260220.mbx

260220.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 20, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 37 Headlines ABM AVIATION INC: Kelly Suit Removed to C.D. California AFNI INC: Cerean Suit Removed to W.D. Washington AMAZON.COM SERVICES: King Files Suit in E.D. New York AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Pungi Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages AMERICA FIRST MOVING: Ankrah Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia AMERICAN BUILDERS: Mack Suit Removed to C.D. California APEX GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Action APOLLO INTERACTIVE: Daniels Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ATP TOUR: Bee Sues Over Unlawful Data Collection & Disclosure AVON COMPANY: Abbott Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AXELON SERVICES: Martin Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois B.A.F.S. INC: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BANK OF AMERICA: Judge OKs Sex Trafficking Suit to Proceed CAN I HAVE MONEY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over TCPA Violations CELGENE CORP: Continues to Defend Generic Drug Antitrust Class Suit CELGENE CORP: Continues to Defend Pomalyst Antitrust Class Suit CELGENE CORP: Settlement Approval Hearing Set in May CERNER CORPORATION: Stout Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CHAIRISH INC: Broome Files Suit in N.D. California CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Ellis Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Conceals Product Safety Risks, Taylor Alleges COVERAGEX LLC: Clark Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls DAVITA INC: Pressures Patients to Risky At-Home Dialysis Treatments DIGITAL ASSETS: Faces Conohan Suit Over Website's Tracker Software DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Disability Transport Lawsuit Moves Forward ETSY INC: Golsh Suit Removed to E.D. California EVEREST NEOCELL: Ford Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FASHION NOVA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FITNESS TOGETHER FRANCHISE: Briere Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado FOREVER COLLECTIBLES: Baldwin Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California GINA'S AUTO SALES: Brown Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois GRAVITY PAYMENTS: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Graf Says HANDI-FOIL CORP: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Osdoby" HILTON WORLDWIDE: Niles Files Suit Over ADA Violation HRB TAX GROUP: Montgomery Sues Over Unlawful Lending Practices HRB TAX: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Interest Rates HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA: Steeneck Files Suit in E.D. New York INGRAM MICRO HOLDING: Yoon Files Suit in C.D. California JEFFY YU: Beckwith Sues Over Digital Asset Fraudulent Scheme JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Allows Cash Sweep Class Suit to Continue KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Suit Over Lemonade Products' Artificial Flavors LEAR CORPORATION: Alexander Files Suit in N.D. Texas LEMON PERFECT COMPANY: Ghanaat Suit Removed to N.D. California LET'S GO: Misled Investors in Digital Token Offering, Barr Alleges LIMETREE BAY: Loses Bid to Halt St. Croix Environmental Suit LUXURBAN HOTELS: Faces Federal Securities Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. MACY'S RETAIL: Nieva Suit Removed to C.D. California MACYS.COM LLC: Esquivel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit for Misleading Investors MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in Florida MASTERCARD INC: Liability Shift MDL Settlement for Court Approval MONSANTO COMPANY: To Settle Roundup Litigation for $7.2 Billion MOUNT FRANKLIN FOODS: Hughes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEXTMARVEL INC: Williams Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Agrees to Settle COVID Class Suit for $4MM ORIENTAL RUG: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wood Alleges PAYGOV.US LLC: Burke Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana PENNYMAC FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims PENUMBRA INC: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PORCH.COM INC: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Fasolino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REED'S INC: Deherrera Sues Over Mislabeled Ginger Ale Products REEDS INC: Herrera Files Suit in S.D. California RICHARD BARASCH: Myers Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. SEEL INC: Mickey Files Suit Over Unlawful Shipping Insurance Scheme SEGWAY INC: Torres Suit Transferred to D. Delaware SOLEIL SERVICES: Contreras Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Rathbun Files Suit in Ga. State Ct. SOXLAND INT'L: Anderson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SPRINGWOOD HOSPITALITY: Court Approves "Shatzer" Settlement STATEN ISLAND: Deadline for Class Settlement Exclusion Set March 2 STEPHEN BANNON: Investors Sue Over 'Patriot Pay' Cryptocurrency T-MOBILE US: Continues to Defend Dinkevich Shareholder Class Suit T-MOBILE US: Continues to Defend Palkon Class Suit in Delaware TIMESHARE HELP CENTER: Brooks Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona TIMEX GROUP USA: Cultrara Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TOTAL LONGTERM CARE: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California TOUCH OF CLASS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Claims TRI POINTE: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Sumitomo Forestry TTI OUTDOOR: Faces Bruss Suit Over Defective Pressure Washers TWO HARBORS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to UWM Holdings UNITED STATES: Bid to Postpone South Sudan TPS Designation UNITED STATES: Denies Mandatory COVID-19 Tax Benefits, Suit Says VELLUTINI CORPORATION: Szillat Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VISTAPRINT NETHERLANDS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Emails VIVINT LLC: Devies Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas WOLVERINE FUELS: Court Won't Merge Two Wage Suits WOODWARD ORAL SURGERY: Darby Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defends 3,700 Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reports $246MM Total Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $6.4BB Liabilities as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $708MM Liabilities at Dec. 31 ********* ABM AVIATION INC: Kelly Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Donyell Kelly, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ABM AVIATION, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV30673 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01255. The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendant on behalf of herself and the putative class: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Paid Sick Leave; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; all in violation of California Labor Codes and violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura Fleming, Esq. Matthew C. Lewis, Esq. Jack M. McMenamin, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP Attorneys at Law 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 Email: lf@paynefears.com mcl@paynefears.com jmm@paynefears.com AFNI INC: Cerean Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Benjamin Cerean, on behalf of himself, and as representative of similarly situated persons v. AFNI, INC., Case No. 25-00002-38538-8 was removed from the Superior Court for King County, Washington, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00452. The Plaintiff asserts he is a resident of the State of Washington and seeks to bring a claim for alleged violation of Washington statutes on behalf of a purported class of individuals residing in Washington.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Justin Murphy, Esq. HASSON LAW LLC 4001 Main Street, Ste 50 Vancouver, WA 98663 Phone: 503-255-5352 Email: justin@hassonlawllc.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: King Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as SeQuoia King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00694 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Amazon.com Services LLC -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- provides e-commerce services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Stuart Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7408 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: mroberts@bursor.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Pungi Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea F. Pungi, and similarly situated employees v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, AMAZON.COM INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2026), is brought for the Defendants' violations of California's Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") wage orders and the California Labor Code, including without limitation Amazon's failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime premium pay; failure to authorize and permit paid duty-free rest periods and meal breaks; and failure to pay all wages owed in a timely manner. This is an individual wage-and-hour action seeking unpaid minimum and regular wages for time Amazon required Plaintiff to spend at an on-site "New Hire Orientation / First Day On-Site" appointment before her first scheduled shift. The unpaid time includes compensable, employer-controlled onboarding activities such as badge issuance and activation (including a badge photograph), and a mandatory welcome presentation and/or orientation training (collectively, "Unpaid Onboarding Time"), and the related issues of non-compliant meal and rest periods and waiting time penalties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff delivered packages to customers of the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly worker with the title of Seasonal Delivery Associate. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation doing business in California, including Orange County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle C. Worrell, Esq. WORRELL LAW FIRM, APC 1717 Old Tustin Avenue, Unit E Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone: (657) 232-1450 Facsimile: (657) 232-1430 Email: kcw@worrell-law.com AMERICA FIRST MOVING: Ankrah Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against America First Moving Services, LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Oforiwah Twumasi Ankrah. on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. America First Moving Services, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00666-TWT (N.D. Ga., Feb. 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. America First Moving -- https://americafirstmoving.com/ -- has one of the largest networks of recommended Movers in the USA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 626-2098 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com AMERICAN BUILDERS: Mack Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eddie Mack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS SUPPLY CO., INC., Case No. 25STCV38455 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01266. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint which is a civil action for injunctive relief and money damages against Defendant in which Plaintiff has alleged three causes of action (or "Counts"): Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code (the "Unruh Act"); California Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code (the "CDPA"); and (California Civil Code Sections 55.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David Raizman, Esq. Nicholas Marfori, Esq. Douglas D. Clark, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: david.raizman@ogletree.com nicholas.marfori@ogletree.com douglas.clark@ogletree.com APEX GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Apex Global Solutions has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare IT solutions company failed to protect sensitive patient information stored on its systems from a data breach that occurred between June and July 2024. The Apex Global Solutions class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 31, 2025 and covers all living individuals residing in the United States who received notice from Apex that their private information may have been impacted by the 2024 data breach. According to court documents, the private information of roughly 390,000 patients of Apex Global Solutions' clients may have been accessed during the breach. The court-approved website for the Apex Global Solutions data breach settlement can be found at AGSDataSettlement.com. According to the website, Apex Global Solutions (AGS) settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit with their claim form proof of documented losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $3,500 from the settlement. The agreement states that class members must provide reasonable documentation to receive reimbursement for losses related to identity theft or fraud incurred due to the data breach, and class members may not seek payment for expenses previously reimbursed by a third party. AGS class members may elect to receive their cash payout via check or electronic payment; the agreement further states that all checks must be cashed within 180 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to a documented-loss payment, all AGS settlement class members may file a claim to receive three free years of CyEx Medical Shield Complete. Per the settlement agreement, no proof is required from class members to claim this benefit, which provides one-bureau credit monitoring, identity theft insurance and monitoring of medical, healthcare insurance, and health savings account information. To file an Apex Global Solutions data breach settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN as listed on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the settlement website to print, fill out and return by mail to the address listed at the top of the document. All Apex Global Solutions settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 13, 2026. Consumers who believe they may be an AGS settlement class member but did not receive a notice can contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and obtain their login information. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the AGS settlement at a hearing on April 28, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Apex Global Solutions class action lawsuit argued that the IT company providing back-end solutions to healthcare facilities nationwide did not implement proper cybersecurity measures to protect the private information of its clients' patients from a data breach that occurred between June 18, 2024 and July 2, 2024. Per court documents, the personal information potentially extracted in the breach included patient names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information and health information. [GN] APOLLO INTERACTIVE: Daniels Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apollo Interactive Insurance Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Linda Daniels, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Apollo Interactive Insurance Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01204 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Apollo Interactive Insurance Solutions -- https://apolloinsurancesolutions.com/ -- is dedicated to improving and automating the delivery of insurance information to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com ATP TOUR: Bee Sues Over Unlawful Data Collection & Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------- NATHANIEL BEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATP TOUR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-00229 (E.D. Cal., February 9, 2026) challenges Defendant's systematic collection and disclosure of users' website communications through third-party tracking technologies, despite Defendant's representations that users could reject non-essential cookies and tracking. When users visit the Defendant's website, the Defendant causes third-party advertising and analytics technologies to operate in users' browsers and to transmit data reflecting users' interactions with the website to third parties, including advertising and measurement companies. These transmissions occur contemporaneously with users' website activity and include information revealing what content users view, how they navigate the website, and technical identifiers associated with their devices and connections. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Headquartered in Atlantic Beach, FL, ATP Tour, Inc. organizes and operates the ATP Tour, the principal global professional men’s tennis tour. The company owns and operates the website, atptour.com, which serves as a central digital platform for professional men's tennis content. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Avenue, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law AVON COMPANY: Abbott Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Avon Company. The case is styled as David Abbott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Avon Company, Case No. 26CV169255 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Avon -- https://www.avon.com/ -- is an Anglo-American multinational company selling cosmetics, skin care, perfume, and personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda, 15th Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (213) 444-1973 Email: Jon@lebelaw.com AXELON SERVICES: Martin Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Vincent Martin, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. AXELON SERVICES CORPORATION, a New York corporation, WESTROCK SHARED SERVICES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, WESTROCK CP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, WESTROCK RKT, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, and WESTROCK COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2025 CH 12280 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01354. The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"), by purportedly "requiring employees and prospective employees undergo mandatory health or physical examinations where they are subject to requests for protected familial medical history in violation of GIPA."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jody Kahn Mason, Esq. Jason A. Selvey, Esq. Amber M. Samuelson, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 150 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 787-4949 Email: Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com Amber.Samuelson@jacksonlewis.com B.A.F.S. INC: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosemarie Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. B.A.F.S., INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01421 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 6, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.themillstores.com (the "Website"), (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.themillstores.