FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Media Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com
WASHINGTON, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, one of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms, has announced its expansion into Massachusetts and Minnesota with the opening of offices in Boston and Minneapolis. This expansion allows the firm to further serve client needs across practices and act as local counsel in both states.
Cohen Milstein’s Boston office opens with the following in residence: Daniel H. Silverman, a partner in the Antitrust practice who prosecutes class actions on behalf of consumers, small businesses, and employees; Donna M. Evans, of counsel in the Antitrust practice, who has tried numerous cases to verdict, including obtaining, as part of a trial team, one of the largest plaintiff jury verdicts in Massachusetts Superior Court; and Richard E. Lorant , director of institutional client relations in the Securities & Investor Protection practice, who keeps clients apprised of legal and regulatory developments that may impact their funds and fund management.
The Minneapolis team includes experienced lawyers who have focused their careers on bringing justice to employees through ERISA class actions: partner Mary J. Bortscheller, an experienced litigator, who in addition to ERISA, has experience in antitrust and consumer protection class actions; Kai Richter, of counsel, who brings extensive trial and appellate experience in ERISA class action litigation in federal courts across the country; and Eleanor Frisch and Jacob Schutz, associates who represent the interests of employees, retirees, plan participants and beneficiaries in ERISA class-action lawsuits.
“This is an exciting time at Cohen Milstein as we expand our footprint and identify new opportunities for growth,” said Steven J. Toll, Cohen Milstein’s managing partner. “Establishing these new offices is in direct response to demand for our expertise and strengthens our ability to fight for justice in jurisdictions across the country.”
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national leader in plaintiff-side class action litigation. One of the premier law firms in the country handling major complex lawsuits, Cohen Milstein has more than 100 attorneys in offices in Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, New York, Palm Beach Gardens, Philadelphia, Raleigh, and Washington, DC.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com
WASHINGTON, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, one of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms, has named Christopher J. Bateman, Molly J. Bowen, Brian Corman, Alison Deich, and Eric A. Kafka as the firm’s newest partners, effective January 1, 2023.
Christopher J. Bateman, a member of the Antitrust practice, is largely focused on antitrust schemes in the financial markets and is currently engaged in litigation against dozens of Wall Street banks alleging they colluded to manipulate and prevent the modernization of several of the largest financial markets in the world. This includes the $1.7 trillion stock lending market and the Interest Rate Swaps market – both critical to a strong global economy.
Prior to joining Cohen Milstein, Mr. Bateman was a law clerk for the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Mr. Bateman received his B.A., cum laude, from Dartmouth College in 2005. He received his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 2014, where he was an Article Selection Editor for the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.
Molly J. Bowen, a member of the Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice, played an instrumental role in high-profile shareholder derivative actions against the boards of directors at Alphabet and Pinterest, resulting in historic settlements involving corporate governance reforms and financial commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives to address claims of systemic discrimination. Ms. Bowen is presently involved in litigation against Wells Fargo and its violation of federal consent orders following widespread consumer fraud scandals.
Prior to pursuing private practice, Ms. Bowen was a law clerk to the Honorable Karen Nelson Moore of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Ms. Bowen received her B.A., magna cum laude from Macalester College in 2007. She received her J.D., summa cum laude, graduating first in her class, from Washington University School of Law in 2013, where she served as the Articles Editor for the Washington University Law Review.
Brian Corman, a member of the Civil Rights & Employment practice, helps spearhead the firm’s fair housing litigation efforts, representing fair housing organizations, tenant unions, and those who have been unlawfully denied housing or otherwise discriminated against. He also focuses on employment and wage and hour class actions.
Following law school, Mr. Corman clerked for the Honorable Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He was then a District of Columbia Bar Association Pro Bono Fellow at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Mr. Corman received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Columbia University in 2010. Mr. Corman received J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2013, where he was an editor of the California Law Review.
Alison Deich, a member of the Antitrust practice, is engaged in several class actions against some of the largest poultry producers in the United States for their alleged collusion in wage suppression and price fixing. Ms. Deich also plays a principal role in Thompson v. Trump (D.D.C.) which addresses former President Trump’s immunity claims regarding his role in the January 6th insurrection.
Prior to joining Cohen Milstein, Ms. Deich clerked for the Honorable Cornelia Pillard of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She also clerked for the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as well as the Honorable Goodwin Liu of the California Supreme Court.
Ms. Deich received her B.A., with highest distinction, from the University of Virginia in 2010. Ms. Deich received her J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 2014.
Eric A. Kafka, a member of the Consumer Protection practice, represents plaintiffs in false advertising, data breach, privacy, and product liability class actions. He has a principal role in several high-profile unfair business practices class actions against Facebook involving its alleged inflation of advertising metrics, which are influential to customer purchasing decisions. Mr. Kafka is also leading a false advertising class action against Reckitt Benckiser related to its Woolite laundry detergent products.
