260508.mbx

260508.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 8, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 92 Headlines ALERT 360: Failed to Keep Private Information Secure, Spinks Says BAPTIST HEALTHCARE: Website Uses Tracking Tools, R.B. Alleges BRIAN ENGLISH: Perez-Cruz Class Action Closed BROAD FINANCIAL: Presta Seeks Withdrawal of Murphy as Counsel CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Nante Derivative Suit in Missouri CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Rosenbaum Derivative Suit in Del. CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Shipon Derivative Suit in N.Y. CONCORA CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to August 28 COOKEVILLE REGIONAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, White Says CURIO EMPLOYER: Has Until May 12 to File Class Cert Response DOUGLAS ELLIMAN: $17.5MM Settlement to be Heard on June 29 E-COMMERCE CHINA: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for August 11 F45 TRAINING: $10.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 27 FIVE BELOW: Class Cert. Oral Argument Rescheduled to June 5 HEALTH CARE: Court Resets Class Cert Bid Hearing in Rutherford INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Seeks $1.6MM Reimbursement INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Seeks Final Nod of Class Settlement INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Wilson Suit JEFFERY EVANS: Vividor Bid to Compel Class Discovery Tossed KG MINING: Court Extends Class Cert Bid Filing to June 26 LYNN FITCH: Jackson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply M.D.C. HOLDINGS: $25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 18 MIDDLETOWN, NJ: Aveta Violates Right to Privacy, Mattison Says MURINA LLC: Scheduling Order Entered in Welch Class Action MYEYEDR OPTOMETRY: Filing of Amended Class Cert Bid Due May 11 NEW DIRECTION: Mediation Deadline in Theriault Suit Extended NUTRIEN LTD: Book Farms Sues Over NPK Fertilizer Price-Fixing NUTRIEN LTD: Flaten Sues Over NPK Fertilizer Price-Fixing Scheme OFFICE DEPOT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response PALISADES INSURANCE: Must Respond to Jones TAC by May 22 PEGASYSTEMS INC: Derivative Settlement to be Heard on June 25 PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Bid to Restrict Portion of Reply OK'd REPUBLIC SERVICES: Diehl Files Suit Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharge RILEY FOOD: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Smith Due June 30 ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sued Over Unlicensed Sports Gambling Platform ROYALTON ON THE GREENS: Orgera Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Seeks More Time to File SAC Response SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Cert Opposition Deadline Reset to June 23 SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: WPCHHL Seeks Initial OK of Proposed Settlement SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective SVB FINANCIAL: Vanipenta Bid for Class Cert. Terminated TERRAFORM POWER: $83.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 22 TEXTRON AVIATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 4 TRA MEDICAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Wilson Due March 8, 2027 TRUE BLUE: Court Narrows Claims in Connors Suit UNION PACIFIC: Cooley Bid to Reconsider Case Dismissal Tossed USAA GENERAL: Court OKs $5M "Black" Class Settlement VIP UNIVERSAL: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Hampton Says VIP UNIVERSAL: Fails to Secure Private Information, Reeves Says VIRGIN GALACTIC: $8.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 9 VIRTU FINANCIAL: Scheduling Conference in ABI Suit Set for June 12 VISA INC: Potayto-Potahto Sues Over Future Release Provision WR GP: Espinoza Files Suit Over Illegal Rent Hikes [] Karin Dryhurst Joins Jenner & Block's Class Action Practice Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idex Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Defends Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 420 PI Claims as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $684MM Liability at March 31 ********* ALERT 360: Failed to Keep Private Information Secure, Spinks Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SPINKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALERT 360 OPCO, INC. d/b/a ALERT360, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00233-JFJ (N.D. Okla., April 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former employees and customers (collectively, the "Class Members" or "Class" from hackers. Defendant Alert 360 Opco, Inc. d/b/a Alert 360 is a large home and business security company founded in 1973, operating across the United States. In the ordinary course of employment with, and/or making purchases from, Defendant, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Alert 360 with their Private Information. In April of 2026, Shiny Hunters, a well-known cybercriminal group, released the records of approximately 2.5 million customers and employees from Defendant (the "Data Breach"). Consequently, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised. The complaint alleges that Alert 360 disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; failing to monitor and timely detect the Data Breach; failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach; and failing to provide comprehensive and effective credit protection services after notification of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and asserts claims for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory/injunctive relief. Plaintiff Aaron Spinks is an individual citizen of Claremore, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Ave. Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (929) 677-5144 Telephone: (929) 376-5170 Telephone: (929) 274-2944 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: kbrian@sirillp.com E-mail: thilton@sirillp.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Zachary O. Chambers, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St. NE, Ste. 302, Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com zchambers@classlawdc.com BAPTIST HEALTHCARE: Website Uses Tracking Tools, R.B. Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- R.B., S.C., J.S., and J.F. on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00295-CHB (W.D. Ky., April 22, 2026) is a class action to address Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiffs' and the putative class members' confidential communications, personally identifiable information ("PII"), and protected health information ("PHI") to unauthorized third parties -- including Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation and Adobe Inc. -- without their consent, through the use of tracking software that is embedded in Defendant's website. Defendant Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. owns and controls the website, www.baptisthealth.com/ which it encourages patients to use to search for physicians and medical facilities, explore health services, pay for care, access their patient portal, and register for support groups, courses, and other programs. Plaintiffs R.B., S.C., J.S., and J.F. have been patients at Baptist Healthcare System, Inc.'s hospitals and/or clinic. According to the complaint, visitors frequently input sensitive Private Information, including private and confidential information related to their health conditions, treatment, and medical care needs. Unbeknownst to visitors of Defendant's Website, including Defendant's patients, while using these online services, Baptist surreptitiously intercepts patients' communications using the Unauthorized Parties' code embedded on the Website ("Tracking Tools") and transmits their Private Information to Unauthorized Parties without their consent. This information includes but is not limited to: (i) the locations or facilities where visitors or patients are seeking treatment; (ii) the types of medical services or procedures visitors or patients are seeking; (iii) search queries entered by visitors or patients into the website's search bar; and (iv) patients' access to the patient portal. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain; (iii) diminution of value and loss of control of their Private Information; (iv) statutory damages; and (v) the continued and ongoing risk to their Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms and bring causes of action for (i) violations of the Electronics Communication Privacy Act ("ECPA"), unauthorized interception, use, and disclosure; (ii) breach of confidence; (iii) invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion); (iv) unjust enrichment; and (v) breach of implied contract.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. The Lyon Firm, ALC 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. Maxwell K. Weiss, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 E-mail: don@donbivens.com E-mail: max@donbivens.com BRIAN ENGLISH: Perez-Cruz Class Action Closed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAN PEREZ-CRUZ, v. BRIAN ENGLISH, Case No. 3:26-cv-00311-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty entered an order that (1) Denies the petition, except to find that Willian Perez-Cruz must be classified under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), including for purposes of any custody redetermination; and (2) Directs the clerk to enter final judgment and to close this case. Perhaps Mr. Perez-Cruz thought it futile, because an immigration judge might follow In re Yajure Hurtado, but thus far in this circuit that guidance has been found erroneous such that, as the days pass, that futility seems harder to presume. At the same time, maybe only a circuit decision will make it so. The Warden argues that "it is not certain" how an immigration judge would handle a custody redetermination motion filed by Mr. Perez-Cruz, but, based on the early stages of now many § 2241 petitions and an unbroken record of denials of custody redeterminations (even when noncitizens have been arrested pursuant to a warrant like he was) because immigration officials believe they must be classified under section 1225(b)(2), the court finds there was no reasonable prospect of success, absent a determination by the court that he must be classified under section 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2). The court likewise must deny immediate release because Mr. Perez-Cruz has not met his burden of showing his current detention unlawful under section 1226. Immigration detainee Willian Perez-Cruz, a litigant without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging he is unlawfully confined in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States. Mr. Perez-Cruz is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection in 2018. On May 19, 2018, he was encountered by United States Border Patrol agents a few miles from the United States-Mexico border in Arizona and was served with a notice to appear in immigration court. In 2023, he was convicted of second-degree assault in New York and sentenced to five years of probation. In June 2024, he was taken into custody by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in New York pursuant to an administrative warrant. He is currently detained at Miami Correctional Facility pending the outcome of his removal proceedings. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JKK1O1 at no extra charge.[CC] BROAD FINANCIAL: Presta Seeks Withdrawal of Murphy as Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCREZIA PRESTA, individually, and PRESTA IRA LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROAD FINANCIAL, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-02721-SRC-CF (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting the withdrawal of Thomas Liam Murphy, Esq. as counsel admitted Pro Hac Vice for the Plaintiffs. Withdrawal will not unduly delay these proceedings or prejudice any party. Counsel Thomas Liam Murphy, Esq., was admitted Pro Hac Vice by Order of this Court dated April 6, 2026. The Plaintiffs are currently represented by the undersigned as well attorneys Jeffrey Sonn, Esq., Brian Pastor, Esq., Adam Schwartzbaum, Esq., Jordan Shaw, Esq. and Gabriel Morales, Esq., whom have been admitted Pro Hac Vice. The Defendant specializes in Self-Directed IRAs and Solo 401(k)s with Checkbook Control. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8ryV7L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adolfo Anzola, Esq. SONN LAW GROUP PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd Suite 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 912-3000 E-mail: AAnzola@Sonnlaw.com CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Nante Derivative Suit in Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated April 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Nante derivative suit in the United States District Court for Eastern District of Missouri. A derivative lawsuit was filed: Nante v. London, et al. (filed September 30, 2025) in the Eastern District of Missouri against the Company, as nominal defendant, members of the board of directors, and certain officers. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other alleged misconduct in connection with the statements at issue in the Securities Action. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against the claims in the Derivative Action. Nevertheless, these matters are subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long these lawsuits will last, whether additional litigation will be filed with similar claims, or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in any of these matters could potentially have a materially adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations, cash flow or liquidity. Centene Corp. is a diversified, multi-national health care enterprise that provides a portfolio of services to government-sponsored and commercial health care programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured individuals. The Company operates local health plans and offers a range of health solutions, including managed care, behavioral health, pharmacy, and specialty services. CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Rosenbaum Derivative Suit in Del. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated April 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Rosenbaum derivative suit in the United States District Court for District of Delaware. A derivative lawsuit was filed: Rosenbaum v. London, et al. (filed January 30, 2026) in the District of Delaware against the Company, as nominal defendant, members of the board of directors, and certain officers. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other alleged misconduct in connection with the statements at issue in the Securities Action. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against the claims in the Derivative Action. Nevertheless, these matters are subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long these lawsuits will last, whether additional litigation will be filed with similar claims, or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in any of these matters could potentially have a materially adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations, cash flow or liquidity. Centene Corp. is a diversified, multi-national health care enterprise that provides a portfolio of services to government-sponsored and commercial health care programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured individuals. The Company operates local health plans and offers a range of health solutions, including managed care, behavioral health, pharmacy, and specialty services. CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Shipon Derivative Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated April 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Shipon derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A derivative lawsuit was filed: Shipon v. London, et al. (filed August 26, 2025) in the Southern District of New York against the Company, as nominal defendant, members of the board of directors, and certain officers. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other alleged misconduct in connection with the statements at issue in the Securities Action. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against the claims in the Derivative Action. Nevertheless, these matters are subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long these lawsuits will last, whether additional litigation will be filed with similar claims, or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in any of these matters could potentially have a materially adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations, cash flow or liquidity. Centene Corp. is a diversified, multi-national health care enterprise that provides a portfolio of services to government-sponsored and commercial health care programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured individuals. The Company operates local health plans and offers a range of health solutions, including managed care, behavioral health, pharmacy, and specialty services. CONCORA CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to August 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS SEALS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. CONCORA CREDIT INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00728-AN (D. Or.