260310.mbx

260310.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 10, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 49 Headlines ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pretrial Hearing Set for April 10 AGILON HEALTH: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing ALGO CENTRE: Proposes $10MM Settlement in Mall Collapse Class Suit ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in Sherman Act-Related Suit to Begin in May AMERICAN ECONOMY: Appeals Class Certification Order in Glasner Suit ANGEION GROUP: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Kickback Scheme ARIZONA PUBLIC: Continues to Defend Nuclear Wage Class Suit in Md. AVANTOR INC: Building Trades Suit Transferred to D. Del. BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend LIBOR Class Suit in New York BANK OF AMERICA: Summary Judgement Bid Pending BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Agrees to Settle NSF Fees Suit for $10.45MM BARCLAYS PLC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims BAYER AG: $7.25BB Roundup Class Settlement Gets Court Prelim OK BINANCE: Judge Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration in Class Action BUMBLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach CABELA'S LLC: Irvin Suit Removed to M.D. Pa. CALIFORNIA: Bid to Seal Portions of Class Cert Denial Reply OK'd CANADA: Ont. Super. Court Certifies Migrant Farmworkers Class Suit CAPITAL ONE: Proposes $425MM Settlement in Interest Rate Suit CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid in Oatts Due August 14 CARE ABOVE: Appeals Attorneys' Fees & Costs Order in Bailey Suit CHINA LIBERAL: Faces Class Suit Over Violations of Securities' Laws CINTAS CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Bearup Suit Due Oct. 26 CIRKUL INC: Class Cert Bid in Wilson Suit Due Jan. 29, 2027 CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Wins Class Cert Bid CONOPCO INC: Faces Class Suit Over False Advertised SmartyPants CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due Apr 21 CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend ACERS Suit DECARBONIZATION PLUS: Continues to Defend Hamilton Class Suit DOMINOS PIZZA: Murphy Sues Over Undisclosed Fees on Orders ENHABIT INC: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Kinderhook Industries EOS ENERGY: Bleichmar Investigates Violations of Securities Laws EUREKA CASINO: Agrees to Settle 2022 Data Breach Class Suit for $1M FIGURE LENDING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach FOX FACTORY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit FRANKLIN BSP: Moses Sues Over Misleading Company Statements GARDAWORLD CASH: Court Junks Fisher Class Suit GARTNER INC: Schall Law Investigates Violations of Securities Laws GC ASIA: Continues to Defend Miniso Securities Class Suit GEN DIGITAL: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $9.95-Mil. GEN DIGITAL: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action Suit for $9.95MM GENTING NEW YORK: Class Settlement Deal Gets Final Nod GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend Immigration Detainees Class Suit GEO GROUP: Mesa Verde Immigration Detainee Suit Stayed GEO GROUP: TVPA Immigration Detainees Class Suit Stayed GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Loses Class Cert Denial Bid GLOBE LIFE: Continues to Defend Miami Gen. Emp. Class Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Bright Health Class Suit Remanded to District Court GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Array Technologies-Related Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend ContextLogic Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Coupang Securities Class Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Credit Default Swap Class Suit GOOGLE INC: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Supplement OK'd GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Court Extends Class Cert Bid Filing to May 18 GULFPORT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Grace E. Moore Trust Suit HASBRO INC: Continues to Defend WPBFPF Class Suit in N.Y. HUB GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims HUT 8: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Stayed HUT 8: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Ontario INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Set April 7 JBS USA: Agrees to Settle Wage Suppression Class Suit for $200.2MM KALSHI INC: Faces Suit Over Ouster of Iran Leader Prediction Market KENVUE INC: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Suit for $4.7-Mil. LEMONADE INSURANCE: Bid for Class Cert. in Matthews Due July 17 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Appeals Class Certification Order in Fassina Suit LINEAGE INC: Continues to Defend SCSPFRS Class Suit LUFAX HOLDING: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims LUNA INNOVATIONS: $7.3MM Securities Suit Deal Gets Court Final OK MERCER ADVISORS: Faces Class Suit Over Shinyhunters Cyber Attack META PLATFORMS: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Hartman MIKE TOPANGA: Clas Cert Reply in Beltran Suit Due May 11 MORTGAGE ONE: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Prerecorded Calls NAVY FEDERAL: Circuit Court Revives Racial Discrimination Lawsuit NEW YORK: Kulisz Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 2nd Circuit NEW YORK: Suit Over Highway Truck Taxes Given Class Action Status NEXTERA ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Retirement Funds Suit for $8MM NISSAN NORTH: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $1.5MM PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Discovery in NYCERS Class Suit Ongoing PEOPLEREADY INC: Palumbo Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. PREMIUM BRANDS: Fails to Disclose Online Handling Fees, Suit Says PREMIUM MORTGAGE: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Gonzalez Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit PROPERTY AND CASUALTY: Agrees to Settle UIM Coverage Class Suit REVTRAK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unlawful Junk Fees RIVERSIDE HEALTH: Discloses Private Info, Michniak and Ritchie Say SCOUT MOTORS: Dealers File Class Lawsuit Over Breach of Contract SONY GROUP: Faces $2.7-Bil Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit in UK STITCH INDUSTRIES: Consumers Sue Over Fake Discounts on Furniture SUNOCO INC: Appeals Amended Judgment in Cline Suit to 10th Circuit TINDER INC: $60.5MM Age Bias Settlement Final OK Hearing Set May 20 TODD LYONS: Martinez Complaint Dismissed with Prejudice UNISWAP LABS: Judge Tosses Remaining Claims in Tokens Class Suit UNITED STATES: Appeals Denied Motion for Relief in Sweet Suit VITAL FARMS: Rosen Laws Investigates Potential Securities Claims WEX INC: Class Certification Bid Filing in Yamashita Due Dec. 18 ********* ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pretrial Hearing Set for April 10 --------------------------------------------------------- Acadia Pharmaceuticals 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 25, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida as set the pretrial hearing for the City of Birmingham Relief Retirement Systems securities class suit on April 10, 2026. On April 19, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative securities class action complaint (captioned City of Birmingham Relief Retirement Systems v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-0762) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's then-current executive officers. On September 29, 2021, the Court issued an order designating lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On December 10, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to disclose that the materials submitted in support of its sNDA seeking approval of pimavanserin for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with dementia-related psychosis contained statistical and design deficiencies and that the FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA in its current form. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On March 11, 2024, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. The parties concluded discovery on September 24, 2025. The parties submitted pretrial motions on November 12, 2025 and briefing for these motions will be complete on February 25, 2026. The Court has scheduled a pretrial motions hearing for April 10, 2026. Remaining pretrial deadlines will be determined pending the Court's rulings on the parties’ pretrial motions. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc., based in San Diego, California, is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders and rare diseases. AGILON HEALTH: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Agilon Health, 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 25, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for the consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. In February and March 2024, three class action lawsuits were filed and later consolidated as one matter captioned In re agilon health, inc. Securities Litigation, 1:24-cv-00297 (W.D. Tex.) (the Consolidated Securities Matter). The Consolidated Securities Matter names the Company and certain current and former members of the Company s executive team and Board of Directors as defendants, among others. The Consolidated Securities Matter generally asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), in connection with statements made between April 2021 and February 2024 in the Company's annual and quarterly reports, investor presentations, and earnings releases related to, among other things, the Company s financial guidance, medical margin and Adjusted EBITDA results, growth strategy, and data management. The Consolidated Securities Matter seeks compensatory damages, judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and other unspecified equitable and/or injunctive relief. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on November 8, 2024. On or about August 15, 2025, the court issued an order on the motions to dismiss, dismissing some of the claims against the defendants and allowing others to proceed into the discovery phase of litigation. The court dismissed all claims under the Securities Act and certain portions of plaintiffs Exchange Act claims. Following the order, the Company and certain of the individual defendants filed a motion requesting clarification as to whether any claims remained against the Company s Chief Technology Officer and Chief Experience Officer. Separately, defendant CD&R and certain of its affiliates filed a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration regarding certain aspects of the Court's order. Both motions have been fully briefed and remain pending. Discovery is ongoing, and the court has entered a case schedule that contemplates discovery continuing over the first three quarters of 2026. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Agilon Health, Inc is a healthcare and technology company that acts as an intermediary between physician groups that provide medical services to senior citizens and Medicare and Medicare Advantage insurers.[BN] ALGO CENTRE: Proposes $10MM Settlement in Mall Collapse Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Rene-de-Cotret, writing for Village Report, reports that a decade and a half after the catastrophic collapse of the Algo Centre Mall, a proposed settlement of $10 million has emerged in a class action lawsuit stemming from the tragic incident that took the lives of two women and left many others injured. The settlement, announced by Roy O'Connor LLP, is set for a court hearing on April 10, 2026, and aims to provide long-awaited compensation to those affected by the disaster. On June 23, 2012, the upper parking structure of the Algo Centre Mall gave way, a failure attributed to severe water and salt damage. Despite assurances from an engineer regarding the structure's integrity, the collapse claimed the lives of Lucie Aylwin, 37, and Doloris Perizzolo, 74, and left numerous others injured. A comprehensive inquiry launched in 2014 identified "human failure" and negligence as critical factors leading to the tragedy. The class action suit, which initially sought $30 million, was certified in 2014. According to lawyers involved in the case, the proposed settlement is viewed as a "reasonable compromise," particularly in light of the potential for extended litigation and uncertain outcomes if the settlement is rejected. If the court approves the settlement, it will also determine how the funds will be distributed among claimants, including those who suffered physical or psychological injuries, lost wages, and businesses impacted by the disaster. This plan aims to ensure fair and efficient evaluations of damages, based on an independent review of each claim. Class Members, including tenants, employees, and others affected by the collapse, will have the opportunity to submit additional documentation to support their claims. Out of the total $10 million, $2.5 million is set aside for the legal team that is representing the 300 plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Another $700,000 will be taken out to cover various administrative costs, which include the expenses and time associated with the adjudicator, the appeal officer, and the settlement administrator. As the community awaits the April hearing, many residents are hopeful for a resolution that provides acknowledgement of the suffering endured since that fateful day in June 2012. The proposed settlement could serve as a pivotal step toward closure for those impacted, allowing them to begin the healing process. As the April court date approaches, the eyes of Elliot Lake are turned toward the judiciary, with many hoping for a decision that honours the memory of the lives lost and the resilience of the community. The hearing is scheduled to take place on April 10, via Zoom, for those interested in watching the proceedings. [GN] ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in Sherman Act-Related Suit to Begin in May --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, 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 25, 2026, that the Sherman Act-related class suit trial is to start in May 2026. As of January 26, 2026, 17 putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Altria and JUUL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In November 2020, these lawsuits were consolidated into three complaints (one on behalf of direct purchasers, one on behalf of indirect purchasers and one on behalf of indirect resellers). The consolidated lawsuits, as amended, allege that Altria and JUUL violated Sections 1, 2 and/or 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws by restraining trade and/or substantially lessening competition in the U.S. closed-system electronic cigarette market. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including treble damages, attorneys' fees, a declaration that the agreements between Altria and JUUL are invalid and rescission of the transaction. In February 2024, the court ordered that certain of the direct-purchaser plaintiffs' claims against JUUL be sent to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in JUUL's online purchase agreement and dismissed without prejudice the direct-purchaser plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. In April 2025, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all monopolization claims and all claims against the Altria defendants under California's Unfair Competition Law. The trial with respect to the remaining claims in the consolidated lawsuits is set to commence in May 2026. Altria manufactures and sells smokeable and oral tobacco products in the United States. AMERICAN ECONOMY: Appeals Class Certification Order in Glasner Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- American Economy Insurance Company, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Glasner, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Economy Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11047-DJC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for breach of insurance contract. On May 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which Judge Denise J. Casper granted on Feb. 12, 2026. In sum, the Plaintiffs' breach of contract allegations and their alleged financial injury demonstrate that they have an incentive to adequately litigate and a personal stake in the proposed classes' breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring their breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims on behalf of the proposed classes. The appellate case is styled as Jeffrey Glasner, et al. v. American Economy Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 26-8015, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on February 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JEFFREY GLASNER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES 110 West Vine Street, Ste. 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 Email: erik@eplo.law - and - J. Brandon Mcwherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 109 Westpark Drive, Ste. 620 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 Email: brandon@msb.law - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 South Fifth Street, Ste. 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 339-1421 Email: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com - and - Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM 184 High Street, Ste. 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 357-9700 Email: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com Defendants-Petitioners AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Daniel P. Tighe, Esq. Pietro A. Conte, Esq. DONNELLY, CONROY & GELHAAR, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Ste. 1600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2880 Email: dpt@dcglaw.com pac@dcglaw.com - and - David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Marc A. Fuller, Esq. Maggie I. Burreson, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 2323 Ross Avenue, Ste. 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Email: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mfuller@jw.com mburreson@jw.com ANGEION GROUP: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Kickback Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Biddle, J.D., writing for VitalLaw, reports that a putative class action filed in federal court in New Jersey is seeking to unravel what plaintiffs describe as a years-long kickback scheme involving some of the most prominent names in class action settlement administration. The complaint, filed on behalf of four named plaintiffs and potentially hundreds of thousands of class members nationwide, names nine settlement administrators and two regional banks, accusing them of colluding since 2021 to siphon undisclosed payments from settlement funds at the expense of hundreds of thousands of class members who received below-market interest on their awards (Coughlan v. Angeion Group LLC, No. 2:26-cv-02113-BRM-CF (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2026)). The Administrator Defendants (Epiq Systems, Inc., Angeion Group LLC, JND Legal Administration, Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, Verita Global LLC, Archer Systems LLC, Verus LLC, CPT Group Inc., and Simpluris Inc.) collectively control more than 65 percent of the market for class action settlement administration services in the United States, according to the complaint. The two Bank Defendants, Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank, together hold more than 80 percent of the market for qualified settlement fund (QSF) deposits in U.S. class and mass actions. The alleged scheme. According to the complaint, the scheme began around 2021, when rapidly rising U.S. interest rates created a lucrative opportunity: billions of dollars in class action settlement proceeds held in QSF accounts could now generate substantial returns. Plaintiffs allege that the Administrator Defendants recognized this opportunity and demanded a share of the profits from the Bank Defendants, threatening to move settlement deposits to competing institutions if the banks refused. The Bank Defendants allegedly agreed, and a coordinated arrangement was born. Under the terms of the alleged arrangement, the Bank Defendants would pay the Administrator Defendants a portion of the spread between the artificially low interest rates reported to courts and class members and the actual market rate on interest-bearing accounts. In exchange, the Administrator Defendants agreed to continue placing all settlement deposits exclusively with the two Bank Defendants. The complaint alleges that both Bank Defendants then coordinated to offer identical, below-market bids on QSF accounts -- at rates consistently below 0.5 percent annually -- while the prevailing federal window interest rate ranged between roughly 3.75 and 4.33 percent during the relevant period. To conceal the payments, the complaint alleges that the Administrator Defendants formed special purpose entities (SPEs) to receive the kickbacks. The Bank Defendants allegedly channeled the payments into these SPEs with full knowledge of their purpose. The existence of these entities and the flows of money through them were never disclosed to the courts overseeing the settlements, to class counsel, or to class members. Specific cases cited. The complaint details a number of high-profile settlements in which it alleges the scheme was operating. In In re: Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, a case involving approximately 97 million class members, Defendant Epiq served as settlement administrator and Defendant Huntington served as the QSF trustee bank. The complaint alleges that the interest reported on the Capital One settlement fund was below 0.5 percent while the market rate on comparable accounts was between 4 and 6 percent, and that Huntington paid Epiq the difference through undisclosed channels. Similar allegations are made with respect to In re: Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, a case involving roughly 194 million class members in which Kroll's predecessor entity served as administrator and Western Alliance served as trustee bank. The complaint also identifies Jowharah Hameed-Bolden v. Forever 21 Retail, Culbertson v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, and several others as cases in which interest was reported below 0.5 percent while market rates were materially higher, with the defendant administrators allegedly receiving undisclosed payments representing the difference. Fiduciary duties and court oversight. Central to the plaintiffs' theory is the fiduciary relationship between class action administrators, trustee banks, and the class members they serve. The complaint emphasizes that both the Administrator Defendants and the Bank Defendants are appointed by, and report to, the supervising court in each class action. As court-appointed fiduciaries, they are legally required to act in the exclusive interest of class members and to make complete, accurate disclosures of all material compensation arrangements as part of the preliminary and final approval processes. The complaint contends that in every settlement at issue, the defendants not only failed to disclose the kickback arrangements to courts but affirmatively misrepresented the full scope of their compensation. Class settlement notices and settlement websites, which courts require to disclose all material terms so that class members can decide whether to participate or object, never mentioned the additional remuneration the administrators were receiving. According to the complaint, no court has ever approved the undisclosed payments, and none would have: "No court would have approved any settlement with such kickbacks; the parties to the settlements would have demanded that the Defendants be fired." The complaint also alleges that the scheme was shielded from disclosure to state Attorneys General, who receive mandatory notices under the Class Action Fairness Act and have standing to object to settlements they find unreasonable. Legal claims. The complaint asserts ten counts against the defendants in various combinations. All defendants face claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) under both 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and § 1962(d). The RICO enterprise theory rests on allegations of wire and mail fraud, as the complaint identifies class member notices, administrator-to-bank communications, and court filings as the wires and mailings used to carry out the fraudulent scheme. The Administrator Defendants additionally face claims for common law fraud, violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. A separate Sherman Act Section 1 count is brought solely against the Bank Defendants, alleging that their coordinated, below-market interest rate bids constituted per se unlawful price-fixing in the Settlement Deposit Market. The complaint argues that there is no legitimate pro-competitive justification for the arrangement. Class definitions and relief. Plaintiffs propose three overlapping class definitions. The broadest encompasses all U.S. persons who were members of a settlement class in which the Administrator Defendants provided administration services, the Bank Defendants distributed QSF funds, and whose distributions were reduced by undisclosed remuneration to the administrators. A second class is limited to residents of New Jersey, New York, Florida, and California. A third class focuses specifically on class members whose distributions were reduced because the Bank Defendants paid below-market interest on QSF deposits. The complaint seeks injunctive relief barring defendants from continuing to solicit or receive kickbacks, an accounting, actual and compensatory damages, treble damages under the Sherman Act and RICO, disgorgement and restitution, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The case has been identified as related to In re Class Action Settlement Administration Litigation, an MDL proceeding consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:25-mc-00179-JDB, MDL No. 3162. The named plaintiffs. The four named plaintiffs (Donald Coughlan of New Jersey, Marissa Porter of Florida, Sandeep Trisal of New York, and Alan Starzinski of California) each allege they were class members in one or more of the settlements at issue, received disbursements from those settlements, and were unaware that the defendants were siphoning undisclosed payments from the settlement funds. Among the cases in which they participated are the Capital One data breach settlement, the Yahoo data breach settlement, the TikTok consumer privacy litigation settlement, and settlements arising from alleged violations involving Zoom Video Communications, Tinder, Peacock TV, and Apple, among others. The Case is No. 2:26-cv-02113-BRM-CF. Judge: Martinotti, B. Attorneys: David S. Stone (Stone & Magnanini LLP) for Donald Coughlan. Companies: Angeion Group LLC [GN] ARIZONA PUBLIC: Continues to Defend Nuclear Wage Class Suit in Md. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Arizona Public Service Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a nuclear wage class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On July 11, 2025, APS, together with all 25 other U.S. nuclear power plant operators, was named in a class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court in Maryland. The lawsuit alleges the country's nuclear operators have violated antitrust laws by agreeing to exchange compensation information and suppress compensation. The class action complaint has been brought on behalf of all persons employed in nuclear power generation in the U.S. from May 1, 2003 until the present and alleges violations of the Sherman Act. The Company is unable at this time to predict the outcome of this matter and whether it will have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Arizona Public Service provides energy in the Grand Canyon state. Arizona Public Service, a subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital, distributes power to more than 1 million customers in 11 of 15 Arizona counties, making it the largest electric utility in the state. It operates 5,760 miles of transmission lines and 28,680 miles of distribution lines; it also generates 6,160 MW of capacity at mainly fossil-fueled and nuclear power plants. The Company's marketing and trading division sells excess energy from the utility's power plants, as well as power generated by Pinnacle West Energy, to wholesale customers in the western US. AVANTOR INC: Building Trades Suit Transferred to D. Del. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as BUILDING TRADES PENSION FUND OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AVANTOR, INC., MICHAEL STUBBLEFIELD, and R. BRENT JONES, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06187, was transferred from the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington) on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00215-GBW to the proceeding. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Avantor common stock, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rules. Defendant Avantor, Inc. is a life science tools company that provides scientific products and services to customers in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, education, government, and other industries. Defendant Michael Stubblefield was the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and a Company director, until August 18, 2025. Defendant R. Brent Jones is the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Beth Moskow-Schnoll, Esq. Ballard Spahr LLP 919 North Market Street 11th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801-3034 Telephone: (302) 252-4465 E-mail: moskowschnollb@ballardspahr.com BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend LIBOR Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated LIBOR class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beginning in 2011, multiple class actions were filed against the Corporation, BANA and certain Merrill Lynch entities, as well as other banks on the U.S. Dollar LIBOR panel. These actions alleged that defendants manipulated LIBOR during the financial crisis and asserted a variety of antitrust and other claims and sought monetary and injunctive relief. The relevant cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (NY District Court) and on September 25, 2025, the NY District Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all remaining claims against the Corporation, BANA, the Merrill Lynch entities and all other defendant banks. Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters in Manhattan.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Summary Judgement Bid Pending ---------------------------------------------- Bank of America Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that its summary judgment motion is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beginning in January 2021, BANA was named as a defendant in putative class action and mass action lawsuits related to its administration of prepaid debit cards to distribute unemployment and other state benefits, including for the State of California, which was the largest program administered by BANA as measured by total benefits and number of participants. The California lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California where plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, state statutory and common law claims and due process, and seek monetary damages and injunctive relief based on allegations that BANA failed to properly investigate and remediate cardholder claims of fraudulent transactions and to prevent fraud, among other allegations. On June 16, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (CA District Court) issued an order certifying classes of certain individuals who received California unemployment benefits via BANA prepaid debit cards. On October 17, 2025, BANA filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The motion remains pending. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters in Manhattan.[CC] BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Agrees to Settle NSF Fees Suit for $10.45MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Koskie Minsky LLP is pleased to announce that it has reached a proposed $10.45 million settlement with The Bank of Nova Scotia. The proposed settlement must be approved by the Court before compensation is made available. If the settlement is approved, a pro rata amount estimated to be approximately $40 will be delivered to every current customer who Scotiabank's records show may have been charged an NSF fee on a pre-authorized debit ("PAD") transaction from the same merchant and in the same amount as a previous PAD transaction within 2 and 30 days and with respect to which an NSF fee was charged (a "Second NSF Fee"), between June 21, 2020 and April 30, 2024. For further information about your rights, options and whether you may be eligible, please read the Long Form Notice, which is available in English and French, and can be found in our Documents section here. If the settlement is approved by the Court, further details will be provided on this website. If you would like to receive updates by email, please contact: scotiabankclassaction@kmlaw.ca. [GN] BARCLAYS PLC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Barclays plc (NYSE: BCS) resulting from allegations that Barclays may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Barclays 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=23523 for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 27, 2026, Reuters published an article entitled "Wall Street hit by UK mortgage lender collapse, raising fears of more credit ‘cockroaches.'" The article stated that lenders were "rocked by the implosion of little-known UK mortgage provider Market Financial Solutions Ltd ["MFS"], fuelling concerns about wider losses among banks and reviving warnings of more "cockroaches" in the booming private credit industry." It further stated that another publication "reported Barclays has a 600 million pound ($809.70 million) exposure to MFS." On this news, Barclays American Depositary Shares ("ADS") fell 3.99% on February 27, 2026, and 2.3% on March 2, 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 has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time 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: 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] BAYER AG: $7.25BB Roundup Class Settlement Gets Court Prelim OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Carey Gillam, writing for tnl, reports that Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion class action settlement of Roundup litigation received preliminary approval from a Missouri court on Wednesday, March 4, rejecting opposition from a group of lawyers representing roughly 20,000 plaintiffs who claim they developed cancer from using the company's herbicide products. The decision from Missouri Circuit Court Judge Timothy Boyer allows for the start of a nationwide program to notify people about the class action settlement plan. Bayer, which bought Roundup maker in 2018, must deposit $500 million into a settlement fund within 10 days as part of the plan. The decision stays all Roundup lawsuits in Missouri pending a final settlement order and sets a "fairness hearing" on the settlement proposal for July 9. Christopher Seeger, proposed class counsel in the Roundup settlement, hailed the court decision as "an important step for Roundup cancer victims who have been waiting more than a decade for a just resolution." In a statement, Seeger said the settlement provides the "best path to compensation" for plaintiffs as Bayer threatens to put Monsanto into bankruptcy and the US Supreme Court has set an April 27 hearing to take up Bayer's arguments that key claims in Roundup lawsuits filed around the nation should be barred. Bayer has been fending off litigation brought by close to 200,000 people suffering from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) they blame on exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto glyphosate-based herbicide brands since buying Monsanto in 2018. So far, the litigation has cost the company more than $11 billion in settlements and jury verdicts. At the core of those lawsuits are claims that the company failed to warn users of the risk of cancer as seen in scientific research. Bayer maintains its glyphosate herbicides do not cause cancer. But the company is hoping the class action settlement proposal could help bring the litigation to a close. If approved, the proposed settlement would cover plaintiffs who were exposed to Roundup products and either currently are suffering from NHL or receive a diagnosis of NHL in the next several years. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, people suffering from cancer attributed to use of the company's herbicides could receive $10,000 to $165,000 on average, far lower payouts than the millions of dollars juries have awarded to many plaintiffs. A group of 14 law firms representing nearly 20,000 plaintiffs sought to intervene in Bayer's $7.25 billion proposed class action settlement of Roundup litigation, citing concerns that the settlement deal will not be fair to cancer victims. The group filed both a motion to intervene and a motion for an extension of time for court preliminary approval of the deal on Feb. 24, saying the deal appears "unprecedented" and raises multiple "red flags". In ruling to let the proposed class action settlement plan go forward, Judge Boyer said in his decision that he had reviewed the concerns from the opposing law firms but said there is ample time for consideration of those concerns before a final ruling is made. [GN] BINANCE: Judge Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Zack Abrams of The Block reports that a federal judge in New York denied Binance's motion to compel arbitration in a class action alleging the exchange sold unregistered securities to U.S. investors. The court found Binance failed to give users adequate notice when it added an arbitration clause to its Terms of Use in 2019, and that the clause cannot apply retroactively to earlier claims. The judge also ruled that the class action waiver in Binance's terms is unenforceable due to ambiguous language. A federal judge in Manhattan has denied Binance's attempt to force arbitration in a class action alleging the exchange sold unregistered digital tokens to U.S. investors, according to a Thursday opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. found that Binance failed to properly notify users when it amended its Terms of Use in February 2019 to add an arbitration clause and class action waiver. The plaintiffs, residents of California, Nevada and Texas, all created their Binance accounts between September 2017 and April 2018, when no such provisions existed. The case traces back to a wave of class action lawsuits filed in April 2020 against major crypto exchanges and token issuers. It was initially dismissed in 2022 but revived by the Second Circuit in 2024, which held that U.S. securities laws applied to Binance even without a physical domestic headquarters. The Supreme Court declined to review that ruling in January 2025. Binance argued its 2019 terms should govern, but the court noted that simply posting updated terms on a website, without individualized notice, was insufficient. The original 2017 terms included a change-of-terms provision, but the court cited Ninth Circuit precedent holding that users have no obligation to periodically check whether the other side has unilaterally changed a contract. Even assuming the plaintiffs gained actual notice of the arbitration clause through the litigation itself, the court held the provision could not reach backward. Under California law, a unilateral modification silent on whether it applies to accrued claims is "restricted based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." The class action waiver also failed. While a heading in Binance's terms references a "CLASS ACTION WAIVER," the body of the section never details the terms of such a waiver. The court called the language ambiguous and interpreted the adhesion contract against Binance as drafter. The plaintiffs had previously voluntarily dismissed claims arising after the February 2019 effective date, narrowing the case to pre-2019 conduct. Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who pleaded guilty to federal crimes in 2023, was pardoned by President Trump in October 2025. "In response to our motion on this issue plaintiffs voluntarily and correctly dismissed all claims that accrued on or after February 20, 2019," a Binance spokesperson told The Block. "Binance will vigorously defend the limited claims that remain in this meritless case." The ruling comes as Binance's U.S. regulatory picture has shifted. The SEC moved to dismiss its own enforcement action against the exchange last May. But this private class action remains active, and February 26 opinion clears a significant procedural hurdle for the plaintiffs. [GN] BUMBLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that a newly filed putative class action in the Western District of Texas targets Bumble, Inc., over an alleged "massive and preventable" cyberattack in or around January 2026, in which attackers allegedly accessed highly sensitive user data stored in Bumble's systems. The complaint alleges the compromised information included names, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, and account numbers, as well as highly sensitive, context-rich dating data such as chat history and dating history, the kind of data combination that can heighten identity-theft risk and privacy harms. The named plaintiff alleges time loss, anxiety, and increased risk of fraud and identity theft, and seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the individuals whose information was stored and/or exposed in the breach. For companies watching this case, the "what went wrong" allegations read like a checklist of avoidable security and communications failures. The complaint claims Bumble promised "appropriate and reasonable security measures" (including secured servers and firewalls) in its public-facing privacy policy but allegedly did not adhere to those claims. The complaint further alleges the breach occurred through a phishing attack attributed to the "ShinyHunters" threat actor group, and argues that the fact of a successful phishing compromise suggests inadequate security controls pointing to measures like organization-wide two-factor authentication and adequate employee cybersecurity training as known safeguards. The complaint also alleges that Bumble failed to properly secure and encrypt data, failed to implement timely breach detection, and failed to provide prompt and accurate notice. The takeaway is that privacy policy statements, phishing training failures, encryption decisions, breach detection, and notification practices can quickly become central allegations in a class action when a security incident occurs. Even at this stage, this lawsuit is a reminder that aligning written privacy and security commitments with day-to-day implementation, and documenting those efforts, can be just as important as the technical controls themselves when an incident triggers litigation. [GN] CABELA'S LLC: Irvin Suit Removed to M.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------- The case styled as DAVID IRVIN and DAVID ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CABELA'S L.L.C. and BPS DIRECT, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 2023-01668, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for Lebanon County to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00523-JPW to the proceeding. As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiffs David Irvin and David Anthony are residents of Pennsylvania. They seek to represent a class of Pennsylvania persons comprised of "All persons in Pennsylvania who have a Facebook account and who purchased a firearm from either cabelas.com, basspro.com, or both. The Plaintiffs assert claims for Defendants' violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act, the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Cabela's L.L.C. is an American outdoor recreational equipment retail chain. BPS Direct, L.L.C. is a manufacturer of gear for hunting, fishing, boating, camping, and various outdoor activities.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael W. McTigue Jr., Esq. Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001-8602 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 E-mail: michael.mctigue@skadden.com meredith.slawe@skadden.com CALIFORNIA: Bid to Seal Portions of Class Cert Denial Reply OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAMS, TALIB (aka MARCELLE), et al., v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-09586-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order granting the Defendants' administrative motion to seal portions of their reply supporting their motion to deny class certification and related documents. The Court finds that the Defendants demonstrated compelling reasons to seal the information requested. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is responsible for the operation of the California state prison and parole systems. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Yg0TO at no extra charge.[CC] CANADA: Ont. Super. Court Certifies Migrant Farmworkers Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ HCAMag reports that Ontario's migrant farmworkers have won a major procedural victory in their fight over tied employment and access to Employment Insurance (EI), after the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a Charter class action against the federal government on behalf of tens of thousands of workers in the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP). Justice Edward Morgan certified Palmer v. Attorney General of Canada, a class action on behalf of roughly 75,000 Caribbean and Mexican farmworkers who have worked in Canada under SAWP since 2008. The lawsuit targets two core features of SAWP: "tied employment" provisions that bind workers to a single employer, and what the plaintiffs describe as "the systematic exclusion of SAWP workers from Employment Insurance (EI) benefits despite being required to pay EI premiums." The plaintiffs allege that class members "can spend the majority of their working lives contributing to the Canadian economy, while being denied the benefits, rights and entitlements accorded to comparable workers, including Employment Insurance (EI)." "Class members can spend the majority of their working lives contributing to the Canadian economy, while being denied the benefits, rights and entitlements accorded to comparable workers, including Employment Insurance (EI)," said a post by Goldblatt Partners, which is representing the workers. "The claim estimates that Canada has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in EI premiums from migrant agricultural workers and their employers over the past 15 years alone, while denying these workers the ability to access regular EI benefits because of tied employment. EI premiums from migrant workers Justice Morgan certified all proposed causes of action, including alleged breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter and unjust enrichment, and "approved the class action to proceed to the merits in all respects." The section 7 claim argues that SAWP contract restrictions on changing employers or housing arrangements infringe workers' liberty and security of the person which "increases their risk of serious harm" and "prevents vulnerable individuals from protecting themselves from further risk or harm." Justice Morgan found the liberty claim "is squarely within the protection of personal dignity" recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. On section 15, the representative plaintiffs say conditions "including enforced seasonality, are imposed only on predominantly racialized workers from the Caribbean and Mexico," and plead that these burdens "were specifically imposed in furtherance of racist and discriminatory objectives." Justice Morgan stressed that "the racially discriminatory origins of the SAWP cannot be discounted in analyzing the section 15(1) issue today." Court confronts SAWP's discriminatory roots A defining feature of the certification decision is its blunt assessment of SAWP's history. Drawing on the expert report of McMaster sociologist Victor Satzewich, Justice Morgan wrote that SAWP "originated in an effort by Canadian government officials to assist farmworkers in filling their chronic labour shortages while, at the same time, keeping racialized workers from becoming a permanent part of the Canadian population." He concluded that "[t]he totality of evidence compiled in Professor Satzewich's report supports his conclusion that the SAWP was built in the 1960s and 1970s around the stereotyping and prejudice held against racialized workers from the Caribbean, and the stereotyping and exploitation imposed on workers from Mexico." The program, he said, "was designed to admit workers of colour, but to keep them strictly tied to a limited type of employment." When workers were finally admitted on a seasonal basis in 1966, they were placed on temporary, employer‑tied contracts and barred from permanent immigration. Justice Morgan accepted the plaintiffs' argument that "the tied employment and strict seasonality features of the SAWP have their origins in racially oriented policy." Unjust enrichment with EI premiums Alongside the Charter arguments, Justice Morgan certified an unjust enrichment claim over EI premiums. The plaintiffs say Canada "systematically excludes SAWP workers from accessing EI benefits despite requiring them to pay EI premiums," since workers must leave Canada at the end of the eight‑month work period and thus cannot claim regular EI in the off‑season. The claim notes that "Canada permits workers to collect EI benefits while residing in the United States, but not in Mexico or the Caribbean." Canada argued that the Employment Insurance Act provides a legal basis for denying benefits, but the plaintiffs allege the relevant provisions, as applied to SAWP workers, are themselves discriminatory and contrary to section 15. Justice Morgan found that theory "validly pleaded," in line with Supreme Court precedent that a lack of juristic reason can rest on an underlying section 15 violation. Subject to any appeal, the class action will now proceed to a full hearing on the merits. Notice of certification will go out to class members, who will be able to opt out if they choose. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Proposes $425MM Settlement in Interest Rate Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A new class action settlement has been proposed that, if approved by the Court, would resolve the lawsuit titled In re: Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation, No. 1:24-md-03111-DJN (E.D. Va.). The Defendants, Capital One, N.A. and Capital One Financial Corporation (collectively "Capital One" or "Defendants") deny any wrongdoing, and the Court has not determined that Capital One did anything wrong. This settlement would resolve a class action lawsuit brought against Capital One concerning the interest paid on its 360 Savings account product. Since February 2013, Capital One has offered savings accounts called 360 Savings accounts. On September 18, 2019, Capital One began offering a separate savings account called 360 Performance Savings, and stopped offering new 360 Savings accounts to customers, though it continued to service existing 360 Savings accounts. At all times since September 18, 2019, and continuing through the present, Capital One has paid a higher rate of interest (and often a substantially higher rate of interest) on 360 Performance Savings than it has paid on 360 Savings, though Plaintiffs allege the two accounts are otherwise identical. The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that Capital One failed to raise interest rates on the 360 Savings account commensurate with rates paid on the 360 Performance Savings account, deceptively marketed the 360 Savings account, and concealed (i) that 360 Savings was no longer Capital One's high-yield online savings account and (ii) the existence of the 360 Performance Savings account—and its higher interest rate—from 360 Savings accountholders. Capital One denies all claims asserted against it in the lawsuit, denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability, and denies all material allegations of the Complaint. The Court has not determined that Capital One did anything wrong; instead, the Plaintiffs and Capital One have decided to settle the lawsuit. The Settlement Class includes all persons or entities who are or were 360 Savings accountholders between September 18, 2019, and June 16, 2025. The settlement requires Capital One to (1) pay $425 million into a "Settlement Fund" to be used to make cash payments to current and former 360 Savings accountholders in relation to their historical account balances, and (2) pay the interest rate for the 360 Performance Savings account to holders of the 360 Savings account going forward (i.e., making the interest rates on the two accounts identical). Settlement Class Members do not need to file a claim to receive a cash payment; if Settlement Class Members do nothing, a check will be mailed to their last known address as long as their payment is $5 or more. Settlement Class Members are strongly encouraged to choose to receive their share of the Settlement Fund as an electronic payment (instead of a check) by visiting www.CapitalOne360SavingsAccountLitigation.com (the "Settlement Website"). The deadline to choose an electronic payment is March 30, 2026. If Settlement Class Members already selected an electronic payment for the previously proposed settlement in this matter, they do not need to select one again for this settlement. Settlement Class Members who do not want to be included in the settlement must submit a request to opt out. Any Settlement Class Member who does not opt out will be legally bound by the settlement, and will give up the right to sue Capital One based on legal claims that were or could have been brought in this lawsuit and that will be released by the settlement. If Settlement Class Members opt out, they will receive no benefits from the Settlement Fund. If Settlement Class Members opted out of the previously proposed settlement and wish to exclude themselves from the new settlement, they need to opt out again. If Settlement Class Members do not opt out, they may object to or comment on the settlement and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards. The deadline to opt out or object is March 30, 2026. The Long Form Notice available on the Settlement Website explains how to exercise these options. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on April 20, 2026, to consider whether to approve the settlement, Class Counsel's requested attorneys' fees of up to 15% of the Settlement Fund plus expenses, service awards for the Settlement Class Representatives, and any objections. Settlement Class Members or their lawyer, at their own expense, may attend the hearing if they object, but they are not required to do so. [GN] CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid in Oatts Due August 14 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oatts v. Capstone Logistics LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-05798-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule. The following minute order is entered at the direction of U.S. District Judge David G. Estudillo: Deadline for joining additional June 26, 2026 parties and to amend pleadings: The Plaintiffs' motion for class Aug. 14, 2026 certification due: The Defendants' response to the Sept. 25, 2026 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due: The Plaintiffs' reply due: Oct. 9, 2026 Hearing on motion for class To be set by the Court certification: Class notice and opt-out period, To be set by the Court expert disclosures, fact discovery, after ruling on class dispositive motions, pre-trial certification and trial deadlines: Capstone provides logistics services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hs6EI2 at no extra charge.