Mr. Kafka received his B.A. from Yale University in 2008 and his J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2014.
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national leader in plaintiff-side class action litigation. As one of the premier law firms in the country handling major complex lawsuits, Cohen Milstein, with more than 100 attorneys, has offices in Washington, DC; Chicago, IL; New York, New York; Philadelphia, PA; Palm Beach Gardens, FL; and Raleigh, NC. For more information about the firm, visit cohenmilstein.com or call (202) 408-4600.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact:
Tess Roy, cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com, 561-596-6443
Trading data shows that seven preeminent market makers engaged in market manipulation via spoofing to drive down Northwest Biotherapeutics’ stock prices as the company worked to raise funds to bring breakthrough cancer treatments to market
NEW YORK, NY – Today, Northwest Biotherapeutics (OTCQB: NWBO) filed a lawsuit against some of the largest and most influential market makers in the world, including Citadel Securities LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC, G1 Execution Services LLC (a subsidiary of Susquehanna International Group), GTS Securities LLC, Virtu Americas LLC (including Knight Securities), Instinet LLC, and Score Priority Corp, alleging repeated manipulation of the company’s stock over five years.
Northwest Biotherapeutics, a clinical stage biotechnology company focused on the development of DCVax® personalized cancer vaccines, is alleging that these market makers have been engaging in a deceptive market manipulation tactic known as spoofing, which involves placing huge quantities of sell orders to fool the market into devaluing the company’s stock so the market makers can buy at a lower price. The market makers then immediately cancel the sell orders so they can reap profits, in this case to the dismay of current and future cancer patients, as well as at the expense of Northwest Biotherapeutics and its investors. This alleged illegal trading behavior has made it significantly more difficult for the company to raise the funds necessary to bring their cancer treatment to market, where the company believes it has the potential to extend the lives of thousands of patients.
“It’s already underhanded to engage in market manipulation, but to do so at the expense of cancer patients, some of whom have no other treatments to place their hopes on, is unconscionable,” said Laura Posner, Partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. “We’re looking forward to holding these market makers responsible for the harm they have caused, and bringing critical and necessary transparency to these markets.”
Based on the detailed data presented in the complaint, one of the most egregious examples of this behavior occurred on May 10, 2022, at the very moment the topline breakthrough results of the Phase 3 clinical trial of DCVax-L to treat glioblastoma, the most common and aggressive form of brain cancer, were being announced at the prestigious New York Academy of Sciences medical conference. Despite the presentation of significant positive data, the company alleges that during and after the announcement the defendants engaged in extensive spates of spoofing, forcing the company’s stock price down. In a market free from manipulation, the market response should have been strongly positive, not dramatically negative, in response to the positive news. Instead, the result was a $1.6 billion loss in market cap, with the share price dropping from the $2.05 high on May 9 to a low of 36.4 cents on May 10, 2022—a staggering decline of 82%.
Earlier this month, Northwest Biotherapeutics announced the results of this innovative clinical trial for DCVax-L in the prestigious JAMA Oncology journal in a peer reviewed article authored by over 70 brain surgeons and oncologists. The trial results showed that the vaccine was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful life extension for the first time in many years in both newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma, with the potential to more than double 5-year survival, and with almost no serious adverse event side effects. The company believes that this breakthrough vaccine technology may also pave the way for treatments in patients suffering from multiple types of solid tumor cancers.
The spoofing episodes against the company are alleged to have taken place repeatedly over a nearly five-year stretch, sometimes multiple times a day. Northwest Biotherapeutics alleges that it sold over 49 million shares at manipulated and devalued prices as a result of the market makers’ actions. The company believes that the market makers directly impacted the price of Northwest Biotherapeutics’ shares in the market by repeatedly and brazenly manipulating the market through their spoofing, causing Northwest Biotherapeutics to suffer significant losses as it sold millions of shares at artificially depressed prices and was slowed in bringing its encouraging drugs to market.
Northwest Biotherapeutics is represented by national law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
###
About Northwest Biotherapeutics
Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc is a clinical-stage biotechnology company specializing in developing cutting-edge cancer vaccines that are designed to treat a wide range of solid tumor cancers more effectively than the current treatments on the market and without the side effects of chemotherapy. The company has a broad platform technology for DCVax® dendritic cell-based vaccines, including DCVax®-L for operable tumors and DCVax®-Direct for inoperable tumors. The company’s proprietary manufacturing technology allows efficient and cost-effective production of these innovative vaccines, with the full set of multi-year doses produced in one manufacturing batch and then stored frozen in single doses, making the treatment “off the shelf” throughout the treatment regimen while also being fully personalized.
