Lyzette Wallace will speak at the session “Doing What Needs to Be Done in Discovery without a Litigation Support Department” at Everlaw Summit on October 23 at 1:30 p.m. in San Francisco. The discussion will provide insights into how plaintiffs’ firms can manage discovery even without a dedicated litigation support department.
Everlaw Summit is an educational and networking conference on the future of ediscovery and litigation. The event will take place October 22-24 at The Palace Hotel. To learn more or to register, visit Everlaw Summit ’24.
New rule set to safeguard investment adviser sector from illicit finance activity. New rule also requires reporting of suspicious or illegal activities by investment advisers.
On September 4, 2024, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, published its final rule (Rule) in accordance with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) that imposes minimum standards for establishing anti-money laundering/ countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) programs. The Rule requires Registered Investment Advisers (RIAs) and Exempt Reporting Advisers (ERAs) to report suspicious activity to FinCEN in compliance with the suspicious activity reporting (SAR) requirements.
The purpose of the Rule is to safeguard investments in the United States and help prevent criminals and other illicit actors from laundering money through the U.S. financial system. The Rule helps to mitigate the risk of money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit finance activities through the investment adviser industry, particularly in relation to sanctioned entities, the Russian Federation, and exploitation by foreign state sponsored enterprises, most notably from the People’s Republic of China and Russia.
The new Rule, Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, 31 CFR 1010 and 1032 goes into effect on January 1, 2026.
Why This Matters to Whistleblowers
The BSA authorizes the Dept. of Treasury and its bureaus to impose reporting and other requirements on financial institutions and other businesses to help detect and prevent money laundering.
According to FinCEN, investment advisers serve “as an entry point into the U.S. financial system and economy,” and may be susceptible to participating in fraud and other illegal activity by sanctioned and other unscrupulous foreign entities.
FinCEN has adopted the SAR filing provisions in the Rule to include investment advisers, thereby requiring certain investment advisers to report illicit activity to FinCEN.
Individuals working for such investment advisers may feel encouraged to “blow the whistle” on suspicious activity involving money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit finance activity.
Overview of the New ALM/CFT Rule & New Definitions:
Financial Institution – FinCEN is broadening the definition of “financial institution” to include certain investment advisers, and pursuant to the BSA, requiring certain investment advisers to report suspicious activity to FinCEN.
Investment Adviser – FinCEN is narrowing and clarifying the definition of “investment adviser.”
The Rule defines investment advisers as:
- investment advisers registered with or required to register with the SEC, also known as RIAs; and
- investment advisers that report information to the SEC as ERAs.
The narrower definition of investment adviser excludes from the definition:
- RIAs that register with the SEC solely because they are (i) mid-sized advisers, (ii) multi-state advisers, or (iii) pension consultants; as well as
- RIAs that are not required to report assets under management (AUM) to the SEC on Form ADV.
FinCEN is not applying this Rule to State-registered advisers. Foreign private advisers or family offices
(as defined in SEC regulations) are also exempt.
No later than January 1, 2026, investment advisers must have implemented AML/CFT programs, commenced filing SARs when required, and begun complying with the other reporting and recordkeeping requirements as described in the Rule.
SARs and other BSA forms, filing requirements, and FAQ can be found on FinCEN or the BSA E-Filing System.
Is Legal Counsel Needed if I Become a Whistleblower and “Blow the Whistle” on New Rule Violators?
While it is not necessary for a Whistleblower to engage legal counsel at the time of reporting fraud, misconduct, or other violations, it is recommended. Legal counsel specializing in Dodd-Frank-related whistleblower matters can assist in not only assessing the gravity of the possible violations the Whistleblower has knowledge of but will complete and file the required form – Form TCR with FinCEN.
About the Author
Christina McGlosson, Special Counsel in Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower practice, focuses exclusively on Dodd-Frank Whistleblower representation. She is the former Acting Director of the Whistleblower Office in the Division of Enforcement at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. She was also Senior Counsel in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, where she assisted in drafting the SEC rules to implement the whistleblower provisions of Dodd-Frank.
Christina represents whistleblowers in the presentation and prosecution of fraud claims before the SEC, CFTC, FinCEN, the Department of Justice, and other government agencies.
Christina McGlosson, Special Counsel: Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Practice
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
E: cmcglosson@cohenmilstein.com
T. 202-988-3970
“FinCEN’s rule is long overdue. Investment Advisers are critical to the U.S. financial system and economy. At the same time, certain Investment Advisers are more vulnerable than others to sanctioned and other unscrupulous foreign entities. FinCEN’s final rule shores up the uneven application of the AML/CFT program across the industry and makes whistleblowing of suspicious activity an imperative,” said Christina McGlosson, Special Counsel: Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Practice at Cohen Milstein. It should be noted that Christina is the former acting director of the CFTC’s Whistleblower Office. She was also Senior Counsel to the Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, during her fifteen-year tenure in the SEC’s Enforcement Division.”
