260317.mbx

260317.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 17, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 54 Headlines ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Canick Files Suit in D. Minnesota AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit APOLLO GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 1 AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due May 4 BABO BOTANICALS: Anderson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BALDWIN INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Wagner Class Suit BLOCK INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit in Cal. BON SECOURS: Faces Patrustie Suit Over ERISA Violations CALDERA + LAB: Miller Sues Over Data Privacy Violations CANADIAN PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Consolidated ACQ Class Suit CARGURUS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Infield Alleges CHIQUITA BRANDS: Rivero Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CHIQUITA BRANDS: Vasquez Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CONCENTRA GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Data Breach Class Suit CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Jane Doe Says COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Lee and Park Class Suit in N.Y. COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Lee Securities Suit in Washington COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend NYC Public Pension Class Suit CPAP STORE: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, Bishop Says CRONOS GROUP: Dismissal of Green Leaf Claims Under Appeal DELANCEY STREET: Tom TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York DIN/CAL MANAGEMENT: Ropero Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California DREAM GAMES: Continues to Defend Royal Match Class Suit in Wash. ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tariff Refunds F&G ANNUITIES: Continues to Defend Cooper Data Breach Class Suit F&G ANNUITIES: Continues to Defend Miller Data Class Suit in Iowa FABCON COMPANIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hatch Alleges FARM BUREAU: 10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Hollis Class Suit FEDERAL EXPRESS: Anastopoulo Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Charges FEDERAL EXPRESS: Cycle Limited Files Suit Over IEEPA Tariff Refunds FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE: Ghazarian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FIRETRON INC: Faces Wray Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Age Discrimination FORTREA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Deslande Shareholder Suit FRESHWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal. FRESHWORKS INC: Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed GDH LTD: Continues to Defend LUNA Digital Asset Class Suit GENWORTH LIFE: Seeks to Seal Certain Exhibit in TPVX Suit GGY TRANSPORT LLC: Simmons Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. GROUP HEALTH INC: Larson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HEART & SOIL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bathersfield Claims HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Doller Securities Class Suit HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Jiwani Data Breach Class Suit I.AM.GIA (US): Maxey TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida INDIVIOR INC: Continues to Defend Suboxone Class Suits INDIVIOR PLC: Continues to Defend Dental MDL in B.C. & Quebec INSIGHT THERAPY: Abdullah Sues Over Data Privacy Violations INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Cooper Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages INTOUCHCX US INC: Lothringer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages IQ DATA: Bid to Stay Case Pending IQ Data's Ruling Petition OK'd JODY CRUZ: Progenesis Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Appeals Judgment Order to 4th Circuit JPMORGAN CHASE: Removes Vargas-Lopez Suit to C.D. Calif. JUSTANSWER LLC: Larson Suit Transferred to C.D. California JUSTWORKS EMPLOYMENT: Faces Keim Suit Over ERISA Violations KLAYMAN & TOSKES: Court Strikes Castillo Class Allegations KNOX PIZZA CO: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages KROGER CO: Bid to Dismiss Iceberg's Amended Complaint Tossed KROGER CO: Carter Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KROGER CO: Monroe Sues to Recover Overtime Unpaid Wages KROGER CO: White Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for e-Commerce Managers LA FUENTE LLC: Mueller Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind LAKELAND INDUSTRIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Apr 24 LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit LAST MILE DSP: Jenkins Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime LEGENDARY HOLDINGS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LONDONTOWN INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says MANUCURIST INC: Tesch Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in CA MARTHA'S COUNTRY: Court OKs Settlement in "Rosario" MATTERLY LLC: Anderson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Fed. Securities Class Suit MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Maryland Derivative Suit MEDICAL PROPERTIES: New York Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed MERCADIEN PC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Palmeri Alleges META PLATFORMS: Bid for Class Certification in E.H. Due August 28 MID AMERICA: Spaci Appeals Class Settlement Order to 2nd Circuit MIHANA JAPANESE INC: Liu Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York MINIATURE MARKET: See Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MISE LLC: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MOELIS & CO: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware MONSANTO COMPANY: Barry Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Crews Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Cuprak Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Haney Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Kahlden Sues Over Wrongful Advertising & Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Stivason Sues Over Wrongful Advertising & Sale MT 181 WAVERLY: Walcott Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Servers NATORI COMPANY INC: Bennett Suit Removed to W.D. Washington NBT BANCORP: Richey Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid NCR VOYIX: Compensation Class Suit Remanded to District Court NORFOLK SOUTHERN: BCERS Seeks Class Certification Bid NOVO NORDISK: Delays Market Competition for Victoza, Suit Alleges NUSCALE POWER: Continues to Defend Truesdson Securities Class Suit NUTEETH DENTAL IMPLANT: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas OAKLAND MANAGEMENT: Bush Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation OXFORD GLOBAL RESOURCES: Percy Sues Over Data Broker Software OXFORD INDUSTRIES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PACKAGING CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Artuso Class Suit PARAGON METALS: Wonders Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation PERRIGO COMPANY: Continues to Defend French Securities Class Suit PERRIGO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Phenylphrine Class Suit in NY PICNIC TIME: Mueller Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PLAZA ARTIST: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website POMDOCTOR LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 13 PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO: Robbins Suit Removed to E.D. California PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO: Sun Files Suit in S.D. New York PROGENESIS INC: Cruz Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania PTT LLC: Beckstrom Sues Over Illegal Gambling Platform QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Glass Alleges QUANEX BUILDING: McCullough Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages RAMACO RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Henning Fed. Securities Suit REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit REDRIDGE DILIGENCE: Roberts Files Suit in N.D. Illinois RGV VENTURE CAPITAL: Hill Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas RIVERSIDE HEALTHCARE: Underpays Nursing Assistants, Williams Says ROCKET LAB: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California ROCKET LAB: Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Derivative Suit in NJ RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Deadlines Vacated RUNWAY AI INC: Businessing LLC Files Suit in S.D. New York SA RECYCLING LLC: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SARKIS SHAHIN: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Whitfield Derivative Suit SNOWFLAKE INC: Patel Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price SOVEREIGN PEST: 5th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Bradford Suit TAKARA SAKE: Class Settlement in Tunick Suit Gets Initial Nod TAPESTRY INC: Curry Files Suit Over Unlawful Trade Practices TARGET CORP: Vazquez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit TELADOC INC: Roy Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed TRIVAGO NV: Advertising Suit Hearing Set for 2nd Quarter of 2026 TRUEBLUE INC: Seeks to Transfer Figueroa Suit to E.D. Texas TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Shumacher Derivative Suit TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Discovery in Peters Securities Class Suit Ongoing UNDERLINING INC: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store UNITED STATES: Bid for Discovery Referred to Magistrate Judge VANGUARD GROUP: Quinn Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Pa. VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Derivative Suit in Pa. VIATRIS INC: Settlement in PERSM Suit for Court Approval WELLS FARGO: Adimora-Nweke Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action WOODLAND DIRECT: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind WVMF FUNDING: Renois Suit Seeks Class Certification WYNN RESORTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Livingston Alleges WYNN RESORTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Maynard Alleges [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! ********* ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Canick Files Suit in D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. The case is styled as Eliot Canick, Matthew Gross, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:26-cv-01679-KMM-JFD (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Allianz Life -- https://www.allianzlife.com/ -- is an American life insurance company owned by German global financial services group Allianz.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Frances Ivy Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq. Shashi K Gowda, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC-MN 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com sgowda@gustafsongluek.com AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that Company continues to defend itself from the California Labor class suit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. On June 20, 2024, a former employee initiated an employment litigation against Amphastar, IMS and Roth Staffing Companies L.P. by filing a complaint having individual and class action claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to wage and hour, and other state laws. This complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the complaint, the plaintiff is seeking damages and related remedies under California law, as well as various penalty payments under the California Labor Code. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the complaint. Based in Rancho Cucamonga, California, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. manufactures injectable and inhaled drugs and drug delivery systems. The Company also offers contractual manufacturing services, including labeling and packaging, cold storage, and aseptic filling. APOLLO GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Apollo Global Management (NYSE: APO) and certain current and former executives after blockbuster reporting by The Financial Times and CNN on previously undisclosed information about Apollo's business relationship with disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo securities between May 10, 2021 and February 21, 2026. Each of FT's and CNN's reports drove the price of Apollo shares significantly lower, prompting national shareholder rights law firm Hagens Berman to continue its investigation into claims that Apollo violated the federal securities. The firm urges Apollo investors who suffered significant losses to contact the firm now to discuss their rights. Class Period: May 10, 2021 – Feb. 21, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 1, 2026 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/apo Contact the Firm Now: APO@hbsslaw.com (844) 916-0895 Apollo Global Management (APO) Securities Class Action: The litigation is focused on the propriety of Apollo's assurances that it had never done business with Epstein. In contrast to Apollo's assurances, the lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Apollo's CEO Marc Rowan consulted Epstein on Apollo's tax affairs. This information came to light beginning on February 1, 2026, when the FT reported that "[t]op Apollo Global Management executives including chief Marc Rowan held wide-ranging discussions over the firm's tax arrangements with Jeffrey Epstein throughout the 2010s, despite the private capital firm having previously said it 'never did any business' with the child sex offender." The report was based on a review of millions of emails recently released by the U.S. Department of Justice. Scrutiny heightened on February 17, 2026, when the FT reported that two teachers' unions whose members have over $27.5 billion in capital commitments to Apollo funds requested an SEC investigation into Apollo's "'lack of candour' over its ties to Epstein." According to the article, the unions said in their letter to the SEC "'[w]e are troubled by Apollo's seeming inability to be forthcoming about the extent to which Epstein was a personal, social and professional associate of the firm and its partners.'" The next day, Apollo's President James C. Zelter sent a letter to clients and partners claiming there was nothing new in the Epstein documents and "[n]either Marc Rowan nor anyone else at Apollo (excluding Leon Black) had either a business or personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein." Finally, on February 21, 2026, CNN published "How Wall Street's Apollo got tangled up again in the Epstein files." In addition to the above matters, CNN reported that "Eleanor Bloxham, founder and CEO of The Value Alliance Company, which advises boards and executives, told CNN that she believes the unions have a 'strong case' pushing for an SEC investigation[]" and "described Apollo's response this week as 'very weak' and questioned why Rowan's meetings and correspondence with Epstein was not previously disclosed." As these events have unfolded, by February 23, 2026, investors saw the price of Apollo shares fall over 15%, wiping out over $12 billion of market capitalization in just over three weeks. "We're investigating whether, having assured investors that it and no one else at Apollo except Black had ever done business with Epstein, Apollo misrepresented the reputational risk that it has apparently been facing for years," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the firm's investigation. If you invested in Apollo and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, submit your losses at https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/apo If you'd like more information and answers to additional frequently asked questions about the case and the firm's Apollo investigation, read more at https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/apollo-global-management-inc-apo-securities-class-action Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Apollo 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 APO@hbslaw.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] AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due May 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. ("Aquestive" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AQST) and reminds investors of the May 4, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. The complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: Defendants provided investors with material information pertaining to the timeline for approval and launch for Aquestive's New Drug Application (NDA) for Anaphylm (Dibutepinephrine) sublingual film. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's NDA submission and optimistic claims that Anaphylm would be approved by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) date, January 31, 2026. Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Aquestive's NDA for Anaphylm; pertinently, Aquestive concealed or otherwise minimized the significance of the human factors involved in the use and deployment of its sublingual film, such as packaging, use, administration, and labeling. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Aquestive's securities at artificially inflated prices. On January 9, 2026, Aquestive announced that, "As part of its ongoing review of the Company's NDA for Anaphylm, the FDA notified us that it had identified deficiencies in the NDA that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing commitments at this time." The Company added that "the notification did not specify the deficiencies." Following the news, Aquestive's stock price dropped more than 37% on the same day. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Aquestive's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Aquestive Therapeutics class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/AQST or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] BABO BOTANICALS: Anderson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BABO BOTANICALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01981 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 23, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.babobotanicals.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Babo Botanicals, LLC is a New York-based company that produces natural, mineral-based skincare, suncare, and haircare products for babies, children, and adults with sensitive skin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law BALDWIN INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Wagner Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Baldwin Insurance 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Wagner stockholder class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On February 8, 2023, Ruby Wagner, a putative Class A stockholder of the Company, filed a class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"), on behalf of herself and other similarly situated stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company seeking declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the 2019 Stockholders Agreement between the Company and the Pre-IPO LLC Members are invalid and unenforceable as a matter of Delaware law. On May 28, 2024, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion (the "Chancery Court Opinion") that certain provisions of the 2019 Stockholders Agreement granting approval rights related to amending the Company's certificate of incorporation and making significant decisions relating to the Company's senior management, are facially invalid, void, and unenforceable under Delaware law. An implementing order, presently in effect, was entered on June 20, 2024. The Chancery Court Opinion also held that a severability provision in the 2019 Stockholders Agreement allows the Pre-IPO LLC Members to demand a "suitable and equitable substitute" for the approval rights that were deemed invalid, such as the issuance of a so-called golden share of preferred stock in the Company. Following the Chancery Court Opinion, a counterparty to the 2019 Stockholders Agreement requested the issuance of such golden share. An independent committee of the Company's board of directors, advised by independent counsel, determined that entering into a contractual agreement containing substantially the same rights as those contained in the 2019 Stockholders Agreement, as authorized by a newly-enacted provision of Delaware law, rather than issuance of a golden share, would be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders and, following negotiation, the Company entered into the 2024 Stockholders Agreement on October 30, 2024. On January 22, 2025, the Court of Chancery granted plaintiff an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $2.4 million (the "Fee Award"). On February 21, 2025, the Company filed an appeal from the Chancery Court Opinion and the Fee Award with the Delaware Supreme Court. Due to the Company's appeal, management has estimated the potential range of loss from the ultimate disposition of this matter to be between $0, if the appeal is successful, and $2.4 million, if the Fee Award is upheld, a significant portion of which may be covered by insurance. The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc. operates as an insurance company. The Company offers personal and commercial insurance, risk mitigation, employee benefits, advisory, and wealth management solutions. Baldwin Insurance Group serves businesses and individuals throughout the United States. [BN] BLOCK INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Block 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from shareholder derivation suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Between February 5, 2025 and April 24, 2025, multiple shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers based on allegations substantially similar to the securities class action. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. On May 7, 2025, the Court ordered that the actions were related and renamed the related cases as "In re Block, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation." On January 6, 2026, the court denied the Company's motions to dismiss in the derivative actions. It is reasonably possible that the Company will incur a loss in connection with the derivative matters, and the loss could be material; however, the Company cannot estimate the amount of loss or range of loss at this time. Block is a financial technology conglomerate.[BN] BON SECOURS: Faces Patrustie Suit Over ERISA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- MARY PATRUSTIE and MELISSA CHERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00201-JPH (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 25, 2026) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in the practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" that unjustly forces certain employees and their spouses to pay higher premiums for their health insurance provided by the Defendant. Such surcharges violate the ERISA and its anti-discrimination provisions by unfairly targeting employees based on their health status, such as tobacco use, say the Plaintiffs. Bon Secours Mercy Health is in the business of providing general medical and surgical hospital services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE 100 Washington Ave South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2138 Telephone: (612) 767-3613 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 Email: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com CALDERA + LAB: Miller Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------- SHANDI MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALDERA + LAB, INC.; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02027 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2026) alleges violation of the California's Trap and Trace Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by the time the user accesses the Website, the TikTok Software has already commenced collecting data from the user. The TikTok Software transmits instructions to users' web browsers, including the Plaintiff's so that Plaintiff's and users' personal information is sent to TikTok's servers. This level of data transmission is not necessary for basic website functionality. The Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization, says the suit. Caldera & Lab Inc retails men's skincare products and cosmetics. The Company offers multifunctional serum, balancing cleanser, moisturizer, and other skincare products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Kiran Sekhon, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90017 Tel: (213) 927-9270 Email: robert@taulersmith.com ksekhon@taulersmith.com CANADIAN PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Consolidated ACQ Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated ACQ class suit in the Quebec Superior Court. On December 11, 2017, the AGQ Action, the Class Action and the Promutuel Action were consolidated. The joint liability trial of these consolidated claims commenced on September 21, 2021 with oral arguments ending on June 15, 2022. The Quebec Superior Court issued a decision on December 14, 2022 dismissing all claims against the Company, finding that the Company's actions were not the direct and immediate cause of the accident and the damages suffered by the plaintiffs. All three plaintiffs filed a declaration of appeal on January 13, 2023. The appeal was heard October 7 to 10, 2024 by the Québec Court of Appeal. On February 26, 2025, the Québec Court of Appeal issued its unanimous decision upholding the trial decision and dismissing the appeals in their entirety. On April 28, 2025, all three plaintiffs filed applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 30, 2025, the Company filed its response to the plaintiffs' leave applications. A damages trial will follow after the disposition of all appeals, if necessary. Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited ("CPKC" or the "Company") owns and operates the only freight railway spanning Canada, the United States ("U.S."), and Mexico. CPKC provides rail and intermodal transportation services over a network of approximately 20,000 miles, serving principal business centres across Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. CARGURUS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Infield Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- NANCY INFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARGURUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10996 (D. Mass., Feb. 26, 2026) is a class action for damages with respect to CarGurus for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding its customers' sensitive personal data, collectively known as Personally Identifiable Information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's security failures enabled the hackers to steal the Private Information of Plaintiff and other members of the class. These failures put Plaintiff and other Class members' Private Information at a serious, immediate, and ongoing risk, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members allegedly suffered a loss of the property value of their Private Information when it was acquired by cyber thieves in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Levine, Esq. STANZLER LEVINE, LLC 37 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Wellesley, MA 02481 Telephone: (617) 482-3198 Ext. 101 Email: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com CHIQUITA BRANDS: Rivero Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERO, et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-09058 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered a judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand this case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. Instead of relying on Plaintiffs' conduct in the instant matter, Chiquita urges the Court to consider the litigants' previous conduct in the MDL as evidence of the Plaintiffs' intent to try these matters jointly, but the Court finds this improper for two reasons. First, Chiquita's use of the term "Plaintiffs" is too broad considering many of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters were not plaintiffs in the MDL. Second, Ramirez outlines that "conduct undertaken after filing the complaint [but prior to removal] is certainly relevant," to whether Plaintiffs intend to proceed jointly. But Chiquita would have the Court factor in conduct before Plaintiffs filed the twelve Complaints—not to mention that this conduct was undertaken by only a subset of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters. The fact that some Plaintiffs tried to join bellwether trials in the federal MDL litigation has no bearing on Plaintiffs' intent in filing their subsequent state court litigation, and Chiquita has not presented the Court with controlling authority suggesting otherwise. Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In 2007, a group of plaintiffs from the Republic of Colombia filed a putative class action against Chiquita in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Those plaintiffs alleged Chiquita "fund[ed], armed, and otherwise support[ed] terrorist organizations in Colombia, in order to maintain its profitable control of Colombia's banana growing regions." The plaintiffs were "family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by terrorists, notably the paramilitary organization United Self-Defense Committees of Colombia [AUC] . during the 1990s through 2004." Chiquita produces and distributes produce. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e1qgBB at no extra charge.[CC] CHIQUITA BRANDS: Vasquez Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VARGAS VASQUEZ, et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-08979 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered a judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand this case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. Instead of relying on Plaintiffs' conduct in the instant matter, Chiquita urges the Court to consider the litigants' previous conduct in the MDL as evidence of the Plaintiffs' intent to try these matters jointly, but the Court finds this improper for two reasons. First, Chiquita's use of the term "Plaintiffs" is too broad considering many of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters were not plaintiffs in the MDL. Second, Ramirez outlines that "conduct undertaken after filing the complaint [but prior to removal] is certainly relevant," to whether Plaintiffs intend to proceed jointly. But Chiquita would have the Court factor in conduct before Plaintiffs filed the twelve Complaints—not to mention that this conduct was undertaken by only a subset of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters. The fact that some Plaintiffs tried to join bellwether trials in the federal MDL litigation has no bearing on Plaintiffs' intent in filing their subsequent state court litigation, and Chiquita has not presented the Court with controlling authority suggesting otherwise. Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In 2007, a group of plaintiffs from the Republic of Colombia filed a putative class action against Chiquita in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Those plaintiffs alleged Chiquita "fund[ed], armed, and otherwise support[ed] terrorist organizations in Colombia, in order to maintain its profitable control of Colombia's banana growing regions." The plaintiffs were "family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by terrorists, notably the paramilitary organization United Self-Defense Committees of Colombia [AUC] . during the 1990s through 2004." Chiquita produces and distributes produce. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jFprYn at no extra charge.[CC] CONCENTRA GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Concentra Group Holdings Parent, 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 26, 2026, that GDH Ltd. Continues to defend itself from the Johnson data breach class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. Data Breach. On November 10, 2023, Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., a third-party vendor of health information technology solutions that provides medical transcription services ("PJ&A"), notified CHSI that certain information related to particular Concentra patients was potentially affected by a cybersecurity event. In February 2024, Concentra sent notices to almost four million patients who may have been impacted by the data breach. During the first quarter of 2024, Concentra became aware of six putative class action lawsuits filed against PJ&A and Concentra related to the data breach. Five of the putative class action lawsuits have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and consolidated with the one class action lawsuit pending there. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on August 19, 2024 against PJ&A, Concentra, Select Medical Holdings Corporation and other unrelated defendants under the caption In re Perry Johnson & Associates Medical Transcription Data Security Breach Litigation ("Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages under theories of negligence, breach of contract, and failure to comply with statutory duties, including duties under HIPAA, FTC guidelines and industry standards, and various state consumer protection and deceptive trade practice laws. The Company is working with its cybersecurity risk insurance policy carrier and does not believe that the data breach or the lawsuits will have a material impact on its operations or financial performance. However, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the timing and outcome of these matters. Concentra Group Holdings Parent, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides occupational healthcare and employer-sponsored primary care services. Concentra Group Holdings Parent serves patients in the United States. CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Jane Doe Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01407-JES-BJW (S.D. Cal., March 5, 2026) is a class action arising from the negligent failure of CONDUENT to properly create, maintain, preserve, and/or store confidential, personal information of Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated. Specifically, the Defendant allowed the unencrypted personal information on CONDUENT's computer "network" to be "access[ed]" "from October 21, 2024 to January 13, 2025," and "obtained" by "an unauthorized third party," resulting in violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, California Civil Code (the "CCPA"), and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint relates that from October 21, 2024 to January 13, 2025, CONDUENT created, maintained, preserved, and stored records of Plaintiff's and the Class' "personal information" including their first names or first initials and last names, and government ID numbers (including Social Security numbers), that CONDUENT received from their clients while providing third-party printing/mailroom services, document processing services, payment integrity services, and other back-office support services, on its computer network. According to the Defendant's notice letter dated December 31, 2025, on January 13, 2025, the Defendant discovered that it is a victim of a cyber incident that impacted a limited portion of its network. Its investigation determined that an unauthorized third party had access to its environment from October 21, 2024 to January 13, 2025, and obtained some files associated with the Plaintiff's and the Class' current or former health plan, causing Plaintiff and the Sub-Class members to suffer injuries and damages. The Plaintiff seeks all recoverable damages as may be permitted by law both for herself and all Sub-Class members. Plaintiff JANE DOE is a resident and citizen of the State of California. Defendant CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC does business in the State of California and operates an online school throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 929-9303 Facsimile: (760) 929-9260 sE-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Lee and Park Class Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coupang, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lee and Park class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On February 6, 2026, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This action, Lee and Park, v. Coupang, Inc. and Bom Kim, was also based on the Incident but alleges negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of New York law on the part of Coupang and Mr. Kim related to allegedly being responsible for and overseeing data security for Coupang. The action seeks damages for all U.S. and Korean residents whose data was compromised. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss resulting from the putative class actions or the stockholder derivative action cannot be made at this time. Accordingly, it can provide no assurances as to the scope and outcome of these matters and no assurances as to whether its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these related actions. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Coupang, Inc. operates as a technology and commerce company that offers online retail, restaurant delivery, and video streaming services, among others. The company's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CPNG." [BN] COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Lee Securities Suit in Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------ Coupang, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Lee securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. In November 2025, Coupang became aware of a data incident involving unauthorized access to customer accounts by a former employee (the "Incident"). On January 6, 2026, a putative securities class action was filed against Coupang and certain of its officers and directors, as well as Coupang Corp., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired shares of Coupang Class A common stock between May 7, 2025 and December 16, 2025. This action, Lee and Park v. Coupang, Inc., alleges false and misleading statements related to the Incident in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The action seeks unspecified damages, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss resulting from the putative class actions or the stockholder derivative action cannot be made at this time. Accordingly, it can provide no assurances as to the scope and outcome of these matters and no assurances as to whether its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these related actions. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Coupang, Inc. operates as a technology and commerce company that offers online retail, restaurant delivery, and video streaming services, among others. The company's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CPNG." [BN] COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend NYC Public Pension Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Coupang, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the NYC Public Pension class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 26, 2022, a putative class action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Coupang Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Coupang's registration statement issued in connection with our initial public offering. New York City Public Pension Funds v. Coupang, Inc. et al., formerly Choi v. Coupang, Inc. et al. was brought against Coupang and certain of its former and current directors, current officers, and certain underwriters of the offering. The action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging inaccurate and misleading or omitted statements of material fact in Coupang's Registration Statement in violation of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action was amended in May 2023, and added allegations of securities fraud under Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange Act. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and reasonable costs and expenses. On September 10, 2025, the Court dismissed New York City Public Pension Funds v. Coupang, Inc. et al. in its entirety without leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 10, 2025. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the claims and the appeal. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Coupang, Inc. operates as a technology and commerce company that offers online retail, restaurant delivery, and video streaming services, among others. The company's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CPNG." [BN] CPAP STORE: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, Bishop Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CPAP STORE USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01843 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.cpapstoreusa.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on January 19, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Philips Respironics Amara Full Face CPAP / BiPAP Mask with Headgear from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. Plaintiff CEDRIC BISHOP is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CPAP STORE USA LLC operates the CPAP Store USA online retail store, as well as the CPAP Store USA interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's sleep equipment and supplies, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212.228.9795 Facsimile: 212.982.6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CRONOS GROUP: Dismissal of Green Leaf Claims Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Cronos 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 26, 2026, that the Green Leaf class suit claims dismissal appeal remains pending in the Supreme Court of Israel. On April 17, 2023, plaintiffs led by the Green Leaf (Ale Yarok) political party filed a claim in the District Court of Tel Aviv seeking approval of a class action on behalf of Israeli cannabis consumers. The action named 26 defendants involved in the cannabis industry, including three Cronos Israel entities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated regulations related to the marketing of medical cannabis products, including marketing to individuals who were not licensed cannabis consumers, and sought damages totaling ILS 420 million. The Cronos Israel defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims on August 13, 2023. On May 16, 2024, the court granted dismissal motions filed by the defendants, denying class certification without prejudice and dismissing the plaintiffs' individual claims with prejudice. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to pay ILS 10,000 in costs to each defendant.The plaintiffs appealed the ruling on July 14, 2024, to the Supreme Court of Israel, asking the court to reverse both the dismissal of their claims and the award of costs. The appeal remains pending. Cronos Group Inc. is a Toronto-based company into medicinal chemicals and botanical products. DELANCEY STREET: Tom TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Tom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delancey Street Group LLC doing business as: MCA Justice, MJA Holdings, Inc. doing business as: MCA Justice, Case No. 1:25-cv-00566 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01150-JMA-ST to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Delancey Street Partners -- https://www.delanceystreet.com/ -- is an independent, industry-focused investment bank.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Elyse S. Schindel, Esq. Thomas A. Leghorn, Esq. LONDON FISCHER LLP 59 Maiden Lane, 40th Floor New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 331-9488 Email: eschindel@londonfischer.com tleghorn@londonfischer.com DIN/CAL MANAGEMENT: Ropero Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Din/Cal Management, Inc. The case is styled as Victor Ropero, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Din/Cal Management, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01270-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Fax: (866) 219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com DREAM GAMES: Continues to Defend Royal Match Class Suit in Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Playtika Holding 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 26, 2026, that Dream Games, the Company that develops mobile game "Royal Match," continues to defend itself from Washington State gambling laws and consumer protection laws violation class suit. In August 2024, a class action lawsuit was filed in the state of Washington against Dream Games, the developer of the mobile game "Royal Match" alleging that their game violates Washington State gambling laws and consumer protection laws. The case is currently proceeding in court. Dream Games -- https://dreamgames.com/ -- is a leading mobile gaming company founded in 2019.[BN] ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tariff Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------------- At least two retail customers pursuing tariff-related refunds have filed proposed class-action lawsuits in U.S. courts against companies that also sued to recoup costs from the import taxes the U.S. Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump imposed without the legal authority to do so. The federal court lawsuits brought against delivery company FedEx and French eyewear company EssilorLuxottica, which makes Ray-Ban sunglasses, seek to ensure that consumers get a share of any refunds the businesses get. More than 1,000 companies, including large corporations like Revlon and Costco, filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade to preserve their right to reimbursement. On Feb. 20, the Supreme Court invalidated tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, worth an estimated $130 billion to $175 billion. A refund process either through the U.S. Court of International Trade or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection is set to be worked out in coming days or months as a bevy of lawsuits and claims work their way through government systems. Companies have been filing lawsuits protectively to ensure they receive refunds. FedEx said in a statement on Thursday, March 5, that it would return any tariff refund it might get to shippers and customers who had paid them. The complaint filed against FedEx the next day by Matthew Reiser of Miami states the company's pledge "creates no legally enforceable obligation and is expressly contingent on future government and court guidance that may never materialize." Reiser claims he paid $36 in tariffs and customs brokerage and duty advancement fees on tennis shoes shipped via FedEx by Tennis Warehouse Europe, an online retailer based in Schutterwald, Germany. FedEx did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a separate proposed class action filed this week, Nathan Ward of New York states that he purchased Ray-Ban sunglasses from ray-ban.com in August 2025 that were priced higher than in the past, reflecting a tariff surcharge. "Despite seeking an order entitling it to a refund of the duties collected as a result of the subject tariffs, EssilorLuxottica continues to collect and has not refunded the tariff surcharges it collected from consumers," the complaint states. Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School, said he expected many more such consumer lawsuits to surface, especially against companies that issued invoices or receipts with itemized tariff charges. The legal viability of the cases is not clear-cut but they put pressure on businesses to share any tax refunds they manage to secure, he said. "What we are watching is the predictable next chapter of the IEEPA story," Appleton said. "The Supreme Court told the White House it overreached, the major importers lined up for refunds, and now ordinary consumers are asking the obvious question -- if those duties were illegal, why shouldn't we get our money back too?" [GN] F&G ANNUITIES: Continues to Defend Cooper Data Breach Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- F&G Annuities & Life, Inc. (Registrant)disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Cooper data breach class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Cooper v. Progress Software Corp., No. 1:23-cv-12067 was filed against F&G and five other defendants in the District of Massachusetts on September 7, 2023. Cooper also alleges that he is a F&G customer and brings similar common law tort claims and alleges claims as a purported third-party beneficiary of an alleged contract. F&G is a provider of insurance solutions serving retail annuity and life customers as well as institutional clients. F&G ANNUITIES: Continues to Defend Miller Data Class Suit in Iowa ----------------------------------------------------------------- F&G Annuities & Life, Inc. (Registrant)disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Miller data breach class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. F&G is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuits related to the alleged compromise of certain customers' personal information resulting from an alleged vulnerability in the MOVEit file transfer software. F&G's vendor, Pension Benefit Information, LLC ("PBI"), used the MOVEit software in the course of providing audit and address research services to F&G and many other corporate customers. Miller v. F&G, No. 4:23-cv-00326 was filed against F&G in the Southern District of Iowa on August 31, 2023. Miller alleges that he is a F&G customer whose information was impacted in the MOVEit incident and brings common law tort and implied contract claims. F&G is a provider of insurance solutions serving retail annuity and life customers as well as institutional clients. FABCON COMPANIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hatch Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DARIN HATCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FABCON COMPANIES, LLC; and FABCON PRECAST, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-01648 (D. Minn., Feb. 26, 2026) is a class action arises from Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about their current and former employees. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Fabcon Companies, LLC manufactures concrete precast products. The Company offers panels, retaining walls, blocks, and columns. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com FARM BUREAU: 10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Hollis Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled THOM HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant v. FARM BUREAU PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, Case No. 25-2059 (10th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms the dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-00720-WJ-GJF (D.N.M.)). The Tenth Circuit panel consists of Harris L. Hartz, Paul J. Kelly, Jr., and Timothy M. Tymkovich, Circuit Judges. Judge Kelly wrote the Order and Judgment for the Panel. Plaintiff-Appellant Thom Hollis filed a class action lawsuit against his insurer, Defendant-Appellee Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Co. on June 11, 2024. Mr. Hollis claimed that Farm Bureau improperly collected multiple premiums for Uninsured Motorist and Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) coverage and failed to adequately disclose it, thereby rendering his rejection of stacked coverage ineffective and entitling him to stacked coverage and/or a premium refund for illusory coverage. In his complaint, Mr. Hollis claimed violations of New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UPA), Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), negligence, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Farm Bureau removed the action to federal court and the district court dismissed it on limitations grounds. Mr. Hollis unsuccessfully moved to alter or amend the judgment. Mr. Hollis filed a notice of appeal of both the order of dismissal and the denial of his motion to alter or amend judgment. On appeal, Mr. Hollis contends that (1) he pled sufficient facts to invoke equitable tolling, (2) Farm Bureau's alleged fraud was not reasonably discoverable until disclosure occurred years later in related litigation, (3) development of a factual record is required where fraud is alleged, and (4) the district court failed to properly apply New Mexico law. Judge Kelly finds that Mr. Hollis's claims accrued in 2013, and that the applicable statutes of limitation (three to six years) expired long before he filed his lawsuit in 2024. The Panel also finds that neither equitable tolling nor fraudulent concealment applied. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case as time-barred. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdd9mj66 from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. FEDERAL EXPRESS: Anastopoulo Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- HALI ANASTOPOULO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00236-UNA (D. Del., March 5, 2026) is a class action seeking restitution, damages, and equitable relief arising from Defendant FedEx Corporation unlawfully charging and collecting tariffs from Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated consumers and business throughout the United States. The complaint relates that Defendant routinely charged their customers purported "duties," "tariffs," and related surcharges as part of the importation and delivery process. At the beginning of 2025, Defendant imposed and collected tariff-related charges purportedly authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). Plaintiff Hali Anastopoulo paid tariffs enacted by United States for imported goods, as a result of the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision holding that the IEEPA Tariffs were illegal. Even though Defendant didn't possess lawful authority to charge, collect and retain unlawful tariff related fees, they still did it. As a direct and proximate result of paying the unlawful tariffs, Plaintiff and Class members suffered financial injury, including, without limitation, the irrecoverable payment of tariff funds and an ongoing uncertainty regarding the entitlement to and timing of any refund, says the suit. Plaintiff Hali Anastopoulo is a resident citizen of the State of South Carolina. Plaintiff has purchased goods through private carriers such as the Defendant and was required to pay tariffs for the shipment of goods coming from other countries which were collected by the Defendant. Defendant Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx") is a publicly traded multinational corporation that provides transportation, logistics, e-commerce, and business services to customers throughout the United States and worldwide through a network of subsidiaries and operating divisions. FedEx's services include express delivery, ground parcel delivery, freight transportation, supply chain management, customs brokerage, and related logistics solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Vild, Esq. Christopher P. Simon, Esq. 1105 North Market Street Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-4200 E-mail: mvild@crosslaw.com csimon@crosslaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Cycle Limited Files Suit Over IEEPA Tariff Refunds ------------------------------------------------------------------- CYCLE LIMITED, LLC, and NICHOLAS R. METCALF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, and FEDEX LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 9:26-cv-80232 (S.D. Fla., March 5, 2026) is a class action seeking to prevent Defendants' unjust enrichment from International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") tariff refunds. The complaint relates that Defendants FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, and FEDEX LOGISTICS, INC. (collectively "Defendants"), are importers of merchandise into the United States. The Defendants acted as the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' agents and/or fiduciaries by collecting the IEEPA duties from the Plaintiffs and the Class Members and then remitting the IEEPA duties to the federal government. On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down these tariffs, holding that "IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs." The Supreme Court also confirmed that challenges to the IEEPA tariffs fall "within the exclusive jurisdiction of" the Court of International Trade ("CIT"). As a result of the executive orders identified in the CIT lawsuit, Defendants have paid IEEPA duties to the federal government and thus have suffered injury caused by those orders. However, as Justice Kavanaugh observed: "[t]he United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others," says the suit. In this case, the Plaintiffs seek to prevent the Defendants from becoming unjustly enriched because the Defendants passed along the costs of the IEEPA tariffs to the Plaintiffs and the Class Members. In other words, the Plaintiffs and the Class Members are the parties that suffered the economic burden of the IEEPA tariffs, thus, allowing the Defendants to keep the tariff refunds would be unjust and operate as a windfall to the Defendants, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff CYCLE LIMITED, LLC is limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Florida and is a retailer specializing in new and certified pre-owned high-end bicycles. Plaintiff NICHOLAS R. METCALF clerked at the United States Tax Court for two years and, in 2019, formed the Law Office of Nicholas R. Metcalf. METCALF is, for federal diversity purposes, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Defendant FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION is a global leader in transportation, e-commerce, and logistics. Defendant, FEDEX LOGISTICS, INC. provides air and ocean freight forwarding, customs brokerage, and trade management tools and data from a single trusted source.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph A. DiRuzzo, III, esq. MARGULIS GELFAND DIRUZZO & LAMBSON 500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 900 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Office: 954-615-1676 Facsimile: 954-827-0340 E-mail: jd@margulisgelfand.com - and - Daniel M. Lader, Esq. MARGULIS GELFAND DIRUZZO & LAMBSON 500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 900 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Office: 954-615-1676 Facsimile: 954-827-0340 E-mail: dan@margulisgelfand.com - and - Justin K. Gelfand, Esq. MARGULIS GELFAND DIRUZZO & LAMBSON, LLC 7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 750 St. Louis (Clayton), MO 63105 Office: 314-390-0230 Facsimile: 314-485-2264 E-mail: justin@margulisgelfand.com FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE: Ghazarian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fire Insurance Exchange, et al. The case is styled as Anita Ghazarian, Simon Penny, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Fire Insurance Exchange, Hygiene Technologies International, Inc. dba Hygienetech, Case No. 26STCV06306 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Fire Insurance Exchange is one of the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle M. Meyers, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER 591 Camino De La Reina, Ste 1025 San Diego, CA 92108-3112 Phone: 619-399-7347 Email: mmeyers@singletonschreiber.com FIRETRON INC: Faces Wray Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Age Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROCKY J. WRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRETRON, INC., BILLY CORBIN, JR., JOHN HAUSER, JOE CAMPBELL, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-01806 (S.D. Tex., March 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Texas Quantum Meruit, the Family Medical Leave Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 including unpaid wages, FMLA interference and retaliation, and age discrimination. Mr. Gray worked for the Defendants as a commission salesperson from June 1, 2021 until September 26, 2025. Firetron, Inc. is a fire protection equipment supplier in Stafford, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Carl" Wilson, Esq. 8904 Fairbanks N. Houston, Suite #225 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 670-6891 Email: carl@wilsonwehmeyer.com FORTREA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Deslande Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Fortrea Holdings 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Deslande shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 2, 2025, a purported shareholder class action complaint captioned Lucas Deslande v. Fortrea Holdings Inc., et al., No 1:25-sv-04630 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants made omissions and misrepresentations to investors that they claim violated certain securities laws. The Construction Industry Laborers Pension Fund and City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees Retirement System were appointed as lead plaintiffs on September 3, 2025, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 10, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 28, 2026. The Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend itself, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The case is at a very early stage and the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this action. Fortrea was formerly the clinical development and commercialization services business of Labcorp Holdings Inc., a life sciences and healthcare company. In June 2023, Labcorp spun off Fortrea as a standalone, publicly traded company (the "Spin-Off" or the "Spin").[BN] FRESHWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Freshworks 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 1, 2022, a purported Company stockholder filed a securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, certain of its current officers and directors, and underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO). On February 8, 2023, the court-appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On April 14, 2023, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making material misstatements or omissions in offering documents filed in connection with its IPO. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees, costs, and rescission on behalf of purchasers and/or acquirers of common stock issued in its IPO. On September 28, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 16, 2025, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted and entered judgment in the Company's and the other defendants’ favor on April 10, 2025. Plaintiff has appealed the judgment, and continue to vigorously defend against the claims in this action. Freshworks is a cloud-based software-as-a-service company. FRESHWORKS INC: Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Freshworks 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 26, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California extended the stay of stockholder derivative suit in light of a pending securities class action. On March 20, 2023, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint names as defendants its current directors, as well as Freshworks, as nominal defendant, and asserts state and federal claims based on some of the same alleged misstatements as the securities class action complaint. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. On June 21, 2023, the court stayed the case in light of the pending securities class action. On October 16, 2023, the court extended the stay of the case in light of the pending securities class action. The Company and the other defendants continue to vigorously defend against the claims in this action. Freshworks is a cloud-based software-as-a-service company. GDH LTD: Continues to Defend LUNA Digital Asset Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Galaxy Digital 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 26, 2026, that GDH Ltd. Continues to defend itself from the LUNA digital asset class suit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In December 2022, a proposed class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GDH Ltd., its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer asserting various claims including alleged misrepresentations relating to its public disclosure regarding investments and trading in the LUNA digital asset. The class action purports to be brought on behalf of a proposed class of persons and entities who acquired its securities on the secondary market from May 17, 2021 to and including May 6, 2022. The class action seeks unspecified damages and various declaratory relief, including leave to proceed with the right of action for misrepresentation under statutory securities provisions. These proceedings are still in early stages and have not been certified to proceed as a class action. The plaintiff's motion for leave and certification is scheduled to be heard in June 2026. Based on the stage of the case, the outcome remains uncertain, and the Company cannot estimate the potential impact, if any, on its business or financial statements at this time. GDH Limited operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides investment services. GDH focuses on retail, public utilities, infrastructure, manufacturing, real estate, hotels, and wholesale businesses worldwide. [BN] GENWORTH LIFE: Seeks to Seal Certain Exhibit in TPVX Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for CONSOLIDATED WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00184-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion to seal Exhibit 3 in support of Genworth's opposition to class certification. Genworth offers life, accident, and health insurance services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EitOSJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brian E. Pumphrey, Esq. Ryan D. Frei, Esq. Kate C. Ashley, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Gateway Plaza 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219-3916 Phone: (804) 775-1000 E-mail: bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com rfrei@mcguirewoods.com kashley@mcguirewoods.com - and - Yolanda Garcia, Esq. Natali Wyson, Esq. Robert Velevis, Esq. Elizabeth Austin, Esq. Stephen Spector, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 2000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 981-3400 E-mail: ygarcia@sidley.com nwyson@sidley.com rvelevis@sidley.com laustin@sidley.com sspector@sidley.com GGY TRANSPORT LLC: Simmons Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GGY Transport, LLC. The case is styled as Charles Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GGY Transport, LLC d/b/a Tough Stuff Recycling, Case No. 2685CV00309 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty., Feb. 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts. GGY Transport, LLC doing business as Tough Stuff Recycling -- https://toughstuffrecycling.com/ -- is the leading provider of environmentally responsible mattress recycling services in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jeremy Shafran, Esq. Eric J. Walz, Esq., RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617)723-7700 GROUP HEALTH INC: Larson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Larson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GROUP HEALTH, INC., d/b/a HealthPartners, Case No. 0:26-cv-01650 (D. Minn., Feb. 26, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA") and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act ("MPWA") for failure to maintain records and failure to pay overtime as required by Minnesota law. The Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective and the Minnesota Class regularly work and have worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. Although Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective and the Minnesota Class to work non-overtime hours, and overtime hours over 40 hours per workweek, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective and the Minnesota Class overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, as well as non-overtime wages for all non-overtime hours worked. As a result, Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective and the Minnesota Class were willfully not properly paid overtime compensation for their overtime hours worked as required by the FLSA, and overtime and all non-overtime hours promptly as required by the MPWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a Respiratory Therapist at the HealthPartners Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota from 1997 to September 2024. HealthPartners is an integrated nonprofit healthcare system with 26,000 employees across 90+ hospitals and clinics, providing health care in Minnesota and western Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Ave. S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, Ohio 44136 Phone: (216) 912-2221 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com HEART & SOIL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bathersfield Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES BATHERSFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEART & SOIL SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01124-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Heart & Soil Supplements, LLC is a company that specializes in providing supplements made from animal products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Doller Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Doller securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On May 31, 2024, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Florida Middle District Court"), captioned Edward M. Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al. (No. 2:24-CV-00513). On September 30, 2024, an amended complaint was filed, following the Florida Middle District Court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. The amended complaint asserts claims against Hertz Global, former Company CEO, Stephen M. Scherr ("Defendant Scherr"), and former Company Chief Financial Officer, Alexandra Brooks, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including concerning statements regarding demand for EVs. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class, consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Global's securities between January 6, 2023 and April 24, 2024. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, together with interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Hertz Global filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 30, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the Florida Middle District Court stayed all proceedings, pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. On October 16, 2025, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part all claims except those based on two statements by Defendant Scherr in January and April of 2023. The Court directed the clerk to lift the stay. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., known as Hertz, is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida. The company operates its namesake Hertz brand, along with the brands Dollar Rent A Car, Firefly Car Rental and Thrifty Car Rental. HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Jiwani Data Breach Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Jiwani data breach class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. On April 15, 2025, Zain Jiwani filed a class action complaint against Cleo Communications U.S., LLC ("Cleo") and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division (Rockford, IL) (the "Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court"). Plaintiff alleges that Cleo, a file-transfer vendor for the Company, experienced a data breach event that may have impacted the personal information of certain individuals during the secure file transfer process from the Company's systems to third-party systems and that Company data may have been acquired by an unauthorized third party that exploited zero-day vulnerabilities within Cleo’s platform in October and December of 2024. Plaintiff alleges that the Company was negligent in failing to secure the data, breached implied contracts and was unjustly enriched. Ten similar class action complaints were filed against the Company shortly thereafter and eventually transferred to the same court, the Illinois Norther District, Western Division Court. The class actions generally seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The defendants' responses to the complaints have been stayed pending the Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court's entry of a global scheduling order. At this early stage of the litigation, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The Company has established reserves for matters where the Company believes that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Other than the aggregate reserve established for claims for self-insured liabilities and the bankruptcy-related litigation, none of those reserves are material. For matters where the Company has not established a reserve, the ultimate outcome or resolution cannot be predicted at this time, or the amount of ultimate loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. These matters are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of the individual litigated matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that certain of the actions, claims, inquiries or proceedings could be decided unfavorably to the Company or any of its subsidiaries involved. Accordingly, it is possible that an adverse outcome from such a proceeding could exceed the amount accrued in an amount that could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., known as Hertz, is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida. The company operates its namesake Hertz brand, along with the brands Dollar Rent A Car, Firefly Car Rental and Thrifty Car Rental. I.AM.GIA (US): Maxey TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Britney Maxey, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.AM.GIA (US) LLC, Case No. AFLSDC-19263453 was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-21330-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. I.Am.Gia -- https://iamgia.com/ -- is an Australian fashion clothing company founded in 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Zachary Paul Hyman, Esq. MILLENNIAL LAW 320 SE 11th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 271-2719 Email: zach@millenniallaw.com INDIVIOR INC: Continues to Defend Suboxone Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------ Indivior PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Suboxone class suits in the U.S. The Company has been named as a defendant in a large number of cases in the U.S., and proposed class actions in Quebec and British Columbia against various subsidiaries of the Company, among other defendants. These cases purport to represent a class of plaintiffs, which claim that SUBOXONE Film (and in Canada, both film and tablets) caused them to suffer dental cavities, tooth loss, or other damage to their teeth. The plaintiffs generally allege that the Company failed to properly warn physicians of the risk of dental injury, and further allege that SUBOXONE products were defectively designed. The plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Product liability cases such as these typically involve issues relating to medical causation, label warnings and reliance on those warnings, scientific evidence and findings, actual, provable injury and other matters. These cases are in their preliminary stages. Indivior also sells PERSERIS, which is an injection to treat schizophrenia in U.S. adults. In 2023, PERSERIS sales generated net revenue of $42 million.[BN] INDIVIOR PLC: Continues to Defend Dental MDL in B.C. & Quebec ------------------------------------------------------------- Indivior PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Dental MDL in Quebec and the British Columbia. Proposed class actions based on similar allegations as in the Dental MDL, but also relating to SUBOXONE Tablets, were filed in Quebec and British Columbia against various subsidiaries of the Company, among other defendants, in April 2024. The Company has begun its evaluation of the claims, believes it has meritorious defenses, and intends to vigorously defend itself. Given the status and preliminary stage of the litigation, no estimate of possible loss can be made at this time. Indivior also sells PERSERIS, which is an injection to treat schizophrenia in U.S. adults. In 2023, PERSERIS sales generated net revenue of $42 million.[BN] INSIGHT THERAPY: Abdullah Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- XAVIER ABDULLAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSIGHT THERAPY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00487 (D. Nev., Feb. 23, 2026) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in unlawful use of third-party tracking technologies, by data brokers such as Google LLC, to surreptitiously intercept and disclose its patients' and prospective patients' highly sensitive protected health information and personally identifiable information to third parties without patients' consent. The Defendant collected and transmitted personally identifiable, sensitive health information pertaining to Plaintiff and other prospective patients including, but not limited to, information related to the Mental Health Quiz ("Sensitive Health Information") to unauthorized third parties, including Google, through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools, says the suit. Insight Therapy Solutions is a US-based teletherapy and mental health services provider offering online counseling for anxiety, depression, trauma, and relationship issues. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Kind, Esq. KIND LAW 5071 N. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 110 Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 Telephone: (702) 337-2322 Facsimile: (702) 329-5881 Email: mk@kindlaw.