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is recognized as one of the premier law firms in the country handling major, complex plaintiff-side litigation. With more than 100 attorneys, Cohen Milstein has offices in Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Ill.; New York, N.Y.; Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.; Philadelphia, Pa.; and Raleigh, N.C. For additional information, visit www.cohenmilstein.com or call 202.408.4600.
Disclaimer
Statements made in this news release that are not historical facts, including statements concerning future treatment of patients using DCVax and future clinical trials, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “expect,” “believe,” “intend,” “design,” “plan,” “continue,” “may,” “will,” “anticipate,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. We cannot guarantee that we actually will achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statement. Specifically, there are a number of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated, such as risks related to the Company’s ability to achieve timely performance of third parties, risks related to whether the Company’s products will demonstrate safety and efficacy, risks related to the Company’s ongoing ability to raise additional capital, and other risks included in the Company’s Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings. Additional information on the foregoing risk factors and other factors, including Risk Factors, which could affect the Company’s results, is included in its SEC filings. Finally, there may be other factors not mentioned above or included in the Company’s SEC filings that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statement. The Company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events or developments, except as required by securities laws.
WASHINGTON, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is investigating Compass Minerals International, Inc. (NYSE: CMP) (“Compass Minerals” or the “Company”) following the filing of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities law.
If you purchased Compass Minerals shares between October 31, 2017 and November 18, 2018 (the “Class Period”) and suffered a financial loss, you may wish to contact Cohen Milstein Partner Steven J. Toll at (202) 408-4600 or stoll@cohenmilstein.com to discuss your legal rights and options.
To serve as lead plaintiff, you must file a motion with the court by December 20, 2022. You are not required to file a lead plaintiff motion to take part in the litigation as an absent class member.
A class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Compass Minerals and three of its former officers and directors (“defendants”) was filed October 21, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
According to the Complaint, Compass Minerals mines and produces essential minerals, including salt for winter roadway safety and other consumer, industrial, and agricultural uses (its Salt segment), and specialty plant nutrition minerals that improve the quality and yield of crops (its Plant Nutrition North America and Plant Nutrition South America segments). The Salt segment represented approximately 60% of the Company’s consolidated revenues during the Class Period.
Within its Salt segment, the Company operates the world’s largest underground rock salt mine, located in Goderich, Ontario, Canada. Routinely hailed by the Company as its “crown jewel,” Goderich was responsible for about one-third of earnings during the Class Period. Before the start of the Class Period, defendants announced the Company would invest in technology to upgrade Goderich from a drilling-and-blasting system to a continuous mining and continuous hauling (“CMCH”) system, primarily to lower operating costs and increase profitability. Defendants forecast at the time that after a $70-80 million investment, the CMCH system would save the Company roughly 23% per unit at Goderich, or $30 million a year, starting in 2018.
During the Class Period, defendants repeatedly said the CMCH upgrade was on track to reduce costs and improve operating results in 2018. According to the Complaint, defendants’ statements were false and/or misleading because they failed to tell investors that costs at the mine were increasing, not decreasing. Defendants also allegedly overstated the amount of salt Goderich could produce using the CMCH system and failed to disclose how known and ongoing production shortfalls could reasonably be expected to reduce the Company’s future operating income.
On October 23, 2018, Compass Minerals pre-announced third quarter 2018 financial results significantly below expectations and lowered its outlook for the rest of the year. On this news, the price of the Company’s stock fell more than 30% over the next two days. Before markets opened on November 19, 2018, the Company announced that its CEO was leaving. The price of Compass Minerals’ stock lost 8% of its value over the next three days.
Investors didn’t learn the extent of defendants’ misrepresentations until September 22, 2022, when the U.S. Securities and Exchange (“SEC”) announced that it had ordered Compass Minerals to pay $12 million to settle charges that it had misled investors about the CMCH upgrade, among other things. In its announcement, the SEC said that the Company misleadingly “failed to tell investors that costs at the mine were increasing rather than decreasing, which substantially undermined the projected savings” and “misled investors by overstating the amount of salt it was able to produce at Goderich.”
Cohen Milstein encourages investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Compass Minerals’ shares or options from October 31, 2017 through November 18, 2018, or former employees with information about this matter, to contact us prior to the December 20, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by whether you decide to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen Milstein or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this action or may do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Cohen Milstein has significant experience representing investors in securities class actions, having acted as lead counsel in hundreds of cases and recovered billions of dollars for plaintiffs since 1969. With more than 100 attorneys in offices in Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and Raleigh, N.C., the firm is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation.
If you have questions about this notice, the action, or your rights, please contact the following:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Fifth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This may be considered Attorney Advertising.
