibbs Mura is a California-based law firm committed to protecting the rights of clients nationwide who have been harmed by corporate misconduct. It represent individuals, whistleblowers, employees, and small businesses across the U.S. against the world’s largest corporations.

Solidarity Law represents employees and unions in employment disputes, concentrating on discrimination and wage theft cases.

First of its kind ERISA class action addressed unprecedented use of risky proprietary investment funds for managing a 401(k) plan

Strategy allegedly wiped out 401(k) and aided in GWA LLC bankruptcy

HARTFORD, CT – Today, a federal judge granted final approval of a $7.9 million settlement to resolve a class action against hedge fund GWA LLC and its founder George A. Weiss. Employees and participants in the GWA LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan alleged that GWA and Weiss breached their fiduciary duties and misused employee retirement plan assets to further their own pecuniary interests in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The settlement recovery averages about $26,000 per class member.

“This is an exceptional recovery for a novel, first of its kind 401(k) ERISA class action,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s ERISA & Employee practice.“GWA’s 401(k) strategy was extremely risky and egregious, compounded by the fact that the plan was 100% invested in its own hedge fund strategies. This settlement is a significant victory for the former employees and provides them meaningful relief, despite the fact that both defendants are now insolvent.”

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that 100% of GWA LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan investments (all of which were 401(k) assets) were and continued to be invested in The Weiss Funds, which included the company’s flagship hedge fund, Weiss Multi-Strategy Partners (Cayman) Ltd. and the company’s mutual fund, Weiss Alternative Multi-Strategy Fund, which generally replicated the hedge fund’s strategy.

This strategy is highly unprecedented for a retirement plan. Prevailing practice for retirement portfolio allocation should reflect a mix of asset classes to produce the long-term capital appreciation necessary for participants to save adequately for retirement.

Plaintiffs further claimed that the Weiss Mutual Fund lacked the performance history, market acceptance, and cost structure to be a substantial investment for the 401(k) plan.

As a result, 401(k) plan participant accounts were allegedly worth at least 30% less than what they would have been had the plan been managed prudently in accordance with ERISA.

GWA LLC declared bankruptcy in April 2024 and closed all its funds. A few months ago, in June of 2025, the other defendant in this action, George Weiss, also declared bankruptcy.

The case, Andrew-Berry, et al. v. Weiss, was filed on July 24, 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. It was brought on behalf of employees and other participants in the GWA LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan.

Cohen Milstein is actively monitoring alternative investment entities, such as hedge funds and private equity firms, offering traditional 401(k) retirement plans to employees. Such entities are not beholden to IRS and SEC regulations like traditional business and could present greater risk for 401(k) participants. In 2022, Cohen Milstein settled a class action against Wells Fargo 401(k) plan administrators for $32.5 million, based on similar allegations.

###

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.

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