A class-action complaint claims Aetna violated federal non-discrimination law by denying coverage of certain gender-affirming surgeries.
Why it matters: The lawsuit filed Tuesday cites civil rights protections in the Affordable Care Act that are currently being challenged by conservative-led states.
Driving the news: The lawsuit states Aetna “categorically excludes” coverage for facial reconstruction surgeries when they’re prescribed to treat gender dysphoria, even though it covers the same surgeries for other medical diagnoses.
- Two of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit ended up paying more than $35,000 out of pocket after Aetna denied their claims for surgery, while a third has not yet been able to afford a procedure.
- The complaint estimates this issue affects more than 70,000 people covered by Aetna across the country.
- The American Medical Association and other major medical groups support gender-affirming treatment standards that recognize facial reconstruction surgeries as safe and effective for changing facial features linked to gender dysphoria. The procedures are typically used to make facial features more feminine.
- Gender-affirming care varies by patient, and not all transgender people choose to get facial reconstruction surgery.
Between the lines: These surgeries are usually reserved for adults and haven’t been heavily targeted by recent state bans on transgender care. But systemic barriers still make them hard to access, said Gabriel Arkles, a lawyer for the plaintiffs and co-interim legal director at Advocates for Trans Equality.
What they’re saying: “Facial surgery is important healthcare. It’s also something that helps people be a little bit safer … Your face is so visible. It’s one of the first ways people will try to identify what gender you are.”
“I’m hoping and I’m praying for this lawsuit to make it possible for people to envision asking for their needs to be met because even that wasn’t possible for me at a certain point,” said Binah Gordon, one of the three lead plaintiffs on the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that the insurance giant has covered similar procedures for cisgender patients.
Three transgender women have filed a lawsuit against U.S. health insurance company Aetna, alleging that their claims for gender-affirming facial surgeries have for years been unlawfully denied.
The three women — Binah Gordon, Kay Mayers, and anonymous plaintiff S.N. — filed suit in Connecticut on September 10, each asserting that Aetna improperly denied their claims for “medically necessary gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgeries.” The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Wardenski PC and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, as well as Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE), which was formed in a merger between two national trans rights organizations earlier this year.
. . .
This is only the latest lawsuit leveling discrimination claims against the insurance giant. In 2021, Aetna settled a similar lawsuit (also filed in part by Cohen Milstein) by announcing it would consider trans women’s breast augmentation surgeries to be medically necessary — a reform that clearly was not equally applied to facial surgeries in the aftermath of that settlement. Since then, however, lawsuits against Aetna have surged on multiple other fronts. In the space of one week in October 2023, Aetna was served with 21 separate lawsuits from breast cancer survivors who said the company refused to pay for their reconstructive surgeries. Earlier this year, Bridges Health Partners in Pennsylvania sued Aetna for breach of contract; in May, the company agreed to settle another lawsuit that alleged the company had discriminated against LGBTQ+ families seeking fertility treatments, creating a $2 million reimbursement fund for the impacted parties.
Three transgender women sued Aetna Life Insurance Co. Tuesday for allegedly denying them coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgeries.
Aetna’s categorical exclusion on the treatments constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex in a federally funded health-care program in violation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, a proposed class action complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut said. Aetna generally provides payment for facial reconstruction surgery for diagnoses other than gender dysphoria, and also covers other gender-affirming care, such as chest reconstruction, the plaintiffs said.
. . .
Medical professional groups have deemed facial reconstruction surgeries medically necessary for trans people and distinguished them from cosmetic procedures because they’re meant “solely to align a person’s facial characteristics with their gender identity, and not to ‘improve’ appearance,” the plaintiffs said. The surgery is “an essential component of their gender transition,” they said.
Aetna’s policy is facially discriminatory because it treats transgender people differently from cisgender people, for whom it covers facial reconstruction surgery to treat other medical conditions, the plaintiffs said.
. . .
Wardenski PC, Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund Inc., and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC represent the plaintiffs.
The American Antitrust Institute has announced Daniel A. Small as the 2024 inductee to the Private Antitrust Enforcement Hall of Fame. He will be honored during a luncheon presentation at AAI’s 18th AAI Annual Private Antitrust Enforcement Conference on October 30, 2024, in Washington D.C.
