260520.mbx

260520.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 20, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 100 Headlines ALL AROUND: Wade Labor Class Action Suit Seeks Civil Penalties ALTITUDE ENERGY: Binion Seeks to Recover Drillers' Unpaid OT Wages BANNER HEALTH: Haller Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty BAYOU STEEL: Black Diamond Did Not Direct Plant Closing BBS BEAUTY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Velykholova Says CANAM STEEL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Gomez Alleges CAPITAL ONE: Sanchez Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy CHEERS HEALTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges CORDOBA LEGAL: Callier Alleges Unlawful Telemarketing Calls CVENT HOLDING: $12MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 10 DELAWARE: Faces Calm Class Suit Over Deployment of OC Weapons EAGLE CLAW: Bennett Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: $15MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 24 EYEMART EXPRESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Estrada Says FABLETICS INC: Faces Del Valle Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages FORD MOTOR: Court Tosses Fyie Expert Report in "Dolan" GEN DIGITAL: Faces Garcia Class Suit Over Digital Surveillance HCA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay All Wages, Heath Suit Alleges HOME DEPOT: Grimes Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hamersley Says INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Silva Says IOSM INC: Brown Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages KIND TRANSPORT: Underpays Company Truck Drivers, Glenn Alleges MARPAC LLC: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website MEDTRONIC INC: Edell Files Suit Over Data Breach MEDTRONIC INC: Running Files Suit Over Data Breach NET POWER: Continues to Defend Derivative Suit in N.C. NET POWER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.C. NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN: Haynes Sues for Wage and Hour Law Breach OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Rochester Suit Over Fire Truck Inflated Prices OWENS & MINOR: Walker Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty OWLET INC: Final OK of Settlement in Vargas Derivative Suit Pending OWLET INC: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Securities Suit PACS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Munchin Securities Class Suit Pending PACS GROUP: Continues to Defend Boers Derivative Suit in Utah PACS GROUP: Howard-Hines Derivative Suit Stayed PERPETUA RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Barnes Fed. Securities Suit PIONEER BANCORP: Continues to Defend Brandes & Yancy Class Suit PIONEER BANCORP: Continues to Defend O'Malley's Oven Class Suit QUANTUM COMPUTING: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NJ QUANTUM COMPUTING: June 2025 Derivative Suit Stayed QUANTUM COMPUTING: March 2025 Derivative Suit Stayed QUANTUM COMPUTING: May 2025 Derivative Suit Stayed QUANTUM COMPUTING: September 2025 Derivative Suit Stayed RAMACO RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. REVIVE ESSENTIAL: Faces Dalton Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RJ REYNOLDS: Faces Card Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ROBERT BOSCH: Faces Husky Suit Over HVAC Equipment Monopoly SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit SERVICE FINANCE: Faces Benesh Suit Over Fraudulent Financing Deals SOUNDHOUND AI: Bishop Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed SOUNDHOUND AI: Continues to Defend Liles Securities Class Suit STONE STREET: Candia Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages SUBARU OF AMERICA: Hall Sues Over Vehicles' Defective AEB Systems SYSCO CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Avalos Suit Says TARGET CORP: Green Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under MWHL THERMOS LLC: Meaney Files Suit Over Defective Food Jars and Bottles TOP LINE: Faces Katz Suit Over Debt Collections Practices UNIFIN INC: Faces Grunhut Class Suit Over Debt Collections UNITED STATES: Court OKs Bid to Enfore Injunction in "Molina" VANGUARD PARKING: Goldart Files Suit Over DPPA Violation WAYNE SALISBURY: Shepard's Mediation Bid Denied WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Derivative Suit in Cal. WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing WISDOM COMPANIES: Sanchez Sues Over Deceptive Email Spamming Scheme WM TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed WM TECHNOLOGY: Settlement in Ishak Suit for Court Approval ********* ALL AROUND: Wade Labor Class Action Suit Seeks Civil Penalties -------------------------------------------------------------- ARIANA WADE, individually, and on behalf of the State of California and other aggrieved employees v. ALL AROUND PROGRAM SERVICES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 6STCV15085 (Cal. Super., May 11, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees against Defendants for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code sections 2699 et seq.. The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay all wages for hours worked, failure to pay split shift premiums, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to indemnify employees for expenditures, and related violations. Plaintiff does not seek individual relief, general damages, special damages, or restitution in this complaint, as those claims have been separately pursued. The Plaintiff does not seek to recover anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code Section 2699. To the extent that statutory violations are mentioned for wage violations, Plaintiff does not seek underlying general or special damages for those violations, but simply penalties as permitted by California Labor Code Section 2699, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief on behalf of the State and certain Aggrieved Employees as permitted by PAGA. The Defendants own and operate an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Ventura County and Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C. 1117 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 618-2934 E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com ALTITUDE ENERGY: Binion Seeks to Recover Drillers' Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB BINION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALTITUDE ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01467 (D.N.M., May 8, 2026) contends that Altitude has violated and continues to violate the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and other Class Members overtime at the legally required rate. Defendant Altitude was formerly the employer of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Mr. Binion worked as a Directional Driller for Altitude from September of 2022 until April of 2025. Accordingly, while employed by Altitude, the Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor, despite the fact that he worked full time for Altitude, and virtually every aspect of his job was controlled by Altitude. Altitude misclassified Plaintiff and other Directional Drillers as independent contractors to avoid paying employment taxes, benefits and overtime. During his time with Altitude, Plaintiff typically worked at least 90 hours per week. The Plaintiff received a day rate regardless of the number of hours he worked in a given day or week, and never received overtime pay, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, also brings this collective action to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The class of similarly situated employees sought to be certified as a collective action under the FLSA is defined as: All directional drillers working for altitude during the past 3 years who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate. Altitude is an oilfield services company that provides directional drilling, measurement-while-drilling (MWD), mud motor, and rotary steerable system services for oil and gas wells.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107, Box # 201 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com BANNER HEALTH: Haller Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret A. Haller; Melissa Cotton; Michael P. Bedore; and Shelley A. Wilson, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Banner Health Master Health and Welfare Plan, Plaintiffs v. Banner Health; Lockton Companies; LLC, BCInsourcing, LLC; and John Does 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03114-ROS (D. Ariz., May 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The complaint relates that Banner allows brokers to aggressively sell products to their employees that are unduly expensive and have low loss ratios, with carriers incentivized to systemically deny claims. In the Banner Plan, Lockton and BCInsourcing's commissions were not paid by Banner, the entity which hired Lockton and BCInsourcing, but by the insurance company whose interest in obtaining the highest premium is also in direct conflict with the interest of participants. Thus, Banner enabled an arrangement whereby Lockton and BCInsourcing, the brokers recommending the insurance company, stood to benefit from recommending the company with the highest price, rather than the lowest price. Lockton and BCInsourcing collected additional undisclosed compensation, based on Lockton and BCInsourcing's known practices and those in the industry. The premium for at-issue accident insurance ranges from approximately $220–$285 per year; the premium for critical illness insurance ranges from approximately $240–$530 per year; and the premium for hospital indemnity insurance is approximately $440 per year. Premiums for the Voluntary Benefits Insurance in the Plan were paid solely by the employees and Banner collected and held the premium payments through employee salary deferrals. Banner acted as a fiduciary by administering the Voluntary Benefits Insurance, selecting the brokers and carriers, and selecting the particular voluntary insurance policies available to participants. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, as fiduciaries, violated their duties with respect to the management and administration of accident, critical illness, and hospital indemnity insurance programs ("Voluntary Benefits Insurance") offered as a plan governed by ERISA (the "Plan"). Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Banner's failure to exercise reasonable diligence in the administration of the Plan, including by failing to monitor, negotiate, and ensure prudent and reasonable carrier selection, broker commissions, and loss ratios for the Voluntary Benefits Insurance, Plaintiffs as participants of the Plan paid excessive and unreasonable premiums. Plaintiffs further allege that Banner, Lockton, and BCInsourcing, all fiduciaries of the Plan, engaged in self-dealing regarding the Plan, and that each was a knowing participant in the self-dealing of the others. Plaintiffs further allege that Lockton and BCInsourcing are liable for disgorgement and other equitable relief as a party-in-interest, knowing participant in, and beneficiary of Banner's fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs Margaret A. Haller, Melissa Cotton, Michael P. Bedore and Shelley A. Wilson, have overpaid for accident, critical illness, and hospital indemnity insurance because of Defendants' failure to negotiate the price of and monitor the accident, critical illness, and hospital indemnity insurance, asserts the complaint. They, therefore, seek equitable or remedial relief for the Plan as the Court may deem appropriate. Defendant Banner Health is a healthcare system with headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, and hospitals, urgent cares, and health centers across multiple states. Defendant Lockton Companies is a privately held insurance brokerage firm organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant BCInsourcing, LLC is also known as Benefits Communication Insourcing, and is a benefits communication firm with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas. John Does 1–20 are Banner's delegees who exercised discretionary authority or discretionary control over the administration and management of the Plan, exercised authority or control over the management or disposition of the Plan's assets, and/or had discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. Patrick R. Kutz, Esq. Kaitlin Minkler, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com abraitberg@uselaws.com pkutz@uselaws.com kminkler@uselaws.com - and - Ruben R. Chapa, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1170 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (630) 919-9301 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: rchapa@uselaws.com BAYOU STEEL: Black Diamond Did Not Direct Plant Closing ------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled Troy Fleming, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated; Jarrod Nabor, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated; Davarian Ursin, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated; Charles Ziegeler, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated; Ronnie Millet, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus Black Diamond Capital Management L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee, No. 24-30291 (5th Cir.), Judges James E. Graves, Jr., Stephen A. Higginson and Cory T. Wilson affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana that Black Diamond Capital Management did not specifically direct the closing of the Bayou Steel plant, causing the mass layoff of its employees without sufficient notice under the Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. Bayou Steel operated a steel plant in LaPlace, Louisiana. In September 2019, it terminated 300 employees without proper notice under the WARN Act. The company filed for bankruptcy the next day. In 2020, a putative class of terminated employees (plaintiffs) sued Bayou Steel and Black Diamond -- a private equity firm that owned Bayou Steel through a subsidiary. The district court granted defendants summary judgment. But the Fifth Circuit reversed for plaintiffs' claims against Black Diamond, and remanded for further factual development to resolve whether Black Diamond specifically directed the plant's closure. After a limited bench trial, Black Diamond prevailed. Plaintiffs appealed again. Plaintiffs now appeal judgment for Black Diamond. They maintain that the district court erred when it failed to find that Black Diamond was in de facto control of the decision to terminate plaintiffs. Starting in 2017, steel-market fluctuations jeopardized the company's $10 million dollar reserve. In 2018, an accident that damaged critical equipment at the plant compounded Bayou Steel's troubles. Black Diamond responded with even more funding. Id. at 286. But by June 2019, Bayou Steel was losing about $3.5 million every month. In late September 2019, closure became inevitable. Black Diamond's principal, Steven Deckoff, visited the plant twice. After these visits, he concluded that the Bayou Steel investment wasn't viable. By September 22, he decided not to invest any more in the plant. The same day, the Bayou Steel board met to discuss the company's dire financial condition. At the meeting, the board learned that without additional funds, Bayou Steel would run out of money. So the board voted to retain outside bankruptcy counsel. Bayou Steel prepared for the inevitable mass layoff. By September 25, its HR Director, Kristen Barney, drafted a WARN notice to the plant's employees. This initial draft reflected a November layoff date that complied with the WARN Act. But by the 27th, the outside lenders accelerated their loans and demanded that Bayou Steel pay more than $40 million by September 30. By then, the Bayou Steel board voted to file for bankruptcy. The Black Diamond-affiliated board members abstained and then resigned. The loan acceleration and impending bankruptcy meant that Bayou Steel would not make payroll. So Barney updated the WARN notice to reflect that layoffs would begin on September 30. Plaintiffs were laid off that day. Every Black Diamond director testified that the board did not decide to close the plant. Faced with this paucity of evidence, plaintiffs asked the district court to infer from Black Diamond's frequent control over Bayou Steel's decisions that it specifically directed the plant's closing. But the court disagreed, instead finding only that closing of the plant was inevitable without further loans, which neither Black Diamond nor other lenders were willing or required to provide. The panel says, "On clear error review, we cannot discount the district court's reasonable factual inferences from the evidence. And the district court reasonably inferred that Black Diamond did not specifically direct the plant's closing." According to the panel, "Granted, some evidence suggests that Black Diamond exercised control over Bayou Steel's decisions near the closing. Indeed, Black Diamond might be the likeliest culprit; the fact that Bayou Steel's own officers and directors still deny knowing who decided to close the plant is bizarre. But the lack of direct evidence is glaring, and the circumstantial evidence is inconclusive. Even though Black Diamond directed some of Bayou Steel's decisions, it does not necessarily follow that it specifically directed others. We cannot reverse merely because the district court rejected plaintiffs' inference." A copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 11, 2026, is available at http://urlcurt.com/u?l=nbUyhN About Bayou Steel Bayou Steel Corporation -- http://www.bayousteel.com/-- manufacturers light structural and merchant bar products in LaPlace, Louisiana and Harriman, Tennessee. The Company also operates three stocking locations along the inland waterway system near Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Tulsa. Bayou and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection on Jan. 22, 2003 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 03-30816). Patrick J. Neligan, Jr., Esq., at Neligan, Tarpley, Andrews & Foley, LLP, represented the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, they listed $176,113,143 in total assets and $163,402,260 in total debts. