JOHNSON & JOHNSON accused of mismanaging the prescription drug program in its health plan – costing employees millions
Washington, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier national plaintiffs’ class action law firm, recently joined plaintiff’s legal team in Lewandowski v. Johnson and Johnson, 3:24-cv-00671 (D.N.J.), a novel class action filed in federal court in New Jersey by Fairmark Partners LLP and Wheeler, Diulio & Barnabel, P.C.
Lead plaintiff Ann Lewandowski, a current employee of Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), accuses the pharmaceutical giant of mismanaging its own health plans’ prescription drug program, costing employees millions of dollars in the form of higher payments for prescription drugs, higher out-of-pocket costs and co-pays, and, ultimately, lower wages in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The Complaint focuses, in part, on the prices charged for so-called “specialty drugs” purchased through a specialty pharmacy, Accredo, that is affiliated with Johnson & Johnson’s pharmacy benefits manager (PBM), Express Scripts. The complaint cites a specific example of a 90-pill prescription for the generic drug teriflunomide (the generic form of Aubagio used to treat multiple sclerosis). The Complaint alleges a prescription cost $40.55 at Wegmans, $41.05 at ShopRite, $76.41 at Walmart, $77.41 at Rite Aid, and $28.40 at Cost Plus Drugs online pharmacy (without insurance), while the same 90-pill prescription costs Johnson & Johnson health plan participants $10,239.69. In addition, the Complaint includes many other examples of drugs that are overpriced.
“We are honored to be invited to join this groundbreaking ERISA class action,” said Michelle C. Yau, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “Hard-working employees and retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to overpay for prescription drugs, especially in today’s inflationary environment. Plan sponsors like Johnson & Johnson have a responsibility to prudently monitor health plan costs and ensure that those costs are reasonable. Prescription drug costs are part of those costs, and we believe it is important to hold Johnson and Johnson accountable for allowing the allegedly excessive drug markups here.”
The Complaint seeks to stop Johnson & Johnson from mismanaging its prescription drug program and to recover excess payments on behalf of Johnson & Johnson’s health plans and the participants and beneficiaries of those plans.
How can I learn more and possibly join the case? If you are a current or former Johnson & Johnson employee and participated in one of Johnson & Johnson’s health plans, you may have been impacted. Cohen Milstein is in the process of interviewing current and former employees of Johnson & Johnson as part of its ongoing investigation. If you do not already have legal counsel and you are interested in learning more about the lawsuit and whether you may qualify to participate, please call 202.408.4600 or PLEASE CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CASE INVESTIGATION.
About Michelle C. Yau and Michael Eisenkraft
Michelle Yau, chair of the Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., and has been admitted pro hac vice in the Lewandowski matter in in the District of New Jersey, Case No. 1:23-cv-00671. Ms. Yau’s years of experience of protecting retirement and employee health plan assets is informed by her Wall Street and U.S. Department of Labor experience. Read more here: Michelle C. Yau – Cohen Milstein
Michael Eisenkraft is a member of Cohen Milstein’s Executive Committee, the head of its New York office, and is licensed to practice in New York and New Jersey. In addition to the Lewandowski matter, Mr. Eisenkraft is prosecuting several other innovative cases and recently secured $580 million in settlements in the Stock Lending litigation. Read more here: Michael B. Eisenkraft – Cohen Milstein
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.
Contact:
Sydney Greenman (paralegal)
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: 888-240-0775 (Toll Free) or 202-408-4600
Email: SGreenman@cohenmilstein.com
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Before making your choice of attorney, you should give this matter careful thought. The selection of an attorney is an important decision. No representation made in this press release is meant to suggest that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. Nor are past results a suggestion or promise of future results.
If you believe this press release is inaccurate or misleading, you may report your concerns to the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Hughes Justice Complex, P.O. Box 970, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0970.
Joint settlement provides industry changing framework for NAR, MLS, and other real estate entities.
WASHINGTON, DC– A nationwide class of home sellers has reached a landmark $418 million joint settlement with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) that will resolve claims in four antitrust class actions against NAR. Those class actions allege that NAR and several of the nation’s largest residential real estate brokerage companies adopted illegal rules requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker fees – at an inflated rate – in addition to their own brokers’ commissions. The settlement with NAR is in addition to $208.5 million in settlements reached with additional defendants Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, and Keller Williams.