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Cooper Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Case No. 2:26-cv-02207-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. During the relevant time period(s), the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members for the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, the Defendant employed (and continues to employ) an improper and non-neutral time rounding policy that, over time, failed (and continues to fail) to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members for all the time they have actually worked--including overtime hours. Additionally, the Defendant paid non-discretionary bonuses—production bonuses--to Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members, but failed to include these non-discretionary bonuses in Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members' regular rates of pay for purposes of calculating their correct rate of overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by International Paper as an Assistant Kamyr Operator and K1-K2 Outside Operator from approximately May 2021 until October 2025. International Paper is a paper products manufacturer, operating across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES 2901 Dobbs Avenue Nashville, TN 37211 Phone: (615) 250-2000 Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and – Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com INTOUCHCX US INC: Lothringer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Heidi Lothringer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTOUCHCX US INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01402-SPL (D. Ariz., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages arising from Defendant's failure to pay non-exempt call center agents for all hours worked, including required pre-shift login time, post-shift shutdown time, break-period re-login work, and employer-controlled waiting time during technical outages. The Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt call center agents for this compensable time, including time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant further failed to pay all earned wages upon separation of employment, entitling Plaintiff and other call center agents to waiting time penalties under Nevada law., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly call center agent. The Defendant operates a nationwide customer service outsourcing business and employs call center agents who handle inbound calls for corporate clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com IQ DATA: Bid to Stay Case Pending IQ Data's Ruling Petition OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH NELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons defined herein, v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-12710-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge F. Kay Behm entered an order granting unopposed motion to stay pending ruling on IQ Data's rule 23(f) petition for permission to appeal order granting class certification. IQ Data is a debt collector specializing in multi-family residential properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RuS6qb at no extra charge.[CC] JODY CRUZ: Progenesis Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Progenesis, Inc., Movant v. Jody Cruz, Michelle Robichaux, Brett Plowfield, Alexis Vastardis, Anna Rinaldi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, Case No. 3:24-cv-01789 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on Feb. 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-mc-00002 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Quash Subpoena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Lee Hytken, Esq. QUILLING SELANDER LOWNDS WINSLETT MOSER 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2400 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 871-2100 Email: rhytken@qslwm.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Appeals Judgment Order to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Sherman Act by unlawfully delaying the introduction of biosimilar competition for Ustekinumab, a human immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that treats a range of life-threatening autoimmune diseases, including Crohn's disease, plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, and ulcerative colitis, all conditions linked to the IL-12/IL-23 pathway, onto the U.S. market. On Feb. 9, 2026, the Defendants filed a joint motion for entry of final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which Judge Jamar K. Walker granted on Feb. 10, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 26-1248, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 5, 2026. [BN] JPMORGAN CHASE: Removes Vargas-Lopez Suit to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of ROGELIO VARGAS-LOPEZ, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; TONNIKA THOMPSON; TERRY MARTINEZ; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 25STCV38009) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 26, 2026. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02099. The case is assigned to Judge Percy Anderson. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association operates as a private bank. The Bank offers personal and business banking, real estate lending, wealth planning, brokerage, and capital financing solutions with investment advisory services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Alexander L. Grodan, Esq. Kalena Tano, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Telephone: (714) 830-0600 Facsimile: (714) 830-0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com kalena.tano@morganlewis.com JUSTANSWER LLC: Larson Suit Transferred to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Linda Larson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JustAnswer LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10174 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01679-JD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. JustAnswer LLC -- https://www.justanswer.com/ -- provides internet media solutions. The Company offers question and answer platform that connects people to real qualified experts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6057 Metropolitan Plz. Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: (314) 662-2836 Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Marshall M. Searcy, III, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP 865 South Figueroa Street 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 443-3000 Fax: (213) 443-3100 Email: marshallsearcy@quinnemanuel.com JUSTWORKS EMPLOYMENT: Faces Keim Suit Over ERISA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN KEIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUSTWORKS EMPLOYMENT GROUP LLC; and JUSTWORKS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02209 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 26, 2026) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, instead of using the Plan's bargaining power to reduce expenses and exercising independent judgment to determine what investments to include in the Plan, the Defendants squandered that leverage by allowing the Plan's conflicted third-party service providers to dictate the Plan's investment lineup, to include hundreds of their proprietary mutual funds in the Plan, to link their recordkeeping services to the placement of those funds in the Plan, and to collect nearly unlimited asset-based compensation from their proprietary products. The Plan's fiduciaries, including Justworks and its appointed agents, breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by charging unreasonable and excessive administrative and recordkeeping fees to the Plan, which resulted in a loss of assets for the Plan and its participants. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plan participants, including Plaintiff, paid excessive fees, suffered diminished retirement savings, and were deprived of the benefits of prudent and loyal fiduciary management of their retirement funds, says the suit. Justworks Employment Group LLC operates as a human resource technology company. The Company offers human resource and payments platform for automated payments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Domenica M. Russo, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4827 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com drusso@peifferwolf.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 Email: don@donbivens.com KLAYMAN & TOSKES: Court Strikes Castillo Class Allegations ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNETTE CASTILLO, et al., v. KLAYMAN & TOSKES, P.A., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01427-CVR (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge Camille L. Velez-Rive entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' "Omnibus Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Dismiss Amended Complaint;" and -- dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court reaches the same result as Magistrate Judge Ramos-Vega, but via a different route. Simply put, unjust enrichment is not available to the Plaintiffs. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Ramos-Vega that this claim is really a pre contractual dolo claim and not a breach of contract claim. Both the Amended Complaint, as well as the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, discuss at great length different legal elements such as pre- and post-contractual dolo and fraud, and how the Defendants fraudulently hoodwinked the Plaintiffs into signing the retainer agreements. The Plaintiffs fail to point out which provisions of the retainer agreement were allegedly breached. Given that a dolo claim carries a four-year statute of limitations term, this claim is also time-barred. The present case arises from financial losses incurred by different investors for bonds managed by UBS Financial Services during the bond market collapse that occurred in Puerto Rico in 2013. The Plaintiffs allege in the Amended Complaint that Defendants, a law firm and its attorneys, defrauded the Plaintiffs by having them pay legal fees to represent them in their claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"), even though they were not authorized to practice law in Puerto Rico. The Plaintiffs are some of those investors who, because of those losses, sought legal help in attempting to recoup them. KlaymanToskes is a national securities law firm. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YyF00u at no extra charge.[CC] KNOX PIZZA CO: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnnie Jones, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. KNOX PIZZA CO., LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00050 (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 26, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to themself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendant at their pizza delivery stores. The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages – unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages). The Defendant has reimbursed delivery drivers less than the reasonably approximate amount of their automobile expenses to such an extent that it diminishes these employees' wages beneath the federal minimum wage. The Defendant knew or should have known that their pay and reimbursement policies, practices and methodology result in failure to compensate delivery drivers at the federal minimum wage. The Defendant, pursuant to their policy and practice, violated the FLSA by refusing and failing to pay federal minimum wage to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated delivery drivers are victims of a uniform and employer-based compensation and reimbursement policy. This uniform policy, in violation of the FLSA, has been applied, and continues to be applied, to all delivery driver employees in Defendant's stores, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a delivery driver. The Defendant owns and operates several Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com KROGER CO: Bid to Dismiss Iceberg's Amended Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT FRANCIS ICEBERG, v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:25-cv-02342-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robart entered an order denying Kroger's motion to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Scott Francis Iceberg's amended complaint. Thus, the court concludes that Mr. Iceberg's amended complaint is sufficient to place Kroger on notice of the alleged misconduct that gives rise to his CPA claim. The court has reviewed Kroger's remaining arguments and finds them similarly unpersuasive. The court denies Kroger's motion to dismiss Mr. Iceberg's CPA claim. Mr. Iceberg alleges that (1) Kroger engaged in deceptive conduct in trade or commerce by marketing its Bars as having "No Preservatives" when in fact they contain the preservative citric acid; (2) Kroger's conduct affects the public interest because the misleading labels have the capacity to deceive consumers about the quality of the Bars; and (3) he lost money because he would not have purchased or overpaid for the Bars had he known that the Bars contain citric acid. Kroger perates supermarkets and multi-department stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1nbe5k at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Carter Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Kirsten Carter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO. d/b/a KROGER, Case No. 1:26-cv-00212-JPH (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 27, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay its e-Commerce Managers, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in one or more workweeks because the Defendant classified them as exempt from overtime. The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated e-Commerce Managers were required to work more than 40 hours in a workweek while employed by Defendant in order to complete their job duties. However, in accordance with Defendant's policy, pattern, and/or practice, they were misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation and were not paid at the mandated rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an e-Commerce Manager at several Kroger stores in Tennessee Between December 2020 and January 2025. Kroger is one of the world's largest retailers, operating 2,731 supermarkets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Meizlish, Esq. MEIZLISH & GRAYSON 119 East Court Street, Suite 307 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 345-4700 Facsimile: (513) 345-4703 Email: brucelaw@fuse.net - and - Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 278-4782 Fax: (215) 278-4807 Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com - and – Daniel Levin, Esq. Zanetta Moore-Driggers, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com zmooredriggers@lfsblaw.com KROGER CO: Monroe Sues to Recover Overtime Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Maximus Monroe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 1:26-cv-00197-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 25, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed by Kroger. During his employment as an e-commerce manager, Plaintiff often typically worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, typically approximately 50 to 60 hours per week on average. During the weeks that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours as an e-commerce manager, he was not paid additional compensation or overtime premiums. Kroger's e-commerce managers are expected to work more than 40 hours per week. Kroger's e-commerce managers often work more than 40 hours per week. Kroger has also failed to track the accurate hours worked by Plaintiff and other e commerce managers in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for The Kroger Co. in Ohio as an e-commerce manager from October 2021 to May 2025. The Kroger Co. operates grocery stores throughout the United States including in the state of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse Shore, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 Vine Street, Suite 1000 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (859) 899-8786 Facsimile: (859) 899-8807 Email: jshore@forthepeople.com - and - Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407-237-2281 Email: KimD@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407-418-2069 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: 954-327-5355 Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com KROGER CO: White Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for e-Commerce Managers ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., and FRED MEYER STORES, INC. d/b/a FRED MEYER, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00229-DRC (S.D. Ohio, March 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. White was employed by the Defendants as an e-Commerce Manager at a Kroger store in Shoreline, Washington between approximately October 2022 and September 2023. The Kroger Co. is an American retail corporation, with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., doing business as Fred Meyer, is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Kroger Co., with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Meizlish, Esq. MEIZLISH & GRAYSON 119 East Court Street, Suite 307 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-4700 Facsimile: (513) 345-4703 Email: brucelaw@fuse.net - and - Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 278-4782 Facsimile: (215) 278-4807 Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com - and - Daniel Levin, Esq. Zanetta Moore-Driggers, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com zmooredriggers@lfsblaw.com LA FUENTE LLC: Mueller Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- TARA NICOLE MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA FUENTE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00393-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind., Feb. 25, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.lafuente.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. La Fuente LLC sells variety of authentic Mexican and Southwestern home furnishings, including handcrafted rustic furniture, hand-painted Talavera pottery and tile, and unique Mexican folk art and home accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law LAKELAND INDUSTRIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Apr 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lakeland Industries, Inc. ("Lakeland" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LAKE) on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired Lakeland securities between December 1, 2023 and December 9, 2025 (the "Class Period"). If you are an investor in Lakeland and have suffered losses, you may visit https://www.kaplanfox.com/case/lakeland-industries-inc/?utm_source=NewMediaWire&utm_medium=Press+Release&utm_campaign=Lakeland+Industries&utm_id=Lakeland+Industries&utm_term=LAKE+NMW DEADLINE REMINDER: If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than April 24, 2026 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the purported class. If you have losses we encourage you to contact us to learn more about the lead plaintiff process. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. On December 9, 2025, after markets closed, Lakeland issued a press release entitled "Lakeland Fire + Safety Reports Fiscal Third Quarter 2026 Financial Results." The Company reported "net sales of $47.6 million for Q3 2026, with adjusted EBITDA, excluding FX, at $200,000 - a decrease of $4.5 million or 95% compared with the prior year period." Lakeland also disclosed it would be "withdrawing [] previously issued financial guidance for FY2026 and will not be providing financial guidance going forward." According to the complaint, "following the onset of tariff-related market uncertainties in 2025, Defendants consistently represented that the Company was well positioned to weather the tariff-related headwinds while continuing to pursue its SSQ M&A strategy." The complaint further alleges that "throughout the Class Period, notwithstanding tariff-related headwinds, Defendants made repeated assurances regarding their visibility into Lakeland's future performance in upcoming quarters, consistently expressing confidence in their financial guidance issued to investors." Following this news, the price of Lakeland stock declined from a closing price on December 9, 2025 of $15.01 to close at $9.16 per share on December 10, 2025, a decline of $5.85 per share, or by 38.97%. The complaint alleges, among other things, that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Defendants (i) Lakeland was experiencing significant, sustained issues with its Pacific Helmets and Jolly businesses, including, inter alia, shipping-related delays, production issues, and slower than expected rollout of new products; (ii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the anticipated and actual positive impact of these businesses on Lakeland's financial results, as well as the overall strength and quality of Pacific Helmets' and Jolly's respective operations; (iii) Lakeland's business and financial results were significantly deteriorating because of, inter alia, tariff-related headwinds and timing, certification delays, and material flow issues in its acquired businesses; (iv) accordingly, Defendants overstated the strength of their tariff mitigation measures and SSQ M&A strategy; (v) as a result of all the foregoing issues, Defendants' financial guidance was unreliable; and (vi) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHY CONTACT KAPLAN FOX -- Kaplan Fox is a leading national law firm focusing on complex litigation with offices in New York, Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey. With over 50 years of experience in securities litigation, Kaplan Fox offers the professional experience and track record that clients demand. Through prosecuting cases on the federal and state levels, Kaplan Fox has successfully shaped the law through winning many important decisions on behalf of our clients. For more information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, you may visit our website at www.kaplanfox.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. If you have any questions about this Notice, your rights, or your interests, please contact: CONTACT: Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 329-8571 E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (415) 772-4704 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com [GN] LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lantheus Holdings, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 9, 2025, an alleged stockholder initiated a putative securities class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled Margolis v. Lantheus Holdings, Inc., et al. The operative complaint also asserts claims against certain of its named executives. A related action, styled Indiana Pub. Ret. Sys. v. Lantheus Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the same court on November 5, 2025. Those actions are now consolidated into a single putative securities class action (captioned In re Lantheus Holdings, Inc. Secs. Litig.), the theory of which is that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements (or omitted material facts) in violation of the Exchange Act. Under the operative scheduling order in the case, the lead plaintiff may file an amended complaint by March 13, 2026. Lantheus Holdings, Inc. is a global company that develops, manufactures, sells, and distributes certain diagnostic and therapeutic products in three categories: Radiopharmaceutical Oncology, Precision Diagnostics, and Strategic Partnerships and Other Revenue.[BN] LAST MILE DSP: Jenkins Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Rayshawn Jenkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LAST MILE DSP LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company; AMAZON LOGISTICS INC., a foreign limited liability company and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-00530 (D. Nev., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought for unpaid wages and overtime, waiting time penalties, restitution/unjust enrichment, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest arising from Defendants' common policies and practices that failed to pay delivery drivers for all hours worked and all overtime due, including through one-way rounding, automatic meal period deductions despite on-duty work, denial of rest periods, and manipulation of time records. The Defendant failed to pay one and one-half times the regular rate for all hours over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked 60 hours in the workweek of 1/7–1/13/2024 but was paid for only 40 hours (no overtime). The Defendants' violations were willful. Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective seek unpaid overtime, an equal amount as liquidated damages, fees, costs, and interest. The Plaintiff was a driver for Last Mile DSP, an Amazon Delivery Service Partner (DSP) operating in Nevada. Last Mile is a Delivery Service Partner of Amazon Logistics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Mariner, Esq. Jason Kuller, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 Phone: 725.245.6056 Fax: 725.220.1802 Email: rachel@rafiilaw.com jason@rafiilaw.com LEGENDARY HOLDINGS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Legendary Holdings, LLC d/b/a Legendary Whitetails, Case No. 0:26-cv-01625 (D. Minn., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.legendarywhitetails.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers sports apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, hoodies, sweatshirts, t-shirts, tops, pants, shorts, jackets, bags, backpacks, shoes, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com LONDONTOWN INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Londontown Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01749-PJS-DLM (D. Minn., March 5, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.londontownusa.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota, damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to the Minnesota Statutes. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Londontown Inc. is a New York Company that offers nail and beauty care supplies for sale including nail polish, base coats, pedicure supplies, gel supplies, lotion, body wash, beauty tools, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MANUCURIST INC: Tesch Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Tesch, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Manucurist Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00252 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through its Website https://us.manucurist.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a broad range of nail care products, including gel polish kits, treatment formulations, nail preparation and aftercare items, nail art materials, and related accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maravai LifeSciences Holdings, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated stockholder derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On each of June 20, 2025, and July 16, 2025, separate purported stockholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for the benefit of the Company as the nominal defendant, captioned Mercer v. Martin, et al. and Husurianto v. Martin, et al., respectively (the "Derivative Actions"). The plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by certain past and present officers and directors of the Company. The Derivative Actions seek, among other things, corporate governance reforms, restitution to be paid to the Company, and attorneys’ fees. The court consolidated and stayed the Derivative Actions until 14 days after a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. Following the dismissal of the Securities Class Action, the stay was lifted. The Company intends to seek dismissal of the Derivative Actions. The Company cannot reasonably estimate any potential loss or range of loss that may arise from the Derivative Actions given the early stages of the case. Maravai is a life sciences company which provides products to enable the development of drug therapies, diagnostics, novel vaccines, and support research on human diseases worldwide.