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed on Feb. 6, 2004, the Debtors' Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization and that Plan became effective on Feb. 27, 2004. * * * As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on July 22, 2005, Moody's Investors Service assigned a B2 corporate family (previously called senior implied) rating to Bayou Steel Corporation, and placed a B3 rating on Bayou's $50 million senior secured term loan B due April 4, 2012, arranged by Credit Suisse and sponsored by Black Diamond. BBS BEAUTY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Velykholova Says ----------------------------------------------------------- OLHA VELYKHOLOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BBS BEAUTY GLOBAL INC.; ROBERT DANIELS SALON, INC.; BBS ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a BRIGHTON BEAUTY SUPPLY; BBS BEAUTY INDUSTRIES, INC.; BBS BEAUTY SYSTEMS, INC.; CASA DI CAPELLI SALON INC.; BRIGHTON BEAUTY SUPPLY; DIMITRY BEDEROFF a/k/a DIMITRY BEDEROV a/k/a DIMITRY BEDEROFT; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02618 (E.D.N.Y, May 1, 2026) is a collective, class, and individual action to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, unlawfully withheld wages, unlawful deductions/kickbacks, statutory wage notice and wage statement damages, paid sick and protected time damages, retaliation damages, pregnancy discrimination damages, citizenship/immigration-status discrimination and retaliation damages, defamation damages, restitution of coerced payments, liquidated damages, punitive damages where available, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Olha Velykholova worked at Defendants' Brooklyn worksites, including 417 Brighton Beach Avenue and 419 Brighton Beach Avenue. The Plaintiff's duties included marketing, digital design strategy, e-commerce work, customer-facing front-desk work, answering phones, performing administrative tasks, operating the register, and booking schedules. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was not paid sufficiently for any exemption and was not treated as an exempt employee in practice. During the last four months of Plaintiff's employment, Defendants altered Plaintiff's time records twice per week by changing her recorded clock-out time from about 7:00 p.m. to about 5:00 p.m., deleting two hours per day. This practice resulted in six to seven unpaid hours per week during the final months of Plaintiff's employment. Defendants sometimes failed to pay Plaintiff for an entire day of work. Defendants paid Plaintiff partly by check/direct deposit and partly in cash, and failed to include all compensation in the regular rate for overtime purposes. Defendants failed to provide accurate wage notices at hiring and annually or as otherwise required. Defendants failed to provide accurate wage statements showing Plaintiff's true hours worked, rates of pay, overtime rates, gross wages, deductions, allowances, and employer identity. Defendants responded by continuing to cut Plaintiff's hours and pay, manipulating time records, accusing her of wrongdoing, and terminating or effectively ending her employment, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks lost wages, liquidated damages, civil penalties, emotional distress damages where available, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief allowed by law. Defendants' business sold beauty products, supplies, and services using goods, materials, products, payment systems, and communication systems that moved in or affected interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: 718-269-2243 Facsimile: 718-559-6517 E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com CANAM STEEL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Gomez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Gomez, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Canam Steel Corporation, a Maryland corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03080-DWL (D. Ariz., May 1, 2026) is a collective and class action against the Defendant for its unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and its unlawful failure to pay wages due in violation of the Arizona wage laws ("Arizona Wage Statute" and "Arizona Minimum Wage Statute"). The complaint relates that for at least three years prior to the filing of this action, Canam had and continues to have a consistent policy and practice of suffering or permitting employees to work off the clock, including Plaintiff, in excess of 40 hours per week, without paying them minimum wage and proper overtime compensation as required by federal and state wage and hour laws. Canam requires Plaintiff to perform duties before the start of his shift without receiving compensation for it, even when the time in recorded. According to Canam's policy, Plaintiff is required to arrive at least fifteen minutes prior to the start of his shift and don mandatory protective gear necessary to perform his job. Plaintiff and the Steel Associates perform unpaid work before the start of each shift, including donning personal protective equipment, such as gloves, lens/eye protection, helmet, welding jacket, apron or sleeves, leather straps to protect shoes or even specific protective shoes. Despite working overtime, Plaintiff is not paid proper overtime wages at a rate of one and one half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a work week. Canam also fails to timely pay Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Steel Associates all the wages which they are due in violation of the Arizona Wage Statute, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, including interest thereon, statutory penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former employees who worked for Canam and performed work off the clock without compensation. Plaintiff and all similarly situated current and former employees who may opt-in pursuant to the FLSA seek liquidated damages. Plaintiff Victor Gomez has been a full-time, non-exempt employee of Canam from approximately June or July 2023 until the present. As a non-exempt Steel Associate, Plaintiff currently works as a machine operator at Canam's location in Buckeye, Arizona. Defendant Canam Steel Corporation is a service-oriented manufacturer of highly engineered steel products consisting of open web steel joists and a variety of steel deck products. Canam owns and operates six manufacturing facilities throughout the country, including one in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: 602-598-4000 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com - and - Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: 602-598-4000 E-mail: patti@frankelsyverson.com CAPITAL ONE: Sanchez Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------- ALICIA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL ONE SHOPPING HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a CAPITALONESHOPPING.COM, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04821 (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses a marketing company called THE WISDOM COMPANIES LLC ("WISDOM") to blanket Californians with illegal spam. It deploys every deceptive tactic in the proverbial playbook -- false subject lines, deceptive headers, and spoofed domains -- to trick unwary recipients into opening messages they would otherwise ignore. The harm does not stop at the inbox. After being deceived into engaging with the spam, Plaintiff was funneled to Defendant's website at CAPITALONESHOPPING.COM where Defendant installed a web of illegal tracking pixels on Plaintiff's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow Plaintiff's behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. The spam is an "Unsolicited Commercial e-mail advertisement" because plaintiff had no pre-existing relationship with Defendant and because the e-mail was initiated for the purpose of advertising or promoting the lease, sale, rental, gift offer, or other disposition of any property, goods, services, or extension of credit. Likewise, Plaintiff has never given "direct consent" to receive commercial e-mail advertisements from Defendant or its marketing agents. The Plaintiff has suffered concrete, particularized harm as a result of Defendant's conduct, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff spent valuable time and attention investigating the misleading offer; searching the WHOIS database to learn who the e-mail came from; incurred opportunity costs and lost productivity; and suffered depletion of device and network resources, including storage space, bandwidth usage on a metered data plan, and battery life. The unauthorized domain name, misleading headers and literally false subject line also invaded Plaintiff's privacy and disrupted the ordinary use and enjoyment of Plaintiff's email account, diminishing its value as a communication tool and necessitating additional filtering and security precautions. These injuries were directly caused by Defendant's unlawful email and are redressable by statutory and injunctive relief, says the suit. Plaintiff ALICIA SANCHEZ is a California citizen and is the owner of the e-mail address alisanchez0119@gmail.com. Defendant CAPITAL ONE SHOPPING HOLDINGS LLC is a credit services company incorporated in Delaware and based in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com CHEERS HEALTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. CHEERS HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03815 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.cheershealth.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, including on January 29, 2026 and February 14, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Protect Daily Liver Support from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Protect Daily Liver Support. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Protect Daily Liver Support but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented her from doing so. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Cheers Health online retail store, as well as the Cheers Health interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CORDOBA LEGAL: Callier Alleges Unlawful Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON CALLIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORDOBA LEGAL GROUP PLLC; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:26-cv-01316 (W.D. Tex., May 7, 2026) arises from Defendants' unlawful telephonic solicitation of legal employment in violation of the Texas barratry statute. Cordoba is a Florida law firm that, by itself and through agent telemarketers -- including a telemarketing operation that identifies itself by the trade name "Clear Finance Today" -- has caused unsolicited prerecorded and live telephone calls to be made to thousands of Texas of 17 residents, soliciting them to retain Cordoba for debt-relief legal services in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. Texas law strictly prohibits this conduct. Rule 7.03 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from engaging in regulated telephone, social media, or other electronic contact involving live or electronically interactive communication -- whether initiated by the lawyer or by someone acting on the lawyer's behalf -- to seek professional employment from prospective clients with whom the lawyer has no qualifying family, current or former attorney-client, or close personal relationship. On April 21, 2026, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited prerecorded voicemail at his Texas residence representing the call to be from "Green Finance" and offering a "$25,000 relief fund," the suit says. On April 27, 2026, the Plaintiff returned the call to the toll-free number left in the voicemail and was qualified by a live representative associated with "Clear Finance Today." Later the same day, that representative caused a 60-month retainer agreement for legal representation by Cordoba, calling for sixty monthly payments of $1,098.93, to be transmitted to Plaintiff for electronic signature, the suit adds. The Plaintiff did not sign the retainer. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated Texas residents who were solicited by telephone for legal employment with Cordoba in the manner described above and who did not enter into a contract with Cordoba as a result. Mr. Callier is the sole subscriber, regular user, and customary carrier of cellular telephone number ending in 0794. Cordoba is a law firm engaged in the business of soliciting and providing debt-relief legal services to consumers nationwide, including consumers residing in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave., Suite 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com CVENT HOLDING: $12MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated former stockholders of CVENT HOLDING CORP., Plaintiff, v. VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS FUND VI, L.P., VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS FUND VI-A, L.P., VEPF VI FAF, L.P., VEPF IV AIV VII, L.P., VEPF IV AIV VII-A, L.P., VEPF III AIV VI, L.P., VEPF III AIV VI-A, L.P., VFF I AIV IV, L.P., VFF I AIV IV-A, L.P., MANEET SAROYA, DAVID BREACH, BETTY HUNG, SAM PAYTON, NICOLAS STAHL, and RAJEEV AGGARWAL, Defendants C.A. No. 2024-0299-PAF SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record and beneficial holders of Cvent Holding Corp. ("Cvent") common stock as of June 15, 2023 (the date of the consummation of the acquisition of Cvent by affiliates of Blackstone Inc.), whose shares were exchanged for $8.50 per share in cash on June 15, 2023, together with their respective successors and assigns, except the Excluded Persons (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS ARE 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 Plaintiff Genesee County Employees Retirement System ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the Class, has reached a proposed settlement with Defendants Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC, Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P., Vista Equity Partners Fund VI-A, L.P., VEPF VI FAF, L.P., VEPF IV AIV VII, L.P., VEPF IV AIV VII-A, L.P., VEPF III AIV VI, L.P., VEPF III AIV VI-A, L.P., VFF I AIV IV, L.P., VFF I AIV IV-A, L.P., Maneet Saroya, David Breach, Betty Hung, Sam Payton, Nicolas Stahl, and Rajeev Aggarwal (collectively, "Defendants") for $12,000,000 (United States Dollars) in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release between the Parties, dated April 13, 2026 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at www.CventStockholdersLitigation.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 July 10, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable Paul A. Fioravanti, 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 or other means (at the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) 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; (ii) 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 and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (iv) determine whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for a Fee and Expense Award (including any Incentive Award to Plaintiff) should be approved; (v) hear and determine any objections to the Settlement or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award and any Incentive Award to Plaintiff; and (vi) 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.CventStockholdersLitigation.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 Cvent Stockholders Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217; or by email at info@CventStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.CventStockholdersLitigation.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, all eligible Class Members who held or beneficially owned shares of Cvent common stock at the closing of the Transaction on June 15, 2023, and therefore received 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 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 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 a Fee and Expense Award (including 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 emailed to Plaintiff's Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than June 23, 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 Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary 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: Cvent Stockholders Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217 1-877-580-7778 info@CventStockholdersLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to the following counsel for Plaintiff: Ned Weinberger Mark Richardson LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 (866) 640-7254 nweinberger@labaton.com mrichardson@labaton.com Dated: May 18, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DELAWARE: Faces Calm Class Suit Over Deployment of OC Weapons ------------------------------------------------------------- WAUNYE CALM, BRANDON GATEWOOD, ISAIAH HARBER, JYAIRE HENRY, DEWITT JOHNSON, ZAKEE LLOYD, DENNIS WILLIAMS, and DEVON YOUNG, v. TERRA TAYLOR, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Correction, Case No. 2026-0576 (Del. Ch., May 7, 2026) contends that Delaware correctional officers do not decontaminate individuals after they use oleoresin capsicum/pepper spray (OC) weapons, instead leaving them to marinate in the chemical residue for hours, days, or weeks in direct violation of DOC policies and procedures. Accordingly, the failure of Delaware correctional officials to decontaminate sprayed individuals is exacerbated by the fact that correctional officers deploy OC weapons when they're not necessary, without warning, without determining whether the individual has underlying health conditions, and without mitigating the risks through proper deployment of the weapons. In sum, the Department of Correction's refusal and failure to decontaminate individuals exposed to Sabre Red and related chemical weapons is cruel, inhumane, unnecessary, and unconstitutional, the suit says. The Plaintiffs have all been exposed to OC weapons without any subsequent decontamination. On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals currently incarcerated in the State of Delaware, Plaintiffs bring this Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief against Terra Taylor in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Correction. Taylor's and the Department's total failure to decontaminate individuals exposed to OC weapons violates the state constitutional prohibition of cruel punishment enshrined in Delaware's Bill of Rights. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief only, to enjoin the use of OC weapons unless and until the Delaware DOC follows its own policies and procedures for decontamination after every use of an OC weapon against an incarcerated person. Terra Taylor is sued in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Correction.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Beehler, Esq. Jared Silberglied, Esq. ACLU of Delaware 100 W. 10th St., Suite 706 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (614) 432-5363 E-mail: jbeehler@aclu-de.org jsilberglied@aclu-de.org EAGLE CLAW: Bennett Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Eagle Claw Fishing Tackle Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-05365 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://eagleclaw.