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BANK OF AMERICA: Judge OKs Sex Trafficking Suit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo!Finance reports that a U.S. federal judge has allowed a class action lawsuit to proceed against Bank of America related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaintiffs claim the bank recklessly disregarded warning signs tied to Epstein's alleged trafficking operation. The ruling keeps significant claims alive and raises fresh questions around Bank of America's financial crime compliance and risk controls. For investors watching NYSE:BAC, this ruling adds a legal and reputational issue alongside recent share price moves. The stock trades at $52.55, with a return of 14.5% over the past year and 60.8% over 3 years. Year to date performance shows a 6.1% decline and a 7 day return of a 7.0% decline. Those mixed returns frame how the market has been digesting both broader conditions and company specific headlines. Looking ahead, the key question is how this case might affect Bank of America's risk management practices, regulatory relationships and potential legal costs. Investors may want to watch for any further court decisions, settlements or disclosures from the company, as well as commentary around compliance controls and governance in future filings or updates. Is Bank of America's balance sheet strong enough for future acquisitions? Dive into our detailed financial health analysis. The class action moving ahead keeps legal uncertainty on the table for Bank of America and directs attention to how it monitored Jeffrey Epstein's accounts. While the judge dismissed several claims, the remaining allegations focus squarely on whether the bank ignored red flags, which could matter for future legal costs, potential fines and compliance spending. For a large bank that already operates under tight oversight, any court findings around failures in monitoring client activity could invite closer scrutiny from regulators and longer term pressure on risk controls. How This Fits Into The Bank of America Narrative The existing narrative already highlights litigation costs as a factor that could affect earnings, and this lawsuit is a clear example of that risk staying live rather than fading into the background. If the case results in higher legal or remediation expenses, it could work against efforts to improve operating leverage and expense discipline that analysts are watching closely. The allegations around financial crime compliance are very specific, and the current narrative on digital engagement and AI powered efficiencies may not fully reflect the cost and complexity of strengthening controls in response to this type of event. Knowing what a company is worth starts with understanding its story. Check out one of the top narratives in the Simply Wall St Community for Bank of America to help decide what it is worth to you. The Risks and Rewards Investors Should Consider -- A trial focused on Epstein related activity raises the risk of financial penalties, settlement costs or mandated compliance upgrades that could weigh on profitability. -- Any perception of weak controls versus peers like JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup or Wells Fargo could affect how regulators and large institutional clients view Bank of America. -- The case may prompt further investment in risk and compliance systems, which could reduce the chance of similar issues and unexpected legal expenses in the future. -- The judge dismissed several other claims and a parallel case against another bank, which helps limit the immediate scope of potential liabilities. What To Watch Going Forward From here, the key things to track are any pre trial settlements, new disclosures about historical transaction monitoring and whether regulators comment on the case or ask for additional remediation. You may also want to watch how Bank of America frames its financial crime controls at upcoming conferences and in quarterly filings, especially relative to other large banks, and whether analysts start adjusting their legal expense assumptions in response to this lawsuit. To ensure you are always in the loop on how the latest news impacts the investment narrative for Bank of America, head to the community page for Bank of America to stay updated on the top community narratives. [GN] CAN I HAVE MONEY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over TCPA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that in the ever evolving landscape that is the TCPA, another big class action lawsuit against a lending company case was just filed this week in the U.S. District Court down in beautiful San Diego. While the court is located in a gorgeous city, the allegations against the defendant paint a not so pleasant picture. In the case Cardenas v. Can I Have Money LLC, 2026 WL (S.D. Cal Jan. 20, 2026), the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant alleging that defendant violated the TCPA for sending unsolicited text messages to phone numbers that were registered on the National DNC list. To say that the reviews of the company were not pleasant would be an understatement. In the complaint filed, Plaintiff included not only a job posting for the Defendant that showed they were a company that provides leads and software for texting but also some reviews consumers have posted to the Better Business Bureau page. To give you an idea of the reviews, one of them called the defendant as "sleazy text-message spammers . . . and blasted the alleged owner saying "shame on you . . . for running a company that treats people like dirt . . . . Another review on the complaint said that "BBB needs to give this company a failing grade for harassment and send me $$$ as I am going through a stressful, trying time over the death of my son in a motorcycle accident . . . If this continues, I will seek harassment charges against Can I have Money LLC . . . . There is leaving a bad review and then there are these. If the Defendant really does send so many messages that one would consider harassment charges, that paints a bad image for the Defendant. While the reviews that are listed in the Complaint don't seem to appear now in the Better Business Bureau page for the company, feel free to take a look at some of the reviews/complaints that are still there. It is not too pleasant. [GN] CELGENE CORP: Continues to Defend Generic Drug Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2026, that Celgene Corp., the Company it acquired in 2019, continues to defend itself from the generic drug antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Beginning in November 2014, putative class action lawsuits were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws in connection with, among other things, activities related to obtaining and litigating certain Revlimid patents. In October 2020, the district court entered a final order approving a class settlement and dismissed the matter. Certain entities, including entities that opted out of the settlement class and others who claim that their suits are not covered by that settlement, have since filed additional suits against Celgene and BMS pursuing similar claims based on related theories, and a subset of plaintiffs brought additional claims related to copay assistance for Thalomid and Revlimid. Those new suits are principally being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Court dismissed certain of those complaints with leave to amend in June 2024. All plaintiffs filed amended complaints in August 2024. BMS and Celgene have filed motions to dismiss those complaints, which are currently pending. Headquartered in New Jersey, Celgene Corporation is a pharmaceutical company. In 2019, Celgene Corporation was acquired by, and became a wholly owned subsidiary of, Bristol Myers. [BN] CELGENE CORP: Continues to Defend Pomalyst Antitrust Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2026, that Celgene, the Company it acquired in 2019, continues to defend itself from the Pomalyst antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beginning in September 2023, certain entities filed putative class actions against Celgene, BMS, and certain individuals in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims under various antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws in connection with activities related to obtaining and litigating certain Pomalyst patents. In March 2025, the court dismissed the complaints against Celgene, BMS and the named individuals. Plaintiffs have sought leave to amend their complaints. In June 2025, an additional plaintiff filed a suit that is substantively identical to the proposed amended complaint. Headquartered in New Jersey, Celgene Corporation is a pharmaceutical company. In 2019, Celgene Corporation was acquired by, and became a wholly owned subsidiary of, Bristol Myers. [BN] CELGENE CORP: Settlement Approval Hearing Set in May ---------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2026, that a settlement preliminary approval hearing is set for May 2026. Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed against Celgene and certain of its officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class Action"). The complaints alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws. The district court consolidated the two actions. In December 2019, the district court denied in part and granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss. In November 2020, the district court certified a class of Celgene common stock purchasers between April 27, 2017 through April 28, 2018. Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted in part and denied in part. In September 2025, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve the Celgene Securities Class Action. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in December 2025, with a final approval hearing scheduled for May 2026. Headquartered in New Jersey, Celgene Corporation is a pharmaceutical company. In 2019, Celgene Corporation was acquired by, and became a wholly owned subsidiary of, Bristol Myers. [BN] CERNER CORPORATION: Stout Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chase Stout, Lisa Addi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation, Christiana Care Health Services, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01522 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Feb. 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00098-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Lee Miller, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP Baynard Building 3411 Silverside Road, Suite 104 Wilmington, DE 19810 Phone: (302) 499-2360 Email: mmiller@bfalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian P. Egan, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 351-9454 Email: began@mnat.com CHAIRISH INC: Broome Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chairish, Inc. The case is styled as Camille Broome, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chairish, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01144-PHK (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Fraud. Chairish, Inc. -- https://www.chairish.com/ -- operates as an online marketplace to buy and sell home decorating, furniture, and art products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Ellis Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. The case is styled as Akima Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Case No. 901432-26 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany Cty., Feb. 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action). The Civil Service Employees Association -- https://cseany.org/ -- is a labor union in the state of New York that represents employees in state and local government, as well as school districts, child care, and the private sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Conceals Product Safety Risks, Taylor Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00528 (W.D. Wash., February 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to disclose information bearing on product safety that constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice actionable under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Costco has made its $4.99 rotisserie chicken a viral, nationwide sensation, aggressively marketing it as a convenient, high-quality, and safe meal staple. Not unlike its similarly well-known hot dogs, Costco deliberately uses this product as a classic loss leader. It sells it at the artificially low price of $4.99--sacrificing profit or even selling at a financial loss--to entice members into its warehouses, knowing it will drive up traffic and create ancillary sale opportunities. Costco's aggressive marketing of its chickens as safe and wholesome meal option belies a starkly different reality: Costco's poultry operation has been persistently plagued by systematic Salmonella contamination that exposes consumers to serious health risks, notes the complaint. United States Department of Agriculture inspection records reveal that Costco's dedicated chicken-processing plant has failed federal food safety standards nearly continuously since it opened. Costco's failure to control Salmonella in its chicken supply is not a harmless technicality--it poses a real danger to consumers and violates their trust. Salmonella is one of the leading causes of foodborne illness and death in the U.S., and contaminated chicken is the number one cause of Salmonella-related sickness nationally. The injuries alleged by Plaintiff, including economic losses and exposure to safety risks, arise from the same course of conduct by Costco that affected all class members, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief to enjoin Costco from continuing the unfair or deceptive acts and to require corrective measures. Specifically, Plaintiff requests an order prohibiting Costco from selling or marketing its chicken products in a misleading manner, and/or requiring Costco to adequately test and remediate Salmonella contamination and to disclose such contamination risks to consumers. Such injunctive relief is necessary to prevent further injury to the public. Plaintiff additionally seeks any other relief the Court deems appropriate under the CPA, including restitution where applicable. Plaintiff Lisa Taylor is a natural person residing in Affton, Missouri. She is a Costco member and a regular purchaser of chicken products sold by Costco, including its $4.99 rotisserie chickens. Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Issaquah, Washington. Costco operates a chain of membership-based warehouse clubs throughout the United States (and internationally), selling a wide range of consumer goods including groceries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-682-5600 Facsimile: 206-682-2992 E-mail: kboyd@tousley.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Dylan D. Altland, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: 610-642-8500 E-mail: sas@chimicles.com bmm@chimicles.com dda@chimicles.com - and - James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-725-7700 Facsimile: 314-721-0905 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com COVERAGEX LLC: Clark Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVERAGEX LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00297-JDE (C.D. Cal., February 9, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and provisions of the Texas Business & Commerce Code. The Plaintiff has placed her cellular telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry because she did not want unsolicited telemarketing messages. However, in November 2025, the Plaintiff began receiving unwanted telephone calls and messages from Defendant soliciting her to purchase a vehicle warranty from Defendant. In addition, the Plaintiff did not provide prior express invitation or permission or consent for these telephone calls. Headquartered in Newport Beach, CA, Coveragex LLC offers auto and home insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com DAVITA INC: Pressures Patients to Risky At-Home Dialysis Treatments ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that dialysis provider DaVita Inc. pressures patients into using risky at-home peritoneal dialysis (PD) treatments with the primary goal of increasing sales. The 28-page medical lawsuit alleges that DaVita has, over the past 10 years, prioritized profits over patients' health by coercing vulnerable patients into switching from in-center dialysis to peritoneal dialysis, a needle-free, at-home treatment that relies on a surgically inserted abdominal catheter to infuse a cleansing solution and cycle waste out of the body. This in-home treatment allegedly reduces costs and drives revenue for DaVita by minimizing the need for in-facility dialysis care, increasing DaVita's reimbursement (given patients must use PD seven days a week) and providing government incentives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. According to the lawsuit, DaVita employees are systematically pressured into pushing peritoneal dialysis treatment through a sales program called MATCH-D that imposes quotas on them. The case argues that through this program, Davita staff's performance is not judged by quality of patient care, but rather on how many patients they are able to get on PD treatment. DaVita staff who fail to meet the company's quotas are subjected to "retaliation, intimidation, and humiliation by DaVita's managing agents, . . . placing their jobs at risk," the case says. Importantly, the suit notes that many DaVita managers have no medical background or training, and have instead used their sales backgrounds to enforce a profit-first environment at DaVita. To drive patient conversion to PD, the complaint contends, DaVita medical and non-medical staff members exaggerate the benefits of PD treatment while minimizing the risks, including by claiming that DaVita PD allows for safe travel and swimming, maintains kidney function, reduces dietary restrictions and increases transplant outcomes. Conversion to PD is achieved through any means possible, the complaint alleges, noting that DaVita personnel are "encouraged to use patients' vulnerabilities, fears, and needs as leverage to close the 'sale.'" Despite DaVita's claims, the class action complaint asserts that peritoneal dialysis poses several dangerous risks and downsides that are often not disclosed in full to prospective patients, including risk of infections like peritonitis, abdominal hernias, the need to carry bulky equipment (and consequential travel limitations), sleep disturbances, strict sterility requirements, a permanent catheter, metabolic impacts, the heavy commitment of daily treatment, and treatment fatigue. The plaintiff, a California resident, claims to have suffered at the hands of DaVita after a kidney cancer diagnosis in 2015 that required surgery and ultimately left him with serious kidney issues. In 2024, the suit says, the plaintiff began in-person dialysis treatment at a DaVita clinic and was quickly encouraged by staff members to switch to at-home PD treatment. According to the complaint, the plaintiff was "relentlessly bombarded" with "exaggerated claims and outright falsehoods about PD," especially after finishing his dialysis sessions, when he was physically weak, semi-conscious, and had low blood pressure. The pressure was worsened by the fact that DaVita deliberately scheduled his dialysis sessions at 4:00 a.m., the suit says. The case relays that after constant pressure, the plaintiff began PD and started noticing immediate downsides, including an overwhelmed living space with PD equipment, the inability to travel (which the plaintiff voiced he needed to do for work when he began DaVita treatment), catheter issues that required surgical repair, several peritonitis infections