[CC] CARE ABOVE: Appeals Attorneys' Fees & Costs Order in Bailey Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARE ABOVE ALL CARE, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the lawsuit entitled Nukol Bailey, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Care Above All Care, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-01058-KGB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. On Feb. 22, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs, which Judge Kristine G. Baker granted in part and denied in part on Jan. 26, 2026. The Court approved attorneys' fees in the amount of $9,009.53 and costs in the amount of $505 for a total award of $9,514.53. The appellate case is styled as Nukol Bailey, et al. v. Care Above All Care, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-1345, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on February 26, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on April 7, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 7, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees NUKOL BAILEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM Kirkpatrick Plaza, Suite 510 10800 Financial Centre Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Defendants-Appellants CARE ABOVE ALL CARE, INC., et al. are represented by: Daveante Jones, Esq. Jane A. Kim, Esq. Leanna Godley, Esq. WRIGHT & LINDSEY 200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 371-0808 CHINA LIBERAL: Faces Class Suit Over Violations of Securities' Laws ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against China Liberal Education Holdings Ltd. (OTCMKTS: CLEUF) and certain of its officers. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired China Liberal securities between January 22, 2025 and January 30, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/CLEUF. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) In January 2025, individuals impersonating investment advisors on social media platforms fraudulently induced investors to purchase shares of China Liberal stock, artificially inflating ("pumping") the price of China Liberal shares; (2) On January 30, 2025, the price of China Liberal stock abruptly collapsed, causing many investors to lose nearly all of the funds they had invested as a result of the scheme; (3) Although several individuals responsible for the coordinated pump‑and‑dump scheme are now being prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice, there is evidence indicating that executives at China Liberal may have known of, participated in, or acted with severe recklessness regarding the fraudulent conduct; and (4) As a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. What's Next for China Liberal Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/CLEUF. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in China Liberal you have until March 31, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to China Liberal Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for China Liberal Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Info Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] CINTAS CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Bearup Suit Due Oct. 26 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bearup v. Cintas Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00151 (S.D. Ohio, Filed March 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Mcfarland entered an order extending as follows: -- Fact discovery deadline: May 15, 2026 -- Plaintiffs' expert report June 15, 2026 Deadline: -- Defendant's expert report July 30, 2026 Deadline: -- Disclosure and report of rebuttal Aug. 24, 2026 experts due by: -- Expert discovery deadline: Oct. 5, 2026 -- Motion for class certification Oct. 26, 2026 Deadline: -- Opposition to motion for class Dec. 7, 2026 certification deadline: -- Reply in support of motion for Dec. 28, 2026 class certification deadline: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. Cintas designs, manufactures, and implements corporate identity uniform programs.[CC] CIRKUL INC: Class Cert Bid in Wilson Suit Due Jan. 29, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. Cirkul, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-02036 (D. Or., Filed Nov. 2, 2025), the Hon. Judge Amy E. Potter entered a scheduling order as follows: The deadline to Amend Pleadings and Add Parties is June 2, 2026. Exchange of Expert Witness Statements must be completed by Oct. 2, 2026. Rebuttal Expert Deadline is Nov. 6, 2026. Discovery is to be completed by Dec. 11, 2026. Dispositive Motions/Class Certification are due by Jan. 29, 2027. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Cirkul is a beverage technology company.[CC] CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Wins Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiff and the Class, CHRISTOPHER CABREJA, and STACY BUIE, v. CLIPPER REALTY, INC., doing business as CLIPPER REALTY; CLIPPER REALTY OP L.P., doing business as CLIPPER REALTY L.P.; CLIPPER REALTY CONSTRUCTION LLC; CLIPPER 107 CH LLC, doing business as CLOVER HOUSE; and CLIPPER EQUITY LLC, doing business as CLIPPER EQUITY, Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs' proposed class notice is approved with the following modification: The Plaintiffs must exclude from the biweekly subclass any employees who worked as custodians for the Defendants. The parties are directed to submit a joint letter on or before March 9, 2026, outlining next steps on damages, attorney's fees and costs, and the Plaintiffs' remaining claims. The parties should indicate to the Court whether they would like to be referred to the Magistrate Judge for an inquest into damages and/or attorney's fees and costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 152 and 154. The Court finds that a class action is superior because "potential class members are aggrieved by the same common policies," and "the damages suffered are small in relation to the expense and burden of individual litigation," thus rendering it unlikely that individual class members will bring actions of their own. The Plaintiff Sanchez brought this collective and class action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") against his alleged former employers. Clipper is in the business of buying, selling, developing, and managing residential and commercial properties in the New York area. CONOPCO INC: Faces Class Suit Over False Advertised SmartyPants --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Conopco Inc., doing business as Unilever. Why: The plaintiffs claim Unilever falsely advertises the fiber content of its SmartyPants children's vitamins. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Unilever falsely advertises its SmartyPants children's vitamins as containing the same fiber content as certain fruits and vegetables. Plaintiffs Tinamarie Barrales and Latonya Wright filed the SmartyPants class action complaint against Conopco on Dec. 15 in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Unilever sells two types of SmartyPants children's vitamins that claim to provide as much fiber as fruits and vegetables. The Fiber & Veggies vitamins are marketed as containing the same amount of fiber as three cups of kale, four prunes or one cup of broccoli, the class action claims. The Multi & Fiber vitamins are advertised as having the same fiber content as two cups of broccoli, the lawsuit says. However, the plaintiffs allege that these claims are false and misleading because the vitamins only contain soluble fiber, while fruits and vegetables contain both soluble and insoluble fiber. Soluble fiber helps slow digestion, decrease cholesterol and lower blood sugar, while insoluble fiber aids bowel movements and prevents constipation, the lawsuit claims. The plaintiffs argue that Unilever's children's vitamins do not offer the same health benefits as fruits and vegetables, which are essential for children's digestive health. Children's vitamins don't deliver advertised benefits, lawsuit claims The class action lawsuit claims that Unilever's false advertising has caused consumers to pay a premium for the SmartyPants children's vitamins, believing they are getting the equivalent fiber content of fruits and vegetables. The plaintiffs say they would not have purchased the vitamins or would have paid less for them if they had known the truth. The lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United States who purchased the vitamins within the relevant limitations period. It also seeks to represent New York and California subclasses. The plaintiffs are suing for violations of New York and California consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment. They are seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In related news, Balance of Nature has agreed to a $9.95 million settlement to resolve claims it falsely advertised the health benefits of its dietary supplements. The plaintiffs are represented by Raphael Janove and Max Ian Fiest of Janove PLLC. The Smarty Pants class action lawsuit is Barrales, et al. v. Conopco Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-10390, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due Apr 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- National shareholder rights law firm Hagens Berman is notifying investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Corcept Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: CORT) and certain of its top executives. The lawsuit, Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, No. 26-cv-01525 (N.D. Cal.), seeks to recover losses for investors who purchased CORT common stock between October 31, 2024, and December 30, 2025. The firm urges Corcept investors who suffered significant losses to contact the firm now to discuss their rights. The complaint alleges that Corcept misled the market regarding the regulatory viability of its lead product candidate, relacorilant. While the company publicly claimed the drug was supported by "powerful evidence" and was "approaching approval," the lawsuit reveals that the FDA had reportedly warned Corcept "on several occasions" during pre-submission meetings that its clinical data was inadequate. Investors who suffered substantial losses are encouraged to visit the Hagens Berman's CORT Case Page to download a copy of the complaint and review the lead plaintiff process: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/corcept "The litigation targets the alleged gap between Corcept's 'high confidence' narrative and the private warnings from the FDA," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the firm's investigation. "The complaint alleges that management knew the FDA had warned them to expect 'significant review issues' if they filed the NDA, yet they chose to move forward while assuring investors that no impediments existed." Summary of the Allegations: The Relacorilant Rejection The filed complaint alleges that Corcept and its executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and/or misleading statements. Concealed FDA Concerns: The lawsuit alleges that during pre-submission meetings, the FDA explicitly informed Corcept of concerns regarding the adequacy of the clinical development program to assess relacorilant's effect on hypertension. The "Warning Not to File": Evidence cited in the complaint suggests the FDA warned the company to expect rejection if it submitted the NDA without additional evidence of effectiveness—a warning allegedly withheld from shareholders. The December 31 "Surprise": On December 31, 2025, Corcept revealed it had received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA. The news caused CORT shares to plummet from $70.20 to **$34.80** in a single day, erasing over $3.6 billion in market value. The Post-Class Period Disclosure: A subsequent redacted copy of the CRL published on January 30, 2026, confirmed that the FDA had concluded it could not arrive at a "favorable benefit-risk assessment" without further effectiveness data. View the latest video summary of the allegations: youtube.com/watch?v=vMk3jcOV3Ng Critical Deadline: April 21, 2026 If you purchased Corcept common stock during the Class Period, you have until April 21, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff. If you invested in Corcept and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, SUBMIT YOUR CORT LOSSES NOW Contact: Reed Kathrein at (844) 916-0895 or email CORT@hbsslaw.com Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Corcept should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email CORT@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend ACERS Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Corcept Therapeutics 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 24, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On February 20, 2026, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System (Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-1525). The complaint names Corcept and certain of its executive officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges, among other things, that the defendants made or are responsible for making false and materially misleading statements and omissions regarding its NDA for its product candidate, relacorilant, as a treatment for patients with hypercortisolism. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 31, 2024, to December 30, 2025 and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs and unspecified relief. The Company will vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit. Corcept Therapeutics Inc. is a commercial-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of medications that treat severe metabolic, oncologic, and psychiatric disorders by modulating the effects of the hormone cortisol DECARBONIZATION PLUS: Continues to Defend Hamilton Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Solid Power, 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 25, 2026, that Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation III, the company it acquired through merger in 2021, continues to defend itself from the Hamilton class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On December 3, 2024, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action against the former officers and directors of Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation III ("DCRC"), including Erik Anderson; Riverstone Holdings, LLC; and related sponsors and entities (the "Hamilton Defendants") in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Hamilton et al. v. Anderson et al., C.A. No. 2024-1241-JTL). The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment arising from the merger of Solid Power Operating, Inc. with a subsidiary of DCRC and seeks to recover unspecified damages and equitable relief. None of the Company, its subsidiaries, or its current officers or directors, except Mr. Anderson, is named as a defendant. The Hamilton Defendants have demanded indemnification and advancement of defense costs from the Company. Accordingly, it is reasonably possible that the Company could be liable for the legal fees, defense costs, judgments, and/or settlement fees incurred by certain of the Hamilton Defendants. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, and the Company cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible loss. Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation III is a type of investment vehicle called a SPAC, created in 2021 to raise funds and then use those funds to combine with a private company that works on clean energy or carbon-reducing solutions. DOMINOS PIZZA: Murphy Sues Over Undisclosed Fees on Orders ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOMINO'S PIZZA FRANCHISING LLC, DOMINO’S PIZZA LLC, ARI FOODS, INC., AAI FOODS, INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01712 (N.D. Cal., February 26, 2026) accuses the Defendants of forcing Californians to pay undisclosed fees for their Domino's orders that were not shown in advertised prices and falsely listed as "Tax 2" in sales receipts. The Defendants' advertised prices in their stores fail to include all mandatory fees that a customer will have to pay in the initial price displayed to customers, and indeed, fail to include mandatory fees that--under California law--must be included in Defendants' advertised prices. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for unjust enrichment and for violations of California's Honest Pricing Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law. Headquartered in Ann Arbor, MI, Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC operates as a pizza chain. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP, LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 896-5813 E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David A. McGee, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP, LLC 3133 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20008 Telephone: (202) 913-5681 E-mail: dmcgee@almeidalawgroup.com ENHABIT INC: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Kinderhook Industries -------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating: -- Enhabit Inc. (NYSE: EHAB) related to its sale to Kinderhook Industries, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Enhabit shareholders are expected to receive $13.80 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/enhabit-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- CECO Environmental Corp. (NASDAQ: CECO) related to its merger with Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, CECO shareholders are expected to own approximately 62.5% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/ceco-environmental-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Laird Superfoods, Inc. (NYSE: LSF) related to its merger with Navitas LLC is fair to Laird shareholders. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/laird-superfoods-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- SunOpta Inc. (NASDAQ: STKL) related to its sale to Pegasus BidCo B.V. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, SunOpta shareholders are expected to receive $6.50 per share in cash. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sunopta-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] EOS ENERGY: Bleichmar Investigates Violations of Securities Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an investigation into Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ:EOSE) for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Eos, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/eos-energy-class-action-lawsuit. Key Details of the Eos ($EOSE) Class Action Investigation: -- Investigation Overview: Securities fraud related to Eos's representations regarding near-term revenue growth and the timing, execution, and feasibility of its manufacturing initiatives -- Stock Decline: February 26, 2026 - 39% Stock Drop -- Action: Contact BFA Law to discuss your rights Why is Eos Being Investigated for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws? Eos manufactures zinc-based long-duration battery energy storage systems used to store renewable power and support grid reliability. BFA is investigating whether Eos violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements to investors regarding Eos's near-term revenue growth, as well as the timing, scale, execution, and reliability of its manufacturing efforts. Why did Eos's Stock Drop? On February 26, 2026, Eos reported a substantial net loss of approximately $970 million for fiscal year 2025 and disclosed full-year 2025 revenue that fell short of the guidance the company had repeatedly reaffirmed, including as recently as November 2025. At the same time, Eos issued weaker-than-expected 2026 revenue guidance. Eos attributed its 2025 results to heavy spending to scale its manufacturing operations, including ramp-up inefficiencies, automation-related costs, and large non-cash financing and asset write-down charges. Eos attributed the disappointing 2026 revenue forecast to slower-than-anticipated production progress and heightened execution risk. On this news, the price of Eos stock dropped over 39% on February 26, 2026. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/eos-energy-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Eos, you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/eos-energy-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Adam McCalladam@bfalaw.com212.789.3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, "Litigation Stars" by Benchmark Litigation, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/eos-energy-class-action-lawsuit GN] EUREKA CASINO: Agrees to Settle 2022 Data Breach Class Suit for $1M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Eureka Casino agreed to a $1 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2022 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information. The Eureka Casino settlement benefits individuals whose information was compromised in the Eureka Casino data breach between Nov. 9 and 13, 2022. Eureka Casino, a casino and hotel in Mesquite, Nevada, allegedly experienced a data breach between Nov. 9 and 13, 2022, that compromised sensitive consumer information, such as names, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, passport numbers and driver's license numbers. According to the class action lawsuit, Eureka Casino failed to take reasonable cybersecurity measures that could have prevented the data breach. The casino's failure to protect consumer information allegedly violated Eureka Casino's contractual obligations to its customers and Nevada's data breach notification laws, the plaintiffs contend. Eureka Casino has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Eureka Casino settlement, class members can receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses related to the Eureka Casino data breach. Class members can receive up to $5,000 for documented monetary losses that were more likely than not caused by the data breach. These losses must have occurred between Nov. 9, 2022, and the claims deadline of May 11, 2026. Class members must have made reasonable efforts to avoid or seek reimbursement for these losses. Class members who lived in California at any point between Nov. 9, 2022, and the claim filing deadline can receive an additional cash payment of $100. This payment may be adjusted on a pro rata basis if the total amount of claims exceeds the settlement fund. Class members can also receive a pro rata cash payment from the settlement based on the number of valid claims filed. These payments will vary depending on the amount of money remaining in the settlement fund after payments for out-of-pocket expenses and California statutory cash payments. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 9, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Eureka Casino settlement is scheduled for June 10, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 11, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal information was compromised in the Eureka Casino data breach that occurred between Nov. 9 and 13, 2022. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented expenses, an alternative pro rata cash payout and an estimated $100 to California residents at the time of the data breach. Proof of Purchase Documentation of identity theft or fraud, such as police reports, bank statements and credit reports. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/11/2026 Case Name In re: Eureka Casino Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00276-CDS-NJK, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Final Hearing 06/10/2026 Settlement Website ECHDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Eureka Data Security Incident Litigation Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (888) 688-4260 Class Counsel M. Anderson Berry EMERY REDDY P.C. Gary M. Klinger MILBERG PLLC Defense Counsel David E. Chavez BALLARD SPAHR LLP Edward J. McAndrew Marcus McCutcheon BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] FIGURE LENDING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that Figure Lending, LLC, which markets itself as America's #1 non-bank Home Equity Line of Credit lender, has been named in a proposed federal class action following a reported cyber incident that allegedly exposed customer personal information. Mardikian v. Figure Lending, LLC, 3:26-cv-00135 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 19, 2026). The complaint alleges that the company's systems were improperly accessed and customers' personally identifiable information was compromised. The complaint highlights the growing litigation risk created when a company's public-facing privacy representations are juxtaposed against breach allegations. It quotes Figure Lending's privacy policy, stating it uses "reasonable precautions, including technical and administrative measures" to protect personal data. The complaint also quotes policy language stating the company does not sell personal data and is "committed to respecting your privacy choices." For fintech companies and mortgage providers, this case is a reminder that protecting sensitive financial and identity data must be treated as a core business control, not just an IT function, especially where plaintiffs may frame claims through financial-privacy statutes. The complaint alleges Figure Lending is a financial institution under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and is subject to GLBA-related obligations, including the Safeguards Rule's requirement for a written information security program with reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards. It also alleges GLBA violations tied to sharing personally identifiable information with a non-affiliated third party without an opt-out notice and a reasonable opportunity to opt out. The Figure Lending complaint is a reminder that cybersecurity and privacy commitments rise and fall together. When an incident is alleged to stem from a human-layer attack like social engineering, attention often shifts beyond technical controls to governance, consumer communications, and whether an organization's public privacy statements align with its security posture. For lenders and fintechs handling sensitive financial and identity data, that alignment (and the ability to provide timely, legally compliant notice) can be a consequential component of incident response. [GN] FOX FACTORY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lexology reports that on February 10, 2026, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action against a vehicle and bicycle components manufacturer (the "Company") and several of its current and former officers (collectively, the "Defendants"), alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5, captioned as Marselis v. Fox Factory Holding Corp., No. 1:24-CV-00747-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2026). The Court's decision underscores the well-established principle that a complaint fails under the PSLRA when it "lumps" a number of alleged misstatements together and alleges reasons they were false as a group. The Company designs, manufactures, and markets products and systems used primarily on bicycles, side-by-sides, and both on- and off-road vehicles, such as ATVs, snowmobiles, and other specialty vehicles. During the COVID-19 pandemic, plaintiff alleged that demand for bicycles increased dramatically, with the Company increasing its reported sales by 52.2% in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021. While demand allegedly began to wane after the pandemic, plaintiff alleged that Defendants continued to make statements about the Company's "unprecedented demand growth" in press releases, SEC filings, and investor calls. In its Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"), plaintiff claimed these statements were misleading because bicycle sales had already begun to decline. The Court previously dismissed plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") without prejudice under Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA in part because plaintiff "lumped" statements together without pleading with sufficient particularity why the statements were false. The SAC reorganized statements by topic. Plaintiffs contended that City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Stryker Corp., 2011 WL 2650717 (W.D. Mich. July 6, 2011), permitted "the use of a single set of reasons to explain why various statements are false [as] an acceptable means of identifying the reasons for falsity." The Court disagreed, noting that this amended pleading still required the Court to "speculate" on which statements were false, which reasons applied to each, and the degree of misleadingness. While the case may have been allowed to proceed in Pontiac "in the interest of judicial efficiency, and because every statement was properly responded to," the Court held the same could not be said here. First, the Court took note of the Pontiac court's observation that it would have been within its discretion to dismiss the complaint and held that any deference to judicial efficiency in this case was undermined by the Court's explicit identification of defects in the FAC and plaintiff's subsequent failure to cure those deficiencies. Second, the SAC failed to address every alleged misstatement -- e.g., plaintiff alleged that certain statements in SEC filings were inaccurate yet failed to specifically explain why, providing only a generalized set of explanations regarding falsity, which the Court held was different from Pontiac. Finding no primary violation under Section 10(b), the Court also dismissed plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim. Because the Court had already given plaintiff an opportunity to cure the FAC's pleading defects, the Court determined that an additional amendment would be futile and dismissed the SAC with prejudice. [GN] FRANKLIN BSP: Moses Sues Over Misleading Company Statements ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MOSES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRANKLIN BSP REALTY TRUST, INC., RICHARD J. BYRNE, JEROME S. BAGLIEN, and MICHAEL COMPARATO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01107 (E.D.N.Y., February 26, 2026) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendant’s violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded FBRT securities between November 5, 2024 and February 11, 2026, inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Defendants recklessly overstated Franklin BSP Realty Trust's prospects and ability to maintain the $0.355 dividend. As a result, the Defendants' statements about Franklin BSP Realty Trust's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Franklin BSP Realty Trust, Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust that originates, acquires and manages a diversified portfolio of commercial real estate debt secured by properties located in the United States. The company's common stock trades on the New York Stock Market under the ticker symbol "FBRT." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com GARDAWORLD CASH: Court Junks Fisher Class Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN FISHER AND BLAIR ARTIS, v. GARDAWORLD CASH SERVICE INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00837-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Bell entered an order that: 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted; 2. The Plaintiffs' motion to amend/correct amended complaint and substitute Named Representative Plaintiffs is denied as moot; and 3. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order. Because the representative Plaintiffs were never Plan participants, they could not have suffered an ERISA injury under the facts alleged, and they therefore lacked III standing from the moment the action was filed. Accordingly, because neither class representative plaintiff has standing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the matter will be dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs claim the Plan violated ERISA because the Plan documents did not disclose a "reasonable alternative standard" or state that physician recommendations would be accommodated, as required by ERISA's wellness-program regulations. They also allege the Plan unlawfully failed to offer retroactive refunds for employees who satisfied requirements after the cutoff date but before the end of the Plan year, thereby denying participants the "full reward" contemplated by regulation. The Defendant offers modern cash processing for consumer businesses and financial institutions. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=08xnPX at no extra charge.[CC] GARTNER INC: Schall Law Investigates Violations of Securities Laws ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Gartner, Inc. ("Gartner" or "the Company") (NYSE: IT) for violations of the securities laws. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. Gartner reported its Q4 2025 financial results on February 3, 2026. The Company’s 2026 revenue forecast fell short of analyst expectations, as did its projected 2026 earnings. Based on this news, shares of Gartner fell by more than 20.8% on the same day. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, visit https://schallfirm.com/cases/gartner-inc/#case-form to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at bschall@schallfirm.com. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm Tel: (310) 301-3335 info@schallfirm.com www.schallfirm.com [GN] GC ASIA: Continues to Defend Miniso Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company's subsidiary, GC Asia, continues to defend itself from the MINISO securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 17, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 18, 2022 relating to MINISO Group Holding Limited's (MINISO) approximately $656 million October 2020 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include MINISO and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 16,408,093 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $328 million. On April 30, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and on June 30, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GEN DIGITAL: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $9.95-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimDEPOT reports that individuals who received an artificial or prerecorded voice call on their cell phone from Gen Digital between Feb. 19, 2021, and Oct. 30, 2025, about a LifeLock or Norton account and did not have an account with either service may qualify to submit a claim to receive between $200 and $625 from a class action settlement. Gen Digital Inc. agreed to pay $9.95 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unwanted automated calls to noncustomers about LifeLock or Norton accounts. The plaintiff claimed Gen Digital placed artificial and prerecorded voice to more than 300,000 telephone numbers during the class period. Who can file a claim for a TCPA payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They received a call to a cellular number from Gen Digital or someone acting on its behalf to a cellular number about a LifeLock or Norton account. -- The recipient of the call was not a customer or accountholder of LifeLock or Norton at the time of the call. -- The call used an artificial or prerecorded voice and occurred between Feb. 19, 2021, and Oct. 30, 2025. How much will the settlement payment be? Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund estimated between $200 and $625. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of valid claims filed. How to claim a TCPA class action rebate To receive a settlement fund, class members can file a claim online or print a PDF claim form from the same link to mail to the settlement administrator: Settlement administrator's mailing address: Jackson v. Gen Digital Inc., c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, PO Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 The claim deadline is April 13, 2026. Required claim information and proof -- To submit a claim, class members must provide the class member ID. -- Individuals who believe they are a class member but did not receive notice must provide proof that they received a qualifying call from LifeLock or Norton. This may include call records, voicemails and other proof of received artificial or prerecorded calls from Gen Digital. Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address provided $9.95 million TCPA settlement fund The $9,950,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated at $315,400 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $3,316,667 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $20,000 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $15,000 -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: April 13, 2026 -- Exclusion deadline: April 13, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: July 14, 2026 When is the Gen Digital TCPA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will mail payments to approved claimants within 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? This class action lawsuit alleged Gen Digital Inc. violated the TCPA by placing artificial or prerecorded voice calls to individuals who were not customers or accountholders of LifeLock or Norton. Gen Digital denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risks involved in further litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $200-$625 (estimated) Deadline: April 13, 2026 [GN] GEN DIGITAL: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action Suit for $9.95MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Gen Digital has agreed to a $9,950,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that the cybersecurity software company wrongfully placed prerecorded telephone calls regarding a LifeLock or Norton account to consumers who did not have an account with either company, or Gen Digital, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Gen Digital class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 28, 2026 and covers all individuals in the United States to whom Gen Digital placed, or caused to be placed, a call using an artificial or prerecorded voice regarding a LifeLock or Norton account when they did not have an account with LifeLock or Norton with Gen Digital between February 19, 2021 and October 30, 2025, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The court-approved website for the Gen Digital TCPA settlement can be found at JacksonIVRSettlement.com. According to the website, Gen Digital settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the settlement. The agreement outlines that the final amount of this payment will depend on the total number of valid claims filed and the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, lead plaintiff service awards, and administration costs. The agreement states that class members will receive settlement payments by check, and all checks must be cashed within 120 days of issuance before they expire. To file a Gen Digital claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their received copy of the settlement notice to log in. Additionally, the settlement site reports that class members may also file a claim using the copy provided with the settlement notice to fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Gen Digital settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by April 13, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Gen Digital TCPA settlement following a hearing on July 14, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Gen Digital class action lawsuit claimed that the company, which owns the identity theft protection software Lifelock and Norton, violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act after sending artificial or prerecorded calls to the telephone numbers of consumers who did not have an account with any of the companies associated with the messages. [GN] GENTING NEW YORK: Class Settlement Deal Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD ROBERTS, STEPHEN JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER MCLEOD, AND DAVID SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GENTING NEW YORK LLC d/b/a RESORTS WORLD CASINO NEW YORK CITY, Case No. 1:14-cv-00257-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Matsumoto entered an order granting Lead Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Lead Counsel's motion for Attorneys' Fees. Final judgment will enter in a forthcoming order, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Class Counsel requests a total fee of $353,254.11. The total lodestar value of Class Counsel's contemporaneously documented work is $93,000. When the total requested fee is divided by the lodestar, the lodestar multiplier is 3.79. The Court finds this lodestar multiplier to be reasonable, as it falls within the range of a multiplier between 1 to 4 that courts typically approve in class actions, and because Class Counsel has litigated this case for over ten years, successfully reversed a summary judgment against their clients on appeal, and have now successfully negotiated a settlement on behalf of their clients avoiding the risk, time, and expense of trial. The Court finds that the requested attorney's fees are reasonable under the Goldberger factors. The Court, therefore, finds that the incentive awards for the named class representatives in the amount of $10,000 each are reasonable. The Plaintiffs' request for final settlement approval is granted. The Defendant owns and operates casino. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=60NGnD at no extra charge.[CC] GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend Immigration Detainees Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the immigration detainees CMWA and TVPA class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA") and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”). The complaint also claims that the Company was unjustly enriched based on the level of payment the detainees received for work performed in a Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") the Company is required to implement at the facility under the terms of its contract with the federal government. On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees under the CMWA and dismissed this claim. On February 27, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiffs' class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On October 18, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Company’s affirmative defenses, denying the Company's motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss, and motion for decertification of the class, narrowing the class period for plaintiffs' TVPA claims, and otherwise ruling against the Company's motions for relief. All trial dates were stayed by court order pending appeal of certain of GEO's defenses to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was held on September 18, 2023. On October 22, 2024, the Tenth Circuit issued an Order finding appellate review of GEO's claim of immunity was premature and, therefore, the Tenth Circuit was currently without jurisdiction to consider the merits of GEO's claimed immunity. On January 13, 2025, GEO filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Tenth Circuit's decision. On June 2, 2025, the United States Supreme Court granted GEO’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on November 10, 2025. On February 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision affirming the decision of the Tenth Circuit and finding that there is no immediate right to appellate review of a ruling on GEO's Yearsley defense. The Supreme Court further stated that the holding still allows immediate appellate review of a ruling on a Yearsley defense via a separate appellate certification process. The first of two State of Washington lawsuits, Nwauzor v. GEO Group, was filed on September 26, 2017, by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017, by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that State of Washington minimum wage laws should be enforced with respect to detainees who volunteer to participate in a VWP administered by GEO at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (the "Center") as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under the terms of GEO's contract. The Center houses people in the custody of federal immigration authorities while the federal government is determining their immigration status. In October 2021, an unfavorable jury verdict and court judgment resulting in a combined $23.2 million judgment entered against the Company in the retrial of the two cases, which judgment amounts were subsequently increased by a further award against the Company of attorney's fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest in the amount of $14.4 million. Post-judgment interest is accruing on these judgments in accordance with Washington law. The trial court waived the necessity to post a supersedeas bond for the combined judgments and has stayed enforcement of the verdict and judgments while GEO’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is pending. Oral argument before the Ninth Circuit was held on October 6, 2022. On March 7, 2023, the Ninth Circuit certified certain state law questions to the Washington Supreme Court. Oral argument before the Washington Supreme Court was held on October 17, 2023. On December 21, 2023, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion answering the questions certified by the Ninth Circuit. Under the Ninth Circuit's March 7, 2023, order certifying the above questions to the Washington Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit resumed control and jurisdiction over the State of Washington lawsuits. On February 21, 2024, the United States Department of Justice filed its Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of GEO, arguing that the State of Washington judgments should be reversed because the Supremacy Clause precludes application of the Washington Minimum Wage Statute to work programs for federal detainees. In its Brief, the Department of Justice asserted that application of the Washington law independently contravened intergovernmental immunity because it would make federal detainees subject to provisions that do not apply, and never have applied, to persons in state custody, singling out a contractor with the federal government for obligations Washington does not itself bear. The Department of Justice also contended that the immigration statutory structure approved by Congress does not contemplate a role for states or state law in governing the VWP for federal detainees. On January 16, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion by a 2-1 vote affirming the lower court’s decision. That Opinion includes a 24-page dissenting opinion. On February 6, 2025, GEO timely filed its Petition for Rehearing En Banc. On March 20, 2025, the United States filed an Amicus Brief with the Ninth Circuit in which it argued that the January 16, 2025 decision of the Ninth Circuit is incorrect in multiple respects, runs contrary to Circuit precedent, and creates significant tension with the case law of other circuits. The United States argued that the application of the state minimum-wage law to federal immigration detainees in the voluntary work program is preempted by a federal appropriation statute that sets the minimum allowance for detainee participants at $1 per day. Additionally, the United States argued that the application of the state minimum-wage law to federal immigration detainees likewise impermissibly discriminates against the federal government in violation of intergovernmental-immunity principles. On August 13, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying GEO’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc. That order included six dissenting opinions. On September 2, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted GEO's motion to stay the issuance of the Court’s mandate pending GEO’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court. A final mandate has not been issued by the Ninth Circuit, and the appeal remains pending until resolution of GEO's Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court. On January 9, 2026, GEO filed its Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court. Although the Company strongly disputes this claim and continues to vigorously defend itself, the Company accrued a reserve of approximately $37.6 million, which is included in Other Non-Current Liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification No. 450 - Contingencies during the third quarter of 2025. GEO is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in private prisons and mental health facilities in the United States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. GEO GROUP: Mesa Verde Immigration Detainee Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------ The GEO Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division stayed the Mesa Verde immigration detainees class suit pending resolution of GEO's Petition in Nwauzor v. GEO Group for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Current and former detainees of the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center and the Golden State Annex ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on July 13, 2022, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. The complaint alleges that federal detainees who volunteer to participate in the VWP at GEO's Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex ICE facilities are employees of GEO and entitled to the state's minimum wage. Plaintiffs also make claims for unfair competition, unjust enrichment, human trafficking, forced labor, California's Private Attorneys General Act, and retaliation. GEO filed both a motion to stay the action pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in the State of Washington lawsuits and a motion to dismiss the action in its entirety. On July 10, 2023, the court entered a stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on the State of Washington lawsuits. On February 10, 2025, the Court denied plaintiffs' request to lift the stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on GEO's Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which is stayed pending resolution of GEO's Petition in Nwauzor v. GEO Group for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. GEO believes it operates the VWP in full compliance with its contract with ICE and all applicable laws, regulations, and standards. GEO strongly disputes the claims made in these lawsuits and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself from these lawsuits. GEO has not recorded any accruals relating to these lawsuits, other than in connection with the Nwauzor case discussed above, at this time as losses are not considered probable nor reasonably estimable. If GEO were not to prevail in these cases, it could have an adverse effect on GEO's business and results of operations. GEO is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in private prisons and mental health facilities in the United States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. GEO GROUP: TVPA Immigration Detainees Class Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) class suit is stayed pending Company's resolution in Nwauzor class suit for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court. In California, a class action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017, by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court, Eastern Division of the Central District of California. The California lawsuit alleges violations of the state's minimum wage laws, violations of the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute, unjust enrichment, unfair competition and retaliation. The California court has certified a class of individuals who have been civilly detained at the Company's Adelanto Facility from December 19, 2014, until the date of final judgment. On March 31, 2022, the court entered a stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on the State of Washington lawsuits, which is stayed pending resolution of GEO's Petition in Nwauzor v. GEO Group for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. GEO is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in private prisons and mental health facilities in the United States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Loses Class Cert Denial Bid -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL CENTARICZKI, an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES, INC.; KEELER PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC; CASTELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC; J MELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC; S&M MELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC; MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMON APARTMENTS HS LP; MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMONS APARTMENTS MS LP; and MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMONS APARTMENTS 235 LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00127-AR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Immergut entered an order: -- Denying the Defendants' motion to deny class certification, and -- Granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o17McO at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBE LIFE: Continues to Defend Miami Gen. Emp. Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Globe Life 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 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the City of Miami Gen. Emp. & Sanitation Emp. Reti. Trust securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On April 30, 2024, a putative securities class action was filed against Globe Life Inc. and six of its current/former executives and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (City of Miami Gen. Emp. & Sanitation Emp. Ret. Trust, et al. v. Globe Life Inc., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00376). On July 24, 2024, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel for the putative class of shareholders. The Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on October 4, 2024 that asserts claims under §§ 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rules 10b-5(a), 10b-5(b), and 10b-5(c) promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Globe Life Inc.'s securities from May 8, 2019 through April 10, 2024. The Consolidated Complaint added four additional executives as defendants and alleges that certain of Globe Life Inc.'s disclosures about financial performance and certain other public statements during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. Pursuant to Globe Life Inc.'s Restated Certificate of Incorporation and indemnification agreements with the individual defendants, Globe Life Inc. has agreed to indemnify the defendants for all expenses and losses related to the litigation, subject to the terms of those indemnification agreements. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the litigation on December 3, 2024, which motion was denied on September 29, 2025. Globe Life Inc. plans to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Globe Life Inc. is an insurance holding company that provides life insurance, supplemental health insurance and investments. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bright Health Class Suit Remanded to District Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on June 24, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York relating to Bright Health Group, Inc.'s (Bright Health) approximately $924 million June 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Bright Health and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 11,297,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $203 million. On September 30, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Array Technologies-Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Array Technologies-related securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Array Technologies, Inc.'s (Array) $1.2 billion October 2020 initial public offering of common stock, $1.3 billion December 2020 offering of common stock and $993 million March 2021 offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Array and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate of 31,912,213 shares of common stock in the three offerings representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $877 million. On December 7, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, and on May 19, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On July 5, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the amended consolidated complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice. On August 4, 2023, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend ContextLogic Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the ContextLogic Inc.