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: $15MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN RE EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 1:24-cv-10761-ADB 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 that purchased and/or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. ("Evolv" or the "Company") f/k/a NewHold Investment Corp. ("NHIC") between June 28, 2021 and October 25, 2024, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby1: 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 District of Massachusetts, that the litigation (the "Action") has been 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 $15,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on September 24, 2026 at 1:00 p.m., before the Honorable Allison D. Burroughs at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Courtroom 17, 5th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether 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) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether 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.EvolvTechSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Evolv Tech. Holdings Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 5598, Portland, OR 97228-5598, 1-877-313-9874. 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. Claim Forms must be received, submitted online, or postmarked no later than August 12, 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 such that it is received no later than September 3, 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 September 3, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or their 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: Evolv Tech. Holdings Securities Litigation c/o Epiq P.O. Box 5598 Portland, OR 97228-5598 Toll-free Telephone: 877-313-9874 Email: info@EvolvTechSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP Casey E. Sadler, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Email: settlements@glancylaw.com By Order of the Court EYEMART EXPRESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Estrada Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MOISES ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EYEMART EXPRESS LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01513-K (N.D. Tex., May 11, 2026) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries Eyemart inflicted on Plaintiff and thousands of others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties on March 11, 2026. Eyemart is a limited liability company that operates a chain of optical retail stores. The data that Eyemart exposed to the public is unique and highly sensitive. For one, the exposed data included personal identifying information and protected health information like addresses, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, driver's license numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided this information to Eyemart with the understanding Eyemart would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. Eyemart is a company that provides operates a chain of optical retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com FABLETICS INC: Faces Del Valle Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY DEL VALLE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FABLETICS, INC., Case No. 247859931 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade Cty., May 11, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. On or about January 4, 2026, the Plaintiff requested to opt-out of Defendant’s text messages by replying with an opt-out instruction. The Defendant ignored Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging Plaintiff, the suit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Awad, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: samuel@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com FORD MOTOR: Court Tosses Fyie Expert Report in "Dolan" ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Robert E. Payne, Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, in the case captioned as James Dolan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:23cv512, granted Plaintiffs' Renewed Rule 37(c)(1) Motion to Exclude Matthew Fyie's Expert Reports and Testimony in the class certification phase of the case. Plaintiff James Dolan filed suit on behalf of himself and a Virginia class of consumers against Defendant, claiming that Ford knowingly put a defective transmission into many of its vehicles over many years; when marketing those vehicles to unsuspecting consumers, touted them as if there was no such defect; and implemented elaborate schemes to conceal the defect. The allegedly defective product is Ford's 10R80 transmission. The alleged design defect is the inability of the Transmission to maintain the intended and necessary internal pressure to ensure secure and timely engagements of each clutch required for a specific gear, causing harsh, bumpy, rough and delayed shifting or gear engagement. The Revised Second Amended Complaint sets out four counts: breach of express warranty (Virginia Code Section 8.2-313); breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Virginia Code Section 8.2-314); fraud in the inducement by omission under Virginia common law; and violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (Virginia Code Section 59.1-196, et seq.). Defendant's expert Fyie issued two reports: an Opening Report and a Rebuttal Report. Plaintiffs argued that Fyie failed to disclose interviews he conducted with Ford employees that he considered in writing both reports and that formed part of the basis for the opinions expressed in those reports. At deposition, Fyie admitted he used the information obtained from the employee interviews when drafting the report, that he took notes during the interviews, and that he formed those notes into the report. Those notes no longer exist, having been typed over when the Opening Report was prepared. The court found that Fyie's reports violated Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i) because they do not contain a complete statement of the basis and reasons for his opinions — nowhere in the reports is there mention of the employee interviews, what parts of those interviews were used in drafting the reports, or what the employees said. The court also found a violation of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) because Fyie considered, reviewed, and reflected on the information from the employee interviews in forming his opinions, yet failed to disclose it. On harmlessness, the court applied the five Southern States factors and concluded the violations were not harmless. Plaintiffs cannot reconstruct which parts of Fyie's reports come from his interviews, and even Fyie cannot recall exactly what he relied on from whom or where in his reports. The court further found the failure was not substantially justified, noting the nondisclosure was accomplished by a deliberate method that had been previously used and of which Defendant's counsel was fully aware. On sanctions, the court found clear prejudice and a strong need for deterrence, and determined that no sanction short of excluding Fyie's testimony could reasonably produce a result that the violated rules sought to achieve or that would be fair to Plaintiffs. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 5, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QCnStJ from PacerMonitor.com GEN DIGITAL: Faces Garcia Class Suit Over Digital Surveillance -------------------------------------------------------------- BIANCA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GEN DIGITAL INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a NORTON.COM, Case No. 2:26-cv-04989 (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2026) alleges that Defendant blankets Californians with illegal spam. Accordingly, the Defendant deploys every deceptive tactic in the proverbial playbook -- false subject lines, deceptive headers, and spoofed domains -- to trick unwary recipients into opening messages they would otherwise ignore. The harm does not stop at the inbox. After being deceived into engaging with the spam, the Plaintiff was funneled to Defendant's website at NORTON.COM where Defendant installed a web of illegal tracking pixels on Plaintiff's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow Plaintiff's behavior across the Internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance, says the suit. The Plaintiff and class members have received countless misleading spam e-mail advertising NORTON.COM. After receiving the spam and being deceived into opening the link embedded, she visited Defendant's website, the suit added. NORTON.COM is an internet security company incorporated in Delaware and based in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com HCA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay All Wages, Heath Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA HEATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., VALESCO HOLDINGS, LLC f/k/a HCA-EMCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, FL-I MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, and EMERGENCY MEDICINE SERVICES OF FL, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-61402 (S.D. Fla., May 11, 2026) seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay all wages owed. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a Nurse Practitioner in Florida since November 2022. The Plaintiff brings Count I of this lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA, as a collective action on behalf of herself and the following proposed collective: All current and former employees who performed advanced patient care duties, including but not limited to Registered Nurses, Nurses, Advanced Practice Providers, and those in similarly titled positions, who were paid on an hourly basis, and who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek in the past three years (FLSA Collective). Defendant Valesco Holdings was formed on April 26, 2011 as the corporate vehicle for a 50/50 joint venture between HCA Healthcare, Inc. and EmCare, Inc., a physician practice management firm. EmCare, Inc. was subsequently acquired by Envision, which thereby became an indirect owner of Valesco and, through Valesco, of Defendant FL I Medical.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Feinstein Esq. FEINSTEIN & SOROTA, P.A. 600 Corporate Drive, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone: (954) 617-1500 Facsimile: (954) 617-4100 E-mail: fspa@fspalaw.com pleadings@fspalaw.com - and - Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Olivia Lanctot, Esq. Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: apiazza@bergermontague.com crodriguez@bergermontague.com olanctot@bergermontague.com HOME DEPOT: Grimes Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ----------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY GRIMES and LAUREN MORRILL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation and THE HOME DEPOT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-03917 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for invading Plaintiffs' and Class Members' privacy by capturing, collecting, monitoring, aggregating, and disclosing, vehicle tracking data, without prior statutorily required notice and without authorization. The complaint relates that Plaintiff Grimes has visited Defendants' Folsom Home Depot located at 2675 E. Bidwell St., Folsom, CA 95630 on several occasions to do personal shopping. For example, on March 16, 2026, and March 17, 2026, as well as in December 2025, Plaintiff Grimes drove her personal vehicle to the Broadstone Plaza where Defendants' Folsom Home Depot is located, parked her car in the parking lot, and completed her personal shopping. According to the complaint, the Defendants installed Flock's Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) across many, if not all, of its properties in California, resulting in Plaintiffs and Class Members being tracked by Flock's mass surveillance network. However, Defendants failed to properly and timely inform Plaintiffs and Class Members that their Vehicle Tracking Data was being captured, time-stamped, and recorded, and additionally failed to notify Plaintiffs and Class Members that the resulting data being aggregated enabled the long-term tracking of Plaintiffs and Class Members' individual movements. Defendants' use of the Flock ALPRs is not just an invasion of privacy, but also a violation of the ALPR Law. While Defendants purport to maintain certain ALPR policy or usage requirements, Defendants have failed to adhere to and comply with the ALPR Law, as Defendant's ALPR policy representations contain only partial, and incomplete, policy information. Furthermore, Defendants have failed to comply with multiple mandatory requirements of the statute, including failing to adequately disclose, implement, and maintain all required usage and privacy protections, asserts the complaint. As a result of Defendants' misconduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the surreptitious surveillance of their movements by unknown third parties; and (iii) statutory damages, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and a Class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and assert the following statutory and common law claims against Defendants: violations of the California ALPR Law; Invasion of Privacy under California's Constitution; Common Law Invasion of Privacy; and Common Law Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff Ashley Grimes is a citizen of the State of California residing in Sacramento County. Defendants are corporations collectively engaged in the ownership and operation of Home Depot retail home improvement stores throughout the United States. Defendants own and operate Home Depot's retail store locations nationwide, including 233 stores in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (772) 783-8436 E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com aasciutto@sirillp.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hamersley Says -------------------------------------------------------------- KATANYA HAMERSLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., KKR & CO, INC., and DRAGONEER INVESTMENT GROUP, Case No. 2:26-cv-00408 (D. Utah, May 11, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendants recently experienced. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant is a web-based learning management system that provides services for schools. It is used by learning institutions, educators, and students to access and manage online course learning materials and communicate about skill development and learning achievement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Sykes, Esq. PEARSON BUTLER 1802 S. Jordan Parkway, Suite 200 South Jordan, UT 84095 Telephone: (801) 495-4104 E-mail: rachel@pearsonbutler.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca K. Burne, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLC 18 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: jmartin@awkolaw.com fburne@awkolaw.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Silva Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE HERNANDEZ-SILVA on behalf of her minor children M.C. 1, M.C. 2, and M.C. 3, and EMILY REWOLINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00407 (D. Utah, May 11, 2026) is a class action against Defendant Instructure for its failure to secure and safeguard consumers' personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, the PII were entrusted to the Defendant in connection with Defendant's educational technology and learning management platform services, and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice that Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information had been accessed and compromised by unauthorized third parties, including failing to disclose the full scope and precise nature of the information exposed in the Data Breach. The Defendant collected, processed, stored, and maintained the highly sensitive Private Information of Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members through its Canvas learning management platform used by schools, universities, educators, and students throughout the United States. The Defendant owed a non-delegable duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members to implement reasonable and adequate cybersecurity measures to protect their Private Information. Failing to implement reasonable and adequate cybersecurity measures has significant consequences for the students, teachers, staff, and other users whose Private Information and private communications are unlawfully accessed by cybercriminals and threat actors, says the suit. The Defendant is an education technology company that provides learning management and educational platform services, including through its Canvas platform, to schools, school districts, colleges, and universities throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karra J. Porter, Esq. Nathan D. Alder, Esq. Kristen C. Kiburtz, Esq. Yuchen Cook, Esq. CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C. 257 East 200 South, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2047 Telephone: (801) 323-5000 E-mail: Karra.Porter@cjlaw.com Nathan.Alder@cjlaw.com Kristen.Kiburtz@cjlaw.com Yuchen.Cook@cjlaw.com - and - Lori G. Feldman., Esq. Justin Alvarez-Herman., Esq. Tiffany Wong., Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 851-6821 E-mail: lfeldman@hechtpartners.com jalvarezherman@hechtpartners.com twong@hechtpartners.com IOSM INC: Brown Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- KELLY BROWN, individually and for others similarly situated v. IOSM, INC. d/b/a ON-SITE HEALTH & SAFETY a California corporation and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-04324-AGT (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2026) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from On-Site pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington state laws. Accordingly, Brown and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a work week. But On-Site does not pay Brown and the other Hourly Employees at least one and a half times their true regular rates of pay for overtime hours worked. Instead, On-Site automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from these employees for so called "meal periods." On-Site does not pay them for this time. But Brown and the other Hourly Employees do not receive bona fide meal periods, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Brown worked for On-Site as a field technician in Washington from January 2024 until July 2024. On-Site represents itself as an essential health and safety services company "providing 24/7 services directly at the worksite."