that led to hospitalization, and most devastatingly, decreased eligibility for a kidney transplant. Per the complaint, the plaintiff's experience "is not an isolated incident but part of DaVita's widespread, systematic practice of deceiving and coercing patients into PD treatment to maximize profits." The DaVita class action lawsuit looks to represent all current and former DaVita patients residing in California who received PD treatment at any point within the past 10 years of the filing of the complaint. [GN] DIGITAL ASSETS: Faces Conohan Suit Over Website's Tracker Software ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT CONOHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIGITAL ASSETS INC. dba ANA LUISA, a New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01087 (S.D.N.Y., February 9, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the California's Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant installed the tracking software or code of third parties TikTok and Meta. When Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website around on or around November 30, 2025, she was subjected to the commercial surveillance, and the data that can identify her for tracking and other purposes were transmitted to Tik Tok and Meta and possibly other third parties. In addition, the Defendant did not obtain Plaintiff's express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok or Meta for the purposes of de-anonymization, fingerprinting, profiling and tracking, says the suit. Headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, Digital Assets Inc. dba Ana Luisa is New York corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls http://analuisa.com,an online platform that sells jewelry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 90 Broad St., Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 702-8670 (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Disability Transport Lawsuit Moves Forward ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Wainwright, writing for WUSA9, reports that a D.C. Superior Court judge has ruled that a class-action lawsuit accusing the District of failing to provide reliable transportation for students with disabilities can move forward, marking a significant step in a case that has been ongoing for more than two years. The lawsuit was first filed in 2024 by six parents, including Elizabeth Daggett, who alleged that the District's Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) failed to provide safe, reliable, and effective transportation to and from school for children with disabilities. The case has since expanded to include nearly 4,000 students. Daggett said she felt hopeful after learning the judge would allow the case to proceed. "Honestly, it was exciting," she said. The lawsuit alleges that late arrivals, missed pickups, and inconsistent service have disrupted students' access to education and, in some cases, affected their health and well-being. Daggett said the uncertainty surrounding bus arrivals has created ongoing anxiety for her family. Her son, who is mostly non-verbal, relies on consistent transportation to maintain his routine and receive medication on time. "The bus is supposed to arrive within a certain window, and when it doesn't -- particularly if it's late -- he doesn't get his medications on time," Daggett said. "He could be hungry or thirsty or tired or need the bathroom. And he can't express those needs." Attorneys representing the families say the case is intended to bring systemic change. "We brought this to try to achieve systemic relief," said Kaitlin Banner, deputy legal director at the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. "All of our clients involved in this case are really adamant that they want relief not just for their kids, but for their neighbors and classmates." WUSA9 reached out to OSSE for comment on the judge's ruling. The agency responded only to say OSSE does not comment on pending litigation. When the lawsuit was first filed in 2024, OSSE said in a statement that during the first week of school, it operated more than 1,700 routes with an average on-time departure rate of 99% from bus terminals and that it continued to make service upgrades. The statement did not directly address or acknowledge the specific allegations made by parents in the lawsuit. Daggett questioned how OSSE defines "on time." "How they determine 'on time' is not how probably you and I determine on time -- and they've struggled to determine themselves," she said. "I can't trust what they say." Parents involved in the case say they hope the court's decision will lead to improvements in transportation services for students who depend on them to access their education. [GN] ETSY INC: Golsh Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carol Golsh, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ETSY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25CV04518 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Butte, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00217. The Complaint alleges three causes of action against Etsy: violation of California's trap and trace law; violation of California's pen register law; and violation of California's unfair competition law. All three causes of action are premised on the alleged implementation of certain third-party technologies, including a snippet of web analytics code called the "TikTok Pixel," on Etsy's website, which purportedly transmitted certain information about website visitors to third parties, like TikTok, without prior consent or a court order. The Plaintiff alleges that Etsy installed the TikTok pixel to optimize its targeted advertising.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Benedict Hur, Esq. Aarti Reddy, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Gregory J. Merchant, Esq. Julia M. Irwin, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Phone: +1 415 693 2000 Facsimile: +1 415 693 2222 Email: bhur@cooley.com areddy@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com gmerchant@cooley.com jirwin@cooley.com EVEREST NEOCELL: Ford Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Everest Neocell LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1607 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.neocell.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Ford and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Ford's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Ford was searching online for high-quality collagen and beauty supplements that would help her maintain skin and joint health. On September 1, 2025, during this search, Ford came across the Defendant's website, Neocell.com, a company well known for its collagen-based dietary supplements formulated to support skin, hair, nails, joint health, and overall vitality. As Ford compared brands, NeoCell stood out because it is widely recognized for specializing specifically in collagen-based supplements rather than general vitamins. She read numerous positive customer reviews describing visible improvements in skin texture, stronger nails, and reduced joint stiffness after consistent use. Therefore, Ford decided to make a purchase from the website. While browsing the Website's offerings, Ford identified several products she was interested in purchasing. However, while navigating the website using her screen reader, Ford encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to complete the purchase. The complaint alleges that the Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Ford, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Ford and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Ford seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Sandra Ford is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Everest Neocell LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide range of collagen-based dietary supplements, including including powders, capsules, liquids, tablets, and gummies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law FASHION NOVA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fashion Nova, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01261-KMM-EMB (D. Minn., February 9, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to ensure its website to be fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Defendant failed to provide its online website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to make changes to its existing website and related policies, practices, and procedures in order to ensure Defendant's website become and remain ADA compliant. Headquartered in Beverly Hills, CA, Fashion Nova, LLC owns and operates the website, www.fashionnova.com, which offers clothing and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FITNESS TOGETHER FRANCHISE: Briere Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitness Together Franchise, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Briere, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fitness Together Franchise, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00452 (D. Colo., Feb. 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Fitness Together -- https://www.fitnesstogetherfranchise.com/ -- is a one-on-one private, personal training franchise focused on changing clients' lives with improved fitness and health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com FOREVER COLLECTIBLES: Baldwin Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forever Collectibles, Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Baldwin, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Forever Collectibles, Inc. doing business as: FOCO, Case No. 1:26-cv-01006-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Forever Collectibles, Inc. -- https://forevercollectible.com/ -- is a premier manufacturer of officially licensed sports and novelty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com GINA'S AUTO SALES: Brown Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gina's Auto Sales, Inc. The case is styled as Brittani Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gina's Auto Sales, Inc. doing business as: South Suburban Mitsubishi, Case No. 3:26-cv-05106 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gina's Auto Sales Inc in Matteson doing business as South Suburban Mitsubishi -- https://www.southsuburbanmitsubishi.com/ -- offers a diverse range of new and used Mitsubishi vehicles for test drives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com GRAVITY PAYMENTS: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Graf Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HUGH GRAF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAVITY PAYMENTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-518 (W.D. Wash., February 12, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) about its customers. In collecting and maintaining the PII, Defendant agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with its internal policies, state law, and federal law. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on August 22, 2025. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, various PII were compromised including names and social security numbers. In total, Defendant injured at least 2278 persons via the exposure of their PII in the Data Breach. These 2278 persons include its customers. And yet, Defendant waited over until February 4, 2026 before it began notifying the Class, a full 186 days after the Data Breach was discovered. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft, all because Defendant's Data Breach placed Plaintiff's PII right in the hands of criminals. Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable amounts of time and money to try and mitigate his injuries. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Hugh Graf is a Data Breach victim, having received a Data Breach notice. Defendant Gravity Payments, Inc. is a credit card processing and financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com HANDI-FOIL CORP: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Osdoby" ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Merryl Osdoby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Handi-Foil Corp., Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-cv-4199 (NG) (JMW) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nina Gershon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot in a putative class action alleging deceptive labeling under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant engaged in deceptive practices and false advertising by labeling its retail aluminum pans "Made in the USA" when some of its raw materials were mined or processed outside the United States. Plaintiff sought to represent a class of all persons who purchased the products in New York State for personal, family, or household purposes. On Article III standing, the court found that Plaintiff established injury-in-fact fairly traceable to Defendant's conduct, noting that foreign-derived aluminum is routinely incorporated into Defendant's recycled Eco-Foil products such that it is pervasive on a system-wide basis. Turning to the GBL injury element, the court found that Plaintiff failed to provide evidence sufficient to go to the jury. On the price premium theory, the court held that Plaintiff's statements that she thinks she paid about $8 and that the pans are a little more expensive were conclusory statements, conjecture, and speculation that cannot defeat summary judgment. The court further rejected statutory damages-as-injury, deception-as-injury, quality-based injury, and detrimental reliance theories, finding that Plaintiff offered only subjective disappointment without actual injury. Accordingly, the court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated February 12, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sNNQ6m from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Handi-foil Corp. Represented By Megan McGlynn Kirkland & Ellis LLP 202-389-3264 megan.mcglynn@kirkland.com Michael Glick Kirkland & Ellis LLP 202-389-5000 michael.glick@kirkland.com Gabrielle Belzil Kirkland & Ellis LLP 202-389-3010 gabi.belzil@kirkland.com Plaintiff Merryl Osdoby Represented By: Robert L. Kraselnik Law Offices Of Robert L. Kraselnik, PLLC 646-342-2019 robert@kraselnik.com HILTON WORLDWIDE: Niles Files Suit Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER NILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC., HILTON MANAGEMENT LLC, and HILTON MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00258 (W.D. Pa., February 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for: a) denying individuals with mobility disabilities opportunities to participate in and benefit from the goods, services and facilities available at hotels that they own, manage and/or operate; b) affording individuals with mobility disabilities unequal access to goods, services or facilities; c) utilizing methods of administration that (i) have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability, or (ii) perpetuating the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control; and d) failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures where necessary to afford services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with mobility disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Lawrence County Jail in New Castle, Pennsylvania. As the result of an accident on March 3, 2011, Plaintiff sustained a T6 complete spinal cord injury and became dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. Both before and since his injury, Plaintiff has traveled extensively and continues to do so. As noted, Plaintiff owns property in Florida and travels there often for both business and pleasure. The Plaintiff is a regular consumer of hotel services in Pennsylvania, Florida and other states. He has regularly reserved hotel rooms that were described as "accessible," only to learn upon arrival that he could not safely and independently transfer from his wheelchair to the bed. His experience is that the mattress surfaces of the beds in "accessible" rooms are often either too high, or too low, to permit a safe and independent transfer from his wheelchair to the bed, and reasonable modifications that would permit a such transfer are frequently unavailable. He has frequently attempted to determine the heights of beds in purportedly accessible hotel rooms, both by visiting hotel websites and by calling the hotels, and has found that it is often difficult or impossible to obtain reliable information. The Defendants are responsible for ensuring that their agents provide accurate and timely information to potential guests with qualified disabilities who make telephone inquiries regarding the characteristics of the beds in their mobility-accessible rooms. The Defendants have engaged in illegal disability discrimination by, without limitation, failing to provide information regarding the characteristics of the beds in the mobility-accessible rooms of hotels that they own, manage and/or operate on their website; by failing to ensure that their agents at those same hotels provide accurate and timely information regarding the characteristics of the beds in their mobility-accessible rooms in response to telephone inquiries; and/or, by failing to otherwise communicate information regarding the characteristics of the beds in the mobility-accessible rooms of hotels that they own, manage and/or operate. The Defendants' ongoing and continuing violations of the ADA have caused, and in the absence of an injunction will continue to cause, harm to the Plaintiff and the class, says the suit. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, permanent injunction, payment of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff Christopher Niles is a resident of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is a wheelchair user who is limited in the major life activity of walking. Defendants Worldwide Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered at 7930 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102; Hilton Management LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company headquartered at 7930 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102; and Hilton Management Services Inc., a Delaware Corporation headquartered at 7930 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102, own and operate hotels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Ian M. Brown, Esq. CARLSON BROWN 222 Broad St. PO Box 242 Sewickley, PA 15143 Telephone: (724) 730-1753 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonbrownlaw.com ibrown@carlsonbrownlaw.com HRB TAX GROUP: Montgomery Sues Over Unlawful Lending Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Montgomery, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HRB TAX GROUP, INC., and H&R BLOCK, INC., PATHWARD, N.A., and EMERALD FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00759-LL-MSB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2026), is brought under the Military Lending Act ("MLA"), seeking to protect active-duty military service members from the Defendants' unlawful lending practices which violate the MLA. The Defendants are in the business of tax refund advance lending through their H&R Block Refund Advance Loan ("Refund Advance Loan") product. from $350 to $1,500. Although the loan is marketed as having "only" a 35.9% APR, this does not take into account added fees and charges, which increase the Military Annual Percentage Rate ("MAPR") of the loans. Although Defendants advertise the Refund Advance Loan as a "0% APR" loan, the product's structure and required ancillary services cause the MAPR to far exceed the MLA's 36% cap for Covered Borrowers, including active-duty service members and their dependents. The MLA prohibits creditors from extending consumer credit to covered borrowers at a MAPR greater than 36%, calculated to include not only interest, but also fees and charges imposed directly or indirectly as a condition of the extension of credit. Critically, the MAPR expressly includes application fees, participation fees, fees for ancillary products required to obtain credit, and fees imposed in connection with a transaction for consumer credit. Thus, Defendants' reliance on a nominal "0% APR" is legally irrelevant if the economic cost of credit, properly calculated, exceeds the MLA's statutory ceiling. The Plaintiff, a Chief Petty Officer in the U.S. Navy, has used Defendants' tax services and, at relevant times, has obtained a Refund Advance Loan and an Emerald Advance Loan. By virtue of the unlawful arbitration agreement within each loan's relevant terms, as well as fees charged, Defendants extended consumer credit to Plaintiff on numerous occasions in violation of the MLA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used H&R Block's services to prepare and file his tax returns in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. H&R Block is a leading provider of tax return preparation and electronic filing services nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP 111 W Ocean Boulevard, Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: 562-534-5907 Email: victor@almeidalawgroup.com HRB TAX: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Interest Rates ------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that H&R Block offers tax return advance loans to active-duty military service members at illegally high interest rates. According to the 31-page lawsuit, H&R Block and co-defendants Pathward N.A. and Emerald Financial Services offer two short-term "payday-style" loans, called the Refund Advance Loan and the Emerald Advance Loan, to active-duty military service members with high fees and waivers that violate the Military Lending Act (MLA), which was designed to protect military borrowers from predatory lending practices. The MLA, the suit explains, provides that a creditor cannot extend consumer credit to active-duty military service members or their dependents with a military annual percentage rate (MAPR) of over 36 percent. Per the complaint, the MAPR explicitly includes "application fees, participation fees, fees for ancillary products required to obtain credit and fees imposed in connection with a transaction for consumer credit." Per the filing, the H&R Block Refund Advance Loan product is marketed as a way for borrowers to access tax refund money prior to receiving their refund and is specifically represented as having no fees and a zero-percent annual percentage rate (APR). The complaint claims, though, that in order to obtain a Refund Advance loan, borrowers must have accounts with the loan originator, Pathward -- including prepaid debit cards or refund transfer accounts, which each come with their own fees. The suit relays that military members who take out a Refund Advance loan are routinely charged a $39 refund transfer fee and a $25 check disbursement fee (if the funds are issued by check). According to the case, these indirect fees are incurred as a condition of receiving the Refund Advance loan and must be included in the MAPR calculation under the Military Lending Act. When annualized over the few days or weeks during which the Refund Advance loan is active, the effective MAPR far exceeds the 36-percent limit established in the MLA, especially for advances of smaller amounts, the filing claims. Unlike the Refund Advance loan, the complaint says, the H&R Block Emerald Advance Loan product (also originated by Pathward and managed by Emerald) is not promoted with "no interest" claims and instead has a stated APR of about 35.9 percent. However, the lawsuit claims that the loan product’s extension to MLA-covered people is still illegal as the loan money must be received through Pathward-issued accounts -- either an H&R Block Emerald Prepaid Mastercard or a Spruce Spending Account -- both of which impose additional fees that raise the MAPR well beyond the 36 percent limit. Additionally, the suit alleges that both the Refund and Emerald advances come with illegal waivers attached. Specifically, the case says, their terms contain mandatory arbitration clauses and require borrowers to waive the right to participate in class action lawsuits (and jury trials, in the case of the Emerald Advance loans), even though the MLA specifically prohibits creditors from requiring arbitration or class action waivers. The H&R Block class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone covered by the Military Lending Act -- meaning active-duty military service members and their dependents -- who entered into an agreement with the defendants to use an Emerald Refund Loan or similar product that included any finance charges, including refund transfer or check disbursement fees or who entered into an agreement with the defendants that included a class action waiver, jury trial waiver or arbitration agreement, or otherwise "imposed onerous legal notice provisions in the case of a dispute." [GN] HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA: Steeneck Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor America Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Steeneck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00636-SJB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Hyundai Motor America, doing business as Hyundai Motor North America -- https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en -- is the operating subsidiary that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com INGRAM MICRO HOLDING: Yoon Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ingram Micro Holding Corporation. The case is styled as Kate Yoon, Scott McIntyre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ingram Micro Holding Corporation, Case No. 8:26-cv-00288 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud Ingram Micro Holding Corporation -- https://www.ingrammicro.com/ -- is an American distributor of information technology products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jae Kook Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 117 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Phone: (213) 723-0707 Fax: (858) 313-1850 Email: ekim@lcllp.com JEFFY YU: Beckwith Sues Over Digital Asset Fraudulent Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ JONATHAN BECKWITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFY YU AND AGUSTIN "TINT" CORTES, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01091-ALC (S.D.N.Y., February 9, 2026) arises from a coordinated fraud scheme to market and sell a digital asset by falsely presenting it as the economic backbone of Zerebro, a long-term artificial-intelligence infrastructure project. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly represented that Zerebro was real technology, already built or nearing deployment, and that its associated token, $ZEREBRO. However, in reality, no such technology existed and Defendants secretly controlled, manipulated, and monetized the market for the asset. From the moment the token was created, Defendants controlled a substantial portion of the total supply at zero cost. Using a coordinated network of wallets they funded and controlled, Defendants acted as undisclosed market makers by injecting liquidity, manufacturing trading volume, influencing price formation, and selling their own holdings into the demand their false narrative had created. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud/fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the New York General Business Law in connection with Defendants' deceptive acts and practices and false advertising. Jeffy Yu is a co-founder of Zerebro. The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Burwick, Esq. BURWICK LAW, PLLC 1 World Trade Center, 84th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 762-1080 E-mail: max@burwick.law JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Allows Cash Sweep Class Suit to Continue -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for kfgo.com reports that JPMorgan Chase must face part of a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the largest U.S. bank of paying brokerage and retirement account holders near-zero interest rates instead of market rates on their idle cash, a federal judge ruled. Customers alleged that the Cash Sweep programs in which they were automatically enrolled "siphoned billions of dollars in net interest income," by paying artificially low 0.01% to 0.03% interest even as the federal funds rate and rates on short-term U.S. Treasury bills rose above 5%. In a ⁠decision on Thursday, U.S. District ⁠Judge Lorna Schofield in Manhattan said JPMorgan must face claims it breached deposit account agreements by failing to adjust interest rates "based on business and economic conditions," and breached individual retirement account agreements by failing to pay a "reasonable rate" of interest. The judge also dismissed claims that JPMorgan breached its fiduciary duties and failed to act in ⁠customers' best interest. She said automatic enrollment ⁠in the Cash Sweep programs was not a "recommendation" by JPMorgan or brokers. JPMorgan declined to comment on Friday, February 13. In seeking a dismissal, the New York-based bank said it honored customers' "instructions" to deposit uninvested cash into interest-bearing accounts, and the plaintiffs were "seeking a windfall for decisions they elected not to make." Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The proposed class action covers JPMorgan customers since ⁠August 24, 2018. Many large banks and brokerages were sued in 2023 and 2024 by customers who said sweep accounts weren't keeping up with rising interest ⁠rates. The lawsuits have had mixed success. A federal judge in San Francisco ⁠narrowed but refused to dismiss one such lawsuit against Wells Fargo, while a federal judge in St. Paul, Minnesota dismissed ⁠a similar case against U.S. Bancorp last month. In January 2025, units of Wells Fargo and Bank of America agreed to pay a combined $60 million to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission civil charges over their cash sweep practices. Neither bank admitted wrongdoing. [GN] KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Suit Over Lemonade Products' Artificial Flavors ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Judith Vergien and Maria Nelson filed a class action lawsuit against The Kraft Heinz Company. Why: Vergien and Nelson claim Kraft Heinz falsely advertises its Country Time lemonade products as containing no artificial flavors. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses The Kraft Heinz Company of falsely advertising its Country Time lemonade products as containing no artificial flavors. Plaintiffs Judith Vergien and Maria Nelson claim Kraft Heinz prominently markets its lemonade products as containing "No Artificial Flavors" and being "Naturally Flavored" despite the products containing artificial ingredients that impart flavor, such as citric acid, sodium citrate, potassium citrate and maltodextrin. Vergien and Nelson argue Kraft Heinz's false and misleading statements caused consumers to pay a price premium for the lemonade products, which they claim they would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, had they known the truth about the products' ingredients. The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class and New York and California subclasses of consumers who purchased a lemonade product within the relevant limitations period. Plaintiffs claim Kraft Heinz is guilty of violating New York's General Business Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and the common-law prohibition on unjust enrichment. Kraft Heinz allegedly failed to disclose lemonade products' artificial ingredients Vergien and Nelson argue it would be commercially infeasible for Kraft Heinz to source citric acid through any method other than microbial fermentation, which they claim is the dominant method of citric acid production. The plaintiffs argue the scale of Kraft Heinz's operations, nationwide distribution and reliance on standardized formulations, makes it plausible that the citric acid used in the lemonade products is sourced through conventional industrial fermentation. Vergien and Nelson claim Kraft Heinz's alleged misrepresentations are material to consumers, who they argue increasingly seek out products marketed as natural. "Consumers who sought to avoid artificial flavors reasonably relied on [the defendant's] representations and did not receive the natural, wholesome product they believed they were purchasing," the Country Time lemonade class action lawsuit says. Last year, Kraft Heinz was sued by a consumer over allegations that it misrepresented its Capri-Sun 100% Juice Fruit Punch drink as containing only juice when it allegedly also contains synthetic, non-natural citric acid. The plaintiffs are represented by Raphael Janove of Janove PLLC. The Country Time lemonade class action lawsuit is Vergien, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-15557, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] LEAR CORPORATION: Alexander Files Suit in N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lear Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Richard Alexander, Evelyn Alexander, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lear Corporation; FCA US LLC formerly known as: Chrysler Group LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00314-X (N.D. Tex., Feb. 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Lear Corporation -- https://www.lear.com/ -- is a global automotive leader in Seating and E-Systems, delivering advanced technologies to the world's leading manufacturers.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. LEMON PERFECT COMPANY: Ghanaat Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Star Ghanaat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE LEMON PERFECT COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26CV164485 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01153-LB. The Plaintiff asserts three claims on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class: Violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code Sections 1750; Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200; and Breach of Express Warranty.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erica R. Graves, Esq. Heewon Lee, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 424.239.3400 Facsimile: 424.239.3434 Email: Erica.Graves@blankrome.com Heewon.Lee@blankrome.com LET'S GO: Misled Investors in Digital Token Offering, Barr Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW BARR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEPHEN K. BANNON, BORIS EPSHTEYN, SARAH ABDUL a/k/a Sarah Abdul Razzaq a/k/a Sarah Abdulrazzi a/k/a Sarah Abdul Williams a/k/a Sarah Abdul Elliott, GRANT TRAGNI, LET'S GO BRANDON COIN LLC, PATRIOT PAY LLC, WARROOM LLC, 354 NOD HILL LLC, and TWINDS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00452 (D.C., February 12, 2026) arises from the unregistered offer and sale of a cryptocurrency to retail investors by Defendants Steve Bannon and Boris Epshteyn, who leveraged their prominence, credibility, and loyal following to market a digital token as a stable, secure, and functional alternative to traditional currency--while concealing material facts about the token's true risks, governance, and economics. The complaint relates that from late 2021 through early 2025, the Defendants promoted a digital token initially branded as Let's Go Brandon Coin ("FJB" or "$FJB") and later rebranded as Patriot Pay ("PPY" or "$PPY") (the "Token") as a serious financial project with real-world utility, charitable purpose, and resilience against inflation, debanking, and financial censorship. Defendants repeatedly emphasized that the Token was not a meme coin or speculative novelty, but a decentralized payment ecosystem that would protect users from economic instability and institutional control. The Defendants deliberately targeted a politically aligned and deeply loyal audience--individuals who trusted Defendants' judgment, motives, and commitment to shared values--and encouraged them to invest in the Token as a means of participating in a broader movement. According to the complaint, the Defendants' conduct was particularly insidious because it exploited that trust to induce purchases of an unregistered, highly speculative asset under the guise of financial independence and community membership. In reality, Defendants owned and controlled the project. Through a private, undisclosed transaction, Defendants acquired governance and administrative control of the Token without paying any purchase price, while investors--through embedded transaction fees--effectively financed Defendants' acquisition. Defendants did not disclose that purchasers of the Token were, in substance, funding the very transaction that placed Defendants in control. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants promoted the Token as a safer alternative to fiat currency, invoking economic collapse, inflation, and financial crisis to create urgency and induce purchases. Defendants warned that the existing financial system was "hurtling towards" catastrophe and represented that participation in the Token was necessary to preserve value, transact freely, and maintain economic sovereignty. At the same time, Defendants failed to build any functioning payment ecosystem, failed to deliver the promised utility, and devoted minimal and declining effort to promoting or developing the project--despite repeatedly reassuring investors that they remained committed and would double down, the complaint adds. When investors raised concerns about missing funds, liquidity, and price collapse, Defendants responded with reassurances and delay, while continuing to conceal material information about insider control, fee usage, and preferential sales practices. In February 2025, Defendants abruptly disabled trading of the Token, announced the project's closure, and promised a liquidity distribution that never occurred, leaving investors holding illiquid tokens after years of reliance on Defendants' misleading statements, says the complaint. This action seeks to make Defendants answer for their conduct, restore what was taken from investors, and deter the misuse of public platforms and personal influence. Plaintiff Andrew Barr is an investor residing in Missouri. Defendant Stephen (Steve) K. Bannon is an individual residing in Washington, D.C. In February 2025, he pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, to scheming to defraud donors to a non-profit—a felony. Defendant Boris Epshteyn is an individual residing in Washington, D.C. In April 2024, he was indicted in Arizona on nine counts related to election interference, including fraud and forgery -- felonies. The case is pending trial. Defendant Sarah Abdul is an individual who, on information and belief, resides in Arizona. Abdul has operated under a number of aliases, including Sarah Abdul Razzaq, Sarah Abdulrazzi, Sarah Abdul Williams, and Sarah Abdul Elliott. Abdul acted as an agent of the Company and the Executive Defendants, with authority to speak to investors, manage wallets, coordinate sales, and implement operational decisions. She represented herself to investors as the "sole proprietor" of Patriot Pay LLC. Defendant Grant Tragni is an individual who resides in North Carolina. He created the $FJB Token, and continued to be involved with its management and operation after its sale to Bannon's and Epshteyn's LLCs, 354 Nod Hill and TWinds. Defendant Let's Go Brandon Coin LLC was organized under the laws of Delaware. It was the issuing and controlling entity for the $FJB Token. Bannon and Epshteyn owned, controlled, and operated Let's Go Brandon Coin LLC out of their Washington, D.C., homes. Defendant Patriot Pay LLC is or was a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware. It was the issuing and controlling entity for the $PPY Token. Bannon and Epshteyn owned, controlled, and operated Patriot Pay LLC out of their Washington, D.C., homes. Patriot Pay LLC is the successor-in-interest to Let's Go Brandon Coin LLC. Accordingly, they are referred herein collectively as the "Company." Defendant Warroom LLC is a media company organized under the laws of Wyoming, with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. Bannon owns, controls, and operates War Room, and produces and broadcasts its podcast episodes out of his Washington, D.C., home. Defendant 354 Nod Hill LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware. Bannon owns, controls, and operates 354 Nod Hill out of his Washington, D.C., home. Bannon controlled and operated the Company through 354 Nod Hill. Defendant TWinds LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware. Epshteyn owns, controls, and operates TWinds out of his Washington, D.C., home. Epshteyn controlled and operated the Company through TWinds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Rosen, Esq. Constantine P. Economides, Esq. Yusef Al-Jarani, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP 175 Federal Street, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (305) 985-2959 E-mail: ceconomides@dynamisllp.com erosen@dynamisllp.com yaljarani@dynamisllp.com LIMETREE BAY: Loses Bid to Halt St. Croix Environmental Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Clifford Boynes, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Limetree Bay Ventures, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2021-0253 (D.V.I.), Senior District Judge Wilma A. Lewis of the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, denied the Joint Emergency Motion to Stay filed by Defendants Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC and Limetree Bay Refining, LLC. The Defendants sought a stay of civil proceedings until May 30, 2026, arguing that an alleged criminal investigation into the same events underlying the litigation deprived them of the ability to present a substantive defense. Specifically, they cited the Fifth Amendment invocations of former high-level personnel, including former Refinery General Manager Robert Weldzius and former executive Fermin Rodriguez, as witnesses whose testimony was necessary for the defense. Applying the six-factor balancing test as a rough guide, the court found that the Defendants failed to carry their burden on all six factors. On the first factor, the court was unable to assess the extent of overlap between the civil and criminal matters, as no criminal indictment had been issued. On the second factor, the court found no evidence of an active criminal investigation, noting that the grand jury subpoenas cited by the Defendants were issued over two years prior and no government affirmation of an ongoing investigation was provided. On the third and sixth factors, the court found that the Plaintiffs and the public had a substantial interest in expeditious resolution. The litigation alleged ongoing contamination of cisterns and local water supply affecting a significant portion of St. Croix residents, and the case had already been pending for nearly five years. On the fourth factor, the court held that corporations do not possess a Fifth Amendment privilege, and Fifth Amendment invocations by non-party former employees did not trigger the rationale underlying a civil stay. On the fifth factor, staying an active civil case in anticipation of a potential criminal proceeding that may never materialize was contrary to judicial efficiency. Accordingly, the court denied the Motion to Stay and denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Consideration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZjhURo from PacerMonitor.com Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC, Limetree Bay Refining, LLC, and Limetree Bay Ventures, LLC Represented By: Robert J. Kuczynski (Law Office of Beckstedt & Associates) Carl A. Beckstedt, III (Beckstedt and Associates) Arclight Capital Partners, LLC, and BP Products North America Represented By: Jennifer Quildon Brooks (Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP) Rhonda R. Trotter (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) Robert Franciscovich (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) Andres Pino (Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP) Schuyler A. Smith (Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP) Lori B. Leskin (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) Freepoint Commodities, LLC Represented By: Kanaan Le'Roy Wilhite (Moore Dodson & Russell) J. Daryl Dodson (Moore, Dodson And Russell) Francis Healy (Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP) Melvin Brosterman (Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP) Arthur Justin Herskowitz (Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP) EIG Global Energy Partners, LLC Represented By: Adam Nicholas Marinelli (Bolt Nagi PC) Plaintiffs Verne McSween, Aaron G. Maynard, Edna Santiago, Margaret Thompson, Myrna Mathurin, Joan Mathurin, Guidrycia Wells, O'Shay Wells, Anna Rexach-Constantine, John Baptiste, Leoba, Anne Marie John Baptiste, Rochelle Gomez, Neal Davis, Constantine Mervyn, Christopher Christian, Carlos Christian, Warrington Chapman, Clifford Boynes, and Delia Almestica Represented By: Hugh P. Lambert (The Lambert Firm, PLC) Jennifer Jones (Environmental Law) Brian James Mersman (The Lambert Firm, PLC) J. Christopher C. Zainey, Jr. (The Lambert Firm, PLC) LUXURBAN HOTELS: Faces Federal Securities Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that the federal securities class action brought against LuxUrban Hotels Inc. and certain of its executives has concluded with a settlement widely described by practitioners as "nuisance value," formally resolving the matter without any admission of wrongdoing and without material financial impact to the company or its officers. The litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, spanned nearly two years. Although certain portions of the complaint survived the motion-to-dismiss stage -- a procedural threshold often cleared in complex securities matters -- later phases of the case reportedly curtailed plaintiffs' leverage substantially. Notably, the matter settled for less than the insurance carrier would have expended to defend the case, a point many observers view as indicative of the underlying strength of the claims. The resolution occurred at the lowest end of the first of four D&O insurance policy layers. The settlement was fully funded by insurance, required no out-of-pocket contribution from the company or its executives, and did not reach beyond the primary coverage layer. Claims Narrowed as Litigation Progressed As the case advanced beyond the pleading stage into discovery and substantive review, observers indicate that plaintiffs encountered mounting obstacles, including: -- Establishing a legally sufficient corrective disclosure -- Demonstrating loss causation directly tied to executive conduct -- Advancing a damages model capable of withstanding expert scrutiny -- Satisfying Rule 23 class certification requirements, particularly predominance Individuals familiar with the proceedings report that the evidentiary record developed during discovery did not substantiate the scope of allegations initially asserted. Settlement Reflects Economic Realities of Litigation The case ultimately resolved for what securities practitioners commonly describe as nuisance value -- a characterization typically applied when a settlement falls materially below projected defense expenditures and does not reflect meaningful substantive exposure. In federal securities litigation, outcomes of this nature often suggest elevated plaintiff risk at the class certification or summary judgment stage. Legal commentators frequently interpret such resolutions as pragmatic economic decisions rather than validation of alleged misconduct. The settlement expressly includes no admission of liability by the company or its executives. Executive Conduct Unsubstantiated The litigation focused on allegations that certain public statements regarding lease arrangements and operational outlook were misleading. However, those familiar with the discovery process indicate that the evidentiary record did not support claims of intentional misrepresentation or fraudulent intent. For the executives involved, the resolution closes a matter that demanded considerable time and resources but resulted in no judicial findings of wrongdoing. Broader Context Securities class actions frequently follow periods of stock volatility or heightened public scrutiny, particularly in emerging or distressed sectors. While complaints often survive early procedural challenges, many cases narrow as courts evaluate class certification standards, expert testimony, and evidentiary sufficiency. The LuxUrban litigation appears consistent with that broader pattern -- early allegations contracting under the weight of economic and evidentiary realities. Court approval of the settlement is anticipated to formally conclude the case. [GN] MACY'S RETAIL: Nieva Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Nieva, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC dba MACY'S; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV36892 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01284. The Plaintiff alleges class claims for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to indemnify for reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to pay sick pay at the proper rate, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and violation of the state Unfair Competition Law. As the basis of these claims, Plaintiff alleges Defendant subjected him and other hourly non-exempt employees to "illegal wage and hour practices or policies."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Christman, Esq. MACY'S LAW DEPARTMENT 11477 Olde Cabin Road, Suite 400 St. Louis, Missouri 63141 Phone: (314) 342-6334 Facsimile: (314) 342-6366 Email: michael.christman@macys.com MACYS.COM LLC: Esquivel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macys.com, LLC. The case is styled as Joe Esquivel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Macys.com, LLC doing business as Macy's, Case No. 3:26-cv-00718-BTM-MSB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Macys.com, LLC doing business as Macy's -- https://www.macys.com/ -- has the latest fashion brands on Women's and Men's Clothing, Accessories, Jewelry, Beauty, Shoes and Home Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit for Misleading Investors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all sellers of Masonite International Corporation (NYSE: DOOR) (k/n/a Owens Corning's Doors) common stock between June 5, 2023 and February 8, 2024. Masonite is a leading global designer, manufacturer, marketer, and distributor of interior and exterior doors and door solutions for the residential and non-residential building construction markets' new construction and repair, renovation and remodeling sectors. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Masonite International Corporation (DOOR) Misled Investors Regarding its Acquisition by Owens Corning's Doors According to the complaint, this action arises from defendants' material omissions and misrepresentations concerning Owens Corning's offers to purchase all of Masonite's outstanding common stock at significant premiums to the Company's stock price and the Company's repurchases of millions of dollars' worth of its shares without disclosing material nonpublic information about Owens Corning's offers, which, if disclosed as required, would have indicated to investors that Masonite's stock was worth significantly more. Plaintiff alleges that Masonite made no disclosure concerning Owens Corning's offers for approximately eight months, while the Company repurchased millions of dollars of its own shares at prices far below Owens Corning's offers. In total, Masonite repurchased nearly 270,000 of its outstanding shares from unsuspecting investors for approximately $25 million between June 2023 and December 2023, despite knowing that Owens Corning was continuously proposing offers at a significant premium to Masonite's then stock price. At the same time, defendants made numerous misleading statements touting this significant repurchase activity, repeatedly updating investors about these buybacks during the class period and telling investors the buybacks were meant to "distribut[e] capital back" to investors, all with no disclosure concerning Owens Corning's credible offer(s) to acquire Masonite shares at materially higher prices. On February 9, 2024, Masonite issued a press release announcing the execution of the arrangement agreement. Finally, eight months after receiving the offer, defendants apprised investors that Owens Corning was willing to pay a significant premium over the market price for Masonite common stock. On this news, Masonite's common stock price skyrocketed to $130.51 at market close on February 9, 2024, a 35.1% increase over the closing price on the prior trading day. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Masonite International Corporation. Shareholders, who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by April 7, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click https://robbinsllp.com/masonite-international-corporation/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act class suit in Florida. Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action pending in Florida. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas Bank ("FAB"). The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax. Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has disputed). In 2019, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") issued a declaratory ruling clarifying that the TCPA does not apply to faxes sent to online fax services that are received online via email. In 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification, but narrowed the scope of the class to stand alone fax recipients only. Mastercard's request to appeal that decision was denied. Briefing on plaintiffs' motion to amend the class definition and Mastercard's cross-motion to decertify the stand alone fax recipient class was completed in April 2023 and the parties await the court's decision. Mastercard Inc. is a technology company in the global payments industry based in New York. MASTERCARD INC: Liability Shift MDL Settlement for Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2026, that the US Liability Shift MDL settlement is subject to the approval of New York district court. In 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants") engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs alleged damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs sought treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law. The district court denied the Network Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In 2017, the district court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases described above. In 2020, the district court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' request for class certification. The plaintiffs submitted expert reports that allege aggregate single damages in excess of $1 billion against the four Network Defendants. The Network Defendants submitted expert reports rebutting both liability and damages. In September 2024, the district court denied the Network Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In September 2025, Mastercard executed a settlement agreement with the class lawyers to resolve the matter, subject to court approval. During the third quarter of 2025, Mastercard recorded an accrual of $80 million in connection with this matter. Mastercard Inc. is a technology company in the global payments industry based in New York. MONSANTO COMPANY: To Settle Roundup Litigation for $7.2 Billion --------------------------------------------------------------- On February 17, 2026, Monsanto announced a proposed U.S. nationwide class settlement designed to resolve current and future Roundup claims alleging Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) injuries through a long-term claims program. Leading plaintiff law firms representing the class filed a motion on February 17 seeking preliminary approval of the settlement in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The proposed class combined with Supreme Court review in the Durnell case are independently necessary and mutually reinforcing steps in the company's multipronged strategy designed to significantly contain the Roundup litigation. "The proposed class settlement agreement, together with the Supreme Court case, provides an essential path out of the litigation uncertainty and enables us to devote our full attention to furthering the innovations that lie at the core of our mission: Health for all, Hunger for none," said Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer. "This litigation and the resulting cost underscore the need for guidance from the Supreme Court on clear regulation in American agriculture. The class settlement and Supreme Court case are both necessary to help bring the strongest, most certain and most timely containment to this litigation." To fund the class, Monsanto will make declining capped annual payments for up to 21 years totaling up to 7.25 billion U.S. dollars, following court approval. The long-term payment stream will provide the company with both greater certainty and control regarding its litigation costs for current claims and potential future claimants. Separately, Monsanto also has reached agreements to settle certain other Roundup (glyphosate) cases on confidential terms. Additionally, earlier this year Monsanto settled eight remaining PCB verdicts related to the Sky Valley Education Center (SVEC) in the state of Washington on confidential terms. Monsanto also previously resolved PCB environmental cases with the U.S. states of Illinois and West Virginia. In total, and subject to a final audit, these resolutions including litigation costs will lead to an increase of the provision and liabilities for litigation from 7.8 billion euros (including 6.5 billion euros for glyphosate) as of September 30, 2025, to 11.8 billion euros (including 9.6 billion euros for glyphosate). Based on a first estimate of all litigation related payouts of approximately 5 billion euros in 2026, Bayer expects a negative free cash flow for this year. To reflect the settlement agreements in the financial statements, Bayer is shifting its announcement of 2025 year-end financial results and 2026 guidance to