---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, December 5, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 243

                            Headlines

BELLINGHAM MARINE: Caballero Case Removed to E.D. Cal.
CALIFORNIA FINE: Potter Wage and Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
CANADA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Cowichan Tribes Ruling
CVS HEALTH: Holt Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
DANIEL SERVICES: Daniel FLSA Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Tex.

DAUPHIN COUNTY: Ct. Won't Reconsider "Little" Class Certification
DICK'S SPORTING: Magallanez TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
DIRECTTOU LLC: Agrees to Settle Video Privacy Class Suit for $1.58M
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Home/Nest Devices
GRID ONE: Court Dismisses Balcolm Claims for Failure to Prosecute

GULF ISLAND: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to IES Holdings
HONEYCOMB HOSPITALITY: EVE Sues Over Risks of Abuse in Women
KALSHI INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Sports Betting
LAGUNITAS BREWING: Ondaro Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
LEGO BRAND: Huston Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

REPARE THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to XenoTherapeutics
RICHMOND MUTUAL: M&A Investigates Merger with The Farmers Bancorp
RY MAHONEY'S: Court Denies McCain's Bid to Amend Fish Fraud Suit
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Dolgicer Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit

TARGET CORPORATION: Norman Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs Without Notice
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Suit on Falsely Advertised Freezer Pops
VICTORIA: $135MM Overtime Pay Class Settlement Gets Court Final OK
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Englehart Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.

WILDERMUTH FUND: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 29
WOOLWORTHS GROUP: Faces Class Suit for Misleading Investors

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has $435MM Litigation Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Defends Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Faces Product Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 2,013 New Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Exposure Lawsuits



                            *********

BELLINGHAM MARINE: Caballero Case Removed to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as ANGEL CABALLERO, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELLINGHAM
MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CU25-08556, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Solano to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on November 21, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01623 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of himself and members of the
Putative Class, including unpaid wages and unpaid overtime, premium
pay for meal and rest period violations, and damages for the
reimbursement for necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff
further claims that he and the Putative Class Members are entitled
to liquidated damages and a number of statutory penalties. The
Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, restitution, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs and seeks an accounting of Defendants'
records for the liability period.

Bellingham Marine Industries, Inc. is the largest and most
experienced marina builder in the world.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Joanna MacMillan, Esq.
     Nicolas Tomas, Esq.
     CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH &
      PROPHETE, LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: 310-909-7775
     Facsimile: 424-465-6630
     E-mail: jmacmillan@constangy.com
             ntomas@constangy.com

CALIFORNIA FINE: Potter Wage and Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as EVAN POTTER, on behalf of others similarly
situated and the State of California under the Private Attorneys
General Act, Plaintiff vs. CALIFORNIA FINE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC and
DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 25CU047855C, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of
San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on November 24, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03286-AJB-MSB to
the proceeding.

In this Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted the following 11 causes
of action on behalf of himself and a class of individuals he seeks
to represent: (1) failure to pay all wages owed; (2) failure to pay
all overtime wages; (3) failure to authorize or permit meal
periods; (4) failure to authorize or permit rest periods; (5)
failure to pay all paid sick leave wages; and (6) failure to pay
all accrued but unpaid vacation -- all in violation of the
California Labor Code.

California Fine Wine & Spirits LLC operates a wine, beer and liquor
store.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Karin M. Cogbill, Esq.
     JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
     160 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 400
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Telephone: (408) 579-0404
     Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
     E-mail: Karin.Cogbill@jacksonlewis.com

CANADA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Cowichan Tribes Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
ParrySound.com reports that a Burnaby resident says he is launching
a proposed class-action lawsuit to seek damages over B.C. and
Canada's handling of Aboriginal land claims because of the
uncertainty created around private land ownership.

J.R. Rampee Grewal said he is concerned that a recent B.C. Supreme
Court ruling that granted the Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal title to
lands in Richmond will have ramifications for private land holders
throughout B.C. That ruling is being appealed by B.C., Canada, the
City of Richmond, and the Musqueam and Tsawwassen First Nations.

"Sooner or later, it's going to affect everybody," says Grewal, who
owns a home in Burnaby and runs a hazardous waste material removal
business.

The proposed class-action suit filed in B.C. Supreme Court this
month seeks damages from the provincial and federal government for
their handling of Aboriginal land claims, and the resulting impact
on B.C.'s land ownership system and property values.

The recent Cowichan ruling ruled that Aboriginal title and
fee-simple title can co-exist. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barbara
Young noted that while the Cowichan are not pursuing exclusive use
and occupation of privately owned lands, they might choose to do so
in the future through negotiation or legal action.

The Cowichan and other First Nation groups have said B.C. and
Richmond's messaging on the ruling are causing unnecessary fears.

The proposed class-action has been filed on behalf of Grewal and a
potential Richmond resident, named as John Doe. The suit claims to
include all British Columbians who, after the Cowichan ruling and
its alleged impact on the land title system, suffered economic or
mental harm when they took steps to refinance, sell or use the
equity in their property.

"The defendants, despite having long-standing internal knowledge of
material risks to land security -- given unresolved Indigenous
claims to title -- continue to assure the public the title
registered under the Land Title Act was safe, marketable and free
from material qualification," alleges the proposed class-action
suit.

"By maintaining these representations and collecting taxes, fees
and charges based on inflated or misinformed property values, the
defendants caused economic and psychological harm to the plaintiffs
and class members." [GN]

CVS HEALTH: Holt Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
-------------------------------------------
The case styled as NOELANI HOLT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, a
foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown
Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-31216-0 SEA, was
removed  from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and
for the County of King to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on November 24, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02369 to the
proceeding.

In this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to represent all "current
and former employees of CVS Health Corporation who worked in
Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum
hourly wage from October 21, 2022, through the date of
certification of the Class."

CVS Health Corporation is an American multinational healthcare
company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain; CVS
Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager; and Aetna, a health
insurance provider, among many other brands. Its headquarters and
principal place of business is in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Josh M. Goldberg, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     999 Third Avenue
     Suite 4700
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Telephone: (206)946-4910
     E-mail: jmgoldberg@seyfarth.com

DANIEL SERVICES: Daniel FLSA Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as JACOB DANIEL, Individually and on Behalf of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DANIEL SERVICES, INC.
D/B/A ALL PEST SOLUTIONS and WENDELL DANIEL, Case No. 3:25-cv-3147,
was transferred from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas on November 24, 2025.

The District Court Clerk for the Eastern District of Texas assigned
Case No. 4:25-cv-01278-RWS to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that for the past three years, Defendants
have not paid field operators overtime pay as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants paid him and the putative class in an inconsistent
manner. The Defendants in some instances paid an improper straight
salary, therefore not paying regular or overtime rates for any
hours over 40, and not property tracking hours. In others,
Defendants paid the regular rate for all hours including overtime
hours. And yet in others, Defendants paid some hours at overtime
rates and others at regular rates. All of these are a clear
violation of the FLSA.

Defendant Daniel Services, Inc. d/b/a All Pest Solutions ("All Pest
Solutions") is a pest control company. Defendant Wendell Daniel is
the employer who had operational control over all the employees.
The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and the putative class as
field operators.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeremy Daniel Saenz, Esq.
   The Willis Law Group - Houston
   Tel. No: 281-953-2248
   E-mail: jsaenz@thewillislawgroup.com

DAUPHIN COUNTY: Ct. Won't Reconsider "Little" Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Kani Little, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Dauphin County, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:24-CV-2169
(M.D. Pa.), Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Moving
Defendants' motion for reconsideration challenging the Court's
decision on class certification.