# # #
Attack Victims of Pres. Erdoğan’s Security Detail Will Have Their Day in Court
WASHINGTON DC – Today, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the Republic of Turkey’s petition to review the unanimous July 27, 2021 opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld the district court’s 2020 ruling denying Turkey’s bid for immunity for the vicious attack by its security personnel on peaceful protestors May 16, 2017 at Sheridan Circle in Washington D.C.
Turkey’s immunity arguments have now failed at every level of the U.S. court system.
On May 16, 2017, demonstrators were peacefully expressing opposition to human rights abuses by the Republic of Turkey against the Kurds, an ethnic minority facing persecution in that country, when Turkish security officials, several of whom were members of President Erdoğan’s personal security detail, pushed past U.S. law enforcement officers to attack and silence the demonstrators, repeatedly punching and kicking defenseless people. One woman was beaten so severely she lost consciousness and had a seizure. The attack was captured on video and widely covered by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other national and international news and media outlets.
The lawsuit, Kasim Kurd, et al. v. The Republic of Turkey (D.D.C.) sought to hold Turkey accountable for this outrageous violation of United States, District of Colombia, and international law. At the Supreme Court, the case was consolidated with Usoyan v. The Republic of Turkey. Both cases were represented by Allison Zieve of Public Citizen at the Supreme Court stage.
On January 25, 2021, Agnieszka Fryszman, counsel for Plaintiffs at Cohen Milstein, argued the case to a three-judge panel at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which later unanimously agreed with the District Court that Turkey was not entitled to foreign sovereign immunity for its attack on the protestors. The United States Government submitted a brief in September recommending that certiorari be denied. In addition to Cohen Milstein, the plaintiffs are represented by Michael Tigar, Professor Emeritus of American University Washington College of Law, and Mark Sullivan and Joshua Colangelo-Bryan of Dorsey & Whitney LLP.
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, handling high-profile and often precedent-setting litigation, including cross-border Human Rights litigation. With over 100 attorneys across the country, Cohen Milstein has offices in Washington, DC, Chicago, IL, New York, NY, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Philadelphia, PA, and Raleigh, NC. For additional information, please visit www.cohenmilstein.com or call (202) 408-4600.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Firm still signing up Southern Company Pension Plan participants for class action
Washington, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier plaintiffs’ class action law firm, represents retirees of the Southern Company Pension Plan (“the Plan”) in a class action lawsuit against Southern Company and its pension plan administrators. Plaintiffs allege that Southern Company, the parent company to Southern Company Gas, Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, AGL Resources, Nicor Gas, and Virginia Natural Gas, among other utility companies, is shortchanging their retirees or their surviving spouse in violation of the actuarial equivalence requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Plaintiffs seek to recover amounts due to married retirees and their surviving spouses and to reform the Southern Company Pension Plan to ensure full compliance with the protections of ERISA.
The lawsuit, Drummond, et al. v. Southern Company, Inc., et al. was filed before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on September 2, 2022.
“This is a really troubling issue for the Southern Company retirees who are being shortchanged and forced to live on less retirement income every month,” said Michelle Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice.
Under Ms. Yau’s leadership, Cohen Milstein is presently engaged in similar litigation against AT&T, CITGO Petroleum, and Luxottica. Both AT&T and CITGO have passed the motion to dismiss stage. In June, the firm filed for class certification in AT&T. To read more about joint and survivor annuities, see “Is Your Retirement Plan Imposing a Marriage Penalty? What You Need to Know.”
Claims in Southern Company: Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Southern Company and the pension plan administrators used outdated pension plan mortality tables that resulted in the miscalculation of the joint and survivor annuity paid to some Southern Company retirees, and in unreasonable and excessive charges called “QPSA charges” related to pre-retirement death benefits.
Impacted Individuals: Cohen Milstein is actively signing up individuals who retired from Southern Company or one of its subsidiaries on or after November 1, 2016.
Next Steps: If Southern Company Pension Plan participants believe they may have been impacted, they should contact their legal counsel or contact: Michelle C. Yau, Partner (email) or at 202.408.4600.
About Michelle C. Yau
Michelle Yau, chair of the Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. Her practice is limited to federal legal matters, such as the federal pension laws that pertain to the Southern Company. Ms. Yau’s experience of protecting retirement assets and insight into complex financial transactions and actuarial issues is informed by her Wall Street and Department of Labor experience. In 2021, she was named Law360’s “Employee Benefits MVP – Benefits.”
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. We have filed numerous ERISA class actions alleging illegal underpayment of pension benefits on behalf of married retirees against large corporations such as AT&T, CITGO Petroleum, and Luxottica. Cohen Milstein was named Law360’s “Employee Benefits/ERISA Practice Group of the Year” in 2020 and 2021. For additional information, please visit cohenmilstein.com or call (202) 408-4600.