March 4. The immediate financing of these resolutions, as well as certain bond maturities, are secured by a bank loan facility of 8 billion U.S. dollars. Ultimate financing is planned to utilize senior bonds and instruments receiving equity-credit by rating agencies and not an authorized capital increase. Monsanto is taking the Roundup-related actions solely to contain the litigation, and the settlement agreements do not contain any admission of liability or wrongdoing. Indeed, leading regulators worldwide, including the U.S. EPA and EU regulatory bodies, continue to conclude based on an extensive body of science, that glyphosate-based herbicides -- critical tools that farmers rely on to produce affordable food and feed the world -- can be used safely and are not carcinogenic. In addition to these settlements, the company will continue to pursue other elements of its multi-pronged strategy including supporting legislation at the state and federal level, regulatory actions and other measures that are intended to help achieve regulatory clarity and contain litigation risk. Regulatory uncertainty jeopardizes the availability of current and future agricultural innovations, with potentially severe consequences for farmers and the American food system. Supreme Court case and settlements are independently necessary and mutually reinforcing strategies The Roundup settlements follow a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of the Durnell case. The expectation of Supreme Court review of the cross-cutting question in this litigation -- whether state claims based on failure-to-warn theories are preempted by federal law -- helped make this settlement possible. The Supreme Court case is unaffected by the settlement and is critical to resolving substantial outstanding damage awards subject to pending appeals, which are not covered by the settlement. A positive ruling on the question before the Supreme Court should largely foreclose present and future claims based on state label-based warning theories – including the pending appeals, as well as opt-outs from the class. A favorable ruling by the Supreme Court would provide essential regulatory clarity for companies who seek to bring currently approved and new products to market, addressing their ability to serve U.S. farmers and consumers. The class settlement is designed to resolve claims relating to Roundup exposure and NHL regardless of legal theory. Thus, it resolves claims that could remain subject to litigation after the Supreme Court's decision, which would prolong the litigation and delay closure. About the class program The class settlement was negotiated with class representatives who, in turn, were represented by leading plaintiff law firms Holland Law Firm, Ketchmark & McCreight, Motley Rice, Seeger Weiss, Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel, and Williams Hart & Boundas. These law firms support the settlement and its approval by the court. The settlement covers plaintiffs who allege exposure to Roundup prior to February 17, 2026, and: -- have a medical diagnosis of NHL now; or -- receive a medical diagnosis of NHL before the end of a 16-year period following final approval of the agreement. The proposed class settlement differs markedly from the prior class settlement put forth by the company in 2020. The new proposed settlement is a long-term compensation program, with funding for up to 21 years, and is structured to address the needs of both present and future claimants through a common claims program, managed by a professional claims administrator. The prior proposed class settlement was a short-term program limited to four years with far less funding, and future litigation beyond four years was subject to determinations of an expert science panel, a feature that is not part of the current proposed program. The settlement is subject to court approval. As part of the approval process, members of the class will receive notice and have the opportunity to opt out of the settlement. Monsanto will have the right to terminate the settlement without claims payments if the number of opt outs is excessive. About Bayer Bayer is a global enterprise with core competencies in the life science fields of health care and nutrition. In line with its mission, "Health for all, Hunger for none," the company's products and services are designed to help people and the planet thrive by supporting efforts to master the major challenges presented by a growing and aging global population. Bayer is committed to driving sustainable development and generating a positive impact with its businesses. At the same time, the Group aims to increase its earning power and create value through innovation and growth. The Bayer brand stands for trust, reliability and quality throughout the world. In fiscal 2024, the Group employed around 93,000 people and had sales of 46.6 billion euros. R&D expenses amounted to 6.2 billion euros. For more information, go to www.bayer.com. Forward-Looking Statements This release may contain forward-looking statements based on current assumptions and forecasts made by Bayer management. Various known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors could lead to material differences between the actual future results, financial situation, development or performance of the company and the estimates given here. These factors include those discussed in Bayer's public reports which are available on the Bayer website at www.bayer.com. The company assumes no liability whatsoever to update these forward-looking statements or to conform them to future events or developments. Bayer AG is a holding company with operating subsidiaries worldwide. References to "Bayer" or "the company" herein may refer to one or more subsidiaries as context requires. [GN] MOUNT FRANKLIN FOODS: Hughes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mount Franklin Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Ebony Hughes, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mount Franklin Foods, LLC, Case No. CU26-01231 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., Feb. 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Tort - Fraud." Mount Franklin Foods -- http://www.mountfranklinfoods.com/-- is a company that operates in the Food & Beverages industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 12481 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92130-3583 Phone: 619-353-7966 Email: ben@bentravislaw.com NEXTMARVEL INC: Williams Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jazmine Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NextMarvel Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-07733 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01193 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nextmarvel doing business as VOOGLAM -- https://www.vooglam.com/ -- delivers stylish, affordable eyewear through its two primary sub-brands, ZEELOOL and VOOGLAM.[BN] NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Agrees to Settle COVID Class Suit for $4MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Stefanski, writing for NBC Chicago, reports that Northwestern University students who paid tuition during the spring, summer and/or fall 2020 quarters may be eligible for part of a $4 million class-action settlement. The lawsuit accused Northwestern of breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims related to switching in-person learning to a virtual environment due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related state and local public health mandates and orders, according to the settlement website. The university denies the allegations, but both sides agreed to the settlement to avoid ongoing legal costs and a possible trial. The agreement creates a $4 million fund that will be used to pay costs and fees, with a portion of the dollars being distributed to class members. While preliminary approval has been given, final approval is necessary for the settlement to move forward. As of Friday, February 13, it hasn't been granted. Here's who is eligible for the settlement and what class members need to know. Who is eligible? Anyone who was a full-time student enrolled in a degree-conferring program at a Northwestern University campus in the United States for spring 2020, summer 2020 and/or fall 2020 and whose tuition was not fully funded by the university during those quarters is eligible. For the spring term, class members will receive approximately $153 each, with those enrolled that term receiving 75% of the settlement fund. Summer 2020 class members will receive 7% of the fund, which amounts to roughly $61 per person. Separately, 18% of the fund will be dedicated to those enrolled during fall 2020, with class members receiving approximately $35 each. Class members can receive a payment for each of the above terms they were enrolled in. You don't qualify for the class if you are related or married to the District Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the action, the judge's law clerk, a current or former trustee, officer, director, agent, attorney, or employee at Northwestern, or you opt out of the settlement, according to the website. How to claim Anyone who is eligible will automatically receive a portion of the settlement, as long as final approval is given. Class members who want to be excluded, allowing them to keep any rights to sue Northwestern separately over the legal claims, must opt out by March 30. To challenge the settlement, a written objection must be filed. That deadline is also March 30. Anyone who objects can speak at the final approval hearing at 10 a.m. on May 19. [GN] ORIENTAL RUG: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wood Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Oriental Rug Gallery, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1611 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.rugstudio.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Wood's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that on November 11, 2025, Michael Wood visited Defendant's online store, rugstudio.com intending to purchase a rug. Wood discovered the website while searching for rugs by size and reviewing customer feedback that described positive experience with the product quality and the variety of styles, which reasonably motivated him to proceed with a purchase through the Website. Wood navigated the Website using a screen reader and keyboard-only navigation. During this process, Wood encountered multiple accessibility barriers that interfered with his ability to navigate the Website, access product information, and complete a purchase. The complaint alleges that the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Wood and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Wood and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Plaintiff Michael Wood is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Oriental Rug Gallery, L.P. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of rugs in multiple styles, colors, sizes, and shapes to suit any space.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law PAYGOV.US LLC: Burke Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amy Burke and Angelia McGlade, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PAYGOV.US LLC, Case No. 49D01-2511-CE-054307 was removed from the Marion Superior Court, Marion County, Indiana, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Feb. 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00250-SEB-CSW. In the State Court Action, Plaintiffs allege that PayGov, a service provider offering electronic payment and reporting solutions to state and local government entities (collectively, "Agencies"), violated the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act ("IDCSA"), and were unjustly enriched when PayGov charged Plaintiffs "convenience fees" in exchange for facilitating Plaintiffs' payments by credit card of utility bills owed to Agencies.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason L. Fulk, Esq.s J FULK LEGAL, LLC 4000 W. 106th St., Ste. 125-136 Carmel, IN 46032 Phone: (317) 225-9480 Email: jason@jfulklegal.com PENNYMAC FINANCIAL: 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 PennyMac Financial Services, Inc. (NYSE: PFSI) resulting from allegations that PennyMac may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased PennyMac 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=51887 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 January 29, 2026, PennyMac filed a Current Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K announcing PennyMac's fourth quarter and full-year 2025 financial results. The report stated that PennyMac's "servicing segment pretax income was $37.3 million, down from $157.4 million in the prior quarter and $87.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2024," as well as "[retax income excluding valuation-related items was $47.8 million, down 70 percent from the prior quarter driven primarily by increased realization of mortgage servicing rights (MSR) cash flows as lower mortgage rates drove higher prepayment activity." On this news, PennyMac's stock price fell $49.78 per share, or 33.3%, to close at $99.92 per share on January 30, 2026. 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. 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] PENUMBRA INC: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penumbra, Inc. The case is styled as Ameika Jones, Renatto Aliaga, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. sPenumbra, Inc., Case No. 26CV169023 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Penumbra -- https://www.penumbrainc.com/ -- is a global healthcare company that is focused on innovating novel technologies to help as many people as possible.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com PORCH.COM INC: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Porch.com, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Friel, individually and on behalf of a class of all person and entities similarly situated v. Porch.com, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00293-RDM (M.D. Pa., Feb. 6, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Porch -- https://porch.com/ -- provides innovative home insurance solutions, connecting homeowners with tailored coverage options for a worry-free home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Fasolino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against QuoteWizard.com, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Adrian Fasolino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, Case No. 2026DCV0756 (Tex. Dist. Ct., El Paso Cty., Feb. 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." QuoteWizard -- https://quotewizard.com/ -- is a complete insurance marketing solution for agents and carriers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Rodriguez, Esq. 333 W Broadway, Ste. 1110 San Diego, CA 92101-3806 Phone: 619-557-7667 REED'S INC: Deherrera Sues Over Mislabeled Ginger Ale Products -------------------------------------------------------------- ANNE-MARIE DEHERRERA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REED'S INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00572 (C.D. Cal., February 9, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's Zero Sugar Real Ginger Ale products are misbranded and falsely advertised because they contain synthetic sweeteners and preservatives. The said products feature claims on the front and back labels to have "Natural Ingredients," to contain "Nothing Artificial," and to contain "No Artificial Preservatives". However, all of these representations are false. The products contain both erythritol, artificial sweetener, and citric acid, an artificial preservative. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks restitution under the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, says the suit. Headquartered in Norwalk, CT, Reed's Inc. manufactures soft drinks and candies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com REEDS INC: Herrera Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reeds, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reeds, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00756-RSH-JLB (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Fraud. Reed's Inc. -- https://drinkreeds.com/ -- is a US-based company that manufactures soft drinks and candies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614 Phone: (424) 478-2076 Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com RICHARD BARASCH: Myers Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richard Barasch, et al. The case is styled as Blake T. Myers, and all others similarly situated v. Richard Barasch, Alan Quasha, Bradley Coppens, Dale Wolf, David S. Williams III, Frank J. Mullen, Greg Belinfanti, Jason A. Clemens, Joshua Parnes, Luke McGee, Rodney Carson, Shaw Rietkerk, Stephen P. Griggs, Susan Weaver, Ted Lundberg, Terence Connors, Wendy Russalesi, Case No. 2026-0174 (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duty in the Corporate Context."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Quinn, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC-WILMINGTON 112 French St Ste 201 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 438-3436 Email: christopher.quinn@ksfcounsel.com SEEL INC: Mickey Files Suit Over Unlawful Shipping Insurance Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- MALIKA MICKEY, for herself, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEEL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01336 (N.D. Cal., February 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its unlawful provision of shipping insurance, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Business & Professions Code. The complaint alleges that for years, Seel has engaged in a massive and consistent unlawful shipping insurance scheme as an unadmitted insurer. Seel partners with more than 2,000 global ecommerce retailers to provide its shipping insurance. When consumers go through the online checkout process on a partner retailer's website, they are presented with the option to purchase Seel's shipping insurance (which is labeled as "Worry-Free Delivery") for an additional fee, purportedly to ensure that they can recover the cost of the item in the event that their purchase is lost, damaged, or stolen. Seel is not an admitted insurer in the state of California, as is required under the California Insurance Code. The unlawful shipping insurance purchased by Plaintiff and Class members was not worth the price they paid. If Plaintiff and Class members had been aware that Seel's shipping insurance was unlicensed and unlawful, they would not have purchased it at all, adds the complaint. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Seel's shipping insurance. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all money paid to Seel for the shipping insurance. Additionally, Plaintiff, acting as a private attorney general, seeks public injunctive relief to protect the general public by enjoining Seel from engaging in its unauthorized shipping insurance scheme. Plaintiff Malika Mickey is a citizen and resident of the city of Midlothian, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and is an unsophisticated consumer party. Defendant Seel, Inc. is an "AI-powered insurance company" founded in 2019, and first started offering insurance products in 2021. Seel is funded primarily by venture capital and finances its growth and operations from such funds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com E-mail: pkl@hattislaw.com SEGWAY INC: Torres Suit Transferred to D. Delaware -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jimmy Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Segway, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-05005 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Feb. 