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their second joint motion to extend class certification deadlines, requesting six-week extensions as follows: Proposed Deadline Expert disclosures in support of June 19, 2026 class certification: Expert disclosures in opposition July 17, 2026 to class certification: Rebuttal expert disclosures: Aug. 7, 2026 Class certification motion filing: Aug. 28, 2026 With these extensions, the Parties may attend mediation and, if necessary, continue working toward a resolution through the early part of May, before devoting significant additional resources to expert discovery and complex motion practice, in terms of not only attorney hours but also related expert fees. The Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint on May 1, 2025. The Defendant provides consumer financing solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lv61MJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth P. Dobson, Esq. DOBSON LAW OFFICE, LLC 324 S. Abernethy Street Portland, OR 97239 Telephone: (971) 717-6582 E-mail: kdobson@pdxlandlaw.com - and - Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert E. Sabido, Esq. SABIDO LAW, LLC 8215 SW Tualatin Sherwood Rd, Ste 218 Tualatin, OR 97062 Telephone: (971) 302-6236 Facsimile: (503) 974-1673 E-mail: robert@sabidolawllc.com - and - Genevieve Walser-Jolly, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 E-mail: Genevieve.Walser-Jolly@wbd-us.com COOKEVILLE REGIONAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, White Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY WHITE, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COOKEVILLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00028 (M.D. Tenn., April 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to comply with its obligations to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the personal and health information of its patients. The complaint relates that Plaintiff White provided his personal information to CRMC in connection with medical services he received. On July 14, 2025, CRMC discovered that it was the victim of a ransomware attack. CRMC promptly began an internal investigation and engaged a forensic security firm to assist with their investigation. The data breach was first reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights in August 2025, using a placeholder figure of 500 individuals; however, it has taken several months to review all of the exposed data. On March 16, 2026, the file review was completed, and CRMC obtained the full list of affected individuals. Notification letters were only just sent in mid-April 2026. The forensic investigation determined that an unauthorized third party accessed their computer network and viewed or acquired certain files between July 11, 2025, and July 14, 2025. CRMC identified the personal information of certain individuals was exposed, which may include their name, in combination with some or all of the following: address, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license number, financial account number, medical treatment information, medical record number, and/or health insurance policy information. As a result, the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including the increased risk of identity theft, invasion of privacy, and the loss of control over the use of his identity, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action to seek monetary damages and injunctive relief against CRMC, and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of implied contract. Plaintiff Anthony White, Jr. is a patient of CRMC. Defendant Cookeville Regional Medical Center ("CRMC") is a 269-bed acute care medical facility located in Cookeville, Tennessee, serving the Upper Cumberland region with over 2,550 employees and 175+ physicians.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (423) 737-3265 E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 206-9057 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com E-mail: afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 399-4770 E-mail: achristina@lowey.com CURIO EMPLOYER: Has Until May 12 to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morancy v. CURIO EMPLOYER LLC, et al., Case No. 0:25-cv-62359 (S.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class and collective action certification. The Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' Corrected Motion for Conditional Certification and Corrected Motion for Class Certification by May 12, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Curio is an entity associated with high-end Hilton-affiliated properties in Key West, Florida, such as Casa Marina and The Reach.[CC] DOUGLAS ELLIMAN: $17.5MM Settlement to be Heard on June 29 ---------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BARBARA STROUGO, derivatively on behalf of DOUGLAS ELLIMAN, INC., Plaintiff, v. HOWARD M. LORBER, DAVID K. CHENE, RICHARD J. LAMPEN, MICHAEL S. LIEBOWITZ, PATRICK J. BARTELS, JR., WILSON L. WHITE, and MARK D. ZEITCHICK, Defendants, and DOUGLAS ELLIMAN, INC., Nominal Defendant. C.A. No. 2025-1323-LWW NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF DOUGLAS ELLIMAN INC., EITHER OF RECORD OR BENEFICIALLY, AS OF FEBRUARY 19, 2026 IF YOU HOLD COMMON STOCK OF DOUGLAS ELLIMAN INC. FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of (i) the pendency of the action (the "Action"), which was brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") by a stockholder of Douglas Elliman Inc. ("Douglas Elliman" or the "Company"), asserting claims derivatively on behalf of the Company; (ii) the proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement"), subject to Court approval and subject to other conditions of the Settlement being satisfied, as provided for in a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release dated February 19, 2026 (the "Stipulation"), which was filed with the Court and is publicly available for review; and (iii) your right to participate in a hearing to be held on June 29, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. (EDT), before the Court at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE (the "Settlement Hearing"). The purposes of the Settlement Hearing are to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice; (iii) enter an Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement; (iv) approve a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff's Counsel in the Action (the "Fee and Expense Award"); (v) approve an application for fee for the reasonable services of the Plaintiff to be paid from the Fee and Expense Award (the "Service Award"); and (vi) hear and determine any objections to the Settlement, the Fee and Expense Award, or the Service Award. The Stipulation was entered into as of February 19, 2026 by and among: (a) plaintiff Barbara Strougo ("Strougo" or "Plaintiff"), on behalf of nominal defendant Douglas Elliman, in the Action, (b) individual defendants Howard M. Lorber, David K. Chene, Richard J. Lampen, Michael S. Liebowitz, Patrick J. Bartels, Jr., Wilson L. White, and Mark D. Zeitchick (the "Individual Defendants"), and (c) nominal defendant Douglas Elliman (together with the Individual Defendants, and collectively with Plaintiff, the "Parties"). The Action was brought as a stockholder derivative action on behalf of the Company. The benefits of the Settlement will go to the Company. Other than any award by the Court of fees and expenses to Plaintiff's Counsel, or any fee for the reasonable services of Plaintiff to be paid from the attorneys' fees awarded to Plaintiff's Counsel, no monetary payments under the Settlement will be made by the Company. Douglas Elliman, a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Miami, Florida, operates a luxury real estate brokerage. On November 14, 2025, Plaintiff, filed a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint (the "Complaint") derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Douglas Elliman, against Individual Defendants Howard M. Lorber, David K. Chene, Richard J. Lampen, Michael S. Liebowitz, Patrick J. Bartels, Jr., Wilson L. White, and Mark D. Zeitchick in the Action. The Complaint alleged breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against the Individual Defendants. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the Individual Defendants, who are certain current and former directors and officers of Douglas Elliman, breached their fiduciary duties, including the duties of loyalty and good faith. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the Board and management ignored allegations that should have warned them that certain individuals employed by and/or affiliated with the Company allegedly had engaged in sexual misconduct. The allegations of sexual misconduct relating to certain former brokers employed by and/or affiliated with the Company date back to 2009 when Douglas Elliman was a subsidiary of another entity. Plaintiff sought the following remedies: (i) the recovery of monetary damages from the Individual Defendants for the harm allegedly caused to the Company by their alleged breaches of fiduciary duty; (ii) the implementation of corporate governance reforms designed to improve the Company's internal controls, oversight, and compliance procedures, including proposed amendments to the Company's governing documents and measures to strengthen Board supervision and stockholder input; (iii) restitution and disgorgement of profits, benefits, and other compensation allegedly obtained by the Individual Defendants as a result of the challenged conduct; (iv) an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and (v) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. In consideration for the full settlement and release of the Released Claims (as defined below), and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, the Parties have agreed that: (1) the Individual Defendants shall cause their insurance carriers to pay $17,500,000 to the Company ("Monetary Settlement Amount") within forty-five (45) calendar days after the later of the date of the Final Approval of the Settlement and the date the aforementioned insurance carriers have been furnished with a current W-9 and accurate payment instructions for the payee; and (2) Douglas Elliman shall adopt and implement the following reforms (the "Corporate Governance Reforms") for as long as the Company shall remain a separate, publicly traded corporation: a) Douglas Elliman shall appoint two additional independent directors to its Board of Directors within one-hundred-and-eighty (180) calendar days of the Court's entry of Final Judgment; b) Douglas Elliman shall recommend to its stockholders, no later than Douglas Elliman's 2027 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, that they vote to declassify Douglas Elliman's Board of Directors such that each director will be up for election annually; c) Douglas Elliman shall adopt a new Discretionary Compensation Clawback Policy; d) Douglas Elliman shall update its Anti-Discrimination, Anti-Harassment & Retaliation Prevention and Workplace Violence Prevention policies contained in its Employee Policy Manual and shall provide training on these policies to all its employees, brokers, and agents; e) A committee of Douglas Elliman's Board of Directors that is chaired by an independent director as defined by New York Stock Exchange Rules, with assistance of the Company's General Counsel, shall oversee the implementation of the updated policies set forth in subsections c) and d) above and shall monitor compliance with those policies; and f) Douglas Elliman shall provide Plaintiff's Counsel with reasonable confirmatory discovery to be negotiated by the Parties after the execution of the Stipulation. The Settlement set forth in the Stipulation reflects the results of the Parties' negotiations of the terms of the Stipulation, and an agreement-in-principle was reached only after arm's-length negotiations among the Parties, all of which were represented by counsel with extensive experience and expertise in stockholder derivative litigation, with the assistance of -- and following the Mediators' Proposal from -- the Mediators. Each of the Individual Defendants has denied, and continues to deny, that he committed any breach of fiduciary duty, violated any other law, or engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in the Action, expressly maintains that he diligently and scrupulously complied with his fiduciary and other legal duties, to the extent such duties exist, and further believes that the Action is without merit. Each of the Individual Defendants is entering into the Stipulation and the Settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation. Concurrent with seeking final approval of the Settlement, Plaintiff's Counsel intend to petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, in full satisfaction of any claim by Plaintiff or Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of fees and expenses in respect of Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's Counsel's efforts in filing the Action and the benefits conferred on the Company and the Company's stockholders from the prosecution of the Action and the Settlement. Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application will include a request for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed $3,600,000 inclusive of litigation expenses incurred by Plaintiff's Counsel in connection with the institution, prosecution, and resolution of the Action. In connection with Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, Plaintiff may petition the Court for a Service Award not to exceed $3,600 to be paid solely from any Fee and Expense Award to Plaintiff's Counsel. This Notice is only a summary and does not purport to be a comprehensive description of the Action, the allegations related thereto, the terms of the Settlement, or the Settlement Hearing. For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the Action, you may inspect the pleadings, the Stipulation, the Orders entered by the Court, and other papers filed in the Action at the Office of the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, during regular business hours of each business day. If you have questions regarding the Settlement, you may write or call Plaintiff's Counsel: Gustavo F. Bruckner, Samuel J. Adams, Ankita Sangwan, POMERANTZ LLP, 600 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10016, (212) 661-1100; or F. Troupe Mickler IV, ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A, 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19899, (302) 654-1888. A copy of this Notice and the Stipulation can be found: (a) on the Company's Investor Relations page (https://investors.elliman.com/stock-info/legal-notices/); and (b) on the website of Plaintiff's counsel (https://pomlaw.com/). DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE. E-COMMERCE CHINA: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for August 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION JOE FASANO, ALTIMEO OPTIMUM FUND, and ALTIMEO ASSET MANAGEMENT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Claimants, v. GUOQING LI, PEGGY YU YU, DANGDANG HOLDING COMPANY, LTD., E-COMMERCE CHINA DANGDANG INC., KEWEN HOLDING CO. LTD., SCIENCE & CULTURE LTD., FIRST PROFIT MANAGEMENT, LTD., DANQIAN YAO, LIJUN CHEN, and MIN KAN, Respondents. Case No. 01-22-0003-8285 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All Persons who held E-Commerce China Dangdang Inc. ("Dangdang") American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") at any time between March 9, 2016 and the September 20, 2016 closing of the Merger to acquire Dangdang (the "Class Period") whose ADSs were cashed out in the Merger or had their ADSs converted to Class A common stock and were cashed out in the Merger, and any successors in interest of such Persons (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 8 of the American Arbitration Association's Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations and the Preliminary Approval Award of the Tribunal overseeing the proceeding (the "Arbitration") that Claimants Joe Fasano, Altimeo Optimum Fund, and Altimeo Asset Management (collectively "Claimants"), on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Settlement Class, on the one hand, and Guoqing Li, Peggy Yu Yu, Danqian Yao, Lijun Chen, Min Kan, Dangdang Holding Company, Ltd., Dangdang, Kewen Holding Co. Ltd., Science & Culture Ltd., and First Profit Management, Ltd. (collectively "Respondents"), on the other, have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the Arbitration and the related federal action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Fasano et al. v. Li et al., No. 1:16-cv-08759-KPF, in the amount of $21 million (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Tribunal, either in person or remotely at the Tribunal's discretion, at AAA New York Midtown Hearing Center, 150 East 42nd Street, Floor 17, New York, NY 10017, on August 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. ET (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Tribunal should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Arbitration with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of February 13, 2026, as amended on April 10, 2026; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Tribunal may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another written notice. Information about the hearing will be posted at www.DangdangSecuritiesSettlement.com. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting www.DangdangSecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Dangdang Securities Settlement c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 5916 Portland, OR 97228-5916 1-877-239-1875 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: SADIS & GOLDBERG LLP Samuel J. Lieberman, Esq. 551 Fifth Ave., FL.21 New York, NY 10176 www.sadis.com slieberman@sadis.com (212) 573-8164 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than August 6, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments, awards, or orders entered by the Tribunal relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than July 21, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any final award or other orders entered by the Tribunal relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Claims Administrator, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than July 21, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE TRIBUNAL, RESPONDENTS, OR RESPONDENTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: April 10, 2026 BY AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL URL: www.DangdangSecuritiesSettlement.com F45 TRAINING: $10.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP announced that the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit those who purchased or otherwise acquired F45 Training Holdings, Inc. publicly traded common stock (OTCMKTS: FXLV): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE F45 TRAINING HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 1:22-cv-1291-DAE SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All Persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired F45 Training Holdings, Inc. ("F45") publicly traded common stock during the period from July 15, 2021 through August 14, 2023, inclusive ("Class Period") (including purchases and acquisitions pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents for F45's initial public offering) and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, that Plaintiffs Pledge Capital LLC and Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit ("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Settlement Class; and defendant F45, Adam Gilchrist, Christopher E. Payne, Michael Raymond, Darren Richman, Mark Wahlberg, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Cowen and Company, LLC, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., MUFG Securities Americas Inc., and Roth Capital Partners, LLC ("Settling Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the class action (the "Action") and related claims in the amount of $10,500,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Court on August 27, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 1 at the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, United States District Courthouse, 501 West Fifth Street, Austin, Texas 78701 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated February 13, 2026; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain a copy, and the more detailed long-form Notice and Claim Form, by visiting the website for the Settlement, www.strategicclaims.net/case/F45/, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: F45 Training Securities Settlement c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 (866) 274-4004 info@strategicclaims.net Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked or submitted online no later than August 1, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice so that it is received by the Claims Administrator no later than July 24, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable, but you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the parties in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice so that they are received no later than July 24, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE DATED: MAY 7, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FIVE BELOW: Class Cert. Oral Argument Rescheduled to June 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER HIMES, ET AL. v. FIVE BELOW, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-03638-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order that oral argument on the Motion for Class Certification previously scheduled for May 28, 2026, is rescheduled for Friday, June 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Five Below is an American chain of specialty discount gift shops. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IMAbn4 at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH CARE: Court Resets Class Cert Bid Hearing in Rutherford -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rutherford et al v. Health Care Service Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00081 (D. Mont., Filed Nov. 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order re-setting hearing on motion to certify class and appointment of class counsel filed by Johnny C. Rutherford, Jr. The suit alleges violation of the Diversity-Breach of Contract. Health Care is a member-owned health insurance company in the United States.[CC] INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Seeks $1.6MM Reimbursement --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCOTT BATCHELAR, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP, INC., and THOMAS A. FRANK, Case No. 3:15-cv-01836-AWT (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (i) awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of one third of the Settlement Fund, or $1,650,000; (ii) reimbursing litigation expenses in the amount of $1,627,955.81; and (iii) approving a $100,000 service award payment to the Settlement Class Representative. Hearing on this motion is set along with the hearing on motion for final approval of class action settlement and presently scheduled before the Court on June 17, 2026. Interactive is an American multinational brokerage firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E9eDcm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Bloss, Esq. Christopher M. Mattei, Esq. KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 FAIRFIELD AVENUE BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 Facsimile: (203) 368-3244 E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com cmattei@koskoff.com - and - Jack P. Carroll, Esq. Gilbert I. Low, Esq. ORGAIN BELL & TUCKER, LLP 505 Orleans, Suite 500 Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 838-6412 E-mail: jpc@obt.com mcroshaw@obt.com - and - L. DeWayne Layfield, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD, PLLC Beaumont, TX 77704 Telephone: (409) 832-1891 E-mail: dewayne@layfieldlaw.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Seeks Final Nod of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCOTT BATCHELAR, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP, INC., and THOMAS A. FRANK, Case No. 3:15-cv-01836-AWT (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs, Robert Scott Batchelar, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, move for entry of the [Proposed] Order of Final Approval of Settlement and Judgment, submitted herewith, which will provide for: (i) final approval of the Settlement Agreement with Defendants, Interactive Brokers, LLC, Interactive Brokers Group, Inc., and Thomas A. Frank; (ii) certification of the Settlement Class; and (iii) final approval of the plan of allocation for the settlement fund. Hearing on this motion is set along with the hearing on the motion for award of Attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and service award and presently scheduled before the Court on June 17, 2026. Interactive is an American multinational brokerage firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1yH6G6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Bloss, Esq. Christopher M. Mattei, Esq. KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 FAIRFIELD AVENUE BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 Facsimile: (203) 368-3244 E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com cmattei@koskoff.com - and - Jack P. Carroll, Esq. Gilbert I. Low, Esq. ORGAIN BELL & TUCKER, LLP 505 Orleans, Suite 500 Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 838-6412 E-mail: jpc@obt.com mcroshaw@obt.com - and - L. DeWayne Layfield, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD, PLLC Beaumont, TX 77704 Telephone: (409) 832-1891 E-mail: dewayne@layfieldlaw.com INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Wilson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER WILSON, RONALD BISHOP, and GABLE SCHNEIDER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES LOCAL 52, Case No. 1:25-cv-02907-OEM-LKE (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Merchant entered an order granting in part and denying in part, as follows: 1. Local 52's motion is denied to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, except it is granted with regard to the portion of the NYSHRL retaliation claim relating to Schneider's vested status, which is preempted by LMRA section 301. 2. Local 52's motion is denied to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, except it is granted with regard to the remedy seeking the value of lost future benefits under ERISA section 502(a)(3) and the NYSHRL retaliation claim. 3. Local 52's motion is denied to the extent that it seeks to strike the Plaintiffs' class action allegations. At this early stage of the litigation, it is premature for the Court to rule on Local 52's statute-of-limitations defense. In this labor action, the Plaintiffs sue their local union for violations of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"); Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"); and retaliation under New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"). Local 52 is a labor organization, serving as “the bargaining unit for seven (7) different crafts, or job categories, in the film and television production industry” in New York City: “Electrical, Property, Grip, Medic, Shop Craft, Sound, and Video.” A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JnB5vN at no extra charge.[CC] JEFFERY EVANS: Vividor Bid to Compel Class Discovery Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM VIVIDOR, CARLOS GAITAN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. JEFFERY EVANS, EVANS & PAUL LLC, E&P HOLDINGS 1, LLC, EVANS & PAUL UNLIMITED CORP., Case No. 2:25-cv-06598-NJC-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Wicks entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion to compel class discovery. The Plaintiffs have leave to renew this motion at a later stage in the proceedings, if necessary. Here, as noted above, Plaintiffs filed this motion on February 5, 2026 -- just days after Defendants answered the Complaint. That was a month before the earliest deadline under the Discovery Order, namely, the exchange of initial disclosures by March 2, 2026. Moving to compel before so much as serving interrogatories is premature, to say the least. As Defendants correctly point out, Plaintiffs "are free to seek discovery of Defendants' written wage-and-hour policies, compensation schedules, payroll practices, and time-keeping procedures, none of which require identification of individual employees, even by initials. Once Plaintiffs build that foundation, the question of whether employee-level data is then warranted can be revisited. " The Plaintiffs bring this collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid wages for overtime work performed, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and all costs in this action; and under the New York Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid wages for overtime work, unpaid spread of wages for each day Plaintiffs worked ten or more hours, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay, liquidated damages for failure to furnish Plaintiffs a notice at the time of hiring, attorneys' fees, interest, damages for falsely filing tax returns, and all costs and disbursements associated with this action. The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on November 26, 2026. The Court held an initial conference on January 28, 2026, at which a discovery schedule was entered. The Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on January 30, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2rMIV5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 The Defendants are represented by: Yale Pollack, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C. 66 Split Rock Road Syosset, NY 11779 KG MINING: Court Extends Class Cert Bid Filing to June 26 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHE LOEHR, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. KG MINING (BALD MOUNTAIN) INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00190-CLB (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file her motion for class certification until June 26, 2026. The current deadline for Loehr to move for conditional certification and to seek Court-authorized notice is April 24, 2026. Despite her diligent efforts, additional time is needed to complete discovery, as the class data and information have not yet been made available to Loehr. This information is crucial to understanding the scope of the proposed collective and the content of the Motion for Conditional Certification. The Defendant is a gold mine in northern Nevada. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ObnJ1H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: info@rodriguezlaw.com LYNN FITCH: Jackson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, ET AL., v. LYNN FITCH, ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-00417-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a 14-day extension, up to and including May 15, 2026, to file their reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request a reasonable extension of 14 days, so that they may adequately address the arguments raised in the Defendants' response. To the extent it applies, the Plaintiffs request that the Court waive the memorandum of law requirement for this short unopposed motion. Lynn Fitch is an American lawyer and politician. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=35iGHJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Mcduff, Esq. Paloma Wu, Esq. MISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE 210 E. CAPITOL STREET, STE 1800 JACKSON, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 259-8484 E-mail: rmcduff@mscenterforjustice.org pwu@mscenterforjustice.org - and - Amir Badat, Esq. BADAT LEGAL PLLC Tougaloo, MS 39174 Telephone: (601) 462-9592 E-mail: amir.badat@gmail.com - and - Joshua Tom, Esq. Mckenna Raney, Esq. Ayanna Hill, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSISSIPPI FOUNDATION, INC. Jackson, MS 39225 Telephone: (601) 354-3408 E-mail: jtom@aclu-ms.org mraney@aclu-ms.org ahill1@aclu-ms.org - and - Nicolas Stanojevich, Esq. Richard Rouco, Esq. QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP 2 20th Street North Suite 930 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 870-9989 E-mail: nstanojevich@qcwdr.com rrouco@qcwdr.com M.D.C. HOLDINGS: $25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BUILDING TRADES PENSION FUND OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. LARRY MIZEL and DAVID MANDARICH, Defendants. C.A. No. 2024-1138-NAC SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record holders and beneficial owners of common stock of M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. ("MDC") whose shares were exchanged for $63.00 per share in cash on April 19, 2024 in connection with the acquisition of MDC by SH Residential Holdings, LLC ("SHRH"). PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania ("Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of the Class, has reached a proposed settlement with defendants Larry Mizel and David Mandarich (together, the "Defendants") for $25,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release between Plaintiff, Defendants and SHRH, dated March 10, 2026 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at www.MdcStockholderLitigation.com. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action as against Defendants. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on June 18, 2026 at 9:15 a.m. before The Honorable Nathan A. Cook, Vice Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by Zoom (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether the Action may be finally maintained as a non-opt-out class action and whether the Class should be finally certified, for purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff may be finally appointed as the representative for the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel finally appointed as counsel for the Class, and whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel have adequately represented the interests of the Class in the Action; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (iv) determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against Defendants; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and any incentive award to Plaintiff, should be approved; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or to the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, including any incentive award to Plaintiff; and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.MdcStockholderLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at MDC Stockholder Litigation, c/o Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.MdcStockholderLitigation.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to "Class Members" in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, all Class Members who held or beneficially owned shares of MDC common stock at the Closing on April 19, 2024 and therefore received, or were entitled to receive, the Transaction Consideration for their "Eligible Shares" will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares. As explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Class Members will be made in the same manner in which Class Members received the Transaction Consideration. Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and any incentive award to Plaintiff in connection with the Settlement must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's counsel and Defendants' counsel such that they are received no later than May 28, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: MDC Stockholder Litigation c/o Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 info@mdcstockholderlitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's counsel: Ned Weinberger Brendan W. Sullivan LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com Joel Fleming Lauren Godles Milgroom EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP 1 Washington Mall #1307 Boston, MA 02108 jfleming@equitylitigation.com lmilgroom@equitylitigation.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Dated: April 17, 2026 MIDDLETOWN, NJ: Aveta Violates Right to Privacy, Mattison Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Tara Mattison, Individually And On Behalf Of Those Similarly-Situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTOPHER J. AVETA, IN BOTH HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, JOHN DOES 1-10, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-04191 (D.N.J., April 21, 2026) is a civil action against the Defendant for requiring speakers to disclose their group affiliation, in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The complaint relates that since becoming President of the Middletown Township Board of Education ("MTPS") on January 6, 2026, Aveta has required individuals wishing to speak at public meetings to disclose their "group affiliation." Such a compelled disclosure clearly and unequivocally violates the First Amendment, which recognizes an individual's right to privacy in his or her associations. Despite written notice that his compelled disclosures violate the United States Constitution, Aveta has continued to insist on including the requirement in that portion of MTPS's meeting agendas which govern public comment. The violation is exacerbated by the fact that MTPS also requires individuals to disclose their name and municipal residence, broadcasts this information on YouTube.com, and maintains a video record. Mattison wishes to speak at MTPS's meetings, especially with respect to the ongoing debate concerning school closures. However, Mattison is a member of certain social and advocacy groups and does not wish to disclose her affiliation with them as a condition of speaking. To avoid such disclosure, Mattison has refrained from speaking at MTPS meetings, despite her urgent desire to weigh in on school closures, a hot button issue that has embroiled the Middletown community, says the suit. Mattison now brings this action on behalf of herself and those similarly situated to enjoin Aveta's First Amendment violations. Incidentally, Mattison also seeks damages for past violations of her constitutional rights. Plaintiff Mattison is a resident of Middletown Township and a member of certain advocacy and other social groups. Defendant Christopher J. Aveta is currently the President of the Middletown Township Board of Education. JOHN DOES1-10 and ABC CORPORATIONS1-10 are the fictitiously named Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roshan D. Shah, Esq. SHAH LAW GROUP, LLC 1040 Broad Street, Suite 304 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Telephone: (732) 398-6545 Facsimile: (732) 576-0027 MURINA LLC: Scheduling Order Entered in Welch Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOLANDA WELCH, v. MURINA, LLC and AKBER ADMIRAL MERCHANT, Case No. 1:25-cv-00357-TRM-MJD (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis McDonough entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All pre-notice discovery, including the taking of depositions "for evidence," depositions of experts, and requests for admission shall be completed on or before Sept. 15, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for notice to the proposed collective shall be filed on or before Oct. 15, 2026. The Defendants' response shall be filed on or before Oct. 29, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed on or before Nov. 5, 2026. -- The Court will convene a case management conference after resolution of Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification to set remaining pretrial deadlines. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jUKIgw at no extra charge.[CC] MYEYEDR OPTOMETRY: Filing of Amended Class Cert Bid Due May 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESPANOL v. MYEYEDR. OPTOMETRY OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01024 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 4, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order granting Motion to Amend Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff shall file their amended motion on or before May 11, 2026. The Defendant shall respond on or before June 1, 2026. Thereafter, Plaintiff may file a reply on or before June 15, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant operates over 862 optometry offices.[CC] NEW DIRECTION: Mediation Deadline in Theriault Suit Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Theriault, et al v. New Direction IRA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02477 (D. Kan., Filed Oct. 30, 2023), the Hon. Judge John W. Broomes entered an order extending the mediation deadline of July 1, 2026, to 60 days after the court's ruling on plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. New Direction is a trusted provider of IRAs and HSAs.[CC] NUTRIEN LTD: Book Farms Sues Over NPK Fertilizer Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK FARMS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CANPOTEX LTD.; INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION LIMITED; AND THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00340-DGK (W.D. Mo., April 22, 2026) is a class action for damages and injunctive relief against the Defendants. The complaint relates that beginning January 1, 2020, Defendants entered into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to limit the supply and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of NPK Fertilizer sold in the United States at supra-competitive levels. The Defendants' conspiracy has enabled the Manufacturer Defendants to increase their profit margins exponentially, while forcing U.S. farmers to pay inflated prices even when market conditions do not predict or deliver net crop income. The Manufacturer Defendants maintain elevated prices without concern that their competitors will try to steal their market share or for potential new market entrants because high barriers to entry prevent new competitors from entering the market. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class have paid artificially inflated prices for NPK Fertilizer for more than six years and, as a result, have suffered injuries in violation of federal antitrust laws, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek three times their damages caused by Defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the costs of bringing suit, reasonable attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from ever again entering into similar agreements in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff Book Farms is an independent family farm located at 1023 South Eldena Road, Dixon, Illinois. The Nutrien Defendants, the Mosaic Defendants, CF Industries Holdings, Inc., the Koch Defendants, the Yara Defendants, and Cantopex Ltd. (together, the "Manufacturer Defendants") produce, manufacture, supply, and sell NPK Fertilizer throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan T. White, Esq. Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, LLC 19049 East Valley View Parkway, Ste. C Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373-9319 E-mail: ggraham@wagblaw.com bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Diane S. Rice, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com drice@saverilawfirm.com - and - Anthony J. O'Neill, Esq. Kenneth A. Michaels, Jr., Esq. Rezarta C. Melo, Esq. BAUCH & MICHAELS, LLC 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1115 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: 312-427-9696 E-mail: aoneill@bmlawllc.com kmichaels@bmlawllc.com rmelo@bmlawllc.com - and - Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Brandon M. Sadowsky, Esq. Lindsey E. Graham, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com bsadowsky@kttlaw.com lgraham@kttlaw.com - and - Clayton A. Jones, Esq. CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 257 405 W. 58 Hwy. Raymore, MO 64083 Telephone: (816) 318-4266 Facsimile: (816) 318-4267 NUTRIEN LTD: Flaten Sues Over NPK Fertilizer Price-Fixing Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Flaten, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CANPOTEX LTD.; INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION; AND THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-02334 (D. Minn., April 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their unlawful agreement, combination, or conspiracy to limit the supply and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium (potash) fertilizer (collectively, "NPK Fertilizer") sold and purchased throughout the United States and its territories from January 1, 2020 to the present. The complaint relates that beginning January 1, 2020, Defendants conspired, colluded, and entered into an agreement to artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of NPK Fertilizer at supracompetitive levels. Defendants' actions resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supracompetitive prices for NPK Fertilizer in the United States and its territories. Defendants' anticompetitive conduct violates the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, the complaint asserts. The Defendants' conspiracy has enabled the Producer Defendants to increase their profit margins, while forcing U.S. farmers and consumers to pay inflated prices even when market conditions do not predict or deliver net farm income. The Producer Defendants maintain elevated prices without concern that their competitors will try to steal their market share or for potential new market entrants because high barriers to entry prevent new competitors from entering the market, it adds. The complaint further notes that the Plaintiff's purchases were made at prices artificially inflated by Defendants or their co-conspirators through the alleged conduct. Plaintiff has therefore suffered antitrust injury as a result. To remedy Defendants' conspiracy and illegal actions, Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of direct purchasers of NPK Fertilizer seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to the federal antitrust laws, and demands a trial by jury on all matters triable. Plaintiff Dan Flaten is a North Dakota resident who purchased NPK Fertilizer directly from one or more of the Producer Defendants during the Class Period. Defendants are direct competitors and among the largest producers, manufacturers, suppliers, and sellers of NPK Fertilizer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Anthony J. Stauber, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 So. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com tstauber@gustafsongluek.com - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Joseph N. Roda, Esq. Michael S. Tarringer, Esq. Joanne E. Matusko, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com jnroda@nastlaw.com mtarringer@nastlaw.com jmatusko@nastlaw.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Melinda J. Morales, Esq. Gwyneth F. Lietz, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450 Chicago, IL, 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com mjm@wbe-llp.com gfl@wbe-llp.com OFFICE DEPOT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80069-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On April 20, 2026, the Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification. The undersigned counsel needs time to consult with their expert witness regarding the data analysis contained in the Motion, in order to prepare Office Depot's response. Further, the undersigned counsel's law firm has its biennial retreat scheduled from May 3, 2026, through May 6, 2026, which creates a scheduling conflict impacting the ability to comply with the current deadline for the Defendant's response to the Motion. Based on the good cause outlined above, Office Depot requests an extension of 11 days, through and including Friday, May 15, 2026, in which to file its response to the Plaintiff's motion. The Defendant is an office supply retailer. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uexPXF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN, P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com The Defendant is represented by: Eve A. Cann, Esq. Rebecca N. Reynolds, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 768-1600 Facsimile: (954) 333-3930 E-mail: ecann@bakerdonelson.com rreynolds@bakerdonelson.com PALISADES INSURANCE: Must Respond to Jones TAC by May 22 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIERA JONES, BYRON SIMPSON, MAYRITTA BROWN, and LAVORN GOODE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PALISADES INSURANCE COMPANY and HIGH POINT PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, New Jersey Corporations, Case No. 2:22-cv-05156-EP-SDA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Adams entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion to amend to file a third amended complaint is granted. 2. The Plaintiffs shall file the third amended complaint attached to their motion by May 1, 2026. 3. The Defendants shall answer, move, or otherwise respond to the third amended complaint by May 22, 2026. 4. Should the Defendants file a motion to dismiss, they shall simultaneously submit a letter to the undersigned requesting a stay of any additional discovery pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss. Should the Defendants file an answer, rather than a motion, the parties shall meet and confer and submit a proposed scheduling order for the completion of discovery by June 5, 2026. 5. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 98. The Court concludes that there was an intervening substantive change in the law that warrants the amendment, the Plaintiffs exercised due diligence to amend their complaint after learning of the Drummond decisions, and the Plaintiffs did not waive their ability to pursue to implied covenant claim simply because they did not assert these alternate theories of relief earlier. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the good cause standard under Rule 16. On Aug. 22, 2022, the Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, commenced this action on behalf of a putative class against Palisades. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class on behalf of a class of drivers alleging that the Defendants, their automobile insurance carriers, systemically underestimated the actual cash value ("ACV") of their totaled vehicles. Palisades offers auto and home insurance in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IeKuba at no extra charge.