251209.mbx

251209.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 9, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 245 Headlines ALASKA AIRLINES: Marecheau Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ALDI INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weller Suit Alleges ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Llerena Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Scheme AMBAC FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend COFINA Suit ANGEION GROUP: Sued Over Deceptive Class Administration Services APOLLO GLOBAL: PlayAGS Suit Remains Pending APOLLO GLOBAL: Stockholder Suit Remains Pending in Delaware ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: "Shapiro" Remains Pending in Illinois ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling in Bid to Dismiss "Enyart" ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Christiansen" ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Settlement in "Luo" Wins Final Court OK AYAT LLC: Jimenez and Montoya Sue Over Labor Law Breaches BANK OF AMERICA: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought BARK INC: Court Certifies Class in "Kenville" BEACHBODY CO: Agrees to Settle "Lyons" BEACHBODY CO: Continues to Defend "Reilly" BELGIOIOSO CHEESE: FLSA Settlement in Hermans Gets Initial Nod BIOCERES CROP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Argentina BIOGEN INC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply in Shash BJH HOLDINGS: Moye Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info BRIDGE HOUSING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Assadzadeh Alleges BROOKSIDE FARMS: Approval of Worker Notice Held in Abeyance BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE: Filing for Class Cert Due June 3, 2026 CANNAE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit in Delaware CAPITAL ONE: Ct. Reconsiders Order Denying Bid to Seal in "Hoard" CAPITAL ONE: Paypal Seeks Denial of Bids to File Docs Under Seal CLINT MILLER: Bid to Reformulate Class Definition in Iasella OK'd CONNEXION POINT: Seeks Prohibition to Send Revised Notice COOKY'S DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vigil Suit Alleges COUPANG INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Customer Data Leak COWAN SYSTEMS: Faces Koon Suit Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages DEXCOM INC: Faces Dalora Suit Over Mislabeled Glucose Monitor DOCGO INC: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Securities Suit EARL SCOTT: Class Cert. Discovery in Duvall Due July 17, 2026 EIDP INC: $22MM Settlement in Principle Reached in Securities Suit EIDP INC: Ohio State Sues over Environmental Damage ELEVATE CARE: Faces Nino Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ELF BEAUTY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California ENCORE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas ERNESTO SANTACRUZ: Bond Eligible Class Gets Certification F&G ANNUITIES: Continues to Defend MOVEit Suits FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend MOVEit Suit FINWISE BANCORP: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suits FLYWIRE CORP: Faces "Hickman" Securities Suit in New York GALAXY DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ontario GLOBAL K9: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bland Suit Alleges GREEN DOT: Awaits Prelim OK of Settlement in "Koffsmon" GREGG ORR: Discovery in Boatright Suit Due August 17, 2026 HANNAH SUSHI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Shaw Due May 30, 2026 HILTON GRAND: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Spam Emails HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC: Bid for Panel Rehearing in Caston Suit OK'd JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit in California JETOBRA INC: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Kundu Says JRK PROPERTY: Wins Summary Judgement v. Peebles KINDRED SPIRITS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Acosta Suit Due Dec. 12 KRISTI NOEM: Ovando Wins Bid for Class Certification LA PAZ ENTERPRISES: Property Not Disabled-Friendly, Ramos Says LEVAIN BAKERY: Douglass Seeks Initial OK of Settlement LIFE360 INC: Continues to Defend "Ireland-Gordy" in California LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alston Alleges MALLINCKRODT PLC: Awaits Final OK of Continental General Suit Deal MALLINCKRODT PLC: Deal in Strougo Securities Suit Has Final OK METRO CARE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Response MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Jacob" Suit MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Milan" Suit MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Schelling" Suit MIT45 INC: Moorhead Seeks to Modify Class Cert Filing Sched MOMENTUS INC: Continues to Defend Delaware Securities Suit MOMENTUS INC: Continues to Defend SRAC Securities Suit MONSANTO COMPANY: White Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup NEWMARK GROUP: Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Suit in Del. NISSAN NORTH: Craig Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. NOVA SCOTIA: Court OKs $36MM Deal Over Deaf Children Abuse Suit OGLETHORPE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Tracy Alleges ON24 INC: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Remains Pending OP2 LABS: Faces Bautista Suit Over Deceptive Nutrition Labels PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Gabelli" PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Continues to Defend "Baker" in Delaware PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Continues to Defend NYCERS Suit PERMA-FIX ENVIRONMENTAL: Continues to Defend "O'Neill" in Delaware PILLSBURY WINTHROP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Archer Says PROCTER & GAMBLE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 12, 2026 RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Class Settlement in West Gets Initial Nod ROPE ST. FRANCIS: Adams et al. Seek Proper Wages SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Stout Sues Over Share Price Drop SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in "Klassen" SOUNDHOUND AI: "Liles" Remains Pending in California SOUNDHOUND AI: Court Closes Corporate Opportunity Suit SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Plaintiffs' Claims Dismissed w/o Prejudice STRATA CRITICAL: Litigation Ongoing in "Drulias" SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settlement in Sampson Gets Final Nod SUBARU OF AMERICA: Wins Final OK of "Sampson" Class Settlement SUNOCO INC: 10th Cir. Affirms in Part Final Judgment in Cline Suit TAPESTRY INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 21, 2026 TEGNA INC: Discovery Ongoing in Advertising Suit THORNE RESEARCH: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TOWNE MORTGAGE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Shelton Alleges UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Bid to Reconsider Class Certification Denied UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Bid to Seal Class Cert Hearing Transcript OK'd VENTURE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Virginia VENTURE GLOBAL: New York Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed VIALE OLIMPICO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ventura Alleges WELLS FARGO: Parties Seek More Time to File Docs Under Seal X CORP: Modified Scheduling Order in Gerber Entered XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Awaits Approval of Settlement on "McGill" XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Awaits Ruling in Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ZOA ENERGY: "Gershzon" Settlement Wins Preliminary Court Approval ********* ALASKA AIRLINES: Marecheau Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESLEY MARECHEAU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-03780-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Feb. 19, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court as follows for an order granting certification of the following class and subclasses: The Class "All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt ground employees who worked for the Defendant within the State of California at any time during the period from Dec. 6, 2019, up to the deadline, to be determined by the Court at a later date, by which class members may opt-out after being provided notice of certification (the "Class Period") whom the Defendant paid based on rounded time rather than actual hours worked." Inaccurate Wage Statement Subclass "All members of the Class who worked for any Defendant within the State of California on or after Dec. 6, 2022." Waiting Time Subclass "All members of the Class who ended their employment with any Defendant on or after Dec. 6, 2020." The Plaintiff also seeks for an order: -- appointing Plaintiff Wesley Marecheau as the class representative; -- appointing David Yeremian and Arsiné Grigoryan of D.Law, Inc., as class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and -- requiring Defendant Alaska Airlines to provide to Plaintiff Wesley Marecheau a list of all class members, including their names, social security numbers, last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, and last known addresses for class notice purposes, within 30 days following this Court's order granting class certification. Alternatively, the Plaintiff requests that the Court exercise its broad discretion and certify narrower or broader classes that the Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff Wesley Marecheau was undercompensated $259 during his employment with the Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc. The Defendant has a one-way rounding policy that all but requires employees to clock in early for their shifts. After they clock in, employees are under Defendant's control; they cannot leave the premises or engage in personal activities. However, the Defendant concededly does not start paying its employees until their scheduled shift start times. The Defendant is an airline company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bAyQCf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. Arsine Grigoryan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 Email: d.yeremian@d.law a.grigoryan@d.law ALDI INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weller Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN WELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ALDI INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-14088 (N.D. Il., Nov. 18, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Weller was employed by the Defendant as a warehouse picker. Aldi Inc. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers groceries, meat, fresh produce, wine, beer, beverages, and other home products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. Sommers Schwartz, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Ave., Ste. 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7501 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Llerena Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- BRUNO LLERENA AND CHRISTOPHER ROSELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Allstate Insurance Company, North Light Specialty Insurance Company, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-09915 (N.D. Cal., November 18, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff challenging the systemic and unlawful insurance scheme conceived and implemented by both Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and North Light Specialty Insurance Company in violation of the California Insurance Code, Business and Professions Code, and Public Utilities Code. California law mandates that Transportation Network Companies like Lyft, Inc. provide their passengers and drivers with a $1,000,000 primary policy of Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage. According to the complaint, in a bid to win Lyft's lucrative statewide insurance contract, the Defendants engineered an unlawful UM/UIM product that systematically violates California law. The Defendants' policy contains illegal provisions that render its UM/UIM coverage secondary, not primary, and that unlawfully excludes entire categories of damages, such as all medical expenses for injured drivers. This scheme allowed Defendants to offer artificially low premiums to Lyft by drastically reducing its own risk exposure, gaining a decisive competitive advantage at the direct expense of Lyft's customers who fund the unlawful policy. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of a broad class of California Lyft customers and a nested subclass of those passengers who also purchased their own rides, seek to hold Defendants accountable for this systemic scheme. They seek a judicial declaration that Defendants' insurance policy and practices are unlawful, and the recovery of all available monetary relief, including full restitution for the broader class of purchasers, and contract, tort, and punitive damages for the subclass of direct passenger-insureds. Allstate Insurance Company is an insurance company incorporated in Illinois offering automobile, homeowners, and other lines of insurance throughout the United States, including within California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 630 1st Ave, Suite 219 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 299-5879 Facsimile: (619) 354-7281 - and - Michael A. VanGalio, Esq. VANGALIO LAW CORP 7710 Hazard Center Dr. Suite E401 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (805) 720-3938 E-mail: michael@vangaliolaw.com AMBAC FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend COFINA Suit ------------------------------------------------ Ambac Financial Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action lawsuit brought by alleged former holders of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation ("COFINA"). Dwight Jereczek and Stanley Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MBIA Inc., Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Ambac Assurance Corporation, MBIA Insurance Corporation, and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, filed on February 12, 2025) (the "COFINA Case"). This putative class action complaint is brought by alleged former holders of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation ("COFINA") allegedly insured by defendants under financial guaranty insurance policies. On behalf of themselves and all persons and entities that owned such bonds between October 19, 2018, and February 12, 2019, plaintiffs allege that, in connection with the restructuring of COFINA under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly use their role in the Title III process to alter contracts with insured COFINA bondholders, resulting in such bondholders receiving less than what they contracted for under the financial guaranty insurance policies. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and bad faith refusal to pay first-party benefits under an insurance contract. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages with interest thereon, disgorgement of profits, a declaratory judgment of plaintiffs' rights and defendants' responsibilities, and a permanent injunction against violations of law. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2025. The amended complaint includes an additional claim against Ambac for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks punitive damages from all defendants. On May 8, 2025, the summons and amended complaint were served on Ambac. On May 29, 2025, Ambac filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Title III court. MBIA Inc., MBIA Insurance Corporation, and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (together, "National") filed a joinder to Ambac's request for transfer on the same day, and subsequently filed their own motion to dismiss on June 18, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Ambac's motion to dismiss or transfer on July 5, 2025; Ambac filed a reply in support of its motion on August 8, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to National's motion to dismiss on July 25, 2025; National filed a reply in support of its motion on August 14, 2025. On August 28, 2025, Plaintiffs sought leave to file further briefing in opposition to National's motion to dismiss; National filed a response to Plaintiffs' request on August 29, 2025. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request on October 4, 2025, and Plaintiffs filed their surreply in opposition to National's motion on October 14, 2025. On August 21, 2025, the Court found good cause to delay issuing a scheduling order in this matter. The Court entered an order directing Plaintiffs to file a notice stating their position with respect to a stay of discovery. Plaintiffs filed their notice on September 8, 2025. On September 19, 2025, Defendants filed a motion seeking leave to respond to Plaintiffs' notice, along with their proposed response; the Court granted Defendants' request to file their response on October 4, 2025. ANGEION GROUP: Sued Over Deceptive Class Administration Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brooke Tennery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGEION GROUP LLC, EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION, TREMENDOUS LLC, BLACKHAWK NETWORK HOLDINGS, INC., DIGITAL SETTLEMENT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a DIGITAL DISBURSEMENTS PAYMENTS, HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, and WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01982-SGC (N.D. Ala., November 17, 2025) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Administrator Defendants, for engaging in a manipulative and deceptive scheme to obtain millions of dollars in undisclosed compensation for serving as the court-approved settlement administrators in mass tort and class action lawsuits across the U.S. According to the complaint, sometime during 2021 -- when the interest rates in the United States started rising -- Administrator Defendants entered into an ongoing agreement with each other to increase the cost and price of class administration services, including by having Bank Defendants pay them the interest and investments earned on class action settlement deposits that would have otherwise been distributed to class member and used to pay down the cost of class administration services. In order to induce settlement administrators to use digital payment platforms, FinTech companies and bank subsidiaries, including defendants Blackhawk and Tremendous and Digital Disbursements, share a portion of the breakage with settlement administrators like Defendants. Defendants have failed to disclose these kickbacks to Plaintiff, Class Members or the courts. Instead, Administrator Defendants have taken measures, including forming special purpose entities to conceal their receipt of kickbacks from the FinTech Defendants. Administrator Defendants simply pocket the money, nearly all of which is pure profit, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff brings this action to bring an end to Defendants' clandestine practices, enjoin them from continued use of the kickbacks for their own benefit, to compensate the class members for the harm caused by Defendants' illegal conduct, and to stop the anticompetitive practices that the Defendants have carried on, which has depressed payouts substantially in class actions in the United States. Angeion Group LLC is a class action administration company that maintains its principal executive offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Kirk Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000 P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 Facsimile: (866) 579-8110 E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com APOLLO GLOBAL: PlayAGS Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative class action complaint filed against PlayAGS Inc. remains pending. On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against PlayAGS Inc. ("PlayAGS"), all of the members of PlayAGS's board of directors (including three directors who are affiliated with Apollo), certain underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), as well as AAM, Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC (these last four parties, together, the "Apollo Defendants"). The complaint asserted claims against all defendants arising under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain secondary offerings of PlayAGS stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019, alleging that the registration statements issued in connection with those offerings did not fully disclose certain business challenges facing PlayAGS. The complaint further asserted a control person claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors affiliated with Apollo), alleging such defendants were responsible for certain misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business. On December 2, 2022, the Court dismissed all claims against the underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC) and the Apollo Defendants, but allowed a claim against PlayAGS and two of PlayAGS's executives to proceed. On February 13, 2024, the Court dismissed the entire case against all defendants, with prejudice, and instructed the clerk of the court to close the case. On March 27, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, in full, the District Court's dismissal of claims against all defendants. On May 9, 2025, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On June 6, 2025, the panel unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Plaintiffs' time to challenge the panel's denial of the petition for rehearing en banc has expired. APOLLO GLOBAL: Stockholder Suit Remains Pending in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a purported stockholder class action lawsuit remains pending in a Delaware court. On March 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of AGM filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against AGM. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain provisions of the stockholders agreement, entered into on January 1, 2022 between AGM and the Former Managing Partners, violate Delaware law. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. On July 11, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss. On August 7, 2024, the court entered an order staying the motion to dismiss pending the resolution of the appeal of the decision in West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Moelis & Co., 311 A.3d 809 (Del. Ch. 2024). No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: "Shapiro" Remains Pending in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- Assertio Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative securities class action lawsuit styled Shapiro v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00169, remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On January 5, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that Assertio and certain of its current and former executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding the likely impact of INDOCIN sales and the Spectrum Merger on Assertio's profitability (the "Shapiro class action"). On April 11, 2024, the court appointed Continental General Insurance Company as the lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 10, 2024, that names as defendants Assertio and certain of its current and former officers and directors, and Spectrum and certain of its former officers and directors. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") between March 9, 2023 and January 3, 2024, and violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the proxy statement issued in connection with the Spectrum Merger. The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the court. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on August 9, 2024; the plaintiff filed its opposition brief on October 10, 2024; and the defendants filed their reply brief on November 14, 2024. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling in Bid to Dismiss "Enyart" ----------------------------------------------------------- Assertio Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling on its motion to dismiss the putative securities class action lawsuit styled Enyart v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et. al. In the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois, Case No. 2024LA00000842. On November 8, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by an alleged former Spectrum shareholder who received Assertio shares in the Spectrum Merger, alleging that Assertio and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the registration statement for the Assertio shares issued in connection with the Spectrum Merger. In general terms, the complaint alleges that the registration statement contained misrepresentations and omissions related to the value of adding ROLVEDON to Assertio's portfolio of products and the risk to Assertio's business from potential generic competition to INDOCIN. The complaint sought compensatory damages, rescission or a recessionary measure of damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. On June 24, 2025, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, while granting leave to re-plead with respect to certain claims. On July 18, 2025, Enyart filed an amended complaint. On September 29, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Enyart's response is due November 21, 2025, and the defendants' reply is due December 18, 2025. The court has scheduled oral arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss to take place on January 22, 2026. The court has not yet set a schedule for the defendants' response to the amended complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Christiansen" ----------------------------------------------------- Assertio Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative securities class action lawsuit styled Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292. On December 5, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "New York Action"). Three additional related putative securities class action lawsuits were subsequently filed by Spectrum shareholders against Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Osorio-Franco v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292 (filed December 5, 2022); Cummings v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10677 (filed December 19, 2022); and Carneiro v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00767 (filed January 30, 2023). These three additional New York lawsuits allege that Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers made false or misleading statements about, inter alia, the safety and efficacy of and clinical trial data for poziotinib in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek remedies including damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the court. The court consolidated the three additional New York lawsuits and entered an order designating Steven Christiansen as the lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff Christiansen filed an amended consolidated complaint in the New York Action under the caption Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al., on May 30, 2023, alleging a Class Period between March 17, 2022 and September 2022. On January 23, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to five of the challenged statements but denied the motion to dismiss as to two specific statements. On October 25, 2024, a Spectrum stockholder (Ayoub) filed a substantially similar putative securities class action complaint asserting the same claims against the same defendants on behalf of the same alleged class as the New York Action. On October 30, 2024, Christiansen and Ayoub jointly moved for class certification and for appointment as class representatives in the New York Action. On November 4, 2024, defendants moved to disqualify Christiansen from serving as lead plaintiff and for a stay of proceedings pending appointment of a substitute lead plaintiff. On November 6, 2024, the court entered an order staying both cases pending resolution of the defendants' motion to disqualify Mr. Christiansen as lead plaintiff. On August 4, 2025, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to disqualify Christiansen from serving as lead plaintiff and reopening the lead plaintiff appointment process with applications to serve as substitute lead plaintiff due by September 24, 2025. Three individuals filed applications to serve as lead plaintiff, with one ultimately withdrawing from consideration. The two remaining applications (including one from Ayoub) are fully briefed and awaiting consideration by the court. The case otherwise remains stayed. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Settlement in "Luo" Wins Final Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------- Assertio Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement agreement entered in the putative securities class action lawsuit styled Luo v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01612, has obtained final approval from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. On August 31, 2021, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers and directors made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about Spectrum's business and the prospects of approval for its Biologic License Application ("BLA") to the FDA for ROLVEDON in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On July 28, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel for the putative class. On September 26, 2022, an amended complaint was filed alleging, inter alia, false and misleading statements with respect to ROLVEDON manufacturing operations and controls and adding allegations that defendants misled investors about the efficacy of, clinical trial data and market need for poziotinib during a Class Period of March 7, 2018 to August 5, 2021. The amended complaint sought damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the court. On October 7, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Some of the claims were dismissed with prejudice, and some claims plaintiffs were permitted to replead. On April 10, 2025, the parties provided a joint notice to the court that they reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter, and on May 9, 2025, the parties submitted formal settlement papers to the court for preliminary approval. As identified in the settlement papers submitted to the court, the parties agreed to a settlement of $16.0 million, of which the Company was responsible for paying approximately $2.7 million, with insurance covering the remainder. During the second quarter of 2025, the $16.0 million liability was recorded in Accrued liabilities, while the $13.3 million insurance receivable was recorded in Prepaid and other current assets, in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. In June 2025, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, and thereafter in July 2025, the Company and the insurers funded an escrow account with the settlement proceeds, resulting in derecognition of the insurance receivable and liability. The court granted final approval of the settlement at a hearing on October 20, 2025. AYAT LLC: Jimenez and Montoya Sue Over Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------------- Johan Santiago Avila Jimenez, and Senon Martinez Montoya, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiffs v. Ayat LLC, and Elenani Abdelrahman (a/k/a Abdul Rahman Elenani) (a/k/a Abdul Elenani), Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06346 (E.D.N.Y., November 14, 2025), seeks redress for Defendants' prolonged pattern of delay, misrepresentation, and bad faith in the course of attempted pre-litigation resolution. The Plaintiffs were employed as non-managerial employees. During the relevant period, the Defendants failed to produce a single record, document, or item of information necessary for Plaintiffs to meaningfully participate in mediation or evaluate the merits of Defendants' position. Despite repeated requests, the Defendants withheld all responsive materials and offered only assurances that production would be forthcoming. Allegedly, after months of delay and repeated promises, the Defendants abruptly withdrew from the proposed mediation process without explanation or justification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this lawsuit seeking recovery, for themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, against the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and their supporting New York Department of Labor's Regulations. Ayat LLC owns and operates restaurants in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2458 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com BANK OF AMERICA: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAGOUB M. MOHAMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01283-BAH (D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff Yagoub M. Mohamed, with the agreement of Defendant, Bank of America, N.A., requests that this Court grant his Motion, allow Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification on or before including March 23, 2026, with the Defendant's opposition motion due May 15, 2026, and for such further relief that is just and equitable. Because of the progress of discovery, including BANA's production of approximately 31,500 pages of documents and multiple meet-and-confer sessions, the Parties have agreed to a mutual extension of time through and including March 23, 2026, for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification, with BANA's opposition motion due May 15, 2026. A Proposed Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. This is the Parties’ first request to adjust a deadline set forth in the Modified Scheduling Order. The Parties made two prior requests for extension of the Court's original Scheduling Order dated May 1, 2024, including on September 13, 2024, and December 12, 2024, both of which the Court granted. The Parties do not make this request for purposes of delay or other improper reason. The Defendant is a financial institution. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QKKLSQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 328-3100 Facsimile: (434) 328-3101 E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com BARK INC: Court Certifies Class in "Kenville" --------------------------------------------- Bark, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a Delaware court has certified a class in the lawsuit styled Kenville v. Northern Star Sponsor LLC, et al. On March 20, 2024, three alleged shareholders filed a putative class action complaint in the lawsuit styled Kenville v. Northern Star Sponsor LLC, et al., Case No. 2024-276, which is pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On September 30, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint is currently pending against (a) certain officers and directors of Northern Star Acquisition Corp. at the time of its proposed acquisition of Legacy BARK, and (b) Northern Star Sponsor, LLC. The claims alleged are for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On October 31, 2025, the court certified the class, which consists of Company stockholders who held stock as of the redemption deadline and who elected not to redeem all or some of their stock. At this time, the Company is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the case is in its early stages. BEACHBODY CO: Agrees to Settle "Lyons" -------------------------------------- The Beachbody Company, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has reached a settlement in the putative class action lawsuit filed by Jessica Lyons. On May 22, 2023, Jessica Lyons, an individual, and a group of other plaintiffs filed a class action complaint with the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company misclassified its Partners as contractors rather than as employees and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. The Company understands that the plaintiffs in this matter intend on filing additional claims under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004. The Company and certain executive officers are listed as defendants in the complaint. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration in the case. The firm representing Ms. Lyons has also filed 28 arbitration actions in Los Angeles County in anticipation that the Company's motion to compel arbitration will be upheld. "We have continued to deny the allegations in the complaint and have vigorously defended ourselves in this action. As of October 7, 2025, the parties have reached a tentative settlement that will result in a dismissal of all claims, including all 28 filed arbitrations," the Company stated. BEACHBODY CO: Continues to Defend "Reilly" ------------------------------------------ The Beachbody Company, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action lawsuit filed by Bryan Reilly. On June 14, 2024, Bryan Reilly on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former stockholders of Forest Road Acquisition Corp., which later became the Beachbody Company, Inc. ("Forest Road"), filed a verified class action complaint (the "Reilly Action") in the Delaware Chancery Court against the former directors and officers of Forest Road, as well as Forest Road Acquisition Sponsor LLC, Forest Road Company LLC, Zach Tarica, and Jeremy Tarica (together the "Forest Road Sponsor Defendants") alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the merger among Forest Road, The Beachbody Company, Inc., and Myx in 2021 (the "Merger"). The lawsuit also brought claims against the Company, Kevin Meyer, and The Raine Group LLC ("Raine") alleging aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and against the former Forest Road directors and officers, the Forest Road Sponsor Defendants, Raine, and Meyer for unjust enrichment. We also have certain indemnification obligations as to some or all of the former Forest Road directors and Raine as to certain claims. The Reilly Action generally alleges that the proxy that Forest Road issued prior to the Merger contained numerous material misstatements and omissions that impaired the Forest Road stockholders' ability to make an informed decision regarding whether to redeem their stock in connection with the Merger. The plaintiff also asserts that the Merger was a conflicted transaction because the Forest Road Sponsor Defendants and the former Forest Road directors were incentivized to close the Merger even if it was a value-decreasing transaction for Forest Road's public stockholders. As to the Company, Meyer, and Raine, the complaint alleges that these defendants aided and abetted the Forest Road defendants' disclosure violations. On December 5, 2024, the plaintiffs in the Reilly Action dismissed without prejudice the aiding and abetting claims against the Company and Raine. Consequently, the Company is not currently a party to the litigation but its indemnification obligation as to certain of the remaining defendant directors remains. On July 1, 2025, the Defendants in the Reilly Action filed a Motion to Dismiss action before the Delaware Chancery Court. On September 30, 2025, this Motion was granted, dismissing the action with prejudice and giving the Plaintiffs thirty days to file an appeal. On October 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal for the Reilly Action, with full briefing to be submitted in January 2026. BELGIOIOSO CHEESE: FLSA Settlement in Hermans Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN HERMANS, JESSICA MICHIELS, and JOHN DARKINS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. BELGIOIOSO CHEESE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00533-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Griesbach entered an order Approving Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement and Preliminarily Approving Rule 23 Class Action Settlement. 1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the Rule 23 class action settlement. Further, for all of the same reasons, and because Rule 23 standards exceed those of FLSA collective treatment, the Court approves the FLSA settlement. 2. Pursuant to the FLSA, the Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, an FLSA collective of current and former hourly employees of Defendants who engaged in production work, who, before clocking in at the beginning of their shift, donned (put on) sanitary gear at Defendant’s Wisconsin and New York facilities, and/or after clocking out at the end of their shift, doffed (removed) sanitary gear at Wisconsin and New York facilities, and worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek from April 14, 2022, through Nov. 15, 2025, and which includes Representative Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs. 3. Pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class of current and former hourly employees of Defendants who engaged in production work, who, before clocking in at the beginning of their shift, donned (put on) sanitary gear at Defendant’s Wisconsin facilities, and/or after clocking out at the end of their shift, doffed (removed) sanitary gear at Defendant’s Wisconsin facilities, and worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek from April 14, 2023, through Nov. 15, 2025. 4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class of current and former hourly employees of Defendants who engaged in production work, who, before clocking in at the beginning of their shift, donned (put on) sanitary gear at Defendant’s New York facilities, and/or after clocking out at the end of their shift, doffed (removed) sanitary gear at Defendant’s New York facilities, and worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek from April 14, 2019, through November 15, 2025. 5. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Representative Plaintiffs Austin Hermans, Jessica Michiels, and John Darkins to serve as Class Representatives. 6. For settlement purposes only, the Court appoints Nilges Draher LLC as Class Counsel because they meet all of the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). BelGioioso is a cheese manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cCGxKU at no extra charge.[CC] BIOCERES CROP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Argentina ---------------------------------------------------------- Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp. disclosed in a Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed in an Argentina court. "In Argentina, a class action suit has been filed against Bioceres S.A. (from whom we license HB4 technology), certain biotechnology companies and the national government. The class action plaintiffs request that GMO foods be mandatorily labelled as such and that measures be taken to protect land use, among others. "As we license HB4 technology from Bioceres S.A, if such action were to be decided unfavorably, we would no longer be able to sell products that contain HB4 technology in Argentina, which would have a significant negative impact on our revenue. As of the date of this report, the plaintiffs' request for injunctions against GMO approvals were rejected by the Federal Court of Appeals and an injunction appealed before the Argentine Supreme Court was also rejected," the Company stated. BIOGEN INC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply in Shash ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADIA SHASH and AMJAD KHAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, and ALFRED W. SANDROCK, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-10479-IT (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file the sur-reply and accompanying declaration attached to the Soloway Declaration. The Defendants move this Court to enter an order granting them leave to file a 15-page sur-reply on the pending motion for class certification filed by Lead Plaintiff Nadia Shash and additional Plaintiffs Amjad Khan and Albert Aftoora. The proposed sur-reply addresses only price impact, an issue on which Defendants bear the burden of persuasion, and arguments advanced for the first time in Plaintiffs' 25-page reply brief and 56-page reply expert report. The Plaintiffs oppose this request. They argue that a sur-reply is unnecessary because Plaintiffs addressed price impact in their opening brief. However, Plaintiffs' opening papers scarcely discussed price impact, and their expert expressly declined to offer an opinion on price impact, stating his intention to wait until he reviewed Defendants' expert report to "form a conclusion or not." The Plaintiffs have moved to certify a class of: "All persons or entities who acquired Biogen stock from July 22, 2020, the date of the one remaining alleged misstatement (the "July 22 Statement"), to Nov. 6, 2020." Biogen is a multinational biotechnology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pSSKam at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Audra J. Soloway, Esq. Richard C. Tarlowe, Esq. Daniel S. Sinnreich, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 Facsimile: (212) 757-3990 E-mail: asoloway@paulweiss.com rtarlowe@paulweiss.com dsinnreich@paulweiss.com - and - William J. Trach, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 200 Clarendon Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 948-6000 Facsimile: (617) 948-6001 E-mail: william.trach@lw.com BJH HOLDINGS: Moye Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY MOYE, and DAYJAH COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BJH HOLDINGS III CORP. and JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01996-SG (N.D. Ala., November 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' name and Social Security Number. The Defendants disclosed that they were subject to a cyberattack between July 14, 2025, and August 10, 2025. The Defendants investigated the data breach and confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed Defendants' systems that day. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs brings this action against Defendants seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access. BJH Holdings III Corp. is a holding corporation and the parent company of Jack's Family Restaurants. Jack's is a privately held fast-food restaurant chain headquartered in Homewood, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PTTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 110 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com BRIDGE HOUSING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Assadzadeh Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH ASSADZADEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09899 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered an injury-in-fact and have lost money or property. Bridge Housing Corporation operates as a real estate company. The Company offers real estate development, property and asset management, resident, and community services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market Street, Ste 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com agunem@straussborrell.com BROOKSIDE FARMS: Approval of Worker Notice Held in Abeyance ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CELESTE WHITTLE, et al., v. BROOKSIDE FARMS, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00713-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Jarbou entered an order that the Plaintiffs' amended opposed motion for approval of notice to similarly situated workers pursuant to 29 USC section 216(b) and an Order to produce contact information is held in abeyance pending supplemental briefing, to be filed by Jan. 23, 2026. The Court further entered an order that, by Jan. 9, 2026, the Defendants shall produce payroll records for any non-citizens employed by Brookside, including any information regarding timecards, and any communications between Brookside and farm labor contractors for the years 2022 through 2024. The deadline for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' first request for production of documents is extended until Dec. 31, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mJ8HPp at no extra charge.[CC] BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE: Filing for Class Cert Due June 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD DIXSON, JR., v. BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08675-MWC-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered a civil trial order as follows: Trial: Feb. 22, 2027 Final Pretrial Conference, Hearing on Feb. 12, 2027 Motions in Limine: Last date to hear motion to amend Jan. 16, 2026 pleadings or add parties: Last date to file class certification June 3, 2026 motion: Fact discovery cut-off: Aug. 21, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Sept. 25, 2026 Builders is a manufacturer and supplier of building materials. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=as6MuK at no extra charge.[CC] CANNAE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit in Delaware --------------------------------------------- Cannae Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on October 23, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the caption, New England Teamsters Pension Fund and Daniel Clark v. William P. Foley II, Anthony M. Jabbour, Thomas M. Hagerty, Douglas K. Ammerman, and Cannae Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2025-1220. The plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants, each of whom served as an officer and/or director of Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. at the relevant time, breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the August 26, 2025 sale of D&B to a private equity firm. Specifically, the complaint asserts that the transaction undervalued D&B's stock, resulting in inadequate cash consideration for its stockholders. The plaintiffs further allege that certain of the individual defendants' knowledge should be imputed to the Company, and on that basis, include a claim against the Company for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, monetary damages, and other equitable relief. They also seek to certify a class comprising all former D&B stockholders who exchanged their shares for cash in the transaction, excluding the defendants and any individuals who were officers or directors of D&B at the time the transaction closed. The Company intends to respond to the lawsuit in a timely manner and will vigorously defend against the plaintiffs' claims. CAPITAL ONE: Ct. Reconsiders Order Denying Bid to Seal in "Hoard" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Azlynne Hoard and Chiquita Plenty, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Capital One, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-1133 JLS (VET) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendant Capital One, N.A.'s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Order Denying Motions to Seal. The Court construed Defendant's Motion as an Amended Motion to Seal and permitted sealing of documents containing sensitive business information related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On October 28, 2025, the Court denied various motions to seal filed by the Parties, including Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Defendant requested that the Court reconsider in part its Order denying the motions to seal. As Defendant's present Motion contains a sufficient explanation for each document it seeks to seal in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and its Opposition thereto, the Court construed Defendant's Motion as an Amended Motion to Seal. The Defendant asserted that portions of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and various attached exhibits, as well as Defendant's Opposition thereto and various attached exhibits, warrant sealing. Each document contains sensitive and confidential business information, which would be competitively harmful if publicly revealed. Such information relates to, among other things, the processing and coding of credit card transactions and assessment of cash advance fees, present and future strategic projects, proprietary data regarding credit card transactions, and Defendant's approach to classifying credit card transactions and assessing cash advance fees. Public disclosure of such information would harm Defendant because it could be leveraged by Defendant's competitors and vendors to gain unfair advantages in emulating, competing against, and negotiating with Defendant in the future. Having independently reviewed the documents Defendant seeks to seal, the Court found that Defendant has met the compelling reasons standard. As Defendant contends, the documents contain sensitive and confidential business information, and courts generally find it appropriate to seal business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing. Defendant has made a particularized showing as to the basis for sealing each document. Additionally, the Court found that Defendant's requests to seal are narrowly tailored to the portions of the documents containing confidential and sensitive business information. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's Motion. The Clerk of the Court shall file under seal numerous documents including Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification with specified redactions, multiple exhibits from Plaintiffs' Motion in their entirety, Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification with specified redactions, and various opposition exhibits with redactions as indicated by the Parties. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qCiqZs from PacerMonitor.com CAPITAL ONE: Paypal Seeks Denial of Bids to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA PLENTY, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET (S.D. Cal.), Non-Party Paypal, Inc. asks the Court to enter an order denying motions to file documents under seal. PayPal files motion to Intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and Application for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Oct. 28, 2025 Order denying the Parties' motions to seal pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(i), before the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino, in Courtroom 4D of the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse at 221 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101. In particular, PayPal seeks to maintain under seal the following documents or portions of documents: The Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of motion for class certification, at pages 6:17-20, 6:26-28, 7:8-9, and 7:25-26; The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Exhibit 10, at portions of pages PAYPAL_003554, PAYPAL_003557, and PAYPAL_003560-63; The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Exhibit 14, at pages 17:19-20, 19:14-16, 19:20-21, 19:23-24, 23:2-3, 24:13-14, 25:19-22, 26:1-5, 28:4-24, 29:3, 29:5-8, 29:15-17, 29:23-25, 30:3-4, 31:20-21, 33:2-6, 33:10 11, 33:18-19, 37:6-7, 38:21-24, 39:4-8, 41:14, 45:12-16, 45:20-21, 45:25 46:1, 49:23-50:1, 50:3-4, 51:6-7, 53:18-22, 54:2-5, 54:10-23, 54:25-55:7, 55:9-12, 55:14-16, 55:18-20, 55:22-56:2, 56:4-7, 56:12-14, 56:16-20, 57:2 20, 57:22-23, 58:1-4, 58:8-11, 58:13-14, 58:16-17, 59:20-21, 61:3-5, 62:16 18, 62:20, 62:23-24, 63:8-10, 63:18-22, 64:1-2, 67:21-22, 67:25, 68:2-3, 68:12-13, 68:15-16, 68:21-22, 69:1-2, 69:8, 69:11-12, 69:14, 69:19, 69:24 25, 91:12-16, 92:4-6, 92:10-12, 92:14-15, 92:21-22, 92:24-25, 93:2-7, 93:12 13, 93:17-19, 94:4-6, 94:9-12, 94:18-21, 94:23-24, 95:2-8, 105:4-6, 105:8 13, 105:15-16, 105:19-21, 105:23-106:3, 106:6-15, 107:3-6, and 116-144; The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Exhibit 21; The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Exhibit 23; The Defendant's opposition to class certification, Exhibit 10, at portions of pages 59, 61-62, and 69. The Defendant's opposition to Class Certification, Exhibit 11, at the redacted portions of pages 14 and 29; and The Defendant's opposition to class certification, Exhibit 16, at pages 30:3-4, 31:20-21, 33:2-6, 33:10-11, and 33:18-19. In this action, the Plaintiffs Azlynne Hoard and Chiquita Plenty allege that Defendant Capital One, N.A. improperly charged them cash advance fees associated with transactions occurring on PayPal and Venmo. Specifically, between April and August 2025, the Parties issued PayPal various iterations of subpoenas for documents and deposition testimony. On August 15, Plaintiffs moved for class certification, with a hearing noticed for January 13, 2026. The Defendant operates as a bank. A copy of the Paypal's motion dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VgB7Ba at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Third-Party PAYPAL, INC., are: Megan O'Neill, Esq. Erik P. Mortensen, Esq. Richard Jagdishwar Millett, Esq. DTO LAW 702 Marshall Street, Suite 640 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (415) 630-4100 Facsimile: (415) 630-4105 E-mail: moneill@dtolaw.com emortensen@dtolaw.com rmillett@dtolaw.com CLINT MILLER: Bid to Reformulate Class Definition in Iasella OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN IASELLA, for himself and for others similarly situated, v. CLINT MILLER, Case No. 3:25-cv-00032-HRH (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge H. Russel Holland entered an order granting motion to reformulate the class definition to be used in the Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Class Certification as follows: "All persons, who entered into a contract with Defendant Clint Miller to act as a Hunting Guide in the State of Alaska at any time within the preceding 2 years from the filing of this Complaint, and continuing through the present, and who were not provided the guide service, and were not refunded the fees they paid to Defendant Miller." A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TVYDrD at no extra charge.[CC] CONNEXION POINT: Seeks Prohibition to Send Revised Notice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARYANN CRUZ individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CONNEXION POINT, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, and INTEGRITY, LLC, f/k/a INTEGRITY MARKETING GROUP a Texas Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00966-TC-DBP (D. Utah), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: (1) prohibiting Plaintiff from sending the Revised Notice in its current form to conditionally certified collective members, and (2) requiring Plaintiff to modify the Revised Notice to add to the section entitled "the consequences of joining this lawsuit," the language from Saenz as cited in the Conditional Certification Order: If you choose to join this lawsuit, you will be bound by any judgment, favorable or unfavorable, on any claim you may have under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). If you win, you may be eligible to share in the monetary award, including overtime wages and liquidated damages. If you lose, no money will be awarded, and you will not be able to file another lawsuit regarding the matters raised in this lawsuit. Also, if plaintiffs lose, they could be responsible for paying court costs and expenses. The Defendants have learned that Plaintiff may send, or may have already sent, noncompliant forms of notice to members of the conditionally certified collective. Specifically, the Court ordered Plaintiff to revise the notice to inform members that they may incur costs in this lawsuit. The Conditional Certification Order did not permit Plaintiff to choose any language that Plaintiff desired, include such language in the location of Plaintiff’s choosing, or authorize unilateral revisions without further review by this Court. The Defendants have repeatedly asked Plaintiff to revise the notice in compliance with the Conditional Certification Order, but Plaintiff has refused to do so. Likewise, Plaintiff has refused to inform Defendants whether the unilaterally revised notice has been sent to members of the collective. Neither the Conditional Certification Order, nor the FLSA authorizes a Plaintiff to unilaterally communicate with putative collective members in a false and misleading fashion. As such, the Court should order Plaintiff to comply with its orders and further prevent Plaintiff from sending unauthorized and noncompliant notices to members of the conditionally certified collective. The notice process is designed to prevent plaintiff’s counsel from freelancing and specifically requires court oversight to ensure individuals are not misled when deciding whether to join a collective action. Connexion is a healthcare services company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oupblk at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David B. Dibble, Esq. RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER 36 South State St., Ste. 1400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 323-3370 E-mail: ddibble@rqn.com - and - Liva M. Kiser, Esq. Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq. Andrew Cockroft, Esq. Michael D. Roth, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 110 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 995-6333 E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com tahlering@kslaw.com acockroft@kslaw.com mroth@kslaw.com COOKY'S DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vigil Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JOEL VIGIL individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHYLLIS MARSILIO; COOKY'S DELI INC.; and PHYLLIS MARSILIO as administratrix/executrix of the estate of MARTIN MARSILIO (deceased), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06402 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Vigil was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher. Cooky's Deli Inc. is a deli and caterer located at 1450 Church Street, Bohemia, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. Monteiro & Fishman LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-453 Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com COUPANG INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Customer Data Leak --------------------------------------------------------------- Kwon Oh-eun, writing for ChosunBiz, reports that Coupang, the country's largest shopping mall, said about 33.7 million items of customer personal information were exposed, prompting moves toward a class-action lawsuit. On the 30th, class-action lawsuit cafés about the Coupang personal information leak were being opened one after another on Naver. Some cafés saw their membership increase by more than 1,000 in a single day. Coupang said that on the first report on the 19th it believed the names, emails and addresses of about 4,536 accounts had been leaked, but additional investigation found the scale of the leak had surged to about 33.7 million. Coupang said, "According to the results investigated so far, the exposed information is order information," adding, "Payment information, including card information, and login-related information are being safely protected." Still, anxiety is growing as the scale of the damage has increased from the initial estimate. On online communities and moms' cafés, posts read, "It's better to change your password too," and "Just in case, I even changed my card PIN." There are also concerns about secondary damage. Customers who use Coupang often write the shared entrance door PIN along with the address for the convenience of delivery workers, raising the possibility it was exposed together. Some also said spam calls and texts are likely to increase. Coupang's response also came under fire. On social media (SNS), users posted comments such as "Is sending a single text all you did?" and "I didn't get the text until a day later," after the company notified customers of the personal information exposure in stages. Coupang said it has blocked the abnormal access route and strengthened internal monitoring. It added, "Please be especially careful about phone calls and text messages impersonating Coupang," and, "We will do our best to quickly resolve customers' inconvenience and concerns." The Ministry of Science and ICT decided to form a public-private joint investigation team in connection with Coupang's massive personal information leak. Police also launched an investigation. [GN] COWAN SYSTEMS: Faces Koon Suit Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS KOON and EDWARD HUMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COWAN SYSTEMS, LLC and SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03783-EA (D. Md., November 18, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other individuals who signed agreements to be lease drivers for Defendant Cowan Systems, which was subsequently acquired by Defendant Schneider National. The complaint is brought pursuant to the Truth-in-Leasing, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the Truth-in-Leasing regulations due to improper, undisclosed and/or excessive deductions from lease drivers' compensation and improper retention of and failure to distribute drivers' escrow funds. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiffs and other lease drivers an hourly rate equal to or exceeding the federal minimum wage for all the hours they worked for Cowan Systems, says the complaint. Plaintiffs Koon and Humes were lease drivers for Defendant Cowan Systems from approximately January 2020 to April 2023 and from approximately January 2022, respectively. Both were employed before and after Cowan Systems' acquisition by Defendant Schneider National. Cowan Systems is a motor carrier licensed with the U.S. Department of Transportation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anisha S. Queen, Esq. BROWN GOLDSTEIN & LEVY LLP 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 2500 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 Facsimile: (410) 385-0869 E-mail: aqueen@browngold.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. Rachel Smit, Esq. Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com rachel@fairworklaw.com oz@fairworklaw.com DEXCOM INC: Faces Dalora Suit Over Mislabeled Glucose Monitor ------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR DALORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEXCOM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03210-WQH-BJW (S.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2025) alleges violation of the California False Advertising Law, and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Defendant's misrepresentations concerning the accuracy and FDA-approval of the Modified continuous glucose monitor ("CGMs") are deceptive, misleading, and false. Defendant continues to wrongfully induce patients, and their caregivers, to purchase the Modified CGMs. The Defendant's misrepresentations allowed it to capitalize on, and reap enormous profits from, reasonable patients and their caregivers who overpaid for the Modified CGMs and did not receive the benefit of their bargain. The Plaintiff relied on the representations described above and other representations by Dexcom about the sensors' performance and convenience, paid for sensors that were not as represented, and received devices that the FDA deemed adulterated and misbranded, suffering economic loss, says the suit. Dexcom, Inc. operates as a medical device company focused on the design and development of continuous glucose monitoring systems for people with diabetes. The Company develops a small implantable device that continuously measures glucose levels in subcutaneous tissue just under the skin and a small external receiver to which the sensor transmits glucose levels at specified intervals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. P. Camille Guerra, Esq. CASEY GERRY FRANCAVILLA BLATT LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 Email: dcasey@cglaw.com DOCGO INC: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- DocGo Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court approval of the settlement entered in the putative securities class action lawsuit pending in a New York court. On October 27, 2023, Joe Naclerio, individually and purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its then-Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer, current Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On January 17, 2024, the Court appointed the Genesee County Employees' Retirement System as the Lead Plaintiff. On March 18, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company, its now former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On June 21, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 28, 2025, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. On April 25, 2025, the remaining defendants answered the complaint. The parties have reached an agreement to settle the action, subject to the approval of the district court. EARL SCOTT: Class Cert. Discovery in Duvall Due July 17, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duvall v. EARL D. SCOTT, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04160 (W.D. Mo., Filed Aug. 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order following schedule related to class certification: Discovery shall be completed on or before July 17, 2026. The Court will not entertain any discovery motion absent full compliance with Local Rule 37.1. A memorandum of the discovery dispute, not to exceed two pages in length, should be electronically submitted by each party no later than twenty-four hours prior to the teleconference. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Aug. 21, 2026. The Defendants' opposition brief shall be filed within 30 days of Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's reply shall be filed within 21 days of Defendants' opposition. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --Civil Rights.[CC] EIDP INC: $22MM Settlement in Principle Reached in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ EIDP, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that a settlement in principle was reached in June 2025 for $22 million, plus funding $1 million annually to a medical monitoring fund for five years with regards to a putative class action brought by persons who live in and around Hoosick Falls, New York where EIDP is a defendant. These lawsuits assert claims for medical monitoring, property damage and personal injury based on alleged perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) releases from manufacturing facilities owned and operated by co-defendants in Hoosick Falls. The lawsuits allege that EIDP and others supplied materials used at these facilities resulting in PFOA air and water contamination. A court approved settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the other co-defendants regarding the Baker Class Action case. In September 2022, the class certification of the Baker Class Action was granted, with the court certifying three separate classes consisting of a private well property damage class, a medical monitoring class and a nuisance class. EIDP, Inc. (formerly known as E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company) is a global provider of performance chemicals based in Delaware. EIDP INC: Ohio State Sues over Environmental Damage --------------------------------------------------- EIDP, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that EIDP is a defendant in two lawsuits, including an action by the State of Ohio based on alleged damage to natural resources. The natural resources damage claim was preliminarily resolved in December 2023 for $110 million. EIDP, Inc. (formerly known as E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company) is a global provider of performance chemicals based in Delaware. ELEVATE CARE: Faces Nino Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN LOPEZ NINO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELEVATE CARE, INC., ELEVATE CARE CHICAGO NORTH, LLC, ELEVATE CARE WAUKEGAN, LLC, ELEVATE CARE RIVERWOODS, LLC, ELEVATE CARE NILES, LLC, ELEVATE CARE NORTHBROOK, LLC, ELEVATE CARE IRVING PARK, LLC, ELEVATE CARE NORTH BRANCH, LLC, ELEVATE CARE ABINGTON, LLC, ELEVATE CARE GLENVIEW, LLC, ELEVATE CARE COUNTRY CLUB HILLS, LLC, ELEVATE CARE WINDSOR PARK, LLC, ELEVATE CARE PALOS HEIGHTS, LLC, and ELEVATE CARE SOUTH HOLLAND, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-14051 (N.D. Ill., November 17, 2025) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, arising from Defendants' unlawful pay practices, including their failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and all earned wages to hourly employees who were required to complete mandatory training modules off-the-clock during the past three years. According to the complaint, the Defendants uniformly enforced a company-wide policy and practice requiring hourly employees in Illinois to complete mandatory training modules outside of their recorded shifts, off-the-clock and without compensation, even when such time, if paid, would have resulted in overtime wages. The Plaintiff and the putative collective and class members seek unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief available at law and in equity. Representative Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a dietary aide at Defendants' Elevate Care Chicago North facility in Chicago, Illinois from approximately March 6, 2025 through September 14, 025. Elevate Care Inc. own and operate a network of healthcare facilities throughout the State of Illinois under the "Elevate Care" brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com ELF BEAUTY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- e.l.f. Beauty, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class action lawsuit pending in a California court. "On March 6, 2025 and April 8, 2025, the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, and our Chief Financial Officer (collectively, "Defendants") were named as defendants in separate purported securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by plaintiffs Luke Rottman and Boston Retirement System. "The complaints in both purported securities class actions allege that Defendants made false or misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek damages and other relief. On May 28, 2025, the court consolidated the two putative securities class action suits, and appointed Boston Retirement System and Metropolitan Employee Benefit System as lead plaintiffs. "Lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 23, 2025. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on September 5, 2025. Lead plaintiffs' opposition to that motion to dismiss was filed on October 22, 2025, and defendants' reply is due November 19, 2025. A hearing is currently scheduled for February 11, 2026," the Company stated. ENCORE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- Encore Energy Corp. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative securities suit pending in a Texas court. On March 14, 2025, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative federal securities class action, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (the "Litigation"). The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 and principally alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) enCore lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; (2) enCore could not capitalize certain exploratory and development costs under U.S. GAAP; and (3) as a result, the Company's net losses would materially increase. The foregoing omissions allegedly made defendants' positive public statements about Company's business, operations, and prospects materially false or misleading and artificially inflated the Company's share price during the class period. The Litigation seeks damages and costs. Management believes that this litigation is preliminary in nature and the Company believes that an adverse outcome is not probable or estimable at this time. ERNESTO SANTACRUZ: Bond Eligible Class Gets Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lazaro Maldonado Bautista et al., v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sykes entered an order that Petitioners’ Motion for Class Certification is granted as to the Bond Eligible Class and denied as to the Adelanto Class. The Bond Eligible Class is certified as to Petitioners' claims that the DHS Policy violates the INA and Due Process. The class certified is defined as follows: Bond Eligible Class: "All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c), section 1225(b)(1), or section 1231 at the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination." The Adelanto Class is denied: "All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have or will have proceedings before the Adelanto Immigration Court; (2) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (3) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (4) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c), section 1225(b)(1), or section 1231 at the time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond hearing." The Court appoints Lazaro Maldonado Bautista as the representative for the Bond Eligible Class. The Court appoints attorneys Niels W. Frenzen and Jean E. Reisz of the USC Gould School of Law Immigration Clinic and Matt Adams, Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Leila Kang, and Aaron Korthuis of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project as class counsel. On Aug. 11, 2025, Petitioners filed this Motion, seeking declaratory relief and vacatur against Respondents’ policies for two proposed classes: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y3Yjyf at no extra charge.