On December 17, 2024, Plaintiffs Kani Little, Hector Ramos, and
James Patterson filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated individuals against Defendants
Dauphin County, Gregory Briggs, Lionel Pierre, Roger Lucas, Mark
Skelton, and John Does #1-12. Plaintiffs and the purported class
members are pre-trial detainees and post-sentence inmates who were
held in the Dauphin County Prison restrictive housing unit at some
point between 2023 through 2024 for approximately three to five
months. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants subjected them to
unconstitutional mistreatment while they were housed in the RHU.
Plaintiffs did not file a motion for class certification or a
motion to extend time to file a motion for class certification
within ninety days of filing the complaint.

On February 18, 2025, Moving Defendants Dauphin County, Briggs,
Pierre, Lucas, and Skelton filed a motion to dismiss that included
a request that the Court preemptively deny class certification
because Plaintiffs failed to move for class certification within
ninety days of filing the complaint in accordance with Local Rule
23.1.

On August 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella issued a report
and recommendation recommending that the Court grant in part and
deny in part Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judge Latella
recommended the Court deny the request to preemptively deny class
certification. On September 2, 2024, Moving Defendants filed an
objection to the report and recommendation along with an
accompanying brief in support.

On September 29, 2025, the Court issued a memorandum and
accompanying order adopting the report and recommendation in full.
The Court adopted Judge Latella's recommendation and overruled
Moving Defendants' objection. The Court determined that while
Plaintiffs did not comply with Local Rule 23.3, that noncompliance
did not warrant taking the extraordinary step of denying class
certification at the pleadings stage.

On October 14, 2025, Moving Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its adoption of the
report and recommendation regarding class certification.

Moving Defendants submitted that the Court's order adopting the
report and recommendation is an interlocutory order and the court
may reconsider interlocutory orders. Defendants further averred
that the Court erred in citing to cases which did not involve
violations of local rules for the proposition that courts should
generally decline to decide class certification prior to discovery.
Moving Defendants contended that when adopting the report and
recommendation, the Court did not properly consider the importance
of compliance with local rules and the prejudice parties suffer
because of violations of local rules.

The Court applied the standard that a motion for reconsideration is
a device of limited utility which may only be used to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
precedent or evidence. To prevail, a party seeking reconsideration
must demonstrate one of the following: (1) an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was
not available when the court granted the motion; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice. Because federal courts have a strong interest in the
finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be
granted sparingly.

The Court found that Moving Defendants' motion for reconsideration
fails to present any arguments the Court did not already consider
and reject. The Court observed that courts routinely reject motions
for reconsideration where the motions rely entirely on arguments
already considered and rejected by a court. The Court noted that in
their objections, Moving Defendants argued that Judge Latella
wrongly relied on cases which stand for the proposition that courts
rarely deny class certification prior to discovery but did not
involve plaintiffs who failed to comply with a court's local rules.
Moving Defendants averred that this Court erred in citing similar
caselaw. However, the Court already considered Moving Defendants'
argument and determined that because courts have discretion in
enforcing their own local rules, Judge Latella correctly determined
that Plaintiffs' violation of Local Rule 23.3 did not warrant
taking the unusual step of denying class certification prior to
discovery.

Moving Defendants further averred that the Court wrongly determined
that there is a sound rationale for departing from strict
compliance with Local Rule 23.3 and that Moving Defendants were not
prejudiced by Plaintiffs violating Local Rule 23.3. Both Judge
Latella and this Court previously determined that compliance with
the general rule that class certification should not be determined
prior to discovery is a sound rationale for excusing a violation of
Local Rule 23.3, and Moving Defendants fail to cite any caselaw
indicating such a rationale is insufficient. Both Judge Latella and
this Court also determined that while Plaintiffs violated the local
rules, such a violation did not actually harm Moving Defendants
because even if Plaintiffs complied with Local Rule 23.3, the Court
would delay making a final determination on class certification
until after discovery. Moving Defendants fail to present any
argument contesting the Court's previous prejudice analysis other
than their same arguments that the Court already considered and
rejected.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that Moving Defendants' motion for
reconsideration is based entirely on their disagreement with the
prior determinations and Moving Defendants' repetitions of earlier
arguments are not a basis for reconsideration. Therefore, Moving
Defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Jjush from PacerMonitor.com

DICK'S SPORTING: Magallanez TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as JOHN MAGALLANEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2025-020425-CA-01, was removed from the
Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on November 24, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 25-CV-25499 to the
proceeding.

In this complaint, the Plaintiff asserts a single claim under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and seeks to represent a putative
nationwide class. The Plaintiff says that DSG transmitted at least
two text messages to him following his alleged opt-out request.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is an American sporting goods retailing
corporation.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Jordan S. Kosches, Esq.
     GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
     333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: (305) 416-6880
     Facsimile: (305) 416-6887
     E-mail: jordan.kosches@gray-robinson.com

          - and -

     Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
     BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER,
      COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
     71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 212-4949
     Facsimile: (312) 767-9192
     E-mail: meisen@beneschlaw.com

DIRECTTOU LLC: Agrees to Settle Video Privacy Class Suit for $1.58M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who purchased a
video or video game from DirectToU or signed up to receive notices
about videos or video games from DirectToU may qualify to submit a
claim for a cash payment estimated at $60 to $145 from a class
action settlement.

DirectToU LLC and Alliance Entertainment LLC agreed to pay $1.58
million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that they
disclosed customers' personally identifiable information to third
parties without consent in violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act and California law.

Who can file a claim for a class action payout?

The settlement class includes:

-- Nationwide class: Individuals residing in the United States who
purchased a video or video game from DirectToU or signed up to
receive notices about videos or video games from DirectToU and
whose information identifying them as having requested or obtained
specific video materials or services from the defendants may have
been disclosed to a third party between Aug. 8, 2022, and Sept. 22,
2025

-- California subclass: Individuals residing in California who
purchased a video or video game from DirectToU or signed up to
receive notices about videos or video games from DirectToU and
whose information identifying them as having requested or obtained
specific video materials or services from the defendants may have
been disclosed to a third party between Aug. 8, 2020, and Sept. 22,
2025

How much is the privacy settlement payment?

Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive
a pro rata cash payment estimated between $60 and $145. The
settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by
the number of claims filed.

How to claim a class action rebate

To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a claim
form by Jan. 20, 2026. They can file a claim online or print and
mail the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator.

Settlement administrator's mailing address: DirectToU Settlement
Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103

Required claim information

To submit an online claim, class members must provide the notice ID
and confirmation code from their official settlement notice.

Payout options

Class members can select from the following payment options:

-- Paper check mailed to the address provided
-- Prepaid Mastercard
-- Venmo payment
-- Zelle
-- PayPal

$1.58 million VPPA settlement fund

The settlement fund of $1,577,000 will include:

-- Settlement administration costs: Up to $125,000
-- Attorneys' fees: Up to $394,250
-- Attorneys' costs: $20,000
-- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 each
($15,000 total)
-- Payments to class members with valid claims: Remaining
settlement funds

Important dates

-- Deadline to file a claim: Jan. 20, 2026
-- Exclusion deadline: Jan. 20, 2026
-- Fairness hearing: Jan. 28, 2026

When is the DirectToU and Alliance Entertainment settlement payout
date?

The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved
claimants approximately 75 days after the court grants final
approval of the settlement.

Why was there a class action settlement?

The class action lawsuit alleged that DirectToU LLC and Alliance
Entertainment LLC disclosed customers' personally identifiable
information to third parties without consent, violating the Video
Privacy Protection Act and California law. The companies denied any
wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the cost and uncertainty
of continued litigation and a possible trial.

The settlement also requires the defendants to change their
data-sharing practices, including modifying Facebook Pixel settings
to prevent sharing specific product information with Facebook and
ceasing sharing customer transaction data with third parties except
as permitted by law.

Settlement Open for Claims
Award: $60-$145
Deadline: January 20, 2026 [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Home/Nest Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nickolas Diaz, writing for Android Central, reports that it's been
reported that Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Kaplan
Gore, LLP have served a class action lawsuit to Google over its
"malfunctioning" Home/Nest devices.

