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.

Certified class includes approximately 1,850 Intel retirees or their surviving spouses, who allege that Intel violated ERISA by converting their single life annuity to a joint and survivor annuity using unreasonable actuarial assumption.

SAN JOSE, CA – A federal judge certified a class of participants and beneficiaries in the Intel Minimum Pension Plan in a nationwide lawsuit against Intel Corporation for violating the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

The plaintiff alleges that the Intel Minimum Pension Plan penalized him and other married retirees when calculating their joint and survivor annuities. As a result, Intel deprived them of accrued, vested pension benefits when they receive their pension benefit in the default form of benefit for married participants. This error allegedly has cost these retirees millions in pension funds.

“We are pleased the judge granted class certification in this hard-fought lawsuit against Intel for violating ERISA,” said Daniel R. Sutter, partner of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “Intel’s retirees should not be shortchanged because of their marital status. We look forward to advancing claims on behalf of the class of joint and survivor annuity recipients to ensure they receive all the retirement benefits they earned through their years of work.”

Under ERISA, a joint and survivor annuity for married retirees must be “actuarily equivalent” to single life annuities for single retirees. To accomplish this, pension plan administrators use mortality rates and interest rates published by the U.S. Department of Treasury to convert single life annuity payments to joint and survivor annuity payments. However, the plaintiff in this case has argued that Intel used an outdated mortality table – dating back to 1983 – and therefore the plan participants and beneficiaries received less than the actuarial equivalent of their vested accrued benefit, in violation of ERISA.

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of nearly 1,850 Intel retirees and their surviving spouses who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity Intel Minimum Pension Plan.

The case, Berkeley v. Intel Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00343 was first filed on January 23, 2023 before the United States District Court of the Northern District of California.

This is one of six such cases the firm has filed against many the largest companies in the U.S. addressing similar claims, including against AT&T, Luxottica, and Southern Company. A certified marriage penalty class action against Citgo Petroleum was settled this past January.

###

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

Whistleblower in False Claims Act case alleged nursing homes were severely understaffed and provided grossly substandard care to residents, and submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid

DETROIT – The United States government and the State of Michigan have reached a $4.5 million settlement with Villa Financial Services LLC (“VFS”), Villa Olympia Investment LLC (“VOI”) and six Villa nursing homes they owned and operated throughout the greater Detroit area to resolve a legal action alleging violations of the False Claims Act filed by a whistleblower.  

The Villa nursing homes owned and operated by VFS and VOI include The Ambassador, Father Murray, Imperial, Regency, St. Joseph’s and Westland. The whistleblower alleged that VFS and VOI and the nursing homes defrauded the Medicare and Medicaid programs by not providing the level and quality of care that the government healthcare programs require and pay for.

“We commend our clients for blowing the whistle and bringing this lawsuit on behalf of the government to redress the severe understaffing and grossly substandard care that they allege pervaded the Villa nursing homes,” said Casey Preston, co-counsel for the whistleblower and member of Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower Practice. “This settlement illustrates the positive impact whistleblowers can achieve when they step forward and report conduct by nursing homes that deprives vulnerable residents of appropriate care and cheats government programs like Medicare or Medicaid.”

The whistleblower in the case is Detroit Integrity Partners, which brought claims under the False Claims Act and Michigan Medicaid False Claim Act.  

The nursing home residents included elderly, disabled, and bedridden individuals who require basic care to carry out their daily functions and maintain their physical, mental, and psychological well-being.  Detroit Integrity Partners alleged that from July 1, 2018 through January 31, 2021, the defendants (i) failed to provide a sufficient number of appropriately trained staff to adequately care for the residents, (ii) failed to take adequate measures to prevent, control, and provide care related to infections, such as pneumonia, sepsis, urinary tract infections, and wound infections, (iii) failed to take adequate measures to prevent and follow appropriate protocols related to resident falls, (iv) failed to appropriately provide for residents’ activities of daily living, including residents’ toileting needs, and (v) failed to follow appropriate protocols for the treatment of pressure ulcers – all in violation of federal and state law.