Under the terms of the settlement, NAR will be responsible for paying $418 million in four annual installments along with interest, for the benefit of home sellers across the United States, as well as $3 million toward settlement notices. In addition, the settlement creates a framework for other real estate industry participants to resolve actual or potential claims against them. It also provides for far-reaching changes to NAR’s rules governing real estate broker compensation.
“For years, anticompetitive rules in the real estate industry have financially harmed millions of Americans. This settlement will bring sweeping reforms that will help countless American families,” said Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-chair of its Antitrust practice. “We are proud to play a leading role in addressing this industry’s long-running practices.”
The settlement terms include extensive industry reforms that will increase transparency and fairness regarding buyer broker commissions, while eliminating requirements that sellers must offer on multiple listing services to pay the commissions of brokers representing the buyers they are negotiating against.
“For far too long, home sellers have faced a system recognized by many as blatantly unfair. Individual sellers often feel powerless to negotiate a better deal for themselves given the risk that offering lower commissions will cause brokers to steer buyers to other properties. This class action and settlement provide justice for our clients and will require important changes that help future home sellers.” said Robert A. Braun, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Antitrust practice.
In the settlement, NAR has agreed to various practice changes, which are to begin 120 days after the plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of the settlement:
- Eliminate and prohibit any requirement by NAR and NAR multiple listing service (MLS) that listing brokers or sellers must make offers of compensation to cooperating brokers or other buyer representatives, and prohibit and eliminate any requirement that such offers, if made, must be blanket, unconditional or unilateral;
- Prohibit NAR MLS participants, subscribers, other real estate brokers, other real estate agents, and sellers from (i) making offers of compensation on the multiple listing service to cooperating brokers or other buyer representatives (either directly or through buyers) or (ii) disclosing on the multiple listing service listing broker compensation or total brokerage compensation;
- Eliminate and prohibit any requirements conditioning participation or membership in a NAR MLS on offering or accepting offers of cooperative compensation;
- Agree not to create, facilitate, or support any non-multiple listing service mechanism for listing brokers or sellers to make offers of compensation to cooperating brokers or other buyer representatives;
- Require NAR MLS participants acting for sellers to conspicuously disclose to sellers and obtain seller approval for any payment or offer of payment that the listing broker or seller will make to another broker, agent, or other representative acting for buyers; and
- Require MLS participants to disclose to prospective sellers and buyers in conspicuous language that broker commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable.
The settlement also requires NAR to provide valuable cooperation in ongoing litigation against other defendants. The joint settlement will resolve several cases against NAR, including Burnett, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.), where a jury returned a $1.8 billion damages verdict that will be automatically tripled under the antitrust laws.
Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtor was the first-filed case in 2019, and centers on NAR’s adoption of a mandatory rule, which required a blanket, largely non-negotiable offer of compensation to buyer broker when listing a property on a multiple listing service or “MLS.” Across the United States, there are hundreds of MLSs—which are platforms that real estate brokers and agents use to share listings. The vast majority of MLSs are affiliated with the National Association of Realtors and are required to follow rules NAR sets.
Moehrl alleges that those rules incentivize buyer brokers to avoid showing their clients homes where the seller offers a lower commission. This results in sellers offering high and mostly uniform commissions.
Despite the shrinking role of buyer brokers over the years – caused by advances in technology, including the internet and public access to listings – buyer brokers’ commissions have remained artificially inflated. On average, home sellers overpay such commissions by thousands of dollars on any given transaction.
The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Susman Godfrey, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtor, et al. (N.D. Ill.) and Umpa v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.); and Boulware Law LLC, Ketchmark & McCreight PC, and Williams Dirks Dameron LLC in Burnett, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.) and Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.).
###
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
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) sent a letter to Congressional leaders on behalf of 39 attorneys general who urge the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to engage in meaningful debate and reform of the current practices of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).
The bipartisan letter, authored by the Attorneys General of Arkansas, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, demand Congress take decisive action to reform the way PBMs conduct business and bring more transparency to their work.