The report states that the devices' ability to understand and
adhere to voice commands has continued to fail, causing strife for
the consumer who purchased them.

Since January, users have reported problems with Google's Nest
devices and their voice commands, but a fix has yet to be
delivered.

A federal class action lawsuit has reportedly been filed against
Google's Home and Nest devices for being "defective."

The report about this class action lawsuit was highlighted by The
AI Journal, which states the ones pursuing Google are those from
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Kaplan Gore, LLP.
According to the lawsuit (Business Wire), both sides state that the
Google Nest Hub, Google Nest Hub Max, Google Nest Mini, and Google
Nest Audio have become faulty and have otherwise "malfunctioned"
over the years.

The lawsuit lists a few issues, such as the aforementioned devices
no longer "respond to even basic verbal questions." Not only has
the Q&A portion of these Nest devices failed over time, but the
plaintiffs state "widespread complaints" have been reported from
consumers regarding failure to "interpret or act on voice commands,
returning irrelevant information, losing internet connectivity
despite a stable WiFi connection, and failing to recognize
registered user voices."

The plaintiffs are calling this a "consumer case," one that aims to
receive some sort of compensation for those who purchase these
devices that have deteriorated drastically.

The report explains that user reports indicate that those who've
purchased these devices have been forced to stop using them, since
their main/primary function no longer works. The lawsuit argues
that Google's unwillingness to fix these devices has caused
consumers to spend "hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars."

The Business Wire post cites Darren Kaplan from Kaplan Gore, who
states, "However, rather than getting 'smarter' and better over
time, these Google 'smart' home devices get worse at their core
function of analyzing and processing voice commands."

The lawsuit also states that Google has been aware of these
problems, considering users took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice
their complaints. The company responded in kind; however, nothing
worthwhile has come of that. [GN]

GRID ONE: Court Dismisses Balcolm Claims for Failure to Prosecute
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Scott Ruffner, Larry Balcolm, and Jeremy
Nimmo, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated who were employed by Grid One Solutions, Plaintiffs, v.
Grid One Solutions, LLC and any related entities, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-1097 (ECC/ML) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Elizabeth C. Coombe of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Named Plaintiff Larry
Balcolm's claims with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).

On September 10, 2024, Named Plaintiffs Scott Ruffner, Jeremy Nimmo
and Larry Balcolm filed a putative Rule 23 Class and FLSA Complaint
against Grid One under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 and New York Labor Law alleging Defendant failed to pay
certain wages and overtime premiums, and failed to provide
statutory wage and hour notices to Named Plaintiffs and the Class
and seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, attorneys'
fees and costs. Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss the
claims of Mr. Balcolm with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) because of his failure to prosecute and his
written statement that he does not wish to participate in this
matter or pursue claims against Defendant.

On February 19, 2025, Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a
Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order setting forth various litigation
deadlines and warning that the failure to comply with the deadlines
set forth in Subparagraph (A) above may result in the imposition of
sanctions, including the preclusion of testimony, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). In anticipation of mediation
scheduled for May 1, 2025, the parties agreed to conduct limited
discovery including depositions of the three Named Plaintiffs. Mr.
Balcolm's deposition was scheduled for April 9, 2025, and he failed
to appear; he also failed to respond to efforts by his attorneys to
communicate with him.

During the mediation, the parties reached a settlement in
principle, and Mr. Balcolm refused to communicate with his
attorneys. Mr. Balcolm's counsel filed a motion to withdraw their
representation of Mr. Balcolm, and Mr. Balcolm was personally
served with notice of the June 30, 2025 hearing on that motion. The
notice specifically warned Mr. Balcolm that failure to comply with
court orders could result in sanctions including dismissal of the
case. Mr. Balcolm failed to appear for the hearing. During the
hearing, Mr. Balcolm's counsel stated that Mr. Balcolm did not want
to continue in this matter, and Judge Lovric scheduled another
hearing for July 31, 2025.

The text order scheduling the July hearing ordered Mr. Balcolm to
inform his counsel in detail and in writing as to what his
intentions are in this litigation and going forward in this
litigation and warned Mr. Balcolm that failure to comply with court
orders could result in sanctions including dismissal of the case.
Mr. Balcolm was personally served with notice of the July hearing.

On July 2, 2025, Mr. Balcolm sent an email to his counsel stating:


I, Larry Balcolm, wish to be removed as a named plaintiff from the
pending class action case against Grid One Solutions, LLC, and that
the Court dismiss the claims in this case as they pertain to me
individually. I do not want to be part of this class or case
anymore, and I do not intend to pursue any individual claims of my
own against Grid One going forward.

Mr. Balcolm failed to appear for the July hearing. In response,
Judge Lovric issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Mr. Balcolm
to explain in writing, by August 14, 2025, why this matter should
not be dismissed as to him. Mr. Balcolm did not respond to the show
cause notice.

Defendant argued that Mr. Balcolm's claims should be dismissed with
prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because he
made it clear that he does not want to be a party to this action or
any other action against Grid One, he asked to be dismissed from
this case, and he failed to appear at several hearings. Rule 41(b)
allows motions to dismiss if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
comply with these rules or a court order. The Court noted that five
factors must be considered when deciding whether dismissal under
Rule 41(b) is an appropriate sanction: (1) the duration of the
plaintiff's failure to comply with the court order, (2) whether
plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in
dismissal, (3) whether the defendants are likely to be prejudiced
by further delay in the proceedings, (4) a balancing of the court's
interest in managing its docket with the plaintiff's interest in
receiving a fair chance to be heard, and (5) whether the judge has
adequately considered a sanction less drastic than dismissal.

The Court found that all five factors weighed in favor of
dismissal. Regarding the first factor, Mr. Balcolm failed to comply
with three orders over two months after failing to appear for his
scheduled deposition, which was sufficient to meet the first
factor. Regarding the second factor, Judge Lovric repeatedly warned
that if Mr. Balcolm did not comply with court orders, then his
claims could be dismissed. Regarding the third factor, a defendant
is presumed to have suffered prejudice where plaintiff's refusal to
comply with court orders causes unreasonable delays. Defendant's
position was that Mr. Balcolm's failure to appear for his
deposition deprived Defendant of the opportunity to obtain critical
testimony prior to mediation, and also forced unnecessary
litigation costs to Defendant to prepare for a deposition that was
confirmed for a mutually convenient date. In addition, counsel for
Defendant stated that Mr. Balcolm's refusal to communicate with
counsel has and continues to delay the finalization of class and
collective settlement agreement reached in principle by the parties
on May 1, 2025 requiring attendance at two hearings and preparing
the motion to dismiss.

Regarding the fourth factor, the Court stated that although each
plaintiff has a right to his day in court, this right is qualified
by the obligation to comply with lawful Court orders. Mr. Balcolm
repeatedly received opportunities to indicate that he wanted to
continue to participate in this action, and he did not do so.
Instead, Mr. Balcolm explicitly stated that he wanted to be removed
as a named plaintiff and asked that the Court dismiss the claims in
this case as they pertain to me individually.

Regarding the fifth factor, Judge Lovric considered and used less
drastic measures than dismissal including two hearings where Mr.
Balcolm was personally served with notice of the hearings and an
Order to Show Cause. In addition, Mr. Balcolm wrote that he does
not wish to pursue his claims against Defendant.

Given the totality of the record and the fact that all five factors
weighed in favor of dismissal, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Defendant's motion to
dismiss Named Plaintiff Larry Balcolm's claims pursuant to Rule
41(b) was granted, and Named Plaintiff Larry Balcolm's claims were
dismissed with prejudice. The Court further ordered  to terminate
Named Plaintiff Larry Balcolm from the docket.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ZtfFP from PacerMonitor.com

GULF ISLAND: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to IES Holdings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates
PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm") is investigating:

-- Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (NASDAQ: GIFI) related to its
sale to IES Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, Gulf Island shareholders will receive $12.00 in cash
per share. Is it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/gulf-island-fabrication-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Movano Inc. (NASDAQ: MOVE) related to its merger with Corevex,
Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Corvex
shareholders will own approximately 96% of the combined company. Is
it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/movano-inc/. It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.