-related securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on May 17, 2021 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, relating to ContextLogic Inc.'s (ContextLogic) $1.1 billion December 2020 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include ContextLogic and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 16,169,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $388 million. On July 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, and on March 10, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend. On April 10, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, and on December 22, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend. On February 15, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a third consolidated amended complaint, and on August 22, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint without leave to amend. On February 12, 2025, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to alter the judgment, and on March 13, 2025, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Coupang Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the company continues to defend itself from the Coupang Inc. securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 26, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Coupang, Inc.'s (Coupang) approximately $4.6 billion March 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Coupang and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 42,900,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.5 billion. On May 24, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on September 10, 2025, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. On October 10, 2025, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Credit Default Swap Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the company continues to defend itself from the credit default swap antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Group Inc., GS&Co. and GSI were among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the settlement of credit default swaps, filed on June 30, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The complaint generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the benchmark price used to value credit default swaps for settlement. The complaint also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of treble and other damages. On November 15, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed Group Inc. from the action. On June 5, 2023, the court dismissed the claims against certain foreign defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied the defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to GS&Co., GSI and the remaining defendants. On January 26, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants’ motion to enforce a 2015 settlement and release among the parties and enjoined the plaintiffs from pursuing any claims against the defendants in the New Mexico action for any alleged violation of law based on conduct before June 30, 2014, and on May 20, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court's order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On October 10, 2025, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOOGLE INC: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Supplement OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lee entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' administrative motion for leave to file supplemental submission in support of motion for class certification to notify of change in firm affiliation. The Plaintiffs' supplemental submission filed on Feb. 16, 2026, is deemed filed as of the date of this Order. Google provides search engines, mapping and navigation applications, email services, office suites, online video platforms, photo and cloud. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L3h2ov at no extra charge.[CC] GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Court Extends Class Cert Bid Filing to May 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00853-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Boone entered an order granting the stipulation to continue the deadline to complete pre-certification discovery and the deadline to file for class certification (or a motion to deny class certification): 1. The deadline for the parties to complete pre-certification discovery is continued to April 6, 2026; 2. The deadline for the parties to file either a motion for class certification (or a motion to deny class certification) is continued to May 18, 2026. Guardian is a privately held industrial manufacturer of glass, automotive and building products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e8mo7G at no extra charge.[CC] GULFPORT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Grace E. Moore Trust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Gulfport Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Grace E. Moore Great Grandchildren Trust of 2006 class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. In January 2025, Grace E. Moore Great Grandchildren Trust of 2006, Joseph Gorsha, Damon Faldowski, Damon Faldowski II, and Mark Faldowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action against Gulfport and another natural gas producer in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that defendants underpaid royalties to the plaintiffs in connection with the production and sale of natural gas and NGL involving a variety of lease forms. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief regarding royalty payment practices, restitution, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. In April 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that another operator in Ohio could not deduct certain processing and fractionation charges under one lease form that included a version of a market enhancement clause. Given the preliminary nature of this action, the Company are currently unable to estimate what liability may result from this matter. The Company is involved in various lawsuits and disputes incidental to its business operations, including commercial disputes, personal injury claims, royalty claims, property damage claims and contract actions. Gulfport Energy Corporation is an independent natural gas-weighted exploration and production company focused on the exploration, acquisition and production of natural gas, crude oil in the United States with primary focus in the Appalachia and Anadarko basins. HASBRO INC: Continues to Defend WPBFPF Class Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- Hasbro, 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 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the West Palm Beach Firefighters Pension Fund class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 13, 2024, West Palm Beach Firefighters Pension Fund ("Lead Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and certain rules promulgated thereunder. On November 26, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased the Company s securities between September 16, 2021 and October 26, 2023, inclusive (the Alleged Class Period). The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In the amended complaint, Lead Plaintiffs allege that members of the putative class suffered losses as a result of Defendants false or misleading statements regarding the growth and success of Magic: The Gathering (Magic) card sets, including statements attributing Magic s growth to a consumer-driven segmentation strategy, during the Alleged Class Period. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February 6, 2026. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Due to the early stages of this matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Hasbro, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a play and entertainment company. Hasbro, Inc. was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. HUB GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Hub Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HUBG) resulting from allegations that Hub Group may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Hub Group 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=52777 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 February 5, 2026, after market hours, Hub Group filed a Current Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K announcing preliminary financial results for the full year and fourth quarter ended December 31, 2025. The report stated that "[i]n connection with the preparation of its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2025, the Company identified an error that resulted in the understatement of purchased transportation costs and accounts payable in the first nine months of 2025." As a result of the error, Hub Group "plans to restate its financial statements for the first, second and third quarters of 2025." On this news, Hub Group's stock price fell $9.37 per share, or 18.3%, to close at $41.96 per share on February 6, 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] HUT 8: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------ Hut 8 Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that a consolidated securities class suit is stayed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February and March 2024, two purported securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The two class actions were consolidated into In re Hut 8 Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-00904 (VM), and a lead plaintiff was appointed on April 19, 2024. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on June 14, 2024. The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 2, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January 16, 2025, the lead plaintiff opposed the motion. On February 18, 2025, the defendants filed a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss. On September 12, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision, dismissing all fraud-based Exchange Act claims and most Securities Act claims, leaving two Section 11 and Section 15 claims tied to King Mountain disclosures. On October 24, 2025, the defendants answered the surviving allegations in the amended complaint and amended their answer on November 14, 2025. On February 4, 2026, at the parties' request, the court stayed all proceedings through April 15, 2026. Hut 8 is a crypto currency and data mining company.[BN] HUT 8: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Ontario ------------------------------------------------------------ Hut 8 Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a shareholder class suit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada. On December 1, 2025, a purported former shareholder filed a putative class action against Hut 8 and certain of its current and former officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada. The statement of claim alleges that Hut 8 made misrepresentations in connection with the November 2023 business combination of Hut 8 Mining Corp. and USBTC and asserts two causes of action under the common law and the Ontario Securities Act. The Company disputes the claims in these cases and intends to vigorously defend against them. Based on the preliminary nature of these proceedings, the outcome of these matters remains uncertain, and the Company cannot estimate the potential impact, if any, on its business or financial statements at this time. Hut 8 is a crypto currency and data mining company.[BN] INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Set April 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: INO) between October 10, 2023 and December 26, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important April 7, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Inovio securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Inovio class action, visit https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=52847. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 7, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) manufacturing for Inovio's CELLECTRA device was deficient; (2) accordingly, Inovio was unlikely to submit the INO-3107 Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") by the second half of 2024; (3) Inovio had insufficient information to justify the INO-3107 BLA's eligibility for FDA accelerated approval or priority review; (4) accordingly, INO-3107's overall regulatory and commercial prospects were overstated; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. 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] JBS USA: Agrees to Settle Wage Suppression Class Suit for $200.2MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that ten major United States beef and pork processors have agreed to a combined $200,200,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the companies unlawfully conspired to suppress the wages of workers at their processing plants. The massive $200.2 million beef and pork antitrust settlement covers, with some exceptions, all individuals who, at any point between January 1, 2000 and February 27, 2024, worked at a beef or pork processing plant in the United States for Agri Beef, American Foods Group, Cargill, Hormel, JBS, National Beef, Nebraska Beef, Perdue Farms, Quality Pork, Seaboard Foods, Triumph Foods or Tyson Foods. Importantly, the class action settlement class includes a subclass of individuals who worked at a processing plant for any of the aforementioned companies between January 1, 2014 and February 27, 2024. The court-approved website for the Beef and Pork wage-fixing settlement can be found at BeefPorkWages.com. Of the 22 companies originally charged in the class action lawsuit filed in November 2022, 12 processors and related entities have since agreed to separate settlements. These include: a. A $1.25 million settlement with Perdue Farms; a $10 million settlement with Seaboard Foods; a settlement outlining the cooperation of Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company (WMS); and a cooperation agreement with Triumph Foods; -- The court granted preliminary approval to the settlement agreements with these four defendants on February 27, 2024. b. A $55 million settlement with JBS USA Food Company; a $72.5 million settlement with Tyson Foods; a $4 million settlement with American Foods Group; a $14.2 million settlement with National Beef Packing Company; a $29.75 million settlement with Cargill (inclusive of Cargill, Inc. and Cargill Meat Solutions); and a $13.5 million combined settlement with Hormel Foods, Rochelle Foods, and Quality Pork Processors. -- The court granted preliminary approval to the class action settlement agreements with these nine defendants on January 15, 2025. According to the official settlement website, all beef and pork settlement class members are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the settlement. The site explains that those who received a settlement notice by mail or email do not need to do anything to automatically receive their payment, and those who did not receive notice must file a valid, timely claim form to receive payment. The website notes that class members in the subclass will receive a payment of greater value due to settlements with two additional defendants totaling $11.25 million that apply to the January 1, 2014 through February 27, 2024 class period. The settlement website provides tools to help consumers determine their eligibility for this class action settlement, including an employer look-up tool that lists the covered companies, facility names and locations. Individuals unsure of whether they may participate in the class action settlement can use the employer look-up tool on the website to determine their eligibility. Also available on the settlement website is a list of individuals covered by the settlement. To access the list, you must log in with the unique ID and PIN found on your copy of the beef and pork wages settlement notice. To submit a claim form online, class members can head to this page, complete each relevant field and attach documentation demonstrating eligibility and employment, including a photo ID, paycheck stub, W9 form or other tax forms. All beef and pork wage settlement claim forms must be submitted online by October 7, 2026. It is recommended that class members who received notice of the settlement update their information, including mailing, contact and payment information, to ensure they receive payment from the settlement. To do so, class members will need the unique ID and PIN listed on their copy of the settlement notice. The deadline for class members who received notice to ask to be excluded from the deal is April 10, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the wage suppression settlement following a hearing on June 4, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The beef and pork processing plants class action lawsuit alleged that major meat processing companies in the United States illegally conspired and agreed to collectively keep wages low for processing plant workers, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Importantly, the site states that the class action lawsuit remains ongoing for the following parties that have not agreed to a settlement: Agri Beef Co.; Agri Stats, Inc.; Greater Omaha Packing Company, Inc.; Indiana Packers Corporation; Smithfield Foods, Inc.; Smithfield Packaged Meats Corporation; and Washington Beef, LLC. The last two remaining defendants charged in the original complaint -- Iowa Premium and Nebraska Beef -- were dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice on September 27, 2023 and March 26, 2025, respectively. [GN] KALSHI INC: Faces Suit Over Ouster of Iran Leader Prediction Market ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Sullivan, writing for Gaming America, reports that Kalshi users pursue a class action lawsuit after the contentious settlement of the Iran Supreme Leader prediction market. Kalshi is at the center of a brewing legal dispute following backlash over how it resolved a prediction market tied to the status of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Former New York legislator Ben Geller is organizing a potential class-action lawsuit, claiming "tens of thousands" of users were adversely affected by the controversial settlement process. Just last week, an insider trading scandal involving Kalshi made headlines. Now, this one could be much bigger for the prediction market giant. The dispute has spilled into a broader debate about prediction markets and their ethical and legal boundaries, especially those involving high-profile geopolitical events. Critics argue that the incident reveals flaws in how such platforms govern sensitive markets, while supporters point to ongoing regulatory uncertainty surrounding event-based trading. How the Controversy Unfolded Kalshi listed a contract asking whether Iran's Supreme Leader would be "out" of power, a high-volume geopolitical market that attracted significant trading. When Ayatollah Khamenei was killed in a U.S.-Israeli military strike, many traders believed they would receive full payouts on "yes" positions. Instead, Kalshi applied its rules, which prohibit markets that resolve directly on death, and settled positions using the last-traded price before the event. It also refunded fees and some user funds, arguing that the policy was part of its existing framework designed to avoid monetizing death-related outcomes. That approach has angered some users, who say the policy was not clearly communicated and that Kalshi's settlement methodology shortchanged traders who expected greater value when the event occurred. Those complaints now form the basis of the potential class action, which aims to clarify user losses and platform responsibility. Why Traders and Critics Are Upset The heart of the dispute lies in how markets are written and how rules are enforced when real-world events turn out differently than expected. Some traders argue the Iran market was ambiguous, or that they were not sufficiently informed about resolution criteria tied to death versus other outcomes. Analysts have also highlighted broader challenges in this segment: -- Ethical issues around markets linked to human life or geopolitical instability -- Confusion over settlement rules when events unfold rapidly -- Questions about whether prediction markets should operate like sports betting or financial derivatives This isn't the first time Kalshi has faced scrutiny. The platform's broader model, which allows trading on political and economic event outcomes under U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversight, has drawn legal and regulatory questions in the past. A Wider Backlash Against Prediction Markets The Kalshi dispute comes amid a larger backlash against prediction market platforms. Other outlets, including rival operators, have seen public complaints and government pressure over markets tied to foreign conflicts, leadership changes, and sensitive political questions. Some of these markets have also drawn scrutiny for alleged insider trading or timing anomalies. Democratic lawmakers have publicly questioned the ethics of markets tied to human events like war and death, and some have pushed the CFTC to take action to prohibit certain categories of contracts entirely. Kalshi's Response and Next Steps Kalshi's leadership has defended its marketplace design and the enforcement of pre-existing rules, emphasizing efforts to maintain ethical boundaries while complying with regulatory requirements. The company has publicly apologized to users, reimbursed fees on some markets, and pledged to improve clarity around future market structures. The potential class action remains in its early stages. Attorneys for prospective plaintiffs must establish legal grounds tied to contract clarity, platform disclosures, and the specific harm incurred by users. Given the complex regulatory status of prediction markets, regulated federally as derivatives rather than under state gambling law, the case could raise jurisdictional and definitional questions. What This Means for the Industry The Kalshi incident underscores a central tension in the prediction market sector: as interest grows in using these platforms to trade on political, economic, and social outcomes, the mechanisms for governance and risk management must keep pace. For operators, balancing liquidity with responsible market design is an ongoing challenge. For regulators and lawmakers, the controversy amplifies calls for clearer legal frameworks and consumer protections. And for users, the episode highlights a basic truth about prediction markets: understanding fine print and settlement rules can mean the difference between profit and unexpected loss, especially when real-world events unfold in surprising ways. [GN] KENVUE INC: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Suit for $4.7-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Kenvue Inc., formerly known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., agreed to a $4.7 million proposed class action settlement. Why: Plaintiffs alleged Neutrogena's Skin360 app unlawfully collected and stored users' facial scans in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Where: The proposed class action settlement was filed in New Jersey federal court. Kenvue has agreed to pay $4.7 million to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit alleging its Neutrogena Skin360 tool unlawfully collected and stored users' facial scans in violation of Illinois biometric privacy law. The proposed class action settlement would establish a $4.7 million cash fund for an estimated 11,000 Illinois users who performed a Skin360 skin assessment between December 2019 and May 2023. If all eligible class members participate, each could receive approximately $427. The class action lawsuit was brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, which requires companies to obtain informed written consent before collecting, storing or using biometric identifiers, such as facial geometry. Plaintiffs alleged the Skin360 tool captured users' facial scans without proper notice or consent and used the scans to enhance an artificial intelligence "skin coach" feature that provided product recommendations. Skin360 was launched as a mobile app in 2018 and later introduced as a web-based application in 2020. Settlement would require destruction of Skin360 images Plaintiffs alleged that while the tool eventually included a disclaimer stating that information collected "may include biometric data," such disclosure did not appear on the Skin360 website until 2023. Kenvue has maintained that Skin360 did not collect biometric data as defined under BIPA and argued that the technology was developed by a third party. However, the company agreed to settle after a federal judge denied its motion to dismiss, finding that the company failed to establish that an exemption under Illinois' biometric privacy statute applied. In addition to monetary relief, the proposed class action settlement requires Kenvue to destroy all images collected through the Skin360 tool during the settlement class period. Plaintiffs told the court that continued litigation would present significant risks, including the burden of proving that the data captured by Skin360 constituted biometric information under Illinois law. They argued that the agreement provides meaningful compensation now rather than uncertain recovery years later. In October last year, Neutrogena issued a recall for 1,312 cases of its Makeup Remover Ultra-Soft Cleansing Towelettes after an internal investigation detected the presence of Pluralibacter gergoviae, a bacterium that can cause serious infections. The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew R. Mendelsohn of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC, Grace E. Parasmo and Yitzchak H. Lieberman of Parasmo Lieberman Law and Allen Schwartz of Schwartz Law PLLC. The Neutrogena class action lawsuit is Melzer, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-03149, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] LEMONADE INSURANCE: Bid for Class Cert. in Matthews Due July 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARCY MATTHEWS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. LEMONADE INSURANCE CO., Case No. 3:25-cv-00545-JLS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Leshner entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline: 1. Any joint motion for entry of a stipulated protective order or stipulated ESI protocol shall be filed by not later than March 9, 2026. 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings must be filed on or before March 23, 2026. 3. All written discovery requests must be served by all parties by March 25, 2026. 4. Counsel for the parties must appear for a Status Conference before the Honorable David D. Leshner on April 29, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. The Status Conference will be conducted by videoconference with instructions for appearances to follow. 5. All parties must substantially complete the production of documents responsive to any other party’s document requests by June 12, 2026. 6. Merits and class discovery are not bifurcated. 7. Any motion for class certification must be filed by not later than July 17, 2026. The parties must follow the chambers procedures of the assigned District Judge to obtain a hearing date and/or briefing schedule on the motion. Lemonade offers renters, homeowners, condo, car, pet health, and term life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lum1rk at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Appeals Class Certification Order in Fassina Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Janice Fassina, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-11466-DJC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for breach of insurance contract. On May 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which Judge Denise J. Casper granted on Feb. 12, 2026. In sum, the Plaintiffs' breach of contract allegations and their alleged financial injury demonstrate that they have an incentive to adequately litigate and a personal stake in the proposed classes' breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring their breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims on behalf of the proposed classes. The appellate case is styled as Janice Fassina, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 26-8012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on February 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JANICE FASSINA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES 110 West Vine Street, Ste. 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 Email: erik@eplo.law - and - J. Brandon Mcwherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 109 Westpark Drive, Ste. 620 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 Email: brandon@msb.law - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 South Fifth Street, Ste. 