The letter emphasizes the urgent need for legislative action to address potential abuses within the PBM industry. Specifically, the coalition highlights three bills – the DRUG Act (S1542/HR6283), Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (HR2880), and the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act (HR5378) – as crucial pieces of legislation that offer necessary reforms.
Together, the legislation is intended to limit PBMs from unjustifiably increasing drug prices and to mandate steps that increase transparency of their practices. Specifically, this step encompasses the obligation for PBMs to furnish pricing data to health plans and federal and state regulators in a standardized format. Such measures will empower health plans to negotiate more advantageous agreements with PBMs and enable regulators to more effectively hold PBMs accountable for their actions.
The coalition of attorneys general remains committed to advocating for meaningful reforms that prioritize the needs and interests of patients over profit-driven motives within the PBM industry.
A PBM is a third-party company that functions as an intermediary between insurance providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers, ostensibly to reduce the cost of prescription medication for its clients. It typically negotiates discounts and rebates with drug manufacturers, contracts with pharmacies, and develops and maintain drug formularies, or lists of covered drugs.
Because a PBM ultimately decides which drugs it covers, it can bargain for rebates from drug manufacturers who want to get their products on its “formularies,” or lists of covered drugs. As a result of this leverage, PBMs essentially force drug manufacturers to raise list prices in order to provide ever-growing rebates.
The following states joined this letter: AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, KS, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, NH, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VI, VT, WI, WY
# # #
The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) is the nonpartisan national forum for America’s attorneys general and their staff. NAAG provides a community for members to collaboratively address issues important to their work and resources to support attorneys general in protecting the rule of law and the United States Constitution.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit yesterday against food delivery company Grubhub alleging false and deceptive advertising, misrepresentation and unfair business practices that financially harm consumers, delivery drivers and restaurants.
“This lawsuit sends a clear message: Los Angeles County will not tolerate businesses that deceive consumers, take advantage of restaurants, and exploit the drivers who work hard to provide a valued service,” said Los Angeles County Board Chair Lindsey P. Horvath. “Our County Counsel and Department of Consumer and Business Affairs are standing up for consumers and businesses by fighting these unfair practices.”
The lawsuit alleges that Grubhub engages in the following unfair and deceptive business practices and seeks statewide relief to stop these violations:
Harm to Consumers
- Deceptively advertises that consumers can place delivery orders online “for free” but then charges consumers fees on those orders at check-out.
- Uses bait-and-switch tactics to lure consumers with a flat, unqualified price for delivery upfront while adding deceptively labeled “service,” “small order” and “driver benefits” fees at checkout. In some cases, the costs of the fees exceed the cost of the food item ordered.
- Misrepresents restaurant search results on its apps and websites, telling consumers that the search results are based on relevance to the consumer’s query (e.g., “Chinese food near me”), when in fact, the results and rankings are based in part on how much restaurants have paid Grubhub for placement.
Harm to Drivers
Grubhub misrepresents the qualities, characteristics and scope of the “Driver Benefits Fee,” which Grubhub charges consumers in connection with Proposition 22. Grubhub deceptively implies that the fee provides healthcare benefits to drivers and that consumers no longer need to tip their drivers because “they don’t have to depend on tips.”
Harm to Restaurants
Grubhub deceptively and unilaterally charges restaurants for customer refunds, which Grubhub issues without restaurants’ consent, and without verifying whether the customer or the restaurant was responsible.
“The deceptive and excessive fees charged by Grubhub at checkout blatantly undermine our goal of promoting a fair marketplace where businesses, employees and consumers can thrive,” said Rafael Carbajal, Director of the LA County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs. “These practices inflict financial harm on LA County’s residents, restaurants and workers and are unacceptable while so many of them struggle to make ends meet.”
Consumers, drivers and restaurants who believe they have been harmed by Grubhub’s actions are invited to share their experiences with DCBA by emailing: info@dcba.lacounty.gov, filing online at https://iddweb.isd.lacounty.gov/dca_ecomplaint/ or calling 800-593-8222.
The lawsuit, filed by County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison on behalf of the people of the State of California in response to complaints from consumers and restaurant owners, seeks injunctive relief to stop the unfair and deceptive business practices, and civil penalties. County Counsel’s Affirmative Litigation and Consumer Protection Division has retained the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC to assist on this case.