-- NuVista Energy Ltd. (OTCMKTS: NUVSF) related to its merger with
Ovintiv Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, NuVista
shareholders will have the option to receive either (i) C$18.00 in
cash per NuVista common share; (ii) 0.344 of a share of Ovintiv
common stock; or (iii) a combination of cash and Ovintiv common
stock, prorated so that, on a fully prorated basis, NuVista
shareholders will receive C$9.00 in cash plus 0.172 of a share in
common stock. Is it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nuvista-energy-ltd/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Orbit Technologies Ltd. (TASE: ORBI.TA) related to its merger
with Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. Under the terms of
the proposed transaction, Orbit shareholders will receive $13.725
per share in cash for each Orbit ordinary share. Is it a fair
deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/orbit-technologies-ltd/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]

HONEYCOMB HOSPITALITY: EVE Sues Over Risks of Abuse in Women
------------------------------------------------------------
Arrthy Thayaparan, writing for CBC News, reports that dozens of
women have come forward with allegations of negligence by some of
the biggest companies in Toronto's nightlife industry in connection
to decades of alleged abuse by a well-known club promoter,
according to a Canadian advocacy organization for survivors of
abuse.

End Violence Everywhere (EVE) has announced a proposed class action
lawsuit against what it says are some of "the most powerful
companies" that own and operate bars, restaurants and nightclubs
throughout the city -- companies it alleges "knowingly" allowed
convicted sex offender Mark Holland to work at their venues despite
the risk they say he posed to vulnerable women.

A draft of EVE's class action lawsuit seen by CBC News specifically
names Holland as well as Honeycomb Hospitality, Lobby, INK
Entertainment and Uniq Hospitality. The suit alleges the companies
worked with Holland "despite knowledge or constructive knowledge of
his past misconduct," said the draft lawsuit.

"Over the span of nearly two decades, numerous women have reported
being sexually assaulted, drugged, or otherwise harmed by Mark
Holland who was employed as a promoter at venues owned or operated
by the Respondent companies," reads the draft lawsuit.

"These incidents followed a consistent pattern: victims were often
approached in VIP areas or at after-parties, supplied with alcohol
or drugs, and then assaulted in secluded areas of the
establishments or affiliated residences."

The proposed lawsuit has not been filed and the allegations it
contains have not been proven in court.

But the proposed lawsuit could be dropped if companies named in it
publicly apologize, take accountability and sign an agreement with
EVE by Dec. 1, the organization's founder, Cait Alexander, said at
a news conference Monday, November 24.

"So many of us have been awake for decades to the abuses
perpetrated by a significant share of promoters, club owners and
nightlife operators in Toronto," she said.

"The hospitality groups have been hospitable to convicted
criminals, supporters and enablers of violent serial offenders,
like Holland, and they have been under the illusion that they are
innocent bystanders in these sexual assaults. They most certainly
are not."

Alexander adds approximately 30 women who are part of the lawsuit
allege abuse related to Holland, while another "20 plus" have come
forward with allegations against others that the companies allowed
into their venues -- some of whom, she said, have already been
charged with sexual assault.

The goal of the lawsuit, said Alexander, is to ban Holland from
working in the industry and implement policies to prevent convicted
sex offenders from entering venues owned by the respondent
companies.

Honeycomb Hospitality told CBC News that it did "not have a comment
at this time."

CBC News also reached out to Lobby, INK Entertainment and Uniq
Hospitality for comment, but did not receive a response.

The draft lawsuit also calls on the companies to pay "applicants
damages for sexual battery, punitive damage; pain and suffering,
emotional trauma and psychological harm" for an amount to be
determined prior to a hearing on the case.

Lawyer Kathryn Marshall, who will be representing EVE in the
possible lawsuit, said businesses turned "their clubs into a
hunting ground for a predator" and did not care about past
misconduct due to "millions of dollars" they were making through
Holland's promotions.

"This case is proof that the nightlife industry needs a major
policy overhaul to protect the women who enter their premises,"
said Marshall. "This is really a dirty secret of the industry that
hasn't been addressed."

Allegations against Holland date back to late 1990s: advocacy
group

Work on the proposed lawsuit began after Holland was charged by
Toronto police for sexual assault in August this year, Alexander
said.

In spite of those charges and being out on bail, Alexander said
Holland was allegedly back working in the clubs soon after he was
released. Randall Barrs, Holland's defence lawyer, told CBC News
Holland's bail conditions do not restrict where he can work.

When Alexander posted about Holland's latest charges on social
media, she said she received "thousands of messages" in her inbox.


The messages contained stories from alleged victims of sexual
assault in Toronto's nightlife scene, from which Alexander said she
compiled a spreadsheet of over 50 possible victims from the late
1990s to 2025, "four to five" alleged perpetrators of assault,
including Holland, and several "supporters" who allegedly allowed
the accused to continue working in the industry.

According to Toronto police, Holland was charged with three counts
of sexual assault and one count of disobeying a lawful order of the
court in August 2025.

Barrs acknowledged other historic allegations against Holland and
said his client "was acquitted of all those charges."

In 2016, Holland was also charged with sexually assaulting an
18-year-old woman at a photo shoot, according to a Toronto police
news release. Barrs said Holland was acquitted of this charge in
court.

Police said at the time that Holland may have had other victims,
which eventually led to four women coming forward and four
additional charges being laid for alleged sexual assaults that took
place between 1994 and 2014.

Two of those allegations were the subject of a court case in 2020
against Holland, according to documents provided by EVE to CBC
News. He was found guilty of one of those sexual assault charges,
in connection with an incident in 2008 where a woman was assaulted
from behind on a stairwell of a nightclub.

After repeated delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Holland's
sentencing for that 2020 conviction took place in 2022. He was
sentenced to 20 years on the sex offender registry and eight months
of conditional imprisonment in the community, which included house
arrest.

Barrs said Holland was acquitted of two of the other historic
allegations and the fourth was reduced to a common assault charge,
which his client resolved by signing a peace bond.

At the news conference, Marshall said Holland was later rehired by
the same club where the sexual assault he was convicted of took
place.

Barrs said in a statement to CBC News that EVE should wait for the
outcome of a trial before they target and destroy someone's life.

He said current "negative remarks" and publicity have cost Holland
his job and the right to a fair trial in his ongoing criminal case.


"In this country we have a presumption of innocence. As far as Mr.
Holland is concerned, he has one sexual assault conviction," said
Barrs, adding the appeal of the conviction was denied.

"He's now unemployed, and they continue to make him the poster boy
for their agenda."

Holland got 'nothing more than a slap on the wrist': victim
Two women who allege they were assaulted by Holland spoke out at
the news conference and are taking part in the proposed lawsuit.
The women who spoke and those in the proposed action were not
named.

One woman tearfully alleged she was assaulted by Holland while
modelling at a professional photoshoot in 2016.

She said Holland was acquitted in her case.

But years of trauma came rushing back, she said, when she learned
of Holland's latest criminal charge charge.

"I am sad and heartbroken to see Mark Holland is still out there
hurting more women and still has people enabling his disgusting
behavior," she said. "Why are the Mark Hollands of the world more
protected than the victims?"

A second woman at the news conference spoke out about an alleged
assault by Holland nearly 18 years ago. He was charged with sexual
assault by police when she reported the incident in 2016. Holland
was later acquitted in court.

She said after moving back to the city this year, she was shocked
to hear rumours he was still working in the nightlife industry.

She said the stories of the women coming forward highlight the
systemic failures that allowed sexual predators to prey on women
for decades.