[CC] PEGASYSTEMS INC: Derivative Settlement to be Heard on June 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- Pegasystems Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA) provided a notice of a proposed settlement of derivative actions: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, S.S. SUPERIOR COURT Civil No. 24-1734-BLS1 CONSOLIDATED WITH Civil No. 24-3076-BLS1 JOHN DWYER, & another Plaintiffs vs. ALAN TREFLER, & others Defendants JAYNE BIRCH, & another Plaintiffs vs. ALAN TREFLER, & others Defendants SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO OR WHICH HOLD SHARES OF PEGASYSTEMS INC. ("PEGASYSTEMS" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THIS STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and Mass. Gen. L. ch. 156D, Sec. 7.45, and an Order of the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "State Court"), of the pendency of the stockholder derivative action captioned Dwyer et al. v. Trefler et al., Civ. No. 2484CV01734-BLS1 (the "State Derivative Action"), pending in the State Court, and the stockholder derivative action captioned Larkin et al. v. Trefler et al., No. 1:25-cv-10303-WGY (the "Federal Derivative Action" and, together with the State Derivative Action, the "Actions") pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Settling Parties have reached a proposed settlement of the Actions (the "Settlement"), subject to the approval of the State Court, as provided in a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of February 6, 2026 (the "Stipulation"). Under the terms of the proposed Settlement, the Pegasystems Board of Directors (the "Board") will declare a special cash dividend in an amount of $7 million to be funded by the Company and distributed to the Company's shareholders other than the Individual Defendants, their immediate family members, and certain affiliated entities (defined in the Stipulation of Settlement as "Excluded Holders"). Also, pursuant to the Settlement, the Individual Defendants and Pegasystems acknowledge that the Actions and the Demand Letters played a material causal role in the adoption of certain governance reforms by the Board and Pegasystems. A more detailed description of the Settlement terms, as well as a description of the history of the Actions and an explanation of stockholders' legal rights with respect to the Settlement, is provided in the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Actions (the "Notice"). The Notice and the Stipulation are publicly available on the "Investor Relations" section of Pegasystems' website, https://www.pega.com/about/investors. The Court will consider the Settlement and all matters related to the Settlement at the Settlement Hearing. The Settlement Hearing will be held on June 25, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Peter B. Krupp at the Suffolk County Superior Court, 3 Pemberton Square, Courtroom 1015, Boston, MA 02108. Any person, including counsel, may attend, observe or participate in the hearing over Zoom (Mtg ID: 161 888 7367). At the Settlement Hearing, the State Court will, among other things: (i) determine whether the State Plaintiffs and their counsel have adequately represented the interests of the Company and its stockholders; (ii) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Company and its stockholders, and should be approved by the Court; (iii) determine whether the Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered; (iv) determine whether the application by Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, including any award payments to Plaintiffs (the "Fee and Expense Application"), should be approved; and (v) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Stockholders do not need to attend the Settlement Hearing. Please Note: The State Court has reserved the right to adjourn the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof, including the consideration of the Fee and Expense Application, without further notice of any kind. The Court has further reserved the right to approve the Stipulation and the Settlement, at or after the Settlement Hearing, with such modifications as may be consented to by the Settling Parties and without further notice to Pegasystems stockholders. You should monitor the Court's docket and the website of Representative Plaintiffs' Counsel, as indicated below, before making plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. You may also confirm the date and time of the Settlement Hearing by contacting Representative Plaintiffs' Counsel as indicated below. If you are a Pegasystems stockholder who or which continues to hold shares of Pegasystems common stock as of June 25, 2026, the date of the Settlement Hearing, you may object to the Settlement or the Fee and Expense Application in writing, and you also have the right to appear at the Settlement Hearing. Any objections must be in writing and filed with the Civil Clerk's Office, Suffolk County Superior Court, and delivered to Representative State Plaintiffs' Counsel, Representative Federal Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Defendants Counsel such that they are received no later than June 15, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please Note: There is no proof of claim form for stockholders to submit in connection with this Settlement, and stockholders are not required to take any action in response to this notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT All questions regarding this notice and the Settlement should be made to Representative Plaintiffs' Counsel: Joel Fleming Equity Litigation Group LLP 1 Washington Mall #1307 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 468-8602 Email: jfleming@equitylitigation.com Lawrence Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC 810 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 308-5888 Email: eagel@bespc.com Dated: April 16, 2026 By Order of the Court Suffolk County Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Bid to Restrict Portion of Reply OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-01086 (D. Colo., Filed April 7, 2025), the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Restrict Portions of Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Progressive provides insurance services.[CC] REPUBLIC SERVICES: Diehl Files Suit Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Diehl, Individually and on behalf of the Republic Services Inc., Employee Benefit Plan, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. Republic Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02829-DWL (D. Ariz., April 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its unlawful surcharge program that denies Plan participants who use tobacco the opportunity to avoid the penalty as required by law. This lawsuit challenges Defendant's unlawful practice of discriminating against certain employees based on their health conditions by requiring payment of a "tobacco surcharge" which results in higher prices for health insurance for employees suffering nicotine addictions in plans offered by Defendant in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") of 1974. The complaint alleges that Defendant bears the burden of proving that its tobacco surcharge program fully complies with every regulatory requirement under ERISA and its implementing regulations, including providing a clearly defined, reasonable alternative standard that allows all participants to avoid the surcharge and receive a full refund if they satisfy the alternative. However, the Defendant cannot meet this burden because its Plan does not appear to offer any alternative standard at all. Without a reasonable alternative standard, Defendant's surcharge is not a lawful wellness incentive, but an impermissible penalty imposed on employees based on a health factor. Even if an alternative standard does exist, Defendant fails to provide clear notice of its availability in all plan materials discussing the surcharge. Its failure to offer and communicate a reasonable alternative standard makes its surcharge program facially unlawful under ERISA, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant who paid the unlawful tobacco surcharges to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan. This surcharge imposed an additional financial burden on Plaintiff and continues to impose such a burden on those similarly situated. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to recover these unlawfully charged fees and for Plan-wide equitable relief to prevent Defendant from continuing to profit from its violations under ERISA. Plaintiff Nathaniel Diehl was employed by Republic until October of 2025 and obtained health insurance through the employer sponsored Health Plan offered by Republic. Defendant Republic Services, Inc. is a publicly traded waste disposal company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7508 N. 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Telephone: (602) 730-7100 Facsimile: (602) 794-6956 E-mail: cperez@perezlawgroup.com - and - John D. Hughes, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 800 South Gay Street Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: 202-932-7015 E-mail: jhughes@milberg.com RILEY FOOD: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Smith Due June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUZANNE SMITH, v. RILEY FOOD SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01318-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jolson entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The parties shall exchange initial disclosures by May 29, 2026. -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by July 31, 2026. -- The motion for class certification shall be filed by June 30, 2026. -- All discovery shall be completed by Feb. 12, 2027. -- Dispositive motions shall be filed by April 30, 2027. This case brings claims of Family and Medical Leave Act interference and retaliation, breach of oral contract and promissory estoppel for underpayment of salary, breach of oral contract and promissory estoppel for parking cost reimbursement, and breach of contract and promissory estoppel for paid time off reimbursement resulting from the end of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant. Riley is a food service company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6DytJU at no extra charge.[CC] ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sued Over Unlicensed Sports Gambling Platform ---------------------------------------------------------------- PRABHDEEP CHEHAL, VIRAL PATEL, CHAIM LEVI, MICHAEL GAYED, and JEFFREY NGAFUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC. and ROBINHOOD DERIVATIVES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03415 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2026) is a class action to recover billions of dollars in wagers from Robinhood's unlawful operation of an unlicensed sports gambling platform and related deceptive and misleading business practices. The complaint relates that Robinhood facilitates the sale of Kalshi's sports event contracts to Robinhood's customers, who are led to believe that sports event contracts are a modern, sophisticated form of investing on a federally regulated commodities exchange that can be accessed on a phone. Robinhood began selling event contracts on October 28, 2024, to anyone over the age of 18 in all 50 states, even in states where gambling in casinos and making bets through sportsbooks is restricted to individuals who are 21 or older, like New Jersey. Robinhood aggressively markets prediction markets--through push notifications from its app, television commercials, and ads on the internet--to potential users and accepts payments through financial systems widely accessible to consumers. In reality, the sports event contracts Robinhood sells are old-fashioned wagers on the outcomes of sporting events (i.e., gaming). By operating an unlicensed sports gambling operation, Robinhood has violated state gambling laws and regulations, engaged in deceptive conduct, and unjustly enriched itself at the expense of millions of consumers, the complaint asserts. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and the classes of all others similarly situated persons to seek relief from Robinhood's unlawful sports gambling operations. Plaintiffs Prabhdeep Chehal, Viral Patel, Chaim Levi, Michael Gayed, and Jeffrey Ngafua wagered and lost money trading sports event contracts through Robinhood's Prediction Markets Hub. Robinhood Markets, Inc., the parent company of Robinhood Derivatives, LLC, facilitates the sale of illegal and unregulated sports event gaming contracts to its customers through its mobile app and website.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip M. Black, Esq. Robert Finkel, Esq. 570 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: pblack@wolfopper.com rfinkel@wolfpopper.com ROYALTON ON THE GREENS: Orgera Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WIlliam Orgera v. Michael Einhorn, Mikhail Takhalov, Jorge Fernandez, Royalton on the Greens, LLC, d/b/a The Royalton on the Greens, Jem Caterers of Roslyn, Ltd d/b/a The Royalton Roslyn Country Club, and Royalton Management Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00590-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order: -- Certifying a Rule 23 class of: "individuals who worked for the Defendants as servers and/or bartenders at The Royalton on the Greens and/or The Royalton Roslyn Country Club (the "Venues") from Feb. 3, 2019 to the present"; -- Certifying an FLSA class of: "individuals who worked for the Defendants as servers, runners, bussers and bartenders, who worked for and/or at the Venues from Feb. 3, 2022, to the present, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act section 216(b)"; and -- Appointing William Orgera as class representative; Royalton is a country club wedding venue in Melville, NY. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7MCZAW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Naidich, Esq. NAIDICH LAW 37 5th Ave 9th floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (646) 665-1060 E-mail: ZNaidich@NaidichLaw.com - and - Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL S. SEGAL 1129 Northern Boulevard, Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (516) 314-0107 E-mail: msegal@segallegal.com SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIDNEY ROSS DEEGAN, III, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02471-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Riordan entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 2. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. The Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 3. The Plaintiff's request for class certification is denied without prejudice. 4. The Plaintiff does not state a cognizable (1) First Amendment free exercise of religion claim against defendants Sacramento County, Doe Facility Commanders, or Anderson; (2) First Amendment retaliation claim against any defendant; (3) Fourteenth Amendment due process claim (SCMJ visitation policy) against defendant Doe RCCC Commander; (4) Fourteenth Amendment due process claim (reduced family visitation and program participation) against any defendant; (5) Fourteenth Amendment confinement conditions claim against any defendant; or a (6) Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against any defendant. 5. The Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his First Amendment free exercise of religion claim against defendant Bell and his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against defendants Sacramento County, Doe SMCJ Commander, Anderson, and Bell as set forth in each claim's respective ANALYSIS section, or to file an amended complaint. 6. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened complaint or whether he wants to file an amended complaint. 7. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court will assume that he is choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and will recommend dismissal without prejudice of the enumerated claims he has failed to adequately allege. The Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient factual content for the undersigned to reasonably infer that his reduced family visitation and program participation rights were intended as punishment or otherwise a product of arbitrary or excessive action. Moreover, even if plaintiff had adequately established punitive intent, he fails to identify a necessary controlling written policy or longstanding custom, attributable to the county or RCCC, to hold any defendant liable in their official capacity. Plaintiff also fails to explain how each defendant contributed to the alleged subpar family visitation and programming conditions in order to satisfy the § 1983 linkage requirement for establishing personal liability. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendant Sacramento County or any named defendant in their official capacity. Plaintiff also fails to explain how each defendant was either directly or proximately involved in subjecting him to the alleged inadequate conditions at RCCC. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state a claim against all defendant in their personal capacities. In his request for relief, plaintiff seeks monetary damages of $80,000 from defendant Sacramento County, $20,000 each from Defendants Doe SCMJ and RCCC Facility Commanders, $20,000 from defendant Anderson, and $150 from defendant Bell for each day plaintiff is forced to ingest blood. Sacramento is the central county of the Greater Sacramento metropolitan area. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CuML9d at no extra charge.[CC] SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Seeks More Time to File SAC Response ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRICK LOWE Sr, v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY; JOSEPH GARCIA, individually; JAYSON BURK, individually; and ORLANDO ONTIVEROSCHI, individually., Case No. 2:25-cv-03022-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting the Defendants' motion for administrative relief to extend time to respond to second amended complaint. The Defendants' deadline to file an answer is extended as follows: -- Counsel for the Defendants shall notify this Court within five court days of its receipt of an order from the San Joaquin County Dependency Court on the Welfare and Institutions Code Section 827 petitions the County filed, along with a copy of the order. -- Counsel for the Defendants shall subsequently notify this Court when they receive the documents the Dependency Court authorizes to be produced, along with a proposed deadline to file an Answer to the SAC. This Court will then issue an order setting a deadline. San Joaquin is in the San Joaquin Valley region of California. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tkC79P at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Dana A. Suntag, Esq. Joshua J. Stevens, Esq. Alexander R. Thomas, Esq. HERUM CRABTREE SUNTAG, LLP 5757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222 Stockton, CA 95207 Telephone: (209) 472-7700 E-mail: dsuntag@herumcrabtree.com jstevens@herumcrabtree.com athomas@herumcrabtree.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Cert Opposition Deadline Reset to June 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ulloa II v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01752 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Ajay S. Krishnan entered an order rescheduling the hearing on the Motion to Certify Class to August 12, 2026, and adopts the following briefing schedule: -- Opposition deadline: June 23, 2026 -- Reply deadline: July 29, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant provides security services.[CC] SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: WPCHHL Seeks Initial OK of Proposed Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00334 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement; (2) approving the form and manner of giving notice of the proposed Settlement to the Class; (3) preliminarily granting class certification for settlement purposes; and (4) setting a hearing date for the Court to consider final approval of the Settlement, approval of the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund, Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, and the Plaintiffs' application for awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section78u-4(a)(4) (the "Settlement Hearing"), and a schedule for various deadlines relevant thereto ("Preliminary Approval Order")." The Settlement provides for the payment of $70 million in cash to resolve this securities class action against all Defendants. This is an excellent recovery for the Class and was reached by experienced counsel after the Parties litigated Defendants' motion to dismiss, began fact discovery, and participated in arm's-length mediations overseen by Miles N. Ruthberg of Phillips ADR Enterprises, a highly respected and experienced mediator. As part of the Settlement, the Parties request that the Court certify the following Class: "All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Shoals common stock between May 16, 2022, and May 7, 2024, inclusive, including purchasers in Shoals' December 2022 secondary public offering, and were allegedly harmed thereby." Excluded from the Class are: the Defendants, the immediate families of the Individual Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company and members of their immediate families, and the Underwriter Defendants, at all relevant times, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest. For the avoidance of doubt any "Investment Vehicle" shall not be excluded from the Class. Also excluded from the Class is any Person who properly excludes himself, herself, itself, or themselves from the Class by submitting a valid and timely request for exclusion. On March 21, 2024, the above-captioned action was filed in this Court asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). On Feb. 4, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint for violations of the Federal Securities Laws. Shoals Technologies is a provider of electrical balance of systems (EBOS) solutions for solar, energy storage, and eMobility. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IGIkQk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Wood, Esq. Debra J. Wyman, Esq. Matthew I. Alpert, Esq. Joseph J. Tull, Esq. Ashley G. Pyle, Esq. Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com debraw@rgrdlaw.com malpert@rgrdlaw.com jtull@rgrdlaw.com apyle@rgrdlaw.com elleng@rgrdlaw.com - and - Gregg S. Levin, Esq. William S. Norton, Esq. Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq. Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com bnorton@motleyrice.com jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com cmoriarty@motleyrice.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Robert D. Klausner Sean M Sendra KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON, P.A. 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com sean@robertdklausner.com SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Rogelio Garcia Valdez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Signature Landscape, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-2276-TC (D. Kan.), Judge Toby Crouse of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Defendant's motion to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act collective, granted Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification, and denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Rogelio Garcia Valdez and Marbella Gomez brought this collective and class action against Signature Landscape, LLC, alleging that Defendant violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Defendant is a commercial landscaping company operating in the Kansas City metropolitan area from four branches: two in Kansas and two in Missouri. Since its founding in 1989, Defendant classified all field employees as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act exemption, on the theory that their work affects the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. Plaintiffs contended this was unlawful because they spent the vast majority of their time on manual landscaping tasks unrelated to vehicle safety. On the motion to decertify the FLSA collective, the court found that all three Thiessen ad-hoc considerations favored maintaining the collective. The court held that there is a single legal question uniting the collective: whether Defendant's blanket classification of every landscape laborer as Motor Carrier Act exempt was lawful. The variations Defendant identified went to the evidence individual workers may offer in answering the same question rather than suggesting separate legal questions or policies. The court further noted that the collective consists substantially of non-English-speaking H-2B visa workers, many of whom have returned to foreign countries, and that decertification would effectively extinguish their claims. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to decertify was denied. On class certification, the court certified a class under Rule 23(b)(3) for Missouri Minimum Wage Law claims, comprising all landscape laborers who performed work in Missouri for Defendant and were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek during the class period. The court held that the Missouri Minimum Wage Law covers hours physically worked in Missouri regardless of the employees' state of residence or starting office. The court found all four Rule 23(a) prerequisites satisfied, noting that the lawfulness of Defendant's blanket Motor Carrier Act exemption presents a common question capable of classwide resolution. Plaintiff Valdez was appointed class representative. On Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on quasi-estoppel, the court found that genuine disputes of material fact precluded a determination of unconscionability. Defendant's H-2B certifications were directed at the Department of Labor, not at Plaintiffs, and were made in a context where the Department of Labor audited and approved Defendant's Motor Carrier Act exemption practices. The motion was therefore denied. On Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court found that whether Plaintiff Valdez's safety-affecting activities, taken together, constitute a substantial part of his work presents a genuine dispute of material fact. As to Plaintiff Gomez, her uncontroverted testimony established that she performed no driving, no vehicle inspections, no morning loading, no cone placement, no backing assistance, and no traffic direction. The Court found that the Defendant had not carried its burden of proving the exemption applied to her as a matter of law. Defendant's motion was denied in its entirety. A Copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated April 28 https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RNeHAd from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiffs are represented by Brendan Donelon, Esq., at DONELON, P.C., and Ashley Atwell-Soler, Esq., at HOLMAN SCHIAVONE LLC. SVB FINANCIAL: Vanipenta Bid for Class Cert. Terminated ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chandra Vanipenta v. SVB Financial Group, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01097 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Noel Wise entered an order terminating Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the parties' related motions. Accordingly, the Court neglected to address Defendant Beck's motion to file a surreply. That motion is terminated now for the reasons set forth in the Court's prior Order. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. SVB is a financial services holding company.[CC] TERRAFORM POWER: $83.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE TERRAFORM POWER, INC. MERGER STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION C.A. No. 2022-0097-KSJM SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF TERRAFORM POWER, INC. ("TERP" OR THE "COMPANY") CLASS A COMMON STOCK (NASDAQ: "TERP") WHOSE SHARES WERE EXCHANGED FOR EITHER CLASS A SHARES OF BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE CORPORATION ("BEPC") OR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNITS OF BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE PARTNERS, L.P. ("BEP") UPON CLOSING OF THE MERGER BETWEEN TERP AND AFFILIATES OF BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. ("BROOKFIELD") ON JULY 31, 2020. THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS PUBLICATION NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs City of Dearborn Police and Fire Revised Retirement System (Chapter 23), Rosson Trust U/A 4/23/92, and Noah Wright (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of the Class, have reached a proposed settlement with Defendants Brookfield, Brookfield Infrastructure Fund III GP LLC, Orion US GP LLC, Orion US Holdings 1 LP, Harry Goldgut, Brian Lawson, Richard Legault, Sachin Shah, John Stinebaugh, BEP, and BEPC (collectively, "Defendants") for $83,750,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release between Plaintiffs and Defendants, dated March 6, 2026 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at www.TerraFormStockholderLitigation.com. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action against Defendants, and the Action will be dismissed with prejudice. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on June 22, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by telephone or video conference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and whether Plaintiffs should be finally appointed as Class representatives for the Class and Plaintiffs' Counsel should be finally appointed as counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and in the best interests of the Class; (iv) determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be granted; (v) determine whether the Judgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii) determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award should be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel out of the Settlement Fund; (viii) determine whether and in what amount any Incentive Awards should be paid to Plaintiffs out of the Settlement Fund; (ix) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award; and (x) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.TerraFormStockholderLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at TerraForm Stockholder Litigation, c/o Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.TerraFormStockholderLitigation.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" consist of all Class Members who held or beneficially owned shares of TERP Class A common stock at the Closing on July 31, 2020 and therefore received, or were entitled to receive, the Merger Consideration for their "Eligible Shares." Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares. As explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made in the same manner in which Eligible Class Members received the Merger Consideration. Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award, including Plaintiffs' application for Incentive Awards, must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' counsel such that they are received no later than June 5, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Publication Notice. All questions about this Publication Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: TerraForm Stockholder Litigation c/o Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel: Ned Weinberger LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 nweinberger@labaton.com David Tejtel FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 dtejtel@fotpllc.com Douglas E. Julie JULIE & HOLLEMAN LLP 157 East 86th Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10028 doug@julieholleman.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Dated: April 21, 2026 TEXTRON AVIATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 4 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY BARRY, individually and for others similarly situated, v. TEXTRON AVIATION INC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01271-EFM-JBW (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Wieland entered a Phase I scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline The Defendant to produce pay and time May 29, 2026 data for randomized sample of proposed FLSA Collective and Kansas Class: Phase I rebuttal experts on conditional July 17, 2026 certification disclosed (if any): Mediation deadline: July 31, 2026 All Phase I discovery complete: Aug. 7, 2026 Motion for conditional and/or class Sept. 4, 2026 certification: Response in opposition to motion: Sept. 25, 2026 Reply in support of motion: Oct. 9, 2026 The Plaintiff brings this wage and hour class and collective action against the Defendant alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA). The Plaintiff's proposed FLSA Collective is: "All hourly employees Textron paid under its bonus pay scheme during the last three years through final resolution of this action." The Plaintiff's proposed Kansas Class is: "All hourly employees in Kansas Textron paid under its bonus pay scheme during the last three years through final resolution of this action." Textron provides airborne solutions for government, military and commercial customers. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8sORQ6 at no extra charge.[CC] TRA MEDICAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Wilson Due March 8, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. TRA Medical Imaging Foundation, Case No. 3:25-cv-05808 (W.D. Wash., Filed Sept. 10, 2025), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order adopting the parties' proposed briefing scheduled as set forth in Joint Status Report: -- Fact discovery cutoff is Feb. 5, 2027 -- Expert disclosures is Feb. 11, 2027 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures is March 11, 2027 -- Expert discovery cutoff is April 1, 2027 -- Deadline for class certification motion is March 8, 2027 -- Response to class certification is April 29, 2027, reply to class certification is May 13, 2027 -- Dipositive motion cutoff is Sept. 2, 2027 The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. TRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening the medical imaging workforce pipeline.