Detroit Integrity Partners alleged that by knowingly and systematically failing to provide these services and/or providing them in a materially and grossly substandard way, defendants violated Medicare’s and Medicaid’s requirements. Detroit Integrity Partners alleged that, as a result, the bills the defendants submitted to Medicare and Medicaid for the care and services they provided to the residents were materially false in violation of the federal False Claims Act and the Michigan Medicaid False Claim Act.  

Detroit Integrity Partners filed its qui tam action on October 16, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, captioned United States and the State of Michigan ex rel. Detroit Integrity Partners v. Detroit Nursing Center, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-13046-MAG-RSW.

The federal government filed its notice of intervention in the whistleblower’s action on June 17, 2024.

In settling, the defendants did not admit liability.

The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Jerome F. Gorgon, Jr., highlighted the Villa nursing home settlement in a June 30, 2025 announcement of criminal charges and civil resolutions in multiple health care fraud enforcement actions.

The federal False Claims Act and its state law equivalents permit private citizens to bring lawsuits on behalf of the government against persons who present false or fraudulent claims for payment under government contracts or programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE. Whistleblowers are entitled to receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment awarded against a defendant.

Detroit Integrity Partners is represented by national plaintiffs’ law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Michigan-based law firm Hertz Schram PC.

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.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Proton AG, a Swiss privacy-first technology company, today joined an antitrust class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. The suit, brought on behalf of a proposed class of app developers, alleges that Apple engages in illegal, anti-competitive policies and practices through its App Store that harm developers, consumers, and the public interest.

The complaint details how Apple has abused its monopoly control over app distribution on iOS devices to impose predatory policies and tariffs through its App Store, resulting in inflated prices, diminished privacy protections, and degraded user experience. The legal action comes in the wake of recent rulings against Apple, including a €500 million fine issued by the European Commission, and a U.S. court decision finding Apple in willful defiance of court orders in Epic Games v. Apple. The latter noted that Apple’s misconduct was so extreme that the judge referred the company for criminal prosecution.

By joining that lawsuit, Proton aims to ensure that this suit will not only be about monetary damages to compensate app developers for Apple’s conduct, but also changes to App Store policies that will permanently end anti-competitive behavior on the App Store. Proton will donate any money it receives from the lawsuit to organizations fighting for democracy and human rights so that some portion of Apple’s profits are redirected to freedom.

The complaint alleges that Apple’s App Store practices—including mandatory 30% commission fees, censorship of privacy-first apps, and technical restrictions on competitors—constitute monopolistic behavior that stifles innovation.

It is widely reported that Apple has removed or censored apps at the behest of authoritarian governments, in order to continue profiting from those markets. The advocacy group GreatFire.org has found that 66 out of the 100 most popular apps worldwide, including news, social networking and messaging apps are unavailable to iOS users in China. Apple has also removed apps to help suppress protests, such as the 2019 case of HKmaps.org which was removed at the height of the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

Just last year Apple removed dozens of VPN apps from the Russian App Store, a particularly concerning step considering how vital these services are for Russian citizens trying to access independent media and bypass censorship by the Russian government. In 2020, Apple threatened to take Proton VPN off the App Store unless the company removed language that said the app could be used to “unblock censored websites.” 

“It is critical for the future of the internet to end the monopoly on app distribution. Apple wields complete control over iOS app distribution and has time and time again used this power to harm competition and degrade users’ rights and experience for its own financial gain,” said Proton founder and CEO Andy Yen. “While it’s clearly a risk for Proton to take this stand, joining this lawsuit is the only way to push for tangible changes to Apple’s policies that will benefit developers and American consumers alike. Any money we receive from our participation in this lawsuit will be donated to organizations fighting for democracy and human rights so that some portion of Apple’s profits are redirected to causes that advance freedom around the world.”