"Imagine my shock and anger to learn that it was true that he was
still out there assaulting women, despite the multitude of previous
charges, the trials and conviction, despite decades of women coming
forward," she said, adding Holland was able to walk away "with
nothing more than a slap on the wrist." [GN]

KALSHI INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Sports Betting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Horney, writing for Front Office Sports, reports that Kalshi is
accused of operating an unlicensed sports gambling platform that
misleads customers into thinking they're getting fairer odds than
traditional sportsbooks when that isn't the case, according to a
proposed class action lawsuit filed Wednesday, November 26.

The suit, filed in New York federal court on behalf of thousands of
potential class members, features seven named plaintiffs who claim
they were deceived into losing money. It seeks to recover the money
they have bet on the platform, and demands a jury trial with the
potential for damages to be tripled.

"By operating unlicensed sports betting, Kalshi has violated
gambling laws, engaged in illegal deceptive activity, and unjustly
enriched itself at the expense of tens of thousands of consumers,"
the complaint says.

Kalshi allows users to "trade" on the outcome of sporting events,
although the sports event contracts it offers look a lot like
traditional betting. Users can put money on which team will win the
Thursday Thanksgiving NFL games, for example, such as Green Bay or
Detroit or Kansas City or Dallas. Users can also "trade" on
over/unders, like whether Jared Goff will throw for two or more
touchdowns.

The suit directly challenges Kalshi's argument that it differs from
standard sportsbooks because bettors wager against one another as
opposed to the house. According to the lawsuit,  consumers are
often betting against Kalshi itself -- through "market maker"
subsidiaries Kalshi Trading LLC and KalshiEx, or hedge-fund
partners, like Susquehanna International Group.

Those entities "bet against consumers when their bets stray from
Kalshi's internal projected odds," the suit says, but "consumers do
not realize they are actually being tricked into sports betting
against Kalshi."

"This lawsuit demonstrates many fundamental misunderstandings about
how federally regulated DCMs operate," a Kalshi spokesperson tells
Front Office Sports in a statement. "Anyone who understands how
Kalshi works will see it for what it is -- meritless fiction. We
look forward to responding further in our court filings."

DCMs are "designated contract markets," a category of regulated
exchange that falls under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC). Kalshi and other prediction-market
platforms have self-certified their sports event contracts with the
CFTC, and their stance is that they are regulated at the federal,
not state, level -- and thus not subject to state gaming laws.

The suit seeks to certify a "nationwide" class of consumers who
were allegedly harmed, as well as subclasses for 30 individual
states and Washington, D.C. It alleges that New York's general
business law, California's unfair competition law, and Florida
gambling laws, among other laws, have been broken.

Although Kalshi purports to be much more than a sports site, the
suit alleges that is "primarily" what it is, claiming that in
September, 90% of Kalshi's volume was from "sports betting," with
about $2 billion in bets placed.

"Kalshi at times drops the mask and admits that it is a betting
site, falsely marketing its platform as 'legal sports betting,'"
the suit says. "But Kalshi's betting platform is in no way legal.
Consumers are tricked into betting against the House."

The lawsuit comes after Kalshi suffered a significant legal setback
in Nevada earlier this week. A federal judge erased a prior
preliminary win Kalshi had scored, ruling that the state's gaming
regulator can seek to stop the company from offering sports event
contracts while the case plays out. Kalshi has appealed, but the
regulator warned it will not hesitate to take enforcement action
against Kalshi and other companies that continue to offer what it
regards as unlawful sports betting in the state.

These are two of many cases playing out across the country. Kalshi
is involved in a number of them, but other prediction-markets
players are fighting legal battles as well, including Robinhood and
Crypto.com. Last month, a judge in Nevada ruled in favor of the
Nevada regulator in a separate case from Crypto.com, saying he
would not prohibit the regulator from taking action, for now. No
major rulings have been made yet in a similar case brought by
Robinhood, which was filed in August.

Despite the legal challenges, the rise of prediction markets is
causing undeniable chaos in the sports betting world. In addition
to DraftKings and FanDuel, Polymarket is preparing a full U.S.
relaunch after being barred from operating in the country under an
agreement with the Joe Biden–era CFTC, armed with up to $2
billion from the parent of the New York Stock Exchange.

Other players include PrizePicks, Underdog, Novig, and President
Donald Trump's Truth Social platform. Fanatics is also plotting a
prediction-markets platform, and Coinbase is reportedly working on
a prediction-markets platform that will be powered by Kalshi.

Robinhood announced a joint venture with Susquehanna -- which is
not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, even though the complaint
mentions the company. That joint venture will acquire crypto
exchange MIAXdx, better known as LedgerX, in order to launch a
dedicated exchange for prediction markets. [GN]


LAGUNITAS BREWING: Ondaro Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as NICHOLAS ONDARO, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LAGUNITAS BREWING
COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV06756, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on November 24, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10181 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action for (1) failure
to pay minimum and straight time wages; (2) failure to pay overtime
wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay final
wages at termination; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; (7) failure to indemnify employees for expenditures;
(8) failure to produce requested employment records; and (9) unfair
business practices.

The Lagunitas Brewing Company is a brewery in Lagunitas, California
and is completely owned by Heineken International.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Erin F. Norris, Esq.
     Carlos Bacio, Esq.
     Jemuel S. Gascon, Esq.
     DENTONS US LLP
     601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704
     Telephone: (213) 623-9300
     Facsimile: (213) 623-9924
     E-mail: erin.norris@dentons.com
             carlos.bacio@dentons.com
             jemuel.gascon@dentons.com

LEGO BRAND: Huston Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------
The case styled as MATTHEW HUSTON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. LEGO BRAND RETAIL, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 30-2025-01520312-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on November
24, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11285 to the
proceeding.

In this complaint, the Plaintiff asserts the following claims: (1)
Failure to Pay All Wages; (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages;
(3) Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Illegal Rounding; (4) Failure
to Provide All Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Authorize and Permit
All Rest Periods; (6) Violations of Labor Code; and (7) Violations
of Business and Professions Code.

Lego Brand Retail, Inc. manufactures play materials. It offers the
retail sale of toys, games, hobby kits, and craft kits.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Jonathan P. Schmidt, Esq.
     Emma C. Cunningham, Esq.
     JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
     200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Telephone: (949) 885-1360
     E-mail: Jonathan.Schmidt@jacksonlewis.com
             Emma.Cunningham@jacksonlewis.com

REPARE THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to XenoTherapeutics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class
Action Firm") is investigating:

-- Repare Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: RPTX) related to its sale to
XenoTherapeutics, Inc. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, it
is estimated that each Repare shareholder will receive a cash
payment of $1.82 per share, plus one non-transferable contingent
value right entitling the holder to receive certain cash payments
under certain conditions. Is it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/repare-therapeutics-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Axalta Coating Systems Ltd. (NYSE: AXTA) related to its sale to
Akzo Nobel N.V. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Axalta
shareholders will receive 0.6539 shares of AkzoNobel stock for each
share of Axalta common stock. Is it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/axalta-coating-systems-ltd/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Wintergreen Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: WTG) related to its
merger with KIKA Technology Inc. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, KIKA shareholders will be entitled to receive ordinary
shares of the Wintergreen in an amount equal to (1) the valuation
of KIKA divided by the SPAC per-share redemption price and rounding
up to a whole share. Is it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/wintergreen-acquisition-corp/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Semrush Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: SEMR) related to its sale to
Adobe Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Semrush
shareholders are expected to receive $12.00 per share. Is it a fair
deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/semrush-holdings-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]

RICHMOND MUTUAL: M&A Investigates Merger with The Farmers Bancorp
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class
Action Firm") is investigating:

-- Richmond Mutual Bancorporation, Inc. (NASDAQ: RMBI) related to
its merger with The Farmers Bancorp. Under the terms of the
proposed transaction, Farmers' shareholders are expected to own
approximately 38% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/richmond-mutual-bancorporation-inc/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (NYSE: THS) related to its sale to
Industrial F&B Investments III Inc. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, TreeHouse shareholders will receive $22.50 in cash per
share plus a contingent value right. Is it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/treehouse-foods-inc/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Legato Meger Corp. III (NYSE: LEGT) related to its merger with
Einride AB. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Legato
shareholders will receive one share of Einride common stock for
each Legato ordinary share issued in the form of American
depository shares. Is it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/legato-meger-corp-iii/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Northern Data AG (OTCMKTS: NDTAF) related to its sale to Rumble
Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Northern Data
shareholders will receive 2.0281 shares of Rumble common stock for
each Northern Data share. Is it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/northern-data-ag/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]

RY MAHONEY'S: Court Denies McCain's Bid to Amend Fish Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Todd McCain, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mary Mahoney's, Inc.,
d/b/a Mary Mahoney's Old French House; Anthony C. Cvitanovich;
Quality Poultry & Seafood, Inc.; James W. Gunkel; Todd A. Rosetti;
and Doe Defendants 1-10, Defendants, Cause No. 1:24CV241-LG-BWR
(S.D. Miss.), Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Southern
Division denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.