“Our lawsuit seeks to hold Grubhub accountable for their unfair and deceptive business practices that deceive and overcharge consumers, exploit drivers, and unfairly short-change restaurants on order refunds,” Harrison said. “My office is committed to protecting County workers and residents and holding businesses accountable for violations of consumer and worker protection laws.”
The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, and a copy of the complaint is available here: LA County Grubhub Complaint-Redacted.pdf.
Contact: Scott Kuhn, Assistant County Counsel, skuhn@counsel.lacounty.gov or 323-719-9606.
For more information on County Counsel’s Affirmative Litigation and Consumer Protection Division, please visit: https://counsel.lacounty.gov/alcp/.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com
D.C. Civil Rights Powerhouse Sues Northwest D.C. Apartment Complexes for Tenant Screening Discrimination
Investigations Revealed That Logan Circle & McLean Gardens Neighborhood Apartments Discriminated Against Voucher Holders, 95% of Whom Are Black Residents
Washington, D.C. – The Equal Rights Center (ERC) has alleged that two upscale D.C. apartment complexes, Latrobe Apartment Homes in Logan Circle and Vaughan Place in McLean Gardens, discriminated against potential tenants using vouchers. The lawsuit, filed today in D.C. Superior Court, also alleges that Air Communities, the owner and manager of the complexes, created unlawful barriers for applicants who have criminal records more than 7 years old and evictions more than 3 years old.
The ERC claims that applicants with government-issued vouchers face unfair and unlawful requirements, including meeting minimum credit scores and income requirements, and that the defendants applied overbroad eviction and criminal history screenings, which significantly restricted applicants from securing housing at the rental properties.
Housing Choice Vouchers are a form of housing assistance subsidized by the federal government. Under D.C.’s fair housing laws, it is illegal for a landlord to discriminate against residents for how they pay their rent. Vouchers allow thousands of residents greater access to housing throughout the District, thereby helping to reduce segregation throughout the District’s neighborhoods and stimulate economic opportunities for residents.
The D.C. statutes under which Equal Rights Center v. Air Communities, Vaughan Place, et al. was filed were enacted in part to address race-based housing discrimination in the District.
“Discrimination against voucher holders further entrenches the racial segregation that has characterized D.C. neighborhoods for decades,” said Kate Scott, Equal Rights Center Executive Director. “Banning residents from housing on the basis of their stale evictions, irrelevant criminal histories, or voucher status are some of the most egregious, harmful modern day civil rights violations, and we are steadfast in our resolve to fight against such practices.”
Between 2022 and 2023, the ERC conducted an investigation to determine whether the defendants engaged in discriminatory and unlawful rental behaviors. The testing was in response to allegedly discriminatory statements on the Latrobe Apartment Homes’ and Vaughan Place’s websites, which read that applicants will be disqualified based on felony convictions and previous evictions. These statements, which have since been removed from the respective websites, violate several of D.C.’s consumer protection and fair housing laws.
“The claims brought in this case underscore how imperative it is to eradicate discrimination in all its forms and to make sure that residents of the District have a fair shot at finding safe and decent housing in the neighborhoods of their choice,” said Brian Corman, Partner at Cohen Milstein. “Housing vouchers help reduce housing instability and homelessness. We look forward to proceeding with these claims in court.”
The Housing Choice Voucher Program, formerly known as Section 8, is a federally funded housing subsidy program that currently provides rental and housing assistance to approximately 2 million families in the U.S. and 11,500 low-income families in D.C.. Under the program, Voucher holders are free to choose any housing in the rental market as long as it doesn’t exceed the monthly rental limit amounts of the program. The program’s intent is to eliminate barriers that would restrict these families from securing housing in neighborhoods with increased access to public transportation, grocery stores, and well-performing schools. Unfortunately, the voucher discrimination seen in this complaint keeps the program from achieving that goal. In addition, screening criteria that bans residents with felony convictions and evictions further places targeted limitations on who can access a variety of D.C.’s housing opportunities.
“Housing policies that indiscriminately shut the door on potential tenants with arrest and conviction records have no place in our communities,” said Joanna K. Wasik, Deputy Legal Director at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. “It is incredibly important that we fight back against such irrational barriers to housing wherever they appear.”