Apple requires all developers pay a $99/year fee to be in the App Store, and takes a 30% cut from all revenue from all payments made through iOS apps. Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse user privacy aren’t affected by this as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier towards the adoption of privacy-first business models. In many cases these are also the very companies Apple is directly competing with through its disingenuous “privacy” marketing campaigns.

“Our client, Proton, is bravely stepping forward to fight for meaningful change. Agreeing to lead a class action is inherently a selfless act as it requires doing work for the benefit of others,” said Michael Eisenkraft, partner at Cohen Milstein, one of the law firms representing Proton and the proposed class. “Without accountability, Apple could get away with behavior in the U.S. that stifles both competition and innovation.” 

Apple claims the 30% fee is necessary to pay for the maintenance of the App Store, but evidence presented in Epic Games v. Apple indicated that Apple makes a staggering 78% profit margin on App Store fees. The company also prohibits developers from linking out to their websites, where users may be able to purchase service subscriptions directly from the developer, which has a negative impact on the user experience. Apple is able to bring in these steep profits at the expense of privacy-first developers due to the lack of competition in iOS app distribution.

Proton and the proposed class are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. The case was filed in the Northern District of California. 

### 

About Proton AG

Proton was founded in 2014 in Switzerland by scientists from CERN. Our vision is an internet where privacy is the norm – supported by an ecosystem of services that are accessible to everyone, anywhere, anytime.

Our first product, Proton Mail, is now the largest encrypted email service in the world. Complementary products like Proton VPN, Proton Calendar, Proton Drive, and Proton Pass also use advanced encryption technologies to give users full control over their data. All our products are open-source and are developed by a dedicated team of over 500 people, supported by an active community in more than 180 countries. The Proton Foundation, a nonprofit organization based in Geneva, is the main shareholder of Proton. Today, we make privacy accessible to everyone and protect over 100 million accounts, including those of journalists, major international organizations, and ordinary people around the world.

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.

About Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is the largest law firm in the world devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration. Quinn Emanuel has been deemed the “most feared” law firm in BTI Consulting Group’s 2025 “Most Feared Law Firms in Litigation” guide in both 2024 and 2025.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Cohen Milstein is pleased to announce that public pension fund investors and EQT Corporation have reached an agreement to settle In re EQT Corporation Securities Litigation, a certified securities class action, in its entirety, for a cash payment of $167.5 million.

The settlement agreement, pending court approval, provides a favorable result for investor class members because it provides for a cash recovery and resolves any further litigation. The $167.5 million settlement is particularly significant given that, among other things, it is the largest securities class action recovery ever in the history of the Western District of Pennsylvania and the 14th largest in the history of the Third Circuit.

Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel believe that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members and represents a favorable result.

As court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel, Cohen Milstein represents the lead plaintiff group consisting of the Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Annuity Fund (f/k/a Northeast Carpenters Annuity Fund), Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Pension Fund (f/k/a Northeast Carpenters Pension Fund), Government of Guam Retirement Fund, and Cambridge Retirement System.

Background of Case and Settlement

In re EQT Corporation Securities Litigation is a certified securities class action brought against EQT and certain of the company’s current and former senior executives for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of the following class:

all persons and entities who: (i) purchased the common stock of EQT Corporation (“EQT”) during the period from June 19, 2017 through June 17, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”); (ii) held EQT shares as of the record date of September 25, 2017 and were entitled to vote with respect to the Acquisition at the November 9, 2017 special meeting of EQT shareholders; (iii) held Rice Energy Inc. (“Rice”) shares as of the record date of September 21, 2017 and were entitled to vote with respect to the Acquisition at the November 9, 2017 special meeting of Rice shareholders; and/or (iv) acquired the common stock of EQT in exchange for their shares of Rice common stock in connection with the Acquisition, and were damaged thereby.

