260717.mbx

260717.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 17, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 142 Headlines AAMP OF FLORIDA: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ABBVIE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Juvederm Hyaluronic Acid Risk ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hughes Says AKWHP LLC: Figueroa Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ALAIR ENTERPRISES: Kowitz Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Paulino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Lawsuit Over 2025 Motorcycle Recall AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Burton Alleges APOLLOMD BUSINESS: $4MM Data Breach Suit to be Heard on Oct. 5 APRO LLC: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Garza Class Suit Says ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach ASSURANCEAMERICA: Edelson Probes Potential Data Breach Claims AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Lyles Files Suit in S.D. California BACKCHECKED LLC: Agrees to Settle Cyberattack Suit for $535,000 BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Dismissal of Goolsby EFTA Notice Claim BEIERSDORF INC: Faces Suit Over Eucerin Baby Eczema Relief Cream BLAIZE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims BLANK ROME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Delapaz Suit Alleges CALL-ON-DOC INC: Settles Tracking Pixels Class Suit for $1.8MM CAMBRIDGE MOBILE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Derer Alleges CE SOLUTIONS: Faces Abesalashvili Suit Over Systemic Wage Theft COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: $5.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 14 COMMTOW LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Extra Fees COMMUNITY HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert Briefs Must be Filed Under Seal COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Suit Over Metals in Protein Powders COSTCO WHOLESALE: Parties Seek to Seal Class Certification Briefing COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid CRINETICS PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Vertex DELTA AIR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Seattle, WA Job Posting DISTRICT HOSPITAL: Faces Bragdon Labor Suit Over Pay Practices DOMINO'S PIZZA: Settles $1MM Job Applicant Class Action Settlement DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Settles Services Fees Class Suit for $9-Mil. DUDE PRODUCTS: Dude Wipes are Falsely Advertised, Suit Claims EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: $9.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 19 ELANCO ANIMAL: Fair Fund Claims Bar Date Set for Sept. 14 ELEMENT SOLUTIONS: M&A Investigates Sale to Solstice Advanced ELITE NURSES: Parties Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement FIRST NATIONAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach FIRSTENERGY CORP: Fair Fund Claims Bar Date Set for Sept. 14 FREEPORT, NY: Whaley Class Cert Bid Tossed FRESNO, CA: Faces Phased Class Certification Schedule FUNRISE INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT, Bailey Alleges FUTUREDONTICS LLC: Faces Class Suit After Ransomware Data Breach GEICO GENERAL: Marcelletti Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Facial Data Collection GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Gomez Files Suit in S.D. California GUARDIAN CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid in Gassman Suit Due Jan. 15, 2027 HARVARD BUSINESS: Akselrod Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. HP INC: Derivative Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 18 IMEMORIES LLC: Faces Cvejanovich Suit Over False Pricing Practices INNAGO LLC: Faces Clark Class Action Suit Over Convenience Fees JAMES JAMES: Zamichieli Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners JBS USA: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit for $7.49-Mil. KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Parties Seek Initial Approval of Settlement KNIGHT PORT: Class Cert Filing Continued to Jan. 25, 2027 L'OREAL SA: Faces Class Suit Over CeraVe Baby Eczema Relief Cream LA FORCE: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Dispute With Ascension Parish LAND O'LAKES: Initial Scheduling Conference Continued to Sept. 8 LUCID GROUP: Plaintiff Seeks to Partially Seal Class Cert Reply LUMIWEALTH INC: Faces Alban Class Suit Over Illegal Robocalls MADISON SQUARE: Faces Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info MANZANA LLC: Bid to Temporary Stay All Deadlines Partly OK'd MARATHON PETROLEUM: Faces Class Suit Over Fuel Price Inflation MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bishins Seeks to Certify Class Action MARYLAND: Response to Class Cert Bid Extended to August 12 MASTER LOCK: Padlocks Are Not Pick-Resistant, Class Suit Claims MATCH.COM LLC: Deceptively Promotes 'Highlights' Feature, Suit Says MAXIMUS EDUCATION: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $3-Mil. MCKESSON CORPORATION: Court Confirms Final Disposition of Action MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Settlement in Hulewat Gets Initial Nod MEDLINK GEORGIA INC: Meadows Files Suit in M.D. Georgia MEDLINK GEORGIA INC: Senecal Files Suit in M.D. Georgia MEGAN HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit MEMPHIS, TN: Kiner Bid for Class Certification Tossed MEUNDIES INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Privacy MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegaly Procures Consumer Report, Goodwin Alleges NARA ORGANICS: Faces Class Suit Over Bacterial Contamination NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Suit Over 2026 Age Rules NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Illegal Fees Class Suit for $1.5MM NB CHICKEN: Gallardo Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA NERDWALLET INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Davis Due Sept. 21, 2027 NEW YORK, NY: Bid for Adverse Inferences Partly OK'd NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Initial Nod NEW YORK, NY: Must Oppose Phillips Class Cert Bid by August 7 NFL ENTERPRISES: Faces CIPA Class Action Over 182 Website Trackers NORTH ATLANTIC: July 30 Class Cert Hearing Vacated OPTUM SERVICES: Pasquale Suit Removed to E.D. California OREGON: New Class Action Takes Aim at Packaging EPR Program PEDIATRIC PRODUCTS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Geter Suit Says PEOPLE DATA: Settlement Deal in Cochrane Suit Gets Initial Nod PEOPLES CARTAGE: Residents Sue Over Warehouse Fire in Wood County PEREZ TIRE: Williams Bid for Limited Discovery Tossed PHOTRONICS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 4 PHOTRONICS INC: Faces Cooper Class Suit Over Common Stock Drop PHOTRONICS INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit PHREESIA INC: Retirement System Sues Over Misleading Business Info PREMIER SELECT: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Banks Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Perez Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: $48MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 22 QUTEN RESEARCH: Faces Suit Over Qunol Fish Oil Deceptive Labeling RAKUTEN KOBO: Lopez-Ambrosio Suit Removed to N.D. California RAPID INVESTMENTS: Hall Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass REDWIRE CORP: Derivative Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 30 REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY: Conley Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois RENAISSANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Ticket Suit Final Hearing Set Sept. 22 SAFEWAY INC: Clark Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SECURITAS SECURITY: Seeks to Continue Briefing Schedule SECURITY SERVICES: Mossiah Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement SELECT PORTFOLIO: Evans Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes SELECT PORTFOLIO: Evans Seeks to File Unredacted Docs Under Seal SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Valdez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Oct. 27 SHAWN BENGE AGENCY: Donahue Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska SKIN LAUNDRY: Case Management Conference Set for Nov. 16 SKY CHEFS LLC: Hollis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SODEXO SA: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 27 TDB COMMUNICATIONS: Morgan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TENNESSEE GAS: BJC Bid for Class Certification Tossed TENNESSEE: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification TESLA INC: Bid to Stay Waller Suit Tossed TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Delaney Says TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Expert Disclosure Continued to July 23 TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Parties Seek to Continue Expert Disclosure TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Credit Reporting Errors UDR INC: Keller Files Suit in S.D. California UNILEVER UNITED: Court Narrows Claims in Novick Suit UNION PACIFIC: Class Definition Modified in Black Action UNITED AIRLINES: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Window Seat Lawsuit UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Marcella Alleges UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Right Steps Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota VA SNF CONSULTING: King Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Extension of Remaining Deadlines Sought VINTAGE WINE: $7.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 22 VIP INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 3, 2027 VITAL FARMS: Wang Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Wilkerson Suit WAL-MART TRANSPORTATION: Piccolo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Moldy Chia Seeds WALMART INC: Thomas Sues Over the Use of Sensitive Biometric Data WASHINGTON FINE WINE: Kellogg-Fulghum Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. WATTS REGULATOR: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal Due August 1 WAYNE COUNTY, MI: County Must Notify Claimants, Court Says WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY: Patrick Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. WILLOWS APARTMENTS: Judge Approves $3-Mil. Class-Action Settlement WORKDAY INC: Mobley Seeks to Extend Class Cert Schedule X.AI CORP: Class Suit Over Deepfake Sexual Abuse Material Expands ZILLOW GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 10 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Court Allows Mesothelioma Claims Against CIHL ********* AAMP OF FLORIDA: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAMP OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05906 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.audiocontrol.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Williams, a visually-impaired and legally blind person, was denied equal access to the Defendant's numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to the blind and visually-impaired consumers. AAMP OF FLORIDA operates the AudioControl online retail store and AudioControl interactive website across the U.S. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ABBVIE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Juvederm Hyaluronic Acid Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that AbbVie failed to warn consumers and healthcare providers that its Juvederm hyaluronic acid dermal fillers can cause delayed-onset granulomas, leaving patients at risk of permanent facial disfigurement and serious health complications. The 26-page complaint contends that AbbVie has long omitted any warning about the development of granulomas -- hard masses of immune cells and inflammation that form around infections and foreign objects in the body, even months or years after injections -- from Juvederm's labeling, marketing materials and patient information, despite being aware of the risks through medical literature. According to the class action lawsuit, Juvederm is a line of dermal fillers that comes in four varieties, including Juvederm Ultra, Juvederm Ultra Plus and their lidocaine-containing counterparts. The injections are marketed as a way to smooth facial wrinkles and restore skin volume through the injection of hyaluronic acid, a naturally occurring substance in the body, the suit states. The case says that delayed-onset granulomas can create hard, painful lumps, discoloration and swelling at injection sites that may require medical treatment and could cause permanent scarring or disfigurement. The suit adds that some patients may also experience fevers, coughs, shortness of breath, swollen lymph nodes, eye irritation, vision problems and headaches. Although the precise cause of granuloma formation remains unknown, the suit references research suggesting that the interaction between hyaluronic acid and butanediol diglycidyl ether (BDDE), a chemical crosslinking agent used to stabilize filler, can create chronic dermatological inflammation in some patients. The suit alleges that AbbVie has nevertheless failed to disclose the granuloma risk in the materials prospective customers and medical providers rely on before treatment. Instead, the case claims, the company's labeling characterizes potential "nodules" and growths as harmless, temporary side effects that typically resolve on their own within a month. The complaint references an AbbVie clinical study involving 72 subjects, in which more than 60 percent of the participants suffered from lumps and bumps at the injection site and up to 22 percent developed nodules. However, the company failed to investigate or warn consumers about whether those reactions could represent or progress into granulomas, the suit claims. "Thus, for over a decade and a half, Defendant has known of the risk of nodules at the injection site: but their own studies did not follow through to examine the risk of granuloma and delayed-onset granuloma even though there were similar (yet not identical) issues that came up," the complaint alleges. The case also references the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which requires cosmetic and medical products to be truthfully labeled and updated whenever new risks are discovered, even after a product is already on the market. Per the suit, AbbVie was obligated to warn consumers and medical providers about the risk of delayed-onset granulomas once evidence of the complication surfaced, but instead continued marketing Juvederm without adequate mention of the alleged danger. The lawsuit contends that the significance of the omission is heightened by the popularity of Juvederm, which is one of the most popular facial injection brands in the United States. "This is particularly problematic for those who develop granulomas from HA filler injections like Juvederm because the presence of hard lumps, [n]odules, scarring, and disfigurement generally occur in injection sites which are in the worst possible place: the face," the filing asserts. The plaintiff, a California resident, paid thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for numerous Juvederm injections in 2023, the lawsuit says. The woman claims she later developed a delayed-onset granuloma that made her extremely sick and required hospitalization, and saw no reference to the risk prior to receiving the injections. The Juvederm class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased Juvederm products from the beginning of any applicable statute of limitations period through the date of judgment or until the alleged conduct ceases. The 26-page complaint contends that AbbVie has long omitted any warning about the development of granulomas -- hard masses of immune cells and inflammation that form around infections and foreign objects in the body, even months or years after injections -- from Juvederm's labeling, marketing materials and patient information, despite being aware of the risks through medical literature. According to the class action lawsuit, Juvederm is a line of dermal fillers that comes in four varieties, including Juvederm Ultra, Juvederm Ultra Plus and their lidocaine-containing counterparts. The injections are marketed as a way to smooth facial wrinkles and restore skin volume through the injection of hyaluronic acid, a naturally occurring substance in the body, the suit states. The case says that delayed-onset granulomas can create hard, painful lumps, discoloration and swelling at injection sites that may require medical treatment and could cause permanent scarring or disfigurement. The suit adds that some patients may also experience fevers, coughs, shortness of breath, swollen lymph nodes, eye irritation, vision problems and headaches. Although the precise cause of granuloma formation remains unknown, the suit references research suggesting that the interaction between hyaluronic acid and butanediol diglycidyl ether (BDDE), a chemical crosslinking agent used to stabilize filler, can create chronic dermatological inflammation in some patients. The suit alleges that AbbVie has nevertheless failed to disclose the granuloma risk in the materials prospective customers and medical providers rely on before treatment. Instead, the