260618.mbx

260618.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 18, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 121 Headlines AIDS HEALTHCARE: $2.27MM Attorney Fee in Davis Suit Affirmed AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Subscribe & Save Program ANDY & EVAN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Soto Alleges BITGO HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit BRITISH COLUMBIA: Court Approves 2 Settlements in ICBC Class Suit CMG MORTGAGE: Arbitration Denial in Nampeera Wage Class Suit Upheld CORNERSTONE APARTMENT: Denial of Attorney Fees in Woodruff Affirmed DUKE UNIVERSITY: Settles Data Sharing Class Action for $3.74MM ECBM LP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach EVERTEC INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach FOX ROTHSCHILD: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach GAP INC: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Putative Class Action GENERAC POWER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Generator Recall GKN DRIVELINE: Decertification Appeal Tossed for Lack of Standing GOOGLE LLC: $68MM Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set Oct. 10 GRAIL INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 4 HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Suit Over Products' Artificial Preservatives JAMES HARDIE: Faces Investor Class Action Lawsuit in Australia JAVITCH BLOCK: Ohio Supreme Court Denies Prohibition and Mandamus LEMONADE INC: Agrees to Settle Data Disclosure Suit for $10.5MM MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Brown Appeal from Severance Ruling Dismissed MASSACHUSETTS: 1st Cir Finds No Standing, Flips Courtemanche Ruling MASTEC, INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach MASTER LOCK: 140 Padlocks Not Pick Resistant, Class Suit Claims MCLEOD HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach NORTH AMERICAN: Cortina $43M Wage Suit Flipped in Part OAKLAND CITY UNIVERSITY: Coach Files Suit Over Missed Paychecks PHREESIA INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit PORT OF MORROW: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Water Pollution Suit PORTLAND, OR: Teachers' Association Sue Over Layoff Procedures PRIME HEALTHCARE: Nurses File Suit Over Hospital Understaffing ROBLOX CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Claims Filing of $70MM Settlement Due Aug 25 SOFI SECURITIES: Sweep Program Exploits Customers, Smith Says TAYLOR MORRISON: M&A Investigates Sale to Berkshire Hathaway VANGUARD PARKING: Conspired to Boost Garage Revenues, Sullivan Says VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit VERRA MOBILITY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit VIA TRANSPORTATION: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit VICTORIA'S SECRET: Faces Class Action Suit Over Telemarketing Texts VNET GROUP: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action for $5.88MM WEST VIRGINIA: Dismissal of Heckman Suit Based on Immunity Upheld ********* AIDS HEALTHCARE: $2.27MM Attorney Fee in Davis Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case of TAMMY DAVIS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B348322 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, affirmed the attorney fee order of Judge William F. Highberger of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The appeal arose from an attorney fee order in a class action that settled after several years of contentious litigation. The trial court awarded $2,274,000 in attorney fees to the Plaintiff class, reducing the requested lodestar by 40%. The Defendant owned and operated the Madison Hotel, a single-room occupancy residential hotel in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles, renting rooms at low cost to very low-income tenants. The plaintiffs, including named Plaintiff Davis, were tenants at the Madison. In March 2020, Davis filed a class action complaint asserting seven causes of action against the Defendant. The parties engaged in settlement discussions but did not reach a resolution. Davis filed a first amended complaint in July 2020 and a second amended complaint in November 2020, which became the operative pleading. The second amended complaint asserted four claims: violations of Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1941.3, Civil Code section 1714, and Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. In April 2022, the trial court granted class certification on several habitability-related issues affecting the Madison's common areas. The court certified claims under Business and Professions Code section 17200 and identified common issues including plumbing problems in shared areas and bathrooms, electrical issues, elevator outages, unsanitary conditions, lack of locking mailboxes, lack of deadbolts (as a separate subclass issue), lack of a resident caretaker, and public nuisance based on these conditions. The parties agreed to settle the action in September 2024. Under the written settlement agreement, the plaintiffs released their claims in exchange for a $575,000 gross monetary payment by the defendant and the Defendant's agreement to undertake various nonmonetary terms addressing the alleged habitability issues. The trial court approved the settlement in May 2025. In February 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. They requested a lodestar of $3,675,730.75 for 4,734.3 hours of work, along with a 2.0 multiplier, for a total fee request of $7,351,461.50. They also sought an additional $113,550 in estimated future fees for 115 hours of anticipated work, without a multiplier, bringing the total attorney fee request to $7,465,011.50. The Plaintiffs further requested $272,931.03 in litigation expenses covering items such as court reporter costs, mediation, discovery software, expert fees, client transportation, and trial equipment, as well as reimbursement of $7,883.50 in waived filing fees. Declarations in support of the motion were submitted by lead attorneys Annette Harings and Jennifer Kramer. The Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the Plaintiffs should not recover fees for work performed after June 2020 because counsel allegedly caused the breakdown in settlement negotiations. In the alternative, defendant sought a 90 percent reduction or elimination of the lodestar, citing alleged overlitigation, excessive billing, unreasonable rates, lack of experience, limited success, and lack of civility. The Defendant also opposed the request for litigation expenses, arguing that it had agreed only to "allowable" costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 and not broader "litigation expenses." It contended that $163,522.45 in claimed expenses were not recoverable under California law. In support, the Defendant submitted multiple declarations from participants in the litigation and outside attorneys, including opinions that the Plaintiffs' counsel misallocated tasks, billed excessive time and rates, and used vague billing entries. A fee arbitrator also criticized the billing practices. Defendant further filed objections to the Plaintiffs' evidence. The Plaintiffs filed a reply supported by additional declarations, exhibits, and evidentiary objections, and the Defendant later submitted a surreply with further objections and additional declarations. The trial court heard the fee motion on May 8, 2025, and later issued a written order granting it in part. It calculated a total lodestar of $3,789,280.75, which included $3,675,730.75 in fees through February 13, 2025, plus $113,550 in post–February 13 work. It then applied a 40% reduction to the lodestar, resulting in a net award of approximately $2,274,000, allocated between the Plaintiffs' counsel firms as $1,227,960 to Kramer Brown Hui LLP and $1,046,040 to the Law Offices of Annette Harings. The trial court also awarded the Plaintiffs $117,292.08 in costs, including previously waived filing fees, and noted that its downward adjustment reflected its discretion in light of the litigation history and conduct of the parties, including concerns about incivility and billing disputes. The Defendant timely appealed, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to further reduce the award and by not properly reviewing the lodestar, including counsel's hourly rates, billed time, necessary deductions, and the settlement terms. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's fee and cost awards. It held that the trial court properly calculated the lodestar by multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates, and that the Plaintiffs' billing records and supporting declarations provided sufficient support for the hours claimed. It also concluded that the trial court considered the relevant factors, even if not all were expressly discussed in its written ruling. The Court of Appeals further held that the extent of any percentage adjustment to the lodestar lies within the trial court's discretion, and its decision not to impose additional reductions reflected a reasoned exercise of that discretion rather than error. It also found no bias or abuse of discretion in the trial court's consideration of the costs award when shaping the final fee award, emphasizing that fee adjustments are inherently discretionary and supported by the record. Hence, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order and awarded the Plaintiffs costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/M75k8NUVa. Thomas A. Myers, Jonathan M. Eisenberg -- jonathan.eisenberg@ahf.org; Kim Riley Law, Andrew F. Kim -- akim@kimrileylaw.com -- and Rebecca J. Riley -- rriley@kimrileylaw.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. Kramer Brown Hui, Jennifer Kramer -- Jennifer@kbhllp.com -- Sam Brown -- sam@kbhllp.com -- and Sam Vega -- samantha@kbhllp.com; Law Office of Annette Harings and Annette Haring -- annette@haringslaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents. AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Subscribe & Save Program -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Amazon misleadingly induces consumers to sign up for its Subscribe & Save program by touting low prices on the initial sale of certain eligible products only to raise the prices of those items for subsequent purchases once a consumer is locked into a subscription. The 34-page lawsuit says that Amazon purports that Subscribe & Save members can save up to 15 percent when they sign up for recurring deliveries of eligible products they use regularly, with prices touted as substantially lower than those offered by third-party competitors. However, the class action suit says that consumers in the program often end up paying more for subsequent purchases than the then-current Subscribe & Save price, including on transactions with the same seller. As the suit tells it, a consumer would often pay less for a recurringly bought item if they canceled their Subscribe & Save membership and "then started a new one for the exact same product," even if the seller did not change. Importantly, the case says, Amazon reserves the right to change the Subscribe & Save benefits at its sole discretion, including the discount amounts and eligibility used to determine discount amounts, at any time. Subsequent recurrent purchases of an item "will be allocated at Amazon's discretion to one or more sellers," the suit says. Despite these disclosures, which the case claims are "not prominently displayed to customers," Amazon's marketing leaves customers with the impression that they are getting a discounted price by signing up for a subscription and that Amazon will continuously monitor prices to ensure that their subsequent purchases are made with the best-priced sellers, the lawsuit alleges. "By inducing consumers to enroll in a subscription model, Amazon causes consumers to forego the opportunity -- and normal consumer behavior -- to obtain the lowest price available at the time of purchase," the case emphasizes. The complaint adds that while Amazon sends subscription members email updates before each Subscribe & Save order is fulfilled, the emails continue to deceive consumers by creating the false impression that the subscription price is the best price on offer. The complaint refers to a report issued by the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, which found that Amazon employed predatory pricing strategies. Per the suit, the report noted that "once a customer is locked in, they are less likely to change their behavior even when Amazon's pricing is not competitive." Per the case, Amazon exploits consumers' expectations to receive the best offer while masking secretive price increases, taking advantage of "consumer inertia" -- psychological biases that play a critical role in a consumer's apparent commitment to a membership, product or brand, even when cheaper options exist. The end result, according to the suit, is that shoppers "spend more, not less." The plaintiffs allege that they joined Subscribe & Save in February 2024 and paid a discounted price of $16.60 for a bag of Lavazza coffee, compared to the one-time purchase price of $19.53, with the reasonable belief that the price would stay the same and was not "artificially reduced." The filing says that the price of the coffee began to creep upward with each recurring order, but that Amazon's email communications with the plaintiffs failed to give the consumers a "genuine opportunity" to seek better prices both on the Amazon marketplace and from other retailers, even when third-party sellers offered the product for significantly less. By October 2024, the complaint relays, the price of the product was $33.75 per order, with the 15 percent discount bringing the final price to $28.69. During this period, the same product was offered by a third-party seller for $25.90, indicating that Amazon was not offering the most competitive price for Subscribe & Save members as previously represented, the lawsuit reads. The Amazon Subscribe & Save class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who enrolled in Amazon's Subscribe & Save program and purchased eligible items within the relevant limitations period. [GN] ANDY & EVAN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Soto Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO SOTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDY & EVAN INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04765 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), arising from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its ecommerce website, www.andyandevan.com in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The complaint relates that on February 9, 2026, March 17, 2026, and April 22, 2026, Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's Website using screen‑reader technology to research and purchase an Infant Shirtzie Bodysuit Set, a Baby Layette Coming Home Outfit Set, and an Infant Sherpa Jacket Set. Despite multiple attempts across these three dates, Plaintiff was unable to independently complete his objectives due to pervasive access barriers. The Website contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the products, services and facilities of the Website. As such, Defendant discriminates and will continue in the future to discriminate against Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class and subclass based on disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that www.andyandevan.com becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Plaintiff Francisco Soto is a legally blind individual who relies exclusively on screen‑reading software and keyboard navigation to access digital content independently, such as NVDA. Defendant Andy & Evan Industries, Inc. is nationally recognized as a premier infant and children's clothing brand, offering a distinctive and comprehensive range of sizes from newborn through children's sizes 7 and beyond, with a signature product line--including its widely acclaimed "Shirtzie" bodysuit‑shirt garments and curated gift sets--that is not replicated elsewhere in the marketplace.