The amended complaint alleged that from June 19, 2017 through June 17, 2019, the defendants made materially false or misleading representations and omissions regarding EQT’s drilling performance and capability, as well as the purported benefits of EQT’s acquisition of competing oil and gas company Rice Energy. The alleged false and misleading statements concerned, among other things, the combined company’s ability to drill 1,200 lateral wells at an average lateral length of 12,000 feet, and to realize $2.5 billion in synergies. The complaint asserted that the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions caused investors to purchase EQT common stock at artificially inflated prices and/or to approve EQT’s proposed acquisition, and to suffer damages when the truth was revealed.

In arriving at this settlement, lead counsel, including Cohen Milstein and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, reviewed over 5 million pages of documents, participated in depositions of 33 fact witnesses and 9 expert witnesses, retained and worked with experts on the subjects of damages, loss causation, natural gas drilling, and corporate due diligence, and thoroughly reviewed the applicable facts and law. Furthermore, the Parties extensively briefed motions (i) to dismiss, (ii) for class certification, (iii) for summary judgment, and (iv) to exclude expert opinions and testimony.

During the course of the hard-fought litigation, the court certified the class on August 11, 2022, and on September 23, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied defendants’ petition for interlocutory review of the court’s order granting class certification.

The case team at Cohen Milstein included Steven J. Toll, Daniel S. Sommers, S. Douglas Bunch, Christina D. Saler, Benjamin F. Jackson, and Alexandra Gray.

Following the Bayer-Monsanto merger, litigation has resulted in a valuable settlement that, pending final approval, affirms the rights of ADR investors to hold foreign companies accountable under U.S. securities laws.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today, a federal judge in California granted preliminary approval of a $38 million cash settlement between Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund, and International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware, and Bayer AG to resolve a certified securities class action against the pharmaceutical giant and certain executives.

Originally filed in 2020, the lawsuit stems from Bayer’s highly controversial acquisition of Monsanto in 2018. Plaintiffs alleged that Bayer, along with its CEO, the chairman of its Supervisory Board, and several other senior executives made false and misleading statements concerning the company’s due diligence on the risks associated with an ongoing large mass tort litigation alleging that Roundup, Monsanto’s flagship glyphosate-based herbicide, causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Following the merger, Bayer sustained a barrage of court defeats in that toxic tort litigation, forcing it to establish a $10.9 billion settlement fund.

The settlement follows nearly five years of intensive cross-border litigation and brings closure to, pending final approval, an important case that addressed critical questions about the adequacy and transparency of disclosures concerning due diligence in high-profile corporate mergers. The litigation also reaffirms that investors who purchase American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) on the over-the-counter market have enforceable rights under U.S. securities laws.

“This is an important settlement and resolution for our clients and investors who invest in publicly traded foreign companies through the U.S. over-the-counter markets,” said Carol Gilden, a partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed lead counsel in this matter. “This has been a hard-fought dispute. After years of litigation and international discovery, this resolution, pending final approval by the court, will help ensure accountability of a foreign company under U.S. securities laws. It will also provide closure for ADR investors harmed by Bayer’s alleged misleading statements.”

Central to the case were novel and complex questions about whether the plaintiffs’ and the class’s purchases were foreign transactions outside the scope of U.S. securities laws.

In May 2023, the court granted class certification, appointing Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund, and the International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as class representatives and Cohen Milstein as sole class counsel. Notably, the court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on the extraterritoriality issue, resulting in a landmark decision affirming the rights of ADR purchasers on the over-the-counter market—and particularly those of sponsored ADRs like Bayer’s.

Discovery was also expansive and complex, spanning multiple continents and legal systems. Among other things, plaintiffs were required to initiate proceedings under the Hague Convention to obtain the testimony of Bayer’s former general counsel in Germany—a process that demanded significant coordination with German counsel and judicial oversight from both U.S. and German courts.