case claims, the company's labeling characterizes potential "nodules" and growths as harmless, temporary side effects that typically resolve on their own within a month. The complaint references an AbbVie clinical study involving 72 subjects, in which more than 60 percent of the participants suffered from lumps and bumps at the injection site and up to 22 percent developed nodules. However, the company failed to investigate or warn consumers about whether those reactions could represent or progress into granulomas, the suit claims. "Thus, for over a decade and a half, Defendant has known of the risk of nodules at the injection site: but their own studies did not follow through to examine the risk of granuloma and delayed-onset granuloma even though there were similar (yet not identical) issues that came up," the complaint alleges. The case also references the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which requires cosmetic and medical products to be truthfully labeled and updated whenever new risks are discovered, even after a product is already on the market. Per the suit, AbbVie was obligated to warn consumers and medical providers about the risk of delayed-onset granulomas once evidence of the complication surfaced, but instead continued marketing Juvederm without adequate mention of the alleged danger. The lawsuit contends that the significance of the omission is heightened by the popularity of Juvederm, which is one of the most popular facial injection brands in the United States. "This is particularly problematic for those who develop granulomas from HA filler injections like Juvederm because the presence of hard lumps, [n]odules, scarring, and disfigurement generally occur in injection sites which are in the worst possible place: the face," the filing asserts. The plaintiff, a California resident, paid thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for numerous Juvederm injections in 2023, the lawsuit says. The woman claims she later developed a delayed-onset granuloma that made her extremely sick and required hospitalization, and saw no reference to the risk prior to receiving the injections. The Juvederm class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased Juvederm products from the beginning of any applicable statute of limitations period through the date of judgment or until the alleged conduct ceases. [GN] ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hughes Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DEBORAH HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Case No. 2:26-cv-04690 (E.D. Pa., July 6, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. Accordingly, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to the Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to stored PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff contends that the cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. Plaintiff Hughes is a natural person and a citizen of Bowdown, Georgia, where Plaintiff intends to remain. AdaptHealth is a network of full-service medical equipment companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK, LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com AKWHP LLC: Figueroa Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AKWHP, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-07859 (N.D. Ill., July 6, 2026) arises because the Defendant's s website, www.anneklein.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ALAIR ENTERPRISES: Kowitz Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY E. KOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALAIR ENTERPRISES USA, INC.; ALAIR ENTERPRISES USA HOLDINGS, INC.; ROBERT F. CECIL; KATRINA McLAUCHLAN; DUANE JOHNS; STUART HOPEWELL; and BLAIR McDANIEL, Case No. 3:26-cv-01235-X (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (i) suspending the current Local Rule 23.2 class-certification deadline; and (ii) directing the parties to meet and confer within 14 days of the Court's ruling on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint, and to submit a joint proposed schedule, including class-certification briefing, within 14 days thereafter. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the Local Rule 23.2 deadline to 90 days after its ruling on ECF No. 17. No scheduling order has been entered, the parties have not held a Rule 26(f) conference, and no discovery—including the class discovery necessary to support certification—has occurred. The Plaintiff now faces precisely the bind he sought to avoid by agreement in May: a certification deadline that falls while a dispositive motion attacking the operative pleading is pending and unresolved, the suit says. Requiring a certification motion on the current schedule would force it onto an incomplete record—serving neither efficiency nor the analysis Rule 23 demands, the suit adds. Alair is a custom home building and renovation network. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dSfxYC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel E. Joyner, Esq. Forrest Colby Roberts, Esq. Kaitlyn Q. McCall, Esq. FBT GIBBONS LLP 2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 545-3474 Facsimile: (214) 545-3473 E-mail: sjoyner@fbtgibbons.com croberts@fbtgibbons.com kmccall@fbtgibbons.com ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Paulino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allen Distribution, LP. The case is styled as Paul Paulino, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allen Distribution, LP, a Pennsylvania limited partnership, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0007805 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Allen Distribution -- https://www.allendistribution.com/ -- is a national third-party Supply Chain organization with the experience and capabilities to serve as a reliable partner for your business.