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lance H. Kirk, Esq. LIONHEART LAW, PC 205 16th St., Apt. B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Telephone: (949) 660-8753 Facsimile: (949) 660-8720 E-mail: lkirk@calplaw.onmicrosoft.com KIND TRANSPORT: Underpays Company Truck Drivers, Glenn Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JASON GLENN on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs vs. KIND TRANSPORT, INC. and SLAVE MITEV, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00197 (N.D. Ind., May 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff was employed as a truck driver by the Defendants from April 2024 until June 2024. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff on a per mile basis but willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his agreed upon compensation for all miles driven. Defendants deducted monies from Plaintiff's compensation without a written assignment and which is not permitted by the Indiana's Wage Deduction Statute. Defendants did not have a good faith basis for failing to pay Plaintiff his earned wages in the correct amount. To date, Plaintiff has not been paid any wages for the work he performed for Defendants, says the suit. The Plaintiff prays that the Court enter a Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants for wages owed, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, costs of this action, and for all other relief. Plaintiff Jason Glenn is a resident of Cicero, Indiana and was an employee of the Defendants. Defendant Kind Transport, Inc. ("Kind") is an incorporated entity located in Munster, Indiana. Defendant Slave Mitev is a shareholder and is the President of Kind.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 11268 Governors Lane Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (317) 289-0483 Facsimile: (317) 288-4013 E-mail: rweldy@weldylegal.com MARPAC LLC: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Marpac, LLC, Defendant.Case No. 1:26-cv-05360 (N.D., Ill. May 8, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://yogasleep.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. Accordingly, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Copine's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Just Ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com MEDTRONIC INC: Edell Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ Harvey Edell and Chris Raths, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Medtronic, Inc.; Medtronic USA, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-02465-PJS-DJF (D. Minn., May 4, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of individuals whose sensitive and personally identifiable information ("PII") was stolen by cybercriminals in a cyber-attack that accessed Defendants' data on April 17, 2026. The complaint relates that the Defendants store a substantial amount of PII, including names, dates of birth, billing and mailing addresses, financial information, and Social Security numbers. Defendants also store significant quantities of protected health information ("PHI"), including information received from business associates and, in some instances, directly from patients. Such information, including that of Plaintiffs and Class Members, may have been accessed or compromised in the Data Breach. As of May 1, 2026, Defendants have yet to notify Plaintiffs or provide the public with any specific information regarding its mitigation efforts in the fallout of this Data Breach. If Plaintiffs had known that their Private Information would be improperly handled, they would not have agreed to the collection or use of their Private Information in connection with their treatment involving Defendants' medical device, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment/quasi-contract for Defendants' wrongful conduct. Plaintiff Harvey Edell is a current or former patient who underwent a procedure during which a pacemaker device manufactured by Defendants was implanted, and whose Private Information is stored and maintained by Defendants. Plaintiff Chris Raths is a current or former patient who underwent a procedure during which an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator ("ICD") device manufactured by Defendants was implanted, and whose Private Information is stored and maintained by Defendants Defendant Medtronic, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. Defendant Medtronic USA, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Medtronic, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 1650 West 82nd Avenue, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: rpeterson@hechtpartners.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Justin Alvarez-Herman, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 851-6821 E-mail: lfeldman@hechtpartners.com jalvarezherman@hechtpartners.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402s Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com - and - Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. THRONSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: jason@thondsetlaw.com MEDTRONIC INC: Running Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- TERRI RUNNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02470 (D. Minn., May 4, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals who provided Private Information to Defendant in connection with its medical device products and services, the putative class members. The complaint relates that on April 24, 2026, Defendant posted a public statement on its website confirming that an unauthorized party had accessed data in certain of its corporate IT systems. Defendant's statement did not identify the specific categories of Private Information compromised or the number of individuals affected. Based on public reporting and the claims of the ShinyHunters extortion group, which listed Defendant on its dark web leak site on or about April 17, 2026, and based on the nature of the data maintained by Defendant in connection with its medical device products and patient services, Plaintiff alleges that the compromised Private Information includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical history and treatment information, health insurance information, government identification information, and other sensitive personal and medical information. The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted in connection with its medical device products and services, says the suit. Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed Plaintiff Terri Running provided Defendant with her sensitive Private Information in connection with her use of Defendant's medical device products and related patient support services. Defendant Medtronic, Inc. is a medical devices maker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com NET POWER: Continues to Defend Derivative Suit in N.C. ------------------------------------------------------ NET Power Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On May 29, 2025, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a derivative suit on behalf of the Company against its Chief Executive Officer, President and Interim Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former President and Chief Operating Officer and its board of directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of federal securities laws (the “Derivative Complaint”). These claims are predicated on the same allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the time and capital needed to complete Project Permian that are the subject of the Complaint outlined above. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims brought in both matters. In light of the complexity and ongoing and uncertain nature of the outstanding proceedings and inquiries, at this time it is unable to estimate a reasonably possible financial loss or range of financial loss, if any, that it may incur to resolve or settle these matters. NET Power Inc. is an energy technology company focused on developing and commercializing natural gas power generation technology designed to produce low-cost electricity with reduced carbon emissions. The company targets utility-scale and industrial customers seeking reliable, cleaner power solutions. NET POWER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.C. ------------------------------------------------------------ NET Power Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. An alleged stockholder (the Plaintiff), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint on April 18, 2025, for violation of federal securities laws against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, President and Interim Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, and its former President and Chief Operating Officer (collectively, the Defendants) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The Complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons and entities other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's securities between June 9, 2023 and March 7, 2025 and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business, operations and prospects, including the timing and costs of developing Project Permian. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims brought in both matters. In light of the complexity and ongoing and uncertain nature of the outstanding proceedings and inquiries, at this time the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible financial loss or range of financial loss, if any, that it may incur to resolve or settle these matters. NET Power Inc. is an energy technology company focused on developing and commercializing natural gas power generation technology designed to produce low-cost electricity with reduced carbon emissions. The company targets utility-scale and industrial customers seeking reliable, cleaner power solutions. NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN: Haynes Sues for Wage and Hour Law Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA HAYNES and WILLIS RAMASSAR, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL and NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03613 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026) is a class action and a collective action brought to remedy violations of federal and New York state wage-and-hour laws by Defendants. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs regularly worked off the clock, including working overtime, and were not compensated for all hours worked. Defendants have engaged in a common practice of requiring Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees to work without proper pay, including substantial overtime work. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs, Class Members, and FLSA Collective Members were entitled to receive minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked and that they were not receiving minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked. Defendants have engaged in a common practice of rounding the work time recorded by Plaintiffs, Class Members, and FLSA Collective Members in a manner that was not fair and neutral on its face and/or that favored Defendants over time, resulting in Plaintiffs, Class Members, and FLSA Collective Members being underpaid for their time worked. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs, Class Members, and FLSA Collective Members were entitled to reimbursement of all necessary business-related expenses and that they were not being reimbursed for all necessary business-related expenses. Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to provide Plaintiffs, Class Members, and FLSA Collective Members with compensation due to them under the law, and Defendants had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do so, all in order to increase Defendants' profits. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Members have suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid overtimes wages for all overtime hours actually worked, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages on behalf of FLSA Collective Members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs also seek to recover unpaid wages on behalf of Class Members pursuant to New York labor law and applicable Wage Orders (collectively, "NYLL"). Plaintiff Cynthia Haynes was employed as a non-exempt worker for Defendants at 1283 York Ave., New York, New York 10065 from approximately March 2023 to approximately January 2025. Plaintiff Willis Ramassar is currently employed as a non-exempt worker for Defendants in New York, New York. Defendants operate one of the nation's largest and most comprehensive network of hospitals and healthcare providers, with multiple locations throughout New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. Breanna Small, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (516) 587-8423 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: s.jean@calljustice.com b.small@calljustice.com OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Rochester Suit Over Fire Truck Inflated Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------ CITY OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., REV GROUP, INC., E-ONE, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-00823 (E.D. Wisc., May 7, 2026) contends that Defendants have caused the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to pay artificially inflated prices they would not have paid in a normal competitive market and to wait longer than necessary for fire trucks. According to the complaint, the consequences of Defendants' unlawful conduct are clear and dangerous. Outdated and obsolescent emergency fire apparatus are still deployed years after they should have been retired, because Defendants intentionally delay the delivery of new equipment even after it is ordered. Older trucks and emergency equipment break down more often and are harder to maintain -- if and when one fails, and if no replacement is readily available, the gap is not an administrative inconvenience but a threat to public safety. Communities that have managed to procure new fire apparatus have often done so only by cutting costs elsewhere, diverting resources from other services and programs to pay inflated prices that ordinary competition would not have permitted, the suit adds. Accordingly, while fire departments have struggled to afford and obtain the apparatus they need to protect their communities, the Defendants have celebrated the financial results of their unlawful conduct. For example, in 2022, as delivery backlogs stretched to record lengths, Oshkosh's CEO boasted to investors about their "leading market share" and a backlog "at an all-time high up more than 80% compared to the prior year." In early 2025, Oshkosh reported a $6.3 billion backlog, telling investors that it "continues to provide excellent visibility." A handful of companies control between 70 and 80 percent of the fire truck market in the United States. Instead of competing, they have chosen to abuse their collective power in the market, and collude to increase prices and restrain supply, extending delivery timelines to generate remarkable profits at the expense of the fire departments, municipalities, and the taxpayers who depend on the lifesaving emergency equipment Defendants manufacture. Oshkosh Corporation, formerly Oshkosh Truck, is an American industrial company that designs and builds specialty trucks, military vehicles, truck bodies, airport fire apparatus, and access equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Ryan McDevit, Esq. Garrett Heilman, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com gheilman@kellerrohrback.com OWENS & MINOR: Walker Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------- KELLY WALKER and WILLIAM REICH, on behalf of the Owens & Minor 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiffs v. OWENS & MINOR, INC.; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-30 IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS FIDUCIARIES; Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-379 (E.D. Va., May 4, 2026) is a class action seeking to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income & Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). The complaint relates that the Plan is a retirement plan, defined contribution plan, and a qualified plan under the ERISA. As fiduciaries of the Plan, at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were obligated to act prudently. However, Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by initially selecting, and consistently retaining, higher cost investment share classes which materially reduced Plan participants' retirement funds as compared to readily available alternatives. Defendants further breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prudently monitor the Plan's recordkeeping and administrative ("RKA") expenses. The excessive cost of the fees bore no rational relationship to the actual cost of services rendered and was inconsistent with Defendants' obligation to ensure that Plan expenses were reasonable. As a result of these breaches of fiduciary duty, Plaintiffs and the proposed class lost millions of dollars in Plan assets, asserts the complaint. To remedy Defendants' fiduciary breaches, Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the Plan to obtain the relief provided under ERISA, for losses suffered by the Plan, from six years prior to the filing of this complaint to the date of judgment and for other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief under ERISA. Plaintiff Kelly Walker was invested in share class "K" of the Fidelity Freedom Target Date Fund series ("Fidelity TDF K") provided by Defendants in the Plan. Plaintiff William Reich was invested in Fidelity Contrafund Commingled Pool Class "A" ("Fidelity Contrafund A") provided by Defendants in the Plan. Defendant OWENS & MINOR, INC. is the sponsor of the Plan per ERISA; a party in interest under ERISA; and a Plan fiduciary under ERISA, to the extent that it exercised discretion over the administration and management of the Plan and/or control of Plan assets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Jonathan P. Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Main: (804) 529-0000 Facsimile: (804) 529-0009 E-mail: lee@floydpc.com jonathan@floydpc.com - and - Abigail M. Cody, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: acody@milberg.com OWLET INC: Final OK of Settlement in Vargas Derivative Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Owlet, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that final approval of the settlement of Vargas derivative suit remains pending. On Aug. 26, 2024, and Oct. 3, 2024, investors filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, derivatively on behalf of the Company, asserting claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as state law claims including breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. One complaint, captioned Janet Vargas, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Owlet, Inc., asserts claims against twelve of the Company's current or former directors and officers and six current or former directors and officers of Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation. The other complaint, captioned Nathan Capleton, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Owlet, Inc., asserts claims against eleven of the Company's current or former directors. Both complaints leverage the allegations made in one of the securities class action complaints, and neither complaint specifies the damages claimed in the action. In addition, on Dec. 13, 2024, these two derivative complaints were consolidated into a single action captioned Vargas v. Workman, et al. On Feb. 7, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint asserting the claims previously made in the two derivative complaints. The parties in the Vargas action reached agreements in principle to settle, and plaintiffs filed a joint notice of settlement with the court on March 3, 2025. On March 6, 2025, the court vacated deadlines in the Vargas action in light of the plaintiffs' settlement notice, and set April 2, 2025, as the deadline for plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On March 31, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation with the court to extend that deadline to April 9, 2025. The court so ordered the stipulation on April 2, 2025, and the plaintiffs filed the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on April 9, 2025. On Sept. 10, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A final fairness hearing on the settlement was originally scheduled for Feb. 6, 2026, and was subsequently rescheduled by the court to Feb. 25, 2026. The fairness hearing was held on Feb. 25, 2026, and final approval of the settlement remains pending. The parties have agreed to specific corporate governance reforms Owlet would implement and to an unopposed request to the court for $675 in attorneys' fees for securing such reforms. Owlet, Inc. is a technology company that develops and markets smart baby monitoring products, including wearable devices and related software and services. The company focuses on providing parents with real-time insights and data about their infants' sleep patterns and well-being. OWLET INC: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Owlet, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that settlement is reached for the consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In November 2021, two putative class action complaints were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the first captioned Butala v. Owlet, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-09016, and the second captioned Cherian v. Owlet, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-09293. Both complaints alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of investors who: (a) purchased the Company’s common stock between March 31, 2021 and October 4, 2021 (“Section 10(b) Claims”); or (b) held common stock in Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation (“SBG”) as of June 1, 2021, and were eligible to vote at SBG's special meeting held on July 14, 2021 (“Section 14(a) Claims”). Both complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information regarding the FDA’s likely classification of Smart Sock as a medical device requiring marketing authorization. On September 8, 2023, the Court ruled that while the Butala and Cherian cases were consolidated, there would be two distinct and separate classes to represent the Section 10(b) Claims and Section 14(a) Claims, respectively, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for each class. Amended complaints were filed for each class on November 21, 2023, and then further amended in consolidated filings on December 22, 2023. The Company filed motions to dismiss the complaints on February 9, 2024 on behalf of itself and the named officers and directors. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss on March 24, 2024, and the Company filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss on May 10, 2024. On August 5, 2024, the Court denied Owlet’s and its officers’ motions to dismiss the Section 10(b) Claims and the Section 14(a) Claims. On September 24, 2024, the Court entered a scheduling order in the case, setting trial to begin on February 17, 2026. On September 26, 2024, the Court granted Owlet’s and its officers’ motion for reconsideration regarding the Section 10(b) Claims and dismissed all claims arising out of statements made prior to the merger. Following mediation, the parties to the Butala action reached agreements in principle to settle both the Section 10(b) Claims and the Section 14(a) Claims. The Section 10(b) Claims would be resolved for $3,500 and the Section 14(a) Claims would be resolved for $1,750. On January 31, 2025, the plaintiffs filed motions seeking preliminary approval of the settlements of the Section 10(b) Claims and Section 14(a) Claims. On September 15, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement of the Section 14(a) Claims. On September 29, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement of the Section 10(b) Claims. A final fairness hearing on both settlements was originally scheduled for February 6, 2026, and was subsequently rescheduled by the Court to February 25, 2026. The fairness hearing was held on February 25, 2026, and final approval of the settlements remains pending. In accordance with ASC 450, as these amounts became probable and estimable, the Company recognized $5,250 of general and administrative expense on the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the year ended December 31, 2024 and the related liability was recorded in accrued and other expenses on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2024. In October 2025, the Company paid cash in full settlement for both the Section 14(a) Claims and the Section 10(b) Claims and paid out the amounts to the escrow agent required for their resolution. The Company paid $3,500 cash in full settlement of the Section 10(b) Claims. In relation to the Section 14(a) Claims, the Company paid $591 in cash, while the Company's insurance provider contributed the other $1,159, in full settlement of the Section 14(a) Claims. The insurance portion of this settlement was recorded as an insurance loss recovery in general and administrative expense on the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the year ended December 31, 2025. For both the Section 10(b) Claims and the Section 14(a) Claims, the total cash paid to the escrow agent was $5,250, which includes the amount paid by the Company's insurance provider, and is classified as restricted cash as of March 31, 2026. The related liability is recorded in accrued and other expenses on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2026. PACS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Munchin Securities Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- PACS Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the motion to dismiss the Manchin securities class suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 13, 2024, a putative securities class action captioned Manchin v. PACS Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08636-LJL (S.D.N.Y.) (“Manchin Action”) was filed against the Company, individual defendants Jason Murray, Derick Apt, Mark Hancock, Jacqueline Millard, and Taylor Leavitt; and underwriter defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Truist Securities, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Stephens Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., and Regions Securities LLC.The complaint brings claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act, and also asserts claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. It alleges the Company and its leadership engaged in a multi-year scheme to inflate revenue and profitability by (i) exploiting a COVID-era Medicare waiver to flip long-term Medicaid patients to higher-paying Medicare coverage, (ii) billing unnecessary Medicare Part B respiratory and sensory integration therapies, and (iii) falsifying licensure and staffing documentation. On January 7, 2025, the court consolidated the Manchin Action with a similar action brought by plaintiff New Orleans Employees Retirement System. On February 11, 2025, the court appointed 1199SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and its counsel, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, as lead counsel. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation and as ordered by the court on May 29, 2025, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 19, 2025, which added Joshua Jergensen and P.J. Sanford as named defendants and brought additional claims pursuant to Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 17, 2026, plaintiffs opposed the motion on April 20, 2026, and defendants' reply is due on June 4, 2026. PACS Group, Inc. is a post-acute health care services company that operates and manages skilled nursing and senior care facilities across the United States. The company focuses on providing rehabilitation, long-term care, and related clinical services for elderly and medically complex patients. PACS GROUP: Continues to Defend Boers Derivative Suit in Utah ------------------------------------------------------------- PACS Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Boers derivative suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. On August 19, 2025, a derivative action captioned Boers v. Murray, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00119-DAK-DBP (D. Utah) was filed against the same defendants and alleging substantially the same claims and theories as IN RE PACS GROUP, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on December 8, 2025, without prejudice to her ability to refile, and refiled on April 17, 2026, against the same defendants making the same basic claims. PACS Group, Inc. is a post-acute health care services company that operates and manages skilled nursing and senior care facilities across the United States. The company focuses on providing rehabilitation, long-term care, and related clinical services for elderly and medically complex patients. PACS GROUP: Howard-Hines Derivative Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------- PACS Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of New York stayed the Howard-Hines derivative suit. In addition, on February 14, 2025, a derivative action originally filed by plaintiff Theresa Howard-Hines ("Howard-Hines Action") captioned IN RE PACS GROUP, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Lead Case No. 1:25-cv-01343-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), was filed against defendants Jason Murray, Derick Apt, Mark Hancock, Michelle Lewis, Jacqueline Millard, Taylor Leavitt, and Evelyn Dilsaver, with the Company named as nominal defendant. The complaint brings claims of breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution, based on substantially similar allegations as in the Manchin Action. On April 8, 2025, the court consolidated the Howard-Hines Action with a similar derivative action filed by plaintiff Adam Beckman, under the name In re PACS Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation. On June 9, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action stay until the earlier of the dismissal of the Manchin Action, the denial of any motion to dismiss in the Manchin Action, or the termination of the stay. PACS Group, Inc. is a post-acute health care services company that operates and manages skilled nursing and senior care facilities across the United States. The company focuses on providing rehabilitation, long-term care, and related clinical services for elderly and medically complex patients. PERPETUA RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Barnes Fed. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Perpetua Resources Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Barnes federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. A putative federal securities class action lawsuit, captioned Barnes et al. v. Perpetua Resources Corp. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00160, was filed on March 20, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the Company's common shares during the period from April 17, 2024 to February 13, 2025, inclusive, alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements during that period regarding the Company's expected capital expenditures for the Stibnite Gold Project. On June 6, 2025, two new plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation seeking to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs, which was granted by the District Court on June 16, 2025. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 15, 2025, which seeks unspecified compensatory damages. The District Court issued a scheduling order in this case requiring various procedural and substantive motions to be filed by the parties prior to the end of 2025. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint on September 30, 2025, and as of March 31, 2026, all briefs of all parties had been submitted in connection with this motion. The District Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, and this lawsuit remains pending. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself but, in view of the uncertainties inherent in litigation, does not express a judgment as to the outcome of this litigation. Perpetua Resources Corp. is a mineral exploration and development company focused on advancing the Stibnite Gold Project in central Idaho, a proposed open-pit gold and antimony mine. The company seeks to develop the project while pursuing environmental restoration of legacy mining impacts in the region. PIONEER BANCORP: Continues to Defend Brandes & Yancy Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Brandes & Yancy class suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. On September 2, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. The complaint was filed by Brandes & Yancy PLLC and Ricardo s Restaurant, Inc., two alleged clients of Southwestern, which seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Southwestern clients based on the same set of facts as the AXH and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the Southwestern and NatPay complaints. It asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a declaratory judgment, and both complaints also seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys fees. Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. is the holding company for Pioneer Bank, a community bank headquartered in the Albany, New York, area that provides a range of banking and financial services to individuals and businesses. The company offers deposit products, commercial and consumer lending, and related financial services through its branch network and digital platforms. PIONEER BANCORP: Continues to Defend O'Malley's Oven Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the O'Malley's Oven class suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. On September 2, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. The complaint was filed by O'Malley's Oven LLC and Legat Architects, Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and ProData Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC (collectively, Cloud Payroll). It asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a declaratory judgment, and both complaints also seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys fees. Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. is the holding company for Pioneer Bank, a community bank headquartered in the Albany, New York, area that provides a range of banking and financial services to individuals and businesses. The company offers deposit products, commercial and consumer lending, and related financial services through its branch network and digital platforms. QUANTUM COMPUTING: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NJ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Quantum Computing Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and past officers in the New Jersey District Court on February 25, 2025, by a plaintiff seeking to represent a class of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between March 30, 2020 and January 15, 2025, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information about the Company's customers, contracts and business operations in its public statements and SEC filings. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages plus attorney's fees and costs. In June 2025, the New Jersey District Court designated a lead plaintiff who filed an amended operative complaint on or about August 26, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended operative complaint on November 14, 2025. While the Company's motion to dismiss was pending, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint was subsequently filed on February 13, 2026. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 13, 2026, and the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on April 22, 2026. The Company intends to file a reply memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss, and the brief is due on or before May 22, 2026. Quantum Computing Inc. is a technology company focused on advancing quantum computing hardware and software solutions aimed at solving complex computational problems across industries such as cybersecurity, finance, and advanced manufacturing. The Company develops quantum systems, algorithms, and related services designed to deliver practical quantum advantages for commercial and government customers. QUANTUM COMPUTING: June 2025 Derivative Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------- Quantum Computing Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey stayed the June 2025 derivative suit pending the resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action. On June 19, 2025, a shareholder derivative action (the "June 2025 Derivative Action") was filed against certain of the Company's current and past officers and directors, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, unjust enrichment, common law fraud, and violations of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages plus attorney's fees and costs. The Company and its board of directors dispute the allegations in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend against the asserted claims. The March 2025 Derivative Action, May 2025 Derivative Action, June 2025 Derivative Action, and September 2025 Derivative Action, have each been stayed pending the resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action. Quantum Computing Inc. is a technology company focused on advancing quantum computing hardware and software solutions aimed at solving complex computational problems across industries such as cybersecurity, finance, and advanced manufacturing. The Company develops quantum systems, algorithms, and related services designed to deliver practical quantum advantages for commercial and government customers. QUANTUM COMPUTING: March 2025 Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Quantum Computing Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey stayed the 2025 derivative suit pending the resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action. On March 31, 2025, a shareholder derivative action (the "March 2025 Derivative Action") was filed against certain of the Company's current and past officers and directors, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the Exchange Act by the named officers and directors. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages plus attorney's fees and costs. No pre-litigation demand was made on the Company's board of directors. The Company and its board of directors dispute the allegations in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend against the asserted claims. The March 2025 Derivative Action, May 2025 Derivative Action, June 2025 Derivative Action, and September 2025 Derivative Action, have each been stayed pending the resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action. Quantum Computing Inc. is a technology company focused on advancing quantum computing hardware and software solutions aimed at solving complex computational problems across industries such as cybersecurity, finance, and advanced manufacturing. The Company develops quantum systems, algorithms, and related services designed to deliver practical quantum advantages for commercial and government customers. QUANTUM COMPUTING: May 2025 Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Quantum Computing Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey stayed the May 2025 derivative suit pending the resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action. On May 6, 2025, a shareholder derivative action (the "May 2025 Derivative Action") was filed against certain of the Company's current and past officers and directors, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and violations of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages plus attorney's fees and costs. No pre-litigation demand was made on the Company's board of directors. The Company and its board of directors dispute the allegations in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend against the asserted claims. The March 2025 Derivative Action, May 2025 Derivative Action, June 2025 Derivative Action, and September 2025 Derivative Action, have each been stayed pending the resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action. Quantum Computing Inc. is a technology company focused on advancing quantum computing hardware and software solutions aimed at solving complex computational problems across industries such as cybersecurity, finance, and advanced manufacturing. The Company develops quantum systems, algorithms, and related services designed to deliver practical quantum advantages for commercial and government customers. QUANTUM COMPUTING: September 2025 Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Quantum Computing Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey stayed the September 2025 derivative suit pending the resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action. On September 25, 2025, a shareholder derivative action (the “September 2025 Derivative Action”) was filed against certain of the Company’s current and past officers and directors, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division, Hudson County, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, and aiding and abetting fiduciary duties. The Company and its board of directors dispute the allegations in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend against the asserted claims. The March 2025 Derivative Action, May 2025 Derivative Action, June 2025 Derivative Action, and September 2025 Derivative Action, have each been stayed pending the resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action. Quantum Computing Inc. is a technology company focused on advancing quantum computing hardware and software solutions aimed at solving complex computational problems across industries such as cybersecurity, finance, and advanced manufacturing. The Company develops quantum systems, algorithms, and related services designed to deliver practical quantum advantages for commercial and government customers. RAMACO RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramaco Resources, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A putative class action complaint was filed on January 30, 2026 against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Randall Atkins, and its Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy Sussman, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 arising from allegedly materially false and/or misleading statements concerning the development and active mining status of the Company's Brook Mine rare earth and other critical minerals project in Wyoming during the class period of July 31, 2025 through October 23, 2025, and that the plaintiff seeks determination of class action status under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an award of compensatory damages against all defendants jointly and severally for all damages sustained (including interest), reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was originally captioned Lynn Henning, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ramaco Resources, Inc., Randall W. Atkins, And Jeremy R. Sussman, (Case No. 1:26-cv-00846). On April 22, 2026, the court appointed Andrew Clark, Phil McBride, and Edward Van Vliet as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. The case was also ordered to be styled as In Re Ramaco Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation. On May 5, 2026, the court entered a Scheduling Stipulation and Order requiring Co-Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 45 days and establishing procedures for Defendants to seek a pre-motion conference in advance of any motion to dismiss thereafter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all claims in this matter. Ramaco Resources, Inc. is a U.S.-based producer of metallurgical coal and developer of critical mineral and carbon-related projects, including the Brook Mine in Wyoming. The company supplies coal primarily to steel producers and is expanding into advanced carbon products and rare earth and critical minerals development. REVIVE ESSENTIAL: Faces Dalton Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REVIVE Essential Oils LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-02573 (D. Minn., May 11, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.revive-eo.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content – content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant offers wellness products for sale including, but not limited to, essential oils, carrier oils, CBD oils, skin care, hair products, supplements, diffusers, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com RJ REYNOLDS: Faces Card Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN CARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-433 (M.D.N.C., May 11, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. RJR is an American tobacco manufacturing company based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: kgwaltney@carolinalaw.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com ROBERT BOSCH: Faces Husky Suit Over HVAC Equipment Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------- HUSKY HEATING & COOLING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBERT BOSCH LLC, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, JC RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC, JOHNSON CONTROLS HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING NORTH AMERICA LLC, TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC, TRANE U.S. INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC TRANE HVAC US, CARRIER GLOBAL CORP., VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING CO. (U.S.), INC., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD., DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS, THERMALNETICS, LLC, LENNOX INTERNATIONAL, INC., LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC., ALLIED AIR ENTERPRISES LLC, RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO., HEAT TRANSFER PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC, AAON, INC., a Nevada Corporation, AAON, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, AAON COIL PRODUCTS, INC., and BASX, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-11565-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich., May 11, 2026) is a civil antitrust action on behalf of a proposed Class of all entities and persons who directly purchased HVAC Equipment in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2020 through the present from one or more of Defendants and their co-conspirators. The Plaintiff seeks to put an end to Defendants' illegal scheme, to recover damages, and to restore competition in the HVAC Equipment marketplace. Since at least January 1, 2020, Defendants -- the largest manufacturers of HVAC Equipment sold in the United States -- have conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices of HVAC Equipment throughout the United States. During this period, HVAC Equipment prices increased by more than 50%, greatly outpacing inflation and the rate at which comparable goods increased, despite historical data showing that those figures had previously moved within similar ranges. The Defendants repeatedly attempted to justify these increases through a series of pretextual explanations, including supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, changes to federal energy efficiency standards, and the phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons ("HFCs") under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020. None of these explanations justified the magnitude, timing, or coordinated nature of Defendants’ price increases. Indeed, the HVAC Producer Price Index rose substantially faster than both the Consumer Price Index and the Producer Price Index for major household appliances during the Class Period, demonstrating that HVAC Equipment pricing diverged sharply from broader economic and manufacturing trends. The Defendants' conduct widened the spread between the cost to manufacture HVAC Equipment and the prices at which Defendants sold those products, resulting in supracompetitive profits, alleges the suit. Husky Heating purchased HVAC Equipment directly from one or more of the Defendants at artificially inflated prices. It suffered an antitrust injury as a direct result of the antitrust violations alleged in this Complaint. Robert Bosch is a wholly owned subsidiary of Robert Bosch GmbH and serves as the corporate headquarters for North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK PLLC 38500 Woodward Avenue, Ste 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 243-6335 E-mail: kjustice@jjlmlaw.com - and - William H. London, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. Samantha M. Gupta, Esq. Kara S. Smith, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: blondon@jjlmlaw.com mmoskovitz@jjlmlaw.com sgupta@jjlmlaw.com ksmith@jjlmlaw.com - and - Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. Anthony M. Carter, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com acarter@tostrudlaw.com - and - Erik H. Langeland, Esq. ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C. 733 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY. 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Sana Biotechnology, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On March 21, 2025, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company and its current and former executives, Steven D. Harr, M.D., and Nathan Hardy, now captioned In re Sana Biotechnology, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 2:25-cv-00512-BJR, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the company's business, operations, and prospects (the Action). On June 2, 2025, the court appointed Shane Honey and Jonatan Koskinen as co-lead plaintiffs and their respective choices of lead counsel as co-lead counsel in the Action. On August 15, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to serve as the operative complaint in the Action, which asserts claims against all defendants pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims against the individual defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading public statements and omissions regarding the development of SC291, which was the companys HIP-modified CD19-directed allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate for the treatment of B-cell cancers, as well as the company's finances, operations, and business prospects. The complaint purports to assert class action claims on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between January 9, 2024 and November 4, 2024 and seeks unspecified damages. On October 14, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 15, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on January 29, 2026, the defendants filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss. In addition, on December 29, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. On January 20, 2026, the defendants filed their opposition to the motion to amend, and on February 3, 2026, the lead plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the motion to amend. Briefing on each of the motion to dismiss and motion to amend has concluded and such motions remain pending, and the defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in the Action, although there can be no assurances as to the outcome. As of the date of this report, no related shareholder derivative action, government investigation, or other consolidated action in respect of the foregoing securities litigation has been filed or is otherwise disclosed. Sana Biotechnology, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on creating and delivering engineered cells as medicines for patients, with programs spanning oncology, genetic diseases, and other serious conditions. The company leverages cell engineering, gene editing, and delivery technologies to develop allogeneic cell and gene therapy product candidates. SERVICE FINANCE: Faces Benesh Suit Over Fraudulent Financing Deals ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN BENESH, VANORR BURKHEAD, and ALLISON BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERVICE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-61396 (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2026) is a class action for damages and rescission arising from fraudulently procured consumer financing agreements used to finance the purchase of residential solar energy systems. According to the complaint, each Plaintiff purchased a rooftop solar energy system from Lumio HX, a national residential solar installer, who utilized fraudulent and misleading sales practices to induce the purchase of those systems. Lumio induced consumers to purchase residential solar energy systems through a widespread pattern of deceptive door-to-door sales practices used across its nationwide sales force. These practices included, among other things, overstating the amount consumers would save on their electricity bills; falsely representing that the solar systems would replace 100% of the customer's electricity needs; falsely representing that the solar systems would "pay for themselves" because the monthly energy savings would equal or exceed the monthly loan payments; and making similar statements intended to lead consumers to believe that the solar systems would be "free" or would effectively pay for themselves through energy savings, says the suit. Lumio sales representatives also misrepresented and mischaracterized the federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC), frequently telling homeowners that they would receive a check or payment from the government that could be used to pay down the cost of the system, when in reality the ITC is merely a tax credit that many consumers cannot fully utilize, the suit alleges. Service Finance Company, LLC is a nationally licensed home improvement financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacqueline M. Bertelsen, Esq. NORMAND, JUDKINS, & COUCH, PLLC Telephone: (407) 603-6031 3165 McCrory Place, Ste 175 Orlando, FL 32803 E-mail: j.bertelsen@njc.law - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com - and - Ian W. Sloss, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, Floor 15 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com SOUNDHOUND AI: Bishop Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- SoundHound AI, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the Bishop shareholder derivative suit pending resolution of the Liles v. SoundHound AI et al securities class action litigation. On April 8, 2025, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Bishop v. Mohajer, Case No. 3:25-cv-03172-JD, purporting to assert claims on behalf of the Company against its directors, CEO, and CFO for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and for contribution against Mr. Mohajer and Mr. Sharan under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SoundHound AI, Inc. is a voice artificial intelligence company that develops conversational AI technologies and platforms for automotive, enterprise, and consumer applications. The company offers voice-enabled solutions that allow users to interact with devices and services through natural language. SOUNDHOUND AI: Continues to Defend Liles Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- SoundHound AI, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Liles securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A class action complaint was filed on March 28, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Liles