Daniel Small, widely regarded for his intellectual energy, deep study of the economic issues underpinning antitrust disputes and sophisticated understanding of how conspiracies and monopolies operate in a range of complex markets, served as the co-chair of the Cohen Milstein’s Antitrust practice group for ten years. He represented plaintiff classes, and defended unions, as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous antitrust cases and obtained settlements and judgments totaling over one billion dollars.
AAI established the Private Antitrust Enforcement Hall of Fame in 2018 to celebrate the organization’s 20th anniversary and further the goals of progressive competition research, education, and advocacy that have defined AAI’s mission and success since its founding in 1998.
The Hall of Fame recognizes practitioners for three major contributions:
- Distinguished service to the private antitrust enforcement community;
- Commitment to the enforcement of the antitrust laws; an
- Success in fighting for competition, consumers, and workers.
Daniel Small joins AAI Private Antitrust Enforcement Hall of Fame inductees Joseph Goldberg, Roberta D. Liebenberg, H. Laddie Montague Jr., Ellen Meriwether, Michael J. Freed, Jonathan W. Cuneo, and Pamela Gilbert.
Are the technologies that power online advertising all part of one giant market, or are there distinct markets within the multibillion-dollar industry?
The answer is critical to Google’s defense in an antitrust case brought by the US Justice Department that went to trial on Monday in a packed Alexandria, Va., courtroom.
“Market definition, not just in this case, but in most antitrust cases, has potential to be outcome determinative,” said former DOJ antitrust attorney Dan McCuaig, who is now a partner with Cohen Milstein.
The highly anticipated trial comes on the heels of Google’s defeat in August an antitrust case where a Washington, D.C., judge ruled the tech giant illegally monopolized the market for online search engines.
For Google (GOOG), the broader the market, the more likely it can overcome federal prosecutors’ claims that it illegally monopolized markets for online advertising technology in violation of antitrust laws.
. . .
“I think it’s a clever play by Google,” McCuaig said. “I don’t think it ultimately carries the day.”
McCuaig said Google may have relied too strongly on a Supreme Court case involving American Express, in which the high court ruled that credit card networks were one market with two sides.
Meat industry giants Cargill, National Beef Packing and Hormel Foods have agreed to pay a combined $57.4 million to exit a proposed class action accusing them of suppressing workers’ pay at processing plants.
Lawyers for the workers asked, opens new tab a U.S. judge in Colorado to preliminarily approve the three deals, which would push total settlements to more than $200 million since the lawsuit was filed in 2022.
The settlements cover claims from tens of thousands of red meat processing workers at 140 plants alleging a years-long conspiracy among leading processors to keep wages low.
The workers claim the processors and two consulting companies violated antitrust law by sharing confidential compensation data though industry surveys and other means.
Cargill said it will pay $29.75 million, National Beef Packing agreed to pay $14.2 million and Hormel Foods will pay $13.5 million, according to the new settlements.
. . .
For plaintiffs: Shana Scarlett of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Brent Johnson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; and George Farah of Handley Farah & Anderson
New York, NY – Today, Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF), now known as Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE), Wardenski P.C., and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, filed a federal class action civil rights lawsuit against Aetna Life Insurance Company (Aetna) in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of three transgender women—Binah Gordon, Kay Mayers, and S.N. —denied coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming facial reconstruction procedures.
“With my job, I am on the road every week, spending a lot of time in places that are not as safe for trans people as the community where I am blessed to work. For years, I struggled with fear and anxiety around the danger my facial features put me in while traveling and finding lodging, and even leaving my home, which made me less effective at work and impacted my weekends and all my relationships. My doctors knew I was desperate to improve my quality of life,” said Binah Gordon, who is a plaintiff in the case. “When I was finally able to get the gender-affirming surgeries that I needed, it was like my life finally began. When I looked in the mirror, I used to see an obstacle, a laughingstock, a target, or a victim. Today in the mirror I see a capable, socially and spiritually connected, empowered and confident professional, partner, sister and aunt.”
“For transgender women, gender-affirming facial surgeries are not about vanity or appearance – they are about providing lifesaving medical care that enable them to live full authentic lives and reduce distress caused by gender dysphoria,” said Gabriel Arkles, Co-Interim Legal Director at Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE). “Aetna’s refusal to cover gender-affirming healthcare, despite the medical necessity, forces many trans women to continue to suffer, and a minority to assume the major financial burden of paying out-of-pocket.”
Each of the plaintiffs have been deeply impacted by Aetna’s policy:
- Kay Mayers, a 52-year-old resident of Alaska, has been unable to afford the necessary facial surgery due to Aetna’s refusal to cover the costs. She continues to experience severe gender dysphoria and fear for her safety.