Contact:
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
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.
After 20 Years of Litigation, Victims’ Stories of Abuses by Security Forces Finally Told
WASHINGTON DC – A federal judge today released a detailed and pointed 86-page opinion that largely denied ExxonMobil Corporation’s motion for summary judgment in a long-running human rights lawsuit, brought by eleven Indonesian citizens. This decision paves the way for trial in the hotly contested case.
The Plaintiffs, represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, allege that ExxonMobil contracted to use Indonesian soldiers to provide security at ExxonMobil’s natural gas facility in Aceh, Indonesia. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs eyewitness testimony and ExxonMobil’s own internal documents would allow a reasonable jury to find that these security personnel subjected the Plaintiffs or their loved ones to assault, torture, extrajudicial killing, and other abuses.
In issuing the ruling, Judge Royce C. Lamberth’s 86-page opinion pointedly stated, “With only limited exceptions, defendants remaining arguments – about causation, quantifiable loss, ExxonMobil’s liability, and due process – are entirely meritless.” (Pg. 3 – 4) The Court repeatedly found that ExxonMobil’s characterizations of the evidence was “wrong” or “simply wrong.” (P 37, 45, 46, 72)
“We are gratified that the Court was moved by the evidence we presented from more than a dozen eyewitnesses and agreed that this important human rights case against ExxonMobil should move forward to trial,” said Agnieszka Fryszman, attorney for the plaintiffs and chair of Cohen Milstein’s Human Rights Practice. “This case has been up and down to the Supreme Court and tied up in pretrial litigation for over 20 years. This is a big turning point for our clients who have stuck it out for so long in the hopes of obtaining justice. We look forward to presenting our evidence to a jury.”
The opinion details that ExxonMobil executives were aware of the Indonesian military’s reputation. For example, during this period, atrocities committed by the Indonesian military were widely reported in international press, including by Business Week’s Singapore Bureau. “Defendants’ executives have acknowledged their awareness of the military’s human rights abuses.” (Pg. 5)
The Court also found that the record reflects ExxonMobil’s increasing involvement and influence in the military’s security operations. By December 1999, the soldiers were “dedicated exclusively” to providing security for these operations. (Pg. 8) By late 2000, approximately 1,000 soldiers were assigned to defendants’ Indonesian oil operations. (Pg. 9)
Most importantly, the Court devoted the bulk of its opinion to the evidence presented in support of ExxonMobil’s liability for each Plaintiffs’ injury, explaining that under Indonesian law (which is the law governing the claims):
“For the direct liability claims, there must be sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that soldiers who harmed plaintiffs were the same ones that defendants negligently hired, retained, or supervised. For the indirect liability claims, there must be sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that 1) “an employment or representation relationship” existed between the soldier and defendants (or that the soldier was in facet assigned to guard defendants’ operations), and 2) that were is a “functional connection” between the soldier’s wrongful act and the work that they were directed to perform.”” (Pg. 33)
Examples of Plaintiff testimonies are summarized below.
- Jane Doe I alleged she was assaulted in 2001 when she was eight months pregnant by a soldier who, among other things “forced her to jump up and down repeatedly.” (Pg. 33) She identified the soldier as one of the soldiers assigned to ExxonMobil, and her testimony was corroborated by a witness who waited daily for the school bus outside ExxonMobil’s facility and could confirm identifying information. (p.33) The Court found that “a reasonable jury could conclude that the soldier was one who was tasked with providing security for defendants” and that there was a sufficient “connection between the soldier’s wrongdoing and his employment relationship with defendants.”
- Jane Doe II alleged that her husband was shot in 2000 while working in his rice paddy by members of ExxonMobil’s security personnel. The Court wrote “Defendants argue there ‘is no evidence’ connecting the shooting to defendants. They are wrong.” (Pg. 37)
- Jane Doe III’s husband “was a traveling fish merchant who regularly stopped” at a market “where Exxon’s Bachelor Camp was located.” (Pg. 44) She presented evidence from an eyewitness who had worked at ExxonMobil’s “Bachelor Camp” facility and who operated a small kiosk nearby. After reviewing testimony about the actions by guards at Bachelor Camp and the death of John Doe IX, the Court ruled that “[a] reasonable jury could find that the soldiers who killed John Doe IX were the same soldiers assigned to guard Bachelor Camp” and “that defendants negligently hired and supervised.” (Pg. 44)
- Jane Doe IV presented testimony from two eyewitnesses who recognized the soldiers who shot her husband as he worked in his rice paddy as the same soldiers at ExxonMobil’s gate who had often bullied the boys on their way to and from school (p46). The Court’s opinion explains that “eyewitnesses recognized the soldiers from Cluster 4” (where ExxonMobil was operating), “where they worked inside and outside the fence.” (Pg. 46). Based on its review of the evidence, the Court ruled that “[a] reasonable jury could find that the soldiers who murdered Jane Doe IV’s husband were the same soldiers that defendants negligently hired and supervised.” (Pg. 47)
- Jane Doe V: The Court cited testimony that “[s]ometime in January 2001, John Doe I went missing. Eventually, after several days, soldiers returned John Doe I to his home. When he arrived home, John Doe I was wearing only his underwear, his hand had been cut off, and he was missing an eye.” (Pg. 47) After reviewing evidence of statements by John Doe I that he was taken “by soldiers working at Point A” (a central location for ExxonMobil’s operations), the Court ruled that “a reasonable jury could conclude that the soldiers who abducted and tortured John Doe worked at Point A and provided security for defendants.”
