On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe certified a class of participants in Verizon’s 401(k) Plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), finding that Plaintiff Melina N. Jacobs has standing by virtue of her indirect investment in the Global Opportunity Fund through the Plan’s Target Date Funds. Verizon challenged her standing, saying she had no direct investment and did not demonstrate a loss. However, the Court disagreed, saying that it was sufficient that she realized “a more modest gain” by virtue of the inclusion of the Global Opportunity Fund in the Plan’s Target Date Funds.

A securities case filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (now Bausch Health
Companies, Inc.) on behalf of both shareholders and bondholders has settled for $1.2 billion.
Monument’s Cynthia Jones served as plaintiffs’ expert for holders of the eleven Senior Notes
that will participate in the settlement, with total par value of $17.8 billion.

An ERISA action filed against J.P. Morgan Chase on behalf of participants in the company’s Defined Contribution Plan was settled in principal, with terms to be disclosed by May 22, 2020.

In 2015, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of branded and generic Namenda, a drug used to treat moderate-to-severe Alzheimer’s, alleging a two-pronged scheme on the part of Defendants to impair generic competition, including a “reverse payment” agreement to delay generic entry, and the announcement and implementation of a “product hop” or “hard switch” of the market from branded Namenda IR product to Namenda XR in order to undermine and impair generic competition when it belatedly began.  On October 28, 2019, Allergan PLC announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with direct purchaser Plaintiffs for $750 million, thus precluding a trial that was set to begin the same day in New York.

In 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of indirect purchasers of Lovenox, and/or its generic equivalent enoxaparin, alleging an agreement among Defendants to monopolize sales of enoxaparin and prevent competition by controlling patented technology used to establish sameness for purposes of obtaining FDA approval to market generic enoxaparin.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs retained Dr. Russell Lamb to analyze whether it was possible to establish, using evidence common to the proposed class as a whole: the relevant antitrust product and geographic markets, and whether Defendants possessed market or monopoly power in those markets; the impact on prices paid by members of the proposed class that Plaintiffs allege arose from Defendants’ allegedly anticompetitive conduct; that all or nearly all members of the proposed class were injured by Defendants’ allegedly anticompetitive conduct; and that aggregate damages to the proposed class as a whole could be reliably calculated using standard economic methods and analyses.