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00140-UNA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Segway Inc. -- https://www.segway.com/ -- develops, manufactures, and sells personal electric transportation devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 401-4100 Fax: (213) 401-0311 Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com - and - James R. Denlea, Esq. Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. Craig M. Cepler, Esq. DENLEA & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: (914) 331-0100 Fax: (914) 331-0105 Email: jdenlea@denleacarton.com jcarton@denleacarton.com ccepler@denleacarton.com The Defendants are represented by: Jessica M. Leano, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7655 Phone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 Email: leano.jessica@dorsey.com - and - Adam Buck, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 111 South Main Street, Suite 2100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176 Phone: (801) 933-7360 Email: buck.adam@dorsey.com - and - Kirk W. Schuler, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 801 Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 Des Moines, IA 50309-2790 Phone: (515) 283-1000 Email: schuler.kirk@dorsey.com SOLEIL SERVICES: Contreras Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soleil Services, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Pablo Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Soleil Services, Inc. doing business as: Venice Soleil also known as: Spa Soleil, Case No. 3:26-cv-00739-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Soleil Services, Inc. doing business as Venice Soleil -- https://www.venicesol.com/ -- is a full-service beach-life inspired nail salon and spa nestled between the famous Venice Canals and the Venice Boardwalk.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Green, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: mark@kazlg.com - and - Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Rathbun Files Suit in Ga. State Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southcoast Medical Group LLC. The case is styled as Tamara Rathbun, Amanda Whatley, and Thomas Kirstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southcoast Medical Group LLC, Case No. STCV26-00424 (Ga. State Ct., Chatham Cty., Feb. 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Tort. Southcoast Medical Group, LLC -- https://www.southcoasthealth.com/ -- provides healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 4279 Roswell Road NE Suite 208 - 108 Atlanta 30342-3700 Phone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com SOXLAND INT'L: Anderson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Soxland International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01612 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://drmotionsocks.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Anderson's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Anderson attempted to complete a purchase on the Website. On November 3, 2025, Anderson visited Drmotionsocks.com after searching on Google for stores offering compression and therapeutic socks. Before making a purchase, she reviewed the information available about the company and the Website's descriptions regarding product quality, comfort, and effectiveness. Based on the Website's description and the positive feedback regarding the socks' ability to provide support and help reduce leg fatigue and swelling, Anderson decided to make a purchase. However, Anderson encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction independently. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Anderson, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Anderson and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Anderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Lisa Anderson is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Soxland International, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of socks, including medical and graduated compression socks, diabetic socks, athletic performance socks, casual everyday socks, and specialty support socks for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law SPRINGWOOD HOSPITALITY: Court Approves "Shatzer" Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jaymie Shatzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Springwood Hospitality, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01244-KMN (M.D. Pa.), Judge Keli M. Neary of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement agreement on February 12, 2026. The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court certified two settlement classes: all current and former Room Attendants or Other Hourly Employees who worked for Defendant at its Ephrata hotel from July 25, 2021, to June 30, 2023, and at its Harrisburg Hotel from July 25, 2021, to July 25, 2024, who, according to Plaintiff's allegations, did not receive timely payment of all regular and overtime wages to which they were entitled. The court found that requisites for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, were satisfied, and that questions of law or fact common to class members predominated over individual questions. It further found that the proposed settlement class was similarly situated such that certification of a collective was appropriate under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Plaintiff Jaymie Shatzer was approved as Class Representative, and Weisberg Cummings, P.C. was approved as Class Counsel. The court approved a service award of $5,000.00 to Plaintiff for her service to the class and in exchange for her additional released claims in favor of Defendant. The court granted attorneys' fees of $25,000.00 and costs of $2,815.00. The case was dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, with the court retaining jurisdiction over the action for purposes of supervising the implementation and enforcement of the settlement agreement. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NBAA9D from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Jaymie Shatzer Represented By: Larry A. Weisberg Weisberg Cummings, P.C. Phone: 717-238-5707 Email: lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com Michael J. Bradley Weisberg Cummings, P.C. Phone: 717-238-5707 Email: mbradley@weisbergcummings.com Derrek William Cummings Weisberg Cummings, P.C. Phone: 717-238-5707 Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com Steve Todd Mahan, Jr. Weisberg Cummings, P.C. Phone: 717-238-5707 Email: smahan@weisbergcummings.com STATEN ISLAND: Deadline for Class Settlement Exclusion Set March 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kyle Lawson of silive.com reports that Northwell Staten Island University Hospital has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over a data breach that exposed the personal information of more than 35,000 patients. The Medibase Group Inc. -- a vendor that provides health care solutions, technical assistance and business office solutions -- discovered the breach in May 2024, court documents indicate. In January 2024, an unauthorized third party gained access to Medibase systems, which contained the protected health information of 35,106 individuals, a class action lawsuit filed in Georgia contends. Data compromised in the incident included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information, and health insurance information, the lawsuit read. "Staten Island University Hospital has agreed to settle a putative class action lawsuit about a 2024 cyberattack on the computer systems of The Medibase Group Inc., a vendor that provided services to the hospital and maintained records regarding certain hospital patients," said SIUH spokesperson Jillian O'Hara. "The hospital's computer systems were not impacted, and the hospital did not admit to any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle the matter." Anyone who was impacted by the data breach should have been sent a notification letter in the mail on July 5, 2024. As detailed in the notice, more information and questions about the settlement can be found on the settlement website at medibaseSIUHdatabreachsettlement.com. You can also call the toll-free number 1-833-647-8978. "If you received notice from the Settlement Administrator, then SIUH's records indicate that you are a Settlement Class Member and entitled to benefits under the Settlement," the settlement website says. "You may have received a previous notice directly from SIUH about the Data Incident." "Your rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Please read the Notice carefully and completely," the site cautions. The deadline for exclusion and opting out of the class action lawsuit is March 2. The deadline for submitting a claim is March 16, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for March 31. [GN] STEPHEN BANNON: Investors Sue Over 'Patriot Pay' Cryptocurrency --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that an investor on Friday, February 13, sued Steve Bannon, Boris Epshteyn and others in a proposed class action accusing them of selling unregistered cryptocurrency to thousands of people while concealing facts about the conservative-coded digital token's risks and governance. The lawsuit, in Washington, D.C., federal court named Bannon and Epshteyn, both longtime allies of U.S. President Donald Trump, along with Bannon's War Room media company, Let's Go Brandon Coin LLC and Patriot Pay LLC, among other defendants. The plaintiff, Missouri resident Andrew Barr, said he lost more than $58,000 on his investments. "The securities laws exist precisely to prevent influential insiders from exploiting trust, obscuring material facts and shifting risk onto retail investors without transparency or registration," Barr said in the complaint. Bannon, War Room and Epshteyn could not be immediately reached for comment. Lawyers for the defendants had not yet entered appearances in the case on Friday, February 13. Constantine Economides, a lawyer for the plaintiff, said in a statement that "millions of Americans use cryptoassets and blockchain technology in legitimate ways that benefit our society and economy, and bad actors -- who use misrepresentations, fraud or schemes -- should not be tolerated." The lawsuit alleges Bannon and Epshteyn used their public platforms and political following to promote a token first called Let's Go Brandon Coin, or $FJB, and later rebranded as Patriot Pay, or $PPY. According to the complaint, they induced purchases of "an unregistered, highly speculative asset under the guise of financial independence and community membership." In early 2025, the lawsuit said, the defendants disabled trading entirely, announced the project's shutdown and promised investors a distribution of remaining liquidity that has not occurred. Barr is seeking to represent a nationwide class of thousands of retail investors in the crypto tokens. The lawsuit alleges violations of securities, consumer protection and other laws, and seeks unspecified monetary damages. The case is Andrew Barr v. Stephen Bannon et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 26-cv-452. For plaintiff: Eric Rosen, Constantine Economides and Yusef Al-Jarani of Dynamis For defendants: No appearances yet [GN] T-MOBILE US: Continues to Defend Dinkevich Shareholder Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- T-Mobile US, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Dinkevich shareholder class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 1, 2021, a putative shareholder class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Dinkevich v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al., Case No. C.A. No. 2021-0479, against DT, SoftBank and certain of its current and former officers and directors, asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to the repricing amendment to the Business Combination Agreement and to SoftBank's monetization of its T-Mobile shares. The Company is also named as a nominal defendant in the case. The Company is unable to predict the potential outcome of these claims. T-Mobile is an American wireless network operator. T-MOBILE US: Continues to Defend Palkon Class Suit in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- T-Mobile US, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Palkon class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On February 25, 2025, a purported Company shareholder filed a putative class in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the caption Palkon v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al., Case No. 2025-0211-PAF, against four DT entities, its current directors, and certain of its former directors, asserting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims relating to its 2022 Stock Repurchase Program and its 2023-2024 Stockholder Return Program. The Company is also named as a nominal defendant in the lawsuit. The Company is unable to predict the potential outcome of these claims. T-Mobile is an American wireless network operator. TIMESHARE HELP CENTER: Brooks Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timeshare Help Center. The case is styled as Byron Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Timeshare Help Center, Case No. 2:26-cv-00861-SMB (D. Ariz., Feb. 8, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Timeshare Help Center -- https://www.timesharehelpcenter.com/index.html -- is a company that provides timeshare cancellation services to owners who want to exit unwanted timeshare contracts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com TIMEX GROUP USA: Cultrara Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Charles Cultrara, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TIMEX GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26-2-00971-6 SEA was removed from t the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00445. On January 7, 2026, Plaintiff acting individually and on behalf of a purported class of persons he seeks to represent, served the Complaint and Summons on Timex' registered agent, CSC Global. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that comprises the following: "All Washington citizens holding an email address to which Defendant sent or caused to be send any email. The Plaintiff alleges at least six emails between 2024 and 2025 contained "false or misleading" subject lines. The Plaintiff further alleges the class "is estimate to minimally contain thousands of members."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206.622.3150 Fax: 206.757.7700 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com TOTAL LONGTERM CARE: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Oscar Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOTAL LONGTERM CARE, INC., a Colorado corporation; INNOVAGE CALIFORNIA PACE-LOS ANGELES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, a Delaware corporation, Case No. CIVSB2534853 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00554. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action for: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Page Wages; Failure to Indemnify; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Connie L. Chen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: connie.chen@jacksonlewis.com - and - Philip M. Duclos, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-5253 Email: Philip.Duclos@jacksonlewis.com TOUCH OF CLASS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Touch of Class Catalog, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01256 (D. Minn., February 9, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide its online website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. As a result, the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's website from Minnesota. The Plaintiff encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Headquartered in Huntingburg, IN, Touch of Class Catalog, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.touchofclass.com, which offers housewares for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com TRI POINTE: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Sumitomo Forestry --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tri Pointe Homes, Inc. (NYSE: TPH) related to its sale to Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Tri Pointe shareholders will receive $47.00 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/tri-pointe-homes-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. 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 one 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] TTI OUTDOOR: Faces Bruss Suit Over Defective Pressure Washers ------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS BRUSS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TTI OUTDOOR POWER EQUIPMENT, INC.; including other affiliated entities and individuals, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01484 (N.D. Ill., February 9, 2026) seeks damages and equitable relief arising from TTI Outdoor Power Equipment, Inc.'s false and misleading representations regarding the safety of its Electric Pressure Washers, including their RY142300-Electric 2300 PSI Pressure Washer and RY142711VNM-Electric 2700 PSI Pressure Washer. According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that these products were safe and reliable, despite being aware that design and manufacturing defects rendered them hazardous. As a direct result of these misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class Members purchased defective Products that failed to perform as advertised and posed a substantial risk of serious injury. Indeed, these products contain an identical dangerous defect--their capacitors can overheat and burst, causing parts to be forcefully ejected, says the suit. TTI Outdoor Power Equipment manufactures, markets, and distributes consumer power tools and outdoor products under the Ryobi brand name. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reeellp.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Scott E. Silberfein, Esq. Chuck Schimmel, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com silberfeins@thesultzerlawgroup.com schimmelc@sultzerlawgroup.com TWO HARBORS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to UWM Holdings ----------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- Two Harbors Investment Corp. (NYSE: TWO) related to its sale to UWM Holdings Corporation. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Two Harbors shareholders will receive 2.3328 shares of UMW Class A common stock for each share of Two Harbors common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 16, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/two-harbors-investment-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Heritage Commerce Corp (NASDAQ: HTBK) related to its sale to CVB Financial Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Heritage shareholders are expected to receive 0.6500 shares of CVB common stock for each share of Heritage. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 26, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/heritage-commerce-corp/. 