- Binah Gordon, a 42-year-old resident of Nebraska, was forced to cover the cost of her facial surgery herself, spending approximately $35,000 after Aetna refused to cover the surgery, causing her to experience a long, painful delay in obtaining this medically necessary care.
- S.N., a 48-year-old from Pennsylvania, paid nearly $50,000 out of pocket for gender affirming facial and voice surgeries. Her appeals to Aetna were denied, forcing her to bear the financial burden for gender-affirming healthcare that her medical providers had deemed medically necessary.
Gender-affirming facial surgeries are essential components of the medical treatment for gender dysphoria, a serious medical condition that arises from the incongruence between a person’s gender identity and their physical sex characteristics. Despite covering similar reconstructive surgeries for cisgender patients, Aetna categorically excludes these procedures for transgender people, classifying them as cosmetic, thus violating the Affordable Care Act.
“All of our clients, and thousands of others like them, were denied insurance coverage by Aetna for gender-affirming facial surgeries that their treating providers determined were medically necessary to treat their gender dysphoria and improve their overall well-being,” said Joseph Wardenski, Principal of Wardenski P.C. “Aetna has ignored the medical consensus and wrongly treated this critical health care as ‘’cosmetic.’ Aetna’s refusal to recognize the medical necessity of this critical health care is causing unnecessary harm to many transgender women on Aetna health plans.”
In 2021, Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF), now known as A4TE, and Cohen Milstein worked on behalf of four women denied coverage by Aetna for medically necessary breast augmentation. The insurance company eventually updated their policy and expanded their coverage to include the procedure.
“We are disappointed that Aetna retains this outdated exclusion and are filing this lawsuit as a crucial step towards ensuring that the tens of thousands of transgender people who rely on Aetna receive the care they need without facing additional barriers solely because they are trans,” said Harini Srinivasan, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Associate. “This lawsuit is a crucial step toward ensuring that the tens of thousands of transgender people who are customers of Aetna receive the care they need without facing additional barriers based solely on their gender identity.”
A4TE filed the complaint today against Aetna for violating Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally funded healthcare programs. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief to end Aetna’s exclusionary policy, and compensatory damages for all policyholders who have had to pay out of pocket for gender-affirming facial surgery because of Aetna’s discriminatory exclusion.
To learn more about the lawsuit or to sign up to potentially participate in the class action lawsuit, click through to Gordon, et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance (D.Conn.).
The complaint can be accessed and viewed here.
Plaintiffs in Gordon, et al. v. Aetna are represented by Gabriel Arkles, Ezra Cukor, Sydney Duncan, and Fiadh McKenna of Advocates for Trans Equality; Joseph Wardenski and Alexandra Vance of Wardenski PC; and Christine E. Webber, Harini Srinivasan, and Aniko R. Schwarcz of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
###
Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE) is an organization that fights for the legal and political rights of transgender people in the United States. Introduced in July 2024 after the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund and National Center for Trans Equality merged, A4TE is the largest trans-led advocacy organization in the U.S. and brings together experts, advocates, and communities to shift government and society toward an equitable future where trans people live joyful lives without barriers.
Wardenski P.C. is a civil rights law firm based in New York. The firm represents plaintiffs in civil rights lawsuits around the country challenging discrimination in education, housing, and health care, with a particular focus on the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.
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.
A Michigan judge said Monday it would be premature to free the state from liability for two dams’ collapse before further discovery, telling government lawyers he would be reversed “in a nanosecond” if he ended the suit so soon.
The state had filed the motion amid the discovery phase of consolidated mass tort and class actions seeking compensation for disastrous flooding as a result of the dam failures, but Michigan Court of Claims Judge James R. Redford rebuffed the state’s timing.
“I respectfully believe that we need to have discovery,” Judge Redford said during a hearing.
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy had asked the judge in an Aug. 22 motion to toss the case and save both sides the time and expense of exchanging expert reports, arguing that it was already clear from the available evidence that the state did not cause the dam collapses.
. . .
The plaintiffs are represented by Denenberg Tuffley PLLC, Johnson Law PLC, Dubin Law PLLC, Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC, Fieger Law, Sommers Schwartz PC, The Miller Law Firm PC, Buckfire Law Firm, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, McAlpine PC, Olsman MacKenzie Peacock & Wallace, Giroux Trial Attorneys PC, The Rasor Law Firm PLLC, Gruel Mills Nims & Pylman PLLC, Behm & Behm, Turfe Law, Cozen O’Connor PC, Stern Law PLLC and Fegan Scott LLC.