- John Doe VII “alleged that, in January 2001, he was `accosted by members of ExxonMobil’s security personnel’ who took him inside of a warehouse at an ExxonMobil-operated facility and beat him severely before releasing him the next day.” (Pg. 69) Plaintiffs presented evidence from two eyewitnesses, including one who was held with him overnight by ExxonMobil security in a warehouse used by ExxonMobil. (Pg. 70) The Court noted that the witnesses “even identified the specific soldiers by name” and found the Defendants contentions that there was no “firsthand evidence linking his injuries to defendants” to be “meritless.” (Pg. 69)
Other Case Background
During his confirmation, Justice Kavanaugh described the ExxonMobil case as one of the ten most significant cases heard during his tenure on the D.C. Circuit.
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, handling high-profile and often precedent-setting litigation, including cross-border Human Rights litigation. With over 100 attorneys across the country, Cohen Milstein has offices in Washington, DC, Chicago, IL, New York, NY, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Philadelphia, PA, and Raleigh, NC. For additional information, please visit www.cohenmilstein.com or call (202) 408-4600.
RICHMOND, VA – Last evening, Equality Virginia, the Commonwealth’s leading advocacy organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) equality, along with 35 partners and school board leaders across the Commonwealth, filed an amicus brief in support of transgender students in Virginia schools.
The brief asks the Supreme Court of Virginia to uphold the Circuit Court for the County of King William’s dismissal of Peter Vlaming’s lawsuit against the West Point School Board, which rejected Mr. Vlaming’s claims that his firing for violation of the West Point School Board’s anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies violated his rights under Virginia law.
The West Point School Board has a compelling interest in protecting its transgender students from the harms associated with discriminatory treatment. It must also comply with Title IX, which prohibits discrimination against transgender children on the basis of their gender identities, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To serve these interests and comply with the law, the West Point School Board must treat its transgender students equally—including by ensuring that its staff addresses transgender students, like their cisgender peers, with the names and pronouns that reflect their gender identity. The illusory burden asserted by Mr. Vlaming cannot stand against this compelling interest.
An amicus curiae brief, or “friend of the court” brief, is filed by organizations or persons not directly involved in a case to provide information related to issues to help courts reach decisions.
The groups point to the negative and harmful experiences of transgender and non-binary students and their families in Virginia schools as reasons why anti-discrimination policies and practices, such as using a student’s correct pronouns, can mitigate these harms.
“Transgender and non-binary students, when compared to their cisgender peers, face physical abuse, bullying, and extreme emotional harm at higher rates, which impact their well-being and education,” said Narissa S. Rahaman, Executive Director at Equality Virginia. “The West Point School Board’s antidiscrimination and anti-harassment policies aim to counteract and prevent those harms. We know that transgender students thrive when they are supported by an inclusive school environment, which includes using their correct pronouns.”
“The harm of differentiating transgender students from their peers and failing to affirm their identities is well-established in the courts,” said S. Douglas Bunch, Partner at civil rights law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. “Sadly, this effect is magnified when the hostile actor is a teacher. School policies, such as one of using pronouns that reflect a transgender student’s identity, are there to mitigate these harms and allow all students to thrive in school.”
According to GLSEN’s 2019 National School Climate Survey, Virginia schools were not safe for most LGBTQ+ secondary school students. In addition, many LGBTQ+ students in Virginia did not have access to important school resources, such as an LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum, and were not protected by supportive and inclusive school policies.
School-based supports such as supportive and inclusive school policies, school personnel who are supportive of LGBTQ+ students, GSAs, and LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum resources can positively affect school climate for LGBTQ+ students. Findings from GLSEN’s 2019 National School Climate Survey demonstrate that students attending schools with these resources and supports report more positive school experiences, including lower victimization and absenteeism and higher academic achievement.
This is the second amicus brief of its kind that Equality Virginia and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll have filed on behalf of the welfare of transgender and non-binary students in Virginia. On July 9, 2021 Equality Virginia and over 50 partners and school board leaders across the Commonwealth filed a brief in support of Virginia’s model policies to make schools safer and inclusive for transgender students.