v. SoundHound AI, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02915-RFL, naming as defendants the Company, its CEO Keyvan Mohajer, and its CFO Nitesh Sharan, asserting, among other things, claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired SoundHound securities between March 1, 2024 and March 11, 2025, both dates inclusive. On July 14, 2025, Judge Rita Lin appointed the leading plaintiff in the litigation, and on July 25, 2025, a new Scheduling Order was entered. That on October 1, 2025, the Lead Plaintiff served their amended complaint, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on December 12, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on February 10, 2026, and the Company filed its reply on March 19, 2026. After the hearing held on May 5, 2026, the court took the motion under advisement and a ruling is pending, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the claims and believes the complaint lacks merit, and that as of March 31, 2026, no determination can be made as to the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome and, in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, no reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be estimated and accrued as of March 31, 2026. SoundHound AI, Inc. is a voice artificial intelligence company that develops conversational AI technologies and platforms for automotive, enterprise, and consumer applications. The company offers voice-enabled solutions that allow users to interact with devices and services through natural language. STONE STREET: Candia Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- ALICIA FLORES CANDIA, JUAN MARTINEZ HERNANDEZ and HARLEY DIAZ, on behalf of themselves, individually, and all similarly situated persons v. STONE STREET VENTURE LTD. d/b/a HAVANA SOCIAL and THE DUBLINER, MAYCOL MARTINEZ CRUZ a/k/a MIGUEL MARTINEZ CRUZ, RONAN A. DOWNS, DAVID J. MASSEY, EAMONN MASSEY and NOEL MCDERMOTT, Case No. 1:26-cv-03813 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Flores as a non-exempt dishwasher from in or about 2021 until in or about 2022. While employed as a dishwasher, Plaintiff Flores was primarily responsible for cleaning and washing dishes, running food orders, cleaning tables and cleaning the bar area. The Defendants are a company and its owners that operate a restaurant and bar, located at 45 Stone Street, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. OMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 SUBARU OF AMERICA: Hall Sues Over Vehicles' Defective AEB Systems ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER HALL and LAURENE GERMANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05266 (D.N.J., May 11, 2026) is a class action suit brought individually by the Plaintiffs, and on behalf of nationwide and state classes for the benefit and protection of purchasers and lessees of 2023-2026 Subaru Legacy, Outback, and Ascent vehicles; 2024-2026 Subaru Impreza and Crosstrek vehicles; 2022-2026 Subaru Forester and WRX vehicles; and 2025-2026 BRZ vehicles (Class Vehicles) equipped with defective collision avoidance and/or mitigation features including autonomous emergency braking systems that utilize Pre-Collision Braking and Reverse Automatic Braking and Lane Keep Assist, against Subaru. According to the complaint, Subaru failed to inform Plaintiffs and members of the Class before or during the time of sale that the AEB systems in Class Vehicles have design, manufacturing, and workmanship defects, including, but not limited to, poor calibration of the software from multiple control modules, including the ABS Control Module, such that they are prone to activating the brakes when there are no objects in front of and/or behind the vehicle. The AEB systems also sometimes fail to entirely activate when there are persons or objects in front of the vehicle. This occurs due to miscommunication between all the systems involved in automatic braking, including the sensors, the camera, the brakes, and the transmission (the AEB System Defect). The AEB System Defect prevents Class Vehicles from behaving as designed and advertised in real-world driving conditions. As a result of the AEB System Defect, Class Vehicles abruptly slow down, or stop entirely, without driver input when there are no obstacles in front of or behind the vehicle. This presents a clear-cut safety hazard, increasing the chances of a collision. Autonomous emergency braking systems are one of the most highly touted advancements in automobile safety, says the suit. Had Subaru disclosed the AEB or LKA System Defects before Plaintiff Hall purchased his vehicle, he would have seen such disclosures and been aware of them. Indeed, Subaru's misstatements and omissions were material to Plaintiff Hall. The Defendant is the United States sales and marketing subsidiary of Subaru Corp. and is a wholly owned subsidiary responsible for distribution, marketing, sales and service of Subaru vehicles in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Sarper Unal, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: sunal@ahdootwolfson.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com SYSCO CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Avalos Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JULIE AVALOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SYSCO CORPORATION, Case No. 4:26-cv-03744 (S.D. Tex., May 8, 2026) is a class action arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. Accordingly, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) about its employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the Data Breach). The Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its employees' PII, the Plaintiff contends. Plaintiff Avalos is a natural person and a citizen of Fort Collins, Colorado. She is domiciled in Colorado, where she intends to remain. The Defendant is a global food service distribution company that markets and delivers food products, equipment, and supplies to restaurants, healthcare, education, and hospitality businesses around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camile Alvarez, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: calvarez@straussborrelli.com TARGET CORP: Green Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under MWHL ----------------------------------------------------- DARNISHA GREEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-01845-EA (D. Md., May 11, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against Target seeking all available relief under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collections Law, and Maryland's unjust enrichment doctrine. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, like other class members, sometimes worked over 40 hours per During each workday, Defendant generally starts paying Plaintiff and other class members based on the scheduled start-times applicable to the class member's job assignment. The Plaintiff and other class members are required to be at their job assignment location and ready to start working at the scheduled start time. The Plaintiff and other class members are required to complete various activities inside the Maryland Facilities prior to the scheduled start-time. To support to these retail operations, Defendant operates distribution centers and other supply-chain facilities throughout the United States. These facilities include a food distribution center and returns center in Upper Marlboro, MD. The Defendant employs individuals who, during the past three years, have worked at the Maryland Facilities and have been paid an hourly wage. The Plaintiff is a class member because, from February 2024 until March 2025, she was employed by Defendant at the Maryland Facilities and was paid an hourly wage. The Defendant is a retailer offering "fashionable, differentiated merchandise and everyday essentials at discounted prices" available for purchase "in stores or through our digital channels."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Werman Salas P.C. 609 H Street NE, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq. Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: daaron@winebrakelaw.com pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com THERMOS LLC: Meaney Files Suit Over Defective Food Jars and Bottles ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MEANEY AND GEORGE EURIPIDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THERMOS, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05163 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant regarding the manufacture, distribution, and sale of its Thermos Stainless King Food Jars and Thermos Sportsman Food & Beverage Bottles (the "Affected Products"), including Model Nos. SK3000, SK3020, and SK3010. According to the complaint, Thermos sold the Affected Products nationwide through major retailers, including Target and Walmart, and online through Amazon.com and Thermos.com, for approximately $30 per unit. Thermos imported the Affected Products, which were manufactured in China and Malaysia, and distributed them throughout the United States. The Affected Products were designed and sold with a stopper that lacks an adequate or effective pressure relief mechanism in the center, but Defendant failed to adequately disclose this material defect to consumers. As a result of this defect, storing perishable food or beverages in the Affected Products for an extended period of time can lead to pressure buildup inside the container, which may cause the stopper to eject forcefully when opened. This constitutes a design defect, which Defendant has acknowledged through a nationwide recall issued on April 30, 2026 (Recall No. 26-444). The defect poses a serious risk of impact injuries and lacerations, including severe eye injuries. Defendant has received at least 27 reports of incidents involving the stopper forcefully ejecting and striking consumers, including injuries requiring medical attention and three instances of permanent vision loss. The Plaintiffs and other consumers had a reasonable expectation that the Affected Products would be safe for their intended use, namely, the storage and consumption of food and beverages, and would not pose a risk of sudden and forceful ejection of components capable of causing serious injury. Thermos' marketing and product labeling emphasize durability, reliability, and suitability for storing hot or perishable contents, including representing the products as part of its "Stainless King" line of food jars and insulated beverage containers. However, these representations are misleading by omission, as Defendant failed to disclose that the Affected Products lacked an adequate pressure relief mechanism and could become pressurized during normal and foreseeable use, creating a dangerous condition, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the proposed Nationwide Class, New York Subclass, and New Jersey Subclass, as applicable, to recover damages, restitution, equitable relief, and all other available remedies for: (i) violation of New York General Business Law; (ii) violation of New York General Business Law; (iii) unjust enrichment; (iv) negligent design, on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class; (v) negligent failure to warn, on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class; (vi) negligence; (vii) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (viii) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff George Euripides purchased a Thermos Stainless King Vacuum-Insulated Food Jar with Spoon, 16 Ounce, Matte Black through Amazon on October 9, 2021, paying $21.79 per unit. Plaintiff Daniel Meaney purchased a Thermos Stainless King Vacuum-Insulated Food Jar, 24 Ounce, Army Green through Amazon in 2024 for $27.99. Defendant Thermos LLC designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, advertises, warrants, and sells consumer beverage and food containers, including the Affected Products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Michael N. Pollack, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-363-7500 Facsimile: 212-363-7171 E-mail: tlitke@zlk.com E-mail: mreich@zlk.com E-mail: mpollack@zlk.com TOP LINE: Faces Katz Suit Over Debt Collections Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Sara Katz individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Top Line Collectors LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02809 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2026) is a class action on behalf of a class of New York consumers under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff disputes that all or part of this debt is a valid debt. The obligation arose out of a transaction in which money, property, insurance or services of the subject transactions were incurred for personal purposes. The alleged Capital One obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a (5). Capital One is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a (4). Top Line collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of themselves or other creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet, therefore Defendant Faloni is a debt collector. The Class consists of: a. all individuals with addresses in the State of New York; b. with whom Defendant sent an initial communication letter in an attempt to collect a consumer debt; c. which communications did not properly explain who the current creditor was; d. which communications were made on or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date twenty-one (2l) days after the filing of this action. The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of Defendant and those companies and entities on whose behalf they attempt to collect and/or have purchased debts. Excluded from the Plaintiff Class is the Defendant and all officers, members, partners, managers, directors and employees of the Defendant and their respective immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate families. The Plaintiff seeks damages and declaratory relief. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York in the County of Kings. Top Line is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Deborin, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: adeborin@steinsakslegal.com UNIFIN INC: Faces Grunhut Class Suit Over Debt Collections ---------------------------------------------------------- Judah Grunhut individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02811 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2026) is a class action on behalf of a class of New York consumers under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of a class consisting of: a. all individuals with addresses in New York; b. with whom Defendant communicated in an attempt to collect a consumer debt; c. which communications included an itemization for the debt that showed interest being charged; d. but did not explicitly state if the interest was still accruing or had been waived; e. which communications were made on or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date twenty-one (2l) days after the filing of this action. The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of the Defendant and those companies and entities on whose behalf it attempts to collect debts and/or have purchased debts. Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the Defendant and all officers, members, partners, managers, directors and employees of the Defendant and their respective immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate families. The Plaintiff is seeking damages and declaratory relief. Unifin is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Deborin, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ, 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: adeborin@steinsakslegal.com UNITED STATES: Court OKs Bid to Enfore Injunction in "Molina" ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in the case captioned Jose Escobar Molina, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-3417 (BAH), granted plaintiffs' motion to enforce the December 2, 2025 preliminary injunction and granted plaintiffs' motion for extra-record discovery. On December 2, 2025, the court granted in part a preliminary injunction brought by nonprofit membership organization CASA, Inc. and four noncitizens, who alleged that law enforcement officers were unlawfully making warrantless civil immigration arrests in the District of Columbia without the required probable cause findings under Section 1357(a)(2) of Title 8. The court enjoined defendant -- the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its Secretary, and other federal agencies and officers -- from enforcing a policy and practice of making warrantless civil immigration arrests without probable cause to believe that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Just two months later, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction, contending that defendant had been undeterred and continued to carry out warrantless immigration arrests without the required probable cause determinations. The dispute narrowed to whether a five-page memorandum -- the Lyons Memo -- shared nationwide with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel regarding the legal standards for warrantless civil immigration arrests, comported with the preliminary injunction. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the preliminary injunction notwithstanding defendant's pending appeal, as whether the addressee of an injunction has complied is not a subject involved in the appeal. Both parties agreed the court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the enforcement motion. Motion to Enforce: Flawed Definition of Escape Risk The court found that the Lyons Memo failed fully to comply with the preliminary injunction on two grounds. First, the Lyons Memo provided a flawed definition of escape risk. Although the memorandum initially defined escape risk to include whether an individual is unlikely to be located at the scene of the encounter or another clearly identifiable location once an administrative warrant is obtained, subsequent descriptions in the memo dropped the latter phrase, effectively limiting the analysis to whether an individual is likely to remain at the scene of the encounter. Factor two further instructed officers that a subject's ability and means to promptly depart the scene -- for example, by being encountered in a vehicle -- may support a finding of likely escape. Defendant conceded this guidance did not fully incorporate the court's opinion granting the preliminary injunction, as the court had determined that presence in a vehicle is not sufficient to find that an alien is likely to escape. Nearly every Form I-213 that discussed escape risk stated only that the individual was arrested at large and encountered while in a vehicle, without any reference to whether the individual could be found at another clearly identifiable location. Motion to Enforce: Failure to Address Community Ties Second, the Lyons Memo failed to address community ties. The preliminary injunction expressly required documentation to include the alien's ties to the community, if known at the time of arrest, including family, home, or employment. The memorandum provided no guidance on considering an individual's ties to the community and did not advise agents to query whether an individual has family, resides, or works in the District. Defendant conceded that community ties could be relevant to whether an alien is likely to escape and could cut against any probable cause finding of escape risk. Sworn testimony from those who were arrested confirmed that no inquiry whatsoever was made into their community ties before arrest. As to the remaining factors -- one, three, four, five, six, and seven -- plaintiff had not established that these factors, standing alone, violated the preliminary injunction. The court noted that probable cause requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, the court granted plaintiff's revised proposed order prohibiting defendant from relying on the probable cause standard or analytical approach set forth in the Lyons Memo when conducting civil immigration arrests without a warrant in the District. Without a warrant in the District. The court granted plaintiff's motion for extra-record discovery. Defendant produced an eleven-page administrative record that plaintiff criticized as containing essentially nothing that would aid the court's review. The court found the case fell under the exception permitting extra-record discovery where the record is so bare that it prevents effective judicial review. Defendant maintained no such policy exists, while refusing to supplement the record. Plaintiff may serve on defendant requests for production and admission, up to ten interrogatories, and take up to five depositions. The court granted provisional class certification in connection with the preliminary injunction, but denied the motion for final class certification without prejudice as premature, as factual disputes remained regarding the precise scope of the challenged policy. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UKZ2gL from PacerMonitor.com VANGUARD PARKING: Goldart Files Suit Over DPPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- JED GOLDART, On His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs vs. VANGUARD PARKING SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01739-JRR (D. Md., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawfully obtaining and using personal information of drivers from their drivers' license records in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"). The complaint relates that without any authorization under law or contract, Defendant Vanguard, on behalf of various parking facilities throughout the nation, records the license plates of patrons of the parking facilities, accesses records from the state Departments of Motor Vehicles ("DMVs"), and then sends "violation notices" for substantial fines for supposed violations to the registered owners of those vehicles. Named Plaintiffs and Class members were never informed that their personal information would be obtained by Defendant Vanguard through their DMV records. Defendant Vanguard obtains drivers' personal information, including their name and address, from DMV records without the lawful consent of drivers, and without a lawfully permitted reason under the DPPA. The complaint alleges that Defendant Vanguard acted with respect to Named Plaintiff and Class members in willful, or at the very least reckless, disregard of the law because Defendant Vanguard knew it was unlawful to access, disclose, obtain and/or use Named Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information from non-public motor vehicle records in violation of the DPPA. Defendant Vanguard's conduct caused Named Plaintiff and Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, invasion of their privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, harassment and annoyance, says the suit. The Named Plaintiffa asks the Court, on behalf of himself and the proposed Class, to award them actual damages, but no less than $2,500 per violation of the DPPA; punitive damages under DPPA; pre-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the DPPA; costs; and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Named Plaintiff Jed Goldart is a resident of Montgomery County, Maryland. Defendant Vanguard Parking Solutions Inc is a Delaware corporation that regularly conducts business in Maryland as a debt collector for parking garages, although is not registered to do business in Maryland with the Maryland State Department of Assessments & Taxation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Mack, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH S. MACK PO Box 65066 Baltimore, MD 21209 Telephone: (443) 423-0464 E-mail: joseph@macklawonline.com WAYNE SALISBURY: Shepard's Mediation Bid Denied ----------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Richard Paiva, as successor to Joseph Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wayne Salisbury, in his capacity as the Director of the State of Rhode Island Department of Corrections, as successor to Anthony Travisono, Defendant, C.A. No. 69-04192JJM-PAS (D.R.I.), Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied pro se class member Joseph W. Shepard's second motion requesting a certificate of appealability. The Court treated the motion as one for reconsideration of two prior orders: the order denying Shepard's first request for a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 53) and the order denying his motion for trial de novo and Rule 60(b) relief (ECF No. 52). The Court found that Shepard failed to establish a manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence, having only amplified the existing law on which those orders rested. The Court further noted that Shepard, as a class member, has no entitlement to participate personally in confidential mediation proceedings or to be treated as a party plaintiff, and that his participation would adversely impact the interests of the class. To the extent Shepard sought relief under Section 1292(b), the Court found that the orders at issue involved no controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance termination of the litigation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aFFSM5 from PacerMonitor.com WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Derivative Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WEBTOON Entertainment Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a shareholder derivative suit in the federal court for the Central District of Calfiornia. On November 15, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against the Company's directors, naming the Company as a nominal defendant, in the federal court for the Central District of California. The complaint focuses on the same allegations as the putative securities class action described above, including that the Company's Registration Statement was materially false or misleading. The complaint includes claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution under Section 11(f) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 31D of the Exchange Act of 1934. On January 13, 2025, by stipulation of the parties, the court ordered the shareholder derivative lawsuit stayed pending resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss in the putative securities class action. On April 24, 2026, by stipulation of the parties, the court ordered the shareholder derivative lawsuit stayed until the end of the fact discovery period in the securities class action, which is currently scheduled for November 30, 2026. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company can neither predict the ultimate outcome of this derivative litigation nor estimate any range of possible losses. WEBTOON Entertainment Inc. operates a global digital comics platform, enabling creators to publish serialized web-based comics and connecting them with readers worldwide. The company generates revenue through advertising, content IP licensing, and related digital content services. WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- WEBTOON Entertainment Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for securities class suit in the federal court for the Central District of California. On September 5, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, its directors, and the underwriters of the Company s initial public offering completed on June 28, 2024 in the federal court for the Central District of California, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of shares of the Company s common stock pursuant or traceable to the IPO Prospectus and the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-279863) relating to the IPO. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On October 10, 2024, the court ordered that the defendants are not required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, deferring any response until after the court rules on any motion by a purported class member to serve as lead plaintiff. On December 12, 2024, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On February 3, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on March 4, 2025, the Company, its directors, and the underwriters of the IPO moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 11, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion to dismiss, and on March 18, 2025, the Company, its directors, and the underwriters filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. On November 14, 2025, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2025, the court issued an amended order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On January 9, 2026, the WEBTOON defendants and underwriter defendants filed answers to the operative complaint, and fact discovery is ongoing. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously, and at this early stage of the proceedings, the Company can neither predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation nor estimate any range of possible losses. WEBTOON Entertainment Inc. operates a global digital comics platform, enabling creators to publish serialized web-based comics and connecting them with readers worldwide. The company generates revenue through advertising, content IP licensing, and related digital content services. WISDOM COMPANIES: Sanchez Sues Over Deceptive Email Spamming Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALICIA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE WISDOM COMPANIES, LLC, a California limited liability company, d/b/a RATESAVINGS.ORG, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02829-AJB-BJW (S.D. Cal., May 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant blankets Americans with illegal spam. It deploys every deceptive tactic in the proverbial playbook -- false subject lines, deceptive headers, and spoofed domains -- to trick unwary recipients into opening messages they would otherwise ignore. In short, Defendant is the definition of a company that profits from spam. The harm does not stop at the inbox. After being deceived into engaging with the spam, Plaintiff was funneled to Defendant's website at RATESAVINGS.ORG where Defendant installed a web of illegal tracking pixels on Plaintiff's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow Plaintiff's behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. The spam is an "Unsolicited Commercial e-mail advertisement" because plaintiff had no pre-existing relationship with Defendant and because the e-mail was initiated for the purpose of advertising or promoting the lease, sale, rental, gift offer, or other disposition of any property, goods, services, or extension of credit. Likewise, Plaintiff has never given "direct consent" to receive commercial e-mail advertisements from Defendant or its marketing agents. The Plaintiff has suffered concrete, particularized harm as a result of Defendant's conduct, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff spent valuable time and attention investigating the misleading offer; searching the WHOIS database to learn who the e-mail came from; incurred opportunity costs and lost productivity; and suffered depletion of device and network resources, including storage space, bandwidth usage on a metered data plan, and battery life. The unauthorized domain name, misleading headers and literally false subject line also invaded Plaintiff's privacy and disrupted the ordinary use and enjoyment of Plaintiff's email account, diminishing its value as a communication tool and necessitating additional filtering and security precautions. These injuries were directly caused by Defendant's unlawful email and are redressable by statutory and injunctive relief, says the suit. Plaintiff ALICIA SANCHEZ has received countless misleading spam e-mail from Defendant. Defendant THE WISDOM COMPANIES, LLC is a marketing company based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com WM TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------- WM Technology, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California stayed the consolidated derivative suit until resolution of the motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action. On November 8, 2024, a shareholder derivative action, captioned DeGennaro v. Francis, et. al, Case No. 8:24-cv-02454 (the “DeGennaro Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against certain members of the Company’s board of directors and certain former and current officers. The plaintiff purports to bring the action derivatively on behalf of the Company, and the Company is a nominal defendant in the action. The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants authorized or permitted materially false statements and/or material omissions of fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs. The derivative complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, disgorgement or restitution, corporate governance reforms, declaratory relief, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiff, including attorneys’ fees. On Nov. 18, 2024, a shareholder derivative action, captioned Pearson v. Francis, et al. (the Pearson Action), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against certain former and current members of the Company's board of directors and certain former and current officers. The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants authorized or permitted materially false statements and/or material omissions of fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs and corporate governance matters. The derivative complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, restitution, corporate governance reforms, declaratory relief, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiff, including attorneys' fees. On Dec. 10, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order consolidating the DeGennaro Action and the Pearson Action (the Consolidated Derivative Action). On Oct. 3, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until resolution of the motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action discussed above. On Feb. 17, 2026, in light of the notice of settlement in the Securities Class Action and the denial of the motions to dismiss as moot, the court ordered the parties to show cause regarding the continued stay of the Consolidated Derivative Action. On Feb. 25, 2026, the court extended the stay to April 10, 2026 to provide the parties additional time to discuss a potential resolution to the Consolidated Derivative Action, pursuant to a court-entered stipulation by the parties. On April 14, 2026, by joint stipulation, the court extended the stay until April 30, 2026. On May 1, 2026, by joint stipulation, the court extended the stay until May 14, 2026. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation. WM Technology, Inc. operates Weedmaps, an online marketplace and technology platform serving the cannabis industry, connecting consumers with retailers and brands. The Company also provides software and data solutions to licensed cannabis businesses across the United States and select international markets. WM TECHNOLOGY: Settlement in Ishak Suit for Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- WM Technology, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Ishak shareholder class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On Oct. 17, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Seret Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc. et al. (the Securities Class Action), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming the Company and certain former and current officers and/or directors of the Company and Silver Spike as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class action is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 25, 2021, and Sept. 24, 2024, inclusive, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On May 12, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On July 11, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended class action complaint. On Feb. 12, 2026, the parties filed a notice of settlement stating that they had reached an agreement in principle to fully settle all pending claims in the action and requesting the court to not rule on the pending motions to dismiss as they were now moot. On Feb. 13, 2026, the court denied as moot the motions to dismiss and ordered lead plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by April 13, 2026. On April 7, 2026, by joint stipulation, the court extended the deadline to file a motion for preliminary approval of settlement to May 14, 2026. The settlement remains subject to approval by the court and certain other conditions and contingencies out of the Company's control. There can be no guarantee that all of these conditions and contingencies will occur. Should a material condition or contingency to the settlement fail to occur, one or both of the parties to the settlement may exercise their right to terminate the settlement agreement. The Company recorded an accrued liability of $2.8 million related to this preliminary settlement agreement, representing management's reasonable estimate of its settlement obligation for the year ended Dec. 31, 2025. This liability is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2026 and Dec. 31, 2025. ********* 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 ***