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 339-1421 Email: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com - and - Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM 184 High Street, Ste. 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 357-9700 Email: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com Defendants-Petitioners LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Daniel P. Tighe, Esq. Pietro A. Conte, Esq. DONNELLY, CONROY & GELHAAR, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Ste. 1600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2880 Email: dpt@dcglaw.com pac@dcglaw.com - and - David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Marc A. Fuller, Esq. Maggie I. Burreson, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 2323 Ross Avenue, Ste. 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Email: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mfuller@jw.com mburreson@jw.com LINEAGE INC: Continues to Defend SCSPFRS Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Lineage, 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 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On August 1, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Eastern District of Michigan captioned City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v. Lineage, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-12383 (the St. Clair Lawsuit ). The St. Clair Lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock in the IPO (the Plaintiffs ). The complaint names as defendants the Company, certain of its current officers and directors, Bay Grove Capital Group LLC, and the Company's underwriters in the IPO (the Defendants). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and certain of its current officers and directors made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information regarding the Company s business prospects in the lead-up to the IPO. The Plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The case is at a preliminary stage. The Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims in the St. Clair Lawsuit. The Company is not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in connection with this matter at this time. Lineage Inc. is a global temperature-controlled warehouse real estate investment trust ("REIT") with a modern and strategically located network of temperature-controlled warehouses. The Company offers a broad range of essential warehousing services and integrated solutions for a variety of customers with complex requirements in the food supply chai LUFAX HOLDING: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Lufax Holding Ltd (NYSE: LU) resulting from allegations that Lufax may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Lufax 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, visit https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=53703 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 27, 2025, Lufax filed with the SEC a current report on Form 6-K. Attached to the current report as an exhibit was an announcement which stated that Lufax's board had proposed to remove Lufax's auditors, and that there was a possible delay in the publication of Lufax's 2024 annual report (which in fact did occur). On this news, Lufax American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell 13.8% on January 27, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time 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] LUNA INNOVATIONS: $7.3MM Securities Suit Deal Gets Court Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tad Dickens of Cardinal News reports that a federal judge in Los Angeles has approved a $7.3 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Roanoke tech company Luna Innovations Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that the company and three former executives committed securities fraud, related to accounting errors that left Luna unable to file quarterly and annual reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The settlement, however, is neither an admission of guilt nor a concession to plaintiffs, according to an order that U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall signed Feb. 24. Messages sent to Luna's former president and CEO, Scott Graeff, and to a company spokeswoman were unanswered by the end of business on Friday, Feb. 27. Lucas Gilmore, a Seattle-based attorney whose firm represented the class action's lead plaintiff, said in an email that he and his partners are pleased that the court granted final approval, "marking a significant recovery for Luna investors, given the company's financial position." The case dates to 2024, when the fiber-optic sensing and monitoring company disclosed that accounting discrepancies had led to multiple inaccurate quarterly financial statements and one incorrect annual report. Shares were trading between $6 and $8 on the Nasdaq Stock Market about that time, then began a steady decline. Nasdaq has since removed Luna from its listings. Shareholders who purchased Luna securities between May 16, 2022, and April 19, 2024, "suffered economic losses when the price of Luna securities declined as a result of a series of corrective disclosures between March 12, 2024, and April 25, 2024," court filings alleged. More than 30 million shares were outstanding at that time. The plaintiffs blamed Graeff, the former president and CEO, along with former financial officers Eugene Nestro and George Gomez-Quintero. Graeff resigned in March 2024, shortly after the first SEC disclosures. A special committee of board members and outside legal and financial advisers later announced a finding that Graeff had engaged in conduct that constituted "cause" under his contract. The company canceled his severance payments and took back stock from him. The plaintiffs alleged that Graeff, Nestro and Gomez-Quintero knew about the accounting issues or had "reckless disregard for the truth" at the time the plaintiffs purchased Luna stock, and that the company was responsible for its executives' actions. In SEC filings, the company reported that quarterly and annual financial reports were unreliable, with "material weaknesses in its [Luna's] internal control." Six quarterly reports and one annual report were never rewritten, and the company did not file any such statements with the SEC after fourth quarter 2023. Luna's SEC filings indicated that an investigation "identified accounting errors relating to revenue recognition" dating to 2022. Under federal law, companies must recognize revenue during the time that they deliver products and services to customers, not necessarily when the customers pay them. In a May 2025 court filing that proposed the settlement, Luna admitted no wrongdoing and denied all allegations in the class-action lawsuit, but agreed to settle it "solely to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, and expense of further protracted litigation" in a case that has stretched beyond a year. The plaintiffs faced the possibility that Luna's financial situation could leave no funds available after a potential judgment that might not happen for years, if the case continued, their lawyers wrote in court filings. The parties took part in mediation sessions before reaching their agreement, Marshall's order stated. Marshall, after hearing testimony and receiving documents in evidence on Feb. 17, signed an order Feb. 24 approving the settlement as "fair, reasonable and adequate," with a proper method to distribute funds. "The Court takes no position on the [case] merits … but notes that the existence of substantial arguments both for and against their respective positions further supports approval of the Settlement," she wrote. In a separate order, the judge approved attorneys' fees of $2.2 million, plus about $41,000 for litigation expenses, to be paid from the settlement fund. More than 8,600 potential class members received notice of the settlement, according to the order. Her order also settles a related case that a Luna shareholder filed on the company's behalf against certain board members and the former executives. The so-called derivative action, filed in September 2024, asserted that the board failed to file its own claim on Luna's behalf. Luna closed at $1 a share on the OTC Expert Market, where only broker-dealers and professional-level investors are allowed to view quotations. The company is no longer required to publicly disclose its finances, since its departure from the tech-centric Nasdaq. Under the terms of a $15 million loan from investor White Hat Capital in July 2024, Luna was to seek a sale or merger. It's unclear where that process stands. [GN] MERCER ADVISORS: Faces Class Suit Over Shinyhunters Cyber Attack ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Donachie of Wealth Management reports that a Mercer Advisors client is claiming the firm's data protection services fell short in keeping customer information safe from a coordinated data breach by an infamous cybercrime network. According to the suit filed by Mercer customer Paul Berger as a class action on behalf of other affected clients, the firm was hit with a cybersecurity breach around Feb. 16 by a cybercrime extortionist outfit known as ShinyHunters. The group gave Mercer 48 hours to pay a ransom, or it would leak approximately 5.7 million client records, including names, Social Security numbers and other personal information on the dark web. The group urged Mercer to pay to avoid becoming "the next headline," but Mercer refused, and the group published the stolen information. ShinyHunters first hit the cybercrime scene in 2020 with a bevy of high-profile incursions, starting with the theft of 91 million user records from Indonesian e-commerce platform Tokopedia and their publication on the dark web. As part of their approach, the scammers steal the data and put it up for sale on a bevy of dark web forums, selling it to either a single buyer or multiple buyers. In the past several years, its targets have included Ticketmaster and AT&T (the latter company faced a massive data breach despite paying $370,000 in ransom, according to news reports). According to Berger, the group's extortion tactics have elevated to include "swatting" attacks and threats of physical violence. Mercer declined to comment for this story. According to Berger, Mercer failed to follow Federal Trade Commission and industry best practices in protecting client information, alleging the firm "acted inexcusably by failing to provide timely notice to the individuals whose personal information was compromised," despite knowing about the incident. Berger also claimed Mercer's data-security measures weren't up to the task, arguing Mercer failed to adopt "adequate network segmentation," "multi-factor authentication and credential-protection measures," "encryption of (personally identifiable information)," and "regular security audits and risk assessments," among other data security attributes. Now, Berger claims that he and other Mercer customers "face years of constant surveillance of their financial and personal records," in search of evidence that the data breach is being used against them. "For example, by linking the stolen email addresses with identifiable profile details such as a user's follower count or avatar, cybercriminals can create highly convincing phishing emails, including messages that impersonate Mercer support and reference specific account information to gain trust," the complaint read. According to reports from CyberNews, Beacon Pointe Advisors was also the target of a ransom attempt by ShinyHunters last week (although CyberNews reported the amount of data stolen from Beacon Pointe was smaller than the alleged Mercer heist). "Beacon Pointe was targeted by an unauthorized bad actor, but our security systems worked as designed to contain the scope of the incident," a firm spokesperson said. "The incident affected an extremely small percentage of our client base—less than 0.5%. Those clients were notified weeks ago, and we deployed proactive measures to protect their accounts." According to other CyberNews reports, ShinyHunters also targeted Pathstone Family Office, a New Jersey-based firm with over $160 billion in managed assets. Pathstone did not respond to a request for comment regarding the data breach prior to publication. Mercer, Beacon Pointe and Pathstone aren't the only industry players dealing with a recent data breach. Edelman Financial Engines filed a data breach notification with Maine regulators last month, stating the breach occurred (and was discovered) in early January. According to a letter Edelman sent to affected clients, no accounts were affected. Still, scammers accessed personal information, including names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, emails and other financial planning information. In response, Edelman said affected clients could enroll in a credit and identity monitoring service at no cost for 24 months. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Hartman --------------------------------------------------------- e sIn the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA HARTMAN, JOSEPH TURNER, R.H., a Minor, by and through her Guardian and Next of Friend REBECCA HARTMAN, and E.T., a Minor, by and through his Guardian and Next of Friend JOSEPH TURNER, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated known and unknown, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02995-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rosenstengel entered an order denying Meta's Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Meta's Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Complaint is granted. Meta shall file a second amended answer and affirmative defenses on or before February 27, 2026. In sum, the Court declines to apply California law in this case because doing so would violate a fundamental public policy of Illinois and Illinois has a materially greater interest in this litigation than California.10 Accordingly, Illinois law will govern the case going forward. Considering the lack of prejudice to Plaintiffs and the nascent stage of substantive fact discovery, the Court is satisfied that this case has not reached a point at which “justice” under Rule 15(a)(2) would be subverted by allowing Meta to file a second amended answer and affirmative defenses. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l5zALh at no extra charge.[CC] MIKE TOPANGA: Clas Cert Reply in Beltran Suit Due May 11 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRISCILLA BELTRAN, JESSICA REQUEJO, and ELINA BARRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MIKE TOPANGA, INC, dba THE HOLIDAY GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a California corporation; JIHAD HANNA MAALOUF, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:25-cv-00989-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order on joint stipulation to continue Plaintiffs' Feb. 20, 2026, reply deadline and March 13, 2026, hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and stay deadlines by 45-days due to the Plaintiffs' counsel's medical condition and recovery and scheduled mediation on march 27, 2026. 1. The Deadline to file the Plaintiff's reply regarding class certification motion is continued from Feb. 20, 2026, until May 11, 2026. 2. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is continued from March 13, 2026, to May 29, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building. 3. All deadlines and cutoffs will be stayed by 45 days pending completion of mediation on March 27, 2026. Holiday is a gentlemen's nightclub. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pH4a8r at no extra charge.[CC] MORTGAGE ONE: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Prerecorded Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Kingsley, writing for Scotsman Guide, reports that a Michigan mortgage company is being sued in federal court for allegedly using artificially generated voice calls to contact consumers without their permission. Brennan Landy, a resident of Delaware County, Pa., alleges the Clawson, Mich.-headquartered Mortgage One Funding "casts its marketing net too wide" with repeated calls "featuring an artificial or pre-recorded voice to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent." Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Feb. 24, the lawsuit requests class action status due to the allegedly widespread nature of the unsolicited outreach. Landy claims the calls violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute prohibiting companies from telemarketing consumers using prerecorded or artificial voices without first obtaining prior consent. The plaintiff also says he was solicited despite his number being listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since May 2023. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established that registry to allow consumers to opt out of telemarketing solicitations. At the heart of Landy's complaint is his assertion that the artificial caller claimed that Landy had requested the call, which Landy denies in his court filings and instead describes as a deceptive sales tactic. The artificial caller specifically pitched Landy on refinancing. "To the extent third parties placed the calls, Defendant knowingly received the benefits of such calls and ratified the calls," claims Landy, who in answering the unsolicited phone call was able to eventually reach a live salesperson from Mortgage One Funding. Before being transferred to the live representative, Landy says he "knew that he was speaking to an artificial voice because ‘she' did not speak naturally. There were periods of awkward pauses and odd vocal inflection which would not have occurred if he were speaking to a live human being." Requests for comment sent to Mortgage One Funding at an email address listed on annual business registration documents filed with the state of Connecticut in early January were returned as undeliverable. Multiple phone calls were not answered or returned. According to Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS) records, Mortgage One Funding was founded in 2021 and had active licenses in about 40 states as of the end of last year. The company brokers and banks loans. Injunctions against future calls and $500 in damages for each violation have been proposed by Landy's attorneys if the action proves successful. The FCC has previously ruled that a company shares liability for illegal telemarketing practices even if contracting out those services. [GN] NAVY FEDERAL: Circuit Court Revives Racial Discrimination Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABA Banking Journal reports that in a 2-1 decision, a Fourth Circuit panel revived a class action lawsuit accusing Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU) of racial discrimination in mortgage lending. Disparate Impact Oliver v. Navy Federal Credit Union Date: Feb. 9, 2026 Issue: Whether the Eastern District of Virginia prematurely struck the proposed injunctive class at the pleading stage and properly denied certification of the damages class based solely on the complaint. In February 2024, Laquita Oliver and a class of eight other minority members (Plaintiffs) sued NFCU after a CNN investigation reported racial disparities in its conventional mortgage approval rates. Plaintiffs advanced disparate treatment claims alleging NFCU intentionally discriminated against minority applicants by approving White borrowers at higher rates and offering minority borrowers less favorable terms. Plaintiffs also advanced disparate-impact claims alleging NFCU's facially neutral, semi-automated underwriting algorithm disproportionately harmed minority applicants. Plaintiffs relied on statistical disparities reflected in Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data and argued that Navy Federal's proprietary underwriting process caused those outcomes. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the disparate-treatment claims, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to plead facts that plausibly showed discriminatory intent. Still, the court allowed the disparate-impact claims to proceed, holding that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Navy Federal's underwriting process caused a disproportionate adverse effect on minority applicants. The court also dismissed the class allegations to promote efficiency and streamline the claims being considered. The court determined that each plaintiff's application was too varied, preventing them from pursuing their claims as a class. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision. On appeal, the majority agreed with part of the district court's decision but set aside its denial of class certification. The panel explained that only Rule 23(c)(1)(A) governs class‑certification decisions because it requires a court to issue an order granting or denying certification. It rejected NFCU's reliance on Rules 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D), noting that Rule 12(f) does not apply to class actions and Rule 23(d)(1)(D) applies only after certification has been denied. The majority emphasized that challenges to class allegations must be brought through a Rule 23(c)(1)(A) motion. It also clarified that at the pleading stage, courts may look only at the complaint and may deny certification before discovery only when the complaint itself shows the class cannot satisfy Rule 23. The majority held that the district court properly exercised its discretion when it denied certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class but acted prematurely when it denied certification under Rule 23(b)(2) at the pleading stage. The panel found that the complaint itself revealed clear predominance and superiority problems because the named plaintiffs lived in different states, sought different loan products, experienced different outcomes, and requested individualized damages over an open-ended period. Those differences made it apparent from the face of the complaint that a damages class could not proceed. In contrast, the complaint alleged that Navy Federal used a single underwriting algorithm that applied to all applicants and produced racially disparate results. Those allegations raised common questions capable of class-wide resolution and made a prima facie showing of commonality. Because the complaint did not show noncompliance with Rule 23(a) as a matter of law, the district court acted prematurely in denying certification of the Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class. Judge Julius Richardson concurred in part and dissented in part. He concurred in affirming the district court's decision to strike the Rule 23(b)(3) damages class, agreeing that the proposed class failed under Rule 23. However, he dissented from the majority's decision to reinstate the Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class, because he would have affirmed the district court's order striking all class allegations. In his view, Rule 23(d)(1)(D) permits district courts to strike facially deficient class claims at the pleading stage, and the complaint failed to establish commonality since it relied on vague allegations about a proprietary underwriting algorithm, did not identify a uniform practice, and cited disparities that varied across loan products, minority groups, and alleged harms. Bottom Line: The Fourth Circuit allowed Plaintiffs' disparate-impact claims and proposed injunctive class to move forward, setting up further litigation over whether Navy Federal's underwriting practices unlawfully produced racially disparate outcomes. [GN] NEW YORK: Kulisz Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ MAGDALENA KULISZ, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Magdalena Kulisz, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Steven Raga, in his individual and official capacity as New York State Assembly Member, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-6821, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Civil Rights Act. On Aug. 22, 2025, Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an Order transferring this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On Sept. 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, stay of transfer, and reasonable accommodation. On Sept. 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to recall transfer, accept amended complaint, or issue indicative ruling. On Dec. 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed another motion for reconsideration, stay of transfer, and reasonable accommodation, which Judge Swain denied on Feb. 9, 2026. The Plaintiff's motions to reconsider the transfer order and for electronic filing are denied. Further, all pending motions are directed by the Court to terminate. The action remains closed. The appellate case is styled as Kulisz v. Raga, Case No. 26-437, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MAGDALENA KULISZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appear pro se. Defendants-Appellees STEVEN RAGA, in his individual and official capacity as New York State Assembly Member, et al. are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 NEW YORK: Suit Over Highway Truck Taxes Given Class Action Status ----------------------------------------------------------------- Heavy Duty Trucking reports that a lawsuit filed against New York highway taxes has been given the green light to proceed as a class action. The case was filed nearly a year ago by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and four of its members against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. It challenges the constitutionality of taxes that impose $15 for a certificate of registration and a $4 decal charge on all trucks using New York state highways, according to the OOIDA website Landlinemag.com. The taxes are imposed not only on New York-based trucks, which the suit claims are driven proportionately higher miles in New York, but also on trucks based outside of New York, which are driven mostly in states other than New York, resulting in a higher per mile tax rate being imposed on out-of-state trucks. Failure to pay on a timely basis can result in fines, interest, penalties, and seizure of property, according to the suit. OOIDA claims this constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. [GN] NEXTERA ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Retirement Funds Suit for $8MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Insurance Journal reports that Florida-based NextEra Energy Inc., one of the world's largest electric utilities, has settled a class-action lawsuit, agreeing to pay $8 million to some 20,000 employees who said the company had mishandled retirement funds. Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees should not exceed 33% of the gross settlement amount, reads the settlement agreement, filed in U.S. District Court in Southern Florida. The largely self-insured NextEra, owner of Florida Power & Light and one of the world's largest renewable energy enterprises, did not admit liability in the settlement. It did agree to establish a settlement fund to be allocated to affected employees—an average of about $400 for each worker. "Class Counsel believe that this Settlement reflects a reasonable compromise in light of the range of possible outcomes. Class Counsel believe that the Settlement is preferable to continued litigation and is in the best interest of the Members of the Settlement Class because the Settlement provides certainty with respect to the amount of recovery and results in a prompt recovery," reads the agreement. The employees filed suit in 2023, charging that the utility holding company had allowed excessive fees to Fidelity Workspace Services and had caused the value of company stock to slip by some $500 million. "These fees, and astronomical retirement account losses, are tantamount to waste," the complaint reads. The complaint said plaintiffs were informed by publicly traded NextEra's own financial reporting. The 2016 and 2018 compensation plan for Fidelity showed that the plan manager received indirect compensation. "But rather than identify the amount of the indirect compensation, NextEra stated the amount of such compensation was '$0' and then claims that Fidelity provided it with a 'formula instead of an amount or estimated amount,'" the complaint reads. "The problem with this, of course, is that NextEra failed to disclose to Plaintiff or Plan participants what that alleged formula is, much less what application of that formula translates to in terms of the amount of ‘indirect compensation' plan participants are paying to Fidelity." NextEra did not know the true amount of compensation paid to Fidelity, the plaintiffs argued. Attorneys for the class of plaintiffs included those with Morgan & Morgan and with Wenzel Fenton Cabassa law firms in Tampa, and McKaw Law in Arizona. [GN] NISSAN NORTH: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $1.