Groups signing on to the amicus brief include:
Diversity Richmond
Equality Loudoun
Farmville Pride
FCPS Pride
GLSEN NoVA
GLSEN RVA
GLSEN Southwest Virginia
Hampton Roads Pride
He She Ze and We
Health Brigade
Hill City Pride
PFLAG Blue Ridge
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia
Pride Liberation Project
Rappahannock Region Transgender Support (RRTS)
Restoration Fellowship RVA
Richmond Triangle Players
Rockbridge LGBTQIA+ Alliance
Side by Side VA, Inc.
Southeastern Transgender Resource Center
Stonewall Sports Richmond
Transgender Assistance Program Virginia
UGRC/Black Pride RVA
Virginia Anti-Violence Project
Virginia Council on LGBTQ+
Virginia Pride
Honorable Barbara J. Kanninen (Arlington County)
Honorable David Priddy (Arlington County)
Honorable Lisa Larson-Torres (Chair, Charlottesville City)
Honorable Karl V. Frisch (Fairfax County)
Honorable Laura Downs (Chair, Falls Church City)
Honorable David Ortiz (Falls Church City)
Honorable Lori Silverman (Falls Church City)
Honorable Elizabeth Warner (Stafford County)
Mr. Jason Kamras (Richmond City)
Equality Virginia is a 501(c)(3) organization working to build a fully inclusive Commonwealth by educating, empowering, and mobilizing Virginians to ensure all LGBTQ+ people are free to live, love, learn, and work.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Civil Fraud Complaint Alleges Unnecessary Procedures Performed on Patients with End Stage Renal Disease Were Potentially Harmful
The United States filed a civil complaint yesterday in federal court in Brooklyn against Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc. (“Fresenius”) alleging that the company performed unnecessary procedures on dialysis patients at nine centers across New York City, Long Island and Westchester, and billed the procedures to Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Health Benefits Program and TRICARE. The complaint seeks damages and penalties under the False Claims Act.
The filing was announced by Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Scott J. Lampert, Special Agent-in-Charge, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General’s Office of Investigations (HHS-OIG).
“The conduct alleged in this case is egregious, as Fresenius not only defrauded federal healthcare programs but also subjected particularly vulnerable people to medically unnecessary procedures,” stated United States Attorney Peace. “This Office will hold medical providers accountable for practices that needlessly expose patients to harm for financial gain at taxpayer expense.”
Mr. Peace also expressed his thanks to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office, the United States Office of Personnel Management, and the United States Department of Defense for their assistance with the investigation.
“The alleged conduct by Fresenius unnecessarily compromised patient care and undermined the financial integrity of federal health care programs,” stated HHS-OIG Special Agent-in-Charge Lampert. “Along with our law enforcement partners, HHS-OIG is committed to protecting beneficiaries and taxpayers from such abusive practices.”
As alleged in the complaint, from about January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2018, Fresenius routinely performed certain procedures on patients with End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) who were receiving dialysis, without sufficient clinical indication that the patients needed the procedures. These interventions included fistulagrams, which are radiological procedures in which dye is injected into the patient’s vein or artery to visualize the port and surrounding blood vessels, and angioplasties, in which wires and balloons are inserted into veins or arteries that have narrowed to restore the patient’s blood flow. Fresenius knowingly subjected ESRD patients—who included elderly, disadvantaged minority, and low-income individuals—to these procedures to increase its revenues.
The government filed its complaint in an ongoing action commenced pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, United States ex rel. Pepe and Sherman v. Fresenius Medical Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-3505 (ERK). The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jolie Apicella and Anjna Kapoor, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Ellen Buntin of the Office’s Civil Division.