According to the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint,
Quality Poultry & Seafood imported foreign fish, and its business
manager, James W. Gunkel, purchased and priced the fish. The sales
manager, Todd A. Rosetti, sold the fish to Mary Mahoney's and its
co-owner/manager, Anthony C. Cvitanovich, who mislabeled it for
sale at Mahoney's restaurant. The Plaintiff alleged that he
purchased what Defendants fraudulently marketed and represented as
high-priced premium local snapper and red snapper at Mary Mahoney's
restaurant on or about July 29, 2013, December 28, 2016, and August
21, 2018. According to the Plaintiff, had he known that the species
of fish were instead inexpensive frozen Foreign Fish, he would not
have purchased and ingested them. He attempted to assert violations
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common
law fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment on behalf of
himself and the putative class.

The Court previously granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction because the Plaintiff lacked standing, and
dismissed this lawsuit without prejudice. The Plaintiff then asked
the Court to overturn the dismissal and grant him permission to
file a second amended complaint.

In his proposed amended complaint, the Plaintiff provided the
following class definition: all persons residing in the United
States who ordered and paid for a mislabeled Snapper Entree at Mary
Mahoney's between January 1, 2016, and November 18, 2019. He
claimed that the Defendants violated subsections (c) and (d) of the
RICO statute by engaging in the racketeering activity of wire fraud
and mail fraud. In the proposed amended complaint, the Plaintiff
asserted that during the Class Period, the Plaintiff and the
putative class ordered and paid for approximately 55,500 Snapper
Entrees, and of those 55,500 entrees, the overwhelming
majority—if not all—were substituted with Foreign Fish by Mary
Mahoney's and Cvitanovich.

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff's proposed amendment would
be futile because his allegations remained insufficient to
establish Article III standing. The Court noted that in the
class-action context, the class representative must have standing
to represent a class of other allegedly injured persons. To
establish standing, the plaintiff must show that he suffered an
injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or
imminent; that the injury was likely caused by the Defendant; and
that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.

The Court found that the Plaintiff's proposed amendment alleged
that the Defendants fraudulently sold approximately 55,500 pounds
of foreign fish at higher prices customary for authentic snapper
between January 1, 2016, and November 18, 2019. He claimed he
consumed and overpaid for foreign fish on two occasions—December
28, 2016, and August 21, 2018. The Court found that Cvitanovich's
objection during the sentencing hearing did not lead to a plausible
inference that Mahoney's always or almost always substituted
frozen, foreign fish for its snapper entrees. Furthermore, the
sentencing transcript contained no reference to snapper.

The Court determined that the facts in the Plaintiff's proposed
amended complaint did not lead to a plausible inference that the
Plaintiff purchased and consumed mislabeled fish. He was apparently
satisfied with the fish because he consumed it and paid the price
set by Mahoney's on at least two occasions. He conceded that he had
no idea that he may have been served something other than snapper
until criminal arrests were announced. The Plaintiff did not
provide the name of the snapper entree he ate, and there were no
facts from which the Court could infer the number of times
Mahoney's sold the entree the Plaintiff purchased during the class
period or the number of times that entree may have been
mislabeled.

The Court concluded that the Plaintiff did not have Article III
standing because he had not alleged that he suffered an actual and
particularized injury. He merely alleged a possibility that he may
have been overcharged for the entrees he consumed. Accordingly, the
Court ordered and adjudged that Todd McCain's Rule 59(e) Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment and Rule 15(a) Motion to Amend were denied
because his proposed amendment would be futile.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jwVvwT from PacerMonitor.com

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Dolgicer Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as DANIEL DOLGICER, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS,
INC., DOUGLAS S. INGRAM, DALLAN MURRAY, and LOUISE RODINO-KLAPAC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05317, was removed from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
November 24, 2025.

The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-13530-BEM to the proceeding.

In this complaint, the Plaintiff pursues claims against the
Defendant under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for failure to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's compliance,
operations, and outlook. Specifically, the complaint asserts that
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) ELEVIDYS posed significant safety risks to
patients; (ii) ELEVIDYS trial regimes and protocols failed to
detect severe side effects; (iii) the severity of adverse events
from ELEVIDYS treatment would cause the Company to halt recruitment
and dosing in ELEVIDYS trials, attract regulatory scrutiny, and
create greater risk around the therapy's present and expanded
approvals; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants
materially misled with, and/or lacked a reasonable basis for, their
positive statements.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical
company headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Defendants Douglas S. Ingram, Dallan Murray, and Louise
Rodino-Klapac have served as high-ranking officials of Sarepta
Therapeutics, Inc.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Michele D. Johnson, Esq.
     LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
     650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
     Ste 2000
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
     Telephone: (714) 540-1235
     E-mail: michele.johnson@lw.com

          - and -

     Sarah A. Tomkowiak, Esq.
     LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
     555 Eleventh St., NW
     Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20004
     Telephone: (202) 637-2200
     E-mail: sarah.tomkowiak@lw.com

SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Sprouts
Farmers Market, Inc. (NASDAQ: SFM) securities between June 4, 2025
and October 29, 2025. Sprouts is a specialty grocery store chain
that operates in the U.S.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Sprouts Famers Market, Inc. (SFM) Misled Investors Regarding its
Growth Potential

According to the complaint, defendants provided investors with
material information concerning Sprouts' growth potential for the
fiscal year 2025. Defendants' statements included, among other
things, confidence in the Company's customer base to remain
resilient to macroeconomic pressures and that Sprouts would instead
benefit from the perceived tailwinds from a more cautious consumer.
At the same time, defendants concealed material adverse facts
concerning the true state of Sprouts' growth potential; notably,
that a more cautious consumer could result in significant slowdown
in sales growth and the purported tailwinds with be unable to
dampen the slowdown or would otherwise fail to manifest entirely.

On October 29, 2025, Sprouts announced disappointing top-line
results for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 with comparable stores
growth faltering below Company expectations. Sprouts further
announced disappointing fourth quarter guidance and further slashed
its full year estimates, despite raising them only one quarter
prior. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on
"challenging year-on-year comparisons as well as signs of a
softening consumer." On this news, the price of Sprouts' common
stock fell from a closing market price of $104.55 per share on
October 29, 2025, to $77.25 per share on October 30, 2025, a
decline of about 26.11%.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve
as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to
participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you
choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
For more information, click
https://robbinsllp.com/sprouts-farmers-market-inc-2/.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.  [GN]

TARGET CORPORATION: Norman Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as CORINA MARIE NORMAN, individually, and on behalf
of members of the general public and putative class members
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. CIVSB2530157, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Bernardino to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on November
24, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11274 to the
proceeding.

In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the retail chain
misclassified team leads as exempt employees, while also failing to
pay overtime, denying meal and rest breaks, maintaining inaccurate
payroll records, and failing to reimburse business expenses.

