251219.mbx

251219.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 19, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 253 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Turner Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Ala. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Shike Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ADVANCE AMERICA: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Smith Says ADVANCED STORES: McCants Sues Over Unlawful Use of Consumer Reports AGRI STATS: Challenges DOJ's Attempt to Bypass Class Action Lawsuit ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to MW Group ALEXANDRIA REAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Jan. 26 Deadline ALVOTECH SA: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ANDERSON BROTHERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Monroe" Overdraft Fee Suit APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Digital Content ARAMARK CORP: Fails to Provide Prisoners With Free Food, Smith Says ASHLEY HOMESTORE: Agrees to Settle Pricing Class Suit for $750,000 ATMA BEAUTY: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Business Losses, Suit Says ATRIUM CENTERS: Fails to Safeguard Info, Shawanokasic Alleges AVANTOR INC: Pontiac Retirement System Sues Over Share Price Drop AW DISTRIBUTING: Wins Dismissal of "Kendrick" BIOPTIMIZERS USA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Thorne Claims BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Appeals Doherty Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit BYHEART INC: Infant Formula "Contaminated," Rachwal Suit Alleges COMFRT LLC: Faces Slavin Suit Over Deceptive Marketing Emails COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.5MM COVANTAGE CREDIT: Spencer Balks at Unlawful Personal Info Access CRAWFORD UNITED: M&A Investigates Sale to SPX Enterprises CYTEC ENGINEERED: Fuimaono Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. DAKOTA EYE: Fina OK Hearing of $1MM Data Breach Suit Set Jan. 12 EMPIRE CONTRACTORS: Court Drops Class Action in Apex Fee Dispute FORD MOTOR: Dealers Sue Over Warranty Reimbursement Shortfalls FORD MOTOR: Lunawadawala Sues Over Vehicle's Missing Sensing System FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Jan. 12 FRESNO, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Policies for Unhoused Individuals GAUZY LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 6 GAUZY LTD: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud GIGGLE LLC: Fava Personal Injury Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. HELLO SUGAR: Aids 3rd Parties to Access Customers' Personal Info HORMEL FOODS: Rosen Law Investigate Potential Securities Claims HYPERTENSION NEPHROLOGY: Settles Data Breach Suit for $625,000 INTEGER HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 9 KARS4KIDS INC: Faces New Class Suit Alleging Donor Deception KENVUE INC: M&S Investigates Proposed Sale to Kimberly-Clark KK BAKERY: Appeals Court Judgment in Chaney Suit to 2nd Circuit LEGO BRAND: Huston Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. LOVEPOP INC: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Holiday Text Messages MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Suit Balks at Unauthorized Personal Info Access MORRIS MOHAWK: Court Denies CEO's Bid to Dismiss "Woods" NASHVILLE, TN: Faces Scott Suit Over Civil Rights Violations NEUHAUS INC: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NIDEC CORP: Rosen Laws Probes Potential Securities Claims OKLAHOMA SPINE: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $1.1MM ORACLE CORP: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Nance Alleges ORACLE CORP: Torrente Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info PACHECO GROUP: Marino Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers PERSANTE HEALTH: Raices Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access PLANT PROGRAM: T.F. Sues Over Deceptive Seltzer Ad R&L CARRIERS: Vazquez Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit REPUBLIC WASTE: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. RIDGE TOOL: Madonna Class Suit Removed to D.N.J. ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Action SAFECO INSURANCE: Fennell Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Faces Lewis Suit Over Data Breach SMC CORP: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Paxson Says SUPERGOOP LLC: Faces Senior Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TANDEM DIABETES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims TARGET CORP: Norman Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. TEXAS: Ten Commandments Displays in School, "Unconstitutional" UNITED STATES: Bid for Prelim Injunction in "Molina" Partly Denied UNITED STATES: Ortiz Seeks Review of Final Determination of Claims UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Peterson Balks at Unprotected Personal Info VENEZUELA: Appeals Stock Purchase Agreement Order to 3rd Circuit VENEZUELA: Citgo Appeals Stock Purchase Agreement Order to 3rd Cir. VENEZUELA: Gold Reserve Appeals Stock Purchase Agreement Order VENEZUELA: Petroleos Appeals Stock Purchase Agreement Court Order WEL COMPANIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pressley Says WOOLWORTHS GROUP: Faces Another Class Suit Over Wage Underpayments Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kmart May Face Suit Over Contaminated Play Sand ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vera Sues 3M Co Over Exposure to Asbestos ********* 3M COMPANY: Turner Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Ala. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case DONALD TURNER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, et al., Case No. 01-cv-2025-90328, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on September 9, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13564-RMG to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF") that the Plaintiffs allege caused them personal injuries. 3M Company, formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, is a global science and manufacturing conglomerate based in Saint Paul, Minnesota. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 322-6000 Facsimile: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Shike Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- RENAE SHIKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES and ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01916 (W.D. Tex., November 25, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendants, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Abbott, the Class Members. Oracle stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about Abbott's current and former employees. But such PII was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach. The private information was acquired by the cyber-criminal gang Cl0p who perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals. The Plaintiff brings 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 Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by a ransomware group and precisely what type of information was accessed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendants seeking redress for their unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Abbott Laboratories designs and manufacturers health technologies spanning diagnostics, medical devices, nutrition and branded generic medicines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com ADVANCE AMERICA: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Smith Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHAVON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-10353 (N.D. Cal., December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and invasion of privacy under California's Constitution. According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with third parties, Google, LLC and LogRocket, Inc., to intercept Advance America account holders' communications on its website, www.advanceamerica.net, where they manage and apply for loans and cash advances, without prior consent. The Defendant secretly installed tracking technologies on its website which serve to track and disclose its customers' personal and sensitive information to third parties, suit says. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. is a financial services firm based in Greenville, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com ADVANCED STORES: McCants Sues Over Unlawful Use of Consumer Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEMIAH MCCANTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED STORES COMPANY INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03370-SEM-DJQ (C.D. Ill., December 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of the Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to the Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that the Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing the Plaintiff and other consumers. Advanced Stores Company Inc. is a retailer based in Springfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (816) 281-7162 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com AGRI STATS: Challenges DOJ's Attempt to Bypass Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Hess, writing for National Hog Farmer, reports that In response to the U.S. Department of Justice's request for its case, United States v. Agri Stats, be considered for the May 4, 2026 trial date the court has already set in In re Pork, Agri Stats says the government wants to "leapfrog" the private pork price-fixing cases and take over the trial date. Agri Stats is asking the court to reject the DOJ's request, noting the government's case is not trial ready, suffers from infirmities that must be resolved on summary judgment, and should proceed to trial once the earlier filed In re Pork case is resolved. In a letter to U.S. District Judge John Tunheim, Agri Stats contends the DOJ's motion is not a "do over" of the summary judgement briefing in the In re Pork case. "This case seeks to enjoin Agri Stats' conduct in three putative protein markets, even though Agri Stats has not offered reports in two of them for six years. Agri Stats cannot restart these programs on its own, and there is no evidence that Agri Stats can obtain the data or customers needed to revive them. As such, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the pork and turkey claims because there is no case or controversy, and, in any event, there is no conduct to enjoin." Instead, the defendants say the DOJ case is really about broiler chicken action taken, a subject matter that has not previously been before the court. Agri Stats argues that allowing the In re Pork case to languish for months while the DOJ catches up would be inefficient. "While Agri Stats does not dispute the public interest in antitrust enforcement, the government plaintiffs' argument that its case against Agri Stats is so ‘urgent' that it must skip ahead of cases brought by actual pork buyers five years earlier to save those same consumers from ‘high protein prices' strains credulity." In court documents filed earlier this month, the DOJ noted the court's previous admission from transcripts that "a consultation with the Department of Justice is probably necessary." The DOJ also contends that scheduling a trial for its case against Agri Stats before any trial in In re Pork is "practical and necessary for multiple reasons." The DOJ filed its original complaint against Agri Stats in September 2023, alleging the company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Participating meat processors account for more than 90% of broiler chicken sales, 80% of pork sales and 90% of turkey sales in the United States. In the amended complaint filed in November 2023, four additional attorneys general added Agri Stats' information-sharing scheme hurts competition, by telling subscribing meat processors how to use the weekly and monthly reports to weaken competition and refusing to sell the weekly and monthly reports to meat purchasers, farmers, workers or consumers. Agri Stats says the lawsuit threatens "serious harm to American consumers of chicken, pork and turkey because protein producers depend upon Agri Stats' reports to help them identify opportunities to reduce production costs to keep prices low." The firm also notes the DOJ investigated Agri Stats a decade ago and closed the investigation after finding no evidence of wrongdoing. [GN] ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to MW Group --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. (NYSE: ALEX) related to its sale to MW Group and funds affiliated with Blackrock Real Estate and DivcoWest. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Alexander & Baldwin shareholders are expected to receive $21.20 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/alexander-baldwin-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Dolly Varden Silver Corporation (NYSE: DVS) related to its merger with Contango Ore, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Dolly Varden shareholders are expected to own 50% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/dolly-varden-silver-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Destination XL Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: DXLG) related to its merger with FBB Holdings I, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, each share of FBB common stock will be converted to Destination common stock subject to an exchange ratio. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/destination-xl-group-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Applied Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: APLT) related to its sale to Cycle Group Holdings Limited. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Applied shareholders are expected to receive $0.088 per share in cash plus one non-transferrable contingent value right entitling the holder to receive potential additional payments under certain conditions. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/applied-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] ALEXANDRIA REAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Jan. 26 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. ("Alexandria" or the "Company") (NYSE: ARE) and reminds investors of the January 26, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: Defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of its Long Island City (LIC) property; notably, the Company's claims and confidence about the leasing value of the LIC property as a life-science destination aligning with ARE's Megacampus(TM) strategy. Alexandria issued a press release on October 27, 2025, reporting its financial results for the third quarter of 2025. Among other items, Alexandria reported third quarter earnings that fell short of analyst expectations, a 5% decline in revenue, and a 7% decline in adjusted funds from operation. Alexandria also reported a decline in its average occupancy rate from 94.8% in the prior year to 91.4%. Following this news, Alexandria's stock price fell over 19% on October 28, 2025. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Alexandria's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Alexandria Real Estate Equities class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/ARE or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. [GN] ALVOTECH SA: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Alvotech (NASDAQ: ALVO) resulting from allegations that Alvotech may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Alvotech securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=15814 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On November 2, 2025, Alvotech issued a press release entitled "Alvotech Provides Update on the Status of U.S. Biologics License Application for AVT05." It stated that the " U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter (CRL) for Alvotech's Biologics License Application (BLA) for AVT05, in a prefilled syringe and autoinjector presentations[.]" Further, the "CRL noted that certain deficiencies, which were conveyed following the FDA's pre-license inspection of Alvotech's Reykjavik manufacturing facility that concluded in July 2025, must be satisfactorily resolved before this BLA for AVT05 can be approved." On this news, Alvotech's stock price fell 34% on November 3, 2025, and nearly 4% on November 4, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ANDERSON BROTHERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Monroe" Overdraft Fee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Clara Monroe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Anderson Brothers Bank, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-06007-JD (D.S.C. Florence Div.), Judge Joseph Dawson III of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Monroe is a South Carolina resident and an account holder of Defendant Anderson Brothers Bank. She brings this action under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, alleging that Defendant charged overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM transactions without first obtaining affirmative, informed consent through a compliant overdraft opt-in disclosure. Defendant is a South Carolina bank with assets of more than $1.9 billion and operates 25 branches throughout South Carolina. The Court found that Regulation E prohibits a financial institution from assessing any fee on an ATM or one-time debit card transaction pursuant to its overdraft service unless the consumer first receives a segregated opt-in notice describing the institution's overdraft service and affirmatively consents. The required notice must be substantially similar to Model Form A-9, but the safe harbor applies only where the notice accurately reflects the institution's actual overdraft practices. Courts have held that even a form patterned on Model Form A-9 may be noncompliant if it obscures or fails to disclose material aspects of the bank's overdraft methodology and thereby prevents informed consent. Accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, as required at this stage, the Court found that Plaintiff plausibly alleges a violation of the EFTA and Regulation E. The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff incurred overdraft fees despite her actual balance never becoming negative and identifies specific one-time debit card transactions on which such fees were assessed. These allegations support a reasonable inference that the Opt-In Form failed to accurately describe Defendant's methods for determining overdrafts. Such factual content is sufficient to allege that Defendant did not obtain the affirmative, informed consent required by Section 1005.17(b)(1). The Court noted that Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's Opt-In Form violates Section 1005.17(b)(1)(i)'s requirement that the overdraft notice be segregated from all other information. According to the Amended Complaint, the form incorporates by reference other account documents and disclosures in a manner that prevents it from functioning as an independent, standalone notice. At this stage, the Court must accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, and those allegations plausibly support a claim that Defendant's disclosure was not properly segregated. Defendant argued that its use of language similar to Model Form A-9 entitles it to the safe harbor. However, the safe harbor applies only when a model clause accurately reflects the institution's overdraft practices. Plaintiff expressly alleges that Defendant's form did not do so. At this stage, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law that the disclosure accurately reflected Defendant's actual practices. The safe-harbor defense, therefore, cannot support dismissal. The Court concluded that whether Defendant's form accurately and clearly described its overdraft service is a fact-intensive inquiry not appropriately resolved on a motion to dismiss. Regarding the unjust enrichment claim, the Court stated that if Plaintiff ultimately establishes that Defendant lacked authority to assess those fees, then Defendant's retention of the fees could plausibly be inequitable. Whether Defendant had lawful authority to collect overdraft fees depends on whether its Opt-In Form complied with Regulation E - a question the Court concluded cannot be resolved at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is, therefore, not subject to dismissal at this time. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Defendant failed to provide the clear, accurate, and complete opt-in disclosure required by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, and that Defendant's safe-harbor and contractual defenses are not conclusively established on the face of the Amended Complaint. Defendant Anderson Brothers Bank's Motion to Dismiss was denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GB6Q1B from PacerMonitor.com APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Digital Content ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Eddie Guerra filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. Why: Guerra claims Apple falsely advertises digital content on its Apple TV platform as "4K". Where: The Apple class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Apple Inc. advertises movies and other video content for purchase on its Apple TV platform as 4K (approximately 4,000 pixels) despite downloaded content only being available in a maximum of 1080 pixels. Plaintiff Eddie Guerra claims content advertised as 4K on Apple TV can only be viewed in 4K, if at all, only by streaming the content over an internet connection and, further, that the license to view the content is subject to be removed by Apple "at all times." "Apple does not allow the downloading of 4K content for offline viewing, despite advertising digital content as 4K at the time of sale," the Apple class action says. Guerra wants to represent a nationwide class and California class of consumers who bought a digital audiovisual work from Apple TV that was advertised as "4K." Apple failed to disclose ownership of digital content, class action alleges Guerra also argues Apple violates California law by failing to disclose that consumers who select to "Buy" digital content on Apple TV are not obtaining unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good. Apple is required by law to disclose to consumers who "Buy" the digital content that they are not actually "purchasing it," but rather only obtaining a limited license to it, according to the Apple class action lawsuit. "Unknown to consumers, Apple has the option and the right to unilaterally revoke this license, such as if it loses the rights to any given digital good, such as through a merger with another company, sale of media and licensing rights, or discontinuation of its Apple TV service," the Apple class action says. Guerra argues that Apple’s conduct is misleading and violates California’s Digital Property Rights Transparency Law, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests injunctive and declaratory relief and an award of economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, punitive and nominal damages for himself and all class members. Two plaintiffs filed a similar class action lawsuit against Audible earlier this year over claims the company misleads consumers into thinking they own the audiobooks they purchase. The plaintiff is represented by Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Brittany S. Scott and Joel D. Smith of Smith Krivoshey, PC. The Apple class action lawsuit is Guerra, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-08593, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] ARAMARK CORP: Fails to Provide Prisoners With Free Food, Smith Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROGER D. SMITH, MARCUS P. MCKINLEY, WILLIAM R. JOHNSON, SANDRA RUSH and JUDY RIGGS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARAMARK CORPORATION, ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, and UNION SUPPLY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00710 (S.D. W. Va., December 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the West Virginia Consumer Protection Act, common law economic duress and common law unjust enrichment. The case arises from Aramark's engagement in a scheme by which it extorts profits from incarcerated consumers and their loved ones by failing to provide incarcerated people with adequate, free daily meals services, so they are driven to purchase commissary food, meals from Aramark's Fresh Favorites program, or iCare packages. By doing so, Aramark extracts a profit on both ends; it saves costs on its daily meals services business by providing less, reused, and poor-quality food, while earning more money from incarcerated consumers' purchases from its food-for-purchase programs. The Plaintiffs and the Class members have been damaged and continue to be damaged by Aramark's unlawful conduct. They have incurred actual out-of-pocket losses by purchasing food that people incarcerated at Mt. Olive should have received for free, and they continue to incur these losses, suit says. Aramark Corporation is a national food service company headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aramark Corporation based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Union Supply Group is a subsidiary of Aramark Corporation based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lydia C. Milnes, Esq. Lesley M. Nash, Esq. MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. 1029 University Ave., Suite 101 Morgantown, WV 26505 Telephone: (304) 326-0188 Facsimile: (304) 326-2040 Email: lydia@msjlaw.org lesley@msjlaw.org - and - Shennan Kavanagh, Esq. Jennifer Wagner, Esq. Caroline Cohn, Esq. National Consumer Law Center 7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 542-8010 Facsimile: (617) 542-8028 Email: skavanagh@nclc.org jwagner@nclc.org ccohn@nclc.org - and - Rebecca Livengood, Esq. Stephen Hayes, Esq. Edward Olds, Esq. RELMAN COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 728-1888 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848 Email: rlivengood@relmanlaw.com shayes@relmanlaw.com tolds@relmanlaw.com ASHLEY HOMESTORE: Agrees to Settle Pricing Class Suit for $750,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Claim Depot reports that consumers who bought products from a California Ashley HomeStore operated by Stoneledge Furniture LLC between March 9, 2017, and March 27, 2022, may qualify to claim a cash payment and a $35 voucher from a class action settlement. Stoneledge Furniture LLC agreed to pay $750,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it advertised inflated "original" or "regular" prices in its California stores. The lawsuit claimed this practice violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Who can file a claim? Individuals must meet all of the following criteria: -- They purchased one or more products from a Stoneledge Furniture LLC store in California (operating as Ashley HomeStore). -- They purchased the product(s) between March 9, 2017, and March 27, 2022. -- The product’s "original price" or "regular price" was at least $10 higher than the "invoice price." Stoneledge stores in California operate under the Ashley HomeStore name so the settlement covers purchases from these locations. How much can class members get? Class members who submit a valid and timely claim are eligible for two types of awards: -- A cash payment from the net settlement fund -- A $35 voucher for use at Stoneledge-owned stores The settlement fund is $750,000, and after deductions for attorneys’ fees, costs, service awards and administrative expenses, the settlement administrator will distribute the remaining amount pro rata among all eligible claimants. The exact cash payment each class member will receive depends on the total number of valid claims submitted. The administrator will donate any uncashed or unclaimed funds to the National Consumer Law Center as a cy pres recipient. How to claim an Ashley HomeStore payment Class members can file online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form then mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Feb. 10, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Cornateanu v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, PO Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 What proof or documentation required to submit a claim? -- All class members must provide the class member ID from the settlement notice they received. -- They must also provide their phone number and email address. Payout options -- Electronic transfer (online claims only) -- Paper check (default payment method) -- $35 voucher for use at Stoneledge-owned stores (expires within 180 days of issuance) Settlement fund breakdown The gross settlement amount is $750,000, but this does not include voucher costs. The fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $300,000 -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $2,000,000 -- Class representative service payment: To be determined -- Pro rata payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund -- Voucher costs: Dependent on number of valid claims Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Feb. 10, 2026 -- Exclusion deadline: Feb. 10, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: April 8, 2026 When is the Stoneledge Furniture settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments and vouchers approximately 96 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged that Stoneledge Furniture LLC advertised inflated "original" or "regular" prices in its California stores, misleading consumers about the true value of products. The plaintiffs claimed this practice violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Stoneledge denies all allegations and any liability but agreed to settle to avoid further litigation costs and uncertainty. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata cash payment and $35 voucher Deadline: February 10, 2026 [GN] ATMA BEAUTY: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Business Losses, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Atma Beauty, a full-service salon and spa in Miami Beach, filed a proposed class action lawsuit against its insurer, HDI Global Specialty SE, for refusing to cover business interruption losses incurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The salon, represented by attorneys from Podhurst Orseck PA, argues that its property insurance policy, which includes business interruption, extra expense, and civil authority coverage, obligates the insurer to pay for losses following the Miami-Dade County closure order. Crucially, the lawsuit highlights that HDI Global chose not to include the industry's standard 2006 virus exclusion language in Atma's policy, a fact the plaintiffs argue invalidates the insurer's denial of coverage. [GN] ATRIUM CENTERS: Fails to Safeguard Info, Shawanokasic Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON SHAWANOKASIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATRIUM CENTERS MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a ATRIUM CENTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01413-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between October 8, 2025, and October 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Atrium Centers Management LLC, doing business as Atrium Centers, Inc., is a skilled nursing provider, with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Flick, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. Marita I. Ramirez, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 Email: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com AVANTOR INC: Pontiac Retirement System Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF PONTIAC REESTABLISHED GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVANTOR, INC., MICHAEL STUBBLEFIELD, R. BRENT JONES, JONATHAN PEACOCK, and STEVEN ECK, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06686 (E.D. Pa., November 25, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Avantor common stock between March 5, 2024 and October 28, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that: (a) Avantor had severely underinvested in its supply chain infrastructure, inventory management systems, and customer service; (b) this lack of investment caused delayed and partial order fulfillment of critical lab products for key customers; (c) these issues resulted in customer attrition and loss of market share to competitors; (d) as a result of the foregoing, goodwill assigned to the VWR acquisition was materially overstated; and (e) Defendants' positive statements about the ABS strategy, competitive positioning, inventory management, customer service, and business prospects were materially false, misleading, or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 1, 2025, in connection with its second quarter 2025 earnings release, Avantor revealed that maintenance overruns and subsequent facility downtime at several plants compounded by raw material availability and equipment uptime issues forced the Company to defer shipments into the second half of the quarter. On October 29, 2025, Avantor reported a $712 million net loss for the third quarter of 2025. The Company further reported a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $785 million in connection with its Lab Solutions segment, which was due in part to the loss of several large accounts to a major competitor. Analysts were surprised by these revelations with some questioning management's credibility. On this news, the price of Avantor common stock declined $3.50 per share, or 23.2%, to close at $11.58 per share on October 29, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the Company's common stock pursuant to the revelation of the fraud, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages. Avantor, Inc. is a laboratory supply company based in Radnor, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Coyle, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. Guillaume Buell, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jcoyle@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com gbuell@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com - and - Cynthia J. Billings-Dunn, Esq. 25800 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 1100 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 746-2747 E-mail: cbdunn@asherkellylaw.com AW DISTRIBUTING: Wins Dismissal of "Kendrick" --------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Michael Kendrick, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Jonathan M. Kendrick, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AW Distributing, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-2287-JWB (D. Kan.), Chief United States District Judge John W. Broomes of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and denied as moot the motion to strike the Plaintiff's Rule 23 class action allegations. The Plaintiff is the father of Jonathan M. Kendrick and administrator of Jonathan's estate. He brought this case individually and on behalf of Jonathan Kendrick's estate. The Defendants in this case are producers of chemical computer dusters, which are pressurized aerosol cans that contain the chemical 1-1, Difluoroethane (DFE), an odorless gas listed as HFC-152a. When inhaled, DFE causes intense and immediate intoxication. DFE is highly lipophilic, crosses the blood-brain barrier, directly affects the central nervous system, stimulates the gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors, and inhibits the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, making it incredibly addictive. The inhalation of DFE can lead to cardiac arrest. Jonathan Kendrick first began inhaling computer dusters in 2011. Even though he was a culinary student, Jonathan's DFE addiction consumed his life, and he inhaled products manufactured by the Defendants on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. On September 25, 2022, Jonathan Kendrick was found dead in Room 143 at the Motel 6 in Overland Park, Kansas. Also, 35 cans of computer dusters were in the room with him when he died, with 27 of those cans being empty. His official cause of death was acute 1,1-Difluoroethane toxicity. On September 12, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the present action in the Western District of Missouri individually, as the administrator of Jonathan's estate, and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated individuals who had been injured or died from DFE intoxication arising from inhaling DFE-based liquid aerosol. In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleged 10 counts, including claims for strict products liability for design defect, failure to warn, manufacturing defects, negligence, wrongful death, survivorship, breach of express warranty, and punitive damages. After serving each Defendant with process, all Defendants filed joint motions to change venue to the District of Kansas, to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and to strike the complaint's Rule 23 class action allegations. On May 21, 2025, Chief District Judge Beth Phillips of the Western District of Missouri granted the motion to change venue and transferred this case to the District of Kansas. After transfer to this district, the Defendants filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision from the Tenth Circuit in the case of Messerli v. AW Distributing, Inc. Magistrate Judge Mitchell granted the motion to stay on July 31, 2025. After the Tenth Circuit issued its opinion in the Messerli case on September 3, 2025, the parties agreed that this case should remain stayed pending the undersigned's decision on the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court determined that a true conflict exists between Missouri and Kansas state law. In Kansas, the affirmative defense of illegality acts as a total bar to recovery, whereas in Missouri, the affirmative defense can only be used in comparative fault determinations. When a case is transferred into a federal district under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) on a motion by the defendant, the transferee court generally must use the choice-of-law rules that would have prevailed in the transferor court. The Court applied Missouri's choice-of-law rules, which follow the most significant relationship test taken from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Section 145. This test looks at four factors: (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. The Court found that the state of Kansas has the most significant relationship to this case. Jonathan Kendrick passed away in Overland Park, Kansas. The place where conduct causing the injury occurred was also likely the same hotel in Kansas in which Jonathan died given the presence of the empty cans at the scene. Regarding the domicile of all parties, the named Plaintiff is himself a resident of Johnson County, Kansas. Therefore, Kansas state substantive law applies to all of the Plaintiff's claims. Under Kansas law, the illegality defense is a bar to a plaintiff's recovery. As the Tenth Circuit noted in Messerli v. AW Distrib., Inc., 153 F.4th 1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2025), the illegality defense exists under Kansas common law, and absent abrogation by the Kansas Legislature or the Kansas Supreme Court, it is still good law. In a case with a set of facts that nearly mirrors this case, the Tenth Circuit held that Kansas' illegality defense was properly applied when granting a motion to dismiss claims involving the illegal huffing of DFE. Given that the facts as pled in the complaint show that Jonathan intentionally inhaled computer duster and developed an addiction to the DFE in the Defendants' products and routinely used products manufactured by each of the Defendants, the Court is bound to apply the illegality defense as invoked by the Defendants and grant the motion to dismiss. Given that the complaint is dismissed, the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiff's class action allegations is rendered moot and thus denied. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiff's Complaint's Rule 23 Class Action Allegations is denied as moot. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TOk9nD from PacerMonitor.com BIOPTIMIZERS USA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Thorne Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIOPTIMIZERS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09975 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://bioptimizers.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Bioptimizers USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Appeals Doherty Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Charles Doherty, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-6628, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties, knowing participation in a fiduciary breach related to an insurance annuity, and prohibited transaction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On Jan. 15, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted in part and denied in part. The motions to dismiss are granted as to Counts V, VI, and VII. The motions are denied in all other respects. The appellate case is entitled Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Doherty, Case No. 25-3014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 1, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents CHARLES DOHERTY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Cyril Smith, III, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 - and - Bryan M. Reines, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 2100 L. Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20037 - and - Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq. 12123 Laurel Terrace Drive Studio City, CA 91604 - and - Susan Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 9301 Corbin Avenue, Suite 1400 Northridge, CA 91324 - and - Edward S. Stone, Esq. EDWARD STONE LAW PC 205 East 42nd Street, Suite 1900 New York, NY 10017 - and - Jerome Joseph Schlichter, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Defendants-Petitioners BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Christian James Pistilli, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 - and - Alison Douglass, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 BYHEART INC: Infant Formula "Contaminated," Rachwal Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAILEIGH RACHWAL, AMBER STUART, SAMANTHA DE OLIVERIA, and KRISTINA TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BYHEART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10011 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula cans and Anywhere Packs. According to the complaint, the Defendant labels the products as "Certified Clean Ingredients," which led consumers to reasonably believe that the products they are purchasing are comprised of only clean ingredients and tested for any contamination. However, the Defendant was notified by the United States Food and Drug Administration on November 7, 2025, of an estimated 83 cases of infant botulism that were reported nationwide since August 2025. Of these, the FDA also noted that 13 infants received ByHeart formula at some point. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. ByHeart, Inc. is a baby nutrition company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 305 Broadway, Suite 713 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 964-9604 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: fklorczyk@kamberlaw.com COMFRT LLC: Faces Slavin Suit Over Deceptive Marketing Emails ------------------------------------------------------------- LYNDSIE SLAVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMFRT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02394 (W.D. Wash., November 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Comfrt sends out marketing emails with subject lines claiming to offer the "Biggest Discount Ever." These subject lines refer to a 15% discount offered in the emails. Comfrt also sends out emails with subject lines claiming that it's consumers' "Last chance!" to get the discount (again referring to a 15% discount). But in reality, the 15% discount is not the biggest discount ever; it is a standard discount that Comfrt regularly offers. And it is not consumers' last chance to get this discount. The discount codes in the emails do not expire. And Comfrt regularly sends out emails offering the same, or materially-similar, 15% discounts. These marketing emails are intended to drive sales by creating the false impression that the discount is especially large and that it is consumers' last chance to receive it. These deceptive email subject lines violate CEMA and the CPA, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a Washington resident who received Comfrt's deceptive marketing emails. She brings this case for herself and other, similar Washington residents who received these illegal emails. Comfrt LLC markets and sells hoodies, sweatpants, blankets, loungewear, and other products through its website, www.comfrt.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Community Psychiatry Management has agreed to a $3,500,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged the company failed to protect the private information of Mindpath Health patients from a 2022 data breach. The Mindpath Health class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 25, 2025 and covers all individuals whose private information may have been compromised in the data security incidents experienced by Mindpath in March 2022 and July 2022, including anyone who received notice about the data breaches. According to court documents, an estimated 193,947 people are covered by the settlement. The court-approved website for the Mindpath Health class action settlement can be found at https://www.MindpathSettlement.com/. Mindpath settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Per the settlement agreement, class members who submit with a valid claim form documented proof of ordinary out-of-pocket expenses and/or lost time are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $1,500. The agreement details that costs covered under the ordinary-expense reimbursement option include losses related to identity theft, credit monitoring, bank fees, and up to ten hours of lost time, at a rate of $30 per hour. Class members who submit with a valid claim form documented proof of extraordinary out-of-pocket expenses are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $10,000, the settlement website continues. Reimbursable extraordinary costs must have been likely caused by the data breach and not be covered by an ordinary expense reimbursement, and the class member must have made reasonable efforts to prevent the loss or seek reimbursement for it, the agreement explains. In addition to either monetary reimbursement option, class members also have the option to choose between three free years of one-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection from IDX OR a one-time, pro-rated alternative cash payment estimated to be $50, the settlement site shares. Class members residing in California are also entitled to a one-time $50 cash payout, subject to pro-rated adjustment, in addition to other settlement benefits, in recognition of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and California Consumer Privacy Act, the agreement adds. Per the settlement agreement, class members may elect to receive their payouts by check or electronic payment, and IDX enrollment codes will be sent out via email to class members who opted for the benefit on their claim form. Settlement checks must be cashed within 180 days of issuance before expiration, and enrollment codes will only be valid for 90 days after issuance. To submit a Mindpath claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID and confirmation code found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a class action settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator. Mindpath settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by January 5, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Mindpath settlement at a hearing on February 19, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Mindpath Health class action lawsuit alleged that the healthcare provider experienced a ransomware attack as a result of its failure to utilize proper security measures and employee security training, which supposedly allowed hackers to gain unauthorized access to two employee email accounts in March 2022 and June 2022. According to the litigation, the patient information impacted by the data breach included, but was not limited to, names, addresses, dates of birth, medical history, treatment information and Social Security numbers. [GN] COVANTAGE CREDIT: Spencer Balks at Unlawful Personal Info Access ---------------------------------------------------------------- GERALD SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVANTAGE CREDIT UNION and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01318 (E.D. Tex., December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach discovered on October 27, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. CoVantage Credit Union is a non-profit enterprise with a principal place of business located in Antigo, Wisconsin Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. is a software firm, headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark T. Freeman, Esq. Laura Van Note Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: mtf@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com CRAWFORD UNITED: M&A Investigates Sale to SPX Enterprises --------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Crawford United Corporation (OTCMKTS: CRAWA) related to its sale to SPX Enterprises, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Crawford shareholders are expected to receive $83.24 per share of Crawford common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/crawford-united-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Confluent, Inc. (NASDAQ: CFLT) related to its sale to IBM. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Confluent shareholders are expected to receive $31.00 per share of Confluent common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/confluent-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: DHIL) related to its sale to First Eagle Investments. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Diamond Hill shareholders are expected to receive $175.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/diamond-hill-investment-group-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Contango Ore, Inc. (NYSE: CTGO) related to its merger with Dolly Varden Silver Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Contango Ore shareholders are expected to own 50% of the combined company. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/contango-ore-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] CYTEC ENGINEERED: Fuimaono Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case RENO FUIMAONO III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CYTEC ENGINEERED MATERIALS INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02025-01522459CUOE, was removed from the Superior Court of the State California for the County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 24, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02633-JWH-DFM to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of California Labor Code. Cytec Engineered Materials Inc. is a supplier of advanced composite materials, headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rick Bergstrom, Esq. Kassi Stephenson, Esq. JONES DAY 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 314-1200 Facsimile: (844) 345-3178 Email: rjbergstrom@jonesday.com kstephenson@jonesday.com DAKOTA EYE: Fina OK Hearing of $1MM Data Breach Suit Set Jan. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Dakota Eye Institute has agreed to a $1 million class action settlement to wrap up a lawsuit stemming from an October 2023 data breach. The Dakota Eye Institute class action settlement received preliminary court approval on August 20, 2025 and covers all United States residents whose private information was compromised in the Dakota Eye Institute data breach, which was disclosed to the public on or about October 31, 2023. Court documents say there are approximately 107,143 Dakota Eye Institute settlement class members. The court-approved website for the class action settlement can be found at DakotaEyeSecurityIncident.com. Settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form with supporting documentation can receive up to $1,000 in reimbursement for ordinary out-of-pocket losses that are "fairly traceable" to the October 2023 incident. Per settlement documents, ordinary data breach-related losses may include any unreimbursed expenses arising from identity theft, falsified tax returns, the misuse of a class member's Social Security number, freezing or unfreezing credit, or other miscellaneous costs incurred due to the incident. Acceptable documentation for out-of-pocket-cost claims includes receipts, invoices, or any other document prepared by a third party that pertains to the expense. Further, settlement class members may submit a claim form with supporting documentation to receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for extraordinary monetary losses related to identity theft stemming from the Dakota Eye data breach. Per the settlement website, a class member seeking reimbursement for extraordinary losses must show that: -- The loss is an actual, documented and unreimbursed monetary loss arising out of or relating to identity theft; -- The loss is traceable to the Dakota Eye data breach; -- The loss occurred between October 1, 2023 and the claim deadline; -- The loss is not already covered by the other reimbursement categories; and -- The class member made reasonable efforts to avoid the loss. In addition to cash payments, the Dakota Eye Institute class action settlement offers two years of one-bureau credit monitoring, which includes $1,000,000 in fraud insurance with no premium. The settlement website also says that eligible class members, in lieu of credit monitoring services, may elect to receive an alternative cash payment of $45, the amount of which may be increased or decreased depending on the total number of claims filed. To submit a Dakota Eye claim form online, class members can visit this page and enter the unique claim ID and PIN as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return to the settlement administrator. All Dakota Eye Institute claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by January 12, 2026. Court documents note that any money remaining in the settlement fund after all cash benefits, credit monitoring and administrative and legal expenses are paid will be distributed to a court-approved charity as a cy pres award. A hearing is scheduled for January 12, 2026 to determine whether the Dakota Eye Institute data breach settlement will receive final approval from the court. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Dakota Eye Institute class action lawsuit alleged that the healthcare provider was aware of the risk of a data breach long before it happened. The plaintiff in the case argued that Dakota Eye failed to implement effective safeguards and protections for the personal information in its care. [GN] EMPIRE CONTRACTORS: Court Drops Class Action in Apex Fee Dispute ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Carolina Journal reports that the North Carolina Supreme Court has vacated the class action in a lawsuit challenging Apex's recreation fee for new residential developments. The unanimous decision Friday, December 12, requires a trial judge to conduct a new analysis of whether Empire Contractors' lawsuit can apply to other developers. A concurring opinion from Justice Phil Berger Jr. labeled the town's recreation fee arrangement "constitutionally suspect." he North Carolina Supreme Court has vacated a lower court's order for a class-action lawsuit against Apex's recreation fee charged to local developers. A trial judge must reconsider whether plaintiff Empire Contractors can proceed with any of its claims under a class action, according to the Supreme Court opinion. "For many years, the Town of Apex charged 'recreation fees' to developers constructing new subdivisions in the rapidly growing town," Justice Richard Dietz wrote for the unanimous court. "These fees were a substitute for developers dedicating a portion of the subdivision for use as a public park or other recreation area. By law, the town was required to use the recreation fees to create or improve its own public recreation areas near the developments that paid for them." Empire Contractors filed suit "seeking a declaration that the town's recreation fees are illegal and must be refunded," Dietz explained. A trial judge certified a class of developers that would be covered by Empire's claims. "The town then appealed, arguing that the common issues for the putative class did not predominate over the many individualized issues," Dietz wrote. "The town also argued that a class action was not the superior method of adjudicating these legal claims." "[W]e agree with the town that, in the class certified by the trial court, individualized issues predominate over the common issues of law and fact," the majority opinion added. "In particular, the class includes several claims for declaratory relief that involve fact-intensive issues such as the fair market value of real property or the cost that a particular development imposes on the town. Resolving these fact issues would cause the case to 'degenerate into a series of mini-trials' for each class member that would vastly overshadow the common legal issues." With the trial court's order now vacated, a judge must conduct a new class certification analysis. "In that analysis, the court should consider whether fracturing this declaratory judgment action -- with some claims being pursued in a class action and others left to individual actions -- creates potential claim-splitting concerns or is otherwise no longer the superior means of adjudicating the remaining claims," Dietz wrote. Justice Phil Berger Jr. supported the decision but wrote a concurring opinion "to highlight the constitutionally suspect nature of the town's collection and management of the recreation fees at issue." "Although not argued, Empire's allegations that the recreation fees have been commingled with general town revenue and have not been used to develop recreation spaces near the subdivisions raise threats to this State's constitutional protections for economic liberty," Berger wrote. "Indeed, the very 'mission' of the law, 'far from being able to oppress the people, or to plunder their property, even for a philanthropic end, . . . is to protect the people, and to secure to them the possession of their property,'" he added. "The town's recreation fee scheme seems to be at odds with this principle." "If Empire's allegations are true, then the town has collected fees from developers under the premise that the money will be used for recreation purposes," Berger wrote. "The town chose to do this through the fees instead of tax collection. After all, politicians revel in limiting political accountability while delivering with other people's money." "But even if extracting fees to build pickleball courts may be reasonably necessary, hoarding the money is not," he added. "The town appears to have leveraged a narrow statutory provision as a means for general revenue collection. Such a scheme cannot be a permissible interference with economic liberty, and this is, in reality, legal plunder under the guise of philanthropy. But here, the emperor truly has no pickleball courts." Plaintiff Empire Contractors filed suit in March 2023, challenging Apex's requirement of a $64,000 payment in lieu of dedicating land for recreation in its 20-lot, 3.5-acre development. A trial judge issued an April 2024 ruling permitting a class action in the case. "I think everybody's interests are aligned here," argued Jim DeMay, Empire's lawyer, before the high court in September. "The interest is the town's not spending these fees, and they're not using it for our particular benefit. So everybody is joined at that." A state law allowing Apex to charge the fee requires the money to be used for parks and recreation projects in or near the affected subdivision. "We deposed everybody with the town that knows anything about this issue," DeMay said. "Every one of them said for each class member, the town has no idea how the fees were spent." "Under the town's own spending rules, their own accounting principles, not a dollar of these fees have been spent on any project," he added. Apex's lawyer responded that state law sets no deadline for the town to spend the fees. "What they're saying is you illegally charged us this fee, and we're entitled to it back, and all of the class members are as well," said Dan Hartzog. "The statute . . . doesn't give us a time frame on which those fees must be spent." "Inherently, in parks and recreation planning, it takes some time to plan, purchase, develop a park," Hartzog continued. "For the plaintiffs to come in here and say, 'They have violated the statute and never had the authority to charge us in the first place,' is a premature determination at this point because the money could be spent on a neighborhood park right near their subdivision." The trial judge committed multiple "errors of law" that should prompt the state Supreme Court to throw out the case's class-action status, Hartzog argued. Apex argued in a February brief that a state law permitted the town to charge the fee. "To prove that a recreation fee-in-lieu paid as a condition of subdivision approval was unlawful, Plaintiff must show that the fee-in-lieu was beyond the scope of the enabling statute, which includes 'implied powers . . . essential to the exercise of those which are expressly conferred,'" Apex's lawyers wrote. "It is undisputed that the enabling statute allows Apex to adopt a regulation that '. . . provide[s] for payment of funds to be used to acquire or develop recreation areas serving residents of the development or subdivision or more than one subdivision or development within the immediate area,'" Apex's brief continued. "The statute contains only one express restriction on the use of the funds by cities: that they 'shall be used only for the acquisition or development of recreation, park, or open space sites.'" "Apex has additional authority by local act that allows the Town to 'us[e] a formula based upon a charge per dwelling unit of the development or subdivision without reference to property tax value,' so long as the 'the collection, maintenance, and use of such funds are otherwise consistent with G.S. 160A-372' and the fee-in-lieu does not 'exceed the fair market value of the land area that would have otherwise been required to be dedicated,'" Apex's lawyers wrote. Beyond the specifics of Empire Contractors' lawsuit, Apex argues that Superior Court Judge Gale Adams was wrong to conclude that this case could cover other developers. "The impact of each development will differ based upon many factors, including the number and type of dwelling units, the resources already available in the area of Town where the development is located, or whether the development increases the population of an existing area of Town or extends its boundaries," Apex's lawyers wrote. "In another example, the amenities built into the development by the developer may have the potential to mitigate its impact. Analysis of the impact of the development will also require fact-specific discovery and proof for each putative class member. This inquiry is ad hoc and fact- intensive. It is not susceptible to common proof, and the trial court erred in finding that it was a common issue of law or fact shared among the class." "There is a common nucleus of operative facts among all class members that underlie each of these issues," Adams wrote in the order granting the lawsuit class-action status. "Plaintiff's claim is typical of all other class members as it relates to the general theories of liability set forth in the common issues. The Court concludes that a 'class' exists in this action and that common issues of law and fact predominate over any individual issues." [GN] FORD MOTOR: Dealers Sue Over Warranty Reimbursement Shortfalls -------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman has filed a class-action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company on behalf of Ford dealerships, alleging the automaker underpaid warranty reimbursement claims for parts and repairs -- including high-cost electric vehicle (EV) batteries -- in violation of New York's Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act (NYDA). Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the lawsuit claims that Ford failed to provide the "reasonable compensation" required under the NYDA, which mandates that franchise dealers receive reimbursement at mark-up rates no lower than what they charge retail customers for comparable non-warranty claims. Dealerships across the country seeking reimbursement for warranty-covered parts and labor since Dec. 1, 2022, may be affected. Learn more about your rights to a potential claim » The lawsuit claims that Ford paid only a fraction of the amounts owed, costing dealerships hundreds of thousands of dollars. EV batteries -- generally the most expensive component of an EV, with replacement costs reaching $25,000 in some models -- represent a significant portion of the financial shortfalls. Dealers are expected to replace warranty-covered batteries for customers at no charge, then request reimbursement from Ford. "Dealerships are the front line of Ford's relationship with its customers, yet they're being left to shoulder major financial losses," says Steve Berman, managing partner and founder of Hagens Berman. "Ford franchisees are hundreds of thousands in the red for work they completed under Ford's own warranty program. Dealerships shouldn't be penalized for keeping Ford's EVs on the road." Ford's Gamble on EV Success One plaintiff cited in the lawsuit replaced 28 EV batteries since early 2024. Based on Ford's statutory markup requirement, the dealer should have received $22,600 per battery, totaling $632,000. Instead, Ford allegedly reimbursed only $600 per battery, leaving the dealer more than $615,000 short. Attorneys argue that Ford's alleged underpayments come at a time when the automaker's EV sales are down 10% in the first seven months of 2025. Despite selling more than 240,000 EVs in 2025, Ford has reported ongoing losses, including over $5 billion in its Model e division. In a highly competitive EV market and feeling the pressure to turn a profit, attorneys claim "Ford appears to be trying to save money on batteries by not fully reimbursing battery replacements at retail prices," in direct violation of the NYDA. Hagens Berman previously secured a monumental settlement valued at $1.67 billion on behalf of Volkswagen franchise dealerships harmed by the automaker's concealed emissions fraud and continues to advocate for fair compensation for dealers nationwide. The lawsuit seeks monetary relief for impacted dealerships. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in 1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Media Contact Ash Klann pr@hbsslaw.com (206) 268-9363 [GN] FORD MOTOR: Lunawadawala Sues Over Vehicle's Missing Sensing System ------------------------------------------------------------------- IBRAHIM LUNAWADAWALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01639-CDB (E.D. Cal., November 25, 2025) is a consumer class action arising from Ford's deceptive and misleading consumer practices regarding the marketing and sale of model year 2024 Ford F-150 Lightning vehicles that were distributed across the United States by Defendant. Defendant Ford represented that certain 2024 F-150 Lightnings contained a "Forward Sensing System" as a standard component of the Class Vehicles, even though it was not included in the Class Vehicles that were delivered to Plaintiff and the Class. The Forward Sensing System is a safety feature that operates by alerting drivers to potential obstacles and hazards in front of the vehicle. Specifically, the Monroney stickers, which Plaintiff reviewed before deciding to purchase his vehicle, represented that the vehicles were equipped with the Forward Sensing System. Once consumers took delivery of their Class Vehicles and realized they were not equipped with the Forward Sensing, they sent complaints to Ford. This prompted Ford to send letters informing consumers of the misrepresentation and offering a paltry $100 refund because their window stickers were not updated properly. The $100 refund is much less than the cost to install a forward sensing system. The complaint asserts that the misrepresentation of safety features placed consumers' lives and well-being in jeopardy by letting them believe their vehicles came equipped with safety features that Ford knew they did not possess. Had Ford disclosed that the Class Vehicles did not contain the Forward Sensing System, the Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased the vehicles or would have paid substantially less for them since they were advertised with an important safety feature they were not equipped with, says the suit. Ford Motor Company manufactures, distributes, markets, services, repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison M. Bernal, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 Facsimile: (805) 284-959 E-mail: alison@nshmlaw.com - and - Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0581 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Jan. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (NYSE: FCX) between February 15, 2022 and September 24, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important January 12, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased Freeport-McMoRan securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Freeport class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=45553 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 12, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Freeport-McMoRan did not adequately ensure safety at the Grasberg Block Cave mine in Indonesia; (2) the lack of proper safety precautions constituted a heightened risk that could foreseeably lead to the death of Freeport's workers; (3) this constituted an undisclosed heightened risk of regulatory, litigation, and reputational risk; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Freeport-McMoRan's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Freeport class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=45553 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FRESNO, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Policies for Unhoused Individuals ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Lopez, writing for ABC 30 Action News, reports that a new lawsuit filed against the City of Fresno aims to create a blueprint for other California cities when it comes to the treatment and rights of the unhoused. According to the complaint, which was filed on December 10, the class action lawsuit alleges "the City's unconstitutional practices and ordinances criminalize homelessness and systemically deprives unhoused individuals." The defendants listed in the lawsuit include the City of Fresno and four of its officers. "The only thing that we have are lots of citations and arrests. When we have the ability to with all of the funding that the city has gone through, we could have changed so many people's lives for the better," said Kevin Little, attorney representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the City of Fresno. The lawsuit lists false arrests as well as violations of due process and discrimination against persons with disabilities. The 61-page document is seeking unspecified damages for members of Fresno's unhoused community, specifically highlighting two plaintiffs -- Wickey Two-Hands and Joseph Quinney, who qualify for certain protections under state, federal, and disability laws. Attorney Kevin Little has represented both plaintiffs in criminal court. "When they were cited and arrested for violations of the prior version of the ordinance, and when those cases were on the verge of trial, the city dismissed the charges against both of them," said Little. City Attorney Andrew Janz issued a statement on the lawsuit, which read in part, "I look forward to taking this case to the Supreme Court - the same Supreme Court that upheld this sort of ordinance." "It sounds like the City is leaning on a Supreme Court decision from a year and a half ago called Johnson vs. Grant's Pass, but we aren't asserting any claims that relate to that case," said Little. Janz's statement goes on to read, "the municipal law passed by the Fresno City Council does not punish housing status, just behavior." Little hopes this lawsuit will serve as a model for other cities and jurisdictions when it comes to the unhoused. "I hope that's the choice the City makes rather than to spend millions of dollars and potentially years in court while people continue to suffer and die on the streets," said Little. On December 12, the City of Fresno will be served with the complaint. Both parties will then appear in federal court with a date set in April. [GN] GAUZY LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Gauzy Ltd. ("Gauzy" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:GAUZ) and certain of its officers. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Gauzy securities between March 11, 2025 and November 13, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/GAUZ. Gauzy Case Details The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: 1. three of the Company's French subsidiaries lacked the financial means to meet their debts as they became due; 2. as a result, it was substantially likely insolvency proceedings would be commenced; 3. as a result, it was substantially likely a potential default under the Company's existing senior secured debt facilities would be triggered; and 4. as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. What's Next for Gauzy Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/GAUZ. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in Gauzy you have until February 6, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to Gauzy Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman for Gauzy Securities Class Action Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com. "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller (917) 590-0911 | info@bgandg.com [GN] GAUZY LTD: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Gauzy Ltd. ("Gauzy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:GAUZ). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Gauzy and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until February 6, 2026 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Gauzy securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On November 14, 2025, Gauzy announced that the Company "will not be releasing its financial results for the third quarter of 2025 on November 14 as previously planned." The press release explained that "[t]he reason for the delay is that, during a hearing held on November 13, 2025, the Commercial Court of Lyon, France, ordered the commencement of French law insolvency proceedings ('Redressement Judiciaire') relating to three subsidiaries of Gauzy located in France." On this news, Gauzy's stock price fell $1.35 per share, or 33.58%, to close at $2.67 per share on November 14, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] GIGGLE LLC: Fava Personal Injury Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case CHRISTINA FAVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GIGGLE LLC, Case No. 25-018572-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 24, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-25494-DPG to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. Giggle LLC is a financial firm in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sarah Anne Long, Esq. MCDONALD TOOLE RICHMAN & CORRENTI, PA 111 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1200 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 246-1800 Email: slong@mtrclegal.com HELLO SUGAR: Aids 3rd Parties to Access Customers' Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- MOHIT SHARMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HELLO SUGAR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11468 (C.D. Cal., December 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and invasion of privacy under California's Constitution. According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with third parties, including Google, LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., and TikTok Ltd., to intercept customers' communications on its website, www.hellosugar.salon, without prior consent. The Defendant secretly installed tracking technologies on its website which serve to track and disclose its customers' personal and sensitive information to third parties, suit says. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Hello Sugar, LLC is a national franchise of Brazilian wax, sugar, and laser salons, with its headquarters in Mesa, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com HORMEL FOODS: Rosen Law Investigate Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Hormel Foods Corporation (NYSE: HRL) resulting from allegations that Hormel may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Hormel securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=47180 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 29, 2025, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Hormel Cuts Forecast on Price Pressure, Consumer Backdrop; Parts Ways With CFO." The article stated that Hormel "warned earnings in the latest quarter were squeezed by price pressures, bird flu and a fire that damaged its Arkansas peanut butter production facility. The company also said it was parting ways with its top finance executive[.]" On this news, Hormel Foods' stock fell 9.1% on October 29, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] HYPERTENSION NEPHROLOGY: Settles Data Breach Suit for $625,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Hypertension Nephrology Associates, P.C., has agreed to a $625,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, healthcare company failed to protect patients' private health information from a January 2024 data breach. The Hypertension Nephrology Associates class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 22, 2025 and covers all individuals in the United States who were sent notice that their personal information was accessed, stolen or compromised due to the January 2024 HNA data breach. According to settlement documents, the data breach exposed the information of approximately 39,491 people. The court-approved website for the Hypertension Nephrology Associates settlement can be found at HNADataSettlement.com. According to the settlement website, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form for a documented loss payment are eligible to receive up to $5,000 for expenses incurred because of the data breach. Claim forms for documented-loss reimbursement must include reasonable documentation, such as phone records or receipts, supporting a class member's data breach-related losses, the settlement website explains. In the alternative, HNA settlement class members may submit a claim form to receive a one-time cash payment. Per settlement documents, the exact amount of the cash payouts from the Hypertension Nephrology Associates settlement will be determined by dividing the amount left in the settlement fund after all documented expenses and credit monitoring services are paid by the total number of timely, valid cash claims that elect to receive a cash payment. Additionally, the settlement offers all class members two years of free credit monitoring and insurance services, regardless of whether a consumer has submitted a claim form for a settlement payment. To submit an HNA claim form online, class members can visit this page and log in with the settlement claim ID found in their copy of the settlement notice. Settlement class members who prefer to submit their claim form by mail can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and mail to the settlement administrator. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by January 20, 2026. The court will determine whether the class action settlement will receive final approval at a hearing on February 18, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members after final approval has been granted and all appeals have been resolved. The Hypertension Nephrology Associates class action lawsuit alleged that the healthcare provider failed to adequately safeguard patients' private information, allowing opportunistic bad actors to access its network in June 2024. Per the complaint, the data breach was detected only after HNA employees discovered a ransom note hidden in their computer files. The complaint alleged there was an "inexcusable delay" between the data breach and when notice was sent, and that HNA made only "meager attempts to ameliorate the effects of this data breach." [GN] INTEGER HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Integer Holdings Corporation (NYSE:ITGR) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://shareholderformcenter.com/integer-holdings-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=180237&wire=1&utm_campaign=23 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Integer Holdings Corporation that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between July 25, 2024 and October 22, 2025. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) Integer materially overstated its competitive position within the growing electrophysiology manufacturing market; (2) despite Integer's claims of strong visibility into customer demand, the Company was experiencing a sustained deterioration in sales relating to two of its electrophysiology devices; (3) in turn, Integer mischaracterized its electrophysiology devices as a long-term growth driver for the Company's cardio & vascular segment; and (4) as a result of the above, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Integer Holdings Corporation stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://shareholderformcenter.com/integer-holdings-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=180237&wire=1&utm_campaign=23 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] KARS4KIDS INC: Faces New Class Suit Alleging Donor Deception ------------------------------------------------------------ Charity Watch reports that a new federal class-action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California accuses Kars4Kids, Inc. and its related charity, Oorah, Inc., of operating a misleading vehicle-donation program that misrepresents how donor contributions are used. The Complaint, filed November 4, 2025, alleges that Kars4Kids' widely recognized advertising campaign deceives donors into believing their contributions support local children's programs, when in reality, nearly all proceeds are funneled to Oorah's Orthodox Jewish outreach programs primarily serving families in New York and New Jersey. The proposed class seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and nationwide accountability for what it describes as a long-running pattern of donor misrepresentation. This lawsuit follows years of government scrutiny and aligns with concerns CharityWatch has raised in prior reporting about both Kars4Kids and Oorah, including a lack of transparency, misleading donor communications, and governance risks related to financial flows between the two organizations. Year Event 2009 Pennsylvania & Oregon AG Actions Details: Attorneys General in PA and OR settle cases with Kars4Kids/Oorah, requiring increased disclosures and imposing financial penalties for misleading solicitations. 2010s Ongoing Misleading Advertising Concerns Details: Regulators and media reports continue scrutinizing Kars4Kids for implying that donations help local children despite funds overwhelmingly routed to Oorah in NY/NJ. 2017 Minnesota Attorney General Report Details: Minnesota AG finds that Kars4Kids provides little or no benefit to Minnesota children despite extensive advertising and vehicle donations solicited in the state. 2021 Prior California Lawsuit Details: A California court denies Kars4Kids' motion to dismiss a donor deception lawsuit with allegations similar to those raised in the 2025 complaint, allowing claims to move forward. 2021–2024 Limited Charitable Activity in High-Fundraising States Details: Kars4Kids continues raising millions in states like California but directs almost no charitable spending to those states, intensifying concerns about misleading fundraising practices. 