[CC] F&G ANNUITIES: Continues to Defend MOVEit Suits ----------------------------------------------- F&G Annuities & Life, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against putative class action lawsuits related to the MOVEit file transfer software. F&G is a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits related to the alleged compromise of certain customers' personal information resulting from an alleged vulnerability in the MOVEit file transfer software. F&G's vendor, Pension Benefit Information, LLC ("PBI"), used the MOVEit software in the course of providing audit and address research services to F&G and many other corporate customers. Miller v. F&G, No. 4:23-cv-00326 was filed against F&G in the Southern District of Iowa on August 31, 2023. Miller alleges that he is a F&G customer whose information was impacted in the MOVEit incident and brings common law tort and implied contract claims. Cooper v. Progress Software Corp., No. 1:23-cv-12067 was filed against F&G and five other defendants in the District of Massachusetts on September 7, 2023. Cooper also alleges that he is a F&G customer and brings similar common law tort claims and alleges claims as a purported third-party beneficiary of an alleged contract. Well over 150 similar lawsuits have been filed against other entities impacted by the MOVEit incident including a number of such lawsuits related to PBI's use of MOVEit. On October 4, 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to handle all litigation brought by individuals whose information was potentially compromised in connection with the alleged MOVEit vulnerability. Both Miller and Cooper have been transferred to the MDL and are consolidated under MDL Case No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL. The case is proceeding under a modified bellwether structure to decide critical issues and facilitate reciprocal discovery, and plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint against all the bellwether Defendants was filed on December 6, 2024. F&G was not selected as a bellwether Defendant, and there is no schedule in place for further proceedings involving the non-bellwether Defendants like F&G. At this time, F&G does not believe the incident will have a material impact on its business, operations, or financial results. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend MOVEit Suit -------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the lawsuit resulting from an alleged vulnerability in the MOVEit file transfer software. "F&G is a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits related to the alleged compromise of certain of F&G's customers' personal information resulting from an alleged vulnerability in the MOVEit file transfer software. F&G's vendor, Pension Benefit Information, LLC ("PBI"), used the MOVEit software in the course of providing audit and address research services to F&G and many other corporate customers. Miller v. F&G, No. 4:23-cv-00326, was filed against F&G in the Southern District of Iowa on August 31, 2023. Miller alleges that he is an F&G customer whose information was impacted in the MOVEit incident and brings common law tort and implied contract claims for damages. Cooper v. Progress Software Corp., No. 1:23-cv-12067, was filed against F&G and five other defendants in the District of Massachusetts on September 7, 2023. Cooper also alleges that he is an F&G customer and brings similar common law tort claims and alleges claims as a purported third-party beneficiary of an alleged contract. "Well over 150 similar lawsuits have been filed against other entities impacted by the MOVEit incident including a number of such lawsuits related to PBI's use of MOVEit. On October 4, 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) created a multidistrict litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to handle all litigation brought by individuals whose information was potentially compromised in connection with the alleged MOVEit vulnerability. Both Miller and Cooper have been transferred to the MDL and consolidated under MDL Case No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL. The case is proceeding under a modified bellwether structure to decide critical issues and facilitate reciprocal discovery, and Plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint against all the bellwether Defendants was filed on December 6, 2024. F&G was not selected as a bellwether Defendant, and there is no schedule in place for further proceedings involving the non-bellwether Defendants like F&G. At this time, we do not believe the incident will have a material impact on our business, operations, or financial results," the Company stated. FINWISE BANCORP: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suits ------------------------------------------------------ Finwise Bancorp disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against several data breach class action lawsuits. In July 2025, the Company notified approximately 600,000 individuals of an alleged data breach in which their personal data was exposed by a former employee following termination of their employment. Subsequently several class action lawsuits were filed, all of which have been consolidated into a single class action lawsuit in Utah federal court. The Company has disputed the claims and is vigorously defending the lawsuit. At the time of filing, the outcome of these matters and any possible related losses or damages are not estimable or probable. FLYWIRE CORP: Faces "Hickman" Securities Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------- Flywire Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on July 25, 2025, the Company and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in a securities class action complaint captioned Hickman v. Flywire Corporation filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased Flywire securities from February 28, 2024, through February 25, 2025. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by purportedly overstating the strength and sustainability of the Company's revenue growth and understating the negative impact of certain government permit and visa related policies on the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The Company believes to have strong defenses against the asserted claims and intends to vigorously defend itself. GALAXY DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ontario -------------------------------------------------------------- Galaxy Digital Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a proposed class action pending in an Ontario court. "In December 2022, a proposed class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GDH Ltd., our Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and our former Chief Financial Officer asserting various claims including alleged misrepresentations relating to our public disclosure regarding investments and trading in the LUNA digital asset. The class action purports to be brought on behalf of a proposed class of persons and entities who acquired our securities on the secondary market from May 17, 2021 to and including May 6, 2022. The class action seeks unspecified damages and various declaratory relief, including leave to proceed with the right of action for misrepresentation under statutory securities provisions. "These proceedings are still in early stages and have not been certified to proceed as a class action. The plaintiff's motion for leave and certification is scheduled to be heard in April 2026. Based on the stage of the case, the outcome remains uncertain, and the Company cannot estimate the potential impact, if any, on its business or financial statements at this time," the Company stated. GLOBAL K9: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bland Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- ARON JOHN BLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP, LLC; and ERIC HARE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13670-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., Nov. 18, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bland was employed by the Defendants as a canine handler. Global K9 Protection Group LLC was founded in 2018. The company's line of business includes providing services for a variety of animals such as operating kennels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel W. Rucker, Esq. Hertz Schram PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (248) 335-5000 Email: drucker@hertzschram.com GREEN DOT: Awaits Prelim OK of Settlement in "Koffsmon" ------------------------------------------------------- Green Dot Corp. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting preliminary court approval of the settlement entered in the alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al. "On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against us and two of our former officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding our business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding our customer acquisition strategy and its impact on our financial performance. "The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. On October 6, 2021, the Court appointed the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and on April 1, 2022, plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on May 31, 2022, and the motion was denied on March 29, 2024. On September 18, 2025, the parties jointly filed a Notice of Settlement, and on October 17, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which is scheduled to be heard on November 21, 2025. "Pursuant to the terms of the settlement (which are subject to final documentation and court approval), we expect to pay $40.0 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of all claims against us and our two former officers. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the settlement amount will be funded from available insurance coverage and this amount, less fees and expenses, will be distributed to purchasers of our securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019 who file valid proofs of claim under procedures to be implemented by the Court. The expected settlement amount has been recorded as of September 30, 2025 within the current portion of other accrued liabilities on our consolidated financial statements, with a corresponding insurance recovery recorded within accounts receivable, net," the Company stated. GREGG ORR: Discovery in Boatright Suit Due August 17, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRETT BOATRIGHT V. GREGG ORR AUTO COLLECTION, INC., et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-06106-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Susan Hickey entered a final scheduling order: Discovery must be completed no later than Aug. 17, 2026. Motions for Class Certification must be filed no later than 90 days after the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conference. Motions to amend pleadings or to join other parties must be filed no later than 60 days before the close of discovery, unless good cause is shown for delay. All dispositive motions must be filed no later than 30 days after the close of discovery. Responses must be filed no later than 14 days from the file date of the motion, and replies, if any, no later than seven (7) days from the file date of the response. All parties must make initial expert witness disclosures no later than 90 days before the close of discovery. Gregg is engaged in the retail sale of new and used automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bXwibJ at no extra charge.[CC] HANNAH SUSHI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Shaw Due May 30, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY SHAW et al., v. HANNAH SUSHI, INC. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00220-TMR-PBS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Rose entered a preliminary pretrial conference order: 1. Required disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1): Nov. 25, 2025 2. Cut-off date for motions to amend the pleadings and to add parties: Jan. 23, 2026 3. Cut-off date for motions directed to the pleadings (including motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings): Jan. 30, 2026 4. Discovery cut-off related to putative members of the class and collective action: May 30, 2026 5. Cut-off date for filing motion for conditional class Certification: May 30, 2026 Further, a Telephone Scheduling Conference shall be set upon this Court's ruling of the motion for conditional class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CBaYap at no extra charge.[CC] HILTON GRAND: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Spam Emails --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Kelley Rice filed a class action lawsuit against Hilton Grand Vacations Inc. Why: Rice alleges Hilton Grand Vacations violated Washington state law by sending spam emails with false or misleading subject lines. Where: The Hilton Grand Vacations class action lawsuit was filed in Washington state court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Hilton Grand Vacations sends spam emails with false or misleading subject lines to consumers in Washington state. Plaintiff Kelley Rice filed the class action complaint against Hilton Grand Vacations on Sept. 30 in Washington state court, alleging violations of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) and the Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit alleges Hilton Grand Vacations spams Washington consumers with commercial emails containing deceptive subject lines, creating a false sense of urgency to entice consumers to engage with its marketing efforts. Rice claims Hilton Grand Vacations' emails waste consumers' time and flood their inboxes with false notifications, steering them away from better deals and pressuring them to purchase its products and services immediately. "Through this deceptive time-sensitivity, HGV falsely narrows the field—steering consumers away from shopping for better deals—to its own products and services which must be purchased now," she says. Hilton Grand Vacations spam emails violate Washington state law, plaintiff claims The lawsuit alleges Hilton Grand Vacations' emails violate the CEMA, a law enacted in 1998 to protect Washington consumers from deceptive spam emails. The law prohibits sending commercial emails with false or misleading subject lines to Washington residents, regardless of whether the emails were solicited or whether consumers relied on the false statements, Rice claims. Rice says these tactics harm consumers by distorting their decision-making and preventing them from considering other options. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of Washington residents who received Hilton Grand Vacations emails with false or misleading subject lines during the past four years. Rice seeks damages, including an injunction against further violations, and treble damages of $500 per violation. In 2024, a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Hilton, Wyndham and four other major hotel chains, claiming they conspired to fix hotel room rental prices nationwide. What do you think of the allegations made in this Hilton Grand Vacations class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Samuel J. Strauss and Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli LLP; Lynn A. Toops, Natalie A. Lyons and Ian R. Bensberg of CohenMalad LLP; and Gerard J. Stranch IV, Michael C. Tackeff and Andrew K. Murray of Stranch Jennings & Garvey PLLC. The Hilton Grand Vacations class action lawsuit is Rice v. Hilton Grand Vacations Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02205, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King. [GN] HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC: Bid for Panel Rehearing in Caston Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting the petition for panel rehearing in the lawsuits entitled ANDREA M. CASTON, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants v. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC., et al., Defendants - Appellees Case No. 24-2920 (9th Cir.); and ANDREA M. CASTON, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellees v. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC. and ROCHE LABORATORIES INC., Defendants - Appellants, and GENENTECH, INC. and GENENTECH USA INC., Defendants, Case No. 24-3349 (9th Cir.). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Judge David F. Hamilton, and Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson, and Circuit Judge Patrick J. Bumatay. The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, sitting by designation. The Panel holds that the memorandum disposition filed on Oct. 7, 2025, Case No. 24-2920, Case No. 24-3349, is amended and the amended memorandum disposition is filed concurrently with this Order. The Panel adds that no future petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained. The matters are appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00928-TLT and D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00928-TLT, Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding). The Appellants, four former servicemembers, appeal the district court's dismissal of their products-liability class action against Hoffmann–La Roche Inc. and Roche Laboratories Inc. ("Roche Defendants") and Genentech, Inc. and Genentech USA, Inc. ("Genentech Defendants"). The Roche and Genentech Defendants cross-appeal, contending that the Appellants lack Article III standing to bring a class action for medical monitoring. According to the Amended Memorandum, the Panel reviews legal questions and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction de novo. The Panel affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands. The Panel finds that the district court erred in dismissing the Appellants' products-liability claims under the political question doctrine based on the FDA's approval of mefloquine. The Panel explains that the political question doctrine is a "narrow exception" that applies only when adjudication will "certainly and inextricably" require courts to decide issues constitutionally committed to another branch. At this stage, the Panel says, it is speculative to consider how the military dimension of the political question doctrine might come into play. The district court may revisit the issue at a later stage of this litigation. The Panel finds that the district court correctly concluded there is no general or specific jurisdiction over the Roche Defendants. Thus, the Panel affirms the dismissal of claims against the Roche Defendants, but without prejudice and based only on lack of personal jurisdiction. Instead of damages for the alleged injuries caused by mefloquine, the Appellants seek a medical-monitoring program to redress any potential future neurological and psychiatric injuries caused by the anti-malarial drug. As currently pled, the Panel notes that it is unclear whether medical monitoring would redress the Appellants' alleged future harms against the remaining Genentech Defendants. Because amendment may resolve these potential standing deficiencies against the Genentech Defendants, the Panel remands with instructions to allow the Appellants to amend their complaint to clarify how the requested monitoring program would likely redress their alleged injuries. Finally, the Panel cannot affirm dismissal of claims against the Genentech Defendants on the alternative ground of preemption under the reasoning of PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011). All parties on appeal agree that the Genentech Defendants are not generic manufacturers of mefloquine. The Panel expresses no view as to whether the Plaintiffs' claims against the Genentech Defendants may be preempted for reasons other than that the Genentech Defendants are generic manufacturers. The Panel denies as moot the Appellants' motion to dismiss the cross-appeal, and grants Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's motion for leave to file an amicus brief. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/k4dkr4cf from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- Jasper Therapeutics, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on September 19, 2025, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Grant v. Jasper Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (Case No. 25-cv-08010) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint alleges that certain material misstatements or omissions related to the ongoing clinical studies of briquilimab were made in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. In addition, on November 5, 2025, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Bardauskas v. Martell, et al. (Case No. 25-cv-09561) against certain of its current and former officers and directors. The derivative complaint alleges claims related to the allegations raised in the shareholder class action complaint. The Company believes these claims are without merit, and the Company intends to defend these matters vigorously. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss ultimately will occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in its financial statements as of and for the quarter ended September 30, 2025. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company due to costs involved, diversion of management resources, negative publicity, reputational harm, and other factors. JETOBRA INC: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Kundu Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SOUREN KUNDU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JETOBRA, INC. D/B/A HOFFMAN AUTO GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01923-OAW (D. Conn., November 18, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated customers in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on October 13, 2025, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the private information. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as October 13, 2025, the Defendant did not begin informing victims of the data breach until November 10, 2025, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the data breach occurred. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the data breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. The Notice received by Representative Plaintiff was dated November 10, 2025. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. Jetobra, Inc. is a for-profit enterprise with a principal place of business located in East Hartford, Connecticut. The Company operates multiple car dealership locations and collision centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank G. Usseglio, Esq. KENNY, OKEEFE USSEGLIO Capitol Place 21 Oak St., Suite 208 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 246-2700 E-mail: FUsseglio@kou-law.com - and - Laura van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com JRK PROPERTY: Wins Summary Judgement v. Peebles ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Branda Peebles, et al., v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10523-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge entered an order allowing the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have failed to show that defendants attempted to enforce the MOA and thus defendants have not forfeited their right to retain portions of the security deposit for otherwise lawful reasons. The complaint challenges an addendum to their leases, which requires outgoing residents to have the apartment professionally cleaned and provides a list of charges that will be deducted from the tenant' s security deposit should they fail to do so. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants wrongfully deducted charges for reasonable wear and tear from their security deposits pursuant to the Move-Out Addendum in violation of M. G.L. c. 186, section15B, entitling them to recovery under that statute as well as under M. G.L. c. 93A, section 9. Ms. Peebles is a former resident of Stevens Pond. She rented a unit therein from August, 2017, through August, 2018. She provided a $500 security deposit at the beginning of her tenancy. Peebles did not attend the walkthrough conducted by Stevens Pond staff after she moved out. The staff determined that there was damage to the apartment beyond reasonable wear and tear. The Defendants incurred costs of $255 to repair the damage and charged Peebles' security deposit $50 for touch-up paint and $65 for carpet cleaning. JRK is a real estate holding and property management company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GmDcO3 at no extra charge.[CC] KINDRED SPIRITS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Acosta Suit Due Dec. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romero-Acosta v. Bottles, Kindred Spirits, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01163 (D.P.R., Filed April 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jay A. Garcia-Gregory entered an order setting the following deadlines: The Plaintiffs' Motion to Seek Class Certification due by Dec. 12, 2025. Remaining Discovery due by Jan. 30, 2026. Dispositive Motions due by March 16, 2026. Joint Motion indicating willingness to engage in a Settlement Conference due by March 31, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Ovando Wins Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REFUGIO RAMIREZ OVANDO, CAROLINE DIAS GONCALVES, J.S.T, and G.R.R., v. KRISTI NOEM, TODD LYONS, ROBERT G. HAGAN1 in their official capacities, Case No. 1:25-cv-03183-RBJ (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted in part and denied in part. 3. The Defendant's partially unopposed motion to restrict remote electronic access is granted in part and denied in part. 4. The Plaintiffs are awarded their reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and other disbursements permitted under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2412, in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties or else determined by the Court. 5. The parties shall meet and confer in order to agree upon a schedule for the case. The Plaintiffs have met their burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the putative class (Warrantless Arrest Class), satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, for the purposes of entering a preliminary injunction in this case, the Court provisionally certifies the Warrantless Arrest Class, defined as: "All persons since Jan. 20, 2025, who have been arrested or will be arrested in this District by immigration officers without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person poses a flight risk." The case arises out of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's ("ICE") alleged practice in Colorado of arresting individuals suspected of being unlawfully present without a warrant and without making the individualized flight-risk determination required by 18 USC section 1357(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. section 287.8(c)(2)(ii). A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OrqDA6 at no extra charge.