The ERC is represented by Brian Corman and Madhuri Belkale of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and Joanna K. Wasik of Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
The case name is Equal Rights Center v. Air Communities, Vaughan Place, et al., Superior Court of Washington, D.C. Read more about the case at this link.
###
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. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com/
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. For more information, please visit www.equalrightscenter.org.
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, public accommodations, based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee has secured a relentless stream of civil rights victories over the past five decades in an effort to achieve justice for all. For more information, please visit https://www.washlaw.org.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com
FLINT PROPERTY OWNERS REACH CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WITH WATER ENGINEERING FIRM VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA
The settlement ends the last class action case against the remaining water engineering firms accused of negligence contributing to the Flint Water Crisis.
FLINT, MI – On February 1, 2024, Flint Michigan property owners, businesses, and adults, reached a $25 million settlement with Veolia North America (VNA), the last private engineering firm Flint residents were seeking to hold accountable for its role in the devastating Flint water crisis. This settlement brings the total amount of the settlements reached on behalf of plaintiffs in the Flint Water Crisis cases to over $655 million. The case, a certified environmental water contamination class action, was scheduled to go to jury trial on February 13, 2024. The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Susman Godfrey, and Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers.
The class action case was filed in 2016 against VNA and other defendants on behalf of more than 90,000 residents. The class action, which resulted in a landmark $626.25 million settlement against the State of Michigan in 2021, was officially certified against VNA and a second private water engineering company, Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam (LAN), in August 2021. LAN settled with residents last October.
The certified class action maintained that VNA failed to identify corroding pipes, exacerbating the Flint water crisis, and allowed the water contamination to last much longer than it should have, had Veolia recommended the correct remediation, including adding a corrosive chemical to the water supply.
After negotiating the class settlement, the parties also were able to resolve the claims brought by minor claimants represented by class counsel. Under that settlement, those minor claimants will receive an additional payment on top of the amounts they will receive under the existing settlements.
“I’m inspired by the resiliency and courage the families and residents of Flint have shown in their effort to secure justice, and I believe this settlement is an important step forward to bringing a close to the horrible years of nightmares for the Flint community,” said Ted Leopold, court-appointed co-lead class counsel and co-lead trial counsel and partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. “Our fight for justice continues as we look to hold the EPA, the final bad actor in this long and difficult saga, accountable.
“This settlement is long overdue. I’m glad to mark this final case against Veolia and bring another chapter of this terrible story to a close. Our work continues in the fight for justice for the Flint community,” said Steve Morrissey, a partner at Susman Godfrey and co-lead trial counsel and court-appointed Executive Committee member.
Michael Pitt, court-appointed interim co-lead counsel and partner at Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers, P.C. added, “From the beginning, our efforts were focused on centering the Flint community and ensuring that the outcome was fair and equitable for these amazing people who have suffered greatly over the past few years. We’re glad to see this settlement reflecting our efforts and goal of setting this community up to move forward and rebuild.”
In 2014, the City of Flint hired Veolia to advise on the City’s decision to switch its water supply from the highly contaminated Flint River. Despite Flint residents raising concerns about the water’s smell, color, and taste, and even after a deadly Legionnaires disease outbreak, Veolia allegedly failed to give appropriate recommendations to the City. Veolia’s alleged professional negligence led to years of delay in stopping the water contamination to which Flint residents were exposed.
###
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
About Susman Godfrey
Susman Godfrey is a nationwide law firm of 150 trial lawyers. It handles high-stakes litigation in a broad range of practice areas and industries, for both plaintiffs and defendants. Susman’s attorneys are creative in finding the fee arrangement—contingent, flat, hourly, or hybrid—that best suits a client’s case. With a relentless focus on winning at trial, Susman Godfrey has been ranked by Vault as the #1 litigation boutique in America for 12 consecutive years. Visit www.susmangodfrey.com to learn more about our unique approach to winning cases.
About Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers
Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers is one of the largest and most experienced employment and civil rights law firms in Michigan. Our attorneys have successfully supported clients, both individually and in groups, in litigation against companies charged with employment discrimination. In addition to our civil rights and employment discrimination representation, we also handle complex and difficult personal injury and criminal defense cases. For more information visit https://www.pittlawpc.com
Douglas J. McNamara named to five-person MDL team addressing largest data breach in 2023
WASHINGTON, DC – The Honorable Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts appointed Douglas J. McNamara as one of five co-leads to oversee In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The multidistrict litigation (MDL) involves dozens of class actions from around the country regarding a massive data breach which impacted more than 2,500 organizations and more than 67 million individuals worldwide.