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. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 17, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/contango-ore-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cayson Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: CAPN) related to its merger with Mango Financial Group Limited. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, each Cayson ordinary share will convert into one Mango Class A ordinary share. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cayson-acquisition-corp/. 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] UNITED STATES: Bid to Postpone South Sudan TPS Designation ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as African Communities Together; Mary Doe; David Doe; Peter Doe; and Jacob Doe, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and United States of America, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-13939-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Plaintiffs' motion to postpone the effective date of Defendant's termination of South Sudan's Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation, dated February 12, 2026. Background South Sudan was designated for TPS in 2011, shortly after becoming the world's newest nation. After multiple extensions and redesignations, on November 6, 2025, Defendant announced that South Sudan's TPS designation would terminate in sixty days. Defendant had decided to terminate the TPS designations of twelve countries in the past twelve months: Venezuela, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Honduras, Syria, South Sudan, Myanmar, Haiti, Ethiopia, and Somalia. On December 22, 2025, Plaintiff, a nonprofit called African Communities Together (ACT), and four South Sudanese TPS holders filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant, alleging that the termination of South Sudan's TPS designation violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to postpone the effective date of the termination pursuant to Section 705 of the APA. Defendant argued that the TPS statute's judicial review bar precluded all of Plaintiffs' claims. The Court determined that the TPS statute forecloses claims challenging Defendant's substantive determination of whether qualifying conditions continue to exist, but does not prohibit review of whether Defendant consulted with appropriate agencies, reviewed country conditions, published the basis for her determination in the Federal Register, or engaged in a general practice or procedure of terminating all TPS designations regardless of country conditions. The Court held that several of Plaintiffs' claims were reviewable, including the claim that the termination was a predetermined action, that Defendant failed to consult with appropriate agencies, that Defendant deviated from past agency practice without explanation, and that the termination violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Pretext: The Court found that several lines of evidence showed a likelihood of success on the claim that Defendant was determined to terminate all TPS designations from the time she entered office. Specifically, Defendant had decided to terminate twelve TPS designations in as many months, and the sole extension granted during that span occurred only because Defendant missed the statutory deadline for South Sudan. The Federal Register notice stated that South Sudanese TPS holders had been subjects of administrative investigation for fraud, public safety, and national security concerns; however, when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) searched for records of fraud or public safety concerns among 228 South Sudanese TPS holders, it found none. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their argument that Defendant failed to disclose the true basis for her determination in the Federal Register. Consultation: The TPS statute requires Defendant to consult with appropriate agencies before determining whether to terminate a TPS designation. The Court found that the only evidence of interagency consultation in the administrative record was a single email exchange in July 2025, in which a State Department employee confirmed that State had no foreign policy concerns with ending several TPS designations. The Court determined that under any reasonable interpretation of the word "consultation," this single email chain was plainly inadequate, and that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Defendant acted contrary to law by failing to consult with appropriate agencies. Equal Protection: Because Plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on other claims, the Court declined to address the equal protection claim at this stage. Irreparable Harm The Court determined that Plaintiffs easily met their burden of demonstrating irreparable harm. The administrative record reflected that South Sudan remained dangerous and unstable, with USCIS's own June 2025 country-conditions report stating that South Sudan was on the brink of a renewed civil war, with escalating armed violence, chronic food insecurity, economic crisis, and a cholera outbreak. The State Department maintained a Level 4: Do Not Travel advisory for South Sudan. The Court further noted that many TPS holders, including the four named Plaintiffs, had TPS as their sole form of immigration status, and that loss of liberty during removal proceedings would itself constitute irreparable harm. Balance of Equities and Public Interest The Court concluded that there was no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action. The Court further noted that the administrative record reflected that the government found no evidence of fraud or public safety concerns caused by South Sudanese TPS holders. Therefore, the many irreparable harms that South Sudanese TPS holders imminently faced upon termination outweighed the largely unsubstantiated concerns raised by Defendant. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to postpone the effective date of Defendant's termination of South Sudan's TPS designation, finding that all factors relevant to the Section 705 analysis favored Plaintiffs. The Court held that because Defendant acted contrary to the TPS statute, postponement of her entire action -- the termination of TPS for South Sudan -- was warranted. A Copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mmanU2 from PacerMonitor.com UNITED STATES: Denies Mandatory COVID-19 Tax Benefits, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN FLEISHER AND ANDREA BIERSTEIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01096 (S.D.N.Y., February 9, 2026) seeks to recover overpayment interest owed to Plaintiffs and all similarly situated taxpayers pursuant to the Little Tucker Act, U.S. Code Title 26's Sections 6601 and 7508A. In 2019, Congress enacted a law mandating that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provide tax relief during federally declared disasters. However, despite the unambiguous language of the 2019 Amendment, the IRS chose to ignore Congress's mandate in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The IRS refused to provide such relief to all such taxpayers. Instead, the IRS granted limited discretionary extensions of individual income tax filing deadlines to certain taxpayers in 2020 and in 2021 and, for at least some of those taxpayers, paid overpayment interest without regard to the Interest-Limiting Exemptions, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs allege that the U.S. government owes overpayment interest to all qualifying taxpayers who were entitled to the benefits of the mandatory disaster tolling period that ran from January 20, 2020 through July 10, 2023. The Internal Revenue Service is U.S. government agency within the Department of the Treasury. The agency administers and enforces federal tax laws, collects revenue, and assists taxpayers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq. Steven M. Shepard, Esq. Zachary B. Savage, Esq. Casen B. Ross, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com sshepard@susmangodfrey.com zsavage@susmangodfrey.com cbross@susmangodfrey.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com - and - Jonathan L. Holbrook, Esq. Spencer F. Walters, Esq. IVINS, PHILLIPS & BARKER, CHARTERED 1717 K Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 393-7600 Facsimile: (202) 393-7601 E-mail: jholbrook@ipbtax.com swalters@ipbtax.com VELLUTINI CORPORATION: Szillat Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vellutini Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Kiki Szillat, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Vellutini Corporation, Does 1-25, Case No. 26CV002955 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Vellutini Corporation is a construction company based in Sacramento, CA and specializes in Electrical.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sage S. Stone, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 VISTAPRINT NETHERLANDS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Emails ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Jason Roberts filed a class action lawsuit against Vistaprint Netherlands B.V. and Cimpress USA Inc. Why: Roberts claims Vistaprint sends emails with subject lines containing false or misleading information. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Washington state court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Vistaprint of sending emails to consumers in the state of Washington with subject lines containing false or misleading information. Plaintiff Jason Roberts claims Vistaprint sends emails with subject lines that falsely represent unqualified discounts on purchases without disclosing material exclusions. Roberts argues consumers must open the email before they are able to see the "significant exclusions" that do not qualify for the percentage discount. "The (emails) contain subject lines that are false or misleading because they omit material exclusions, leading reasonable consumers to believe that they will receive the promised percentage discount on their entire purchase," the Vistaprint class action lawsuit says. Roberts wants to represent a class of Washington residents who, within the past four years, received, either from or at the behest of Vistaprint, either of the two emails described in this complaint. Vistaprint misleads consumers about sale durations, class action says In addition to the emails regarding percentage discounts, Roberts argues Vistaprint also sends emails that misstate the duration of given promotions, in an alleged apparent effort to drive sales by creating a false sense of urgency. Roberts claims that the subject lines in these particular emails falsely claim that a certain sale or discount is limited to a specific time when, in reality, the offer lasts longer than advertised or the item has already been on sale for longer than advertised. "These misstatements are material because they mislead reasonable consumers about sale durations, including urgency that affects purchasing decisions," the Vistaprint class action says. Roberts claims Vistaprint is violating Washington's Consumer Protection Act and Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA). The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief and an award of statutory damages for himself and all class members. In other alleged violations of Washington State's CEMA, the shoe company Crocs is facing a lawsuit over its promotional emails. The plaintiff is represented by Cory L. Zajdel and David M. Trojanowksi of Z Law LLC. The Vistaprint class action lawsuit is Roberts, et al. v. Vistaprint Netherlands B.V., et al., Case No. 25-2-05325-32, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Spokane. [GN] VIVINT LLC: Devies Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint, LLC. The case is styled as Anthony Devies, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vivint, LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-00066 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Vivint -- https://www.vivint.com/ -- is a smart home security company that provides innovative home automation and security systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com WOLVERINE FUELS: Court Won't Merge Two Wage Suits ------------------------------------------------- In the cases captioned as Tony Jones and Jefferson Manning, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wolverine Fuels, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00345-RJS-JCB (D. Utah), and Timothy Goins, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wolverine Fuels, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00767-RJS-DBP (D. Utah), District Judge Robert J. Shelby of the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Defendant's motion to consolidate the two cases on February 12, 2026. Wolverine Fuels, a coal company, employed Jones as an Outby Worker from approximately May 2018 to June 2022, and Goins as a beltman from approximately August 2024 to November 2024. Both plaintiffs were subjected to Wolverine's pre/post shift off-the-clock policy, which allegedly failed to compensate workers for time spent donning and doffing protective gear. Jones filed his complaint on May 2, 2025, later amending it to allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Utah Payment of Wages Act. Goins filed his complaint on September 5, 2025, alleging FLSA violations only. Both cases seek to bring an FLSA collective action on behalf of other Wolverine employees. Neither case has been certified as a class or collective action. Wolverine moved to consolidate the two matters on December 11, 2025, arguing consolidation would serve judicial economy as the cases involved the same employment practices, the same sole defendant, and overlapping potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Goins plaintiffs opposed full consolidation, asserting their right to choose litigation partners and counsel, though they indicated willingness to coordinate discovery. The court found that judicial economy would be sufficiently served by coordinating discovery and case management across the two cases, and that consolidation was not necessary. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a stipulated joint case management order in both actions within 14 days. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to reassign the Goins action to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett to promote consistency and judicial efficiency. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zPH3xy from PacerMonitor.com Wolverine Fuels LLC is represented by attorneys Kade N. Olsen and Cheylynn Hayman of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, while the plaintiffs Tony Jones and Jefferson Manning are represented by a team including Lauren I. Scholnick and Anthony Guy Tenney of Scholnick Thorne Holland, Galvin B. Kennedy of Kennedy Law Firm LLP, and Carl A. Fitz of Fitz Law PLLC. This reflects a defense led by a single firm against plaintiffs supported by multiple firms, combining local and national counsel for broader representation. WOODWARD ORAL SURGERY: Darby Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woodward Oral Surgery LLC. The case is styled as Elizabeth Darby, individually and elizabeth darby, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Woodward Oral Surgery LLC, Case No. CJ-2026-568 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Tulsa Cty., Feb. 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Woodward Oral Surgery LLC -- https://www.woodwardoralsurgery.com/ -- is a father-son oral and maxillofacial surgery practice in Tulsa, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jonathan Herrera, Esq. Jessica Andrea Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: jaw@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark your calendar for the 10th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference, presented by Beard Group, Inc. #CAME2026 will be held May 20-21, 2026, at The Harmonie Club, in New York City. This exclusive in-person gathering brings together the industry's top professionals to explore the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities in class action litigation. #CAME2026 features: Insightful keynote presentations from leading experts Dynamic live panel discussions tackling cutting-edge issues Valuable networking opportunities with peers and influencers This year's event kicks off with the Opening Night Cocktail Reception on May 20th from 5:00–7:00 p.m. Whether you're a plaintiff attorney, defense counsel, funder, or industry stakeholder, this is the must-attend event of the year for staying ahead in class action practice. Register today and secure your spot at this value-packed conference! Click here -- https://www.classactionconference.com/2025-video-replays.html -- for the 2025 conference videos, available to purchase and download. Last year's confab was sponsored by: Major Sponsors: Atticus Claimscore Duane Morris Esquire Bank Labaton Keller Sucharow SMIaware Tremendous Patron Sponsors: AB Data Darrow Miller Kaplan Supporting Sponsors: EisnerAmper Verita Media Partners: Class Action Insight PacerMonitor Contact Will Etchison at 305-707-7493 or will@beardgroup.com, or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. CLE accreditation will be submitted upon request -- details available on the website. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defends 3,700 Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, as of December 31, 2025, is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 3,700 individual claimants, compared to approximately 3,500 individual claimants with actions pending as of December 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. "The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, is expected to represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the Company has prevailed in nineteen of the twenty cases tried to a jury." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cr0Miw ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reports $246MM Total Reserves at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Such claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley and the acquisition of Hercules in November 2008. Although Riley, a former subsidiary, was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing components provided by other companies. "Total reserves for asbestos claims were $246 million and $258 million at December 31, 2025 and September 30, 2025, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Z2IB1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $6.4BB Liabilities as of Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc., in its earnings press release dated January 29, 2026. has reported total asbestos-related liabilities of $6.41 billion and $5.58 billion, as of December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=huBkx3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $708MM Liabilities at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation, at December 31, 2025, has reported total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims, including future defense and processing costs, of $708 million ($791 million at December 31, 2024), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past several decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SbRkil ********* 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 2026. 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 ***