[CC] LA PAZ ENTERPRISES: Property Not Disabled-Friendly, Ramos Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Ramos, Plaintiff v. La Paz Enterprises, Inc., individually and dba Guanajuanto Grill Deli & Bakery; Great Highway, LLC; and Does 1 to 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03343-JAM-CSK (E.D. Cal., November 18, 2025) is a class action for Defendants' alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as California law. The Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant to this complaint, a "physically handicapped person." On October 12, 2025 and November 14, 2025, the Plaintiff visited the Defendants' business property for the purpose of shopping for and buying food and drink. However, the Defendants failed to provide barrier-free access to said establishment relating to service counters, aisles, and alcove areas. As a result of the failure to provide proper and accessible entryways, and accessible accommodations for a store, the Plaintiff suffered and will suffer the loss of his civil rights to full and equal access to public facilities, and further has suffered in the past and will suffer in the future emotional distress, says the suit. La Paz Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates public facilities at the business known as Guanajuato Grill Deli & Bakery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Mac Bride, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD A. MAC BRIDE 855 Marina Bay Parkway, Suite 210 Richmond, CA 94804 Telephone: (415) 730-6289 E-mail: richardmacbridelaw@gmail.com LEVAIN BAKERY: Douglass Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LEVAIN BAKERY COOKIE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01722-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (A) Certifying the class for settlement purposes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; (B) Preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the proposed Agreement; and (C) Approving the notice and notice plan included in the Proposed Order accompanying this motion. The parties have since executed a class action settlement Agreement. The Agreement is fair and reasonable, and provides substantial benefits to the class, while avoiding the delay, risk, and cost of litigation. In March 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's online store, located at https://levainbakery.com/ ("Website"). The Plaintiff was unable to do so because the Website was not compatible with screen reader technology. On Nov. 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint, alleging that the Defendant lacks—and has always lacked—policies and practices necessary to make the Website accessible to blind shoppers, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Levain is a cookie company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4kSdUj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com LIFE360 INC: Continues to Defend "Ireland-Gordy" in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Life360, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit filed by Stephanie Ireland-Gordy and Shannon Ireland-Gordy in a California court. On August 14, 2023, plaintiffs Stephanie Ireland-Gordy and Shannon Ireland-Gordy filed a putative class action lawsuit against Tile, Life360, and Amazon.com, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"), seeking damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. An amended complaint was filed on April 26, 2024, adding named plaintiffs Melissa Broad and Jane Doe. Plaintiffs allege that Tile trackers were used by third parties to monitor their movements without their consent, and assert product liability and other claims. On February 14, 2025, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. As of August 6, 2025, the Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the claims of the Ireland-Gordy plaintiffs with prejudice and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are stayed pending an appeal of the Court's ruling on the Company's Motion to Compel Arbitration, which was granted-in-part and denied-in-part. The hearing on the appeal is scheduled for January 5, 2026. LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alston Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA ALSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03771-SAG (D.M.D., Nov. 18, 2025) is a class action arising out of the cyberattack and data breach occurring as early as January 22, 2025, and which the Defendant became aware of on or about March 28, 2025 (the "Data Breach") resulting from the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of the Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to reasonably secure, monitor, maintain, and safeguard the sensitive personal information of its current and former patients, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, compromise, disclose, exfiltrate, steal, misuse, and view it, says the suit. LifeBridge Health, Inc. provides healthcare services. The Company manages network of hospitals, clinics, and physicians for brain and spine, cancer, cardiology, rehabilitation, and primary care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary E. Howerton, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 Facsimile: (410) 269-1235 Email: zhowerton@milberg.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 333 SE 2nd Ave, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and- Terence R. Coates, Esq. Markovits, Stock & Demarco, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com MALLINCKRODT PLC: Awaits Final OK of Continental General Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mallinckrodt plc disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of the settlement entered in the Continental General class action securities lawsuit. On July 7, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Sigurdur Olafsson, its former Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Bryan Reasons, and the former Chair of the Board, Paul Bisaro, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey("DNJ"), captioned Continental General Insurance Company and Percy Rockdale, LLC v. Mallinckrodt plc et al., No. 23-cv-03662. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between June 17, 2022 and June 14, 2023. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including its financial strength, its ability to timely make certain payments related to Mallinckrodt's opioid-related litigation settlement and the risk of additional filings for bankruptcy protection. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. A lead plaintiff was designated by the court in September 2023 and in December 2023, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff against Olafsson, Reasons, and Bisaro ("Individual Defendants"). As to the Company, any liability to the plaintiffs in this matter was discharged upon emergence from the 2023 Bankruptcy Proceedings. Mallinckrodt assumed the obligation to defend and indemnify the individual defendants. In September 2024, the court denied the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Individual Defendants answered the amended complaint in October 2024. In April 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims in this matter for a settlement payment of $5.5 million, which was funded in part by the Company and in part by the Company's insurance carriers. The Company accrued $4.4 million related to remaining costs associated with the settlement and a receivable of $0.5 million related to insurance proceeds in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 28, 2025. The Company paid the settlement amount during the three months ended June 27, 2025. The DNJ scheduled a final approval hearing December 2025. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Deal in Strougo Securities Suit Has Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement entered in the Strougo class action securities lawsuit has received final court approval. In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its former CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its former CFO Bryan M. Reasons, its former Interim CFO George A. Kegler and its former CFO Matthew K. Harbaugh, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to the Company's clinical study designed to assess the efficacy and safety of its Acthar Gel in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. On July 30, 2020, the court approved the transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 10, 2020, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff alleging an expanded putative class period of May 3, 2016 through March 18, 2020 against the Company and Mark C. Trudeau, Bryan M. Reasons, George A. Kegler and Matthew K. Harbaugh, as well as newly named defendants Kathleen A. Schaefer, Angus C. Russell, Melvin D. Booth, JoAnn A. Reed, Paul R. Carter, and Mark J. Casey (collectively with Trudeau, Reasons, Kegler and Harbaugh, the "Strougo Defendants") The amended complaint claims that the defendants made various false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose various material facts regarding Acthar Gel and its results of operations. In October 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In March 2022, the Strougo action was administratively closed. On March 29, 2022, the Strougo action was reinstated only with respect to the Strougo Defendants, and the Strougo Defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on May 2, 2022. As to the Company, this matter was resolved in the 2020 Bankruptcy Proceedings with no further liability against the Company. However, the Company had indemnification obligations as to the Strougo Defendants. In December 2022, the District Court issued an order denying the Strougo Defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects and the Strougo Defendants answered the complaint. In June 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims in this matter for a settlement payment of $46.0 million, which was funded by the Company's insurance carriers. As of December 27, 2024, a $46.0 million receivable and payable were recorded in prepaid expenses and other current assets and accrued and other current liabilities, respectively. The district granted final approval of the settlement on April 15, 2025. The Company released the $46.0 million receivable and payable upon final approval of the settlement during the three months ended June 27, 2025. The increase and decrease in the receivable and payable was reflected within other changes in assets and liabilities within the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine months ended September 26, 2025 and nine months ended September 27, 2024, respectively. METRO CARE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Obaoye v. Metro Care Management LLC d/b/a Essen Health Care, Case No. 1:25-cv-04920-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the current deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), filed Nov. 20, 2025, and for the Court's approval of a mutually agreed-upon briefing schedule. The undersigned also seeks clarification under Rule 4(A)(i) as to whether a pre-motion conference is required before filing the Defendant's anticipated cross-motion to dismiss on jurisdictional and standing grounds. Accordingly, the parties request approval of the following schedule: The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion and its notice of cross-motion to dismiss to be filed on or before Jan. 6, 2026 the Plaintiff's combined opposition and reply to be filed on or before Feb. 13, 2026. the Defendant's reply on the cross-motion only to be filed on or before Feb. 20, 2026. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VOE2WB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Rondiene E. Novitz, Esq. CRUSER, MITCHELL, NOVITZ, SANCHEZ, GASTON & ZIMET, LLP Telephone: (516) 586-8513 Facsimile: (516) 586-8517 E-mail: rnovitz@cmlawfirm.com MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Jacob" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Microvast Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the stockholder class action filed by Matt Jacob. Stephen Vogel, Ruth Epstein, Stefan Selig, Richard Rieger, Amy Butte, Yang Wu and Yanzhuan Zheng have been named as defendants in litigation filed in the Court of Chancery captioned Matt Jacob v. Stephen A. Vogel, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0600-PAF (Del. Ch.) (filed July 07, 2022). The plaintiff is seeking to certify the litigation as a stockholder class action. The complaint alleges that Stephen Vogel, Ruth Epstein, Stefan Selig, Richard Rieger and Amy Butte breached their fiduciary duties in connection with Tuscan's acquisition of Microvast, Inc., including by making inadequate disclosures concerning the projected earnings of Microvast, Inc. The complaint further alleges that once the earnings of the combined company became public, the Company's stock dropped, causing losses to investors. The complaint also alleges that Yang Wu and Yanzhuan Zheng aided and abetted these purported breaches. Certain defendants have answered the complaint, and certain defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which they argued on April 07, 2025. On July 08, 2025, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding the impact of a newly issued Delaware Supreme Court opinion on the plaintiff's aiding-and-abetting claim against Messrs. Wu and Zheng. The supplemental briefing was completed on September 09, 2025 and that briefing is in process. The Court has not yet decided those motions. MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Milan" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Microvast Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the class action filed by Deidra Milan. Deidra Milan is an ex-employee of Microvast, and is the putative representative of a class of individual employees who were let go from their jobs at a plant in Clarksville, Tennessee. She has filed Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-00627, Deidre Milan, Plaintiff v. Microvast, Inc. and Microvast Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Company filed an answer to the suit on July 19, 2024. The class action complaint is brought under the Worker Adjustment and Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 2101-2109 (the "WARN Act"), which requires advance notice before certain types of plant closings and mass layoffs. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to give proper advance notice of a mass layoff in violation of the WARN Act. Plaintiffs seek backpay, medical expenses, attorney's fees and statutory penalties in an unspecified amount. Putative class counsel and the Company have agreed on the terms of a class action settlement agreement subject to court approval. The Company anticipates a motion for preliminary court approval of the class action settlement will be filed before the end of Q4. If the court preliminarily approves the settlement, potential class members will receive notice of the settlement and an opportunity to object to the settlement terms or opt out of the settlement. The court will then need to rule on any objections and finally approve the settlement for all class member who do not opt out of the class settlement. MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Schelling" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Microvast Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the stockholder class action captioned Schelling v. Microvast Holdings, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-04565 (S.D. Tex.) The Company and certain of its officers have also been named as defendants in a putative class action complaint by a stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under the caption Schelling v. Microvast Holdings, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-04565 (S.D. Tex.) (filed Dec. 5, 2023) (the "Schelling Action"). The complaint alleges that defendants violated certain federal securities laws by making misleading statements regarding the receipt of a conditional grant from the United States Department of Energy, the Company's profitability, and the nature of Company-associated operations in China. On March 1, 2024, the court appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel for the proposed class of Company investors. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on May 13, 2024, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2024. On August 22, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. MIT45 INC: Moorhead Seeks to Modify Class Cert Filing Sched ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA MOORHEAD, L.M., D.H., and E.L., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MIT45, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00499-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to modify pre-trial schedule: Event Deadline The Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Feb. 5, 2026 The Defendant's opposition to motion for Mar. 26, 2026 class certification: The Plaintiff's reply in further support of May 7, 2026 motion for class certification: On March 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this class action Complaint against the Defendant for false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its kratom powder, capsule, gummy, and liquid extract products. On April 10, 2024, the Defendant filed its motion to dismiss. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Qef4m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Scott G. Braden, Esq. Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. James B. Drimmer, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: scott@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com jim@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Erik A. Christiansen, Esq. Nathan D. Thomas, Esq. Elizabeth M. Butler, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1234 Facsimile: (801) 536-6111 E-mail: echristiansen@parsonsbehle.com nthomas@parsonsbehle.com lbutler@parsonsbehle.com MOMENTUS INC: Continues to Defend Delaware Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Momentus Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class action lawsuit pending in a Delaware court. On November 10, 2022, purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint against Brian Kabot, James Hofmockel, Ann Kono, Marc Lehmann, James Norris, Juan Manuel Quiroga, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Edward K. Freedman, Mikhail Kokorich, Dawn Harms, Fred Kennedy, and John C. Rood in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in a case captioned Shirley, et al. v. Kabot et al., 2022-1023-PAF (the "Shirley Action"). The complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Proposed Transaction, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021. On December 23, 2024, by stipulation and order of dismissal, Mr. Rood was dismissed from the complaint without prejudice. On March 16, 2023, purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action complaint against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery, in a case captioned Lora v. Kabot, et al., Case No. 2023-0322 (the "Lora Action"). Like the Shirley complaint, the complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021. On March 17, 2023, purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action complaint against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery, in a case captioned Burk v. Kabot, et al., Case No. 2023-0334 (the "Burk Action"). Like the Lora and Shirley complaints, the Burk complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021. On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a stipulation and proposed order for consolidation and appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel designating the complaint filed in the Lora Action as the operative complaint. On June 30, 2023, the defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed their answering briefs in opposition to the motions to dismiss, and the defendants' reply briefs are due to be filed on or before December 14, 2023, and a hearing on the motions to dismiss was held for February 1, 2024. On May 29, 2024, the court issued its orders on the motions to dismiss: (1) granting the motions to dismiss with respect to defendants Fred Kennedy and Dawn Harms and dismissing the claims against them with prejudice, and (2) with respect to the SRAC Defendants, granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice. However, the court noted that defendants Brian Kabot, James Hofmockel, and James Norris did not move to dismiss the portion of Count II relating to alleged misrepresentations concerning the value of SRAC shares issued in the merger and defendant Brian Kabot did not move to dismiss the portion of Count III relating to the same. As such, the claims as to the SRAC Defendants were dismissed with prejudice, except for these remaining claims. The Shirley Action, the Lora Action, and the Burk Action have been consolidated under the caption, In re Momentus Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2022-1023-PAF (Del Ch. Nov. 10, 2022). These putative class actions do not name the Company as a defendant. Regardless, the SRAC directors and officers, together with current and former directors and officers of the Company, have demanded indemnification and advancement from the Company, under the terms of the merger agreement and the exhibits thereto, the Delaware corporate code, the Company's bylaws, and their individual indemnification agreements. The Company may be liable for the fees and costs incurred by the defendants and has an obligation to advance such fees during the pendency of the litigation. The Company understands that the defendants dispute the allegations in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend against any such litigation. MOMENTUS INC: Continues to Defend SRAC Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Momentus Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder of Stable Road Acquisition Corp ("SRAC"). On July 15, 2021, a purported stockholder of SRAC filed a putative class action complaint against SRAC, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC ("Sponsor"), Brian Kabot (SRAC CEO), James Norris (SRAC CFO), Momentus, and the Company's co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail Kokorich, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in a case captioned Jensen v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-05744 (the "Jensen class action"). The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material information in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021. Subsequent complaints captioned Hall v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-05943 and Depoy v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-06287 were consolidated in the first filed matter (collectively, referred to as the "Securities Class Actions"). An amended complaint was filed on November 12, 2021. The Company disputes the allegations in the Securities Class Actions. On February 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Class Actions and the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the Securities Class Actions. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the Securities Class Actions and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5 million by the Company (at least $4.0 million of which was funded by insurance proceeds). On April 10, 2023, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the Court, and on August 18, 2023, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement. On August 30, 2023 the lead plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice on September 21, 2023. Pursuant to that Order, on October 5, 2023, the Company paid $1.0 million into the settlement escrow account. On November 16, 2023, following the Court's order granting lead plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement and despite the Company's attempts to negotiate an extension of time to satisfy its payment obligations, the Company paid an additional $3.5 million into the settlement escrow account. Insurance carriers made additional payments totaling $4.0 million into the settlement escrow account. On April 23, 2024, the Court entered an order and judgment finally approving the settlement of the Securities Class Actions. A group of plaintiffs asserting the Delaware Class Actions objected to the scope of the release in the settlement, and the Court overruled the objection. Those objectors may or may not appeal the Court's decision to overrule their objections and approve the settlement. The Company does not know the timing of when such an appeal, if filed, would be heard. If the objectors do not appeal the approval of the settlement, or if their appeal is ultimately rejected by the Court of Appeal, then the settlement will resolve all claims in the Securities Class Actions against the Company (except as to any shareholders that may elect to opt-out of the class). The Company and the other defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the Securities Class Actions, and the proposed settlement contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the defendants. In the event that a court, on appeal or otherwise, overturns the approval of the settlement, the Company will continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the Securities Class Actions. As a result of the agreement to settle the Securities Class Action, the Company recorded a litigation settlement contingency of $8.5 million. The Company additionally recorded an insurance receivable of $4.0 million for the insurance proceeds expected from its insurers related to the settlement. The net amount of $4.5 million was recognized in litigation settlement, net during the year ended December 31, 2022. As of December 31, 2024, the contingent liability in relation to Securities Class Action has been paid in full. MONSANTO COMPANY: White Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- LOREN WHITE, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02327 (E.D. La., November 17, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated individuals as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. She contends that she was exposed to Roundup at various locations including Jefferson and Orleans Parish, Louisiana for decades in the State of Louisiana and was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2024. Although Monsanto knew, or should have known, of the defective nature of Roundup, it continued and continues to design, manufacture, market, and sell its product without providing adequate warnings and instructions concerning the use of its product so as to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the public health and safety, in knowing, conscious, and deliberate disregard of the foreseeable harm caused by Roundup, says the suit. The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: jenochs@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com NEWMARK GROUP: Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Suit in Del. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Newmark Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the purported breach of contract class action lawsuit pending in a Delaware court. On March 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed against Cantor, BGC Holdings, and Newmark Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00265). The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited partners on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated limited partners, alleges a claim for breach of contract against all defendants on the basis that the defendants failed to make payments due under the relevant partnership agreements. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions upon which the defendants relied to deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware law. The plaintiffs allege a second claim against Cantor and BGC Holdings for antitrust violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, as amended, on the basis that the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade. In that regard, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions of the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements, as well as restrictive covenants included in partner separation agreements, cause anticompetitive effects in the labor market, insulate Cantor and BGC Holdings from competition, and limit innovation. The plaintiffs seek a determination that the case may be maintained as a class action, an injunction prohibiting the allegedly anticompetitive conduct, and monetary damages of at least $5,000,000. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and in response, on May 31, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint alleging similar allegations as a basis for claims for breach of contract and violation of the Sherman Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On February 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, repleading claims for violation of federal antitrust laws and challenging economic forfeiture and non-compete obligations as violative of federal competition law. On December 2, 2024, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On December 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appeal was fully briefed in early 2025 and the Third Circuit held oral argument on September 17, 2025. The Company continues to believe the lawsuit has no merit and that the District Court's dismissal of the matter will be affirmed on appeal. However, as with any litigation, the outcome cannot be determined with certainty. NISSAN NORTH: Craig Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------- The case styled as RONNIE CRAIG, an individual, and CHERYL BRYANT, an individual, Plaintiffs vs. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CMCV01741, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division on November 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11124 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleges that on February 14, 2025, they purchased a 2021 Nissan Rogue, and the "Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiffs with serious defects and nonconformities." Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Act including: actual damages, restitution, a civil penalty in the amount of two times Plaintiffs' actual damages, consequential and incidental damages, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, and other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Nissan North America, Inc., doing business as Nissan USA, is the North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Judd A. Gilefsky, Esq. Scott D. Sharp, Esq. Jasmine R. Abraham, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.250.1800 Facsimile: 213.250.7900 E-mail: Judd.Gilefsky@lewisbrisbois.com E-mail: Scott.Sharp@lewisbrisbois.com E-mail: Jasmine.Abraham@lewisbrisbois.com NOVA SCOTIA: Court OKs $36MM Deal Over Deaf Children Abuse Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Frances Willick, writing for CBC News, reports that there were tears and embraces in a Halifax courtroom on Friday, November 28, as a Supreme Court justice approved a settlement in a class-action lawsuit over abuse at two schools for deaf children. Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Peter Rosinski approved $36 million in compensation for former students of the School for the Deaf in Halifax and the Interprovincial School for the Education of the Deaf in Amherst, N.S., which operated between 1913 and 1995. The lawsuit was filed in 2015 after former students came forward with allegations of physical, sexual and emotional abuse at the schools. The defendants in the case, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority, were accused of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the abuse. 'It's our time to move on' Michael Perrier, one of the representative plaintiffs, said the decision was a long time coming. "We've finally gotten our answer," he said through an interpreter. "We got the approval. This is what we've been waiting for. We've been waiting for 10 years. So it's a huge relief." Richard Martell, the other representative plaintiff in the case, said the recognition and acknowledgment of the abuse will help former students heal. "It's been an emotional day and I just feel so relieved," Martell said. "I feel like we've been heard and this is over with and now it's our time to move on. "So I'm excited. I'm excited about our future. I'm excited about us moving towards healing." In addition to the $36 million in compensation for class members, the settlement will include $3 million for collective benefits, which could include things like improved interpretation services or education for the Deaf community. The defendants will also pay $2.5 million for the costs of administering the settlement. Perrier said the monetary compensation will make a difference to former students who were not given an adequate education and have suffered repercussions throughout their lives. "We lost a lot through our childhood. So many deaf people have entry-level jobs when they could have done so much more had they gotten the education," he said. "I'm looking forward to what's in store for us going forward. I think it's going to be so much better for us." In a statement, Attorney General and Justice Minister Scott Armstrong said, "We sincerely hope this settlement offers some measure of justice, healing, and acknowledgment, and we are grateful to the former students for their courage in coming forward. "Addressing historic abuse is not only about the people directly affected — it's also about who we are as a province. Taking responsibility and working toward change helps us build a safer, more respectful, and more compassionate Nova Scotia for everyone." Largest settlement in N.S. history The judge reserved his decision on how much to compensate the legal team that brought the case forward. Wagners Law Firm has asked for $12.5 million to be paid in legal fees, but any legal costs will not impact the amount of compensation for victims, Wagners has said. Ray Wagner of Wagners Law Firm said though it was a "bumpy road" at times, the settlement is "monumental." "I'm feeling very good, very good. Emotional too. You know, it's been an emotional day for everybody," he said. "We finally got here after all these years. It has been a struggle, and, you know, we never gave up." Wagner said he believes it is the largest class-action settlement in Nova Scotia history. About 900 people are eligible for compensation. As part of the settlement, the province and Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority will also deliver a public apology at a later date. [GN] OGLETHORPE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Tracy Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KATHERYN TRACY and MARIA APPLAUSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OGLETHORPE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-03158 (M.D. Fla., November 17, 2025) is a class action against Oglethorpe for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including first and last names, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are required to provide Defendant with their private information and/or the private information of their family members. Because of this, Oglethorpe has a duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the private information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Oglethorpe's duty to safeguard the private information of its current and previous patients, and/or their family members, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information was compromised in a data breach wherein unauthorized third-party accessed its network environment that occurred on or about May 15, 2025. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information is now exposed to cybercriminals. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the data breach. Oglethorpe, Inc. is a healthcare management company that acquires, revitalizes and oversees inpatient psychiatric hospitals and addiction recovery facilities across multiple states of the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: nickc@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com ON24 INC: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- ON24, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the appeal from the order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, certain current and former members of its Board of Directors and the underwriters that participated in the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") are named as defendants in a consolidated putative class action, captioned In re ON24, Inc. Securities Litigation, 4:21-cv-08578-YGR (filed in November 2021), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's common stock issued in connection with its IPO. The complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted material facts about ON24's growth and customer base. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2022, which the district court granted with leave to amend in July 2023. Plaintiff filed its amended complaint in September 2023, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in October 2023. In March 2024, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of the district court's order and that appeal is currently ongoing. The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are without merit. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss, if any, arising from this matter at this early stage. Accordingly, no accrued litigation expense has been recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. OP2 LABS: Faces Bautista Suit Over Deceptive Nutrition Labels ------------------------------------------------------------- INNA BAUTISTA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OP2 LABS, LLC, D/B/A FROG FUEL, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03323-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal., November 17, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant over its deceptive nutrition labeling practices in violation of the California's False Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. This action arises from the deceptive trade practices of Defendant in its manufacture and sale of Frog Fuel Daily Recovery Protein, a ready-to-drink dietary supplement sold in the form of bundles of one-ounce packets or in bottles of sixteen or thirty ounces. The nutrition label of the Product states that it contains fifteen grams of protein, or 30% of the Daily Value, and twenty-two amino acids. The complaint asserts that such statement is misleading, however, because the collagen protein contained in the Product does not function or provide the same benefits as a "complete" protein, which is one that contains all nine essential amino acids that the body does not produce on its own and at levels at or above levels of reference standard. Despite knowing the inaccuracy of its representations, the Defendant continues to sell the Product with misleading labels. The Defendant chose, and continues to choose, financial gain at the expense of consumers by concealing and omitting disclosure of this critical misrepresentation to their consumers who, as they well know, purchase the Product for purposes of benefitting their workouts, building muscle and stronger joints, and completing their protein goals, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Power Regular Protein Shot from the Defendant's website on August 26, 2025. OP2 Labs, LLC, d/b/a Frog Fuel is a corporation with its principal office in the state of Texas. The Company makes and distributes health supplements, pre-workout, and protein products throughout the United States and specifically to consumers in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Mackey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY 16320 Murphy Road Sonora, CA 95370 Telephone: (412) 370-9110 E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Gabelli" ------------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Skydance Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling of its motion to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit filed by Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc. On August 13, 2025, Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc. ("Gabelli") filed a putative class action complaint against Barbara M. Byrne, Linda M. Griego, Judith A. McHale, Charles E. Phillips, Jr., Susan Schuman (the "Special Committee Defendants"), Harbor Lights Entertainment, Inc. (f/k/a National Amusements, Inc.) and Shari Redstone (the "NAI Defendants"), and Skydance Media, LLC and RB Tentpole LP (the "Skydance Defendants"), alleging causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty against all defendants and unjust enrichment against the NAI Defendants. Gabelli seeks a declaratory judgment, damages, including rescissory damages and/or quasi-appraisal damages, disgorgement of NAI's profits, fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On September 16, 2025, the Skydance Defendants filed placeholder motions to dismiss, and Gabelli filed a motion to be appointed as interim lead plaintiff representing former minority holders of Class A shares of pre-Transaction Paramount (the "Gabelli Class A Leadership Motion"). On October 16, 2025, counsel for Gabelli filed a letter with the Court indicating that no competing motions or objections to the Gabelli Class A Leadership Motion were filed and proposed that the Court appoint Gabelli as lead plaintiff. PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Continues to Defend "Baker" in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Skydance Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a purported securities class action lawsuit filed by Scott Baker in a Delaware court. On August 7, 2025, pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement dated July 7, 2024, certain affiliates of investors in Skydance Media, LLC, comprised of entities controlled by the Ellison Family, and affiliates of RedBird Capital Partners, purchased all of the outstanding equity interests of National Amusements, Inc., which had previously been the controlling stockholder of Paramount Global, from the shareholders of NAI. Also on August 7, 2025, following the completion of the NAI Transaction and pursuant to the Transaction Agreement dated as of July 7, 2024, Paramount Global and Skydance became wholly-owned subsidiaries of Paramount Skydance Corporation. Paramount Skydance Corporation was formerly known as New Pluto Global, Inc., which was formed on June 3, 2024 for purposes of consummating the Transactions and was a wholly-owned direct subsidiary of Paramount Global prior to the closing of the Transactions when, through a series of mergers contemplated by the Transaction Agreement, it became the holding company of Paramount Global and Skydance. In connection with the Transactions, on July 24, 2024, Scott Baker, a purported holder of Paramount Global Class B Common Stock, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") against NAI, Shari E. Redstone, Barbara M. Byrne, Linda M. Griego, Judith A. McHale, Charles E. Phillips, Jr., Susan Schuman, Skydance and David Ellison (the "Baker Action"). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Class B stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Transaction Agreement, among other claims, and seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief. On November 4, 2024, the Court granted the parties' stipulation in the Baker Action agreeing to (i) postpone briefing on motions to dismiss until the filing or designation of an operative complaint following resolution of the plaintiff's motion to appoint him and the Baerlocher Family Trust, a purported holder of Paramount Global Class B Common Stock, as co-lead plaintiffs and Berger Montague PC as interim class counsel (the "Baker Leadership Motion"), and (ii) stay discovery until resolution of any motions to dismiss any operative complaint following resolution of the Baker Leadership Motion. Throughout October 2024, various purported stockholders filed motions for intervention to oppose the Baker Leadership Motion. On December 31, 2024, the plaintiff, along with Mark Baerlocher, as trustee for the Baerlocher Family Trust, filed an amended complaint alleging the same breaches of fiduciary duties against the same defendants as in the original complaint. On June 27, 2025, counsel for Mr. Baker informed the Court that the Baker Leadership Motion would be withdrawn without prejudice and that the group of purported stockholders seeking lead plaintiff status would meet and confer to propose a schedule for resolving lead plaintiff applications. PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Continues to Defend NYCERS Suit --------------------------------------------------- Paramount Skydance Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action lawsuit filed by New York City Employees' Retirement System ("NYCERS"). On February 4, 2025, New York City Employees' Retirement System, the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, the New York City Police Pension Fund, the New York City Board of Education Retirement System, and the Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York, purported holders of Paramount Global Class B Common Stock and Class A Common Stock, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court against Barbara M. Byrne, Linda M. Griego, Judith A. McHale and Susan Schuman, which alleges breaches of fiduciary duties for their alleged failure to sufficiently consider an alternate offer that the plaintiffs claimed was superior to the Transactions (the "NYCERS Action"). The plaintiffs argue that the no-shop provision in the Transaction Agreement should be declared invalid and unenforceable because it prevented the parties from engaging in further deal discussions and negotiations with companies other than Skydance, including, specifically, Project Rise Partners, after the no-shop period began. The plaintiffs further assert that the Court has the power to invalidate this provision because Skydance allegedly aided and abetted NAI's and Shari E. Redstone's breach of fiduciary duties, including by agreeing to indemnify Shari E. Redstone (through Skydance's separate agreement with NAI) for any breach of fiduciary duty claims arising out of the Transactions up to a certain amount. Skydance, NAI, Shari E. Redstone and Paramount were not named as defendants in the original complaint. The NYCERS Action originally sought, among other forms of relief, an order from the Court enjoining the closing of the Transactions until the Court reached a final resolution on the plaintiffs' claims and an order compelling the Special Committee to evaluate Project Rise Partners' alternative offer to, among other things, acquire Paramount Global Class A Common Stock for $23.00 per share and Paramount Global Class B Common Stock for $19.00 per share. The Project Rise Partners' offer was made after the go-shop period in the Transaction Agreement had ended. The complaint does not seek compensatory damages. The plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings along with their complaint. On February 18, 2025, the plaintiffs moved to join Paramount and Skydance (and various other entities named in the Transaction Agreement) as necessary parties to the litigation and moved for a temporary restraining order preventing the closing of the Transactions until the Court considered the plaintiffs' anticipated motion for injunctive relief following expedited discovery. The parties reached agreement to withdraw plaintiffs' request for expedition and their application for injunctive relief in exchange for targeted discovery from certain of the defendants and third parties. The matter is in discovery. PERMA-FIX ENVIRONMENTAL: Continues to Defend "O'Neill" in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------ Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the purported shareholder lawsuit filed by Michael O'Neill in a Delaware court. On November 25, 2024, purported shareholder Michael O'Neill filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and all current directors of the Company, asserting individual and class action claims for alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The case is styled Michael O'Neill v. Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2024-1211-PAF. The complaint purports to be brought by the named plaintiff individually and on behalf of all "similarly situated Perma-Fix stockholders." According to the complaint, defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements in its proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2023 regarding the effect of broker non-votes as it relates to an amendment to the Company's 2017 Stock Option Plan. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants incorrectly stated in the proxy statement that broker non-votes would have no effect on the vote solicited to approve an amendment to the Company's 2017 Stock Option Plan to increase by 600,000 shares the number of shares of Common Stock issuable under the plan, resulting in an alleged defective approval of the plan amendment. As of the date of this Form 10-Q, the Company has not issued any options under the plan relating to the additional shares included in the plan amendment. The Defendants are vigorously defending against the complaint. PILLSBURY WINTHROP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Archer Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON ARCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09613-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, says the suit. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP operates as a law firm. The Firm's areas of practice include capital markets and finance, technology, litigation, health care, telecommunications, and global energy. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street, Suite 408 New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 12, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SNEED, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-05443-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order: -- denying motion for leave to shorten time; and -- altering class certification motion briefing schedule. The Plaintiff seeks to advance the deadline so the Court can rule on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint prior to the deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant opposes the motion, but "has no objection if this Court holds the class certification deadline in abeyance while it considers Plaintiff's motion for leave." The Plaintiff's motion to shorten time is denied. The hearing on the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which is currently scheduled for Jan. 29, 2026, is vacated. The briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued as follows: Event Due Date Class certification motion and the March 12, 2026 Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosures: Class certification opposition and the May 26, 2026 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures: Class certification expert discovery July 10, 2026 cut-off: Class certification reply: Sept. 3, 2026 Procter is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xnkVDo at no extra charge.