The data breach, which was discovered in May 2023, was linked to Progress Software Corp.’s file-sharing software, MOVEit Transfer, which is used by thousands of organizations around the world to move large amounts of often-sensitive data over the internet. Allegedly starting as early as 2021, a ransomware group known as Clop (aka C10p) hacked the MOVEit 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.
“I’m incredibly honored by Judge Burrough’s appointment. She chose among many strong contenders and selected some fantastic litigators to represent the impacted consumers and plaintiffs,” said Doug McNamara, head of Cohen Milstein’s Data Breach & Cybersecurity Litigation team.
McNamara, widely recognized for his class action expertise in data breach and false advertising litigation, will oversee offensive discovery strategy in the MOVEit MDL.
McNamara currently serves as co-lead interim class counsel in In re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation. He is also on the steering committee and leadership teams ofIn re Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach Litigation and In re Marriott International Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.
The five-member court-appointed leadership team also includes the law firms of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP; Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP; Lynch Carpenter, LLP; Berger Montague; and liaison counsel from 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. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, one of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms, has named Benjamin F. Jackson as the firm’s newest partner, effective January 1, 2024.
Jackson is a member of the Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice and is based in New York City. He represents institutional and individual shareholders in derivative lawsuits and securities class actions. He is currently litigating multiple cases involving large corporations including Bayer AG, Nikola Corporation, and EQT Corporation.
Prior to joining Cohen Milstein, Jackson worked at a highly regarded national defense firm as a litigation associate, focusing on securities, antitrust, white-collar investigations, and intellectual property litigation. He served as a law clerk to both the Honorable Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Honorable Robert D. Sack of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
“Ben has proven himself to be a committed and exceptionally hard-working attorney, and I am beyond pleased to call him my partner,” said Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. “I look forward to his continued success and positive contributions to the firm.”
Jackson received his B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis where he was a Lien Scholar. He received his J.D. from Harvard Law School where he served as forum chair of the Harvard Law Review and won the Ames Moot Court Competition. Jackson currently serves as the secretary of the Institute for Law and Economic Policy (ILEP).
###
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/
El principal subcontratista de plomería multifamiliar de diseño y construcción de California presuntamente traicionó a sus empleados en una transacción ilegal de ESOP de $247 millones
Washington, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, una firma de abogados de demandantes de primer nivel, presentó una demanda colectiva en nombre de los empleados y participantes del Plan de Propiedad de Acciones para Empleados (ESOP) de AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. La demanda es contra AMPAM Parks Mechanical, los fundadores de AMPAM, Buddy Parks, John D. Parks, James Parks y Jason Parks (“los hermanos Parks”), y Neil Brozen, por violaciones de la Ley de Seguridad de los Ingresos de Jubilación de los Empleados (ERISA). AMPAM Parks Mechanical ha declarado que es el subcontratista de plomería multifamiliar más grande del estado de California, dando empleo a aproximadamente a 1,000 empleados en las áreas metropolitana de Los Ángeles, San Diego y el norte de California.
Presuntamente, los hermanos Parks crearon el ESOP AMPAM, un plan de jubilación, para comprar sus intereses en AMPAM a un precio inflado de 247 millones de dólares. Para obtener el precio de compra de 247 millones de dólares en la transacción del ESOP, AMPAM (controlada por los hermanos Parks), contrató a Neil Brozen, presidente de Ventura Trust, una compañía fiduciaria operando en Minnesota, para aprobar el precio de compra de 247 millones de dólares en nombre del ESOP. Hay múltiples demandas pendientes contra Neil Brozen por violaciones de ERISA, incluyendo una demanda presentada por el Secretario de Labor y demandas colectivas presentadas por empleados que participaron en el ESOP.