Defendants operated vascular access centers at the following locations during the relevant period:
- American Access Care of Bellmore (now “American Access Care Nassau County”), 250 Pettit Avenue, Suite 2, Bellmore, NY 11710
- American Access Care Brooklyn, 577 Prospect Avenue Lower Level, Brooklyn, NY 11215
- American Access Care of New York (now “American Access Care Manhattan”), 403 E. 91st Street, Floor 2, New York, NY 10128
- American Access Care Queens, 176-60 Union Turnpike #130, Suite 130, Flushing, NY 11366
- American Access Care Suffolk County, 32 Central Avenue, Hauppauge, NY 11788
- American Access Care Bronx, 1200 Waters Place N. Lobby, Suite M 115, Bronx, NY 10461
- Saqib Chaudhry, MD – Flushing, 176-60 Union Turnpike Utopia Center, Suite 145, Flushing, NY 11366
- Saqib Chaudhry, MD – Roslyn, 1044 Northern Boulevard, Suite 302, Roslyn, NY 11676 (no longer operating)
- Verrazano Vascular Associates at Access Care Physicians, 2025 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1LL, Staten Island, NY 10314
Press Contact: John Marzulli, Danielle Blustein Hass – United States Attorney’s Office – (718) 254-6323
National Healthcare Company’s Alleged Prioritization of Enrollment-Fueled Profits Over Care Caught in Regulators’ Snares, Resulting in Top Five Worst-Performing IPOs of 2021
DENVER–InnovAge (NASDAQ: INNV), a national healthcare company providing medical care to ailing seniors, allegedly violated federal securities laws when it went public in March of 2021, as detailed by a shareholders lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The filing describes InnovAge’s singular focus on aggressive enrollment for profit at the expense of healthcare for senior citizens whose needs went unaddressed. On average, InnovAge received a fixed amount of $95,000 a year per enrolled patient, meaning that the fastest and simplest way to grow revenue was to increase enrollment. Yet, unbeknownst to investors, InnovAge’s rapid enrollment growth resulted not because of participant satisfaction and health outcomes but at the expense of dissatisfaction and adverse results.
InnovAge centers suffered from severe staff shortages, high caseloads and significant delays and lack of contracts from specialists, lack of coordination with caregivers, and insufficient training on the use of medical records. Nevertheless, InnovAge focused its resources on hiring sales and marketing staff and ignored substandard home and clinical care for its participants. When faced with government audits, InnovAge executives allegedly instructed staff to “clean up” or delete hundreds of records for medical care that were over 180 days outstanding. As a result, in just nine months, InnovAge is facing penalties in three states.
“InnovAge systemically failed to meet the healthcare needs of seniors, in a highly regulated industry that demands holistic care from providers,” said Julie Goldsmith Reiser, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Plaintiffs’ attorney. “Upon its conversion to a for-profit entity, InnovAge touted itself as the largest PACE provider in the United States and continued to prioritize enrollment, even while failing at its primary purpose of serving the elder community. This approach harmed patients and did so at the expense of investors that believed InnovAge could deliver on its promise of quality care in a model capable of expansion.”
In May of 2016, InnovAge became the first Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (“PACE”) organization to achieve for-profit status. As detailed in a recent MarketWatch report, its prior C.E.O., Maureen Hewitt, led the company’s aggressive lobbying campaign to transform from a regional nonprofit to the first national for-profit PACE Provider. PACE, a joint Medicare and Medicaid program, provides comprehensive, community-based medical and social services to frail and elderly people. As Hewitt and InnovAge’s private equity leadership prioritized growth in enrollment, the goal was to advance InnovAge’s vision of rapid growth by providing healthcare to the burgeoning senior population in the United States, a massive market on which InnovAge was poised to capitalize.
During its IPO, led by InnovAge directors including Jeb Bush and Edward Kennedy Jr. as well as the largest investment banks, InnovAge boasted to investors that its meteoric growth was due to its provision of comprehensive care for vulnerable seniors, even though InnovAge was consistently failing to provide timely specialist care and adequate home health services, according to the complaint filed Tuesday in United States District Court in Colorado.
InnovAge is facing a number of governmental investigations. Last September, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (‘CMS’) notified the company that the government agency was suspending enrollment at InnovAge’s Sacramento, California center after an audit of the facility found that InnovAge “substantially failed” to “provide to its participants medically necessary items and services that are covered PACE services.” InnovAge also revealed last year that CMS and the state of Colorado had decided to suspend enrollment at InnovAge’s Colorado facilities, and the company is currently under investigation by the Colorado Attorney General.
In just the first six months of 2022, CMS has suspended enrollment in existing centers or canceled agreements for new centers in Florida, Indiana, New Mexico and San Bernadino, California.
The class action lawsuit filed Tuesday is brought on behalf of court appointed lead plaintiffs El Paso Firemen & Policemen’s Pension Fund, the San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and the Indiana Public Retirement System.
The plaintiffs bring claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933, individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired InnovAge common stock between March 4, 2021 and December 22, 2021 in connection with the Company’s initial public offering.
In addition to InnovAge, CEO Maureen Hewitt and Directors Jeb Bush and Ted Kennedy, the lawsuit also names CFO Barbara Gutierrez, two private equity firms and InnovAge’s principal shareholders, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe (“WCAS”) and Apax Partners (“Apax”), the underwriters in the Company’s IPO, and members of the Company’s Board of Directors.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, handling high-profile and precedent-setting litigation. With over 100 attorneys across the country, Cohen Milstein has offices in Washington, DC, Chicago, IL, Denver, CO, New York, NY, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Philadelphia, PA, and Raleigh, NC. For additional information, please call (202) 408-4600.