Target Corporation is an American retailer and supermarket chain
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Joseph G. Schmitt, Esq.
     Mark J. Girouard, Esq.
     Courtney L. Burks, Esq.
     Cody B. Humpherys, Esq.
     NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS P.A.
     250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 305-7500
     Facsimile: (612) 305-7501
     E-mail: jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com
             mgirouard@nilanjohnson.com
             cburks@nilanjohnson.com

THOMAS JEFFERSON: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs Without Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Rose Grassi, writing for NBC Philadelphia, reports that a
class-action lawsuit was filed against Thomas Jefferson University
after the company announced it was laying off 1% of its workforce
back in October.

The Philadelphia-based health care system had announced that the
layoffs were because of "financial headwinds" and would impact 600
workers.

The lawsuit accuses Jefferson of violating the rights of its
employees during the layoffs.

"Jefferson blindsided hundreds of workers with mass layoffs, then
used that economic shock to pressure them into forfeiting rights
that the WARN Act makes non-waivable. We're grateful our client had
the courage to stand up to Jefferson, and we welcome others to do
the same," an attorney involved in the case wrote in a statement to
NBC10.

The suit says that employees were notified last month of their
terminations the very same day it happened. The class action claims
that the health company is required to give at least 60 days
notice.

"We believe the facts will show there was no violation of the
federal WARN Act," a spokesperson for Jefferson Health said in a
statement. [GN]

TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Suit on Falsely Advertised Freezer Pops
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Mario Palacios filed a
class action lawsuit against Trader Joe's Company.

Why: Palacios claims Trader Joe's falsely advertises its 100% Juice
Organic Freezer Pops as being made entirely from juice when they
contain non-juice ingredients.

Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California state
court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges Trader Joe's falsely advertises
its 100% Juice Organic Freezer Pops as being made entirely from
juice when they contain non-juice ingredients.

Plaintiff Mario Palacios claims Trader Joe's misleads consumers by
labeling the product as "100% Juice" when it actually contains
non-juice ingredients, such as water, natural flavors, malic acid,
guar gum and vegetable juice used as coloring.

Palacios argues the labeling is misleading because it gives the
false impression that the product is made entirely from expressed
juice without concentrates, water or other additives.

"Trader Joe's -- a grocery chain that has built its consumer
reputation on the sale of organic, minimally processed, and
unadulterated food products -- intentionally uses font, placement,
color and type size as relates to the required disclosure to give
this false impression and deceive and mislead consumers," the
Trader Joe's class action lawsuit says.

Trader Joe's labeling violates federal regulations, lawsuit says

Palacios argues Trader Joe's labeling violates federal regulations
that require products labeled as "100% Juice" to disclose any added
ingredients in a manner that "accompanies" the juice claim.

The class action lawsuit alleges the disclosure on the Trader Joe's
product is placed far from the "100% Juice" claim, in a small and
largely unreadable font.

Palacios argues consumers are willing to pay a premium for products
labeled as "clean" or "natural," and that Trader Joe's has
capitalized on this trend by misleadingly labeling its freezer
pops.

He claims he would not have purchased the product, or would have
paid less for it, had he known it contained non-juice ingredients.

Palacios claims Trader Joe's is guilty of violating California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and of unjust enrichment and breach of
implied warranty. He demands a jury trial and requests declaratory
and injunctive relief and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

In a separate Trader Joe's class action lawsuit from 2024, a
consumer accused the company of selling bagels labeled as
gluten-free that were not actually gluten-free according to lab
testing.

Were you misled by Trader Joe's labeling of its 100% Juice Organic
Freezer Pops? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Charles C. Weller of Charles C.
Weller APC.


The Trader Joe's freezer pops class action lawsuit is Palacios v.
Trader Joe's Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-10584, in the California
Superior Court for Los Angeles County. [GN]

VICTORIA: $135MM Overtime Pay Class Settlement Gets Court Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tez Romero, writing for HRD, reports that a $135 million settlement
over unpaid overtime for junior doctors in Victorian hospitals has
been approved, marking one of Australia's largest employment law
resolutions.

The Federal Court gave final approval on October 31 to a settlement
that will compensate thousands of junior doctors across Victoria
who alleged they were systematically underpaid for overtime work.
The resolution brings to a close 30 separate class actions against
public health services, offering critical lessons for HR leaders
navigating complex rostering and payment obligations.

At the heart of the dispute was a straightforward claim with
far-reaching consequences: junior doctors said they worked
un-rostered overtime that hospitals were required to pay but
didn't. The Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Federation, along
with individual doctors, argued that health services including
Peninsula Health, Monash Health, and Western Health failed to
compensate doctors for overtime they were authorised to perform,
alleging contraventions of three industrial instruments and the
Fair Work Act.

The litigation exposed thorny questions about how overtime
obligations are interpreted and enforced. The court noted that
hospitals raised various defenses, including disputes over the
construction of overtime provisions, the effect of their overtime
policies, and estoppel arguments. For employers, the case
underscored the risks of relying on policies that may conflict with
underlying industrial instruments.

After years of litigation, the parties reached agreement in
February. Under the settlement, the State of Victoria will pay $135
million to eligible doctors, with additional amounts covering legal
costs of just over $20.8 million and administration costs of $17.5
million. Any leftover funds return to the state. If the pool falls
short, payments will be reduced proportionally.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the
complexity and risk involved in continuing the litigation. Justice
Snaden noted that while one proceeding had seen a successful trial
outcome for a lead applicant, extending those outcomes across 30
different health services and thousands of individual claims posed
significant evidentiary challenges. Each doctor's claim would
require individual assessment of hours worked, a potentially
years-long process.

By September, more than 12,800 doctors had registered to
participate in the settlement. Only three objected, and the court
found none of those objections justified rejecting the deal. Lead
applicants will receive reimbursement payments totaling $430,000
for their time and effort in pursuing the claims on behalf of the
broader group, with ASMOF receiving $175,000.

For HR professionals, particularly those in healthcare, the
settlement serves as a pointed reminder of the cost of getting pay
wrong. The case demonstrates that alleged systemic underpayment,
even when driven by workplace policies or practices that seem
reasonable, can expose organisations to significant liability. It
also highlights the importance of maintaining accurate records of
all hours worked and ensuring internal policies align with award
and agreement obligations.

Gordon Legal and Hayden Stephens & Associates will administer the
distribution scheme, which includes provisions for late
registrations in exceptional circumstances. The proceedings are set
to be dismissed once the scheme is complete. [GN]

WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Englehart Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as DEAN R. ENGLEHART AND ROBBIN L. ENGLEHART, H/W,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 25-1003380, was removed from the Philadelphia County Court
of Common Pleas to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on November 24, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06655 to the
proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims of declaratory relief and statutory
bad faith based on Westfield's alleged treatment of underinsured
motorist (UIM) benefits available to Plaintiffs (and the putative
class) as "gap" coverage rather than "excess" coverage contrary to
Pennsylvania law.

The Plaintiffs also assert on behalf of themselves, only, a
separate claim for breach of contract premised on the same alleged
conduct. And Plaintiff Robbin L. Englehart individually asserts a
claim for loss of consortium related to injuries sustained by her
husband, Plaintiff Dean R. Englehart, in the underlying
motor-vehicle accident.

Westfield Insurance Company provides commercial and personal
insurance lines insurance products such as workers' compensation,
farm, horse, home, auto, boat, and umbrella insurance to customers
in the United States.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     John J. Haggerty, Esq.
     Stephan A. Cornell, Esq.
     Karl C. Helgerson, Esq.
     FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
     2800 Kelly Road, Suite 200
     Warrington, PA 18976
     Telephone: (215) 345-7500
     Facsimile: (215) 345-7507
     E-mail: jhaggerty@foxrothschild.com
             scornell@foxrothschild.com
             khelgerson@foxrothschild.com

WILDERMUTH FUND: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law
firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of investors who invested in Wildermuth Fund
("Wildermuth" or "the Fund") (WESFX; WEFCX; WEIFX).