2025 Federal Class-Action Filed (Savva & Vickers v. Kars4Kids/Oorah) Details: A new federal lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California alleges false advertising, unfair competition, and RICO violations tied to misleading donor solicitations and financial transfers to Oorah. The Core Allegations: Misleading Donors About How Their Gifts Are Used According to the complaint, plaintiffs Pavel Savva and Alexander Vickers donated their vehicles after encountering Kars4Kids' ubiquitous promotions, which imply that donations help disadvantaged or local children. The lawsuit claims these ads leave out critical information: that Kars4Kids is essentially a fundraising arm for Oorah, a charity with a narrow religious mission focused on Orthodox Jewish outreach. The plaintiffs allege that the charities' advertising practices mislead donors into believing: -- Their donations support local children in their own communities. -- The mission is broadly child-focused rather than tied to a specific religious outreach agenda. -- The advertised benefits correspond to local needs in the states where solicitations occur. The complaint states that had donors been presented with accurate and complete information, they would not have contributed. Financial Transfers Between Kars4Kids and Oorah IRS Form 990 data cited in the lawsuit show that Kars4Kids transfers between 94% and 99% of its grantmaking each year to Oorah. These funds allegedly support a mix of religious outreach, internal operations, and program reserves—not the broad children's services implied in public solicitations. The complaint highlights that: -- A significant portion of Oorah's spending supports programs aimed at integrating families into Orthodox Jewish religious life. -- Only a small percentage of funds are used for tuition assistance or summer camp programming for children. -- The majority of Kars4Kids' charitable grants are directed to Oorah despite advertisements implying broader, more secular benefits. The lawsuit claims this financial structure is not clearly disclosed to donors at the time of solicitation. California Fundraising vs. California Charitable Spending One of the most striking allegations in the complaint centers on California. In 2021, approximately 25% of all vehicle donations to Kars4Kids reportedly came from California donors, according to the Complaint. Yet the charity allegedly spent only $3,050 on California charitable grants that year—equivalent to roughly 0.005% of its total reported expenses. The plaintiffs argue this stark discrepancy between local fundraising and local benefit is a misleading practice under California's false advertising and unfair competition laws. RICO Allegations: A Coordinated Scheme The lawsuit asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging that Kars4Kids and Oorah work together as an "association-in-fact enterprise” with the shared goal of misleading donors for financial gain. The complaint cites patterns of mail and wire communications, including: -- Radio and television advertisements -- Online solicitations and promotional messaging -- Tax letters and donation receipts These communications form the basis for the lawsuit's assertion that the charities engaged in a coordinated scheme intended to deceive the public about the true destination and purpose of donated funds. History of Government Scrutiny and State-Level Actions The lawsuit also describes a multi-state history of investigations and regulatory actions against Kars4Kids and Oorah, including: -- 2009 settlements with the Attorneys General of Pennsylvania and Oregon for misleading fundraising practices. -- A 2017 report by the Minnesota Attorney General concluding that Kars4Kids provided little to no charitable benefit to Minnesota children despite extensive fundraising in the state. -- A prior California lawsuit with similar claims in which the court denied a motion to dismiss, allowing allegations of deception to proceed. This historical pattern suggests longstanding governance and transparency issues, consistent with CharityWatch's prior reporting. Proposed Classes and Relief Sought The plaintiffs seek to represent: -- A nationwide class of donors who contributed after seeing Kars4Kids advertisements (excluding donors from Pennsylvania due to prior settlements). -- A California subclass of donors who gave vehicles after exposure to ads in California. Requested relief includes monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive measures requiring more accurate donor disclosure. Past CharityWatch Reporting on Kars4Kids and Oorah CharityWatch has raised concerns about Kars4Kids and Oorah for many years. Our past analyses have highlighted: -- A lack of clear donor disclosure regarding the close relationship between Kars4Kids and Oorah. -- Misleading implications in Kars4Kids advertising about the geographic distribution of charitable benefits. -- High fundraising costs relative to program spending and governance transparency issues. -- Long-standing operational practices in which Kars4Kids functions primarily as a fundraising vehicle for Oorah's religious mission. CharityWatch has consistently warned donors that Kars4Kids' marketing does not adequately convey the narrow scope of the programs funded or the degree to which donations lack local community benefit. The new lawsuit aligns closely with the issues CharityWatch has examined for more than a decade. What Comes Next in the Litigation As of the filing date, the court has not yet ruled on class certification or substantive motions. The lawsuit will now proceed through the federal litigation process unless resolved through settlement. CharityWatch will continue to monitor the case and provide updates as meaningful developments occur. [GN] KENVUE INC: M&S Investigates Proposed Sale to Kimberly-Clark ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Kenvue Inc. (NYSE: KVUE) related to its sale to Kimberly-Clark Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Kenvue shareholders will receive $3.50 per share in cash plus 0.14625 Kimberly-Clark shares for each Kenvue share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 29, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/kenvue-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- FirstSun Capital Bancorp (NASDAQ: FSUN) related to its merger with First Foundation Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, FirstSun shareholders will own 59.5% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/firstsun-capital-bancorp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- First Foundation Inc. (NYSE: FFWM) related to its sale to FirstSun Capital Bancorp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, First Foundation shareholders will receive 0.16083 of a share of FirstSun common stock for each First Foundation common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-foundation-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (NASDAQ: GIFI) related to its sale to IES Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Gulf Island shareholders will receive $12.00 in cash per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 13, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/gulf-island-fabrication-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] KK BAKERY: Appeals Court Judgment in Chaney Suit to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- KK BAKERY INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Matthew Chaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vermont Bread Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00120, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. The suit is brought against the Defendants to recover damages in the amount of 60 days' pay and employee benefits by reason of the Defendants' violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. On Nov. 26, 2025, judgment is entered in the amount of $2,987,040.60 for the Plaintiffs against the Defendants. The appellate case is entitled Chaney v. Vermont Bread Company, Case No. 25-3017, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 1, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MATTHEW CHANEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Thomas P. Aicher, Esq. CLEARY SHAHI & AICHER, PC 110 Merchants Row P.O. Box 6740, Suite 3 Rutland, VT 05701 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC P.O. Drawer 3103 Mobile, AL 36652 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10007 Defendants-Appellants KK BAKERY INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al., are represented by: Harold B. Stevens, III, Esq. STEVENS LAW OFFICE 127 Mountain Road P.O. Box 1200 Stowe, VT 05672 LEGO BRAND: Huston Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case MATTHEW HUSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEGO BRAND RETAIL, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01520312-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State California for the County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 24, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02693-FWS-ADS to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of California Labor Code. Lego Brand Retail, Inc. is a retailer located in Enfield, Connecticut. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan P. Schmidt, Esq. Emma C. Cunningham, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 885-1360 Email: Jonathan.Schmidt@jacksonlewis.com Emma.Cunningham@jacksonlewis.com LOVEPOP INC: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Holiday Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Shapiro of TCPAWorld reports that a new TCPA class action was just filed in the Central District of California against LovePop, Inc. due to Lovepop allegedly sending text messages to Plaintiff Richard Evans outside the quiet hours and while his phone number was on the National DNC Registry. And based on the screenshots in the Complaint, many of those texts were pushing holiday card purchases -- which is festive, sure, but raises questions about its legality. For the National DNC component of the case, are text messages still even covered under the DNC provisions? I'm new to the TCPA space but from what I've seen, these quiet hour provision cases are gaining a lot more notoriety than before. Remember, it is a violation of the TCPA to contact a consumer between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. at the called party's location. That last bit is crucial because if you're running a nationwide texting campaign, you'd better know your time zones! For the National DNC component of the case, are text messages still even covered under the DNC provisions? I'm trying to keep up as it is just my first week on the job. But I know we move fast around here! I will be keeping an eye to see how this case unfolds. More from me soon, TCPAWorld. [GN] MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Suit Balks at Unauthorized Personal Info Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ROBINSON SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC. and NORWAY SAVINGS BANK, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01306 (E.D. Tex., December 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on August 14, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. is a software firm, headquartered in Plano, Texas. Norway Savings Bank is a mutual banking and financial services company headquartered in Norway, Maine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com MORRIS MOHAWK: Court Denies CEO's Bid to Dismiss "Woods" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BILLI JO WOODS, Plaintiff, v. MORRIS MOHAWK GAMING GROUP, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 3:23-cv-00053-GFVT, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied Defendant Alwyn Morris's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. Morris is the founder, CEO, and owner of Morris Mohawk Gaming Group, a private company organized under the laws of Canada. On August 8, 2023, Woods filed a Complaint against Defendants Morris Mohawk Gaming Group, Alwyn Morris, Calvin Ayre, and Harp Media BV. Woods alleges that the Defendants operate online gaming websites, and that she and others lost money wagering on Defendants' games of chance. Specifically, Woods alleges that the Defendants' alleged conduct violates KRS Section 372.010. In the more than two years which have transpired since this Complaint was filed, Woods has been unable to serve process upon any of the four defendants. Appearing specially, Morris sought dismissal of this action for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) and for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5). The Court first addressed whether Morris's activities fall within the scope of KRS Section 454.210, Kentucky's Long-Arm Statute. Because Woods' complaint was filed in 2023, well before the amendments to the Long-Arm Statute were enacted, the Court determined whether Morris's activities fall within the pre-amendment version of KRS Section 454.210. Woods contends that Morris transacted any business within Kentucky as defined in KRS Section 454.210(2)(a)(1). Specifically, Woods contends that Morris transacted any business in Kentucky by accepting registration and funds from Kentucky customers, providing services to Kentucky customers in the form of live table games and other casino games, and accepting online payments to customers in Kentucky. Construing the facts presented in the light most favorable to the party opposing dismissal, the Court found it is clear that Morris transacted business in Kentucky within the meaning of KRS 454.210(2)(a)(1). The Court noted that the use of the word any establishes that even the slightest transaction is sufficient to bring a corporation within the forum's long-arm jurisdiction. While mere passive advertisements accessible by Kentuckians, absent more, may be insufficient to qualify as transacting business, Morris's activities go well beyond passive advertisement. Regardless of whether the Bovada websites actively targeted Kentucky residents through advertising initiatives, the Defendants allowed Kentuckians to register on the website, allowed Kentuckians to make deposits, and engaged virtually with Kentucky residents through live interactive casino games. This constituted transacting business in Kentucky, and Woods's claims arise directly from these actions. Woods also asserts that Morris's activities fall within the scope of KRS Section 454.210(2)(a)(4). The activities of Defendant Morris clearly fall within the scope of 454.210(2)(a)(4). As outlined in Woods' complaint, Morris and the Bovada websites inflicted tortious injury upon Woods, and those similarly situated, by operating a gambling enterprise and actively engaging in online casino games with Kentuckians. These Kentuckians allege a prima facie injury in the form of financial loss, in violation of Kentucky law, resulting in thousands of dollars flowing to the benefit of the owners and operators of the Bovada websites, including Morris, its brand licensee. And these activities were persistent. The Court found it is clear that Morris's activities within Kentucky arise from Woods's cause of action. Woods's complaint, seeking damages stemming from gambling losses, undeniably lie in the wake of Morris's activities in directing and operating online gambling enterprises in Kentucky. These are precisely the activities opening and maintaining accounts for Kentucky residents, receiving Kentuckians' funds, and engaging with Kentuckians in live online casino gambling which established the statutory predicate for long-arm jurisdiction. Consequently, the activities undertaken by Morris, by and through the Bodog Network and the Bovada Websites, are sufficient to bring him within the scope of Kentucky's long-arm statute. The Court independently addressed whether Morris's activities are sufficient to meet the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Court applied a three-part test in making the determination of whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Morris comports with due process. First, the Court determined whether Morris, through his activities with respect to the Bovada websites, purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within Kentucky. The Bovada websites allow Kentuckians to register and deposit money, which they may then gamble and wager with the deposited money through interactive casino games on the Websites. Importantly, users can engage in live dealer games. The Court found that once users accessed the Bovada websites, they were permitted to open an account, deposit funds, and engage in games involving a live dealer. This is more than a passive engagement; it is a business transaction involving mutual engagement on the part of both the website user and the operators of the Bovada websites. Taken together, Defendants' activities demonstrate, at minimum, a voluntary, intentional, and interactive engagement with the forum state sufficient to make a prima facie showing of purposeful availment. Second, the Court addressed whether the Plaintiff's claim arises out of the Defendant's activities in the forum state. The Court found it is abundantly clear that the activities of the Bovada websites operating online, interactive casino gaming websites are substantially connected to Woods cause of action seeking damages stemming from gambling losses under Kentucky state law. Therefore, the arises out of prong is easily satisfied. Third, the Court determined whether the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Morris is reasonable. The Court noted that where a defendant has purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state, it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum. An analysis of the factors pointed to a conclusion that the exercise of jurisdiction over Morris is reasonable. The Sixth Circuit has held requiring a Canadian resident to litigate a case in Kentucky is not overly burdensome. As in Aristech, only a short plane flight separates Quebec from central Kentucky. Kentucky certainly has an elevated interest in addressing an alleged harm brought upon its own citizens. Morris also sought dismissal of this case for insufficient service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). The Court found that Woods has demonstrated good cause. Woods attempted service upon Morris and Morris Mohawk Gaming Group pursuant to the Hague Convention, pursuant to the Court's prior Order. Despite serving process upon the Central Authority of Canada, as required by the Hague Convention, Morris has still yet to be served after more than six months have elapsed. This failure to effectuate service, therefore, can hardly be said to be the fault of Woods. In fact, Woods has renewed her Motion for Alternative Service, and that motion is concurrently pending before the Court. Thus, it is clear that Woods has undertaken a reasonable, diligent effort to timely effect service of process, to establish good cause. The Court must, therefore, permit an extension of time for Woods to effectuate service of process. As a result, dismissing the case for insufficient service of process at this juncture would be both improper and premature. Accordingly, the Court denied Morris's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5). A copy of the Court's decision dated December 2, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OiCT2G from PacerMonitor.com NASHVILLE, TN: Faces Scott Suit Over Civil Rights Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ MARTIN SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METRO. GOV'T. OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TRACKING SOLUTIONS, INC., MALLORY WITHERS, BRIAN CAVALIERE, and TYLER LEWIS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01393 (M.D. Tenn., December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. According to the complaint, the Defendants, acting individually and in concert, used false reports, fabricated evidence, retaliatory prosecutions, and unconstitutional bail and pretrial-monitoring procedures to deprive the Plaintiff of liberty and to punish him for engaging in protected whistleblower activity, including lawful Internal Revenue Service reporting and petitioning courts and federal authorities. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County is a political subdivision of the State of Tennessee. Tracking Solutions, Inc. is a provider of electronic monitoring to the criminal justice system based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Johnson, Esq. 102 East Main St., Suite A Lebanon, TN 37087 Telephone: (629) 200-7774 Email: cody@turklaylaw.com NEUHAUS INC: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEUHAUS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09779 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on November 18, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Limited Edition Souvenirs from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, says the suit. By failing to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- hereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that the ADA was meant to redress. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Neuhaus Inc. operates the website that offers Belgian chocolates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal NIDEC CORP: Rosen Laws Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Nidec Corporation (OTC: NJDCY) resulting from allegations that Nidec Corporation may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Nidec Corporation securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=47559 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On September 3, 2025, after market close, CNBC published an article entitled "Nidec shares plunge 22% as China unit probe finds accounting issues tied to management." The article further stated that shares of Nidec fell "after the company announced a probe into allegations of improper accounting in its group. This marks the largest one-day drop in the Japanese electronics components manufacturer's shares." On this news, Nidec American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell 22.7% on September 4, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] OKLAHOMA SPINE: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $1.1MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Oklahoma Spine Hospital has agreed to a $1,100,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit over a July 2024 data breach that allegedly compromised patients' private health information. The Oklahoma Spine Hospital class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 9, 2025 and covers all individuals who were sent a data breach notice letter from Oklahoma Spine Hospital regarding the incident discovered on or about July 1, 2024. According to settlement documents, approximately 38,945 settlement class members had their personal information potentially compromised in the Oklahoma Spine Hospital data breach. The court-approved website for the Oklahoma Spine Hospital settlement is OSHDataIncidentSettlement.com. According to the settlement website, settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive up to $10,000 in reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket expenses incurred between July 1, 2024 and January 7, 2026 as a result of the data breach. Claim forms for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses must include supporting proof, such as bank statements or receipts, showing that the expenses were reasonably related to the data breach, the settlement website explains. The settlement website adds that class members are also eligible to submit a claim form for a one-time pro rata (equal share) cash payment from the amount remaining in the settlement fund after all expenses and other benefits have been paid. Per the settlement website, the payment settlement payout is expected to be approximately $100 per claimant, and the amount may increase or decrease depending on the total number of valid claims that are filed. Finally, all settlement class members are eligible to receive up to three years of one-bureau credit monitoring, which includes fully managed identity recovery services, dark web monitoring and identity theft insurance up to $1,000,000. To submit an Oklahoma Spine Hospital settlement claim form, class members can go to this page on the settlement website and enter the unique notice ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Class members who prefer to submit their claim form by mail can download a PDF of the claim form to print, complete, and mail to the settlement administrator. All Oklahoma Spine Hospital claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by January 7, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the class action settlement at a hearing on February 17, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Oklahoma Spine Hospital class action lawsuit alleged that an unauthorized third party gained access to an employee's email account on or about July 1, 2024. The data breach potentially exposed patients' private information, including Social Security numbers, financial account and routing numbers, medical records and health insurance information, the case alleged.[GN] ORACLE CORP: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Nance Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JAMES NANCE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION and WP COMPANY LLC d/b/a THE WASHINGTON POST, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01924 (W.D. Tex., November 25, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. Oracle stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about Plaintiff and other current and former employees and/or customers of Defendant Washington Post. On October 27, 2025, Defendant Washington Post learned that Plaintiff's information was impacted by a data security incidence in which unauthorized actors accessed and acquired data from Defendant's information technology systems from July 10, 2025 to August 22, 2025. Subsequently, Defendant Washington Post sent out notifications dated November 12, 2025 to Plaintiff and the purported Class Members informing them that their information was impacted by the data breach. The Defendants' storage of such PII was inadequately protected and resulted to exposure to cybercriminals in the data breach. The complaint alleges that cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. Oracle Corp. is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm based in Austin, Texas. Washington Post is a major American newspaper and digital media company based in Washington D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parkes Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwella@stranchlaw.com ORACLE CORP: Torrente Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW TORRENTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION and SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01960 (W.D. Tex., December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on July 10, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Oracle Corporation is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm based in Austin, Texas. Schneider Electric USA is an energy management corporation, with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Resch, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: bresch@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenamalad.com PACHECO GROUP: Marino Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MARINO, Plaintiff v. PACHECO GROUP, LLC, MACONDO DORAL, INC. D/B/A MACONDO COFFEE ROASTER, and MIAMI TO BRAZIL RODIZIO DORAL LLC, D/B/A MIAMI TO BRAZIL RODIZIO DORAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-25531 (S.D. Fla., November 25, 2025) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has lower paraplegia (T-5 level), which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands and has limitations in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking and standing. The Plaintiff visited the subject commercial property and businesses located therein as a patron/customer and intends to return to the commercial property in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public at the commercial property. However, he found the Defendants' commercial property, commercial coffee shop and commercial restaurant businesses to be rife with ADA violations due to some architectural barriers. The Defendants have each individually and together discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the properties and the businesses thereon, says the suit. Pacheco Group owns and operates a commercial property constituting a commercial plaza located in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Doral, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com PERSANTE HEALTH: Raices Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARCUS RAICES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERSANTE HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-18095 (D.N.J., December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between January 23 and 28, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Persante Health Care, Inc. is a health care provider, with its principal place of business in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com PLANT PROGRAM: T.F. Sues Over Deceptive Seltzer Ad -------------------------------------------------- T.F., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PLANT PROGRAM, INC. d/b/a NEW BREW KRATOM Defendant, Case No. 25STCV34384 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for the misleading and deceptive marketing of its seltzer products containing Kratom and Kava. According to the complaint, the Defendant affirmatively markets and portrays their kratom beverages as healthy, natural herbal supplements through the representations on the products themselves and on its website. In reality, however, the products contain an addictive quasi-opioid. The Defendant misleads well-meaning, health-conscious consumers about the serious risk of addiction and adverse health effects from consuming its products, says the suit. Plaintiff T.F. first purchased a New Brew beverage around October 2023 that he bought from Anna's Joint in Long Beach, California. The Plant Program, Inc. is a company that provides kratom-containing beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com arnold@aswtlawyers.com - and - Steven D. Liddle, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com rsolt@lsccounsel.com R&L CARRIERS: Vazquez Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE VAZQUEZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Jose Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01947-JGB-DTB, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code. On Mar. 28, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Apr. 11, 2025. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court finds that amendment would be futile and dismissed the FAC without leave to amend. The appellate case is entitled Vazquez v. R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-7571, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 2, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 8, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on January 12, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on February 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSE VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Daniel Bibiyan, Esq. Henry Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Defendants-Appellees R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC, et al., are represented by: Cheryl L. Schreck, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Amanda Washton, Esq. THOMPSON HINE, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Anthony C. White, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 41 South High Street, Suite 1700 Columbus, OH 43215 REPUBLIC WASTE: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case JOEL GARCIA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC, REPUBLIC SERVICES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC, REPUBLIC SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA II, LLC, and REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01512889-CUOE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State California for the County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 1, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02679 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. Republic Waste Services of Southern California, LLC is a waste management services company in California. Republic Services of Southern California, LLC is a waste management services company in California. Republic Services of California II, LLC is a waste management services company in California. Republic Services, Inc. is a waste management services company in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shahram Samie, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 - and - Matthew Morris, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 RIDGE TOOL: Madonna Class Suit Removed to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------ The case PASQUALE MADONNA and JENNIFER MADONNA, h/w, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RIDGE TOOL COMPANY, EMERSON PROFESSIONAL TOOLS, LLC, EMERSON PROFESSIONAL TOOLS MFG LLC, EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA, INC. a/k/a TTI GROUP, TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES POWER EQUIPMENT, ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., JOHN DOES 1-5 and XYZ CORP. NOS. 1-5, Case No. CAM-L-003320-25, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 1, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-18065 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty. Ridge Tool Company is a manufacturer of professional-grade hand and power tools based in Ohio. Emerson Professional Tools, LLC is a manufacturer of professional tools based in Ohio. Emerson Professional Tools Mfg LLC is a manufacturer of professional tools based in Arkansas. Emerson Electric Co. is an engineering services company, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., also known as TTI Group, is a manufacturer of power tools and products based in Florida. Techtronic Industries Power Equipment is a manufacturer of power equipment. One World Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of power tools based in South Carolina. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer headquartered in Georgia. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Kott, Esq. McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Four Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 639-2056 ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Rocky Mountain Gastroenterology (RMG) has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that the healthcare provider failed to implement proper security measures to protect sensitive patient information, which led to a September 2024 data breach. The Rocky Mountain Gastroenterology class action settlement covers approximately 366,491 United States residents whose private information may have been compromised in the September 2024 RMG data breach. The court-approved website for the RMG data breach settlement can be found at https://www.RockyMountainSettlement.com/. According to the website, Rocky Mountain Gastro settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket expenses may be eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $1,000. According to the settlement agreement, reimbursable expenses must be reasonably traced back to the Rocky Mountain Gastro data breach and cover costs related to identity theft, fraud, credit monitoring, bank fees and other misuse of private information. Further, all settlement class members will be provided a code to enroll in two free years of Medical Shield Complete from CyEx, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring and monitoring of certain categories of medical information. Per the settlement agreement, class members may elect to receive their payout via check or electronic payment when submitting their claim form, and CyEx enrollment codes will be distributed via email. To submit an RMG settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique class member ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive an RMG settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login information. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the Rocky Mountain Gastro settlement site to print, fill out and return by mail to the address listed near the bottom of the document. All RMG settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by February 2, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the RMG settlement at a hearing on January 23, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Rocky Mountain Gastroenterology class action lawsuit alleged that the Colorado-based healthcare provider failed to protect the private information of its current and former patients from a targeted data breach in September 2024. According to the settlement website, the private information impacted by the data breach included, but was not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical records and health insurance information. [GN] SAFECO INSURANCE: Fennell Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FENNELL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Brian Fennell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02125, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The suit seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful practice of denying insurance claims without legal basis. On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendant filed a renewed motion to dismiss all claims. On Apr. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file first amended class action complaint. On Oct. 28, 2025, Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an Order denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file first amended class action complaint and granting the Defendant's renewed motion to dismiss. The appellate case is entitled Brian Fennell v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, et al., Case No. 25-3944, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on December 1, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BRIAN FENNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN 60 S. Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Defendant-Appellee SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, et al. are represented by: William M. Harter, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD 10 W. Broad Street, Suite 2300 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 464-1211 SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Faces Lewis Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- JUDITH LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SITUSAMC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09824-UA (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data breach involving Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' name and Social Security numbers. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information and give them timely, adequate notice of the data breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Situsamc Holdings Corp. is a New York-based real estate finance services firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: gklinger@milberg.com SMC CORP: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Paxson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PAXSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02446-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., December 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around December 8, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. SMC Corporation of America is a pneumatic technology firm, with its principal place of business in Noblesville, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. Taylor E. Cody, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Ste. 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com tcody@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com SUPERGOOP LLC: Faces Senior Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERGOOP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09974 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://supergoopstore.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Supergoop LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 TANDEM DIABETES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (NASDAQ: TNDM) resulting from allegations that Tandem Diabetes Care may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Tandem Diabetes securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19024 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On August 7, 2025, before the market opened, the company issued a press release entitled "Tandem Diabetes Care Issues Voluntary Medical Device Correction for Select t:slim X2 Insulin Pumps." The release stated that Tandem Diabetes had "announced a voluntary medical device correction for select t:slim X2 insulin pumps to address a potential speaker-related issue that can trigger an error resulting in a discontinuation of insulin delivery." On this news, Tandem Diabetes' stock fell 19.9% on August 7, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TARGET CORP: Norman Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The case CORINA MARIE NORMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2530157, was removed from the Superior Court of the State California for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 24, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03245-JGB-SP to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of California Labor Code. Target Corporation is an American retail corporation, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph G. Schmitt, Esq. Mark J. Girouard, Esq. Courtney L. Burks, Esq. Cody B. Humpherys, Esq. NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA 250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-7500 Facsimile: (612) 305-7501 Email: jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com mgirouard@nilanjohnson.com cburks@nilanjohnson.com chumpherys@nilanjohnson.com TEXAS: Ten Commandments Displays in School, "Unconstitutional" -------------------------------------------------------------- Black Chronicle News Service reports that a group of 18 multifaith and nonreligious Texas families have brought a class action lawsuit to stop all Texas public school districts from displaying the Ten Commandments in every classroom. On Dec. 2, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas filed the case Ashby v. Schertz-Cibolo-Universal ISD, the first class action lawsuit and the third suit challenging Senate Bill 10. "The courts are clear that forcing displays of the Ten Commandments on Texas students is unconstitutional," said Chloe Kempf, attorney at the ACLU of Texas. "Yet Texas school districts won't stop. Enough is enough. With this class action lawsuit, Texans are coming together to say: Students and families -- not the government -- should decide how or whether they practice their faith." Although two federal judges in Texas have ruled that S.B. 10 is unconstitutional, school districts across the state continue to display the Ten Commandments. The ACLU of Texas maintains the new case is necessary because public school districts continue to violate the constitutional rights of students and their families. "Politicians are abusing their power to advance a religious extremist agenda and impose one narrow set of religious beliefs on Texas school children. Not on our watch," said Rachel Laser (she/her), president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "Our Constitution's guarantee of church-state separation means that families -- not politicians get to decide if, when, and how their children engage with religion." The class action seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would stop any public school district not already involved in litigation from displaying the Ten Commandments. "As Unitarian Universalists, our faith is led by equity, compassion, and acceptance of all people," said plaintiff Caitlyn Besser (she/her), whose children attend school in Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD. "The Ten Commandments posters required by S.B. 10 impose a specific religious doctrine on my children, which directly violates our family's faith." Ashby v. Schertz-Cibolo-Universal ISD is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. [GN] UNITED STATES: Bid for Prelim Injunction in "Molina" Partly Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Jose Escobar Molina, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-3417 (BAH), Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, to Stay Agency Action, and for Provisional Class Certification. The Court provisionally certified the following class: All persons who, since August 11, 2025, have been or will be arrested in this District for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person poses an escape risk. The Court designated this as the Unassessed Escape Risk Class. The Court appointed counsel from the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of the District of Columbia, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, National Immigration Project, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and Covington & Burling, LLP, as provisional counsel for the provisionally certified plaintiff class. The Court preliminarily enjoined the Defendants and their agents from enforcing their policy or practice of making warrantless civil immigration arrests in the District of Columbia without a pre-arrest individualized determination by the arresting agent of probable cause that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, as required by 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. Section 287.8(c)(2)(ii). The statute and regulation also require the same individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is in the United States in violation of law or regulation regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion or removal of aliens. The Court ordered that the Defendants shall, within 72 hours of the issuance of this order, transmit a copy of this Order to the Defendants' officers, employees, agents, and contractors who have responsibilities related to the subject matter of this Order. The Court further ordered the Defendants to comply with specific reporting requirements. According to the Court, any Defendant or their agent who conducts a warrantless civil immigration arrest in the District of Columbia shall, as soon as practicable, document the facts and circumstances surrounding the warrantless civil immigration arrest in narrative form. This documentation shall include the specific, particularized facts that supported the agent's pre-arrest probable cause to believe that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The required documentation includes the following facts that are required to be documented pursuant to the Department of Homeland Security's Broadcast Statement of Policy on compliance with 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2): that the alien was arrested without a warrant; the location of the arrest and whether this location was a place of business, residence, vehicle, or a public area; the alien's ties to the community, if known at the time of arrest, including family, home, or employment; and the specific, particularized facts supporting the conclusion that the alien was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained. The documentation shall include the date and time of the arrest, and the date and time the agent completed the documentation. The Court emphasized that in describing the individualized assessment of escape risk in the documentation, specific details as to the person being arrested must be provided such that the use of boilerplate language may be deemed indicative of noncompliance. The Court ordered that within 30 days of this Order and every 30 days thereafter until this litigation is terminated or the Court rules otherwise, the Defendants shall release to Plaintiffs' counsel the documentation describing the Defendants' and their agents' warrantless civil immigration arrests within this District, or if requested by Plaintiffs' counsel concerning specific individual warrantless arrests, no later than seven days after the request. The Court established procedures for addressing alleged violations of this Order. If the Plaintiffs have a reasonable basis to believe that the Defendants are in substantial noncompliance with one or more provisions of this Order, the Plaintiffs shall notify the Defendants in writing of the specific alleged compliance issue. Within seven days of the Plaintiffs' response, the parties shall meet and confer. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within seven days of the meet and confer, the Plaintiffs may seek intervention from the Court by filing a motion for enforcement or a motion for an order to show cause why the Defendants should not be held in contempt. The Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification without prejudice. The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to post a bond of $1.00. This Order shall remain in effect until further order of the Court. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 2 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hyzv3T from PacerMonitor.com UNITED STATES: Ortiz Seeks Review of Final Determination of Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANITA R. ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY and DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01189-JMR-KK (D.N.M., December 1, 2025) is a class action under Hermit's Peak's Fire Assistance Act's (HPFAA) section 104(i)(1) to modify or set aside Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) decision and award the Plaintiff the full amount of the actual compensatory damages permitted under New Mexico state law. The Plaintiff seeks judicial review of FEMA's final determination of her claims. According to the complaint, the final determination of the Ortiz's claims is not in accordance with the law. HPFAA entitles claimants to noneconomic damages for interference with personal comfort, annoyance, and inconvenience, and the final determination categorically refuses to award those same damages, among other damages. Federal Emergency Management Agency is an executive agency of the United States government. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antonia Roybal-Mack, Esq. Francheska M. Bardacke, Esq. Amelia P. Nelson, Esq. ROYBAL-MACK & CORDOVA, PC P.O. Box 91658 Albuquerque, NM 87199 Telephone: (505) 288-3500 Email: antonia@roybalmacklaw.com francheska@roybalmacklaw.com amelia@roybalmacklaw.com - and - Ian Cloud, Esq. Scott Marshall, Esq. ROBINS CLOUD LLP 2000 West Loop S., Suite 2200 Houston, TX Telephone: (713) 650-1200 Email: icloud@robinscloud.com smarshall@robinscloud.com UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Peterson Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARK PETERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC. and ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01915-ADA-SH (W.D. Tex., November 25, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendants, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former employees of UOPX, the Class Members. Oracle stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about UOPX's current and former employees, including Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings 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 Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by a ransomware group and precisely what type of information was accessed. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the data breach. The University of Phoenix, Inc. is a private institution focused on providing online and campus based degree programs. Oracle Corp. is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com VENEZUELA: Appeals Stock Purchase Agreement Order to 3rd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Crystallex International Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-mc-00151, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a registration of a foreign judgment issued by the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 16-cv-00661, for the amount of $1.202 billion plus pre-award interest. On Feb. 16, 2021, the Sale Process Parties, Crystallex, the Venezuela Parties, and ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria, B.V., and ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V., having agreed that the retention of a special master was necessary to oversee the design and implementation of detailed sale procedures, put forward three candidates for the Court's consideration, including Robert B. Pincus. On Apr. 13, 2021, after interviewing the three candidates, the Court appointed Mr. Pincus as special master. On Nov. 25, 2025, Judge Leonard P. Stark entered an Order adopting the Special Master's Updated Final Recommendation that the Court approve the Amber Energy Bid. The Venezuela Parties' and Gold Reserve's objections are overruled. The special master recommended that the Court conclude its years-long Sale Process by approving the sale of PDVSA Holding Company (PDVH) Shares, which are wholly owned by Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), and which have been attached by various judgment creditors of Venezuela and of PDVSA, who are together owed more than $20 billion, to a consortium that includes Elliott Investment Management L.P. and Amber Energy Inc. On Nov. 29, 2025, Judge Stark entered an Order approving stock purchase agreement, authorizing sale of the PDVH Shares free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances, and other interests, and granting related relief. The appellate case is entitled Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 25-3347, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on December 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CRYSTALLEX INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER 920 N. King Street One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 - and - Miguel A. Estrada, Esq. Brian C. McCarty, Esq. Lucas C. Townsend, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 1700 M. Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8257 (202) 887-3721 (202) 887-3731 - and - Travis S. Hunter, Esq. Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER 920 N. King Street One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7564 (302) 651-7525 - and - Rahim Moloo, Esq. Jason W. Myatt, Esq. Robert L. Weigel, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-2413 (212) 351-4000 - and - Jennifer M. Becnel-Guzzo, Esq. SAUL EWING 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2300 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 421-6811 - and - Peter J. Keane, Esq. PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES 919 N. Market Street P.O. Box 8705, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 652-4100 - and - Kevin J. Mangan, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) 1313 N Market Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 252-4361 - and - Kirk Andersen, Esq. Alexandra M. Cumings, Esq. Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq. Phillip Reytan, Esq. Susan W. Waesco, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 N. Market Street, 16th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 351-9102 (302) 658-9200 (302) 351-9294 (302) 351-9677 - and - Daniel D. Birk, Esq. Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. EIMER STAHL 224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-7620 (312) 660-7600 - and - John C. Brinkerhoff, Jr., Esq. Noel J. Francisco, Esq. Brinton Lucas, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3401 (202) 879-5485 (202) 879-3939 Defendant-Appellant BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA is represented by: Ginger D. Anders, Esq. Elaine J. Goldenberg, Esq. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500e Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 220-1107 (202) 220-1114 (202) 220-1101 - and - Brendan P. McDonnell, Esq. HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 472-7308 - and - A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq. Bryan M. Blaylock, Esq. Christopher F. Cannataro, Esq. ABRAMS & BAYLISS 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 778-1033 Defendants-Appellees PDV HOLDING INC., et al. are represented by: Kirk Andersen, Esq. Alexandra M. Cumings, Esq. Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq. Phillip Reytan, Esq. Susan W. Waesco, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 N. Market Street, 16th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 351-9102 (302) 658-9200 (302) 351-9294 (302) 351-9677 - and - Daniel D. Birk, Esq. Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. EIMER STAHL 224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-7620 (312) 660-7600 - and - John C. Brinkerhoff, Jr., Esq. Noel J. Francisco, Esq. Brinton Lucas, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3401 (202) 879-5485 (202) 879-3939 VENEZUELA: Citgo Appeals Stock Purchase Agreement Order to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CITGO PETROLEUM CORP. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Crystallex International Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-mc-00151, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a registration of a foreign judgment issued by the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 16-cv-00661, for the amount of $1.202 billion plus pre-award interest. On Feb. 16, 2021, the Sale Process Parties, Crystallex, the Venezuela Parties, and ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria, B.V., and ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V., having agreed that the retention of a special master was necessary to oversee the design and implementation of detailed sale procedures, put forward three candidates for the Court's consideration, including Robert B. Pincus. On Apr. 13, 2021, after interviewing the three candidates, the Court appointed Mr. Pincus as special master. On Nov. 25, 2025, Judge Leonard P. Stark entered an Order adopting the Special Master's Updated Final Recommendation that the Court approve the Amber Energy Bid. The Venezuela Parties' and Gold Reserve's objections are overruled. The special master recommended that the Court conclude its years-long Sale Process by approving the sale of PDVSA Holding Company (PDVH) Shares, which are wholly owned by Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), and which have been attached by various judgment creditors of Venezuela and of PDVSA, who are together owed more than $20 billion, to a consortium that includes Elliott Investment Management L.P. and Amber Energy Inc. On Nov. 29, 2025, Judge Stark entered an Order approving stock purchase agreement, authorizing sale of the PDVH Shares free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances, and other interests, and granting related relief. The appellate case is entitled Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 25-3349, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on December 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CRYSTALLEX INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER 920 N. King Street One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 - and - Miguel A. Estrada, Esq. Brian C. McCarty, Esq. Lucas C. Townsend, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 1700 M. Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8257 (202) 887-3721 (202) 887-3731 - and - Travis S. Hunter, Esq. Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER 920 N. King Street One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7564 (302) 651-7525 - and - Rahim Moloo, Esq. Jason W. Myatt, Esq. Robert L. Weigel, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-2413 (212) 351-4000 - and - Jennifer M. Becnel-Guzzo, Esq. SAUL EWING 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2300 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 421-6811 - and - Peter J. Keane, Esq. PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES 919 N. Market Street P.O. Box 8705, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 652-4100 - and - Kevin J. Mangan, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) 1313 N Market Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 252-4361 - and - Kirk Andersen, Esq. Alexandra M. Cumings, Esq. Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq. Phillip Reytan, Esq. Susan W. Waesco, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 N. Market Street, 16th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 351-9102 (302) 658-9200 (302) 351-9294 (302) 351-9677 - and - Daniel D. Birk, Esq. Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. EIMER STAHL 224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-7620 (312) 660-7600 - and - John C. Brinkerhoff, Jr., Esq. Noel J. Francisco, Esq. Brinton Lucas, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3401 (202) 879-5485 (202) 879-3939 Defendants-Appellees BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, et al. are represented by: Ginger D. Anders, Esq. Elaine J. Goldenberg, Esq. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500e Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 220-1107 (202) 220-1114 (202) 220-1101 - and - Brendan P. McDonnell, Esq. HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 472-7308 - and - A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq. Bryan M. Blaylock, Esq. Christopher F. Cannataro, Esq. ABRAMS & BAYLISS 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 778-1033 Defendant-Appellant CITGO PETROLEUM CORP. is represented by: Daniel D. Birk, Esq. Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. EIMER STAHL 224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-7620 (312) 660-7600 - and - John C. Brinkerhoff, Jr., Esq. Noel J. Francisco, Esq. Brinton Lucas, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3401 (202) 879-5485 - and - Alexandra M. Cumings, Esq. Phillip Reytan, Esq. Susan W. Waesco, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 N. Market Street, 16th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 658-9200 (302) 351-9250 (302) 351-9677 VENEZUELA: Gold Reserve Appeals Stock Purchase Agreement Order -------------------------------------------------------------- GOLD RESERVE LTD is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Crystallex International Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-mc-00151, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a registration of a foreign judgment issued by the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 16-cv-00661, for the amount of $1.202 billion plus pre-award interest. On Feb. 16, 2021, the Sale Process Parties, Crystallex, the Venezuela Parties, and ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria, B.V., and ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V., having agreed that the retention of a special master was necessary to oversee the design and implementation of detailed sale procedures, put forward three candidates for the Court's consideration, including Robert B. Pincus. On Apr. 13, 2021, after interviewing the three candidates, the Court appointed Mr. Pincus as special master. On Nov. 25, 2025, Judge Leonard P. Stark entered an Order adopting the Special Master's Updated Final Recommendation that the Court approve the Amber Energy Bid. The Venezuela Parties' and Gold Reserve's objections are overruled. The special master recommended that the Court conclude its years-long Sale Process by approving the sale of PDVSA Holding Company (PDVH) Shares, which are wholly owned by Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), and which have been attached by various judgment creditors of Venezuela and of PDVSA, who are together owed more than $20 billion, to a consortium that includes Elliott Investment Management L.P. and Amber Energy Inc. On Nov. 29, 2025, Judge Stark entered an Order approving stock purchase agreement, authorizing sale of the PDVH Shares free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances, and other interests, and granting related relief. The appellate case is entitled Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 25-3363, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on December 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CRYSTALLEX INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER 920 N. King Street One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 - and - Miguel A. Estrada, Esq. Brian C. McCarty, Esq. Lucas C. Townsend, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 1700 M. Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8257 (202) 887-3721 (202) 887-3731 - and - Travis S. Hunter, Esq. Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER 920 N. King Street One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7564 (302) 651-7525 - and - Rahim Moloo, Esq. Jason W. Myatt, Esq. Robert L. Weigel, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-2413 (212) 351-4000 - and - Jennifer M. Becnel-Guzzo, Esq. SAUL EWING 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2300 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 421-6811 - and - Peter J. Keane, Esq. PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES 919 N. Market Street P.O. Box 8705, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 652-4100 - and - Kevin J. Mangan, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) 1313 N Market Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 252-4361 - and - Kirk Andersen, Esq. Alexandra M. Cumings, Esq. Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq. Phillip Reytan, Esq. Susan W. Waesco, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 N. Market Street, 16th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 351-9102 (302) 658-9200 (302) 351-9294 (302) 351-9677 - and - Daniel D. Birk, Esq. Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. EIMER STAHL 224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-7620 (312) 660-7600 - and - John C. Brinkerhoff, Jr., Esq. Noel J. Francisco, Esq. Brinton Lucas, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3401 (202) 879-5485 (202) 879-3939 Defendants-Appellees RUSORO MINING LTD, et al. are represented by: R. Craig Martin, Esq. Angela C. Whitesell, Esq. DLA PIPER 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 468-5700 - and - Jamie L. Brown, Esq. Samuel Taylor Hirzel, II, Esq. Brendan P. McDonnell, Esq. HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 472-7318 (302) 472-7315 (302) 472-7308 - and - Robert Groot, Esq. David V. Holmes, Esq. Kevin A. Meehan, Esq. Juan O. Perla, Esq. Joseph D. Pizzurro, Esq. CURTIS MALLET-PREVOST COLT & MOSLE 101 Park Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 696-8877 (484) 889-1889 (212) 696-6197 (212) 696-6084 (212) 696-6000 - and - Rebecca L. Butcher, Esq. Jennifer L. Cree, Esq. LANDIS RATH & COBB 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 467-4400 - and - Jason Z. Miller, Esq. SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS 1000 N. West Street The Brandywine Building, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 652-8400 Defendant-Appellant GOLD RESERVE LTD is represented by: Dennis D. Howe, Esq. Aaron M. Panner, Esq. Daniel Severson, Esq. Collin R. White, Esq. KELLOGG HANSEN TODD FIGEL & FREDERICK 1615 M. Street NW Sumner Square, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 367-7808 (202) 326-7921 (202) 326-7900 (202) 326-7925 - and - Kevin J. Mangan, Esq. Stephanie S. Riley, Esq. Matthew P. Ward, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) 1313 N. Market Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 252-4361 (302) 559-8528 (302) 252-4320 VENEZUELA: Petroleos Appeals Stock Purchase Agreement Court Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- PETROLEOS DE VENEZUELA SA is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Crystallex International Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-mc-00151, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a registration of a foreign judgment issued by the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 16-cv-00661, for the amount of $1.202 billion plus pre-award interest. On Feb. 16, 2021, the Sale Process Parties, Crystallex, the Venezuela Parties, and ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria, B.V., and ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V., having agreed that the retention of a special master was necessary to oversee the design and implementation of detailed sale procedures, put forward three candidates for the Court's consideration, including Robert B. Pincus. On Apr. 13, 2021, after interviewing the three candidates, the Court appointed Mr. Pincus as special master. On Nov. 25, 2025, Judge Leonard P. Stark entered an Order adopting the Special Master's Updated Final Recommendation that the Court approve the Amber Energy Bid. The Venezuela Parties' and Gold Reserve's objections are overruled. The special master recommended that the Court conclude its years-long Sale Process by approving the sale of PDVSA Holding Company (PDVH) Shares, which are wholly owned by Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), and which have been attached by various judgment creditors of Venezuela and of PDVSA, who are together owed more than $20 billion, to a consortium that includes Elliott Investment Management L.P. and Amber Energy Inc. On Nov. 29, 2025, Judge Stark entered an Order approving stock purchase agreement, authorizing sale of the PDVH Shares free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances, and other interests, and granting related relief. The appellate case is entitled Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 25-3350, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on December 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CRYSTALLEX INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER 920 N. King Street One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 - and - Miguel A. Estrada, Esq. Brian C. McCarty, Esq. Lucas C. Townsend, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 1700 M. Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8257 (202) 887-3721 (202) 887-3731 - and - Travis S. Hunter, Esq. Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER 920 N. King Street One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7564 (302) 651-7525 - and - Rahim Moloo, Esq. Jason W. Myatt, Esq. Robert L. Weigel, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-2413 (212) 351-4000 - and - Jennifer M. Becnel-Guzzo, Esq. SAUL EWING 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2300 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 421-6811 - and - Peter J. Keane, Esq. PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES 919 N. Market Street P.O. Box 8705, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 652-4100 - and - Kevin J. Mangan, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) 1313 N Market Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 252-4361 - and - Kirk Andersen, Esq. Alexandra M. Cumings, Esq. Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq. Phillip Reytan, Esq. Susan W. Waesco, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 N. Market Street, 16th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 351-9102 (302) 658-9200 (302) 351-9294 (302) 351-9677 - and - Daniel D. Birk, Esq. Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. EIMER STAHL 224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-7620 (312) 660-7600 - and - John C. Brinkerhoff, Jr., Esq. Noel J. Francisco, Esq. Brinton Lucas, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3401 (202) 879-5485 (202) 879-3939 Defendant-Appellee RUSORO MINING LTD is represented by: R. Craig Martin, Esq. Angela C. Whitesell, Esq. DLA PIPER 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 468-5700 Defendant-Appellant PETROLEOS DE VENEZUELA SA is represented by: Jamie L. Brown, Esq. Samuel Taylor Hirzel, II, Esq. Brendan P. McDonnell, Esq. HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 472-7318 (302) 472-7315 (302) 472-7308 - and - Robert Groot, Esq. David V. Holmes, Esq. Kevin A. Meehan, Esq. Juan O. Perla, Esq. Joseph D. Pizzurro, Esq. CURTIS MALLET-PREVOST COLT & MOSLE 101 Park Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 696-8877 (484) 889-1889 (212) 696-6197 (212) 696-6084 (212) 696-6000 WEL COMPANIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pressley Says ----------------------------------------------------------- DONALD PRESSLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEL COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01869-WCG (E.D. Wis., November 25, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class. On January 31, 2025, the Defendant detected that an unauthorized third party gained access to its network. Through an investigation, on November 12, 2025, nearly 9 months after initially detecting the unauthorized activity in its network, the Defendant confirmed that personal information belonging to Plaintiff and other current and former contractors and employees was accessed. The impacted information included, but is not limited to, names and Social Security numbers. The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the data breach made the impacted individuals vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their private information.  In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class' private information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, the Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former contractors and employees, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be based on information in Defendant's possession.   Wel Companies, Inc. distributes food, beverages, and other products across the country through its trucking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com WOOLWORTHS GROUP: Faces Another Class Suit Over Wage Underpayments ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jack Campbell of HRD reports that Woolworths is facing a new class action in the Federal Court with the supermarket accused of underpaying staff in South Australia. The claim, filed by Shine Lawyers on behalf of current and former employees, centres on alleged shortfalls in pay linked to work performed on Sundays. The case focuses on a now-repealed South Australian law that treated Sundays as public holidays, potentially entitling affected workers to higher penalty rates. Woolworths said the proceedings involve one of its subsidiaries and are based on interpretations of that former state legislation. Australia's largest supermarket chain maintains that it does not consider the action to be "market-sensitive" and has confirmed it will contest the claims in court. This latest lawsuit follows an earlier class action, also targeting staff underpayments at Woolworths. Investors reacted cautiously to the latest development, with Woolworths shares falling around 2.5% trading as the market digested the prospect of further legal and reputational fallout. The company has already warned of a significant financial hit tied to historical wage issues. Regulators are also circling. The Fair Work Ombudsman has launched separate legal proceedings against both Woolworths and rival Coles over alleged underpayments, signaling a broader crackdown on wage compliance in the supermarket sector. Continued underpayment cases at some of Australia's largest companies serve as a warning to employers about relying on broad "set‑off" clauses in contracts and about lax record-keeping. In the case of Coles and Woolworths, the court found that attempts to use pooled, over-award salary payments over long periods to retrospectively cover shortfalls in specific pay periods did not meet the requirement to pay employees their full award entitlements each pay period. Woolworths said that a "very preliminary estimate" of the one-off impact of the ruling would be between $180 and $330 million post-tax. For employers, the key lessons are to draft any set‑off clauses narrowly and carefully and to strictly comply with statutory record-keeping obligations (including accurate records of hours and entitlements), as failures in these areas will likely fall "on" the employer in any underpayment dispute. The new class action adds another layer of complexity to Woolworths' efforts to draw a line under its wage underpayment saga and sets the stage for a legal battle over how much the company may ultimately owe its staff. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kmart May Face Suit Over Contaminated Play Sand ---------------------------------------------------------------- Imogen Wells, writing for Stuff reports that a group of concerned parents are weighing up a class action lawsuit after revelations children's play sand sold at Kmart and stationery stores may be contaminated with asbestos. Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, Kmart is liable for any costs or damages linked to the product -- including testing, decontamination or removal. But one mum says she's struggled to get in contact with the retail giant, and she and other concerned parents are now considering a class action lawsuit. Waikato mother of two Jessica Jordan says she's been extremely worried about her children's health since learning the Kmart magic sand they'd been playing with could potentially contain asbestos. "I was sort of in a tailspin for a few days," she said. A number of play sands sold at stationery stores and Kmart have tested positive for tremolite asbestos, both in New Zealand and Australia. On Monday, November 24, MBIE added another two sand products to the growing list, saying they're sold at various discount stores nationwide. Jordan's Kmart bought batch tested negative, but she's still frustrated by the lack of communication from Kmart. "There's radio silence from Kmart and other retailers so we're sort of working out what the next steps are going to be, and we feel like it'll be really big," she said. Basic testing costs around $100, while testing an entire home can cost upwards of $3000, and that's before any decontamination or removal fees. Consumer New Zealand told Stuff Kmart is legally responsible to pay for any testing or removal costs. "Kmart is 100% responsible for any damages incurred in relation to this kinetic sand," Consumer NZ's Gemma Rasmussen said. "So they (parents) really do have a strong case to go to Kmart if they can prove that these costs are in relation to the product. And if Kmart is not willing to play ball, then they would have that second backup of going through the disputes tribunal." Jordan said she's been contacted by a family in financial hardship, asking for help. "Her and her husband have lost their jobs and they're on the benefit and they're having to pay for decontamination, which is significant. If Kmart doesn't step up, Jordan said some parents are prepared to escalate. "If we can't get some communication from Kmart in terms of reimbursing, then there's a number of us who are considering a class action lawsuit." Stuff has contacted Kmart for comment, and asked whether it would cover related costs, but the retailer has not responded. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vera Sues 3M Co Over Exposure to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Vera, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY; ASCENDIA BRANDS, INC.; BAYER CONSUMER CARE HOLDINGS LLC formerly known as MSD CONSUMER CARE, INC.; BAYER HEALTH CARE LLC, a subsidiary of BAYER AG; BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC; COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; GSK CONSUMER HEALTH INC individually and as successor-in-interest to CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION, CIBA SELF-MEDICATION, INC., NOVARTIS COMPANY; GOLD BOND CO. LLC, individually and as-successor-in-interest to CHATTEM, INC.; LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, L.L.C., on behalf of LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, INC.; MERCK & CO., INC.; NATERRA INTERNATIONAL INC.; NOVARTIS CORP.; PERRIGO COMPANY OF TENNESSEE; PFIZER INC.; PLAYTEX PRODUCTS LLC formerly known as PLAYTEX PRODUCTS INC.; PTI UNION, LLC; SAFEWAY INC.; STATER BROS. INC.; THE STEPHAN CO.; VI-JON LLC; WALMART INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 400 INCLUSIVE, et al., Case No. 25STCV33289 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 12, 2025), is brought against the Defendants arising out of Defendants' purposeful efforts to serve directly or indirectly the market for their asbestos and/or asbestos containing products, including but not limited to talc, in this State, either through direct sales or utilizing an established distributing channel with the expectation that their products would be purchased and/or used with the State of California. Prior to his diagnosis, Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos fibers by using and handling asbestos fibers and products incorporating asbestos as a component, and being in the presence of others using and handling asbestos fibers and products incorporating asbestos as a component, as alleged herein. The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants, as defined herein, arise out of Defendants' purposeful efforts to serve directly or indirectly the market for their asbestos and/or asbestos containing products, including but not limited to talc, in this State, either through direct sales or utilizing an established distributing channel with the expectation that their products would be purchased and/or used with the State of California. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore allege, that Defendants exposed Plaintiff to the same hazardous product, namely asbestos. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff was exposed to respirable asbestos, which he inhaled and which thereby entered his body, and which caused him to suffer the severe and permanent harm, as set forth herein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed mesothelioma on July 3, 2025 as a result of exposure to asbestos due to the products, materials and services of Defendants. The Defendants are transacting business in this State, including the sale, supply, purchase, and/or use of asbestos and/or asbestos containing products including but not limited to talc, within this State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Gilson, Esq. MEIROWITZ & WASSERBERG, LLP 95 Third Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (212) 897-1988 Facsimile: (646) 432-6887 Email: sgilson@mwinjurylaw.com CAROL COLLEY, as Anticipated Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN COLLEY, Deceased, Plaintiff vs. L'OREAL TRAVEL RETAIL AMERICAS, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to MAYBELLINE LLC and YVES SAINT LAURENT AMERICA, INC. and d/b/a L'OREAL, L'OREAL PARIS, MAYBELLINE, MAYBELLINE NEW YORK, LANCOME and YVES SAINT LAURENT; PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC.; COSMETIC SPECIALTIES, INC.; COTY INC.; GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC; GUCCI AMERICA, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to SANOFI BEAUTE, INC. d/b/a YVES SAINT LAURENT; KOBO PRODUCTS, INC.; L'OREAL USA, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to MAYBELLINE LLC and YVES SAINT LAURENT AMERICA, INC. and d/b/a LANCOME, L'OREAL, L'OREAL PARIS, MAYBELLINE, MAYBELLINE NEW YORK and YVES SAINT LAURENT; LORNAMEAD INC. d/b/a YARDLEY OF LONDON a/k/a YARDLEY; L. PERRIGO COMPANY; MARKWINS BEAUTY BRANDS, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to AM COSMETICS and d/b/a WET N WILD; MARKWINS BEAUTY PRODUCTS, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to AM COSMETICS and d/b/a WET N WILD; MIYOSHI AMERICA, INC., a subsidiary of MIYOSHI KASEI, INC. and f/k/a U.S. COSMETICS CORPORATION; NOXELL CORPORATION; PERRIGO COMPANY; PERRIGO COMPANY OF TENNESSEE; PFIZER INC; PREMIER BRANDS OF AMERICA INC.; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to THE SHULTON GROUP and/or SHULTON INC., and YARDLEY OF LONDON a/k/a YARDLEY; SHULTON INC., sued individually and as successor to THE SHULTON GROUP; VI-JON, LLC; WALMART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC.; and WYETH HOLDINGS LLC f/k/a WYETH HOLDINGS CORPORATION f/k/a AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to THE SHULTON GROUP and/or SHULTON INC., Defendants, Case No. CACE-25-016681 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fl., October 30, 2025) is a lawsuit against the Defendants for negligence, misrepresentations, product defects, fraudulent concealment, willful omissions, and fraud. According to the complaint, the Decedent JOHN COLLEY was diagnosed with MESOTHELIOMA on November 14, 2023, satisfying the criteria of the Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act. He died on June 19, 2025. In the past, he required medical care, nursing care or hospitalizations to treat his conditions and suffered a loss of earnings, ability to earn money or his earning capacity was impaired as a direct and proximate result of his asbestos-related mesothelioma. The Plaintiff alleges that JOHN COLLEY was exposed to Defendants' Products from approximately the 1950s to the 2020s during Decedent's regular and frequent personal use, and in his daily life during his family members' regular and frequent use while in close proximity to him, at various locations including, but not limited to: in Madeira Beach, Florida and Boca Raton, Florida; in various cities in the States of Arkansas, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; and in the United Kingdom. Although Plaintiff may identify the designer, manufacturer, distributor, or seller of several Defendants' Products to which the Decedent was exposed, Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every exposure that Decedent sustained in the various locations being mentioned. As a direct and proximate result of the Decedent's diseases, injuries and death, his survivors have further sustained mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, grief, loss of capacity to lead and enjoy a normal life, funeral expenses, and expenses of medical care, nursing care and/or hospitalizations to treat Decedent's conditions. Such damages, injuries and losses are permanent and continuing in nature and Decedent's survivors will suffer the aforementioned damages, injuries and losses in the future, says the suit. Accordingly, since each exposure to said Defendants' Products caused or contributed to Decedent's mesothelioma and wrongful death, and since it is not possible to apportion such damages, Plaintiff CAROL COLLEY seeks recovery in accordance with Florida law against each Defendant. The survivors of JOHN COLLEY are his surviving spouse Plaintiff CAROL COLLEY, his daughter Michelle Lowe, and his son Gareth Colley. Defendants are all engaged in the design, manufacture, distribution and/or sale of asbestos-containing products, and/or asbestos-containing talc and/or chalk, and/or other finished and unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder products, and/or any other powder-like product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: REBECCA S. VINOCUR, P.A. 5915 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 14 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (786) 691-1282 Facsimile: (786) 691-1283 E-mail: rvinocur@rsv-law.com - and - Brendan J. Tully, Esq. SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, PC 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2848 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 634-1690 Facsimile: (214) 320-0526 E-mail: btully@sgptrial.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 ***