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Nissan North America has agreed to a $1,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that the automotive giant failed to protect its employees' private information from a November 2023 data breach. The Nissan North America class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 22, 2026 and covers all individuals who received notice from the company that their private information may have been compromised as a result of the data breach that began on or around November 7, 2023. The court-approved website for the Nissan North America data breach settlement can be found at NNADataSettlement.com. According to the website, Nissan NA 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 "Cash Payment A," which provides up to $450 to class members with documented ordinary losses and up to $4,500 to class members with documented extraordinary losses. The settlement agreement stipulates that claims for a documented-loss payment must include third-party proof and demonstrate that the class members suffered actual monetary damages that had not been previously reimbursed. Per the agreement, documented ordinary losses include any expenses related to bank fees, postage, travel, notary fees, credit repair services, credit reports, and any credit monitoring and identity protection products obtained after the data breach. The agreement further states that documented extraordinary losses include any unreimbursed expenses related to the misuse of a class member's Social Security number, date of birth or other personally identifiable information. In lieu of documented losses, class members may instead file a claim to receive an alternative cash payment of up to $100, or "Cash Payment B." According to the settlement agreement, this cash payment may be subject to a pro-rated reduction depending on the number of valid claims filed. Nissan settlement class members may elect to receive their cash payout by check or electronic payment, the agreement notes, and all checks must be cashed within 60 days of issuance before they expire. In addition to any monetary benefits, all settlement class members may also file a claim to receive an enrollment code for two free years of credit monitoring through Experian, which also includes identity theft insurance. The agreement stresses that credit monitoring is available to all class members, including those who previously enrolled in the credit monitoring services referenced in the Nissan data breach notice. To file a Nissan data breach claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID listed on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the settlement site to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator noted near the top of the document. All Nissan NA settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 26, 2026. Finally, the agreement reports that Nissan has implemented several cybersecurity enhancements since the November 2023 data breach, including tougher firewall policies, VPN logins, expanded response detection, extended security operations support, enhanced monitoring and enhanced security training for employees. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Nissan NA data breach settlement following a hearing on June 1, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Nissan North America class action lawsuit claimed that the automotive company failed to implement appropriate cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive employee information stored on its systems, leading to a data breach that began on or around November, 2023. Per court documents, the private information that may have been compromised as a result of the breach includes names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, employee identification numbers, pay information and medical records. [GN] PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Discovery in NYCERS Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Skydance Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the NYCERS class suit discovery is ongoing in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. In February 2025, New York City Employees' Retirement System, the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, the New York City Police Pension Fund, the New York City Board of Education Retirement System, and the Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York, purported holders of Paramount Global Class B Common Stock and Class A Common Stock, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Barbara M. Byrne, Linda M. Griego, Judith A. McHale and Susan Schuman, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties for their alleged failure to sufficiently consider an alternative offer that the plaintiffs claimed was superior to the Transactions (the "NYCERS Action"). The plaintiffs argue that the no-shop provision in the Transaction Agreement should be declared invalid and unenforceable because it prevented the parties from engaging in further deal discussions and negotiations with companies other than Skydance, including, specifically, Project Rise Partners, after the no-shop period began. The plaintiffs further assert that the Court has the power to invalidate this provision because Skydance allegedly aided and abetted NAI's and Shari E. Redstone's breach of fiduciary duties, including by agreeing to indemnify Shari E. Redstone (through Skydance's separate agreement with NAI) for any breach of fiduciary duty claims arising out of the Transactions up to a certain amount. Skydance, NAI, Shari E. Redstone and Paramount Global were not named as defendants in the original complaint. The NYCERS Action originally sought, among other forms of relief, an order from the Court enjoining the closing of the Transactions until the Court reached a final resolution on the plaintiffs’ claims and an order compelling the special committee of Paramount Global’s Board of Directors to evaluate Project Rise Partners’ alternative offer to, among other things, acquire Paramount Global Class A Common Stock for $23.00 per share and Paramount Global Class B Common Stock for $19.00 per share. The Project Rise Partners' offer was made after the go-shop period in the Transaction Agreement had ended. The plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings along with their complaint. In February 2025, the plaintiffs moved to join Paramount Global, Skydance, Shari E. Redstone, NAI and various other entities named in the Transaction Agreement as necessary parties to the litigation and moved for a temporary restraining order preventing the closing of the Transactions until the Court considered the plaintiffs' anticipated motion for injunctive relief following expedited discovery. In March 2025, the court allowed plaintiffs to amend the complaint to add Paramount Global, Skydance, Shari E. Redstone, NAI and the various other entities as defendants. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages. The parties reached an agreement to withdraw the plaintiffs' request for expedition and their application for injunctive relief in exchange for targeted discovery from certain of the defendants and third parties. The matter is in discovery. Paramount Skydance Corporation operates as a mass media and entertainment company. The Company provides broadcast of content through studios, networks, streaming services, live events, and merchandise. [BN] PEOPLEREADY INC: Palumbo Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FRANK PALUMBO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLEREADY, INC., a Washington Corporation; LAYTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 209514, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Shasta to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on February 26, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00614-DAD-DMC to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code in connection with the Defendants' failure to pay proper wages and to reimburse necessary business expenses. PeopleReady, Inc. is a temporary staffing company headquartered in Tacoma, WA. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Ongaro, Esq. Cara R. Sherman, Esq. ONGARO PC 1604 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 433-3900 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com csherman@ongaropc.com PREMIUM BRANDS: Fails to Disclose Online Handling Fees, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that the parent company of Ann Taylor and Loft fails to properly disclose a mandatory "processing" or "handling" fee added to the end of the online purchase process, in violation of the California Honest Pricing Law. The 27-page retail lawsuit contends that Premium Brands Opco, in its operation of AnnTaylor.com and Loft.com, deceptively fails to disclose the processing or handling fee upfront in its advertised product prices, meaning the company effectively displays to consumers an "artificially low price" that does not reflect the total cost. According to the complaint, the challenged fee, although often bundled with the cost of shipping, has no relation to postage or carrier charges. Instead, the suit argues that the fee amounts to no more than drip pricing, as it exists solely to increase the defendant's profits. The case points out that the practice of drip pricing is illegal in many states, including California, after a 2024 amendment to the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act known as the state's Honest Pricing Law. Similarly, the lawsuit also charges Premium Brands Opco with violating the Virginia Mandatory Fee and Surcharge Disclosure Law, a piece of legislation enacted in July 2025 that forbids retailers from advertising prices that are not inclusive of all mandatory fees and surcharges. When shopping on AnnTaylor.com or Loft.com, consumers are not shown the final price they are to pay, inclusive of the processing or handling fee, until the very end of the checkout process, the suit alleges. Per the case, the additional fee is revealed only after consumers have invested a significant amount of time entering all relevant information, like signing into or creating an account, shipping, contact information and payment details. "In other words, the total price is never disclosed before a user reaches the final step in the checkout process prior to placing an order," the complaint states. The plaintiffs are two consumers who purchased clothes online from Ann Taylor and Loft and were subject to unexpected fees, the suit says. According to the complaint, the first plaintiff, a California resident, purchased two items from Ann Taylor in December 2025 with a mandatory bundled shipping and processing fee of $8.95. The second plaintiff, a Virginia resident, purchased multiple items from Loft in July 2025 with a mandatory bundled shipping and handling fee of $16.95. "The Fee is mandatory because there is no way to purchase a product on the website without paying the Fee," the case relays. The Premium Brands Opco class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in California or Virginia who made a purchase from the Ann Taylor and/or Loft websites and paid the mandatory fee during the two years prior to the filing of this action. Additionally, the suit looks to cover California and Virginia subclasses consisting of all individuals in either state who made a purchase from the Ann Taylor and/or Loft website and paid the mandatory fee on or after July 1, 2024 in California, or July 1, 2025 in Virginia. [GN] PREMIUM MORTGAGE: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Premium Mortgage Corporation has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the residential mortgage lender failed to protect sensitive data stored on its systems from a targeted cyberattack in August 2023. The Premium Mortgage class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 23, 2026 and covers all individuals whose personally identifiable information may have been compromised as a result of the data breach announced by Premium Mortgage on or around January 10, 2024. Per court documents, the information of approximately 10,835 customers may have been implicated in the breach. The court-approved website for the Premium Mortgage Corporation (PMC) data breach settlement can be found at PMCDataLitigation.com. According to the website, PMC settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of ordinary out-of-pocket losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $325. The settlement agreement states that class members must submit third-party documentation to receive payment for unreimbursed expenses related to fraud, identity theft, bank fees, credit repair services, credit freezing or unfreezing and other miscellaneous expenses such as travel and postage. The site relays that PMC settlement class members who submit documented proof of extraordinary losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000 from the settlement. The agreement states that class members must prove their losses were monetary and incurred between August 23, 2023 and April 21, 2026. Additionally, the settlement says these expenses may not have already been reimbursed by a third party. In addition to payment for ordinary and extraordinary losses, PMC class members may also file a claim form for reimbursement of up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach, at a rate of $25 per hour. Per court documents, class members must submit their claim form with a brief explanation of their activities during this time. In lieu of any documented losses, the settlement site reports that class members may instead file a claim for an alternative one-time cash payment of $50. PMC settlement class members may elect to receive their cash payout via check or electronic payment upon submission of a claim form, the agreement notes, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary benefits, all PMC class members may file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for three years of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services from the settlement. To file a PMC data breach claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID and confirmation code on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed at the end of the document. All Premium Mortgage settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by April 21, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the PMC data breach settlement following a hearing on May 14, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Premium Mortgage Corporation class action lawsuit alleged that the New York-based mortgage lender failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to safeguard confidential information it collected from its customers, leading to a data breach between August 24, 2023 and August 31, 2023. Per court documents, the private information that may have been impacted by the breach included full names, Social Security numbers, payment card information and financial account information. [GN] PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Gonzalez Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDGAR GONZALEZ, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Edgar Gonzalez, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-02284-JGB-ACCV, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendants for breach of insurance contract. On Sept. 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On Oct. 20, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which Judge Jesus G. Bernal granted on Jan. 29, 2026. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Gonzalez, et al. v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 26-1195, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 2, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 13, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 11, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants EDGAR GONZALEZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Merriman, Esq. HILGERS, PLLC 655 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendants-Appellees PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Kevin P. Zimmerman, Esq. Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200 Columbus, OH 43215 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY: Agrees to Settle UIM Coverage Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Hartford agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it collected premiums for misleading underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance coverage and improperly applied offsets to UIM benefits. The settlement benefits individuals who were insured under New Mexico automobile insurance policies issued by Hartford Property and Casualty Insurance Co. or Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest that included UIM coverage between Dec. 29, 2014, and March 18, 2022, or Jan. 1, 2019, and March 18, 2022, respectively. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Hartford of selling misleading UIM coverage in New Mexico auto insurance policies. According to the plaintiffs, Hartford failed to explain that an offset would be applied to UIM coverage based on the at-fault driver's liability coverage. Hartford is an insurance company that offers a variety of insurance products, including auto insurance. Hartford has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the UIM insurance class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Hartford settlement, class members can receive either additional UIM benefits or a return of 23% of the premiums they paid for UIM bodily injury benefits. Class members whose claims involved wrongful death will automatically receive a settlement payment. Class members who choose to receive a premium refund will receive 23% of all UIM premiums they paid during their insurance coverage with Hartford. Those who choose to receive a claim adjustment will have their UIM claim readjusted without the offset that was previously applied. This option may result in class members receiving less than the full amount of the offset or nothing at all. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 21, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Hartford settlement is scheduled for March 23, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 22, 2026. Who's Eligible New Mexico policyholders or those with underinsured motorist coverage with Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford between Dec. 29, 2014, and March 18, 2022, or with Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest between Jan. 1, 2019, and March 18, 2022. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Claimants must provide their policy number and/or the claim number associated with the claim they are seeking to have reevaluated. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/22/2026 Case Name Soleil, et al. v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford, et al., Case No. D-202-CV-2023-08611, in the New Mexico District Court for Bernalillo County, Second Judicial District Final Hearing 03/23/2026 Settlement Website SoleilUIMClassSettlement.com Claims Administrator Soleil and Hammonds v. Hartford c/o Claims Administrator P.O. Box 2775 Portland, OR 97208-2775 (877) 702-7792 Class Counsel Kedar Bhasker LAW OFFICE OF KEDAR BHASKER LLC Corbin Hildebrandt Geoffrey Romero LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY R. ROMERO Andrea Harris VALLE, O'CLEIREACHAIN, ZAMORA AND HARRIS Defense Counsel Steven M. Levy DENTONS US LLP [GN] REVTRAK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unlawful Junk Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that a "software admin fee" tacked onto the very end of transactions in the RevTrak K-12 school payment platform is, in truth, an undisclosed credit/debit surcharge that, by law, must be clearly disclosed upfront. The 39-page RevTrak lawsuit contends that the company, which offers online payment technology to school districts nationwide, fails to properly inform parents and guardians of the software admin fee, as the surcharge is not disclosed upon initial setup, in any terms of use, or other pre-transaction materials. The software admin fee is disclosed only when a parent reaches the point in the checkout process where they have "no realistic ability to abandon the transaction without losing the underlying school service," such as lunch, field trip registration and yearbook costs. The class action lawsuit says that because credit and debit card surcharges are "heavily regulated and must be clearly disclosed upfront," RevTrak's practice of charging a software admin fee is unfair, deceptive, and in violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The filing explains that school districts enter into merchant agreements with RevTrak, whose payment platform is integrated with various others, which do not process payments, to manage students and staff, district operations, payroll, human resources, finances and more. Per the complaint, RevTrak, one of the largest K-12 payment processors in the country, has prevented proposed class members from making informed purchasing decisions by hiding the so-called software admin fee until the final stage of checkout. The case describes this alleged practice as a "drip-pricing scheme," which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines as the practice of obscuring the final price to be paid by the consumer until the point of purchase. "Because the fee is revealed only after users have invested their time and entered their payment information, it operates as a 'gotcha' charge -- highly coercive and not reasonably avoidable," the complaint states. The lawsuit similarly takes issue with the characterization of the fee as an expense to cover the maintenance of RevTrak's platform or software when, in reality, it is charged "primarily as a profit mechanism" and to cover added surcharges tied to processing payments from credit and debit cards. The complaint says the cost for a merchant to accept and process payments from a credit or debit card is generally around 3.99 percent of the total purchase price. To counteract that, RevTrak supposedly issues its software admin fee either as a flat-rate fee or as a percentage of the total amount parents are paying in a transaction, the case relays. Both formats are incredibly unfair to the purchaser, the filing argues, and are implemented to ensure that the cost of the surcharge is taken on by parents and to squeeze out additional profits for the company. In the case of the percentage-based fee, the filing claims that RevTrak charges consumers an additional fee that "exceeds all percentage amounts permitted" to be charged by major credit companies, including Visa, Discover, American Express and Mastercard. These credit companies require merchants to clearly communicate and display any additional charges to consumers prior to the point of purchase, and any processing rates they charge to offset the surcharges must be less than the maximum percentage permitted, the suit claims. RevTrak "uniformly" fails to meet either requirement, according to the complaint, which cites one district where the company allegedly charges 4.15 percent on each transaction. With a flat-rate fee, all transactions on RevTrak are subject to the same surcharge regardless of their final amount, such as the $2 fee in the plaintiff's Illinois school district, the complaint shares. Per the suit, this added fee is not as significant for parents who can afford to add large sums of money to their child's account at a time, but for those living paycheck-to-paycheck who can only afford smaller, more frequent payments, the fee is more punishing. "In other words, Defendant makes most of its money off the backs of the poor parents, who can only afford to add small amounts each time, and therefore have to recharge their children's accounts often, paying the Software Admin Fee each time," the suit illustrates. Per the complaint, the online payment managing platform operates in over 1,300 school districts across the United States and is often the only option that parents and guardians have to make payments towards their children's education. "Parents therefore face a coercive choice: either pay the unauthorized and undisclosed Software Admin Fee every time they make a school payment online, or refuse to pay the fee and leave their child without lunch money, unable to participate in field trips, or unable to satisfy required school fees," the case asserts. The RevTrak class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States with a RevTrak account and who have paid a software admin fee. [GN] RIVERSIDE HEALTH: Discloses Private Info, Michniak and Ritchie Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEBRA MICHNIAK and DAVID RITCHIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RIVERSIDE HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02059-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., February 26, 2026) arises from Defendant's unlawful disclosure of Plaintiffs' and putative Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties such as Google, LLC and Microsoft Corporation. The Defendant controls and maintains a website, https://www.riversidehealthcare.org, which it encourages patients to use for booking medical appointments, locating physicians and treatment facilities, communicating medical symptoms, searching medical conditions and treatment options, signing up for events and classes and more. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class Members, however, the Defendant embedded various third-party tracking technology on its website, including but not limited to Google Analytics, DoubleClick, Microsoft Advertising and Microsoft Clarity. The Tracking Tools automatically transmit to third parties every click, keystroke and detail about Users medical treatment. The Plaintiffs and Class Members did not authorize Riverside to acquire the content of their communications for purposes of invading Plaintiffs' and Class Members' privacy via Tracking Tools. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence and for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Riverside Health System is a nonprofit healthcare system based in Kankakee, IL, serving patients across Kankakee, Iroquois, Will, Grundy and surrounding counties. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Michael Casas, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com mcasas@stephanzouras.com SCOUT MOTORS: Dealers File Class Lawsuit Over Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two dealers filed a class-action lawsuit against Scout Motors, Scout Motors Sales LLC, Volkswagen Group of America, and Volkswagen AG on March 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The details: The filing automatically covers every Volkswagen dealer in the U.S., with no action needed on their part, as well as the two lead plaintiffs. Both plaintiffs are legally referred to as the class representatives, according to attorney Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Cohen P.C., one of the plaintiffs' attorneys. -- Sunrise Imports, which does business as Volkswagen of West Islip in New York, and Curran Volkswagen, a Connecticut dealership, are the main plaintiffs. -- A Scout Motors spokesperson told CDG News via email that the company does not comment on pending or active litigation. -- Volkswagen did not yet respond to the emailed request for comment. The plaintiffs say in the court filing that the Scout model violates the automaker's dealer agreements and lists these complaints in the suit: -- Breach of contract (Against all four defendants.) -- Conspiracy to injure a business relationship (Against all four defendants.) -- And interfering with a contract (Against only the Scout defendants.) Between the lines: The class-action lawsuit also notes that Volkswagen "has a statutory and contractual obligation to sell its automobiles directly to VW-authorized dealerships, who in turn sell the vehicles to consumers." -- "...VW is trying to skirt its legal obligations by selling its new electric vehicles, known as Scout vehicles, directly to consumers," the filing states. -- Additionally, it points out that Scout has already collected $15 million in "reservation" fees from customers wanting to buy a Scout vehicle, all bypassing the dealer network. (That's $100 from about 150,000 customers). As written in the filing: "Not only are the dealers losing their opportunity to collect $100 from every purchaser and make a profit from the vehicle's sale, they are also injured by lost opportunities to finance, service, and repair the vehicles, and to cross-sale these and other VW vehicles, both now and in the future." Those related damages are called cascading damages, Bellavia explained. Because of this: Plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial, monetary damages, legal fees, as well as an injunction against Scout to stop it from selling vehicles directly to consumers. -- Bellavia said it's too early in the case to name a specific monetary figure, but estimates it could add up to billions of dollars. -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a prominent class-action law firm that successfully sued Volkswagen before, securing a nearly $15 billion settlement for consumers, is also representing the plaintiffs. For context: Back in October 2024, Volkswagen relaunched Scout Motors as an independent company to produce Terra, an electric pickup truck, and Traveler, an electric SUV, with the intention of selling directly to consumers. Since then, at least two other lawsuits have been filed against some or all of the defendants, including in Florida and California. -- The California case was filed by the state's dealer association and does not include specific dealers. It does, however, seek a ruling stopping Scout from bypassing the dealer network. -- In Florida, meanwhile, the case is backed by about 30 dealers, including some that sell Audi, and seeks similar remedies to the class-action suit. "It's very difficult to get dealers to sue their manufacturers," Attorney Leonard Bellavia told CDG News. "Even though they know they're being wronged, they don't want to go out front and center and incur a lot of legal fees and fight the factory." -- Leonard Bellavia In fact, he said the manufacturers know and count on that. "I think that's why Volkswagen went down this road," Bellavia said. "I think they just feel that they can violate the law with impunity, because they know that dealers are reluctant to sue them." From Scout: Although Scout Motors couldn't speak on the suit, the spokesman sent a collection of past statements about the group: "...While Scout Motors and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. are both members of the Volkswagen Group, the two companies share no connection with respect to management and business decisions. . . . Since its inception, Scout Motors and Volkswagen Group of America have both clearly and publicly stated that Scout Motors exists and operates independently of Volkswagen Group of America and its dealers, just as Scout Motors exists independently of all other manufacturers and their respective dealers. . . . Scout Motors does not have franchised dealers, now or in the past. Scout vehicles have never been sold through any brand, including the Volkswagen and Audi brands. In the future, Scout Motors will operate an independent and exclusive network of retail locations . . . " Strength in numbers: A class action lawsuit is "just what the doctor ordered" for this case, Bellavia said, because it allows the dealers to act as one body, mostly unnamed, and costs nothing for the dealers, the usual speed bumps that may stall a dealer from taking legal action. -- Bellavia noted that attorney fees will be included in the damages sought, meaning they'll be paid by the defendants if the plaintiffs win. -- He also said that he may seek a few more named dealers to join the suit to bolster their numbers, along with Fred Ippolito, who owns Sunrise Imports, and Chris Curran, who owns Curran VW. -- Dealers can opt-out if they wish, but would need to contact the attorneys. The court also will need to certify that the requirements for class-action have been met. -- Until then, no action is needed. If the plaintiffs succeed, correspondence will be sent to dealers to share their information. -- The case was filed in Virginia, where the three American-based defendants have offices. Bottom line: Bellavia said a case like this ultimately affects all dealers, and that other manufacturers will be watching to see what happens. "It's to kind of set the bar and let manufacturers know," Bellavia said. " . . . It will let manufacturers know that dealers are not helpless anymore . . . " [GN] SONY GROUP: Faces $2.7-Bil Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit in UK --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Fielding, writing for engadget, reports that another major antitrust lawsuit has launched in the UK. This time it's against Sony, which could be on the hook for almost GBP2 billion ($2.7 billion) for overcharging PlayStation users. A class action case for about 12.2 million users argues that Sony "occupies a dominant position in relation to the digital distribution of PlayStation games and in-game content and that it has been unfairly charging its UK customers too much for digital games and in-game content purchased through the PlayStation Store." It argues that Sony "has a near monopoly" on add-on content and digital games through the PlayStation store, allowing it to set the prices and take a 30 percent commission. The class action encompasses anyone in the UK who owned a PlayStation console and purchased digital games or made in-game purchases through the PlayStation store between August 19, 2016 and February 12, 2026. It's being run as an opt-out lawsuit, so anyone meeting the criteria can qualify without taking any action. If the lawsuit is successful then each person could receive about GBP162 ($217). Sony has argued that allowing downloads from third-party stores could bring security and privacy risks, according to the Financial Times. It further states that the digital sales commission makes up profits lost for selling their consoles with minimal profit. This lawsuit follows the success of a similar class action decided in October. The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal found that Apple had been abusing its dominant market position and overcharging App Store users. In December, Apple filed an appeal against the GBP1.5 billion ($2 billion) fine. [GN] STITCH INDUSTRIES: Consumers Sue Over Fake Discounts on Furniture ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that three consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Stitch Industries Inc., doing business as Joybird. Why: The plaintiffs allege Joybird falsely advertises perpetual discounts on its furniture products. Where: The Joybird class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. How to get help: If you purchased discounted furniture or other home goods from Bassett or Joybird while you were in California, Oregon or Washington, you may qualify to join a class action lawsuit investigation. Joybird is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertises perpetual discounts on its furniture products, deceiving consumers into believing they are getting a special bargain. Joybird, a direct-to-consumer manufacturer and e-commerce retailer of upholstered furniture, advertises discounts of 30% to 50% off on all its products, according to the class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege these discounts are taken from inflated and self-created strikethrough reference prices, which Joybird represents as the regular and normal prices of the products. However, the plaintiffs argue that the products are never or almost never offered at the supposed regular price and that the discounts are never-ending. "Joybird's intent is to trick consumers into believing that its products are worth, and have a market value equal to, the inflated reference price, and that the lower advertised sale price represents a special bargain," the Joybird class action lawsuit says. Joybird's false discount advertising scheme harms consumers like the plaintiffs by causing them to pay more than they otherwise would have paid and to buy products that they otherwise would not have bought, the plaintiffs allege. Joybird perpetually advertises discounts, plaintiffs say The class action lawsuit alleges that Joybird's false discount advertising is so pervasive across all of its products and advertising that it is apparent the heart of Joybird's marketing plan is to deceive the public. The plaintiffs argue Joybird's false discount advertising violates California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs are suing individually and on behalf of a class of consumers in the United States other than those residing in California, Oregon or Washington State who purchased from the Joybird website or a Joybird retail store one or more products advertised with a discount. They seek restitution and/or disgorgement for themselves and for each of the class members as well as public injunctive relief to protect the general public by enjoining Joybird from engaging in the unlawful false discount advertising scheme alleged in the complaint. Last year, Joybird agreed to a $7.15 million settlement resolving claims it deceptively advertised discounts on its website and in stores, benefiting consumers in California, Oregon and Washington. The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel M. Hattis of Hattis Lukacs & Corrington. The Joybird class action lawsuit is German, et al. v. Stitch Industries Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01820, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] SUNOCO INC: Appeals Amended Judgment in Cline Suit to 10th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Perry Cline, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00313-JAG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in 2017, Cline filed a class action lawsuit against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. (collectively, Sunoco). He sought to represent all owners, who received late payments from Sunoco without the required interest of Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act (PRSA). The class definition setting forth the members of the class included all "owners" of mineral interests, who received late payments from Sunoco (Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), 333 F.R.D. 676, 681-82 (E.D. Okla. 2019) (Cline I)). In 2019, the district court certified this class. In 2020, after a four-day bench trial, the district court ruled for the Class on the PRSA claim and for Sunoco on the fraud claim. The Class of over 53,000 owners was awarded damages for over $1.5 million late proceeds payments that failed to include the 12 percent rate of interest. The judgment totaled over $103 million in actual damages (which included additional prejudgment interest that accrued post-trial) and $75 million in punitive damages. Before this appeal, Sunoco filed a string of appeals that the Panel dismissed. After finalizing the total damages awarded to the Class, the district court entered final judgment. The Panel affirmed much of the district court's findings and rulings; however, the Panel reversed on one issue, punitive damages. The Panel affirmed the district court's orders granting class certification and denying post-trial class decertification, along with the orders determining the actual damages awarded to the Class, including prejudgment interest. The Panel vacated the punitive damages award and remands for the district court to amend the judgment consistent with this Opinion. Judge Richard E.N. Federico noted that the trial found that Sunoco's liability arose from a PRSA violation (breach of contract), not an intentional tort (fraud). Because the Class did not prevail on its independent, intentional tort claim, Judge Federico opined that the Energy Litigation Reform Act (ELRA) does not provide a backdoor to an award of punitive damages in this case. As a result, with only a PRSA claim proved at trial, which the Panel must interpret as a breach of contract under Oklahoma law, the punitive damages award cannot stand. For these reasons, the Panel vacated the punitive damages award. Judge Nancy L. Moritz, concurring in part, dissenting in part, joined sections II.A and II.B of the majority opinion analyzing class certification and standing. Judge Moritz wrote separately to address the interest and punitive damages Cline can recover under Oklahoma law. Judge Moritz opined that Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act (PRSA) dictates that interest on unpaid oil proceeds stops accruing once the proceeds are paid, even if some amount of statutory interest remains outstanding. So, unlike the majority, Judge Moritz would vacate the district court's nearly $104 million interest award (which reflects accrual through the date of judgment) and remands for recalculation. On Feb. 23, 2026, Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. entered amended Rule 58 judgment in this case. The case is terminated. The appellate case is entitled Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), et al., Case No. 26-7014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on February 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees PERRY CLINE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq. Lisa P. Baldwin, Esq. Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq. Winn Cutler, Esq. Trey Duck, Esq. Nathaniel Hall, Esq. Ross Leonoudakis, Esq. Andrew G. Pate, Esq. NIX PATTERSON 8701 Bee Cave Road, Building 1, Suite 500 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (903) 645-7333 - and - Robert N. Barnes, Esq. Emily Nash Kitch, Esq. Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq. BARNES & LEWIS 4501 North Cooper Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 843-0363 - and - Michael Burrage, Esq. Randa K. Reeves, Esq. WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 - and - Paula Jantzen, Esq. Jason A. Ryan, Esq. Patrick M. Ryan, Esq. Phillip G. Whaley, Esq. RYAN WHALEY 400 North Walnut Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Telephone: (405) 239-6040 - and - Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq. HAMILTON MURPHY LAW 1800 South Baltimore Avenue, Suite 420 Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 973-5373 - and - Susan R. Whatley, Esq. NIX PATTERSON P.O. Box 178 Linden, TX 75563 Telephone: (903) 215-8310 Defendants-Appellants SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), et al. are represented by: Mark D. Christiansen, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT 211 North Robinson, 8th Floor Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-9621 - and - Matthew Dekovich, Esq. Daniel Mead McClure, Esq. Kevin W. Yankowsky, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 651-5151 - and - Mark Emery, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT 799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-0200 - and - Timothy Scott McConn, Esq. Robert D. Woods, Esq. R. Paul Yetter, Esq. YETTER COLEMAN 811 Main Street, Suite 4100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 632-8000 - and - Erin E. Murphy, Esq. CLEMENT & MURPHY 706 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (202) 742-8900 TINDER INC: $60.5MM Age Bias Settlement Final OK Hearing Set May 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Tinder has agreed to a $60.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it charged older users more than younger users for Tinder Plus and Tinder Gold subscriptions. The Tinder settlement benefits individuals who purchased Tinder Plus or Tinder Gold in California at any time on or after March 2, 2015, when they were over the age of 29 (or any time on or after March 2, 2016, when they were over the age of 28). According to the class action lawsuit, Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and Unfair Competition Law by charging older users more than younger users for Tinder Plus and Tinder Gold subscriptions. The plaintiff in the case says that Tinder's pricing scheme discriminated against older users based on their age. Tinder, a popular dating app, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $60.5 million to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Tinder settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid Tinder for Plus or Gold subscriptions. Exact payment amounts will vary, but class members who paid more will receive a larger share of the settlement fund. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 8, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Tinder settlement is scheduled for May 20, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members should choose their payment method on the settlement website no later than Aug. 18, 2026. If you did not receive a class member notification, you should submit your verification online or postmarked by Aug. 18, 2026. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased Tinder Plus or Tinder Gold in California at any time on or after March 2, 2015, when they were over the age of 29, or at any time on or after March 2, 2016, when they were over the age of 28, and who were charged a higher price due to their age. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Consumers who did not receive a class notice and wish to confirm their membership in the class must provide their full name, current contact information, the approximate date on which they first purchased a subscription to Tinder Plus or Tinder Gold, the state in which they were located when they first purchased a subscription, at least one of the following (their date of birth or their age when they first purchased a subscription) and their estimated total amount paid for Tinder Plus and/or Tinder Gold subscriptions, along with documentation to support their estimate. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/18/2026 Case Name Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., Case No. BC583162, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Final Hearing 05/20/2026 Settlement Website TinderCalClassAction.com Claims Administrator Candelore v. Tinder Inc. P.O. Box 301172 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1172 admin@tindercalclassaction.com (888) 808-8994 Class Counsel Michael Rubin Eve Cervantez Jonathan Rosenthal ALTSHULER BERZON LLP Kimberly A. Kralowec Kathleen Styles Rogers KRALOWEC LAW P.C. Alfred G. Rava THE RAVA LAW FIRM Defense Counsel Donald R. Brown MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP [GN] TODD LYONS: Martinez Complaint Dismissed with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN MIGUEL LOPEZ MARTINEZ, v. TODD M. LYONS, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00290-NBF-KAP (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nora Barry Fischer entered an order dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's complaint. The Court further entered an order dismissing without leave to amend, as any amendment would be futile, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Asylum Seekers Trying to Assure their Safety v. Lechleitner, Case No. 1:23-CV-163-RCL. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed. The Petitioner has 30 days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y5iEp5 at no extra charge.[CC] UNISWAP LABS: Judge Tosses Remaining Claims in Tokens Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivier Acuna, writing for CoinDesk, reports that a federal judge in New York has dismissed all remaining claims in a proposed class action against Uniswap Labs, its CEO and venture backers, ruling they cannot be held liable for alleged scam tokens traded on the protocol. -- Judge Katherine Polk Failla found that, because Uniswap is a decentralized, permissionless protocol run by autonomous smart contracts, developers and investors are not responsible for third parties' misuse of the platform. -- Legal experts say the decision is an early, precedent-setting ruling for DeFi that underscores the difficulty of assigning civil liability to protocol creators and may influence how courts approach future crypto and criminal cases. A federal judge has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against Uniswap Labs, CEO Hayden Adams and several venture capital backers, ruling they cannot be held liable for alleged "rug pull" tokens traded on the decentralized exchange's protocol. In a ruling issued Monday, March 2, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Katherine Polk Failla threw out the remaining state law claims in Risley v. Universal Navigation Inc., the Brooklyn-based firm that operates Uniswap. after previously dismissing the plaintiffs' federal securities claims. The decision effectively ends the case at the district court level. The ruling is one of the first to specifically address whether developers and investors behind a decentralized protocol can be held liable under existing securities and state laws for tokens created and traded by third parties. "Due to the Protocol's decentralized nature, the identities of the Scam Token issuers are basically unknown and unknowable, leaving Plaintiffs with an identifiable injury but no identifiable defendant," Failla wrote. "Undaunted, they now sue the Uniswap Defendants and the VC Defendants, hoping that this Court might overlook the fact that the current state of cryptocurrency regulation leaves them without recourse, at least as to the specific claims alleged in this suit," she added. Irina Heaver, a UAE-based crypto lawyer, told CoinDesk "the dismissal signals that courts are beginning to engage more seriously with the realities of decentralization." By recognizing that a permissionless protocol governed by autonomous smart contracts is not the same as a centralized intermediary exercising control, the court drew an important distinction for DeFi, she explained. "When code executes automatically and there is no discretionary control, liability cannot simply be reassigned to developers because bad actors misuse the infrastructure," Heaver said. "The real question now is how this reasoning carries into criminal cases such as Tornado Cash. If decentralization is acknowledged as a structural reality, prosecutors will need to prove intent and control, not merely authorship of code." Brian Nistler, Uniswap's head of policy, celebrated the ruling on X, calling it "another precedent-setting ruling for DeFi." He highlighted what he described as his "favorite quote" from the case: "It defies logic that a drafter of a smart contract, a computer code, could be held liable . . . for a third party user's misuse of the platform." The plaintiffs, a group of investors, claimed they lost an undisclosed amount of money after purchasing dozens of tokens on the Uniswap Protocol that they later described as scams. Because the token issuers were unidentified, the investors instead sued Uniswap Labs, the Uniswap Foundation, Adams and venture firms Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures. Failla rejected the argument that the defendants could be held responsible simply for providing the infrastructure on which the tokens were issued and traded. "Plaintiffs' theories of liability are still predicated on Defendants having 'facilitated' the scam trades by providing a marketplace and facilities for bringing together buyers and sellers of Tokens,'" Failla wrote, concluding that the claims failed as a matter of law. In an earlier dismissal of the federal claims, Failla said it "defies logic" to hold the drafter of a smart contract liable for a third party's misuse of the platform -- language that has been widely cited by decentralized finance advocates. [GN] UNITED STATES: Appeals Denied Motion for Relief in Sweet Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA MCMAHON, Secretary of the United States Department of Education, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying the Defendants' motion for relief in the lawsuit entitled Theresa Sweet, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Linda McMahon, Secretary of the United States Department of Education, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03674-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In May 2019, the Plaintiffs filed this action alleging that the Department of Education had failed to adjudicate their borrower-defense applications in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. In June 2022, the parties submitted a final, executed settlement agreement and filed a joint motion seeking preliminary approval of that agreement. In November 2022, Judge Alsup granted final approval of the class settlement, and entered final judgment. Judge Alsup found that the class certification order set no cut-off date for membership, so the class definition as recited in that order clearly encompasses all of these borrowers. Judge Alsup then ordered that the post-class group would receive relief under the agreement, namely their applications will be decided with streamlined procedures within three years on pain of automatic discharge of the loans. The parties have engaged in significant post-judgment motion practice in this case, primarily due to the Department's repeated failures to meet other deadlines for providing relief to the rest of the class. Throughout 2025, the Plaintiffs queried whether the Department was on track to meet the three-year decision deadline for the post-class applicant group. On Jan. 22, 2026, the Defendants filed second Rule 60(b) motion for relief, which the Plaintiffs opposed on Jan. 23, 2026. On Feb. 24, 2026, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an Order denying the Defendants' motion for relief. The appellate case is entitled Sweet, et al. v. McMahon, et al., Case No. 26-1136, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 26, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 3, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on March 10, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on April 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 19, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees THERESA SWEET, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Rebecca Clare Eisenbrey, Esq. Rebecca Cooperman Ellis, Esq. Eileen M. Connor, Esq. PROJECT ON PREDATORY STUDENT LENDING 769 Centre Street, Suite 166 Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Defendants-Appellants LINDA MCMAHON, Secretary of the United States Department of Education, et al. are represented by: Liam Christopher Holland, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 1100 L. Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-4964 VITAL FARMS: Rosen Laws Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Vital Farms, Inc. (NASDAQ: VITL) resulting from allegations that Vital Farms, Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Vital Farms 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, visit https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=54670 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 February 26, 2026, MarketBeat published an article entitled "Vital Farms (NASDAQ: VITL) Shares Gap Down Following Weak Earnings". The article stated that Vital Farms stock price "gapped down before the market opened after the company announced weaker than expected quarterly earnings." On this news, Vital Farms stock fell 10.8% on February 26, 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 has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time 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] WEX INC: Class Certification Bid Filing in Yamashita Due Dec. 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL YAMASHITA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. WEX, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02073-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Simon entered a case management schedule through class certification briefing: March 3, 2026 Initial disclosures per Rule 26(a). Sept. 11, 2026 The Plaintiff provides class certification expert report(s) Oct. 16, 2026 The Defendant provides class certification expert report(s) Dec. 18, 2026 The Plaintiff files motion for class certification Jan. 22, 2027 The Defendant files opposition to class certification Feb. 22, 2027 The Plaintiff files reply in support of certification The Court sets this Case Management Schedule through the competition of class certification briefing. WEX is a global financial technology (fintech) company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TSinvW at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***