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com BITGO HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against BitGo Holdings, Inc. ("BitGO") (NYSE: BTGO). The lawsuit alleges that Bitgo's Offering Documents issued in connection with its initial public offering were negligently prepared, and that Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts, including allegations that: (i) Defendants understated the scope and severity of the risk that declining digital asset prices posed to BitGo's business and financial performance; and (ii) consequently, Defendants' statements regarding BitGo's financial performance and business prospects as a public company lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased BitGo shares and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at mdees@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/bitgo-holdings/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is August 7, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) mdees@holzerlaw.com [GN] BRITISH COLUMBIA: Court Approves 2 Settlements in ICBC Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Akshay Kulkarni, writing for CBC News, reports that A B.C. judge has approved two settlements in a long-running class-action lawsuit against the provincial auto insurer that once sought nearly $900 million in damages. The negotiated settlements will see far less: $12.2 million paid by the B.C. government to two charities, as well as hundreds of thousands paid by the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) to some victims injured in auto accidents. The 2020 lawsuit claimed that successive provincial governments since 1973 had been secretly and illegally using ICBC monies -- amounting to millions of dollars annually -- to reimburse the public Medical Services Plan (MSP) for car crash victims' doctor visits. It alleged that led to poorer medical care for crash victims who haven't received the full benefits they are entitled to. The lawsuit also said it resulted in high premiums for drivers insured by ICBC, who had essentially been paying for crash victims' doctor costs twice: once through their tax contributions to MSP and again through their ICBC premiums. The Murphy Battista law firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of two types of plaintiffs: the "ratepayer class," representing all insured drivers, and the "accident victim class," representing injury victims. At one point, the lawsuit sought $899.72 million, plus damages and interest, proposing that every provincially-insured driver and injured crash victim in B.C. be paid in the result of a victory. Ultimately, however, provincial legislation passed by the B.C. NDP government meant that the province and ICBC were protected from some of the lawsuit's arguments. What that resulted in was a settlement amount of $12.2 million to be paid to members of the ratepayer class -- every insured driver in B.C., which would be some 5.6 million people, according to Supreme Court Justice Ward Branch. The lawyers in the case said that amount of money would amount to a negligible payout per person -- just over $2 -- and that it should go towards charity instead. It means that charities Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Parachute -- which advocate against impaired driving and for injury prevention, respectively -- will be paid by the province as part of the approved settlement. "I accept that Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Parachute . . . are [focused] on reducing injuries on the road, which is the closest, clearest and most direct tie possible to a class of drivers on the road," Branch wrote. Accident victims to be compensated Meanwhile, members of the accident victim class -- anyone injured in a motor vehicle accident on or after April 1, 1994, who didn't opt out of the class action and received benefits up to the legal limit of ICBC's liability to pay -- will be receiving money equivalent to the full benefits they were entitled to. In addition, they will be receiving $1,000 in damages and interest, according to the settlement language. According to Murphy Battista, the total settlement amount of the accident victim class will add up to $657,000. As part of the settlement, if ICBC isn't able to compensate victims, the corporation will donate half the amount to the ICBC Community Grants program and half the amount to the Law Foundation of B.C. Murphy Battista will not charge a fee on payouts, according to the settlement approval decision. A spokesperson for ICBC said it had begun providing compensation to members of the accident victim class. "The Court found the negotiated settlement proposal fair and reasonable, and this judgment brings closure to longstanding litigation," they wrote in a statement. [GN] CMG MORTGAGE: Arbitration Denial in Nampeera Wage Class Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of JACQUELINE NAMPEERA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CMG MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A170936 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court's denial of CMG's motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' wage-and-hour class action. In November 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a class action against CMG alleging that it failed to pay overtime to hourly and non-exempt employees and did not provide required meal and rest breaks. The complaint also asserted additional Labor Code violations and unfair business practices and sought civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). In January 2024, CMG moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ individual and representative claims based on a 2021 arbitration agreement. In support, CMG submitted the alleged signed agreements for two employees and declarations from its chief human resources officer, Melissa Harbourne. Harbourne stated that the Plaintiffs signed their arbitration agreements through DocuSign on April 2, 2021. She explained that DocuSign assigns a unique Envelope ID once a signature is completed, which CMG relied on to conclude that Nampeera and Prevost electronically signed and returned the agreements before DocuSign sent them back to the company. However, she did not explain how CMG verified the identities of the individuals who accessed and signed the documents. CMG also did not present evidence of any security measures used to confirm attribution of the electronic signatures, nor did it include the email communications allegedly sent to the plaintiffs around the time of signing. In opposition, each Plaintiff stated that they did not receive or sign the 2021 arbitration agreement. They also declared that CMG's IT department created their work email accounts when they were hired and that they did not personally set up the associated passwords. Both further stated that, to their knowledge, CMG's IT department and their supervisors had access to their work email accounts. In her reply declaration, Harbourne submitted additional arbitration agreements allegedly signed by Prevost in 2019 and Nampeera in 2020, along with DocuSign summaries and "Certificates of Completion" for those agreements and the 2021 agreement. She asserted that the Certificates of Completion confirmed the plaintiffs signed the 2021 agreement, based on matching Envelope IDs and unique signature codes tied to their electronic signatures. However, CMG had not relied on the 2019 or 2020 agreements in its original motion to compel arbitration, which was based solely on the 2021 agreement. In supplemental briefing, It argued only that the earlier agreements showed the Plaintiffs had previously signed arbitration agreements through DocuSign in the same manner as the 2021 agreement. In a detailed written order, the court denied CMG's petition to compel arbitration. It held that the burden shifted back to CMG to prove the authenticity of the signatures. Although CMG submitted evidence that DocuSign generates a unique "Envelope ID" after a document is signed, it did not show that each Plaintiff had exclusive, secure login credentials or that only they could have accessed the system to sign the agreement. The court therefore concluded CMG failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Plaintiffs' electronic signatures were authentic. The timely appeal followed. CMG argued that the court's finding that it failed to prove the existence of the 2021 arbitration agreement was not supported by substantial evidence. It challenged the Plaintiffs' declarations, claiming they were insufficient because they were based on statements made only "to the best of" the Plaintiffs' knowledge. CMG also asserted that the Plaintiffs had forfeited any challenge to the authenticity of the earlier 2019 and 2020 arbitration agreements. The Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the Plaintiffs presented enough evidence to challenge the arbitration agreements, shifting the burden back to CMG to prove the electronic signatures were authentic. It further concluded that CMG's evidence was not so strong or uncontradicted that the trial court was required to find the signatures authentic. The court emphasized that the trial court was not obligated to accept CMG's evidence at face value. Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected CMG's reliance on the 2019 and 2020 agreements, holding that argument was not properly raised in the trial court and therefore was not properly before the appellate court. Hence, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying CMG's motion to compel arbitration and awarded the Plaintiffs their costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/Sri7TpBSY CORNERSTONE APARTMENT: Denial of Attorney Fees in Woodruff Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Courtney Woodruff, Gheri Smith, Cristobal Zambrano, Shannon Copeland, Casey Hodges, Joshua Shipley, and Wesley Morgan, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Cornerstone Apartment Services, Inc.; RedPeak Properties, LLC; Echelon Property Group, LLC; Colorado Apartment Association, Inc.; and Asset Living, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, Court of Appeals No. 25CA0114 (Colo. App.), the Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division I, affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendants' motion for attorney fees. The Defendants—landlords Cornerstone, RedPeak, Echelon, and Asset Living; and the Colorado Apartment Association—appeal the district court's order denying their request for attorney's fees in litigation brought by the Plaintiffs, a group of tenants. The tenants had filed a putative class action alleging that the defendants unlawfully collected attorney's fees in connection with forcible entry and detainer (FED) actions and asserted claims for civil theft, deceptive trade practices, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. Before discovery or class certification, the district court addressed the threshold legal issue underlying the tenants' claims—whether the landlords' practice of collecting attorney's fees in connection with forcible entry and detainer (FED) actions was allowed under the applicable statutes. The court concluded in a written order that the practice was lawful under the statutes in effect when the leases were executed. The tenants later sought reconsideration and filed a second amended complaint, but the court denied reconsideration and dismissed the case, relying on its earlier determination that the landlords' conduct was not prohibited by statute. The Defendants moved for attorney's fees under section 13-17-201, C.R.S. 2025, but the district court denied the request. The tenants separately appealed the dismissal of their claims, and in a related opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of dismissal as to all defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Defendants appealed the district court's denial of their motion for attorney's fees. In light of its separate ruling reversing the dismissal of the tenants' claims, the Court of Appeals held that the Defendants were not entitled to an award of attorney's fees. Accordingly, it affirmed the district court's order, though on different grounds. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/nWGas3VJQ. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., Ty Gee -- tgee@hmflaw.com -- Jacob McMahon -- jmcmahon@hmflaw.com -- Denver, Colorado; Carol Kennedy -- contact@copovertylawproject.org -- Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Frederick J. Baumann -- Fred.Baumann@wbd-us.com -- Angela M. Vichick -- Angela.Vichick@wbd-us.com -- Joseph Hykan -- Joe.Hykan@wbd-us.com -- Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant Cornerstone Apartment Services, Inc. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Timothy M. Reynolds -- timothy.reynolds@bclplaw.com -- Marcia M. Levitan-Haffar -- marcia.levitanhaffar@bclplaw.com -- Boulder, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant RedPeak Properties, LLC Clark Hill PLC, Stefanie Mann Chadha -- smann@clarkhill.com -- Claire E. Wells Hanson -- chanson@clarkhill.co -- Darren B. Kaplan -- dkaplan@clarkhill.com -- Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellants Echelon Property Group, LLC and Asset Living, LLC Greenberg Traurig LLP, Naomi Beer -- beern@gtlaw.com -- H. Camille Papini-Chapla -- papinichaplac@gtlaw.com -- Denver, Colorado for Defendant-Appellant Colorado Apartment Association, Inc. DUKE UNIVERSITY: Settles Data Sharing Class Action for $3.74MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Duke University Health System agreed to pay $3.74 million as part of a class action settlement to resolve claims that it shared patient data with third parties without consent. The Duke Health settlement benefits individuals who logged into the Duke MyChart patient portal or MyDuke Health mobile app at least once between Feb. 18, 2019, and June 17, 2022. According to the class action lawsuit, Duke University Health System used tracking tools on its website that shared patient information with third parties without consent. This practice allegedly violated patients' privacy rights. Duke University Health System is a North Carolina-based health system that includes hospitals, outpatient facilities and urgent care locations. Duke Health has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3,743,600 class action settlement to resolve the Duke MyChart privacy breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Duke Health settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. No payment estimates are available at this time. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 20, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Duke Health settlement is scheduled for Aug. 27, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 16, 2026. Who's Eligible The Duke University Health System class action settlement benefits individuals who logged into the Duke MyChart patient portal or MyDuke Health mobile app at least once between Feb. 18, 2019, and June 17, 2022. Potential Award Cash payment Proof of Purchase If you received a notice from the settlement administrator via mail or email, then you have been identified as a class member based on Duke Health's records. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/16/2026 Case Name Williams v. Duke University Health System Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00727, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina Final Hearing 08/27/2026 Settlement Website DUHSSettlement.com Claims Administrator Williams v. Duke University Health System Inc. Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 4214 Portland, OR 97208-4214 info@DUHSSettlement.com (888) 893-8721 Class Counsel Peter H. Burke James R. Harrell CR LEGAL TEAM LLC Karen Hanson Riebel Kate M. Baxter-Kauf Maureen Kane Berg LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP Defense Counsel Elizabeth A. Scully Paul G. Karlsgodt BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Mark E. Anderson MCGUIREWOODS [GN] ECBM LP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the ECBM, LP data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the ECBM data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. ECBM Security Incident: What Happened? Pennsylvania-based insurance company ECBM has disclosed a data breach involving unauthorized access to its systems. As stated in a notice posted on the company's website, ECBM first detected suspicious activity on or about October 25, 2024. An investigation conducted with cybersecurity specialists found that an unauthorized actor accessed and/or acquired information within certain systems between October 19 and October 25, 2024. Names, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, financial account information, driver's license numbers, and medical information may have been compromised in the ECBM data breach. What You Can Do After the ECBM Data Breach If your information was exposed in the ECBM data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force ECBM to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] EVERTEC INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Evertec data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Evertec data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Evertec Security Incident: What Happened? Financial technology company Evertec has reported a data breach in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on June 9, 2026. According to the SEC filing, Evertec became aware of potential unauthorized access to customer data on May 13, which it believes to have occurred through a third-party support platform. An investigation conducted alongside external cybersecurity experts is ongoing but, at the time of the filing, indicates that data belonging to the customers of some of Evertec's financial institution clients in Puerto Rico may have been compromised. The breached information may include transaction records, payment card numbers, names, and contact information. Among Evertec's financial institution clients is Puerto Rico-based Popular, which has issued an online notice alerting customers to the Evertec data breach. The notice issued by Popular indicates that Evertec is mailing notification letters to those affected. What You Can Do After the Evertec Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Evertec data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Evertec to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] FOX ROTHSCHILD: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- U.S. law firm Fox Rothschild was sued on Tuesday, June 9, in a proposed class action lawsuit for allegedly failing to safeguard sensitive personal data and allowing hackers to access people's names and Social Security numbers in a data breach in May. Here are the details: -- The lawsuit alleges that the data breach was carried out by Silent Ransom Group. The group has been targeting law firms since 2023, according ⁠to the FBI. -- The lawsuit was brought by Jasmine Trotter, a Georgia resident who said Fox Rothschild possessed her personal information in connection with an unspecified legal case. Trotter estimated there are thousands of potential class members. -- Trotter alleged that Fox Rothschild did not issue a notice about the data breach and failed to use reasonable procedures to keep her data secure. -- Mark McCreary, Fox Rothschild's chief AI & information security officer, in a ⁠statement said they're continuing to investigate the breach "and will provide notice as required by applicable law." -- McCreary said one attorney at the firm was "the victim of a sophisticated social engineering event" and that the breach was limited to ⁠a single device. -- The firm's data security practices "limited the potential scope of this event," McCreary said. -- Attorneys for Trotter did not immediately respond to requests for comment. -- Law firms ⁠have faced mounting lawsuits stemming from hacking incidents. Some, including Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, have reached settlements in recent ⁠years. -- Silent Ransom Group claimed responsibility earlier this year for hacking Jones Day, a major law firm that represented President Donald Trump in his 2016 and 2020 election campaigns. [GN] GAP INC: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Putative Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that On May 28, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act against a clothing retailer and certain of its officers. Smith v. Gap, Inc., -- F.4th --, 2026 WL 1502033 (2d Cir. May 28, 2026). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding an initiative to increase the availability of plus-size clothing options at its retail stores, which allegedly created inventory problems and had a negative impact on sales. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege actionable misrepresentations or scienter. With respect to alleged misrepresentations, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that certain press releases and earnings calls were misleading because they incorporated the company's risk disclosures without disclosing that certain risks had allegedly materialized. The Court explained that not all risk disclosures are rendered misleading simply because some aspect of the risk may have already materialized. The Court emphasized that the risk disclosures here -- including that the company could "misjudge the market for [its] merchandise," thereby requiring markdowns, and that the company might not be able to "manage [its] inventory effectively" -- were generic to the industry and the company had disclosed that it had "not always predicted [its] customers' preferences . . . with accuracy." Thus, the Court concluded that the risk disclosures would not cause a reasonable investor to conclude that there were no problems with any specific program or that the risks described had never materialized. Second, the Court held that a challenged statement from a company earnings call -- that the company was "seeing strong extended size demand across fashion categories, a clear signal that our customer is craving trend choice lacking in the market" -- amounted to inactionable puffery. The Court further emphasized that the statement was based on quantifiable metrics that were themselves disclosed. Thus, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the statement was misleading because it did not disclose that the company was "conducting deeper than normal discounting." Third, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that company press releases attributing inventory problems to supply-chain issues related to COVID-19 were misleading because they did not disclose that sales had also declined allegedly due in part to problems with the initiative. The Court held that the statements in the press releases were not misleading and did not give rise to a duty to disclose other inventory issues, explaining that "[a] company's decision to speak about one aspect of sales does not necessarily require it to address other issues." Similarly, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the company had an obligation to disclose problems with its initiative because those issues amounted to known trends and uncertainties required to be disclosed under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K. The Court explained that a private securities action cannot be based on an alleged omission under Item 303 unless the omission renders a statement misleading, and here plaintiffs had failed to identify an actionable misstatement. As to scienter, the Court noted that plaintiffs did not attempt to establish scienter by alleging conscious misbehavior or recklessness but rather relied on allegations that the officers named as defendants received information about the initiative and inventory levels generally, as well as allegations under the "core operations" theory. The Court held that plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to establish a strong inference of scienter. The Court explained that, while plaintiffs alleged that the individual defendants received certain inventory reports, plaintiffs did not identify who prepared these reports or when, or what they contained. Further, the Court noted that plaintiffs did not allege that the reports attributed declining sales or inventory problems to the sales initiative. While plaintiffs alleged, based on a confidential witness's "secondhand account," that two store managers had told the CEO that they had too many plus-sizes and not enough medium sizes in stock, the Court observed that this could only support an inference that the company knew that certain stores were having inventory problems, not that the entire initiative was failing. Indeed, the Court noted that, after inventory issues relating to the initiative first emerged, the company initially rolled back the initiative only at a portion of its stores, which was consistent with an interpretation that the company believed problems were limited to certain locations. Finally, the Court explained that the "core operations" doctrine -- under which scienter can be imputed to officers who should have known facts about operations that are sufficiently important to the company -- had not been clearly held by the Second Circuit to provide an independent basis for scienter, rather than merely supplemental support. Moreover, the Court concluded that plaintiffs could not rely on a core operations theory because, while they alleged that inventory amounted to a "core operation," they failed to quantify the relative importance of the initiative to the company's inventory operations more generally.[GN] GENERAC POWER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Generator Recall --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Generac Power Systems faces a proposed class action lawsuit in the wake of a recall of certain portable generators due to a dangerous defect that can cause fuel to leak from the carburetor, creating a serious fire and burn risk. The 20-page Generac lawsuit was filed after more than 149,000 portable generators were recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on April 16, 2026. Per the filing, the generators came with a defect that could cause fuel to leak from the carburetor when a generator was first filled with gasoline. According to the case, Generac misrepresented that its generators were, among other things, "designed for durability and efficiency." "As a direct result of these misrepresentations, Plaintiff and Class Members purchased defective Products that failed to perform as advertised and posed a substantial risk of serious injury," the complaint summarizes. The Generac recall covers the following unit types and models of portable generators: -- GP3600, Model no. G0077210; -- GP4000DF, Model no. G0081550; -- GP6500, Model no. G0076802 and G0076722; -- GP6500E, Model no. G0077130; -- GP6500EDF, Model no. G0081530; -- GP6700EDF, Model no. G0080620; -- GP8000E, Model nos. G0077150, G0076754, and G0081540; -- GP9200E, Model no. G0079712; and -- GP9500ETF, Model no. G0080630. The CPSC website said that consumers should immediately stop using a recalled portable generator and check Generac's website to see if their model and serial number are included in the recall. The CPSC also stated that if a generator is included in the recall and has either not yet been filled with gas or exhibited leakage after fueling, a consumer should contact their dealer to arrange for a free repair. The recall notice states that the portable generators were sold for between $600 and $1,300 at Home Depot, Lowe's and from online retailers from May 2025 through February 2026. Per the case, Generac received 114 reports of generator fuel leaks. As the case tells it, Generac represents that it is the "#1 manufacturer of home backup generators" and provides "quality, affordable power solutions" with residential generators that are "designed for durability and efficiency." Generac failed to disclose the "dangerous" defect to consumers up until the recall, the case says. The lawsuit says that Generac "refuses" to offer consumers refunds for the recalled portable generators, noting that buyers' only option under the recall is to find a Generac dealer for a free repair. The suit adds that this is "inconsistent" with general industry practices as refunds incentivize consumers to surrender a defective, dangerous product and ensure none are left in circulation. Instead, consumers are expected to take on the "considerable" burden of investing time, effort and travel for the sake of obtaining a Generac generator repair, the lawsuit says. The Generac Power Systems class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals in the United States who purchased Generac's recalled portable generators sold between May 2025 and February 2026. [GN] GKN DRIVELINE: Decertification Appeal Tossed for Lack of Standing ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of JAMES MEBANE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and ANGELA WORSHAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-2191 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mebane's appeal from district court's decertification order for lack of jurisdiction. Mebane brought a class-action lawsuit against his former employer, GKN, alleging that violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) resulted in unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wages. GKN operated three manufacturing facilities in North Carolina and used employee time-rounding practices for payroll purposes. It initially applied a quarter-hour rounding system that rounded time entries to the nearest 15 minutes, later replacing it with a three-minute rule that rounded clock-in and clock-out times to scheduled shift start and end times when they occurred within three minutes. GKN ended all rounding practices in January 2020. GKN also automatically deducted a 30-minute unpaid meal period from employees' recorded work hours. Employees were not required to clock in or out for meal breaks, and the deduction was applied regardless of whether a break was actually taken, although employees were expected to be completely relieved of work duties during that time. Plaintiffs James Mebane and Angela Worsham, former GKN employees, filed a putative class and collective action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees. They alleged that GKN's rounding and automatic meal deduction policies resulted in unpaid overtime and wages in violation of the FLSA and the NCWHA. The Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and for conditional collective action certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The district court granted the motion in large part, conditionally certifying an FLSA collective action based on the rounding policy and certifying two Rule 23(b)(3) classes—one based on the rounding policy and another based on the automatic meal deduction policy under the NCWHA. GKN later moved to decertify both the FLSA collective action and the Rule 23 classes, and the district court granted the motion. The court found that claims based on the rounding policy would require individualized inquiries into whether rounded time was compensable, the amount of time affected for each employee, and whether employees were actually harmed by the policy. It also decertified the Rule 23 class challenging the automatic meal-break deduction policy, concluding that individualized determinations would be required to assess whether employees worked during meal periods and whether supervisors knew or should have known about any such work. After the FLSA collective action and Rule 23 classes were decertified, the case proceeded on the Plaintiffs' individual FLSA and NCWHA claims. In November 2024, the parties settled those claims, with GKN agreeing to pay a monetary amount in full settlement while reserving attorneys' fees and expenses for later petition by the Plaintiffs' counsel. The settlement preserved the Plaintiffs' right to appeal the May 12, 2023 decertification order and set deadlines for any fee petition and related requests. Plaintiffs filed a timely petition for attorneys’ fees and costs, which GKN opposed. The district court later entered a consent judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice, denied the fee petition without prejudice, and the Plaintiffs did not refile it. Mebane then appealed the decertification order. Mebane argued that the district court abused its discretion in decertifying the FLSA collective action and two Rule 23(b)(3) classes, and also challenged the court's legal standard, notice timing, and reliance on employee declarations. GKN defended the decertification rulings but argued that Mebane lacked standing to appeal because he had settled his individual FLSA and NCWHA claims. The Fourth Circuit agreed with GKN, holding that Mebane lacked standing because he voluntarily settled his individual claims before filing his notice of appeal and therefore had no remaining personal stake in the case. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/sAI9Uahbg. ARGUED: Gilda Adriana Hernandez -- ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul DeCamp -- PDeCamp@ebglaw.com -- EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Laura Fisher -- lfisher@gildahernandlaw.com -- THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Adriana S. Kosovych -- akosovych@ebglaw.com -- EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellee. GOOGLE LLC: $68MM Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set Oct. 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Google LLC and its parent company Alphabet Inc. have agreed to a $68 million class action settlement to resolve claims that Google Assistant recorded user communications without intentional activation, in violation of users' privacy rights and Google's own privacy policies. The Google Assistant settlement benefits individuals who, between May 18, 2016, and March 19, 2026, either purchased a Google-made device in the United States or its territories, or whose communications were recorded or obtained by Google Assistant as a result of a false activation -- known as a "False Accept" -- or were disclosed to a third-party review vendor. According to one consolidated class action lawsuit, Google Assistant can activate and record audio even when a user has not intentionally triggered it with a hot word, such as "OK, Google" or "Hey, Google." Plaintiffs allege that Google wrongfully collected, used and shared these recordings, including to improve its speech recognition technology, constituting a breach of users' privacy rights and Google's stated privacy policies. Google, as a multinational technology company, offers a wide range of consumer products and services, including smart home speakers, smart displays and Pixel smartphones, all of which can run Google Assistant. Google has not admitted any wrongdoing but has agreed to pay $68 million into a settlement fund to resolve the privacy class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Google Assistant class action settlement, eligible class members can receive a cash payment. The exact payment amount per claimant will depend on the total number of valid claims filed and the points allocated per claim, with device purchasers receiving up to four points per eligible device and privacy class members receiving one point. According to class counsel at the time of the settlement, device purchasers could receive approximately $18 to $56 per device, while "privacy-only" class members, or those whose conversations were recorded but who did not purchase a device, could receive between $2 and $10, depending on participation rates. The settlement also provides that any funds remaining after initial distribution will, where feasible, be redistributed to claimants who cashed their initial payment. If redistribution is not feasible, remaining funds will go to a court-approved nonprofit organization. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 27, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Google Assistant settlement is scheduled for Oct. 1, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form. The deadline to file a claim is Aug. 27, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits those who purchased a Google-made device between May 18, 2016, and March 19, 2026, or had communications recorded or otherwise obtained by Google Assistant as a result of a false accept or disclosed to a third-party review vendor. Potential Award An estimated $2 to $56 depending on the type of class. Proof of Purchase Your Unique ID and PIN number received via a settlement email. For Google-made devices, documentation may include an order confirmation email from Google Store, Google account purchase history, credit card or bank statements or retail receipts. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/27/2026 Case Name In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-04286, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 10/01/2026 Settlement Website GoogleAssistantPrivacyLitigation.com Claims Administrator Google Assistant Privacy Settlement c/o A.B. Data Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217 info@GoogleAssistantPrivacyLitigation.com (877) 411-4704 Class Counsel Erin Green Comite SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP Christian Levis LOWEY DANNENBERG Defense Counsel Bobbie J. Wilson Sunita Bali Elliott J. Joh Erin K. Earl PERKINS COIE LLP [GN] GRAIL INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Grail, Inc. ("Grail") (NASDAQ: GRAL). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the probability of achieving the primary endpoint of a statistically significant reduction in Stage III-IV cancers in Grail's NHS-Galleri trial. If you purchased Grail shares between May 13, 2025 and February 19, 2026, and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at mdees@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/grail/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is August 4, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) mdees@holzerlaw.com [GN] HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Suit Over Products' Artificial Preservatives ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that the Hain Celestial Group has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges its Sensible Portions Veggie Puffs and Veggie Straws are misleadingly labeled as containing no artificial flavors or preservatives. The 27-page lawsuit claims that although Hain Celestial Group's Sensible Portions Veggie Puffs and Veggie Straws bear a prominent and uniform label claim that the snacks contain "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives," they in fact contain citric acid, a well-known preservative with antimicrobial and antioxidant qualities commonly used to inhibit the growth of bacteria and mold in food products. The filing conveys that even when citric acid is used in food for non-preservative reasons, the "subjective intent of citric acid use is irrelevant" as it is still considered a preservative, as recognized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture, the International Food Information Council, and other regulatory groups. Per the case, the presence of citric acid in the Veggie Puffs and Straws is "buried" in the fine print of the ingredients list. Given that consumers generally spend less than 20 seconds to make a purchase decision, it is unlikely that a reasonable consumer would detect the inclusion of the preservative, the complaint contends. Hain Celestial Group "undoubtedly" performed its own investigation before bringing the snacks to market, the suit relays, noting that this would have revealed that the snacks contained preservatives, in direct contradiction to the claims on product labels. "Despite this, [Hain Celestial] purposely made the [f]alse [c]laims in order to induce the false belief in consumers that they were purchasing a [p]roduct that had 'No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives,'" the lawsuit stresses. The lawsuit states that the FDA defines a preservative as any chemical that, when added to food, "tends to prevent or retard deterioration," excluding common salt, sugars, vinegars, spices or oils, as well as substances added to food by "direct exposure," such as wood smoke, or chemicals applied for insecticidal or herbicidal properties. The Hain Celestial Group class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals who purchased Sensible Portions Veggie Straws and/or Veggie Puffs in Missouri. [GN] JAMES HARDIE: Faces Investor Class Action Lawsuit in Australia -------------------------------------------------------------- Sherin Sunny and Sneha Kumar of Reuters reports that James Hardie has been served with a class action lawsuit in Australia alleging it failed to disclose adverse conditions in its North America business before it reported quarterly results and cut its annual forecast in August. The class action filed by law firm Maurice Blackburn in Victoria seeks to recover shareholder losses after a downbeat first-quarter update and ⁠annual earnings downgrade on August 20, 2025 triggered a 34% drop in the fibre cement maker's share price over two days. "The proceeding focuses on whether, prior to August 20, James Hardie failed to disclose adverse conditions affecting its North American Fibre Cement segment . . . and whether it should have corrected or withdrawn its FY26 earnings guidance earlier," the law firm said in a statement on Tuesday, June 9. Maurice Blackburn has filed the lawsuit on behalf of unnamed investors who acquired interests in certain James Hardie securities between May ⁠21 and August 19 last year. Denying any liability, James Hardie said it is in compliance with its disclosure obligations. Last May, James Hardie gave a cautious outlook for 2026, expecting only low single-digit growth in adjusted operating earnings due to softer volume growth in its biggest market, ⁠North American. Shares of the company slipped as much as 3% to A$31.14 on Tuesday, June 9. "Investors are likely to continue focusing on operational execution, the AZEK integration and the outlook for the U.S. housing ⁠market," said Greg Smith, an investment specialist with New Zealand-based wealth manager Generate KiwiSaver. "The class action may weigh on sentiment at the margin, but I don't see ⁠it as the dominant issue for investors at this point." James Hardie had announced the acquisition of U.S. outdoor products maker AZEK for $8.75 billion a year ago[GN] JAVITCH BLOCK: Ohio Supreme Court Denies Prohibition and Mandamus ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THE STATE EX REL. JAVITCH BLOCK, L.L.C., ET AL., v. WOLLSCHEID, JUDGE, et al., Case No. 2025-0663 (Ohio), the Supreme Court of Ohio denied the Relators' request writs of prohibition, mandamus, and/or procedendo preventing Respondents, Judge Susan Wollscheid of the Washington Court House Municipal Court and Judge David Bender of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, from exercising jurisdiction over a debt-collection case known as Miller II. A municipal court has original jurisdiction over cases where no party seeks more than $15,000 in damages. However, if a defendant files a counterclaim exceeding $15,000, the municipal court generally must transfer the case to the court of common pleas, except in cases filed in the Cleveland Municipal Court. In 2021, UHG I, L.L.C. sued intervening-respondent, Angel Miller, in municipal court to collect a debt ("Miller I"). Miller responded with counterclaims and a putative class action. Because the counterclaims exceeded the municipal court's jurisdictional limit, Judge Wollscheid of the Washington Court House Municipal Court certified the case to the court of common pleas, where it remains pending. Relators Javitch and its attorney, Annemarie Wodzisz, did not represent UHG in Miller I. In 2024, UHG, represented by the Relators filed a second municipal court action against Miller to collect the same debt at issue in Miller I ("Miller II"). Miller timely mailed an answer and counterclaims, which were received by the clerk one business day before the filing deadline. The counterclaims included a putative class action against UHG and the Relators, asserting federal and state law claims, including alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. For reasons not explained in the record, the clerk did not immediately process or docket the answer and counterclaims. On October 23, two days after Miller's answer deadline had passed, Judge Wollscheid sua sponte dismissed Miller II after determining that it sought to collect the same debt already at issue in Miller I. She later stated that she was unaware of Miller's attempted answer and counterclaims when she dismissed the case. After the dismissal, the clerk's office processed Miller's filings, but because the case had already been closed, the answer and counterclaims were not docketed and were instead returned to Miller's counsel. On December 13, Miller moved under R.C. 2701.20(B) to have the clerk file her answer and counterclaims and designate the case as active for adjudication of those counterclaims. Although Judge Wollscheid did not expressly grant the motion, she determined that Miller had timely submitted her filings and ordered the clerk to docket them and reactivate the case for consideration of the counterclaims. After concluding that her earlier dismissal order was void because the counterclaims exceeded the municipal court's jurisdictional limit, she certified the entire case, not just the counterclaims, to the court of common pleas. The case remains pending before Judge Bender. In an amended complaint filed on June 20, 2025, the Relators sought a writ of prohibition to stop Judge Bender from exercising jurisdiction over Miller II and a writ of mandamus directing him to dismiss the case. In the alternative, they requested writs of mandamus and procedendo ordering Judge Bender to return the case to Judge Wollscheid and directing her to dismiss it. Judges Wollscheid and Bender filed answers, and Miller moved to intervene, which was granted. The Supreme Court issued alternative writs and set a briefing schedule, and the parties submitted evidence and merit briefs. The Relators argued that both judges lack jurisdiction over Miller II because of Judge Wollscheid's previous dismissal of the case and because of the jurisdictional priority rule. The Supreme Court held that Judge Wollscheid did not clearly and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to reinstate Miller II after its initial dismissal. It emphasized that the municipal court had general subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, and Miller's motion seeking reinstatement—though not formally styled as a motion for relief from judgment—was sufficient to allow the court to act. As a result, the judge's decision to reinstate the case and later vacate the dismissal was within her authority, and her subsequent certification of the case to the court of common pleas was proper, leaving Judge Bender with jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court also rejected application of the jurisdictional-priority rule, noting that both Miller I and Miller II had been certified to the court of common pleas, meaning a single court would ultimately resolve all related claims. Finally, it concluded that the municipal court did not lack jurisdiction to reinstate the case, and because the counterclaims were properly part of the reinstated action, the certification of the entire case was valid. In sum, the Supreme Court held that the court of common pleas does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over Miller II. As a result, the Relators were not entitled to a writ of prohibition preventing Judge Bender from exercising jurisdiction. the Supreme Court also denied the requested writs of mandamus and procedendo seeking to transfer the case back to municipal court or compel dismissal. Accordingly, the writs were denied, and the Relators' motion to certify the record was also denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/ALFoHrC79. Gallagher Sharp, L.L.P., Richard C.O. Rezie -- rrezie@gallaghersharp.com -- and Lori E. Brown -- lbrown@gallaghersharp.com -- for relators. FBT Gibbons, L.L.P., Frank J. Reed Jr. -- FReed@fbtgibbons.com -- and Anthony R. Severyn -- aseveryn@fbtgibbons.com -- for respondents. Susan M. Gray -- smgray@smgraylaw.com; and The Misra Law Firm, L.L.C., and Anand N. Misra -- misraan@misralaw.com -- for intervening-respondent. LEMONADE INC: Agrees to Settle Data Disclosure Suit for $10.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that people who received a notice stating a data breach involving Lemonade Insurance Agency's online insurance quotation platform compromised their personal information may be eligible to claim up to $10,000 and/or a proportional cash payment from a class action settlement. Lemonade Inc. and Lemonade Insurance Agency LLC agreed to pay $10.5 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging unauthorized parties potentially accessed personal information, including driver's license numbers, through Lemonade's online insurance quote system between April 2023 and Sept. 18, 2024. Who can file a claim? The settlement class includes all living, natural persons residing in the United States whose personal information the Lemonade data exposure incident compromised, including those who received a notice in April or June 2025 informing them the breach compromised their personal information. The class is estimated to include approximately 190,000 people. How much can class members receive? Class members may submit a claim for one or both of the following cash benefits: -- Documented loss payment: Reimbursement of up to $10,000 for documented losses incurred on or after April 1, 2023, that are more likely than not traceable to the data breach -- Cash fund payment: A pro rata cash payment from the remaining settlement fund after deductions for attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration costs and service awards to class representatives. Each class member will also automatically receive a unique code for three years of credit monitoring and insurance services, which includes up to $1 million in identity theft insurance and three-bureau credit monitoring. How to claim a settlement payment Class members can file a claim online or download, print and fill out the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: In re Lemonade Inc. Data Disclosure Litigation, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 Class members do not need to submit a claim for credit monitoring. The claim deadline is Sept. 8, 2026. What proof or documentation is necessary to submit a claim? For the documented loss payment, claimants must provide reasonable documentation showing the loss is more likely than not traceable to the data exposure, including credit card statements, bank statements, invoices, telephone records, screenshots and receipts. Self-prepared documents, such as handwritten receipts, are not sufficient on their own, but class members may use them to supplement other documentation. If the class member does not provide documentation or the settlement administrator rejects the claim, it will consider the claimant for the cash fund payment instead. Class members do not need to provide documentation for the cash fund payment or credit monitoring. Payout options -- If submitting an online claim, class members may select payment via Zelle, Venmo, PayPal or ACH transfer. -- If submitting a paper claim form, class members can only receive payment via paper check. -- $10.5 million settlement fund breakdown The $10,500,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: Amount not specified -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $3,500,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be determined -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,000 each ($4,000 total) -- Credit monitoring costs: Dependent on number of claims for this option -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 7, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 8, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 10, 2026 When is the Lemonade data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments within 30 days after it processes all claim forms or the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval, whichever is later. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged unauthorized parties potentially accessed personal information, including driver's license numbers, through Lemonade's online insurance quote platform between April 2023 and Sept. 18, 2024. The plaintiffs claimed Lemonade was negligent and violated certain privacy and consumer protection laws, including the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and New York General Business Law Section 349. Lemonade denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of ongoing litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $10,000 plus a pro rata cash payment and credit monitoring Deadline: September 8, 2026 [GN] MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Brown Appeal from Severance Ruling Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of PATRICE E. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; AMANDA M. PARKER; B. NOELLE JENSEN; ANDREA L. KEVER; COUNTY OF MARICOPA; STATE OF ARIZONA; JOSEPH KREAMER; TIMOTHY J. RYAN; CHRISTOPHER J. O'NEIL; RENEE T. BENNETT; GARY J. COHEN; JOHN R. HANNAH; JAY ADLEMAN; MICHAEL C. BLAIR; Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 23-15141 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed Brown's appeal from the district court's order denying his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Brown's motion challenged the district court's order severing a class action in which he was the lead plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that a severance order is not a final judgment. Instead, it creates a new and independent case, meaning there was no appealable final decision before the court. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://lnk.ua/E1jVoRVRv MASSACHUSETTS: 1st Cir Finds No Standing, Flips Courtemanche Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JASON COURTEMANCHE, BRETT FORESMAN, JUAN RIOS, and DENNIS WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. GEOFFREY D. NOBLE, in their official capacity as Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, Defendant, Appellant, and MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, CALLYO 2009 CORP., and SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP., Defendants, Case No. 25-1386 (1st Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Noble's motion to dismiss the claims against him. The Plaintiffs are four residents of Worcester County, Massachusetts. They filed this putative class action against Noble, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police (the "MSP"), and several private companies. Since 2017, the MSP has secretly recorded phone conversations between its officers and civilians and stored those recordings in an online database. Between March and May 2022, it recorded the Plaintiffs and others without their knowledge or consent. The MSP later used some of these recordings to identify individuals and support proposed charges in at least 181 criminal cases, without notifying prosecuting agencies that the recordings had been made in connection with those cases. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs asserted nine claims against all defendants. On appeal, the First Circuit focused on two claims brought against the Superintendent. First, they alleged violations of the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, claiming MSP officers unlawfully recorded their conversations without consent. Second, they brought a Section 1983 claim, arguing that MSP’s conduct violated their Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by withholding exculpatory evidence and interfering with their rights to effective counsel, confrontation of witnesses, and a fair trial. The complaint does not allege that the Plaintiffs were convicted based on the recordings, nor does it claim that criminal charges were pending or certainly impending when the suit was filed. Instead, it describes the alleged misconduct largely in the past tense, with only boilerplate assertions that the Plaintiffs "suffered and continue to suffer substantial past and future harm" from MSP's actions. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief for these alleged injuries. The Superintendent moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and that the Section 1983 claim should be dismissed for lack of standing and failure to state a constitutional violation. In response, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their Massachusetts Wiretap Act claim but continued to pursue the Section 1983 claim. The district court allowed the voluntary dismissal of the wiretap claim and denied the motion to dismiss the Section 1983 claim. The district court held that sovereign immunity did not bar the Section 1983 claim because it fell within the Ex parte Young exception, which permits suits against state officials in their official capacity for ongoing violations of federal law. The court also found that the Plaintiffs had standing to seek prospective relief. Finally, it concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged a Section 1983 violation, based on MSP's alleged record-and-withhold program implicating the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Superintendent filed an interlocutory appeal seeking review of the district court's order. On appeal, he challenges the court's rulings on sovereign immunity, the Plaintiffs' standing, and the sufficiency of the Section 1983 claim. The First Circuit held that the Plaintiffs failed to establish standing for prospective relief. Even assuming the MSP's record-and-withhold program was ongoing, the Plaintiffs' allegations amounted to a generalized grievance rather than a concrete, personal risk of future harm. The First Circuit found no plausible claim that the Plaintiffs themselves were likely to be targeted again, and any suggestion that they were specific targets was too speculative. It further held that neither their prior prosecutions nor the alleged widespread use of the program could substitute for a "sufficiently real and immediate" threat of future injury. The First Circuit concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to support prospective relief, and therefore lacked standing to pursue their Section 1983 claim against the Superintendent. Hence, it reversed the district court's order denying the motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://lnk.ua/0ccUeY2M2. Jeffrey T. Collins -- jcollins@morganbrown.com -- Special Assistant Attorney General, with whom Andrea Joy Campbell -- andrea.campbell@state.ma.us -- Attorney General of Massachusetts, Robert Papandrea -- rpapandrea@morganbrown.com -- and Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP were on brief, for appellants. Erik P. Bartenhagen -- erik@bartenappeals.com -- with whom Bartenhagen Law, PLLC, James L. O'Connor, Jr. -- joconnor@npolegal.com -- Christopher R. Batinsey -- cbatinsey@batinseylegal.com -- and Christopher J. Walton -- attycjw@aol.com -- were on brief, for appellees. MASTEC, INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the MasTec data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the MasTec data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. MasTec Security Incident: What Happened? MasTec, an infrastructure construction company with offices nationwide, has reported a data breach affecting 25,220 people, involving unauthorized network access that resulted from a zero-day vulnerability in one of the company's third-party solutions. According to a letter sent to the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office, MasTec was notified of suspicious activity affecting one of its third-party solutions in October 2025, prompting a forensic investigation aided by cybersecurity specialists. Once the initial investigation identified the files affected by the MasTec data breach, a data review was conducted. In February 2026, the data-review vendor concluded that names, dates of birth, addresses, financial account details, Social Security numbers, and some account credentials were compromised. MasTec mailed notification letters to impacted individuals on June 5. This cyberattack follows a 2023 incident that impacted approximately 22,000 current and former MasTec employees. What You Can Do After the MasTec Data Breach If your information was exposed in the MasTec data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force MasTec to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] MASTER LOCK: 140 Padlocks Not Pick Resistant, Class Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses Master Lock Company of falsely representing that its Master Lock 140 padlocks are pick-resistant, given that the locks can apparently be opened easily with relatively simple lockpicking tools. According to the 30-page false advertising lawsuit, Master Lock Company, an established consumer padlock brand, advertises that its Master Lock 140 "pick resistant" padlocks contain a "4-pin cylinder" to prevent lockpicking. However, the case claims that the locks are plagued by a "critical" design defect that renders them "shockingly" easy to pick. "Ironically, in fact, Defendants' Products serve as great starting practice padlocks for those wanting to learn how to pick locks because of how easy it is to pick them," the filing says. The suit explains that padlocks operate using a pin system with driver pins, which maintain downward pressure on the key pins, and key pins, which correspond to a particular key. When the correct key is placed in a lock's plug, it moves both sets of pins below the "shear line," where the driver and key pins meet, and allows the barrel to rotate and release the lock's shackle, the case relays. However, the filing says that the design for Master Lock 140 padlocks is "deeply flawed," as the locks are made with a deeper-than-necessary chamber for the driver and key pins, wide enough for a standard comb pick without any resistance. As a result, "easily available" lock-picking tools, such as a comb pick, can be slid effortlessly into the plug, and even minor upward pressure lifts the pins over the shear line, "circumventing" the need for a key to open the lock, the complaint states. Indeed, the case says that this lock-picking method can be learned with "minimal practice." "In other words, [Master Lock Company's] products are not pick resistant in the slightest," the lawsuit emphasizes. Notably, the filing relays that counsel for the plaintiffs purchased a Master Lock 140D and a comb pick while researching the case, and was able to successfully learn the lock-picking technique in less than 10 minutes. Per the complaint, this technique was "nearly as fast" as using a key, and advertising the padlocks as pick-resistant is "blatantly" misleading. The lawsuit says that Master Lock Company represents that its padlocks are a four out of 10 on an ad hoc pick resistance scale, but given that the locks fail to stymy even basic lockpicking attempts, the locks' performance could be more fairly characterized as a zero out of 10. Reasonable consumers, the case argues, would understand the brand's representations to mean that the locks would provide some measure of pick resistance, but did not receive the benefit of their bargain. The Master Lock Company class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who purchased the Master Lock 140 padlocks for personal use during the applicable statutory period. [GN] MCLEOD HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the McLeod Health data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the McLeod Health data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. McLeod Health Security Incident: What Happened? McLeod Health has disclosed a data breach involving a server used by its Dillon Family Medicine location, affecting 16,788 South Carolina residents. According to a notice on McLeod Health's website, the health care system discovered a suspicious file on a Dillon Family Medicine server on March 5, 2026. At that time, the server was in the process of being decommissioned. An investigation concluded on April 15 that unauthorized access to the now-decommissioned server occurred between October 17 and October 18, 2025. The breach did not affect any active McLeod Health systems. The McLeod Health data breach may have compromised patients' personal information, including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. Health-related information potentially exposed includes diagnoses, medications, test results, images, health insurance information, and treatment information. McLeod Health began notifying those who may have been involved in the Dillon Family Medicine data breach on June 4, 2026. What You Can Do After the McLeod Health Data Breach If your information was exposed in the McLeod Health data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force McLeod Health to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] NORTH AMERICAN: Cortina $43M Wage Suit Flipped in Part ------------------------------------------------------ In the case of CAROLYN CORTINA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. NORTH AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. F085389(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District, affirmed in part and reversed in part a $43 million wage-and-hour judgment arising from claims that NATC misclassified employees and failed to provide overtime, meal breaks, and rest periods. In Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, Justice Carol Corrigan described a wage-and-hour class action that proceeds through trial to verdict as an "exceedingly rare beast." The case involved claims that employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime, meal, and rest break requirements. The Supreme Court noted that such cases are often difficult to manage on a class-wide basis, frequently are not suitable for certification, and typically settle if certification is granted. In Duran, the 260-member class action lasted more than 16 years and ultimately resulted in decertification due to manageability problems arising from the employer's defenses. The Court of Appeals described the present case as even more unusual than Duran, noting its extreme length and procedural complexity. The wage-and-hour action was filed 19 years earlier and involved multiple interlocutory appeals and writ proceedings, including review by the California Supreme Court. The case finally reached appellate review of the underlying judgment after years of delay. The dispute involved about 700 plaintiffs divided into Exempt and Nonexempt classes. The case was tried in phases in a bench trial. After the first phase, the Nonexempt class was decertified, while the court ruled against the employer on certain defenses relating to the Exempt class. The court then appointed a referee for the second phase over the Defendant's objections and without consent. That phase took years, included testimony from more than 230 class members, and resulted in a judgment of approximately $43 million. As a background, in April 2007, Cortina filed a putative class action complaint against NATC alleging various Labor Code violations for failing to pay overtime, and failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods, to all of its California employees in the position of Escrow Officer or an equivalent position, however titled. In addition to the statutory claims, a cause of action was pleaded under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., commonly known as the unfair competition law (UCL). Cortina began as a nonexempt Escrow Assistant before being promoted in 2004 to Unit Manager, skipping the Escrow Officer role, and remained in that position until leaving the company in 2005. In support of class certification, she stated that the Unit Manager and Escrow Officer roles were essentially interchangeable and that she did not supervise anyone. The complaint was later amended in 2009 to add four additional proposed class representatives who had worked in nonexempt positions such as Escrow Assistant and Junior Escrow Officer. In 2010, the trial court certified two classes, and a second amended complaint soon followed, adding more class representatives and naming North American Services, LLC ("NAS") as a defendant under a joint employer theory of liability. A class of current and former employees whom NATC had classified as nonexempt was labeled the "Non-Exempt Class." It was defined to include the job titles of Junior Escrow Officer, Escrow Officer, Senior Escrow Officer, Special Projects Escrow Officer, and Escrow Supervisor (also known as an Escrow Officer Supervisor). The position of Escrow Assistant was specifically excluded from the class definition. A class of current and former employees whom NATC had classified as exempt was labeled the "Exempt Class." It was defined to include the following job titles: "2003 Escrow Officer, Senior Escrow Officer, Special Projects Escrow Officer, Escrow Supervisor, Advisory Escrow Officer, Escrow Unit Manager, Escrow Manager, Branch Manager, and Escrow Operations Manager." The position of Escrow Assistant was specifically excluded from the class definition. The Nonexempt class alleged that NATC maintained policies and practices that prevented or discouraged employees from reporting overtime, including pressuring workers to underreport hours and skip meal and rest breaks, effectively requiring off-the-clock work. The Exempt class alleged that NATC misclassified them as exempt employees even though they should have been treated as nonexempt, resulting in a failure to provide overtime pay and required meal and rest breaks. The plaintiffs later withdrew their claims related to missed rest periods. Before trial, both classes dismissed their statutory Labor Code claims and proceeded solely under the UCL. Trial began in September 2015, with witness testimony concluding in December 2015, followed by post-trial briefing and closing arguments. In October 2016, the trial court issued a statement of decision rejecting NATC's exemption defenses. It appointed a referee to evaluate the Exempt class's restitution claims under the UCL. The court also decertified the Nonexempt class and referred the individual claims of its former class representatives to the referee. In March 2021, the trial court issued an order adopting nearly all of the referee's findings and recommendations. Later that year, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint twice following what NATC described as corporate reorganizations, which contributed to delays in entering judgment. On August 31, 2022, the court entered judgment for the named plaintiffs—except Kimberly Baker and Cortina—on their individual claims, and also entered judgment for the Exempt class against NATC. NATC's liability was set at $43,547,946, with prejudgment interest making up more than half of the total. The court ruled in favor of NATC on Baker's and Cortina's individual claims. Both sides filed motions for a new trial. While the motions for a new trial were pending, the Defendant sought writ relief from the appellate court on issues unrelated to this appeal. Additional background on those proceedings is discussed in North American Title Co. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.5th 155. The writ proceedings led to a stay of the underlying case and resulted in the motions for new trial being denied by operation of law. Both sides then filed timely notices of appeal, and the remittitur in the writ matter issued on July 14, 2025. A central dispute on appeal concerns how burdens of proof are allocated in this wage-and-hour class action. The Plaintiffs argued the Defendant improperly relies on Duran to suggest they had to prove all class members were misclassified as exempt, contending instead that any issues with their statistical trial plan are irrelevant because the employer bears the burden of proving exemption as an affirmative defense. The Defendant responded that the Plaintiffs were required to show, through common proof, a policy or practice of widespread misclassification and that misclassification was the norm rather than the exception. Both sides rely on Duran and Sav-On Drug Stores, but those cases do not shift the burden of proof; they simply address when misclassification theories are suitable for class treatment. Under settled law, exemptions are affirmative defenses, so the employer bears the burden of proof, and class treatment is appropriate only if those defenses can be resolved without excessive individualized inquiries. The Court of Appeals concluded that the nonconsensual reference ordered in this case was not only highly unusual but effectively unprecedented in California law. It held that a trial court's authority to appoint a referee without the parties' consent is limited by the California Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure. Because the reference proceedings exceeded that authority, they were unauthorized, and this error alone required reversal of the judgment. The Court of Appeals found additional prejudicial errors in the first phase of trial, which was labeled the "liability phase" but did not actually resolve all liability issues. It held that key parts of the trial plan conflicted with Duran, particularly the treatment of the employer's affirmative defenses, which were rejected on a class-wide basis based on legal misinterpretations. The case involved Labor Code exemptions that depend on how employees spend their work time, specifically whether more than half of their duties qualify as exempt work. Because California law requires a quantitative assessment of employee duties, the court noted that individualized evidence about how employees actually spent their time is often necessary to determine overtime liability on a classwide basis. As stated in Duran, decertification is required when a trial plan becomes unworkable. The court found that condition was met during the first phase of trial, when both classes should have been decertified. It concluded that the failure to decertify the Exempt class, along with other errors, required reversal and a decertification order. The case was remanded for retrial of the named plaintiffs’ individual claims. The court noted that on remand, the trial court may consider a new certification motion for the Exempt class, but any renewed certification must follow the guidelines set out in the opinion. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment. It is affirmed as to NAS, against all the Plaintiffs, including Janet Doran. It is affirmed as to NATC against Plaintiff Janet Doran. In all other respects, the judgment is reversed. The case is ordered decertified as a class action and is remanded for retrial of the named Plaintiffs' individual claims. The trial court may entertain a new class certification motion as to the decertified "Exempt" class. NATC is awarded the costs associated with its appeal. Each party shall bear their own costs for the cross-appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/LRAEjuOH3. O'Melveny & Myers, David Marroso -- dmarroso@omm.com -- Adam J. Karr -- akarr@omm.com -- Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- Jenya Godina -- jgodina@omm.com; McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, Scott M. Reddie -- scott.reddie@mccormickbarstow.com; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Barbara J. Miller -- barbara.miller@morganlewis.com -- and John D. Hayashi -- john.hayashi@morganlewis.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian, Andrew B. Jones -- ajones@wagnerjones.com -- Lawrence M. Artenian; Cornwell & Sample, Stephen R. Cornwell, René Turner Sample -- rene@cornwellsample.com; Wanger Jones Helsley and Patrick D. Toole -- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OAKLAND CITY UNIVERSITY: Coach Files Suit Over Missed Paychecks --------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Webb of Evansville Courier & Press reports that after not receiving a paycheck for weeks, an Oakland City University coach has launched a class-action lawsuit against the school in federal court to try to recover the money. Chelsea Price, an assistant with the school's women's soccer team, filed the suit in U.S. District Court on June 1. As of Monday, June 8, three other workers had signed on, and at least one former employee told the Courier & Press they plan to join as well. The suit is open to "all non-exempt employees who performed work for Defendant after April 27th, 2026 and who have been paid no wages between April 27th, 2026 and June 1st," the complaint reads. Employees stopped receiving pay after April 24. OCU missed normally scheduled direct deposits on May 8, May 22 and June 5, the lapses coming as the school battled serious financial woes that ultimately led to a mass layoff of most university employees on May 31. OCU had previously denied it planned layoffs at all, even after sending a WARN notice to Indiana's Department of Workforce Development on April 1. In the ensuing weeks, university officials said the sale of a patent on carbon capture, as well as an unnamed "strategic partner" apparently tied to artificial intelligence data centers, would keep the school afloat. None of the plans came to fruition. On May 19, the school announced it would lay off employees and suspend undergraduate programs for at least a year. In piles of internal emails obtained by the Courier & Press, OCU President Ron Dempsey has repeatedly claimed an unnamed donor would cough up as much as $1 million to cover the missed payrolls. However, the school's self-set deadlines have come and gone each time. And the explanations haven't progressed beyond vague "banking issues." On June 8, he again promised the school was on the verge of "producing payroll checks." "Word from donor is that funds should be release (sic) and be received by the donor this afternoon or tomorrow morning," he wrote just before 11 a.m. It's unclear who this donor is, or if it's one person or a collection of people. Former employees who have spoken to the Courier & Press have repeatedly expressed confusion over why a banking transfer would take multiple weeks in 2026. And they don't know why a donor, if they have the money, is waiting for their own funds to be transferred to them. One employee, who asked not to be named for fear of retribution, called OCU's excuses about pay "absolutely ridiculous." "Everyone's sick of it," they said. Carmel attorneys Robert J. Hunt and Robert F. Hunt are representing Price and the others. There's no attorney for the school listed in federal court records. The Courier & Press reached out to Todd Mosby -- OCU's associate vice president for development, marketing and communications -- for comment on June 8. A few minutes later, an email arrived from Dempsey. "In response to your inquiry to Todd Mosby, OCU cannot comment on pending litigation," he stated. As of 3 p.m. June 8, employees had yet to receive an update on payroll. What the lawsuit says According to the suit, Price is one of the few people still employed at the university. Or at least she was as of June 1. She's suing OCU for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana's wage payment laws. She and the others who have already signed on, or plan to sign on, are seeking "all available damages, including all unpaid wages, all available liquidated (treble damages), all attorney's fees, costs and expenses, plus any other damage to which Price and her fellow plaintiff class members may be entitled pursuant to law." "Defendants' systematic violation of federal and state wage laws was willful and in bad faith," the compliant reads. District court issued a summons to OCU on June 3. As of Monday, June 8, the docket didn't show the school or its attorneys had made an official appearance. The lack of pay and subsequent layoffs have created a perilous situation for workers who once gave their all for the university. An ex-employee told the Courier & Press getting by has been "tough, truly." Things only got worse last week. An email to employees obtained by the C&P showed that laid off workers wouldn't have gap health insurance, either. COBRA, the program that usually provides coverage for those who lose their jobs, wouldn't be available to OCU workers, the email stated. If former employees needed help, they'd have to reach out to the U.S. Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration. [GN] PHREESIA INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Phreesia, Inc. (NYSE: PHR) that a class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between May 8, 2025 and March 30, 2026. Find out if you qualify to recover losses. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or (212) 363-7500. On March 30, 2026, PHR shares fell 27%, losing $3.03 per share, after Phreesia cut its fiscal 2027 revenue outlook to $510–$520 million from a prior range of $545–$559 million. The lead plaintiff deadline is July 13, 2026. The Promise: December 8, 2025 When Phreesia introduced fiscal 2027 guidance on December 8, 2025, the lawsuit contends management painted an optimistic picture: -- Revenue projected at $545 million to $559 million, representing 14–16% growth over fiscal 2026 -- Adjusted EBITDA outlook of $125 million to $135 million -- AccessOne acquisition expected to contribute approximately 6.5% of total fiscal 2027 revenue -- AHSC growth anticipated in the mid-single-digit percent range with revenue per -- AHSC growing double digits -- Management stated the Company was "in a similar situation" to the prior year regarding selling season visibility The action claims these projections led shareholders to purchase PHR stock at prices reflecting growth that was not materializing. The Reality: March 30, 2026 Approximately 112 days later, after introducing fiscal 2027 guidance, Phreesia lowered its fiscal 2027 revenue guidance to $510–$520 million. Management cited "worsening visibility" and "weaker pharmaceutical marketing commitments" within its Network Solutions segment and that clients were committing lower spend levels for the second half of fiscal 2027 than management had anticipated only three months earlier. The Numbers: Promised vs. Actual December 2025 March 2026 Metric Promise Reality Gap FY2027 Revenue $552 Million $515 Million $37 Million (midpoint) shortfall FY2027 Revenue 14–16% ~7–8% Cut nearly Growth in half Network "Similar to "Worsening Contradicted Solutions last year" visibility" Visibility Pharma Durable growth Lower spend Reversed Marketing driver levels Commitments Speak with an attorney about recovering your investment losses or call (212) 363-7500. What the Lawsuit Alleges About the Gap The filing states that when management introduced fiscal 2027 guidance in December 2025, conditions within the Network Solutions segment were already deteriorating. Pharmaceutical manufacturers were not committing at previously anticipated levels, and the visibility that management publicly compared to prior years was, as alleged, materially worse. The complaint charges that the $37 million midpoint guidance reduction was not the result of sudden external change but rather the disclosure of trends that were underway when the original projections were issued. "Companies that make specific promises to investors about future performance have an obligation to disclose known risks to those projections. The gap between Phreesia's December guidance and its March revision raises important questions about what was known and when." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Join the Phreesia recovery action or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at (212) 363-7500. ABOUT LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP -- Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. The firm has extensive expertise in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees. For seven consecutive years, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report. The last day to move for lead plaintiff is July 13, 2026. Frequently Asked Questions About the PHR Lawsuit Q: What specific misstatements does the PHR lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Phreesia made materially false or misleading statements regarding its fiscal 2027 revenue growth projections and the durability of pharmaceutical marketing commitments in its Network Solutions segment. When the true state was revealed on March 30, 2026, the stock price declined 27%. Q: How much did PHR stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 27%, a decline of $3.03 per share, after Phreesia disclosed significantly reduced fiscal 2027 revenue guidance and attributed the shortfall to worsening visibility in pharmaceutical marketing commitments. Q: What do PHR investors need to do right now? A: Gather brokerage records including purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact Levi & Korsinsky for a free, no-obligation evaluation at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or (212) 363-7500. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as a class member. Q: What if I already sold my PHR shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold them. Investors who bought during the class period and sold at a loss may still participate. Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. You submit a claim form to receive your portion of recovery. Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: Nothing. Securities class actions are handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, no out-of-pocket costs. Q: Can I join a different law firm's lawsuit instead? A: Multiple firms often file competing complaints. The court consolidates and appoints a single lead counsel. Contacting Levi & Korsinsky before July 13, 2026 ensures your losses are considered. Contacts Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 [GN] PORT OF MORROW: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Water Pollution Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Baumhardt of Oregon Capital Chronicle reports that Eastern Oregon residents who have lived for years with contaminated water can move forward with a class action lawsuit against the Port of Morrow and large food processors in the area, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Michael Simon on Friday, June 5, issued an order denying a motion from the Port of Morrow and five businesses to dismiss Pearson v. Port of Morrow. Several Morrow County residents who cannot drink their nitrate-contaminated water filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in February 2024, and it has since expanded into a class action lawsuit potentially encompassing thousands of other area residents. A three-week jury trial is scheduled to begin May 3, 2027. The suit names 17 defendants for allegedly polluting a groundwater aquifer for years with fertilizer-laden wastewater collected from industrial food processors and data centers at the port. That water was sent out and over-applied to area farm fields for years, billed as a beneficial waste-water reuse program that the plaintiffs said became a toxic dumping scheme. The port, Lamb Weston, Madison Ranches, Threemile Canyon Farms, Portland General Electric and Columbia River Processing asked Simon to dismiss the case. They argued the residents suing had not shown widespread damage directly linked to their actions, or deliberate conspiracy on behalf of the port and its tenants, and that they had exceeded the state's two-year statute of limitations to sue over negligence. They also argued that only one of the plaintiffs had illustrated a clear connection between their well contamination and the port's wastewater, and allowing a class action that could make many new plaintiffs party to the suit -- some of whom might rely not on wells but on the public water system -- is not fair. But Simon found the plaintiffs "plausibly allege" class-action liability under Oregon law "for negligence, trespass, and private nuisance" and that their case has standing under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which governs federal rules around hazardous waste disposal. He found that because the pollution is alleged to have damaged an entire watertable, not just well water, and because the water table is a shared public resource, all who depend on it could be eligible for relief from a ruling on the case. Lawyers for the Port of Morrow did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling Tuesday, June 9, afternoon. One of the original defendants, Amazon, has since March been working out a settlement with the plaintiffs for $20.5 million, though the company denies allegations that it has contributed to any groundwater contamination in the area. The plaintiffs -- Michael Pearson, Michael and Virginia Brandt, and James and Silvia Suter -- sought class action status for the case on behalf of all affected residents in Morrow and Umatilla counties who own or rent their homes, which could bring tens of thousands of other plaintiffs into the suit. Their lawyer, Steve Berman, has said up to 45,000 residents could be part of the suit. "This ruling is a significant win for the thousands of residents in Morrow and Umatilla counties who have waited years for safe drinking water and for someone to be held accountable," Berman said in a statement. [GN] PORTLAND, OR: Teachers' Association Sue Over Layoff Procedures -------------------------------------------------------------- KATU reports that a growing number of Portland Public Schools teachers have received layoff notices for the coming school year, prompting the Portland Association of Teachers to file a class action grievance alleging the district violated the union contract's layoff procedures. The union said it is aware of 82 layoff notices issued so far, a number it said is "climbing." Of those, the union said at least 77 "blatantly violate collectively bargained layoff procedures." The union said the total size and scale of the layoffs remains unclear and could exceed the 82 notices it has identified. The Portland Association of Teachers said PPS administrators have repeatedly failed to inform the union of the total number of layoff notices issued and have not confirmed that the total is not significantly higher. On June 8, the union filed an emergency class action grievance against the district disputing the 77 known layoff notices it said violate the collectively bargained layoff procedures. The union said it will seek expedited arbitration if the district does not act in a timely manner. "PPS is showing once again that they do not value teachers or our voices," said Angela Bonilla, president of the Portland Association of Teachers. "It is unacceptable that PPS is either unwilling or unable to clearly share the total number of layoffs that they have issued to teachers, and that of the 82 known layoffs issued, 77 so far are in violation of our contract." Bonilla said the layoff language in the collective bargaining agreement is intended to ensure layoffs are handled fairly and not "based on favoritism or management whims." She said losing at least 82 teachers would have "a catastrophic impact on classroom size, student safety, educational outcomes, and our ability to ensure IEPs are met." "With the class action grievance filed on June 8, PPS has 10 days to respond," the union said. The union also said it is prepared to file an Unfair Labor Practice complaint if the district continues to fail to follow the layoff processes in the collective bargaining agreement. [GN] PRIME HEALTHCARE: Nurses File Suit Over Hospital Understaffing -------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Tenenbaum of CBS News reports that nurses at St. Joseph's Medical Center have filed a class action lawsuit against Prime Healthcare and Ascension Healthcare for "chronically understaffing the hospital." The nurses, who are represented by the Illinois Nurses Association, allege Ascension and Prime repeatedly breached St. Joseph's legally mandated staffing plan, inflicting causing "severe emotional distress" and forcing the nurses to work shifts that put both themselves and their patients in danger. "By endangering the lives of patients through severe understaffing and forcing [nurses] to watch helplessly as the needs of their patients are ignored [Ascension Healthcare and Prime Healthcare] have engaged in conduct that is unethical, immoral and indifferent to the conduct expected of a hospital, to provide safe and adequate patient care," the complaint reads. CBS News Chicago reached out to Ascension for comment. They said they cannot comment on ongoing litigation, but are committed to "vigorously" defending the allegations. [GN] ROBLOX CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Roblox Corporation (NYSE: RBLX) securities between October 30, 2025 and April 30, 2026. Roblox is a gaming and creation platform. The platform itself consists of the Roblox Client, the Roblox Studio, and the Roblox Cloud. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Roblox Corporation (RBLX) Misled Investors Regarding the Impact of Its Age Verification Rollout on User Growth and Fiscal 2026 Performance According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants provided investors with material information concerning Roblox's expected growth potential for fiscal year 2026 following the rollout of its new age verification features. Defendants expressed significant confidence in the Company's purported "tremendous organic growth" and minimized the severity and certainty of headwinds associated with the rollout. On February 5, 2026, defendants provided guidance of 22-26% bookings growth for fiscal 2026, which allegedly factored in anticipated headwinds identified during earlier testing runs of the age verification rollout. Defendant Chopra further stated that the guidance reflected the Company's "confidence in the adoption of our age-checking technology." Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements while failing to disclose material adverse facts concerning Roblox's true organic growth potential; notably, that enrollment in the age verification rollout would quickly taper, slowing on-platform communication, reducing app store ratings, and resulting in a significant decline in organic growth. Such statements, absent these material facts, caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Roblox securities at artificially inflated prices. Plaintiff alleges that on April 30, 2026, Roblox announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2026. Management slashed bookings growth guidance down to 8-12% and a corresponding decline to margin expectations. Defendants disclosed the age verification rollout had caused much more significant impacts to engagement and organic growth than management had previously suggested and age check adoption had only increased to 51% global daily active users, from 45% at the end of the previous quarter. On this news, Roblox's stock price fell to $45.13 per share on May 1, 2026, a decline of about 18.33% in the span of just a single day. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Roblox Corporation. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit link https://robbinsllp.com/roblox-corporation-2/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Roblox Corporation settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Claims Filing of $70MM Settlement Due Aug 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Richards of ClaimDepot reports that Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Shoals Technologies Group Inc. common stock between May 16, 2022, and May 7, 2024, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Shoals Technologies Group Inc. agreed to pay $70 million to settle a securities class action lawsuit alleging it and other defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in certain of the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public disclosures. The plaintiffs claimed these misstatements artificially inflated the price of Shoals common stock in violation of federal securities laws. Who can file a claim? The settlement includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Shoals Technologies Group Inc. common stock between May 16, 2022, and May 7, 2024, inclusive, including those who purchased shares in Shoals' December 2022 secondary public offering and suffered damages as a result. Additional details --Both individuals and entities can be class members. --Class members who held Shoals common stock through a brokerage firm or other nominee are the beneficial owners and may file a claim. --The actual beneficial owner or a legal representative must submit the claim. --Joint owners must each sign the claim form. --Executors, administrators, guardians, conservators and trustees may submit claims on behalf of others and must provide proof of authority. --Class members must submit a separate claim for each legal entity. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $70,000,000. The amount each class member receives depends on several factors: --The number of valid claims submitted --The number of shares purchased or acquired during the class period --The timing of each purchase and sale --The total recognized claims of all claimants The settlement administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis according to the court-approved plan of allocation: --The estimated average recovery is approximately $0.34 per share before deductions. --After estimated deductions of $0.11 per share for attorneys' fees, expenses and service awards to class representatives, the net average recovery is approximately $0.23 per share. --Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on individual claims and the total number of valid claims. --The settlement administrator will calculate each class member's payment based on the recognized loss amount assigned to each share. --The settlement administrator will calculate each class member's recognized loss amount for each share based on the purchase and sale dates and the per-share inflation amounts in the plan of allocation (see the inflation table on Page 11 of the class notice): --For shares sold on or before Aug. 1, 2023, the recognized loss amount is $0. --For shares sold between Aug. 2, 2023, and Nov. 12, 2024, the recognized loss amount is the lesser of the inflation amount at purchase minus the inflation amount at sale or the purchase price minus the sale price. --For shares held as of Nov. 12, 2024, and sold on or before Feb. 10, 2025, the recognized loss amount is the least of the inflation amount at purchase, the purchase price minus the sale price or the purchase price minus the average closing price up to the sale date (see the closing price table on Page 12 of the class notice). --For shares held as of the close of trading on Feb. 10, 2025, the recognized loss amount is the lesser of the inflation amount at purchase or the purchase price minus $4.92. --For shares purchased directly in the December 2022 secondary public offering, the settlement administrator will multiply the recognized loss amount by 1.25. --The settlement administrator will set any recognized loss amount that calculates to a negative number or zero to $0. --If total recognized claims exceed the net settlement fund, the settlement administrator will reduce payments on a pro rata basis. --Class members whose payment would be less than $10 will not receive a payout. How to claim a Shoals securities class action settlement payment Class members may file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Aug. 25, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Shoals Securities Settlement, Claims Administrator, c/o Verita Global, P.O. Box 301133, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1133 Proof or documentation required to submit a claim All class members must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or full taxpayer identification number. They must also provide holdings and transaction information, including: --Number of shares held as of the close of trading on May 15, 2022 --Trade dates for purchases, acquisitions and sales from May 16, 2022, through Feb. 10, 2025 --Number of shares purchased, acquired or sold --Total purchase, acquisition or sale price --Number of shares held as of the close of trading on Feb. 10, 2025 Class members must also provide documentation to support their transactions in Shoals common stock. Acceptable proof includes: --Broker confirmation slips --Monthly broker account statements --Authorized statements from a broker containing the transactional and holding information found in a confirmation slip or account statement Payout options --Physical check --Electronic payment --$70 million settlement fund The $70,000,000 settlement fund includes: --Settlement administration costs: To be determined --Attorneys' fees: Up to $21,000,000 --Attorneys' expenses: Up to $650,000 --Service awards to class representatives: Up to $40,000 total --Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates --Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 25, 2026 --Opt-out deadline: Sept. 4, 2026 --Fairness hearing: Sept. 28, 2026 When is the Shoals securities class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after it processes all claims and the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Shoals Technologies Group Inc. and other defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in some of the company's SEC filings and other public disclosures. The plaintiffs claimed these misstatements artificially inflated the price of Shoals common stock in violation of federal securities laws. The defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs, risks and delays of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $0.23 per share Deadline: August 25, 2026 [GN] SOFI SECURITIES: Sweep Program Exploits Customers, Smith Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JASON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOFI SECURITIES, LLC, and SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05456 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) arises from Defendants' exploitative implementation of SoFi's Sweep Program, resulting in the breach of Defendants' fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated brokerage account customers and their contractual obligations to act in their clients' best interests. Defendant SoFi Securities, LLC is a registered broker-dealer. Defendant SoFi Technologies, Inc. is the parent company of SoFi Securities. Plaintiff Jason Smith was Defendants' customer who maintained a brokerage account with Defendants through the SoFi platform. The complaint relates that by entering into this relationship with Plaintiff and the putative Class, Defendants assumed fiduciary duties including the duties of loyalty, care, good faith, full disclosure, and prudent management of customer assets. Defendants held themselves out as acting in customers' best interests. Despite these representations, Defendants failed to adhere to this standard throughout the relevant Class Period. Specifically, when acting as their customers' agents and fiduciaries, Defendants automatically "swept" uninvested cash balances in their customers' brokerage accounts into interest-bearing deposit accounts at participating program banks ("Program Banks") selected by Defendants through the Program. Because the Program Banks paid far below-market rates of interest--indeed, at times as low as zero percent--Plaintiff and Class members lost significant interest they would have otherwise earned had Defendants swept their cash into accounts or vehicles paying reasonable market rates, asserts the complaint. Moreover, Defendants' own disclosures acknowledged that the Program created conflicts of interest, the complaint relays. During the Class Period, the "spread" between the miniscule and/or nonexistent rates passed along to customers and the returns Defendants and the Program Banks earned from customer cash constituted a substantial and undisclosed profit center for Defendants. By paying customers next to nothing on their swept amounts, all while deploying those funds in a rising-rate environment, Defendants captured the entire yield generated by billions in customer deposits, making the Program highly lucrative for Defendants. Thus, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by placing their customers' cash in accounts bearing low or no interest and pocketing the entirety of the unpaid interest as profit, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals to recover damages arising out of Defendants' violations of the law, and for such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com omer@edelsberglaw.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (516) 515-9124 E-mail: jdennett@milberg.com TAYLOR MORRISON: M&A Investigates Sale to Berkshire Hathaway ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Taylor Morrison Home Corp. (NYSE: TMHC) related to its sale to Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Taylor Morrison shareholders are expected to receive $72.50 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/taylor-morrison-home-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- NCS Multistage Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: NCSM) related to its merger with Weatherford International plc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, NCS Multistage shareholders are expected to receive either (i) 0.5537 of Weatherford stock per NCS Multistage share or (ii) a cash amount equivalent to 0.1371 shares of Weatherford and 0.2392 shares of Weatherford per NCS Multistage share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/ncs-multistage-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- XOMA Royalty Corporation (NASDAQ: XOMA) related to its sale to Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, XOMA shareholders will receive $39.00 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 13, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/xoma-royalty-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. InMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: INM) related to its merger with Mentari Therapeutics, Inc. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, InMed shareholders are expected to own approximately 1.51% of the combined company. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/inmed-pharmaceuticals-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] VANGUARD PARKING: Conspired to Boost Garage Revenues, Sullivan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIANNE SULLIVAN, CHARLES VAILLANT and ASHLEY ALBRIGHT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. VANGUARD PARKING SOLUTIONS INC., JOYCE PARKING L.L.C., JEMAL'S HECHT EAST T L.L.C., and JEMAL'S GARRETT PLACE, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02015 (D.C., June 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of federal and state laws relating to their illegal operations at two parking garages located in Washington D.C. and Annapolis, Maryland, respectively. Defendants offer parking services and different parking management solutions. Plaintiffs are "individuals to whom [personal information obtained, disclosed, or used pertains," within the meaning of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The complaint relates that the Defendants conspired to increase parking revenue at the 1515 New York Ave. Garage and the 275 West St. Garage, respectively, through unlawful means. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Vanguard obtained, and all Defendants used, drivers' personal information from motor vehicle records for a purpose not permitted by law. As a result of the violations, Plaintiffs and the members suffered harm, including pecuniary damage and being subjected to false, deceptive, and misleading debt collection practices, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek to halt these deceptive practices, secure redress for the affected consumers, and vindicate statutory privacy and consumer‑protection rights. Injunctive relief is necessary to deter Defendants' unlawful conduct, remediate the injuries already inflicted, and protect the public from further harm, adds the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul S. Caiola, Esq. Jean M. Zachariasiewicz, Esq. GALLAGHER LLP 650 S. Exeter St., Suite 1200 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 727-7702 Facsimile: (410) 468-2786 E-mail: pcaiola@gallagherllp.com jzachariasiewicz@gallagherllp.com VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on May 29, 2026, Judge Edward S. Kiel of the United States District Cout for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class action against a telecommunications provider (the "Company") and several of its officers (collectively, the "Defendants") asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5. Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v. Verizon Comms., Inc., No. 23-cv-05218-ESK-AMD (D.N.J. May 29, 2026). Plaintiffs claimed Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the Company's transition from lead-lined copper cables to fiber optic broadband. Having afforded Plaintiffs three opportunities to state a claim, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice for failure to plead falsity or facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. The complaint alleged that the Company left miles of lead-sheathed copper wire in place when it was installing fiber optic cables. In 2023, a series of media outlets reported on potential environmental and health dangers of the legacy cables, which allegedly caused the Company's stock price to decline. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants misrepresented the transition process, including the cost benefits of the copper-to-fiber transition, the Company's commitment to employee health and safety, and the Company's e-waste recycling practices because they omitted to disclose that the Company allegedly left lead-sheathed copper cables in place. The Court previously dismissed the first amended complaint for failing to plead falsity or scienter but granted leave to amend. The second amended complaint contained three categories of alleged misstatements, none of which was actionable according to the Court. First, plaintiffs pointed to various statements regarding potential cost savings and environmental benefits of the copper-to-fiber transition that allegedly were misleading because the legacy copper cables allegedly were not removed and because the claimed cost savings were only achievable by abandonment. Observing that simply asserting statements are incomplete is insufficient, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to plead "how" the alleged omissions rendered the statements misleading and that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the risks were so overwhelming that omitting reference to them when discussing the potential benefits of removal was misleading. Second, the Court held that statements in the Company's ESG Reports regarding its commitment to employee health and safety such as that the Company "regularly update[s]" its safety programs and is "committed to maintaining a safe workplace" were general statements of corporate optimism, not promises of effectiveness, and thus inactionable puffery. Third, the Court held that statements regarding the Company's e-waste recycling achievements did not create a duty to disclose the existence of allegedly abandoned lead-sheathed cables. According to the Court, the statistics the Company touted addressed electronic products and parts at their end of useful life, not legacy cable infrastructure. The Court also dismissed the complaint for failure to allege facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter. The allegations the plaintiffs pointed to that were rejected by the Court included that: (1) the Individual Defendants had access to internal databases tracking the Company's lead-sheathed cables; (2) the Individual Defendants' job duties encompassed environmental oversight; (3) the Company engaged in a systematic practice of abandoning copper cables; and (4) the Individual Defendants had a compensation-based motive to conceal the associated risks. The Court further held that plaintiffs failed to allege any Individual Defendant had actual or particularized knowledge of the risks attendant to lead-sheathed cables, that the nonculpable inference -- executives simply touting economic and environmental benefits of fiber conversion -- was the more compelling inference, and that plaintiffs' failure to allege any motive further undercut an inference of scienter. The Court further rejected plaintiffs' control scheme liability claim under Rules 10b-5(a) and (c), holding that the alleged scheme -- abandoning lead-lined cables and concealing the associated financial risks -- was not conduct separate from the misrepresentation claims already found deficient. Concluding amendment would be futile, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. [GN] VERRA MOBILITY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Verra Mobility Corporation ("Verra Mobility" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:VRRM) securities during the period of February 24, 2026 through May 26, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Verra Mobility investments, you have until August 4, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that the Company provided materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts concerning the true state of Verra Mobility's relationship with Avis Budget Group regarding its contract extension with Avis. Further, the Company minimized concerns that major car rental agencies could replace Verra Mobility with in-house solutions or outsourced alternatives. On May 26, 2026, Verra Mobility announced that it received a termination notice from Avis Budget Group, which becomes effective in September 2026. The Company further disclosed that it "expects the termination to reduce Commercial Services' 2026 annualized revenue by approximately $135 million to $145 million and 2026 annualized segment profit by approximately $120 million to $125 million, before taking into account expected cost reduction initiatives." On this news, the price of Verra Mobility shares declined by $9.23 per share, or approximately 71%, from $13.08 per share on May 26, 2026 to close at $3.85 on May 27, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Verra Mobility securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] VIA TRANSPORTATION: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Via Transportation, Inc. ("Via" or the "Company") (NYSE: VIA), certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters of Via's September 2025 initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of Secs. 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. If you purchased Via common stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Offering Documents") issued in connection with the Company's IPO, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Mandeep S. Minhas at (888) 398-9312 for more information. Via is headquartered in New York, New York. The Company claims to provide software and tech-enabled services for cities, transit agencies, transport operators, school districts, universities, and corporations to manage public transportation. According to the complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Garlesky v. Via Transp., Inc., No. 1:26-cv-04870 (S.D.N.Y.), the Offering Documents used to effectuate Via's IPO were false and misleading and omitted to state that, at the time of the IPO, Via's growth had already begun to encounter obstacles because of the Company's declining Platform Annual Run-Rate Revenue and inability to grow in Germany. As these facts emerged after the IPO, the Company's shares fell sharply. By the commencement of this action, Via's shares traded as low as $14.52, a decline of nearly 70% from the IPO. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Via securities pursuant to the Offering Documents, and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than August 10, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, please contact attorney Mandeep S. Minhas at (888) 398-9312 or at mminhas@scott-scott.com. What Can You Do? You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. CONTACT: Mandeep S. Minhas, Esq. Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10169 (888) 398-9312 mminhas@scott-scott.com [GN] VICTORIA'S SECRET: Faces Class Action Suit Over Telemarketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Victoria's Secret Pink has sent telemarketing texts to consumers' cell phones between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case conveys that the TCPA was enacted in 1991 to address the "explosive" growth of the telemarketing industry, in recognition that unrestricted telemarketing could be an invasion of a consumer's privacy rights. Per the filing, under the TCPA, companies are generally forbidden from initiating telephone solicitations to consumers before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. The 12-page lawsuit says that Victoria's Secret Pink, a lingerie and apparel brand, ran afoul of TCPA guidelines regarding after-hours calls or messages. The plaintiff, a California resident, received two telemarketing text messages at 5:15 a.m. and 9:18 p.m., the suit claims. Although the TCPA allows for some exceptions -- such as when a consumer grants express permission to be contacted between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., when there is a pre-existing business relationship, or when messages are from or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit -- the lawsuit says that none of these exceptions apply to messages sent to the plaintiff by Victoria's Secret Pink. Per the case, the TCPA entitles any person who's received more than one telemarketing call or message within a 12-month period during prohibited hours to recover up to $500 for each unlawful message. "[Victoria's Secret Pink's] unlawful conduct invaded [p]laintiff's privacy, disturbed [p]laintiff's peace, and caused nuisance in a realm that is private and personal," the lawsuit states. The Victoria's Secret Pink class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who, from four years prior to the filing of the case through the date of class certification, the defendant, or anyone acting on its behalf, initiated more than one telephone solicitation text message within any 12-month period to a wireless telephone number used by the called party as a residential line, where at least one such message was initiated before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time at the called party's location. [GN] VNET GROUP: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action for $5.88MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Richards of ClaimDepot reports that Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired American Depositary Shares of VNet Group Inc. between March 23, 2022, and Feb. 17, 2023, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. VNET Group agreed to pay $5.88 million to settle a securities class action lawsuit alleging it and certain officers made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts about the company's financial operations and transactions involving Sheng Chen. The lawsuit claimed these statements artificially inflated the price of VNET ADSs and caused investor losses when the company issued corrective disclosures. Who can file a claim? The settlement includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired VNet Group Inc. ADSs between March 23, 2022, and Feb. 17, 2023, inclusive, and experienced damages as a result. Additional details -- Both individuals and entities can be class members. -- Class members who acquired VNet ADSs through a brokerage firm or other third party are the beneficial owners and may file a claim. -- The actual beneficial owner or a legal representative must submit the claim. -- Joint owners must each sign the claim form. -- Executors, administrators, guardians, conservators, custodians, trustees and legal representatives may submit claims on behalf of others and must provide proof of authority. -- Class members must submit a separate claim form for each account. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $5,875,000. The amount each class member receives depends on several factors: -- The number of valid claims submitted -- The number of ADSs purchased or acquired during the class period -- The timing of each purchase and sale -- The total recognized losses of all claimants The settlement administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis according to the court-approved plan of allocation: -- The estimated average recovery is approximately $0.117 per eligible ADS before deductions. -- After estimated deductions of $0.042 per ADS for attorneys' fees, expenses and service awards to plaintiffs, the net average recovery is approximately $0.075 per allegedly damaged ADS. -- Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on individual claims and the total number of valid claims. -- The settlement administrator will calculate each class member's payment based on the recognized loss assigned to each ADS. -- The settlement administrator will calculate each class member's recognized loss based on the purchase date and price, the sale date and price and whether the class member held the ADSs through the corrective disclosure dates: -- For ADSs sold before Feb. 13, 2023, the recognized loss is $0. -- For ADSs purchased during the class period and sold between Feb. 13, 2023, and Feb. 17, 2023, the recognized loss is the price inflation on the purchase date minus the price inflation on the sale date (see the artificial inflation table on Page 11 of the class notice). -- For ADSs purchased during the class period and sold between Feb. 18, 2023, and May 18, 2023, the recognized loss is the lesser of the price inflation on the purchase date or the purchase price minus the 90-day lookback value on the sale date (see the lookback table on Page 12 of the class notice). -- For ADSs purchased during the class period and held as of the close of trading on May 18, 2023, the recognized loss is the lesser of the price inflation on the purchase date or the purchase price minus $3.33, the average closing price during the 90-day lookback period. -- The settlement administrator will set any recognized loss that calculates to a negative number to $0. -- If total recognized losses exceed the net settlement fund, the settlement administrator will reduce payments on a pro rata basis. -- Class members whose payment would be less than $10 will not receive a payout. How to claim a VNet securities class action settlement payment Class members may file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form (pages 15-21 of the settlement notice) and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Aug. 20, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: VNet Securities Settlement, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205, Media, PA 19063 Proof or documentation required to submit a claim All class members must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or taxpayer identification number. They must also provide holdings and transaction information, including: -- Number of VNet ADSs held as of the close of trading on March 22, 2022 Trade dates for purchases, acquisitions and sales from March 23, 2022, through May 18, 2023 -- Number of ADSs purchased, acquired or sold -- Total purchase, acquisition or sale price -- Number of VNet ADSs held as of the close of trading on May 18, 2023 Class members must also provide documentation to support their transactions in VNet ADSs. Acceptable proof includes: -- Broker confirmation slips -- Broker account statements -- Authorized statements from a broker, financial advisor or financial institution containing the transactional information found in a confirmation slip Payout options -- Physical check $5.88 million settlement fund The $5,875,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $200,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,958,333.33 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $100,000 -- Service awards to plaintiffs: Up to $15,000 each ($30,000 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Aug. 6, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 20, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Aug. 27, 2026 When is the VNet securities class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after it processes all claims and the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged VNet Group Inc. and certain officers made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts regarding the company's financial operations and transactions involving Sheng Chen. The plaintiffs claimed these statements artificially inflated the price of VNet ADSs and caused investor losses when corrective disclosures entered the market. The defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs, risks and delays of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $0.08 per share Deadline: August 20, 2026 [GN] WEST VIRGINIA: Dismissal of Heckman Suit Based on Immunity Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of Hank Heckman and Loren Garcia, Petitioners Below, Petitioners, v. Betsy Jividen, Jeff Sandy, and Patrick Morrisey, Individually, and David Kelly, Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Michael Baylous, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and John B. McCuskey, Attorney General of West Virginia, in their Official Capacities, Respondents Below, Respondents, Case No. 24-322 (W. Va.), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (ICA), affirming the orders of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that granted the Respondents' motions to dismiss the Petitioners' complaint. The Petitioners filed individual and putative class action lawsuits against various state officials, challenging policies adopted by the West Virginia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) regarding eligibility for parole and good time credit. They alleged that DCR changed its policies to make inmates incarcerated for supervised-release and supervised-probation violations ineligible for good time credit, and in some instances parole eligibility, leading to their reincarceration, related litigation, and the enactment of a statute codifying part of the policy. The Respondents moved to dismiss, and the circuit court granted the motions. The court concluded that certain DCR officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the constitutional claims and absolute immunity for their policy-making functions, while another respondent was protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity, qualified immunity, and sovereign immunity. On appeal, the ICA held that absolute immunity barred the Petitioners' claims against then-Attorney General Morrisey and then-Secretary Sandy to the extent those claims arose from judicial and legislative acts. The ICA also concluded that claims against then-DCR Commissioner Jividen and Sandy based on administrative policy-making were barred by absolute immunity. As for the remaining claim involving Jividen's issuance of related arrest warrants, the ICA held that qualified immunity applied because the discretionary act did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Having found the claims barred by immunity, the ICA declined to address the Petitioners' remaining assignments of error. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Petitioners challenged only the ICA's rulings that qualified immunity barred their constitutional claims and that absolute immunity protected the actions of Respondents Morrisey and Sandy. After reviewing the record and briefs, the Supreme Court of Appeals found no reversible error and agreed that the claims against the respondents were barred by absolute and qualified immunity. Accordingly, it summarily affirmed the ICA's decision. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision is available at https://lnk.ua/tOiICGNaU ********* 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 ***