Class Definition

This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Wildermuth mutual fund classes -- Class A (ticker: "WESFX"), Class
C (ticker: "WEFCX"), and Class I (ticker: "WEIFX") between November
1, 2020 and June 29, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/WESFX.

Case Details

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
they miscalculated the fair value of the Fund's investments without
sufficient, reliable evidence to support them; (2) failed to
disclose that certain portfolio companies with questionable going
concern value were being propped up with monthly cash infusions by
the Fund; and (3) intentionally inflated the Fund's net asset
value, leading to the payment of excessive and unearned advisory
fees to the Adviser, all of which damaged Class members.

What's Next?

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site:
bgandg.com/WESFX or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Wildermuth
you have until December 29, 2025, to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff.

There is No Cost to You

We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis.
That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket
expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total
recovery, only if we are successful.

Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm
that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and
shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors nationwide.

Contact

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     Nathan Miller, Esq.
     Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
     Telephone: (332) 239-2660
     info@bgandg.com [GN]


WOOLWORTHS GROUP: Faces Class Suit for Misleading Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Billionaire property mogul Shaun Bonett's litigation funder is
backing a shareholder class action against Woolworths, alleging it
misled investors over hundreds of millions of dollars in
underpayments, ramping up the risk to major corporates from mass
wage theft cases.

It's the first time a class action in Australia has been brought
against a company on behalf of shareholders related to the
underpayment of staff.

The claim alleges the supermarket giant misled investors between
2010 and 2025 by publishing financial statements that overstated
profits because they failed to include proper staff remuneration.

Litigation Lending Services, chaired by Bonett, has brought in
little-known firm Dutton Law to run the case and has not listed the
new legal action on its website. Woolworths has also not disclosed
the case to the market despite the law firm filing the claim in the
Federal Court a month ago.

The case is filed against Woolworths, but the statement of claim
names a number of senior executives, including current chief
executive Amanda Bardwell, and former bosses Brad Banducci, Grant
O'Brien and Michael Luscombe.

Litigation Lending Services chief investment officer Emma
Colantonio said the claim raises important issues for
shareholders.

"LLS undertakes a rigorous assessment process before partnering
with any law firm. We selected Dutton Law because of their
demonstrated expertise in complex commercial litigation and their
detailed understanding of the issues at the centre of this case,"
she said.

A Woolworths company spokesman said the supermarket giant had
received the claim and would be defending it.

Michael Duffy, director of the corporate law, organisation and
litigation research group at Monash University, said the case
showed that firms now faced another level of risk from massive
underpayments.

"Underpayments appear to be becoming a bigger problem, and when it
is a listed entity that is responsible for any underpayments, there
is certainly now a risk of secondary liability through a
shareholder class action," he said.

"Such cases are complex and can be difficult, but some judges have
taken a very wide view of what company boards 'should have' known
or been 'aware of'."

Woolworths and Coles' backpay bill jumped significantly in
September following a landmark court action. Woolworths told the
market that its potential after-tax liability could increase by up
to $530 million, which would tip its total backpay bill past $1
billion.

Coles has told investors its total backpay could be almost $300
million. The estimate is far beyond the $31 million it has already
paid out, but some lawyers argue that Coles has still significantly
underestimated its wage bill.

The 150-page claim alleges Woolworths provided limited disclosure
to correct representations made about its financial performance and
failed to tell investors "the full effect of the employee benefit
failures, the underpayments and/or the financial statement
errors".

It alleges Woolworths "engaged in conduct which was misleading or
deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive".

It says its lead applicant Benjamin White, and potential class
action group members, would not have bought Woolworths shares at
the price they did if the market had been aware of the alleged
misconduct.

Rhys Dutton, who was admitted as a lawyer in 2017 and prepared the
claim, did not respond to requests for comment.

A senior class action lawyer, speaking anonymously to speak
candidly, noted the class action's claims extended back to 2010,
beyond the six-year statute of limitations, and so a large part of
the case was likely to be struck out.

Litigation Lending Services declined to comment on limitation
periods.

He also questioned its claim that Woolworths did not have a
reasonable basis to publish its financial statements, saying "it
won't hold up".

Nevertheless, he said, the backing of Litigation Lending Services
-- which has settled cases for over $100 million – gave the case
credibility and raised questions why Woolworths had not disclosed
the case to the market.

Litigation Lending Services came to prominence as the big funder
behind three major stolen wages class actions brought on behalf of
Indigenous Australians, who often worked as stockmen, farm hands,
kitchen hands and laundry assistants and were paid significantly
less than their colleagues from the 1930s through to the '70s.

The Queensland government settled for up to $190 million in 2019,
the WA government agreed to pay up to $180.4 million in 2023, and
last year, the federal government settled a Northern Territory
class action for up to $202 million.

Bonett, former bank executive Andrew Hagger, ex-Afterpay director
Cliff Rosenberg, former MYOB chief executive Tim Reed and media
scion John B. Fairfax have all backed Litigation Lending Services,
either as shareholders or putting money into funds used for legal
cases. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has $435MM Litigation Reserves at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At September 30, 2025, the asbestos litigation reserves amounted to
$435 million. The Company retained third-party actuarial experts to
assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve
estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given
various assumptions. The methodology used by the actuarial experts
to project future asbestos costs is based largely on recent
experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates, disease
mix, open claims and litigation defense costs. Further, the claim
experience identified is compared to the results of previously
conducted third-party epidemiological studies estimating the number
of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Using that
information, the Company estimates a range of the number of future
claims that may be filed, as well as the related costs that may be
incurred in resolving those claims. Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs using the results of a
non-inflated, non-discounted approximate 40-year model developed
with the assistance of the Company's third-party actuarial
experts.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o6HZSa


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Defends Product Liability Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation is a party to or the subject of lawsuits, claims,
and proceedings, including, but not limited to, those involving
environmental, and health and safety matters as well as product
liability and personal injury claims relating to asbestosis,
silicosis, and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "These respirator liabilities involve claims
for personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal
worker's pneumoconiosis ("CWP"), allegedly resulting from the use
of respirators that are alleged to have been negligently designed
and/or labeled. At no time did this respiratory product line
represent a significant portion of the respirator market.

"We are also a potentially responsible party in various
environmental proceedings and remediation matters wherein
substantial amounts are at issue."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GCjODG

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Faces Product Liability Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land and its subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation
("D/C"), have in the past and continue to be named as defendants in
personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "While there were relatively few cases that
name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that
were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in
California). Cases against Kaanapali Land were allegedly based on
its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C were
allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's
prior distribution business operations primarily in California. D/C
emerged from bankruptcy in 2023 with no assets. However, personal
injury claimants have asserted and may in the future assert,
asbestos-related claims against D/C. In that regard, the Company
maintains a contingent liability relating to the continued filings
of asbestos claims. Such filings are not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company, but no assurance can be
given."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ESWB45

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 2,013 New Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "For the nine months ended September 30, 2025
and 2024, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received
approximately 2,013 and 2,251 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively.

"These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company has never engaged in the business of manufacturing or
selling asbestos-containing products, nor has Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company issued liability or workers’ compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling
asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused
on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and
other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company’s employees during the period from the 1920s through
approximately the 1950s and allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company believes that it should not have legal liability in these
cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is
uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including
differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature
of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal
merit of the claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pJ7yoc

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In many of these cases, the complaints are not
specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its
products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally
seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. The Company
believes that the claims against it are without merit and is
vigorously defending against them. The Company has not recorded any
accruals in its consolidated financial statements as the likelihood
of a loss from these cases is not probable at this time. The
Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be
material to the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows. In addition, the Company does not believe
the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qNKQ6D


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***