[BN] MARTHA'S COUNTRY: Court OKs Settlement in "Rosario" --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ANTONIO ORTIZ ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 41-06 BELL BLVD. BAKERY, LLC d/b/a MARTHA'S COUNTRY BAKERY, and GEORGIOS STERTSIOS, NICHOLAS ZANNIKOS, and IRENE ZANNIKOS, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24 Civ. 06644 (VMS) (E.D.N.Y.), Chief United States Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the parties' joint motion for settlement approval and Plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Plaintiff commenced this action asserting claims for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law; unpaid spread-of-hours compensation under the New York Labor Law; and violation of the wage-statement and wage-notice provisions of the New York Labor Law. Following a referral to Court-annexed mediation, the parties reached a settlement in principle on May 9, 2025. The Settlement Agreement provided that, in exchange for Plaintiff releasing his wage-and-hour claims, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff a total of $110,000 in installments -- an initial payment of $55,000 within thirty days of execution and Court approval, followed by twelve monthly payments totaling $55,000. Defendants also agreed to execute confessions of judgment in the amount of $165,000, to be held in escrow pending Plaintiff's receipt of full payment. At the fairness hearing held on July 23, 2025, the Court identified minor calculation errors and found that a provision limiting Plaintiff from encouraging others to assert claims against Defendants was problematic under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. Defendants' counsel agreed to correct the calculation errors and to strike the offending provision, stating it was not a deal breaker. Despite multiple extensions granted by the Court, Defendants failed to file fully executed copies of the Settlement Agreement and Confessions of Judgment. On September 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce. During a subsequent conference, Defendants' counsel confirmed that Defendants did not have any issues with the settlement but were fighting amongst themselves over who was responsible for what payment, and that Defendants had sufficient funds to pay the settlement amount. Defendants thereafter filed their opposition to the motion to enforce. The Court applied the four Winston factors to determine whether the parties intended to be bound in the absence of a signed writing. On the first factor -- whether Defendants expressly reserved the right not to be bound absent a writing -- the Court found that Defendants' contention starkly contrasted with their numerous prior representations to the Court. Defendants' counsel repeatedly told the Court that Defendants would sign the documents and requested brief extensions of time to do so. Before filing the opposition, counsel never argued that Defendants were not bound by the Settlement Agreement or that the parties had not reached an agreement. On the second factor -- partial performance -- the Court found that the parties did not engage in active litigation following the Court-annexed mediation, jointly filed the motion for approval including the Settlement Agreement and Confessions of Judgment, and allowed the ADR Department's report of the settlement to stand on the docket for more than five months before Defendants stated for the first time that they did not intend to be bound to the parties’ agreement as memorialized in the Settlement Agreement. On the third factor -- agreement to all terms -- the Court found that Defendants did not contend that any material term was open, and the parties submitted the Settlement Agreement unsigned because they were still in the process of obtaining all party signatures, not because any material term remained in dispute. On the fourth factor -- whether the type of contract is usually committed to writing -- the Court found that because settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require judicial approval, they are typically committed to writing, and because the parties' agreement was memorialized when submitted with the motion for approval, this factor favored finding a binding agreement. Accordingly, the Court found that all four Winston factors weighed in favor of a binding agreement. The Settlement Agreement was deemed signed by Defendants as of March 6, 2026, incorporating Plaintiff's updated calculations and striking the final sentence of paragraph 3(a). The Confessions of Judgment were also deemed signed by Defendants as of that date. The Court approved the parties' settlement as fair and reasonable pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., finding that Plaintiff's recovery of over half of the best-case scenario for his claims was better than most people do in these cases, and that the Confession of Judgment provided reasonable assurance that the settlement amount would be paid. The Court retained jurisdiction over enforcement of the agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RllTJB from PacerMonitor.com Defendant 41-06 Bell Blvd. Bakery LLC Represented By Vincent Mantella Avery Coffey Modica O'Meara Capowski, LLP 212-827-4501 vavery@cmocllp.com Defendant Georgios Stertsios Represented By Vincent Mantella Avery Coffey Modica O'Meara Capowski, LLP 212-827-4501 vavery@cmocllp.com Defendant Irene Zannikos Represented By Vincent Mantella Avery Coffey Modica O'Meara Capowski, LLP 212-827-4501 vavery@cmocllp.com Defendant Nicholas Zannikos Represented By Vincent Mantella Avery Coffey Modica O'Meara Capowski, LLP 212-827-4501 vavery@cmocllp.com Plaintiff Antonio Ortiz Rosario Represented By Katelyn Marie Schillaci Helen F. Dalton & Associates 718-263-9591 katelyn@helendalton.com Roman M. Avshalumov Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. 718-263-9591 avshalumovr@yahoo.com James Patrick Peter O'Donnell 718-263-9591 jamespodonnell86@gmail.com MATTERLY LLC: Anderson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Matterly, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2510 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://mymatterly.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Anderson's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Anderson has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On November 3, 2025, while browsing the internet using her screen reader and searching for doormats, she visited the Defendant's Website, Mymatterly.com. Positive reviews highlighting the quality and variety of the products further encouraged her to explore the Website. She decided to browse the available products and attempted to make a purchase. While navigating the Website using her screen reader and keyboard, Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Anderson, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States, says the suit. Anderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Lisa Anderson is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Matterly, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of doormats and floor coverings, including outdoor and indoor options, waterhog styles, accent pieces, comfort designs, and entryway coverings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Fed. Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Medical Properties Trust, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 29, 2023, the Company and certain of its executives were named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv- 08597). The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of its common stock between May 23, 2023 and August 17, 2023 and alleges false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in connection with certain transactions involving Prospect. This class action complaint was amended on October 30, 2024 and alleges that it made material misstatements or omissions in connection with certain transactions involving Prospect. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 14, 2025. That motion has been fully briefed and is currently pending before the Court. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intend to defend the remaining open cases vigorously. It has not recorded a liability related to the lawsuits above because, at this time, it is unable to determine whether an unfavorable outcome is probable or to estimate reasonably possible losses. Medical Properties is a real estate investment trust that invests in healthcare facilities subject to NNN lease. MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Maryland Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Properties Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that Company continues to defend itself from a shareholder derivative lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On February 21, 2024, members of the Company's Board of Directors were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Case No. 1:24-cv-00527). The Company was named as a nominal defendant. This shareholder derivative complaint makes allegations similar to those made in the New York securities and derivative lawsuits relating to purported false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in connection with certain transactions involving Prospect. This action has been stayed pending further developments in the New York securities action. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intend to defend the remaining open cases vigorously. It has not recorded a liability related to the lawsuits above because, at this time, it is unable to determine whether an unfavorable outcome is probable or to estimate reasonably possible losses. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. -- https://www.mpt.com/ -- is a self-advised real estate investment trust formed in 2003 to acquire and develop net-leased hospital facilities. MEDICAL PROPERTIES: New York Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Properties Trust, Inc.disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that Company continues to defend itself from shareholder derivative lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The two cases have been consolidated and stayed pending further developments in the New York securities lawsuit. Members of the Company's Board of Directors were also named as defendants in two related shareholder derivative lawsuits filed by purported stockholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 18, 2023 (Case No. 1:23-cv-10934) and March 1, 2024 (Case No. 1:24-cv-01589). The Company was named as a nominal defendant in both complaints. These shareholder derivative complaints both make allegations similar to those made in the New York securities lawsuit relating to purported false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in connection with certain transactions involving Prospect. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intend to defend the remaining open cases vigorously. It has not recorded a liability related to the lawsuits above because, at this time, it is unable to determine whether an unfavorable outcome is probable or to estimate reasonably possible losses. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. -- https://www.mpt.com/ -- is a self-advised real estate investment trust formed in 2003 to acquire and develop net-leased hospital facilities. MERCADIEN PC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Palmeri Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT PALMERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCADIEN, P.C., CPAS, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01822 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members that Defendant collected, stored, and maintained within its information network. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to safeguard the PII entrusted to its care; failing to detect, prevent, and timely disclose the Data Breach; and failing to adhere to applicable, required, and industry-standard protocols governing the collection, storage, encryption, and protection of sensitive personal data. As a result of the Data Breach, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was accessed and exfiltrated by unauthorized third parties who seek to profit from that information by committing identity theft, financial fraud, tax fraud, and other crimes against Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. Mercadien, PC Certified Public Accountants. operates as an audit firm. The Firm provides accounting, bookkeeping, business and financial consulting. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. FURIA LAW LLC 880 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 830-1915 Email: furiap@furiafirm.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com META PLATFORMS: Bid for Class Certification in E.H. Due August 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- META PLATFORMS: Bid for Class Certification in E.H. Due Aug. 28 In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.H. and C.S., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04784-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order as follows: Event Deadline Completion of fact discovery: Aug. 10, 2026 Motion for class certification and Aug. 28, 2026 the Plaintiffs' class expert reports: Opposition to class certification and Nov. 5, 2026 Meta's class expert rebuttal reports: Reply in support of class certification Jan. 18, 2027 and the Plaintiffs' class expert reply reports: Hearing on class certification: Feb. 3, 2027 Close of expert discovery: May 20, 2027 Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2iXxvA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Previn Warren, Esq. Abigail Burman, Esq. Mathew Jasinski, Esq. Lance Oliver, Esq. Max Gruetzmacher, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 401 9th Street NW Suite 630 Washington DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 386-9610 E-mail: pwarren@motleyrice.com aburman@motleyrice.com mjasinski@motleyrice.com loliver@motleyrice.com mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com - and - Elizabeth Kramer, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 44 Tehama St. San Francisco, CA 94105 E-mail: elizabeth@eko.law The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com MID AMERICA: Spaci Appeals Class Settlement Order to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZEF SPACI, non-party objector, is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled James Filardi, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mid America Pet Food LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-11170, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its pet food products throughout the state of New York. On Dec. 16, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees, expense reimbursement, and service awards. On Jan. 26, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Feb. 6, 2026, Judge Nelson Stephen Roman entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and their motion to certify class. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court determines that the following Settlement Class be certified: "All persons and entities residing in the United States who purchased one or more of the Mid America Pet Food Products. Specifically excluded are the following: (a) persons or entities whose claims are solely based upon the purchase of Mid America Pet Food Products for resale; (b) corporate officers, members of the board of directors, and senior management of Defendant; (iii) persons or entities who otherwise meet the definition of Settlement Class Members, but who previously contacted the Defendant prior to and during the pendency of this litigation, signed a release and in exchange received financial compensation from the Defendant; (d) any and all judges and justices assigned to hear or adjudicate any aspect of this action; (v) any members of the Settlement Class that opt out prior to the opt out deadline; (f) any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, and their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns and successors; and (g) Class Counsel. The proposed Settlement creates a $5,500,000 Settlement Fund from which Settlement Class Members may submit Pet Injury Claims and/or Food Purchase Claims. The appellate case is styled as Filardi v. Mid America Pet Food LLC, Case No. 26-508, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES FILARDI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 - and - Michael Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West, 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Defendant-Appellee MID AMERICA PET FOOD LLC is represented by: Jordan David Weiss, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTOR, LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Non-Party Objector-Appellant ZEF SPACI appears pro se. MIHANA JAPANESE INC: Liu Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mihana Japanese Inc., et al. The case is styled as Weiyu Liu also known as: Tim, Jennifer Lin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Mihana Japanese Inc., Mickey You, Case No. 1:26-cv-01590 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mihana is a renowned Japanese bistro and bar located in Woodbury and Commack, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 Email: maimon@jk-llp.com MINIATURE MARKET: See Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Miniature Market, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00378-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind., Feb. 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.miniaturemarket.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Miniature Market, LLC retails gaming products. The Company offers board, table top, collectible card, magic, and role playing games, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law MISE LLC: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MISE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01597 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.misefootwear.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MOELIS & CO: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------- Moelis & Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated stockholder class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On May 17, 2024, two putative stockholders of Archer Aviation, Inc. (and formerly, Atlas Crest Investment Corp. filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the directors and officers of Atlas Crest, the sponsor, Atlas Crest Investment LLC, Archer, the Archer co-founders, Moelis & Company Group LP and Moelis & Company LLC (the "Defendants"). The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment, in connection with the merger between Atlas Crest and Archer, including claims against the foregoing Moelis entities for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs request damages in an amount to be determined at trial, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees. Relatedly, on June 19, 2024, another putative stockholder of Archer filed a class action lawsuit (the "Wortman Complaint"), on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery asserting similar claims as the Singh Complaint against the same Defendants. On July 23, 2024, the Court entered an order consolidating the Singh and Wortman actions, designating the Singh Complaint as the operative complaint (the "Complaint"), and appointing the three putative stockholders as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On October 3, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, and on January 13, 2025, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their answering brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss. Defendants' reply briefs were due on February 28, 2025. The Court scheduled oral argument on the motions to dismiss for April 17, 2025. On July 21, 2025, the Court issued a telephonic bench ruling, granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court allowed the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims to proceed as to the directors and officers of Atlas Crest (with the exception of one director who was dismissed) and the sponsor, but narrowed the scope of the surviving claims as to all remaining Defendants. The Court also dismissed the aiding and abetting and unjust enrichment claims against the foregoing Moelis entities, Archer and the Archer co-founders. Moelis & Company is a global independent investment bank providing confidential, unconflicted, strategic advice to clients across a wide variety of industries. MONSANTO COMPANY: Barry Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Barry, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-004 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 1, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Crews Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Crews, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-006 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 1, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Cuprak Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Cuprak on behalf of the estate of Raynette Cuprak, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-02-653 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Feb. 28, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Thomas Cuprak is a natural person and is the Representative of Raynette Cuprak, deceased, who developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Haney Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Haney, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-002 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 1, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Kahlden Sues Over Wrongful Advertising & Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- David Kahlden, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-007 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 1, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Stivason Sues Over Wrongful Advertising & Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charity Stivason, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-003 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 1, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MT 181 WAVERLY: Walcott Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Servers ----------------------------------------------------------------- GIA WALCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MT 181 WAVERLY LLC d/b/a MOODY TONGUE SUSHI RESTAURANT, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01815 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act including misappropriation of tips, unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Walcott worked as a server at Moody Tongue Sushi Restaurant from approximately January 27, 2025, through September 4, 2025. MT 181 Waverly LLC, doing business as Moody Tongue Sushi Restaurant, is a restaurant owner and operator in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Camille A. Sanchez, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17t Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com sanchez@pechmanlaw.com NATORI COMPANY INC: Bennett Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Malika Bennett, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Natori Company, Inc., Case No. 26-00002-03270-0 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00689 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Natori Company -- https://www.natori.com/ -- is a women's fashion designer and manufacturer founded by Josie Natori and based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Meegan Brooks, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 318-2770 Email: brooksm@ballardspahr.com NBT BANCORP: Richey Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richey, et al., v. NBT Bancorp Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00362-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension of the deadline for their motion for class certification, which is March 2, 2026, which will not impact any other deadlines in the current schedule, including the April 6th fact discovery deadline and the May 11th dispositive motion deadline. The Plaintiffs request an extension of 30 days to April 1, 2026. Due to the delay in sending the notice of the collective action, which the Plaintiffs explained in undersigned counsel's Dec. 19, 2025, letter, this Court granted the Plaintiffs' prior request for an extension to the expert deadlines. The Plaintiffs seek the extension of the class certification deadline so that the Plaintiffs may use the expert report to support the Plaintiffs' arguments regarding predominance and superiority requirements for Rule 23 class certification. The Plaintiffs also seek the extension so that they may first depose the Defendant's corporate designees, which will take place this March. The Plaintiff submits that the delay in the notice's distribution, which delayed the expert discovery provides extraordinary cause for the requested extension. The Defendant is a financial holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D6qqt9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com NCR VOYIX: Compensation Class Suit Remanded to District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- NCR Voyix 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 26, 2026, that the appellate court remanded the compensation retirement class suit back to the district court. In November 2015, several participants and beneficiaries in five "nonqualified" deferred compensation retirement plans sponsored by the Company (collectively, the "Plans") filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and other named defendants. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Company breached the terms of the Plan agreements when, upon termination of the Plans, the Company paid lump sum payments based on mortality tables and actuarial calculations. In September 2017, the court certified a class. On February 6, 2024, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Company breached the terms of the Plans when it paid the lump sums in lieu of actuarially equivalent replacement life annuities and ordered that the Company provide class members the amount reflecting the difference between the lump sums they received and the cost of the replacement life annuities. The court further ordered the parties to brief as to what the appropriate relief should have been based on the benefits due to each Plan participant (the "Requested Relief Order"). On April 16, 2024, the Company filed its position on the Requested Relief Order. On June 10, 2024, the Court ruled against the Company's position to the Requested Relief Order, entered a final judgment against the Company, and ordered the Company to calculate the "benefits due" to the Plan participants, including pre-judgment interest, based on the sum that would have been sufficient to allow each participant to purchase a replacement annuity using discount rates prescribed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in effect as of the February 25, 2013 termination date. On July 2, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal and a $45 million supersedeas bond to stay execution pending appeal. The appellate court heard oral arguments on August 12, 2025, and on August 26, 2025, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the district court. The Company's petition for rehearing en banc was denied. In February 2026, the matter was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings to finalize the amount owed to plaintiffs. Any award issued following remand to the district court is subject to an indemnity obligation by NCR Atleos to contribute 50% of any award. The Company also intends to seek reimbursement of any final award from its insurance carriers to the extent of its coverage under applicable fiduciary liability insurance policies. As of December 31, 2025, the Company has recorded an accrual of $45 million, as well as a receivable from NCR Atleos for $22 million, in connection with this matter. NCR Voyix Corporation (NYSE: VYX) operates as a software, services and hardware enterprise solutions provider, with products targeted at the banking, restaurant and hospitality sectors. Its offerings include software, hardware and payment solutions for retail and hospitality customers and digital banking solutions for financial institutions. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: BCERS Seeks Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-04175-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. Co-Lead Plaintiffs Akademikernes Pensionskasse and Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Annuity, Pension and Topping Out Funds submit memorandum of law in support of their motion for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), seeking: (i) certification of a proposed class ("Class") of: "all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Norfolk Southern Corporation ("Norfolk") common stock from Oct. 28, 2020, through March 3, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"); (ii) appointment of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) approval of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP ("KTMC") and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("RGRD," and together, "Lead Counsel") as Class Counsel, and Caplan Cobb LLC and Herman Jones LLP as Co-Liaison Counsel for the Class. The action arises from Defendants' materially false or misleading statements and omissions and fraudulent scheme that misrepresented the purported safety of Norfolk's operations while Defendants implemented their version of the cost-cutting strategy known as Precision Scheduled Railroading ("PSR"). Norfolk is a publicly traded rail transportation company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5KLuvQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Davis, Esq. Ashley M. Price, Esq. Peter Ko, Esq. Mark Conover, Esq. Jack Abbey Gephart, Esq. Evelyn Sanchez Gonzalez, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: jdavis@rgrdlaw.com aprice@rgrdlaw.com pko@rgrdlaw.com mconover@rgrdlaw.com jgephart@rgrdlaw.com egonzalez@rgrdlaw.com - and - John C. Herman, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-6500 Facsimile: (404) 504-6501 E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com - and - Joseph F. Murray, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murray@mmmb.com - and - Nathan A. Hasiuk, Esq. Daniel A. Friedman, Esq. Vanessa M. Milan, Esq. Alec S. Garber, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: nhasiuk@ktmc.com dfriedman@ktmc.com vmilan@ktmc.com agarber@ktmc.com - and - Michael A. Caplan, Esq. Cameron b. Roberts, Esq. Annie Boring, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLC 75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 596-5600 Facsimile: (404) 596-5604 E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com croberts@caplancobb.com aboring@caplancobb.com NOVO NORDISK: Delays Market Competition for Victoza, Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION RETIRED OFFICERS FAMILY PROTECTION PLAN, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVO NORDISK INC. and NOVO NORDISK A/S, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01300 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for monopolization, unfair or deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, and violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal scheme to delay competition in the United States and its territories for Victoza, a prescription medication containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient liraglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks overcharge damages arising from (a) Novo's unlawful agreement with Teva not to compete in the market for Victoza in the domestic Victoza market, and (b) Novo's wrongful listing of certain patents in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA's) list of Approved Drug Products and Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations. Had manufacturers of generic Victoza entered the market and lawfully competed with Novo earlier, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class would have substituted lower-priced generic liraglutide products for the higher-priced brand-name Victoza for some or all of their liraglutide products requirements, and/or would have paid lower net prices on their remaining Victoza and/or AB-rated bioequivalent purchases. Uniformed Fire Officers Association Retired Officers Family Protection Plan is a health and welfare benefit plan headquartered in New York. Novo Nordisk Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Novo Nordisk A/S is a pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Denmark. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg Linkh, Esq. Brian D. Brooks, Esq. Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: Glinkh@glancylaw.com bbrooks@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com NUSCALE POWER: Continues to Defend Truesdson Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ NuScale Power 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Truesdson securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. A shareholder lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, against the Company, John Hopkins, Ramsey Hamady and Fluor Corporation. The lawsuit, Truesdson v. NuScale Power Corporation, et al. (Case No. 26-328, filed February 18, 2026), asserts claims under federal securities laws that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts, relating to ENTRA1's experience, qualifications and capabilities as a developer of nuclear power plants, and further asserts that Fluor and the individual defendants are controlling persons within the meaning of federal securities laws. The plaintiff in the lawsuit seeks to represent a class of persons that purchased shares of the Company's Class A common stock between May 13, 2025, and November 6, 2025, and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief. The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the lawsuit, which could materially and adversely impact its business, financial condition or results of operations. NuScale is a developer of nuclear power technology focused on scalable, modular reactors.[BN] NUTEETH DENTAL IMPLANT: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NuTeeth Dental Implant Center. The case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NuTeeth Dental Implant Center, Case No. 4:26-cv-01663 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. NuTeeth Dental Implant Center -- https://nuteethimplantcenter.com/ -- is a trusted choice for high-quality dental implants in Richardson and nearby areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 x114 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com OAKLAND MANAGEMENT: Bush Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Barrina Bush, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OAKLAND MANAGEMENT CORP., a Michigan corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-10685-JJCG-APP (E.D. Mich., Feb. 26, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she and the Defendant's Hourly Employees earned commission pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's commission pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly employee from May 2025 to November 2025. The Defendant is "one of the country's leading providers of real estate development, construction, investment and property management services."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 746-4055 Email: pkennedy@sommerspc.com OXFORD GLOBAL RESOURCES: Percy Sues Over Data Broker Software ------------------------------------------------------------- Meghann Percy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OXFORD GLOBAL RESOURCES, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-02008 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought under the common law and California Penal Code and California's Trap and Trace Law against the Defendant's installation and use of data broker software, and code supplied by Twitter/X and LinkedIn, without obtaining consent or authorization therefore both before Plaintiff and visitors encountered a consent banner, and after they interacted with it, selecting to opt out of data-sharing. The Defendant uses data broker software on its website--http://oxfordcorp.com/(the "Website")--to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. In addition, Defendant and the Website utilize software owned by the social media platform-operating entities X Corp. (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn Corporation that operates in a substantially similar manner. Both Defendant and the third-party data collectors involved benefit commercially and financially from this surveillance. The surveillance and collected user data are used to target Website visitors for specific marketing, among other things. What's worse than the foregoing is that, after transmitting at least some identifying data to third parties, Defendant made the false promise to Plaintiff and to all visitors to the Website that it would honor their choice to stop such data sharing. The promise was false because even though Plaintiff, and other visitors, believed that upon opting out of data-sharing using the Website's consent banner their data would not be shared with third parties, the Website continued such data sharing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Website on November 4, 2025. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls the "Website and 3 California locations and provides staffing and business consulting services, and recruits individuals to fill positions at OGR's business clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Kiran Sekhon, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 927-9270 Email: eshapiro@taulersmith.com ksekhon@taulersmith.com OXFORD INDUSTRIES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oxford Industries, Inc. d/b/a Duckhead, Case No. 0:26-cv-01654-KMM-EMB (D. Minn., Feb. 26, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.duckhead.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers men's apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, sweaters, outerwear, hats, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com PACKAGING CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Artuso Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Packaging Corporation of America disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Artuso Pastry Foods Corp. class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On July 29, 2025, PCA and seven other U.S. and Canadian containerboard producers were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, Artuso Pastry Foods Corp v. Packaging Corporation of America, et al, No. 1:25-cv-08856, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to raise prices of containerboard and restrict containerboard capacity, and that the purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase prices of containerboard products during the period of November 1, 2020, to the present. The complaint was filed as a purported class action suit on behalf of all purchasers of containerboard products during such period. The complaint seeks treble damages and costs, including attorney’s fees. PCA believes the allegations are without merit and will defend this lawsuit vigorously. Packaging Corporation of America is an American manufacturing company based in Lake Forest, Illinois. The company has about 14,600 employees, with operations primarily in the United States.[BN] PARAGON METALS: Wonders Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Wonders, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PARAGON METALS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00667 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he and Defendant's Hourly Employees earned Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. The Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that did not include Defendant's Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from December 2024 to July 2025. The Defendant's services include, but are not limited to, machining, CNC turning, automation, engineering, and assembly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com PERRIGO COMPANY: Continues to Defend French Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the French securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 17, 2025, a purported securities class action complaint was filed against the Company and its current CEO, Patrick Lockwood-Taylor, CFO, Eduardo Bezerra, and former CEO, Murray Kessler, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Tanner French v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., filed 11/17/2025). The plaintiff, an individual shareholder, purports to represent a class of shareholders for the period from February 27, 2023 through November 4, 2025, inclusive. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 based on statements made by the Company and the current and former executives related to its infant formula business and the strategic review of the business announced in November 2025. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a process for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel representing that lead plaintiff. On January 16, 2026, Mr. French and three other alleged shareholders filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their selection of lead counsel. Mr. French and one other alleged shareholder withdrew their motions, and another alleged shareholder filed a response stating that it did not oppose the motion of the fourth alleged shareholder. On February 13, 2026, the Court appointed the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff and approved of Cohen Milstein serving as lead counsel for the proposed class. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Perrigo Company PLC is a provider of over-the-counter health and wellness solutions. It is headquartered in Ireland and markets around the world. PERRIGO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Phenylphrine Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Perrigo Company PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Phenylephrine class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In September 2023, the Federal Drug Administration's ("FDA") Advisory Committee on Nonprescription Drugs issued an advisory opinion calling into question the efficacy of orally administered phenylephrine ("PE") containing products as a nasal decongestant. While the FDA itself has thus far taken no action in response to the Advisory Committee opinion, several putative class action lawsuits were filed asserting various economic injury claims to consumers. These actions were consolidated into a MDL (In re: Oral Phenylephrine Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 3089), pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Court permitted Plaintiffs to file a streamlined and consolidated bellwether Complaint for purposes of testing the Plaintiffs' case and enabling briefing on threshold issues. Defendants filed a consolidated Motion to Dismiss and the Court heard oral argument on that motion in September 2024. On October 2024, the Court dismissed in its entirety Plaintiffs' Streamlined and Consolidated Bellwether Complaint, finding that all of Plaintiffs’ claims regarding PE were preempted by federal law, and further dismissing Plaintiffs' RICO claims for lack of standing. Final judgment has been entered and a Notice of Appeal of the Court's dismissal to the Second Circuit was filed. Appellate briefing is fully submitted, and oral argument is set for March 4, 2026. Individual arbitrations involving similar efficacy allegations have also been threatened or initiated against certain retailers in various arbitral forums and are at a preliminary stage. Some of the Company's retail customers are seeking indemnity and defense costs from the Company relating to these cases. Perrigo Company PLC is a provider of over-the-counter health and wellness solutions. It is headquartered in Ireland and markets around the world. PICNIC TIME: Mueller Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- TARA NICOLE MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PICNIC TIME, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00379-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.picnictime.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Picnic Time, Inc. operates as a lifestyle product company. The Company offers picnic baskets, coolers, blankets, wine, beer, cocktail, outdoor furniture, and beach accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law PLAZA ARTIST: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Debbie Pittman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Plaza Artist Materials Of The Mid-Atlantic, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02133 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through its Website https://www.plazaart.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of art supplies, including paints, brushes, canvases, drawing tools, specialty papers, crafting materials, and curated kits in a variety of mediums, styles, and skill levels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law POMDOCTOR LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Pomdoctor Limited ("Pomdoctor" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: POM) and reminds investors of the April 13, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) that PomDoctor was the subject of a fraudulent stock promotion scheme involving social media based misinformation and impersonated financial professionals; (2) that insiders and/or affiliates used offshore or nominee accounts to facilitate the coordinated dumping of shares during a price inflation campaign; (3) that PomDoctor's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the false rumors and artificial trading activity driving the stock price; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Pomdoctor experienced a significant decline in its share price between December 10 and December 11, 2025. The company's stock closed at approximately $0.50 per share on December 10, 2025, before falling to about $0.38 per share at the close of trading on December 11, 2025, representing a decline of roughly $0.12 per share, or approximately 24%, in a single trading session. The drop followed heightened volatility and selling pressure in the stock, amid broader investor concerns regarding Pomdoctor's financial performance and valuation. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Pomdoctor's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Pomdoctor class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/POM or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO: Robbins Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Sarah Robbins, for herself, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premium Brands Opco LLC doing business as: LOFT, Case No. 26-CUB-00051 was removed from the Kern County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01607-JLT-CDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Premium Brands Opco LLC is a private company that operates in the retail trade industry, specifically within the clothing and clothing accessories sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS, LUKACS & CORRINGTON (WA) 11711 SE 8th St, Ste 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: (425) 233-8628 Email: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephanie Anne Sheridan, Esq. Whitney R. Miner, Esq. Meegan Brooks, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 318-2770 Email: sheridans@ballardspahr.com wminer@beneschlaw.com brooksm@ballardspahr.com PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO: Sun Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premium Brands Opco LLC. The case is styled as Nary Sun, Floribel England, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premium Brands Opco LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01614-DLC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Premium Brands Opco LLC is a private company that operates in the retail trade industry, specifically within the clothing and clothing accessories sector.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal Jamison Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER - WALNUT CREEK 1990 North California Blvd., Ste. 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com PROGENESIS INC: Cruz Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progenesis, Inc. The case is styled as Jody Cruz, Michelle Robichaux, Brett Plowfield, Alexis Vastardis, Anna Rinaldi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progenesis, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01278 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 27, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Other Contract. Progenesis -- https://progenesis.com/ -- specializes in developing and offering genetic testing and counselors along with next generation sequencing in the IVF field.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. PTT LLC: Beckstrom Sues Over Illegal Gambling Platform ------------------------------------------------------ KYLE BECKSTROM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PTT, LLC; and HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00152 (D. Utah, Feb. 23, 2026) alleges violation of the Utah's Gambling Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, and receive significant revenue from the online "sweepstakes" casino available at www.high5casino.com and on various mobile apps, where they offer casino-style slots games to anyone willing to spend real money wagering on them (the "High5 Gambling Platform"). While the Defendants advertise and promote the High5 Gambling Platform to persons in Utah as a legitimate online business, giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and Class members, the High5 Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise, says the suit. PTT, LLC doing business as High 5 Games, operates as an independent casino games provider. The Company develops content for the B2C and B2B social and online markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-Mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-Mail: adrian@gr-firm.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Glass Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ARNOLD GLASS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00221 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 26, 2026) is a class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and Protected Health Information who were impacted in a data breach. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's alleged inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. QualDerm Partners is a premier network dedicated to enhancing dermatological and aesthetic care across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Sam Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com QUANEX BUILDING: McCullough Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy McCullough, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. QUANEX BUILDING PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-00204-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and Ohio law. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweek(s) during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. During their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated regularly performed overtime work without compensation. During their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages because Defendant maintained unlawful policies or practices that resulted in systematically rounding employees' hours worked in its favor. Defendant maintained a policy or practice that generally restricted how early employees could clock in before the scheduled start of their shift. Defendant maintained a policy or practice of rounding employees' time punches and paying them in full quarter-hour increments, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed the Defendant from February 2020 until February 2026 as a Coiler and a Single Seal Operator at its production facility in Cambridge, Ohio. The Defendant manufactures products for fenestration, cabinetry, solar, refrigeration, and security markets, specializing in window and door hardware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com RAMACO RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Henning Fed. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ramaco Resources, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Henning federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 30, 2026, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, Randall Atkins, its Chief Executive Officer, and Jeremy Sussman, its Chief Financial Officer, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder arising from allegedly materially false and/or misleading statements concerning the development and active mining status of the Company's Brook Mine rare earth and critical minerals project in Wyoming during the class period of July 31, 2025 through October 23, 2025. The plaintiff seeks determination of class action status under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an award of compensatory damages against all defendants jointly and severally for all damages sustained (including interest), reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Lynn Henning, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ramaco Resources, Inc., Randall W. Atkins, And Jeremy R. Sussman, (Case No. 1:26-cv-00846). The Company it has meritorious defenses to all claims in this matter. Ramaco Resources, Inc. is a mining company, with its principal executive offices located in Lexington, Kentucky. [BN] REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The RealReal disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a shareholder class suit in the Marin County Superior Court. Beginning on September 10, 2019, purported shareholder class action complaints were filed against the Company, its officers and directors and the underwriters of its IPO in the San Mateo Superior Court, Marin County Superior Court, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 27, 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the shareholder class action. On November 5, 2021, plaintiff filed the executed stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the federal court. On March 24, 2022, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On July 28, 2022, the court entered an order finally approving the settlement and dismissing the case. The financial terms of the stipulation of settlement provide that the Company will pay $11.0 million within thirty (30) days of the later of preliminary approval of the settlement or plaintiff's counsel providing payment instructions. The Company paid the settlement amount on March 29, 2022 with available resources and recorded approximately $11.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 under our Operating expenses as a Legal settlement. One of the plaintiffs in the Marin County case opted out of the federal settlement and is pursuing the claim in Marin County Superior Court. The stay of the state court case has been lifted, and the opt out plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2022 alleging putative class claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of the two shareholders who opted out of the settlement and those who purchased stock from November 21, 2019 through March 9, 2020, based on purported new revelations. The claims are for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. On February 23, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On July 22, 2025, the court entered an order denying the motion for class certification. On September 19, 2025, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the class certification decision, which appeal remains pending. While the Company intends to defend vigorously against this litigation, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense. For this reason, the Company cannot currently estimate the loss or range of possible losses it may experience in connection with this litigation. The RealReal, Inc. is an online marketplace for authenticated, consigned luxury goods across multiple categories, including women's fashion, men's fashion, and jewelry and watches. REDRIDGE DILIGENCE: Roberts Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Redridge Diligence Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Torin Roberts, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Redridge Diligence Services LLC d/b/a IMA Diligence Services, Plaza Services LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02192 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Redridge Diligence Services LLC doing business as IMA Diligence Services -- https://imadiligence.com/ -- is a trusted transaction advisory partner, simplifying due diligence for lenders, investors, and corporates.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com RGV VENTURE CAPITAL: Hill Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RGV Venture Capital LP. The case is styled as Adean Hill, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RGV Venture Capital LP, Case No. 4:26-cv-00212-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. RGV Capital Management, LLC -- https://rgvcap.com/ -- is a privately held alternative investment firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW FIRM 3 East 3rd Avenue, Suite 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Phone: (650) 781-8000 Fax: (650) 648-0705 Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com RIVERSIDE HEALTHCARE: Underpays Nursing Assistants, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAJA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVERSIDE HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTER and DOES 1 to 25, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV07107 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Certified Nursing Assistant from in or around 2024 until later 2024. Riverside Healthcare & Wellness Center is a facility that provides skilled nursing, rehabilitation, and specialized recovery programs based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve A. Hoffman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVE A. HOFFMAN 4929 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 410 Riverside, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 406-6898 Facsimile: (323) 937-1539 Email: hoffpi@sbcglobal.net ROCKET LAB: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rocket Lab 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Nevertheless, the Company and certain of its officers have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed in February 2025 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case was purportedly filed on behalf of persons who claim to have suffered damages as a result of alleged misstatements concerning the progress of its Neutron rocket development. It filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on August 27, 2025. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss on November 10, 2025. The Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on December 19, 2025, and the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss this Complaint on January 19, 2026. The company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims and are currently unable to predict the timing, outcome or consequences of these actions, or estimate any probable range of loss. Rocket Lab also announced it successfully conducted the 70th Electron Mission, which saw the launch of the Electron rocket from a launch facility in New Zealand. The rocket carried 5 low Earth orbit satellites for a "confidential" commercial customer, the company said. [GN] ROCKET LAB: Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------- Rocket Lab 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 26, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California stayed a shareholder derivative suit pending final resolution of the motion to dismiss the securities class suit. Relying on many of the same allegations as the securities class action, in April 2025, two shareholders filed putative shareholder derivative actions on behalf of the Company against our directors and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Court has granted the parties’ stipulation to stay these actions pending final resolution of the Motion to Dismiss the securities class action. The company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims and are currently unable to predict the timing, outcome or consequences of these actions, or estimate any probable range of loss. Rocket Lab also announced it successfully conducted the 70th Electron Mission, which saw the launch of the Electron rocket from a launch facility in New Zealand. The rocket carried 5 low Earth orbit satellites for a "confidential" commercial customer, the company said. [GN] ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Derivative Suit in NJ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that Company continues to defend itself from a putative derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. A putative derivative action was filed on October 22, 2025 in the District of New Jersey, naming as Defendants certain of the Company's officers and present or former directors of the Company. The Complaint (which names the Company as a nominal defendant) alleges that the Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct during the period from September 17, 2024 through May 26, 2025. The allegations in the complaint largely parallel the allegations made in the previously filed putative securities class action complaints, with some additional allegations regarding a supposed lack of internal controls and purported insider trading. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, an award of damages to the Company, an order directing the Company and the individual defendants to institute certain requested corporate governance reforms, restitution from the individual defendants, and costs and disbursements related to the lawsuit. The parties agreed to stay all proceedings in the putative derivative action until any motions to dismiss the putative securities class action are resolved, and on December 22, 2025, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to that effect. The Company intends to vigorously defend the litigation. The Company will pay the legal fees related to the putative derivative action against the Company’s officers and directors. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a multi-platform biotechnology company focused on the development of first or best-in-class gene therapies for rare and devastating pediatric diseases. RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Deadlines Vacated ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-08799-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order vacating class certification deadlines pending resolution of the Plaintiff's forthcoming motion to amend complaint to add new class representatives. Accordingly, the parties stipulate and request that the Court vacate the current class certification schedule and order the Parties to confer and submit a new case schedule within seven days of the Court's Order on Plaintiff's Motion. The parties have met, conferred, and agreed that, in the interest of judicial efficiency, it makes little sense to proceed to class certification before the Plaintiff's motion is resolved and the proposed class representatives are known. Rugsusa provides flooring products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O6nU8H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Abby Meyer, Esq. Kevin Murphy, Esq. Rana Salem, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLING, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 RUNWAY AI INC: Businessing LLC Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Runway AI, Inc. The case is styled as Businessing LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Runway AI, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01655 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Runway AI, Inc. -- https://runwayml.com/ -- is an American company headquartered in New York City that specializes in generative artificial intelligence research and technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com SA RECYCLING LLC: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SA Recycling LLC. The case is styled as Ingrid Alvarez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SA Recycling LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Does 1 through 100, Case No. 26STCV06400 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 26, 2026). SA Recycling -- https://www.sarecycling.com/ -- is recognized as a world leader in the metal recycling and processing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Dr., Ste. 180 El Segundo, CA 90245-2656 Phone: 424-292-2350 Fax: 424-292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com SARKIS SHAHIN: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. SARKIS SHAHIN and EL PALACIO DE LA COMIDA LLC A/K/A EL IMPERIO DE LA COMIDA LLC D/B/A EL IMPERIO DE LA COMIDA, Case No. 1:26-cv-21289-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property, cafeteria and restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial plaza and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial plaza has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and its tenants therein, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial plaza, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. EL PALACIO DE LA COMIDA LLC D/B/A EL IMPERIO DE LA COMIDA, owned and operated a cafeteria and restaurant located in Hialeah, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Whitfield Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Whitfield shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On November 25, 2025, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, captioned Matthew Whitfield v. Selim Bassoul., et al., No. 3:25-cv-02599 (N.D. Ohio). The complaint is generally based on the same allegations as in the Securities Action and asserts claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint, but intend to defend the action vigorously. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation operates regional theme parks. The Company has parks comprised of theme, water, and zoological parks. [BN] SNOWFLAKE INC: Patel Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- HARSH PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNOWFLAKE INC.; FRANK SLOOTMAN; and MICHAEL P. SCARPELLI, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01613 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2026) is a securities action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased Snowflake Class A common stock during the period June 27, 2023 through the close of the market on February 28, 2024, alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly made positive statements about the state of its business, including positive statements about customer usage of, and new developments for, its products. At the same time, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) product efficiency gains, Iceberg Tables and tiered storage pricing were expected to have a material negative impact on consumption and revenues1, and (2) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about consumption patterns, revenues, and demand for Snowflake products lacked a reasonable basis. The price of Snowflake's Class A common stock declined $41.72, or 18.14%, from a closing price of $230.00 per share on February 28, 2024, to close at $188.28 per share on February 29, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's Class A common stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Snowflake Inc. provides software solutions. The Company develops database architecture, data warehouses, query optimization, and parallelization solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Jason A. Uris, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 Email: ffox@kaplanfox.com juris@kaplanfox.com SOVEREIGN PEST: 5th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Bradford Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms a summary judgment in the lawsuit styled Radley Bradford, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 24-20379 (5th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. 4:23-CV-675). The Fifth Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Edith Brown Clement and Catharina Haynes, Circuit Judges. Judge Elrod wrote the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff-Appellant Radley Bradford entered into a contract with Sovereign Pest, a Texas pest-control company, under which Sovereign Pest agreed to provide pest-control treatment for Bradford's home. On this service-plan agreement, Bradford provided his cell-phone number. He later explained that he had given his phone number in case Sovereign Pest "needed to get in contact" with him. During the life of the service-plan agreement, Sovereign Pest placed multiple pre-recorded calls to Bradford, including, as relevant here, pre-recorded calls seeking to schedule a "renewal inspection." After receiving those calls, Bradford did indeed schedule inspections. And he renewed his service plan four times. Bradford filed this putative class-action lawsuit against Sovereign Pest. He alleged that Sovereign Pest had violated the TCPA by sending him unsolicited prerecorded calls for years because Sovereign Pest did not obtain his prior express written consent for the renewal-inspection calls. He sought damages and declaratory relief. The district court granted summary judgment for Sovereign Pest, concluding that Sovereign Pest's calls did not constitute telemarketing and that Bradford provided prior express consent. Bradford timely appealed. Bradford appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., arguing that Sovereign Pest violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by placing pre-recorded calls to Bradford's cell phone. The district court determined that Sovereign Pest's calls did not constitute telemarketing and that Bradford provided prior express consent. On appeal, Bradford contends that Sovereign Pest's calls do count as telemarketing and that he did not provide prior express consent. The Court of Appeals affirms because it agrees that Bradford provided prior express consent, and that the TCPA requires no more for any type of pre-recorded calls. Judge Elrod notes that Bradford provided his cell-phone number when he entered into the service-plan agreement with Sovereign Pest, and that Bradford has expressly stated that he gave Sovereign Pest his phone number so that the company could get in touch with him. He confirmed that Sovereign Pest could call him on his cell phone during later conversations with the company. Bradford apparently envisioned that Sovereign Pest would call him for "appointment reminders" because the parties "had an established business relationship." But he did not so limit the calls when he provided his cell-phone number, and he never objected to Sovereign Pest's calls or asked the company not to call him, Judge Elrod points out. The Panel, thus, holds that Bradford provided prior express consent. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/53tccdky from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. TAKARA SAKE: Class Settlement in Tunick Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, v. TAKARA SAKE USA INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hixson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement with Takara. 1. Tunick shall file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs by March 20, 2026. Takara may file an opposition within 14 days thereafter, and Tunick may file a reply within 7 days thereafter. 2. Tunick shall file a motion for final settlement approval on April 28, 2026. 3. The Court will hear argument on the motion for attorneys' fees and costs and the motion for final settlement approval at the Final Approval Hearing, which will take place in person on June 11, 2026. 4. If the parties wish to adjust any of the above dates, they shall submit a stipulation. The stipulation shall cite, with line numbers if applicable, the portions of this Order and/or the Settlement Agreement that are affected by the stipulation. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and vacates the March 12, 2026, hearing. The Settlement defines the Class as: "All persons who, during the Class Period, purchased one or more of the Products in California for purposes other than resale at a retail location or online, with the following exceptions: (i) Defendant, its assigns, successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities in which Defendant has controlling interests; (iii) federal, state, and/or local governments, including, but not limited to, their departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial officer." The Settlement provides for an award of up to $645,000 for attorneys' fees and costs. It also provides for a service award to Tunick of up to $5,000. The total amount to be paid by Takara under the settlement shall be no more than $650,000. Takara manufactures, labels, advertises, distributes and sells sakes. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h5gtE3 at no extra charge.[CC] TAPESTRY INC: Curry Files Suit Over Unlawful Trade Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA CURRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland corporation; and COACH SERVICES, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00429-AP (D. Or., March 5, 2026) is a class action under Oregon law on behalf of all consumers who, within the applicable limitations period, purchased one or more products at Defendants' Kate Spade Outlet ("KSO") store in Woodburn, Oregon, bearing a "comparable value" price. According to the complaint, the Defendants operate the KSO retail store at Woodburn Premium Outlets and substantially identical KSO stores throughout the United States, as well as the KSO website (katespadeoutlet.com). They also operate Kate Spade ("KS") mainline retail stores and the KS website (katespade.com). Nearly all products sold at KSO bear a "comparable value" price, which is a reference price that is always higher, often dramatically so, than the price at which the product is offered. Defendants advertise discounts of 50, 60, or 70 percent or more against these "comparable value" prices, creating the impression that consumers are receiving substantial savings on goods of significant value. Based on counsel's investigation, the "comparable value" prices bear no meaningful relationship to the actual transaction prices at which identifiable competitors offer substantially similar goods at outlet malls in the same geographic area. For comparable products, competitors' actual selling prices are a fraction of Defendants' stated "comparable value" prices. Plaintiff purchased products from the KSO store in Oregon that bore "comparable value" price representations, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers. Plaintiff seeks actual or statutory damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and relief based on Defendants' unjust enrichment. Plaintiff does not allege fraud or any claim sounding in fraud. Liability under the UTPA turns on whether Defendants' price-comparison practices satisfy mandatory statutory conditions, without regard to intent. To the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' price representations are "false" or "misleading," those terms are used in their statutory sense--i.e., that the representations do not satisfy the conditions under which price comparisons are lawful-- rather than as allegations of common-law fraud, says the complaint. Plaintiff Amanda Curry is a citizen and resident of Portland, Oregon. Defendant Tapestry, Inc., previously known as Coach, Inc., is incorporated in Maryland and maintains its principal place of business at 10 Hudson Yards, New York, 10001. In 2018, Defendant Tapestry, Inc. acquired Kate Spade & Company. Defendant Coach Services, Inc. is incorporated in Maryland and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Tapestry, Inc. Coach Services, Inc. acts as an operating subsidiary for Tapestry's KSO stores, and maintains its principal place of business at 10 Hudson Yards, New York, 10001.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Ryan Casey (he/him), Esq. THE CASEY LAW FIRM, LLC 358 Blue River Pkwy Unit E-417 Silverthorne, CO 80498 E-mail: ryan@rcaseylaw.com - and - Gillian Wade (she/her), Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 100E Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: (310) 667-7273 Facsimile: (424) 276-0473 E-mail: gwade@waykayslay.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. (he/him), Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 6425 Living Place, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Telephone: (412) 314-0515 E-mail: ek@waykayslay.com - and - Evan E. North (he/him), Esq. NORTH LAW PLLC 1900 Market Street, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (202) 921-1651 E-mail: evan@northlawpllc.com TARGET CORP: Vazquez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case STEVEN VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. CIVSB2601366, was removed from the Superior Court of California for San Bernardino County to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 5, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01039 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. Target Corporation is an American retail corporation, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. Taylor Wemmer, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 677-1400 Facsimile: (858) 677-1401 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com taylor.wemmer@us.dlapiper.com - and - Stephen L. Taeusch, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 3203 Hanover Street, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 833-2000 Facsimile: (650) 833-2001 Email: stephen.taeusch@us.dlapiper.com TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Teladoc 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 17, 2024, a purported securities class action complaint (Stary v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers. The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the period November 2, 2022 through February 20, 2024. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's advertising spend on BetterHelp. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. On July 15, 2024, a duplicative purported securities class action complaint (Waits v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The claims and parties in Waits were substantially similar to those in Stary, and the Stary and Waits actions were consolidated. On December 10, 2024, the District Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and, on February 24, 2025 the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that asserts Exchange Act claims for a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired stock between July 26, 2023 and February 20, 2024. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company and its named officers intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously, including through the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 20, 2025. Teladoc is a multinational telemedicine and virtual healthcare company. The company offers comprehensive care including talk therapy, diagnosis and medication support. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls www.livongo.com.[BN] TELADOC INC: Roy Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------- Teladoc 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 26, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the Roy shareholder derivative suit until any motion to dismiss filed in the purported securities class action complaint is granted with prejudice and any appeals therefrom are resolved, or any defendant files an answer in the purported securities class action complaint. On June 18, 2024, a verified shareholder derivative complaint (Roy v. Gorevic, et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company as a nominal defendant and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement and abuse of control in connection with factual assertions similar to those in the purported securities class action complaint described in the preceding paragraph. The complaint seeks damages to the Company allegedly sustained as a result of the acts and omissions of the named officers and directors and seeks an order directing the Company to reform and improve the Company's corporate governance. On October 4, 2024 the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, to stay all proceedings until any motion to dismiss filed in the purported securities class action complaint is granted with prejudice and any appeals therefrom are resolved, or any defendant files an answer in the purported securities class action complaint. Teladoc is a multinational telemedicine and virtual healthcare company. The company offers comprehensive care including talk therapy, diagnosis and medication support. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls www.livongo.com.[BN] TRIVAGO NV: Advertising Suit Hearing Set for 2nd Quarter of 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- trivago N.V.disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the advertising-related class suit hearing set for the second quarter of 2026. A class action has been filed in Israel, making allegations about our advertising and/or display practices, such as search result rankings and algorithms, and discount claims. A pre-trial case management hearing in the class action that was filed in Israel took place on October 1, 2024. The court ordered trivago to provide certain information to the plaintiff. Pursuant to the court's recommendation, the parties have initiated mediation procedures to evaluate possibilities for an amicable resolution of the matter in December 2024. In 2025, the parties ceased the mediation procedures and continued the court proceedings with the next hearing being scheduled in the second quarter of 2026. Trivago operates a global hotel search platform that allows users of the Company's website or mobile application to search for and compare deals from a variety of hoteliers and online travel agencies. Trivago offered access to approximately 1.3 million hotels in over 190 countries as of December 31, 2016.[CC] TRUEBLUE INC: Seeks to Transfer Figueroa Suit to E.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THEA DE JESUS FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRUEBLUE, INC. AND PEOPLESCOUT, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-05329-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to transfer Case to the Eastern District of Texas. Accordingly, the Plaintiff could have brought her claim in the Eastern District of Texas, and because the convenience of parties and interest of justice strongly favor transfer. The Defendants by and through their attorneys Laura Morse and Jensen Morse Baker PLLC, move the Court for an Order transferring venue of this matter from the Western District of Washington, at Tacoma, to the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1404. The case -- which asserts putative class action claims under Texas law on behalf of a group of employees who worked in Texas, along with national FLSA claims -- could have, and should have, been filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, in the first instance. This case does not belong in Washington. The Plaintiff brings three claims under Texas state law, including for breach of contract, quantum meruit and money had and received. The Plaintiff proposes to represent a Rule 23 class defined as: "All hourly-paid recruiters who worked at TrueBlue and/or PeopleScout in the State of Texas at any time during the four years preceding the filing of this action through class certification whose pay was docked by application of a meal break deduction to their shifts worked in weeks in which they worked 40 or fewer hours (the "Texas Class"). The Plaintiff also seeks to bring FLSA claims, individually and on behalf of: "All current and former employees of Defendants who did not receive overtime premium pay for all hours worked over forty in each seven-day workweek for the time period beginning three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of the final disposition of this action." The Plaintiff's claims are premised on an allegation that, as a result of a reduction in force, her schedule was reduced to 32 hours per week, but she often worked over 40 hours per week despite being "encouraged, promoted or required to underreport her hours of work." TrueBlue provides temporary manual labor to the light industrial and small business markets. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a22U5o at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cynthia J. Heidelberg, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC 600 Stewart Street; Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 E-mail: cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com - and - Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive; Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Laura T. Morse, Esq. Sarah E. Swale, Esq. JENSEN MORSE BAKER PLLC 520 Pike Street; Suite 2375 Telephone: (206) 682-1550 Facsimile: (206) 682-1496 E-mail: Laura.morse@jmblawyers.com Sarah.swale@jmblawyers.com TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Shumacher Derivative Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Twist Bioscience Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Shumacher shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On September 25, 2023, a shareholder derivative suit captioned Shumacher vs. Leproust et al., No. 1:23-cv-01048-UNA, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against directors of the Company and an employee (the "Shumacher Action"). The suit is based on substantially the same allegations in the Securities Class Action and seeks to recover, on behalf of the Company, damages to the Company arising from, among other things, the Securities Class Action. On November 13, 2023, the parties to the Shumacher Action entered into a stipulation staying the Shumacher Action pending further proceedings in the Securities Class Action. On November 13, 2025, another derivative lawsuit captioned Sell v. Leproust, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01380-MN was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, averring similar claims and seeking similar recovery as the Shumacher Action (the "Sell Action"), and on December 2, 2025 the Sell Action was consolidated with the Shumacher Action and stayed pending further proceedings in the Securities Class Action. Twist Bioscience Corporation is a synthetic biology company that has developed a disruptive DNA synthesis platform. TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Discovery in Peters Securities Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Twist Bioscience Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for the Peters securities class suit in the federal court of Northern District of California. On December 12, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.) ("Securities Class Action") was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California ("Court") against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (the "Defendants") alleging violations of federal securities laws. The Securities Class Action's claims are based in large part on allegations made in a report issued on November 15, 2022 by Scorpion Capital ("Scorpion Report") concerning, among other things, the Company's DNA chip technology and accounting practices. The initial complaint filed in the Securities Class Action alleges that various statements that the Defendants made between December 13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 were materially false and misleading in light of the allegations in the Scorpion Report. The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between December 13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 and sought damages as well as certain other costs. On July 28, 2023, the Court appointed a new plaintiff, not the original plaintiff who filed the case, as lead plaintiff in the case and appointed a new law firm as lead counsel. On October 11, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's securities between December 20, 2018 and November 15, 2022. The amended complaint alleges that certain statements regarding, among other things, the Company's DNA products and accounting practices were false and misleading. On December 6, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on November 13, 2024. On September 3, 2025, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff leave to further amend by September 24, 2025. The plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint. The Company is engaged in discovery and intends to continue vigorously defending the remaining claims under this action in all respects. Twist Bioscience Corporation is a synthetic biology company that has developed a disruptive DNA synthesis platform. UNDERLINING INC: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ TAMMY HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNDERLINING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02488 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://nailboo.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, empty links that contain no text, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Underlining, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law UNITED STATES: Bid for Discovery Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morinville, et al., v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. 1:19-cv-01779 (D.D.C., Filed June 18, 2019), the Hon. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly entered an order directing the Plaintiffs' motion for discovery is referred to Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Sharbaugh for Report and Recommendation pursuant to the Court's prior Order referring Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The parties' briefing makes clear that Plaintiffs' motion for Discovery is substantially intertwined with Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, which is currently referred to Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Sharbaugh for Report and Recommendation. After consulting Magistrate Judge Sharbaugh, the Court determines that Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery is so related to the "disposition" of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class that further referral of Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery to Magistrate Judge Sharbaugh would be consistent with the Court's prior Order referring Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. The suit alleges violation of the Right to Privacy Act. The Defendant serves as the national patent office and trademark registration authority for the United States.[CC] VANGUARD GROUP: Quinn Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN E. QUINN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Sean E. Quinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Vanguard Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01153, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against Vanguard arising from its unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair assessment of a $100 Account Closure and Full Transfer Out fee on brokerage accounts when accountholders choose to close their accounts at Vanguard and transfer their funds out to another investment firm. The Plaintiff alleges (1) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) violation of New York's General Business Law ("GBL"); (3) violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"); and (4) unjust enrichment. On May 27, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on June 20, 2025. On Feb. 4, 2026, Judge Kai N. Scott entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Sean E. Quinn v. Vanguard Marketing Corp., Case No. 26-1485, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SEAN E. QUINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- Viatris 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In April 2025, a putative class action complaint, which was subsequently amended in September 2025, was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers, in the WDPA on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's securities ("WDPA Indore Class Action Litigation"). The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements or omissions of material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to regulatory issues and actions concerning the Company's Indore manufacturing facility. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of purchasers of Company securities between February 28, 2024 and February 26, 2025. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including damages, costs and fees. Viatris is a global healthcare company that supplies medicines to about 1 billion patients across more than 165 countries and territories via its 26 manufacturing and packaging sites worldwide. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Derivative Suit in Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Viatris 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a stockholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Beginning in August 2023, stockholder derivative actions purportedly on behalf of Viatris were filed in the WDPA against certain of the Company's current and former officers, directors, and employees alleging that defendants failed to ensure that the Company was making truthful and accurate statements in connection with the disclosures alleged in the WDPA Viatris Class Action Litigation. Viatris is named as a nominal defendant in these derivative actions. Certain of the complaints also assert claims for corporate waste and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including damages, disgorgement, restitution, costs and fees. Viatris is a global healthcare company that supplies medicines to about 1 billion patients across more than 165 countries and territories via its 26 manufacturing and packaging sites worldwide. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] VIATRIS INC: Settlement in PERSM Suit for Court Approval -------------------------------------------------------- Viatris 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 26, 2026, that the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, which was subsequently amended on November 13, 2020, against Mylan N.V., certain of Mylan N.V.'s former directors and officers, and a former officer/director of the Company (collectively for the purposes of this paragraph, the "defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("WDPA") on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. ("WDPA Mylan N.V. Class Action Litigation"). The amended complaint includes allegations that defendants engaged in a scheme and made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the Nashik and Morgantown manufacturing plants and inspections at the plants by the FDA. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Mylan N.V. securities between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019. In July 2025, the Court held that Plaintiffs’ misstatements claim as to 1 of the 46 challenged statements, and their scheme claim, may proceed to discovery. The complaint seeks monetary damages, as well as the plaintiff's fees and costs. In February 2026, the Company reached an agreement to pay $60 million to fully resolve this matter, which is subject to court approval. Viatris is a global healthcare company that supplies medicines to about 1 billion patients across more than 165 countries and territories via its 26 manufacturing and packaging sites worldwide. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] WELLS FARGO: Adimora-Nweke Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ernest Adimora-Nweke et al, (& similarly situated), v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A, Case No. 3:26-cv-01376-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting requests class action certification that the action is maintainable as a class action suit. The Plaintiff(s) requests grant of Class Action Certification with Class Members defined as e.g., "All denied consumers or applicants of Wells Fargo Bank's business line of credit banking services, since 3/19/2022," or "All denied online applicants of Wells Fargo Bank's business line of credit banking services, since 3/19/2022;" or as requested in the governing complaint’s class action section. The Plaintiff(s) requests grant of Ernest Adimora-Nweke of Adimora Law Firm, Tx St. Bar No. 24082602 as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff(s) request an award of 40% of (a) Total Damages due Class Members or (b) Total Economic Benefit due Class Members, excluding that due Class Representatives, as Class Counsel attorney's fees. The Plaintiff(s) request grant of Ernest Adimora-Nweke & Adimora Law Firm as Class Representatives. Plaintiff(s) requests all damages, attorney's fees & costs, & any other remedies allowed by law & equity. The Plaintiff(s), via counsel subscribed below, files this Cal Civ. Code section 1781(c)(1) & §1781(c)(3) Motion, Cal Civ. Code section 1781(c) & section 1780(d) supporting affidavit, Class Action hearing notice & proposed order; & reserves said filing also as a part-response to any FRCP Rules 12(b)(6) or 12(d) motion Defendants may file in this action. Plaintiff, Ernest Adimora-Nweke’s is of Nigerian origin. Plaintiff is a Nigerian American dual citizen; hence inter alia, black, & of foreign national origin. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=osSNyo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ernest Adimora-Nweke, Esq. ADIMORA LAW FIRM 3050 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 E-mail: ernest@adimoralaw.com WOODLAND DIRECT: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOODLAND DIRECT INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01983 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 23, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.babobotanicals.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Woodland Direct Inc. operates as an e-commerce company. The Company offers fireplace, chimney, wood stove, and outdoor products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law WVMF FUNDING: Renois Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Renois v. WVMF Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09281-LTS-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs submitted a Memorandum of Law and the Joint Declaration of Joseph S. Tusa, Catherine E. Anderson and Roger Heller, annexing the following Exhibits that were either partially or fully redacted as filed on ECF because Defendants designated those Exhibits, or the redacted portions of those Exhibits, as "Confidential" under the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order entered in this action. As more fully described in the Joint Declaration, the redacted Exhibits are: Joint Decl., Ex. 1 (Expert Report of Arthur Olsen) Joint Decl., Ex. 3 (pages from deposition transcript of Celink employee Jorie Kelly) Joint Decl., Ex. 6 (Amended and Restated Reverse Mortgage Subservicing Agreement) Joint Decl., Ex. 7 (Reverse Mortgage Subservicing Agreement) Joint Decl., Ex. 8 (Reverse Mortgage Subservicing Agreement) By this letter motion, pursuant to the Court's Individual Practice Rule 5(b)(ii), Defendants are noticed that they have three days to file a letter explaining the need to seal or redact the above-described Exhibits designated Confidential by them. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Gejem at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Anderson, Esq. Oren Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON P.C. 90 Broad St 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 - and - Roger Heller, Esq. Avery Halfon, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 - and - Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com WYNN RESORTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Livingston Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DONYIL LIVINGSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00534 (D. Nev., Feb. 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable information from criminal hackers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant failed to properly monitor and implement security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. Hackers were able to infiltrate Defendant's information systems, perform the necessary reconnaissance efforts, identify valuable files, gain access to those files, and download data without being caught. The fact that the hackers could perform these overt, noisy operations without detection strongly suggests that Defendant failed to implement and maintain the necessary monitoring and alerting systems, including endpoint detection and response tools, sufficient to timely identify malicious activity and empower its cybersecurity staff to stop or limit the attack, says the suit. Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates a casino hotel resort property. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 235-9750 Email: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Brian Devall, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com WYNN RESORTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Maynard Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- DRAKE MAYNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00504 (D. Nev., Feb. 24, 2026) is an action arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, says the suit. Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates a casino hotel resort property. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 Email: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark your calendar for the 10th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference, presented by Beard Group, Inc. #CAME2026 will be held May 20-21, 2026, at The Harmonie Club, in New York City. This exclusive in-person gathering brings together the industry's top professionals to explore the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities in class action litigation. #CAME2026 features: Insightful keynote presentations from leading experts Dynamic live panel discussions tackling cutting-edge issues Valuable networking opportunities with peers and influencers This year's event kicks off with the Opening Night Cocktail Reception on May 20th from 5:00–7:00 p.m. Whether you're a plaintiff attorney, defense counsel, funder, or industry stakeholder, this is the must-attend event of the year for staying ahead in class action practice. Register today and secure your spot at this value-packed conference! Click here -- https://www.classactionconference.com/2025-video-replays.html -- for the 2025 conference videos, available to purchase and download. Last year's confab was sponsored by: Major Sponsors: Atticus Claimscore Duane Morris Esquire Bank Labaton Keller Sucharow SMIaware Tremendous Patron Sponsors: AB Data Darrow Miller Kaplan Supporting Sponsors: EisnerAmper Verita Media Partners: Class Action Insight PacerMonitor Contact Will Etchison at 305-707-7493 or will@beardgroup.com, or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. CLE accreditation will be submitted upon request -- details available on the website. [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark your calendar for the 10th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference, presented by Beard Group, Inc. #CAME2026 will be held May 20-21, 2026, at The Harmonie Club, in New York City. This exclusive in-person gathering brings together the industry's top professionals to explore the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities in class action litigation. #CAME2026 features: Insightful keynote presentations from leading experts Dynamic live panel discussions tackling cutting-edge issues Valuable networking opportunities with peers and influencers This year's event kicks off with the Opening Night Cocktail Reception on May 20th from 5:00–7:00 p.m. Whether you're a plaintiff attorney, defense counsel, funder, or industry stakeholder, this is the must-attend event of the year for staying ahead in class action practice. Register today and secure your spot at this value-packed conference! Click here -- https://www.classactionconference.com/2025-video-replays.html -- for the 2025 conference videos, available to purchase and download. Last year's confab was sponsored by: Major Sponsors: Atticus Claimscore Duane Morris Esquire Bank Labaton Keller Sucharow SMIaware Tremendous Patron Sponsors: AB Data Darrow Miller Kaplan Supporting Sponsors: EisnerAmper Verita Media Partners: Class Action Insight PacerMonitor Contact Will Etchison at 305-707-7493 or will@beardgroup.com, or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. CLE accreditation will be submitted upon request -- details available on the website. ********* 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 ***