Esta demanda también alega que ninguno de los hermanos Parks ni Neil Brozen involucraron a los empleados de AMPAM en la determinación del precio que pagaría el ESOP o los otros términos de la Transacción. Al contrario, los empleados de AMPAM se enteraron de la compra de AMPAM a los hermanos Parks después de que se completó la transacción del ESOP. A partir de entonces, presuntamente todos los empleados de AMPAM se vieron obligados a comprar acciones de AMPAM a los hermanos Parks a través de sus cuentas de jubilación del ESOP.
Poco después de la venta, fue reportado que las acciones de AMPAM bajo el ESOP estaban valoradas a $ 17,821,310, o aproximadamente el 7% de lo que el ESOP había pagado por la empresa. A partir de entonces, el valor de la empresa se desplomó, lo cual resultó en una valoración de solo 2,1 millones de dólares, menos del 1% de lo que pagó el Plan.
“Esta demanda busca proteger a los empleados y trabajadores jubilados de AMPAM. Nuestra demanda alega que la venta de AMPAM en 2019 al ESOP por $247 millones fue sobrevalorada e injusta para los trabajadores. Esperamos defender los derechos de nuestro cliente y de otros miembros de la clase”, dijo Michelle C. Yau, presidenta del grupo de práctica de Beneficios para Empleados/ERISA de Cohen Milstein.
La demanda, Barrios, et al. v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al., se presentó ante el Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos del Distrito Sur de California el 28 de diciembre de 2023.
Cohen Milstein está buscando a los empleados o jubilados de AMPAM que puedan haberse visto afectados por la presunta transacción ilegal para que participen potencialmente en la demanda. Los participantes deben haber sido empleados de AMPAM Parks Mechanical después de julio de 2019. HAGA CLIC AQUÍ PARA ACCEDER AL FORMULARIO DE CONTACTO PARA ESTE CASO.
Contacto de prensa:
Michelle C. Yau, jefa de la práctica de Beneficios para Empleados/ERISA de Cohen Milstein, tiene décadas de experiencia en la protección de bienes de jubilación y conocimiento sobre transacciones financieras complejas y cuestiones actuariales informados por su experiencia en Wall Street y el Departamento de Labor. En 2021, fue nombrada “MVP de beneficios para empleados – beneficios” de Law360.
Tel. 202-408-4600, Email: myau@cohenmilstein.com
Contactos de abogados:
Los siguientes abogados de Cohen Milstein están actualmente involucrados en Barrios, et al. v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al. y puede responder a preguntas.
Michelle C. Yau, jefa del grupo de practica de Beneficios para Empleados/ERISA de Cohen Milstein, cuenta con licencia para practicar leyes en el estado de Massachusetts y Washington, D.C. Su práctica se limita a asuntos legales federales, como ERISA la cual es relevante a la demanda contra AMPAM.
Tel. 202-408-4600, correo electrónico: myau@cohenmilstein.com
Eleanor Frisch es asociada en la práctica de Beneficios para Empleados/ERISA de Cohen Milstein. Cuenta con licencia para practicar leyes en los estados de California y Minnesota. Tel. 612.807.1575, correo electrónico: efrisch@cohenmilstein.com
Ryan Wheeler es asociado de Cohen Milstein y miembro del grupo de práctica de Beneficios para Empleados. Cuenta con licencia para practicar leyes en el estado de California y el Distrito de Columbia. Tel. 202.408.4600, correo electrónico: rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com
Jacob Schutz es asociado de Cohen Milstein y miembro del grupo de práctica de Beneficios para Empleados. Cuneta con licencia para practicar leyes en el estado de Minnesota. Tel. 612.807.1575, correo electrónico: jschutz@cohenmilstein.com
Acerca de la práctica de beneficios para empleados de Cohen Milstein / ERISA
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC es una firma de abogados de demandas colectivas de primer nivel, que maneja casos de alto perfil y, a menudo, que establecen precedentes legales en nombre de los demandantes. Bajo el liderazgo de Michelle Yau, Cohen Milstein fue nombrado “Grupo de Práctica del Año de Beneficios para Empleados/ERISA” de Law360 en 2019, 2021 y 2022. Para obtener información adicional, visite https://cohenmilstein.com o llame al (202) 408-4600.
PUBLICIDAD DE ABOGADOS
No se hace ninguna declaración de que la calidad de los servicios legales que se prestarán es mayor que la calidad de los servicios legales ofrecidos por otros abogados. Los resultados pasados no garantizan el éxito de los asuntos actuales o pendientes.