The case is styled: Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, et al. v. Bayer Aktiengelsellchaft, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04737, U.S. District Court, District of Northern California.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices, Cohen Milstein is one of the largest plaintiff-side law firms in the United States. With more than four decades of experience litigating securities fraud class actions, we have recovered billions of dollars to investors. We are perennially recognized as among the top securities practices in the country by legal publications such as The National Law Journal, Law360, Chambers USA, and The Legal 500.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A student, “John Doe,” and his mother, “Jane Doe,” have filed a civil rights lawsuit against a Washington, D.C. private school, St. Anselm’s Abbey School. The lawsuit challenges the school’s failure to protect John Doe from daily harassment to which he was subjected based on his race and disability.  Rather than protect John Doe from harassment by his peers, the school suspended him and barred him from re-enrolling for the following school year.

As detailed in the complaint, a student at St. Anselm’s Abbey School, John Doe was relentlessly harassed by his classmates because he is Black and autistic. They publicly called him race- and disability-based slurs, including “burnt chicken nugget,” “n*gger,” “brown monkey,” and “autistic n*gger,” among others. They also harassed him in class-wide group text threads, threatened him, and physically assaulted him while at school. John Doe and his mother repeatedly complained to school staff and administrators, who failed to take necessary action to address this harassment. The abuse not only continued, it escalated to the point that John Doe was too afraid to ride the school bus, could not focus in class, and contemplated suicide. Text records of some of this harassment will be part of the record before the Court.

The complaint also details that after John Doe was attacked by a group of non-Black students, the school suspended him — not the harassers — for defending himself.  St. Anselm’s then barred John Doe from re-enrolling for the next school year. When John Doe’s mother met with the headmaster to discuss the school’s decision to expel John Doe, the headmaster said that “the only thing [the school] did wrong was accept an autistic child” and that he “would have never accepted [John] if [he] knew [John] was autistic,” notwithstanding that Jane Doe had disclosed his disability during the admissions process. The lawsuit alleges that the school violated the District of Columbia Human Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Jane Doe had enrolled her son in St. Anselm’s because they regarded it as the premier Catholic school in Washington, and they believed this was one of the only schools where John Doe could get a high-quality education while being immersed in Catholic values.  The abuse John Doe suffered, therefore, was especially jarring, as it subjected him daily to ridicule and humiliation while shattering his connection to the Catholic community.

Alexandra Brodsky, litigation director of Public Justice’s Students’ Civil Rights Project, said: “John Doe, like all students, deserved a safe and equitable learning environment. Instead, he faced relentless harassment — and when he asked his school for help, they punished him instead. Private schools are not above the law. They should be on notice that, if they discriminate and retaliate against their students, they will have to defend their cruelty in court.”   

“Every student is entitled to respect and dignity while at school, no matter their race or disability,” said Andrew Adelman, partner at Correia & Puth. “St. Anselm’s Abbey School was unable to provide this. Rather than address and work to prevent race- and disability-based harassment of John Doe, St. Anselm’s responded to complaints about that harassment by blaming John, suspending him, and effectively expelling him. I am proud to stand alongside John Doe and Jane Doe to hold St. Anselm’s to account.”

“St. Anselm’s failures shattered a family’s trust in education, in their Catholic faith, and in our society,” said Alisa Tiwari, associate at Cohen Milstein. “Today, our lawsuit is making it clear: no school can turn a blind eye to race or disability discrimination. John and Jane Doe seek to recover for the searing harm they suffered and to ensure that no other child is degraded for being different.”

Jane and John Doe are represented by Public Justice, Correia & Puth, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

###

Public Justice takes on the most significant 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 link high-impact litigation with strategic communications and the strength of our partnerships to combat these abusive and discriminatory systems and achieve social and economic justice.

Correia & Puth, PLLC is a civil rights law firm based in the District of Columbia dedicated to representing individuals confronting discrimination, retaliation, and unfair treatment. The lawyers of Correia & Puth are staunch advocates for individuals who face discrimination in the workplace, schools, healthcare settings, and other places of public accommodation.

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.