[CC] TRUE BLUE: Court Narrows Claims in Connors Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monte Connors, et al., v. True Blue Car Wash LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02318-ROS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Silver entered an order that True Blue's motion to compel arbitration and strike class allegations; or in the alternative to dismiss count iii is granted in part and denied in part as to compelling arbitration and striking the class allegations. Count Three of Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss Plaintiff Millsaps from this case. No reasonable trier of fact could find an agreement to arbitrate was made, and the Court will deny Defendant's request to compel arbitration. The Defendant moves to strike the class claims on two grounds. First, the Defendant asserts the class claims are subject to a class waiver in the T&C. This argument fails because, as previously discussed, no reasonable trier of fact could find the Plaintiffs had notice of and assented to the T&C, so the Plaintiffs are not bound by the class waiver. Second, the Defendant argues that even if the class claims are not barred by the arbitration agreement, the class claims should be stricken nonetheless because they are facially deficient. Thus, because it is not "clear from the face of the complaint that no class can be certified," striking the Plaintiffs' class allegations under Rule 12(f) would be improper. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of three subclasses: Illinois Sub-Class: "All persons in Illinois who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, were automatically enrolled in a Rainstorm Car Wash membership and were charged at least one renewal fee by the Defendant." Indiana Sub-Class: "All persons in Indiana who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, were enrolled in a Rainstorm Car Wash membership where the price of the monthly membership was increased and/or where they were charged a membership fee after they cancelled the membership." Texas Sub-Class: "All persons in Texas who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, were enrolled in a Clean Freak Car Wash membership where the price of the monthly membership was increased and/or where they were charged a membership fee after they cancelled the membership." True Blue provides car wash services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M7vQSm at no extra charge.[CC] UNION PACIFIC: Cooley Bid to Reconsider Case Dismissal Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY TODD COOLEY, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00056-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing this case. Accordingly, the Court's ruling in its November 3 Order stands. The Plaintiff was not a member of the narrowed Harris class definition, as certified on Feb. 5, 2019. Therefore, his ADA claims were only tolled until Feb. 5, 2019. As a result, the Plaintiff's 300-day window to seek the proper administrative remedies for this cause of action closed on Dec. 2, 2019. Because Plaintiff did not file his Charge of Discrimination seeking administrative relief until Jan. 31, 2020, the Plaintiff's disparate treatment claim under the ADA is time-barred. On Nov. 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, through which he asks the Court to reconsider its November 3 Order and find that that the narrowed Harris class definition, as certified, included him. The certified Harris class, was defined as follows: "All individuals who have been or will be subject to a fitness-for-duty examination as a result of a reportable health event at any time from Sept. 18, 2014, until the final resolution of this action." Union Pacific is an American Class I freight-hauling railroad. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E6quOm at no extra charge.[CC] USAA GENERAL: Court OKs $5M "Black" Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Walter Black III, Keith Barr, Wayne Best, and David Fant, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. USAA General Indemnity Company, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-cv-1581-LKG (D. Md.), Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement, approved the Settlement Agreement, and granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for award of attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards, dated April 29, 2026. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants illegally collected late fees from more than 127,000 Maryland insurance policyholders during the period June 27, 2011, and September 30, 2019, in violation of Maryland Insurance Code Section 27-216(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii)(2). The Plaintiffs sought to recover the gains, profits, interest, and/or otherwise increased value of these wrongly assessed late fees. The Plaintiffs asserted two claims against the Defendants: (1) money had and received (Count I) and (2) unjust enrichment (Count II). The court certified the Settlement Class, defined as all individuals who, per the Consent Order, received late fee refunds. The court found that the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a) were satisfied, and that common issues predominated, specifically that the Defendants unlawfully and improperly withheld accrued interest or improperly withheld their financial gains made on unlawfully assessed late fees. According to the Settlement Agreement Defendants must deposit $5 million into an escrow account to compensate Settlement Class Members. Each member will be allocated a minimum payment of $5.00 from the Net Settlement Fund, with additional amounts allocated proportionately based on interest that the Settlement Class Member would have received on March 20, 2020, had simple interest been included in the late fee refund at eight percent per annum. Class Counsel represented that payments will range from approximately $5.04 to $274.90 per member, with a median payment of $14.77. The court found the Settlement Agreement fair, noting that the parties engaged in arm's length negotiations through a neutral mediator, the Honorable Benson E. Legg (Ret.), and conducted formal discovery from July 18, 2024, to June 3, 2025. The court found the settlement adequate, citing litigation risks, the high costs of further proceedings, and the absence of any objections from Settlement Class Members. As to the Notice Plan, 126,887 of the 127,242 attempted notices were successfully delivered, resulting in a 99.72% success rate. Five opt-out requests were received; the court honored one, from an individual with the surname Walters. No objections to the Settlement Agreement were received. The court awarded service awards to the named Plaintiffs: $7,500.00 to Plaintiff Walter Black III, and $3,500.00 each to Plaintiffs Keith Barr, Wayne Best, and David Fant, Sr. The court deferred ruling on the request for attorneys' fees of $1,897,980.94 and costs of $84,019.06, pending receipt of additional information from Class Counsel. The court dismissed the complaint and the action against the Defendants with prejudice and retained jurisdiction for purposes of implementing the Settlement Agreement. Class Action Status: Certified. Rule 23(b)(3) class action comprising more than 127,000 Maryland policyholders who received late fee refunds per the Consent Order. A copy of the Court's Settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V6DOlf from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, USAA General Indemnity Company, and United Services Automobile Association are represented by: Matthew H. Kirtland, Esq. Adam T. Schramek, Esq. Laura A. Hunt, Esq. Nathan Carl Nagle Damweber, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Email: matthew.kirtland@nortonrosefulbright.com adam.schramek@nortonrosefulbright.com laura.hunt@nortonrosefulbright.com nathan.damweber@nortonrosefulbright.com Plaintiffs are represented by: Kathleen M. Vermilion, Esq. Keith T. Vernon, Esq. Andrew William Knox, Esq. TIMONEY KNOX LLP Email: kvermilion@timoneyknox.com kvernon@timoneyknox.com aknox@timoneyknox.com Andrea Rifka Gold, Esq. Mallory Morales, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP Email: agold@tzlegal.com mmorales@tzlegal.com Jonathan P. Kagan, Esq. Heather Kirkwood Yeung, Esq. KAGAN STERN MARINELLO & BEARD, LLC Email: kagan@kaganstern.com yeung@kaganstern.com Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC Email: jshub@shublawyers.com Karen Michele Kohn, Esq. THE KOHN LAW GROUP, PLLC Email: karen@thekohnlawgroup.com VIP UNIVERSAL: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Hampton Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeremy Hampton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIP Universal Medical Insurance Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01302-O (N.D. Tex., April 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers' and employees' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") from criminal hackers. The complaint relates that VIP Universal Medical Insurance Group, LLC is a health insurance company offering exclusive major medical insurance products and VIP medical services to private and corporate clients worldwide. As a condition of receiving services and/or employment, Defendant requires that its customers and employees entrust it with highly sensitive personal information. On April 13, 2026, Defendant suffered a cyberattack by the ransomware group, byetobreach, which resulted in the theft of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and potential out-of-pocket expenses to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff, hence, brings this class action to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained. Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Jeremy Hampton is a resident citizen of Maud, Texas and a Data Breach victim.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: 972-387-4040 Facsimile: 972-387-4041 - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: thilton@sirillp.com VIP UNIVERSAL: Fails to Secure Private Information, Reeves Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Jasmine Reeves, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIP Universal Medical Insurance Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01303-X (N.D. Tex., April 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers' and employees' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") from criminal hackers. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving services and/or employment, Defendant requires that its customers and employees entrust it with highly sensitive personal information. On April 13, 2026, an unauthorized individual accessed Defendant's network environment and stole Private Information, which included that of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and potential out-of-pocket expenses to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised. Plaintiff Jasmine Reeves is a natural person and resident citizen of Cincinnati, Ohio. Defendant VIP Universal Medical Insurance Group, Inc. is a health insurance company offering exclusive major medical insurance products and VIP medical services to private and corporate clients worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: 972-387-4040 Facsimile: 972-387-4041 - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: thilton@sirillp.com - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S UNIT 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com VIRGIN GALACTIC: $8.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP announced that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded shares of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: SPCE) and/or Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. (NYSE: IPOA) common stock: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SHANE LAVIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VIRGIN GALACTIC HOLDINGS, INC., MICHAEL A. COLGLAZIER, GEORGE WHITESIDES, DOUG AHRENS, and JON CAMPAGNA, Defendants. CASE No.: 1:21-cv-03070-ARR-TAM SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded shares of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Virgin Galactic") and/or Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. common stock from July 10, 2019, through August 4, 2022, inclusive (the "Settlement Class"):1 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that the litigation (the "Action") has been preliminary certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $8,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on July 9, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Taryn A. Merkl at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Courtroom 13D South, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.VirginGalacticSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Virgin Galactic Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063, Telephone: (866) 274-4004. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator either electronically or postmarked no later than August 13, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator such that it is received no later than June 18, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than June 9, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Virgin Galactic, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Virgin Galactic Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (866) 274-4004 Email: info@strategicclaims.net www.VirginGalacticSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Jonathan Horne, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Email: info@rosenlegal.com or GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Email: settlements@glancylaw.com By Order of the Court VIRTU FINANCIAL: Scheduling Conference in ABI Suit Set for June 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASIA BROADBAND, INC., v. VIRTU FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00175-FLA-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Aenlle-Rocha entered an order setting scheduling conference for June 12, 2026. The case has been assigned to United States District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. This matter is set for a Scheduling Conference on the above date in Courtroom 6B of the First Street Courthouse, 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012. If Plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint on all Defendants, Plaintiff shall do so promptly and shall file proofs of service of the summons and complaint within three (3) days thereafter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; Local Rule 4. The Defendants also shall timely serve and file their responsive pleadings and comply with the requirements of Local Rule 5-3.2. At the Scheduling Conference, the court will set a date by which motions to amend the pleadings or add parties must be heard. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed at least fourteen (14) days before the Scheduling Conference. The court may vacate the Scheduling Conference and issue the Scheduling Order based solely on the parties’ Joint Rule 26(f) Report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). If the court elects to conduct a scheduling conference, lead trial counsel must attend unless excused by the court for good cause before the conference Virtu is an American high-frequency trading company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KGnZRu at no extra charge.