[CC] RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Class Settlement in West Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA WEST, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, and MELET PLASTICS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-09686-CAS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Snyder entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court grants the Motion and orders as follows: Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals and entities that own or have owned Class Products and/or who own or have owned homes or other structures physically located in the United States, in which the Class Products are or were installed." Excluded from the Settlement Class is any judge presiding over the Litigation and their first-degree relatives, judicial staff and persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class. The Court finds Plaintiff Vanessa West will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Settlement Class Representative. Additionally, the Court finds that Scott Edward Cole of Cole & Van Note and Ronald Armstrong of The Armstrong Firm, PLLC satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Settlement Lead Class Counsel. Final Approval Hearing shall be held on May 11, 2026, via videoconference.s Rheem is a privately held manufacturer that produces residential and commercial heating, cooling, water heating, pool & spa heating and commercial refrigeration products and solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A7N95w at no extra charge.[CC] ROPE ST. FRANCIS: Adams et al. Seek Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------ Carrie Adams, Laura Certeza, and Brian Ackerman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Roper St. Francis Healthcare, Medical Society of South Carolina, and Bon Secours Mercy Health, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-13409-BHH (S.D. Cal., November 14, 2025), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. The Plaintiffs are employed as nurses and are routinely scheduled to worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. However, Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs with proper overtime compensation. Among other things, Defendants did include non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials in Plaintiffs' regular rates of pay. Roper St. Francis Healthcare is a not-for-profit healthcare system based in South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Scott Falls, Esq. Ashley L. Falls, Esq. FALLS LEGAL, LLC 125-E Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 102 Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 737-6040 Facsimile: (843) 737-6140 - and - Rober E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER LLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHEELS ALL SPORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09569 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2025) is a civil action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.scheels.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff relies on screen reader technology to navigate digital interfaces. He attempted to access Defendant's website to browse and purchase apparel products for himself and as gifts for his brother and son. However, on multiple occasions he visited the website, he encountered widespread accessibility barriers documented by WAVE scans, including 30 errors on the Men's Clothing page and 17 errors on the Blazers page. These barriers included unlabeled buttons, missing alternative text, inaccessible pop-ups, and improper heading structures, all of which violate the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, the recognized industry standard for digital accessibility, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that both its Website and its brick-and-mortar retail stores become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Scheels All Sports, Inc. operates the website which offers consumers nationwide access through delivery, to apparel, sporting goods, promotional content, and customer support, including to residents of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Stout Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------- JEREMY STOUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKYE BIOSCIENCE, INC., PUNIT DHILLON, KAITLYN ARSENAULT, and CHRISTOPHER G. TWITTY, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03177-WQH-DEB (S.D. Cal., November 17, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Skye securities between November 4, 2024 and October 3, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Skye's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) nimacimab was less effective than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, nimacimab's clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects were overstated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 6, 2025, Skye issued a press release "announcing the topline data from its 26-week Phase 2a CBeyond(TM) proof-of-concept study of nimacimab." The press release disclosed that the "the nimacimab monotherapy arm did not achieve the primary endpoint of weight loss compared to placebo" and that "preliminary pharmacokinetic analysis showed lower than expected drug exposure, potentially indicating the need for higher dosing as a monotherapy." On this news, Skye's stock price fell $2.85 per share, or 60%, to close at $1.90 per share on October 6, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Skye is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing molecules that modulate G protein-coupled receptors to treat obesity, overweight, and metabolic diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in "Klassen" -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ronda Klassen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SolidQuote LLC and Digital Media Solutions, LLC, f/k/a Underground Elephant, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted Defendant SolidQuote LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims. SolidQuote LLC is a digital marketing company that matches consumers with insurance products and services, including through the purchase of in-progress, consumer-initiated calls transferred to it by third-parties. The Plaintiff's suit alleged that SolidQuote violated two provisions of the TCPA: making two or more solicitation calls to residential subscribers whose numbers were on the Do Not Call Registry in violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) and initiating a phone call using a prerecorded voice in violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1). The Defendant moved for summary judgment on both claims, arguing that it did not call Plaintiff, it was not vicariously liable for HnM's call to Plaintiff, and it was protected by the TCPA's safe harbor provision. Because SolidQuote was only vicariously responsible for one phone call made to Plaintiff during a 12-month period and 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) requires that an entity call an individual whose telephone number appears on the national Do Not Call Registry more than one time within any 12-month period, SolidQuote did not violate the TCPA. Regarding the prerecorded voice message claim, the Court found that SolidQuote was entitled to summary judgment because HnM did not initiate the April 13, 2020, phone call to Plaintiff with a prerecorded voice message. It was undisputed that SolidQuote did not directly call Plaintiff, and the April 13 call that Plaintiff received from HnM was initiated by a human agent. SolidQuote's prerecorded message did not play until Plaintiff was transferred to SolidQuote, after speaking with HnM's agent for approximately five minutes. Therefore, even holding SolidQuote vicariously liable for HnM's call to Plaintiff, the call was not initiated using an artificial or prerecorded voice. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied as moot. A copy of the Court's decision dated November 19 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CgS3NY from PacerMonitor.com SOUNDHOUND AI: "Liles" Remains Pending in California ---------------------------------------------------- Soundhound Ai, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the class action lawsuit captioned Liles v. SoundHound AI, Inc., remains pending in a California court. On March 28, 2025, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Liles v. SoundHound AI, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02915-RFL. The complaint names as defendants the Company, its CEO Keyvan Mohajer, and its CFO Nitesh Sharan. The complaint asserts, among other things, claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired SoundHound securities between March 1, 2024 and March 11, 2025, both dates inclusive. On July 14, 2025, Judge Rita Lin appointed the leading plaintiff in the litigation. On July 25, 2025, a new Scheduling Order was entered. On October 1, 2025, the Lead Plaintiff served their amended complaint. The Company expects to file a motion to dismiss on or before December 12, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims and believes the complaint lacks merit. As of September 30, 2025, no determination can be made as to the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome. SOUNDHOUND AI: Court Closes Corporate Opportunity Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Soundhound Ai, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a court has closed a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the corporate opportunity provisions in the Company's certificate of incorporation. On February 6, 2025, a stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action (the "Corporate Opportunity Action"), alleging inter alia that Article XII, Section 12.1 of the Company's Certificate of Incorporation violates Delaware law. The Company and its directors denied any and all wrongdoing alleged in the Corporate Opportunity Action but, to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation, the Board determined that it was advisable and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to revise Article XII of the Certificate of Incorporation (the "Opportunity Waiver Limitation Amendment") and to submit the Opportunity Waiver Limitation Amendment to Company's stockholders for approval. The Corporate Opportunity Action plaintiff agreed that the proposed language mooted his claims. The Company's stockholders approved the Opportunity Waiver Limitation Amendment on May 23, 2025. The Company reached an agreement whereby, without admitting any fault or wrongdoing, the Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to the plaintiff's counsel as the mootness fee to resolve this matter. On July 24, 2025, the Court entered an order closing the case, subject to the Company filing an affidavit with the Court confirming compliance with the order. In entering the order, the Court did not review, and did not pass judgment on, the payment of the mootness fee. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Plaintiffs' Claims Dismissed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tracy McKever and Dana J. Belviy on behalf of Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-06170-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri Lydon entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice. Because the court dismisses this action, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is denied without prejudice. While it is clear Southeastern Freight has expended resources and incurred expenses defending this action, the court finds no excessive delay or lack of diligence on the Plaintiffs' part. Although the case has been pending for over a year, the delay is attributable to discovery disputes and a pending motion for class certification. Because a class has not yet been certified, no dispositive motions have been filed, and trial is not scheduled to begin until May 2026. The Plaintiffs' explanation for dismissal, an additional overlapping class action, likewise appears to be a reasonable justification. Lastly, the court finds Plaintiffs have shown dismissal will serve the interests of judicial economy. The Plaintiffs are two of approximately 10,000 current and former Southeastern Freight employees participating in Southeastern Freight's Retirement Savings Program ("the Plan"). They argue Southeastern Freight breached its fiduciary duties to Plan participants through its administration of the Plan. Southeastern is a privately owned American less than truckload trucking company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vX2fNq at no extra charge.[CC] STRATA CRITICAL: Litigation Ongoing in "Drulias" ------------------------------------------------ Strata Critical Medical, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended: September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that litigation is ongoing in the consolidated putative class action lawsuit captioned Drulias et al. v. Affeldt, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0161-SG (Del. Ch.). In February 2024, two putative class action lawsuits relating to the acquisition of Blade Urban Air Mobility, Inc. ("Old Blade") were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On April 16, 2024, these cases were consolidated under the caption Drulias et al. v. Affeldt, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0161-SG (Del. Ch.) ("Drulias"). Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the former directors of Experience Investment Corp. ("EIC" and such directors, the "EIC Directors"), the former officers of EIC, and Experience Sponsor LLC ("Sponsor"), and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim against Sponsor. The operative complaint alleges, amongst other things, that the proxy statement related to the acquisition of Old Blade insufficiently disclosed EIC's cash position, Old Blade's value prospects and risks, and information related to Old Blade's chief executive officer, who was also the Company's former chief executive officer. The consolidated complaints seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Litigation is ongoing. The Company included a provision for the expected resolution in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settlement in Sampson Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA SAMPSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10284-ESK-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement. -- The Court grants final approval and appointment of the Plaintiffs James Sampson, Janet Bauer, Lisa Harding, Barbara Miller, Shirley Reinhard, Celeste Sandoval, Xavier Sandoval, Danielle Lovelady Ryan, and Elizabeth Wheatley as Representatives of the Settlement Class. -- The Court grants final approval and appointment of the law firms of Berger Montague PC, Capstone Law APC, and Barrack, Rodos, and Racine, collectively, as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- The Court certifies, for the purpose of settlement, the following Settlement Class consisting of: "All persons and entities who purchased or leased, in the continental United States, certain of the following model year Subaru vehicles: 2013-2022 Subaru Legacy vehicles; 2013-2022 Subaru Outback vehicles; 2015-2023 Subaru Impreza vehicles; 2015-2023 Subaru Crosstrek vehicles; 2014-2021 Subaru Forester vehicles; 2019-2022 Subaru Ascent vehicles; 2016-2021 Subaru WRX vehicles; and 2022-2024 Subaru BRZ vehicles, which are specifically designated by Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) in a VIN List annexed as Exhibit 5 to the Settlement Agreement, which were distributed by Subaru of America, Inc. in the continental United States and are equipped with Pre- Collision Braking, Rear Automatic Braking, and/or Lane Keep Assist features of EyeSight. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) all Judges who have presided over the Actions and their spouses; (b) all current employees, officers, directors, agents and representatives of Defendant, and their family members; (c) any affiliate, parent or subsidiary of Defendant and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; (d) anyone acting as a used car dealer; (e) anyone who purchased a Settlement Class Vehicle for the purpose of commercial resale; (f) anyone who purchased a Settlement Class Vehicle with salvaged title and/or any insurance company that acquired a Settlement Class Vehicle as a result of a total loss; (g) any insurer of a Settlement Class Vehicle; (h) issuers of extended vehicle warranties and service contracts; (i) any Settlement Class Member who, prior to the date of the Settlement Agreement, settled with and released Defendant or any Released Parties from any Released Claims, and (j) any Settlement Class Member who files a timely and proper Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. -- The Court overrules the objections of Martin Rowley, Catherine Eagle Stevens and Nicholas Alexander Greif, Samuel Weiler, Bronwyn Getts, and Nancy Graziani. Subaru is the United States–based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UinR6G at no extra charge.[CC] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Wins Final OK of "Sampson" Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Laura Sampson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Subaru of America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-CV-10284-ESK-SAK (D.N.J.), Judge Edward S. Kiel of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted final approval of a class action settlement. The Court held a Final Fairness Hearing on November 3, 2025, and granted final approval of the Class Settlement and all of the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, finding that the Class Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in all respects satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the applicable law. The Court certified, for Settlement purposes only, the proposed Settlement Class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or leased, in the continental United States, certain of the following model year Subaru vehicles: 2013-2022 Subaru Legacy vehicles; 2013-2022 Subaru Outback vehicles; 2015-2023 Subaru Impreza vehicles; 2015-2023 Subaru Crosstrek vehicles; 2014-2021 Subaru Forester vehicles; 2019-2022 Subaru Ascent vehicles; 2016-2021 Subaru WRX vehicles; and 2022-2024 Subaru BRZ vehicles, which are specifically designated by Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) in a VIN List annexed as Exhibit 5 to the Settlement Agreement, which were distributed by Subaru of America, Inc. in the continental United States and are equipped with Pre-Collision Braking, Rear Automatic Braking, and/or Lane Keep Assist features of EyeSight. The Court granted final approval and appointment of Plaintiffs James Sampson, Janet Bauer, Lisa Harding, Barbara Miller, Shirley Reinhard, Celeste Sandoval, Xavier Sandoval, Danielle Lovelady Ryan, and Elizabeth Wheatley as Representatives of the Settlement Class. The Court granted final approval and appointment of the law firms of Berger Montague PC, Capstone Law APC, and Barrack, Rodos, and Racine, collectively, as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court granted final appointment of JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Claim Administrator to effectuate its duties and responsibilities set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Judge Kiel found that the Settlement Class Members were duly afforded a reasonable and ample opportunity to object to or request exclusion from the Settlement, and were duly advised of the deadlines and procedures for doing so. Of the approximately 5,049,923 Settlement Class Members, the Court received only five (5) purported objections to the Settlement (constituting only 0.000099 percent of the Settlement Class), and only three hundred seventy (370) timely and valid requests for exclusion from Settlement Class Members constituting only 0.0073 percent of the Settlement Class). The Court found that this minuscule number of purported objections and requests for exclusion demonstrates unequivocally that the Settlement Class favors this Settlement, and further supports that the Class Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and warrants final approval. The Court carefully reviewed and considered all of the purported objections (Martin Rowley, Catherine Eagle Stevens, Samuel Weiler, Bronwyn Getts, and Nancy Graziani), and the Parties' submissions and arguments in response thereto. The Court found and determined (a) that all of these purported objections are substantively without merit, (b) that for the reasons described in the Parties' submissions, several of the objections are also invalid for failing to comply with the requirements for a valid objection as mandated by the Preliminary Approval Order and recited in the Class Notice, and (c) that all of these objections do not, factually or legally, justify not granting final approval of this Class Settlement. The Court overruled the objections. The Court excluded from the Settlement and Release the three hundred seventy (370) Settlement Class Members who submitted timely and valid requests for exclusion from the Settlement. All other requests for exclusion were rejected on the grounds that they are untimely and/or failed to comply with the requirements for a valid request for exclusion enumerated in the Preliminary Approval Order and the Class Notice. The Parties and all Settlement Class Members are bound by the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, including the Released Claims against Defendant and all Released Parties, and the Plaintiffs and each Settlement Class Member fully, completely and forever released, acquitted and discharged Defendant and all Released Parties from all Released Claims, except for the persons who timely and properly excluded themselves from the Settlement Class. The Court ordered the Parties to perform all obligations under the Settlement Agreement. The Action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs. The court's settlement dated November 25 is also available at s https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hbRQ0b from PacerMonitor.com SUNOCO INC: 10th Cir. Affirms in Part Final Judgment in Cline Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part the district court's final judgment in the lawsuit captioned PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellee v. SUNOCO, INC. (R&M); SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P., Defendants - Appellants; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ROYALTY OWNER COALITION OF OKLAHOMA, INC., Amici Curiae, Case No. 23-7090 (10th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 6:17-CV-00313-JAG). The Tenth Circuit panel consists of Scott M. Matheson, Jr., Nancy L. Moritz, and Richard E. N. Federico, Circuit Judges. Judge Federico wrote the Opinion of the Court. The appeal arises from a dispute over oil proceeds and a class action bench trial in Oklahoma. It centered on class-wide violations of Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act (PRSA). The PRSA imposes strict timeframes on when a "first purchaser or holder of proceeds" of crude oil from an Oklahoma well must distribute proceeds to royalty interest or working interest owners entitled to payments (Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), 479 F. Supp. 3d 1148, 1157 (E.D. Okla. 2020) (Cline II)). If the proceeds payments arrive late, the PRSA mandates that these payments must include statutory interest, at a default rate of 12 percent. The Named Plaintiff and class representative, Perry Cline, is an Oklahoma farmer and landowner, who owns royalty interests in three Oklahoma oil wells. In 2017, Cline filed a class action lawsuit against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. (collectively, Sunoco). He sought to represent all owners, who received late payments from Sunoco without the PRSA-required interest. The class definition setting forth the members of the class included all "owners" of mineral interests, who received late payments from Sunoco (Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), 333 F.R.D. 676, 681–82 (E.D. Okla. 2019) (Cline I)). In 2019, the district court certified this class. Relevant to this appeal, Cline's lawsuit asserted two state law claims for relief: violation of the PRSA and common law fraud. In 2020, after a four-day bench trial, the district court ruled for the Class on the PRSA claim and for Sunoco on the fraud claim. The Class of over 53,000 owners was awarded damages for over $1.5 million late proceeds payments that failed to include the 12 percent rate of interest. The judgment totaled over $103 million in actual damages (which included additional prejudgment interest that accrued post-trial) and $75 million in punitive damages. Before this appeal, Sunoco filed a string of appeals that the Panel dismissed. Judge Federico notes that the Panel accepted Sunoco's last appeal preceding this one, however, because the district court's initial allocation of damages failed to provide adequate instructions regarding two undivided accounts for owners whom Sunoco could not locate (Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), No. 22-7018, 2023 WL 4946312, at *6–8 (10th Cir. Aug. 3, 2023) (Cline III)). On remand, the district court corrected those issues in an amended plan of allocation order and an updated damages order. Together, these orders instructed the settlement administrator regarding the amount of damages to pay each class member, including class members who could not be identified and whose payments were sent to state unclaimed property funds. After finalizing the total damages awarded to the Class, the district court entered final judgment. The Panel affirms much of the district court's findings and rulings; however, the Panel reverses on one issue, punitive damages. The Panel affirms the district court's orders granting class certification and denying post-trial class decertification, along with the orders determining the actual damages awarded to the Class, including prejudgment interest. The Panel vacates the punitive damages award and remands for the district court to amend the judgment consistent with this Opinion. Judge Federico notes that the trial found that Sunoco's liability arose from a PRSA violation (breach of contract), not an intentional tort (fraud). Because the Class did not prevail on its independent, intentional tort claim, Judge Federico opines that the Energy Litigation Reform Act (ELRA) does not provide a backdoor to an award of punitive damages in this case. As a result, with only a PRSA claim proved at trial, which the Panel must interpret as a breach of contract under Oklahoma law, the punitive damages award cannot stand. For these reasons, the Panel vacates the punitive damages award. Judge Moritz, concurring in part, dissenting in part, joins sections II.A and II.B of the majority opinion analyzing class certification and standing. Judge Moritz writes separately to address the interest and punitive damages Cline can recover under Oklahoma law. Judge Moritz opines that Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act (PRSA) dictates that interest on unpaid oil proceeds stops accruing once the proceeds are paid, even if some amount of statutory interest remains outstanding. So unlike the majority, Judge Moritz would vacate the district court's nearly $104 million interest award (which reflects accrual through the date of judgment) and remands for recalculation. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/e2yy6ytw from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Erin E. Murphy -- erin.murphy@clementmurphy.com -- Paul D. Clement -- paul.clement@clementmurphy.com -- Matthew D. Rowen -- matthew.rowen@clementmurphy.com -- Clement & Murphy, PLLC, in Alexandria, Virginia; R. Paul Yetter -- pyetter@yettercoleman.com -- Robert D. Woods -- rwoods@yettercoleman.com -- Yetter Coleman LLP, in Houston, Texas; and Daniel M. McClure -- dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, in Houston, Texas, for the Defendants-Appellants. Russell S. Post -- rpost@beckredden.com -- Owen J. McGovern -- omcgovern@beckredden.com -- Bennett J. Ostdiek -- bostdiek@beckredden.com -- Beck Redden LLP, in Houston, Texas; and Bradley E. Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -- Jeffrey Angelovich -- jangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Andrew Pate -- dpate@nixlaw.com -- Nix Patterson, LLP, in Austin, Texas, for the Plaintiff-Appellee. Ryan K. Wilson -- ryan@bradwil.com -- Reagan E. Bradford -- reagan@bradwil.com -- Bradford & Wilson PLLC, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, filed an amicus curiae brief for Royalty Owner Coalition of Oklahoma Inc.; Michael Francisco -- mfrancisco@mcguirewoods.com -- Francis J. Aul, McGuireWoods LLP, in Washington, District of Columbia; Jennifer B. Dickey, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, in Washington, District of Columbia, filed an amicus curiae brief for The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. TAPESTRY INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 21, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02510-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule: -- L.R. 7 3 Conference re class certification: Jan. 13, 2026. -- Motion for class certification filing deadline: Jan. 21, 2026. -- Opposition to motion for class certification filing deadline: Feb. 20, 2026. -- Reply to opposition to motion for class certification: March 13, 2026. -- Hearing on class certification: March 30, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Tapestry is a multinational fashion holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PlrVSG at no extra charge.[CC] TEGNA INC: Discovery Ongoing in Advertising Suit ------------------------------------------------ Tegna Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that discovery is ongoing in the local TV advertising antitrust lawsuit. "In the third quarter of 2018, certain national media outlets reported the existence of a confidential investigation by the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) into the local television advertising sales practices of station owners. We received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) in connection with the DOJ’s investigation. On November 13 and December 13, 2018, the DOJ and seven other broadcasters settled a DOJ complaint alleging the exchange of certain competitively sensitive information in the broadcast television industry. In June 2019, we and four other broadcasters entered into a substantially identical agreement with DOJ, which was entered by the court on December 3, 2019. The settlement contains no finding of wrongdoing or liability and carries no penalty. It prohibits us and the other settling entities from sharing certain confidential business information as alleged by the DOJ, or using such information pertaining to other broadcasters, except under limited circumstances. The settlement also requires the settling parties to make certain enhancements to their antitrust compliance programs, to continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation, and to permit DOJ to verify compliance. The costs of compliance have not been material, nor do we expect future compliance costs to be material. "Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions. Plaintiffs are a putative class consisting of all persons and entities in the United States who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local television provided by the defendants. The Advertising Cases assert antitrust and other claims and seek monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against the allegedly wrongful conduct. "These cases were consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned In re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation on October 3, 2018. At the court’s direction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2019, that superseded the original complaints. Although we were named as a defendant in sixteen of the original complaints, the amended complaint did not name TEGNA as a defendant. After TEGNA and four other broadcasters entered into the consent decrees with the DOJ in June 2019, the plaintiffs sought leave from the court to further amend the complaint to add TEGNA and the other settling broadcasters to the proceeding. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, and the plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on September 9, 2019. On October 8, 2019, the defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the matter. On November 6, 2020, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On March 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which, among other things, added ShareBuilders, Inc., as a named defendant. ShareBuilders filed a motion to dismiss on April 15, 2022, which was granted by the court without prejudice on August 29, 2022. TEGNA has filed its answer to the third amended complaint denying any violation of law and asserting various affirmative defenses. "On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of settlements with four co-defendants -- CBS Corp (n/k/a Paramount Global), Fox Corp., certain Cox entities (including Cox Media Group, LLC, Cox Enterprises, Inc., CMG Media Corporation and Cox Reps, Inc.) and ShareBuilders, Inc. Although ShareBuilders prevailed on its motion to dismiss the case, as noted above, because the court had dismissed the claims without prejudice, ShareBuilders entered into a zero-dollar settlement with the plaintiffs in order to ensure that the plaintiffs do not re-file the claims in the future. In exchange for a release of plaintiffs’ claims against them, the settling defendants, among other things, collectively agreed to pay $48 million, while expressly denying any liability or wrongdoing. The court approved the settlements in December 2023. "Discovery in the Advertising Cases is ongoing. "We believe that the claims asserted in the Advertising Cases are without merit and are defending vigorously against them," the Company stated. THORNE RESEARCH: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THORNE RESEARCH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09633 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.thorne.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Thorne Research, Inc. manufactures dietary supplements. The Company supplies circulatory, cognitive, detoxification, endocrine, gastrointestinal, immune, sleep, musculoskeletal, and neurological support products, as well as aging, antioxidants, fatty acids, minerals, proteins, vitamins, veterinarian, women's, and men's health products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212)982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TOWNE MORTGAGE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Shelton Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SHERI SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOWNE MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13677-BRM-CI (E.D. Mich., Nov. 18, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, the Defendant nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, says the suit. Towne Mortgage Company, doing business as AmeriCU Mortgage, operates as a mortgage banking firm. The Firm offers home financing services such as mortgages and home equity loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. Fink Bressack 38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 Email: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. Shamis & Gentile, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 475-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Bid to Reconsider Class Certification Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, ET AL., v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, ET AL., Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: -- denying the Defendants' motion for leave to file motion for partial reconsideration of class certification order; and -- granting implied motion for clarification. In its third renewed motion, plaintiffs sought to certify the following class: "Any member of a health benefit plan administered or issued by United and governed by ERISA, where the member's plan utilized United's "Reasonable and Customary" program for out-of-network benefits, and whose claim(s) for intensive outpatient services were billed with HCPCS H0015 and/or revenue code 0906 as an all-inclusive per diem, priced by MultiPlan's Viant methodology, and never adjusted, and who received balance bills from their provider, during the class period from Jan. 1, 2015, to the present." Despite that clarity, the parties continue to argue, as has been their ongoing practice in this action. Defendants seek clarification and seek to re-define the class as: "Any member of a health benefit plan administered or issued by United and governed by ERISA, where the member's plan utilized United's "Reasonable and Customary" program for out-of-network benefits, and whose claim(s) for intensive outpatient services were billed with HCPCS H0015 and/or revenue code 0906 as an all-inclusive per diem, priced by MultiPlan's Viant methodology, and never adjusted, and who paid balance bills from their provider on these claims (not patient responsibility, coinsurance, or deductibles), during the class period from Jan. 1, 2015, to Oct. 3, 2025." Thus, as should have been obvious from the Order, the certified class was defined as: "Any member of a health benefit plan administered or issued by United and governed by ERISA, where the member's plan utilized United's "Reasonable and Customary" program for out-of-network benefits, and whose claim(s) for intensive outpatient services were billed with HCPCS H0015 and/or revenue code 0906 as an all-inclusive per diem, priced by MultiPlan's Viant methodology, and never adjusted, and who paid balance bills from their provider, during the class period from Jan. 1, 2015, to the present. United provides behavioral health services and solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nGYxI0 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Bid to Seal Class Cert Hearing Transcript OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, RH, and CJ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, and MULTIPLAN, INC., a New York Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting joint administrative motion to seal portions of Sep. 9, 2025 class certification hearing transcript pursuant to local rule 79-5(c). Document or Portion of Document Ruling Sought to Be Sealed Exhibit A, Unredacted Transcript of Sept. 9, Granted 2025 Hearing of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Exhibit A, Unredacted Transcript of Sept. 9, Granted 2025 Hearing of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Exhibit A, Unredacted Transcript of Sept. 9, Granted 2025 Hearing of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. United provides behavioral health services and solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T0NtWU at no extra charge.[CC] VENTURE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- Venture Global, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative securities class action lawsuit pending in a Virginia court. "On April 15, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint naming Venture Global, our directors and certain of our officers and our underwriters, as well as Venture Global Partners II, LLC, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint, as subsequently amended on September 15, 2025, asserts claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement for the IPO. "It contends that certain statements made by the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the registration statement and prospectus for the IPO were allegedly false or misleading and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class. "The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously," the Company stated. VENTURE GLOBAL: New York Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Venture Global, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative securities class action complaint filed in a New York court was voluntarily dismissed. "On February 17, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint naming Venture Global, our directors and certain of our officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement for the IPO. "It contends that certain statements made by the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the registration statement and prospectus for the IPO were allegedly false or misleading and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class. "The complaint was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on April 24, 2025," the Company stated. VIALE OLIMPICO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ventura Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIALE OLIMPICO LLC; and CARLO ILLIANO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06395 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ventura was employed by the Defendant as a kitchen staff. Viale Olimpico LLC operates a restaurant in the County of Suffolk and State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. Romero Law Group PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com WELLS FARGO: Parties Seek More Time to File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Wells Fargo Cash Sweep Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04616-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order joint stipulation extending deadline for responses to the Plaintiffs' administrative motions to consider whether another party's material should be filed under seal. Counsel for the Parties have met and conferred regarding the necessity of modifying the current schedule regarding the Motions to ensure the issues are fully addressed. The Parties agreed that an extension is warranted given the volume of documents at issue and to allow sufficient time for careful review so that only the minimum necessary redactions are requested. Pursuant to that discussion, and in light of the upcoming holiday period -- which limits the availability of key personnel needed to provide input on material filed provisionally under seal -- the Parties have agreed to stipulate to an extension of the existing deadlines to respond, as follows: The Defendant's statement and/or declaration in response to the Plaintiffs' Motions is due Dec. 5, 2025. The Plaintiffs' response to the Defendant's statement and/or declaration is due Dec. 12, 2025. On Nov. 20, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed two Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should be Sealed. The Defendant is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gJW1OQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael Blatchley, Esq. Emily Tu, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com emily.tu@blbglaw.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Julie A. Pollock, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. Alex B. Heller, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bm.net kgibboney@bm.net jpollock@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net aabramowitz@bm.net jpolakoff@bm.net aheller@bm.net - and - Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. Michael J Angelides, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 455 Market St., Ste. 1270 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com mangelides@simmonsfirm.com - and - Robert J. Jackson, Jr., Esq. BUZIN LAW, P.C. 3003 Purchase Street Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone: (212) 879-8100 E-mail: robert.j.jackson@nyu.edu The Defendant is represented by: David G. Hille, Esq. Gregory M. Starner, Esq. Bryan A. Merryman, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 Facsimile: (212) 354-8113 E-mail: dhille@whitecase.com gstarner@whitecase.com bmerryman@whitecase.com X CORP: Modified Scheduling Order in Gerber Entered --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN GERBER, CASEY WEITZMAN, MEGERDICH KASSABIAN, and K.B. FORBES, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. X CORP., as Successor-in-Interest to Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00186-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Westmore entered an order modified scheduling order: 1. The deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the TAC be extended to Dec. 12, 2025. 2. To the extent that the Defendant's response to the TAC is a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs' opposition brief will be due Jan. 16, 2026 and the Defendant's reply brief will be due Feb. 5, 2026 X Corp. is an American tech company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vacVHv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Anjori Mitra, Esq. Joseph A. Pettigrew, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com amitra@scott-scott.com jpettigrew@scott-scott.com - and - Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 739-0622 Facsimile: (212) 739-0628 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com - and - Jeff Westerman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-9780 E-mail: Jeff.Westerman@zimmreed.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com - and - E. Kirk Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC Birmingham, AL 35138-2434 Telephone: (205) 908-4906 E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Joel Kurtzberg, Esq. John MacGregor, Esq. Jason D. Rozbruch, Esq. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 32 Old Slip New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 701-3120 E-mail: jkurtzberg@cahill.com jmacgregor@cahill.com jrozbruch@cahill.com - and - Adrian Sawyer, Esq. SAWYER & LABAR LLP 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 108 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 262-3820 E-mail: sawyer@sawyerlabar.com XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Awaits Approval of Settlement on "McGill" ------------------------------------------------------------- Xponential Fitness, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court approval of the settlement entered in the case captioned Shannon McGill et al. v. Xponential Fitness LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03909. On November 22, 2023, former employees of a former franchisee of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, captioned Shannon McGill et al. v. Xponential Fitness LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03909, against the Company, as well as against a former franchisee of the Company and the franchisee's legal entity, MD Pro Fitness, LLC. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as employment laws from different states in connection with the franchisee's owner-operated studio locations. The Company was served with the complaint on December 4, 2023. On April 4, 2025, the parties executed a settlement agreement and filed a motion seeking court approval of the settlement. By order dated June 18, 2025 (the "Order"), the court enumerated requisite changes to the settlement structure. On September 25, 2025, the parties filed the Second Amended Complaint with exhibits containing the settlement structure and agreement and the parties are currently awaiting approval. The Company recorded an accrual in anticipation of this settlement, which was included in accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2025. XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Awaits Ruling in Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Xponential Fitness, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling on its motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in the securities class action lawsuit pending in a California court. On February 9, 2024, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, regarding misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's financial statements, press releases, and SEC filings made during the putative class period of July 26, 2021 through December 7, 2023. On July 26, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding three Company directors as defendants, as well as the underwriters from the Company's April 6, 2022 secondary offering, additionally bringing claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleging a putative class period of July 23, 2021 through May 10, 2024. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 8, 2024. On December 6, 2024, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss and also filed a motion to supplement the amended complaint, attaching a proposed supplemental complaint. On February 18, 2025, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to supplement, denying defendants' pending motion to dismiss as moot. On February 28, 2025, plaintiffs filed the supplemental complaint. On April 15, 2025, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint. Instead of opposing Defendants' motion to dismiss, on May 6, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which, among other things, adds three new entity defendants to the claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on July 1, 2025 that is scheduled for hearing on December 3, 2025. The litigation is preliminary in nature and involves substantial uncertainties, and the Company believes that a loss is not probable or estimable at this time. However, there can be no assurance that such legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. ZOA ENERGY: "Gershzon" Settlement Wins Preliminary Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mikhail Gershzon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZOA Energy, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-5444-JD, Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the proposed classwide settlement with Defendant ZOA Energy, LLC. For purposes of the Settlement only, the Court conditionally certified this Settlement Class: All persons in the United States who, from March 1, 2021, to the present, purchased in the United States, for personal or household consumption and not for resale or distribution, one or more Products bearing the statement 0 Preservatives on the label. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the presiding Judge in the Action; (2) any member of those Judge's immediate families; (3) Defendant; (4) any of Defendant's subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; (5) counsel for the Parties; and (6) any persons who timely opt-out of the Settlement Class. Mikhail Gershzon is appointed as the Representative Plaintiff. Michael D. Braun of Kuzyk Law, LLP and Peter N. Wasylyk of Law Offices of Peter N. Wasylyk are appointed Class Counsel. Kroll, LLC, is appointed as the Claims Administrator. On or before December 8, 2025, the Settlement Administrator shall establish the Settlement Website. Starting no later than December 15, 2025, the Settlement Administrator shall cause the Email Notice to be sent to Settlement Class Members for whom ZOA maintains an email address. Starting no later than December 15, 2025, the Settlement Administrator shall provide Internet Notice in the form of a social media campaign and/or Banner Advertisements with at least an estimated 85 percent reach. Settlement Class Members who wish to object to the Settlement or to exclude themselves from the Settlement must do so by the Objection Deadline and Opt-Out Deadline, which is February 13, 2026. Class Members who wish to opt out of and be excluded from the Settlement must follow the directions in the Class Notice and submit a Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator, postmarked no later than the Opt-Out Deadline. To receive a Cash Award, the Settlement Class Members must follow the directions in the Notice and file a claim with the Claims Administrator by the Claims Deadline, which is February 20, 2026. Settlement Class Members who do not submit a valid claim will not receive a Cash Award and will be bound by the Settlement. The Court shall conduct a Final Approval Hearing to determine final approval of the Agreement on March 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11 at the San Francisco Courthouse, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Court will not decide the amount of any service award or Class Counsel's attorneys' fees until the Final Approval Hearing. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cxY8mu from PacerMonitor.com ********* 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 ***