California’s top design-build multifamily plumbing subcontractor allegedly sells out employees in illegal $247 million ESOP transaction
Washington, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier plaintiffs’ law firm, filed a class action on behalf of employees and participants of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). The lawsuit is against AMPAM Parks Mechanical, the founders of AMPAM, Buddy Parks, John D. Parks, James Parks, and Jason Parks (“the Parks brothers”), and Neil Brozen, for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). AMPAM Parks Mechanical has stated that it is California’s largest multifamily plumbing subcontractor, employing approximately 1,000 employees throughout the greater Los Angeles, San Diego, and Northern California areas.
Allegedly, the Parks brothers created the AMPAM ESOP, a retirement plan, to purchase their interest in AMPAM at an inflated price of $247 million. To obtain the $247 million purchase price in the ESOP Transaction, AMPAM (controlled by the Parks brothers), hired Neil Brozen, president of Ventura Trust, a trust company doing business in Minnesota, to approve the purchase price of $247 million on behalf of the ESOP. There are multiple lawsuits pending against Neil Brozen for violations of ERISA, including a lawsuit filed by the Secretary of Labor and other class actions filed by employees of other ESOPs.
The suit further alleges that neither the Parks brothers nor Neil Brozen involved AMPAM employees in the determination of the price the ESOP would pay or the other terms of the Transaction. Rather, AMPAM employees found out about the purchase of AMPAM from the Parks brothers only after the ESOP transaction was complete. Thereafter, all AMPAM’s employees were allegedly forced to buy AMPAM stock from the Parks brothers through their ESOP retirement accounts.
Shortly after the sale, AMPAM’s stock held by the ESOP was reported to be valued at $17,821,310, or approximately 7% of what the ESOP had paid for the company. Thereafter, the company’s value plummeted, resulting in a valuation of a mere $2.1 million, less than 1% of what the Plan paid.
“This lawsuit seeks to protect the hard-working employees and retirees of AMPAM. Our complaint alleges that the 2019 sale of AMPAM to the ESOP for $247 million was overpriced and unfair to workers. We look forward to vindicating the rights of our client and other class members,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice.
The lawsuit,Barrios, et al. v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al., was filed before the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on December 28, 2023.
Cohen Milstein is actively signing up AMPAM employees or retirees who may have been impacted by the alleged illegal transaction to potentially participate in the lawsuit. Participants need to have been employed by AMPAM Parks Mechanical after July 2019. PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE CASE CONTACT FORM.
Press Contact:
Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice, has decades of experience protecting retirement assets and insight into complex financial transactions and actuarial issues informed by her Wall Street and Department of Labor experience. In 2021, she was named Law360’s “Employee Benefits MVP – Benefits.” Tel. 202-408-4600, Email: myau@cohenmilstein.com
Attorney Contacts:
The following Cohen Milstein attorneys are currently engaged in Barrios, et al. v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al. and can respond to questions.
Michelle C. Yau, chair of the Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice, is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Her practice is limited to federal legal matters, such as ERISA that pertains to the lawsuit against AMPAM. Tel. 202-408-4600, email: myau@cohenmilstein.com
Eleanor Frischis an associate in Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. She is licensed to practice in California and Minnesota. Tel. 612.807.1575, email: efrisch@cohenmilstein.com
Ryan Wheeler is an associate at Cohen Milstein and a member of the Employee Benefits practice. He is licensed to practice in California and the District of Columbia. Tel. 202.408.4600, email: rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com
Jacob Schutz is an associate at Cohen Milstein and a member of the Employee Benefits practice. He is licensed to practice in Minnesota. Tel. 612.807.1575, email: jschutz@cohenmilstein.com
About Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ ERISA Practice
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a premier class action law firm, handling high-profile and often precedent-setting cases on behalf of plaintiffs. Under Michelle Yau’s leadership, Cohen Milstein was named Law360’s “Employee Benefits/ERISA Practice Group of the Year” in 2019, 2021 and 2022. For additional information, please visit https://cohenmilstein.com or call (202) 408-4600.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. Past results do not guarantee the success of current or pending matters.