[CC] VISA INC: Potayto-Potahto Sues Over Future Release Provision ------------------------------------------------------------ POTAYTO-POTAHTO, LLC d/b/a FALAFEL TACO; DOUGICABAN, INC. d/b/a QUAKER HILL TAVERN; and CAM-OMO INC. d/b/a CARMINE MINARDI NYC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VISA INC.; VISA U.S.A. INC.; VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION; MASTERCARD INCORPORATED; and MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03245 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2026) is a class action to recover damages for violations of the Sherman Act, and to obtain a declaration that the release of future claims from a 2019 Settlement Agreement is invalid. The complaint relates that for over a half-century, Visa and Mastercard have colluded with the nation's largest banks to fix the Interchange Fees that Merchants pay the banks on every Credit Card transaction. Visa and Mastercard architect and police this conspiracy by setting artificially high rates and imposing a set of rules on Merchants designed to ensure those default rates prevail. Chief among these is a rule requiring Merchants that accept any Visa or Mastercard Credit Card to accept all such cards, regardless of cost. Banks have no incentive to compete for Merchant acceptance by lowering their fees, so none does. The scale of the scheme is staggering, with the banks collecting fees totaling more than $100 billion annually. Visa and Mastercard have fought fiercely to preserve these anticompetitive practices and to limit their financial exposure through litigation and settlement. In 2019, they settled a long-running damages class action by compensating Merchants for harm suffered during the class period (ending January 24, 2019), without regard to any subsequent harm. In exchange, Visa and Mastercard secured far more than a release for past claims: they obtained a release extending years into the future, purporting to bar claims arising from the same ongoing conduct through August 8, 2028. The settlement did not resolve claims for injunctive relief: those claims proceeded in a separate injunction class action, which remains ongoing, and the challenged conduct has continued in the meantime. In effect, Visa and Mastercard sought to purchase through settlement a license to continue violating the antitrust laws—immunizing themselves from damages claims while they continued their same course of harmful conduct, asserts the complaint. According to the complaint, while the 2019 Settlement Agreement received court approval, the Second Circuit cast doubt on the legality and, thus, enforceability of the Future Release. The court had no occasion to resolve that issue, however, since the release contains a "de-facto severability clause," which provides that the release "extends to, but only to, the fullest extent permitted by federal law," ensuring "that the Settlement Agreement will stand even if certain aspects of the release were to fall." A decision as to the enforceability of the Future Release, the court explained, would have to "await a case in which the issue would directly affect the proceedings." That case has now arrived, states the complaint. Merchants have continued to suffer harm as Visa and Mastercard have maintained the same anticompetitive practices that existed in the earlier class action, practices that helped generate more than $700 billion in fees since the close of the last class period on January 24, 2019. The antitrust laws entitle Merchants to compensation. Visa and Mastercard cannot escape liability by invoking the Future Release, as that provision violates federal law and is therefore invalid, asserts the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of Merchants that have accepted Visa and/or Mastercard Credit Cards in the United States since January 25, 2019. They seek a declaration that the Future Release is invalid and unenforceable, and damages for the supracompetitive Interchange Fees they have paid and continue to pay during the Damages Period. The Plaintiffs are New York-based businesses that have accepted Visa- and Mastercard-branded Credit Cards since before January 25, 2019, and have paid -- and continue to pay -- Visa's and Mastercard's supracompetitive fees. Defendants Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association are Delaware corporations and direct or indirect subsidiaries of Visa Inc. Mastercard International Incorporated is the principal operating subsidiary of Mastercard Incorporated.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Bressler, Esq. Kenneth L Bressler, Esq. 175 Varick Street, Suite 410 New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (212) 444-2388 E-mail: jason.bressler@bresslerllp.com ken.bressler@bresslerllp.com WR GP: Espinoza Files Suit Over Illegal Rent Hikes -------------------------------------------------- MARIA DEL CARMEN ESPINOZA and DONNA GUIDRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WR GP LLC, WINNRESIDENTIAL MANAGER CORP., and BLDG PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-03272 (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their intentional failure to follow landlord tenant laws regarding unlawful rent increases, unlawful debt collection practices, and unlawful retention of residential security deposits, all while Defendants failed to maintain minimally habitable living conditions. Defendants WR GP LLC and WinnResidential Manager Corp ("Property Manager") together form a multifamily property management conglomerate that manages apartment communities throughout the United States. Plaintiffs Maria Del Carmen Espinoza and Donna Guidry are current tenants at Tennyson. Around 2024, Property Manager became the manager at Tennyson, and immediately began to implement policy changes and rent increases without proper notice to tenants, notes the complaint. Moreover, Property Manager allowed each apartment, and the common areas, to fall into a state of uninhabitable disrepair and refused to make timely, adequate repairs. Defendants' repeated failures to address the Habitability Conditions at Tennyson have substantially interfered with the Tennyson tenants' right to quiet enjoyment. Tenants often prepare their units for Defendants' entry, including committing to being present during the notice period and taking time off work, but then Defendants do not show up and do not do the work. Tenants informed Defendants that such failures to appear were unacceptable. Defendants, in response, began issuing notices of entry where the notice period was not for a specific set date and time that they could be held to, but the notice period covered entire weeks or months, stating entry could happen at any time. Such notices of entry are invalid because they are too vague, asserts the complaint. Defendants abused the landlord's right of entry when they entered units pursuant to these vague notices. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been harmed and damaged in many ways, the complaint adds. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege claims for (1) Unlawful Rent Increases; (2) Violations of the Implied Warranty of Habitability; (3) Violation of the Hayward Mun. Code; (4) Breach of Written Contract; (5) Breaches of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (6) Violations of the California Unfair Competition Law; (7) Violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (8) Statutory Larceny; (9) Unlawful Retention of Residential Security Deposits; (10) Negligence and (11) Unlawful Liquidated Damages. Plaintiffs and the Class Members seek damages and an injunction forcing Defendants to stop abusing their tenants and compelling them to adopt adequate practices regarding the handling of security deposits, fees and costs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866)219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Kevin Lemieux, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN LEMIEUX, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 488-6767 E-mail: Kevin@LawyerKevin.com - and - Daniel Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com [] Karin Dryhurst Joins Jenner & Block's Class Action Practice -------------------------------------------------------------- Jenner & Block announced that Karin Dryhurst has joined the firm as a Partner in its Washington, DC office, where she will be a key member of the Financial Litigation, Class Action, and Payments Practices. Ms. Dryhurst is a commercial litigator with over a decade of experience defending class actions, government-facing litigation, and consumer protection disputes on behalf of banks, credit unions, mortgage and student loan servicers, and fintech and payments companies. Her practice regularly involves matters with significant regulatory scrutiny, institutional risk, and public visibility -- the kind of high-stakes, reputationally significant litigation where Jenner attorneys are top of market and in high demand as fearless advocates. "Karin is a natural fit for our firm and our clients as a highly skilled and versatile commercial litigator," said Co-Managing Partners Ishan Bhabha and Randy Mehrberg. "Her command of class action defense, consumer protection litigation, and multi-regulator investigations deepens our commercial litigation bench in DC, reinforces existing firmwide strengths, and expands Jenner’s capacity to deliver the level of strategic counsel and fearless advocacy that our clients expect." Ms. Dryhurst has built a distinguished track record in class action defense, including fraud-based claims and anti-discrimination claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). She has achieved repeated success striking class allegations at the motion-to-dismiss stage, including a precedent-setting decision before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Ms. Dryhurst's experience representing clients against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and multiple state attorneys general also gives her distinctive insight into how enforcement agencies approach and coordinate complex matters. "Karin's government enforcement and class action defense experience positions her to deliver immediate value for clients facing a dynamic enforcement and litigation environment," said Washington, DC Office Managing Partner Lindsay Harrison. "Karin’s addition to our team reinforces our commitment to clients in their most consequential legal and regulatory matters," added Financial Litigation Co-Chair Megan Poetzel. Ms. Dryhurst joins Jenner from an AmLaw 50 firm where she was a partner in the government and regulatory litigation group. Earlier in her career, she clerked for the Honorable Harris L Hartz on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. "I have long admired the strength of Jenner & Block’s DC office, along with its fearless reputation for strategic counsel and high stakes litigation," said Ms. Dryhurst. "I look forward to bringing that same level of service and commitment to the matters that are most consequential to a wide array of clients." Ms. Dryhurst holds a JD, cum laude, from New York University School of Law and a BA in Journalism and Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and in New York. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idex Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Idex Corporation and seven of its subsidiaries are presently named as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. These components were acquired from third-party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Asbestos-related claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance of the claims has been settled for various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hq9LW7 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "While we have never manufactured any asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical products have contained components manufactured by third parties incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of and for the periods ended March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025. "The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately $11 million to $31 million as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025. Since no amount within the range of estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded the minimum amount of $11 million as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, which is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and exclude the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos-related recoveries of approximately $3 million as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, which is principally included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9w87Fs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Parsons Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos products at various project sites, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Management believes that any significant costs relating to these claims will be reimbursed by applicable insurance and, although there can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved favorably, management believes that the ultimate resolution of any of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. A liability is recorded when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. When using a range of loss estimate, the Company records the liability using the low end of the range unless some amount within the range of loss appears at that time to be a better estimate than any other amount in the range. The Company records a corresponding receivable for costs covered under its insurance policies. Management judgment is required to determine the outcome and the estimated amount of a loss related to such matters. Management believes that there are no claims or assessments outstanding which would materially affect the consolidated results of operations or the Company's financial position. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fRhhHO ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Defends Product Liability Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- As of March 31, 2026, PPG Industries Inc. was aware of certain asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The asbestos-related claims consist of claims against the Company alleging: exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by the Company or its subsidiaries ("Products Claims"); personal injury caused by asbestos on premises presently or formerly owned, leased or occupied by the Company ("Premises Claims"); and asbestos-related claims against a subsidiary the Company acquired in 2013 ("Subsidiary Claims"). The Company monitors and reviews the activity associated with its asbestos claims and evaluates, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such claims and all underlying assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims is required. Additionally, as a supplement to its periodic monitoring and review, the Company conducts discussions with counsel and engages valuation consultants to analyze its claims history and estimate the amount of the Company's potential liability for asbestos-related claims. As of both March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company's asbestos-related reserves totaled $43 million. The Company believes that, based on presently available information, the total reserves for asbestos-related claims will be sufficient to encompass all of the Company's current and estimable potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves, which are included within Other liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, involve significant management judgment and represent the Company's current best estimate of its liability for these claims. The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) whether closed, dismissed or dormant claims are reinstituted, reinstated or revived; (iii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iv) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims; (v) the unpredictable aspects of the tort system, including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vi) the outcome of any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vii) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure for which the Company is allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (viii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates. While the ultimate outcome of the Company's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sb4FDd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 420 PI Claims as of March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of March 31, 2026, the Company has reported 420 asbestos claims outstanding for the three months ended March 31, 2026. We have never mined, milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to industrial users a limited number of products that contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. In virtually all of the cases against us, the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages above a jurisdictional minimum against multiple defendants who may have manufactured, sold or used asbestos-containing products to which the plaintiffs were allegedly exposed and from which they purportedly suffered injury. Most of these cases are being litigated in Maryland, Illinois, Missouri and New York; however, we are also defending cases in other states. We continue to vigorously defend these cases, primarily on the basis of the plaintiffs' inability to establish compensable loss as a result of exposure to our products. The indemnity and defense costs of our asbestos-related product liability litigation to date have been substantially covered by insurance." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S4jrGr ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $684MM Liability at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Corporation's total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was $684 million at March 31, 2026 ($708 million at December 31, 2025). At March 31, 2026, approximately 32 percent of the recorded claim liability related to pending claims and approximately 68 percent related to future claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJC56v ********* 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 ***