[BN] AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Lawsuit Over 2025 Motorcycle Recall --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that American Honda Motor Company has failed to provide 2024–2026 CBR600RR motorcycle owners and lessees with an immediate, effective repair for an engine oil-consumption defect dangerous enough to warrant the company to initiate a safety recall in December 2025. The 30-page complaint says that the CBR600RR defect is caused by the improper finishing of the engine block cylinder surface, which can cause excessive oil consumption. In the event of excessive oil consumption, the filing states, a Honda CBR600RR's oil level can drop below the minimum required level, which could cause the motorcycle's connecting rod bearing to seize. Should a bike's connecting rod bearing seize, the rear wheel may lock up, and/or engine oil can come into contact with the exhaust system, increasing the risk of crash, injury or fire, the class action lawsuit says. The case contends that despite the seriousness of the defect, Honda has not provided owners and lessees with "an immediately available final repair." Per the suit, Honda's phased recall for the CBR600RR includes no replacement for defective engine components, replacement motorcycles, full refunds, or buybacks. Instead, Honda has left proposed class members with "motorcycles that could not be safely used," while instructing owners and lessees to wait for a remedy at a later date. More broadly, the suit alleges that Honda has effectively deflected the costs and burdens of a dangerous engine defect plaguing certain motorcycles onto their riders in its delayed advancement to the next phase of its recall protocol. According to the complaint, the recall remedy identified by Honda as a "repair" has not materialized into an actual solution for riders. Per the suit, the interim protocol began after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recall in December 2025 and included a plan for owner notification around February 16, 2026, followed by a "second phase" of the recall process that would not occur before July 2026. The lawsuit maintains that Honda, in the meantime, has not provided riders with replacement motors, loaners, repairs or refunds. Instead, the automaker instructed owners to monitor oil levels on their own and bring their motorcycles in to authorized dealers every 300 miles for oil-consumption inspections. Worse, the suit claims that many owners and lessees have continued to be held responsible for loan payments, insurance and related costs for their bikes, though many do not feel safe to continue riding them in the wake of the recall. "Owners are left to choose between riding motorcycles subject to a safety-critical engine defect or parking motorcycles for an indefinite period while continuing to bear ownership expenses," the complaint states. The plaintiff, a Kentucky resident, purchased a new Honda CBR600RR motorcycle from an authorized dealer in August 2025, the lawsuit says. After using the motorcycle for a few months and adding 1,500 miles, the plaintiff brought it into a dealership for evaluation and remedy in February 2026 after receiving notice of the recall, the lawsuit says. The plaintiff was told that Honda would not have a replacement motor until July 2026, at the next phase of the recall, the case relays. After requesting a buyback, the plaintiff was offered only $7,000 even though the motorcycle was worth approximately $10,500 absent the defect, the complaint reads. The Honda class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased or leased a 2024-2026 Honda CBR600RR motorcycle subject to NHTSA recall No. 25V891. [GN] AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Burton Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DEON BURTON, on behalf of herself and all other current and former employees v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, a California Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21299 (July 6, 2026), alleges that Defendants have: -- Failed to properly classify them as non-exempt employees entitled to overtime, meal periods, and rest periods; -- Failed to ensure that they regularly exercised discretion and independent judgment, as required to qualify for an exempt classification; -- Failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; -- Failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; -- Failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; -- Failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; -- Failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate; -- Failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; improperly applied an exemption (administrative, executive, or professional) to their job classification despite their primary duties consisting of non-exempt work. The Plaintiff claims are typical of the other class members' claims. The Plaintiff alleges, that Defendants have a policy or practice of failing to comply with the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code as alleged in this Complaint. AmTrust is a New York City-based multinational property and casualty insurance company, offering workers’ compensation, general liability, business owners policies, cyber liability, and employment practices liability.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-010 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com APOLLOMD BUSINESS: $4MM Data Breach Suit to be Heard on Oct. 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received a notice that the ApolloMD data breach may have compromised their private information could qualify to submit a claim for up to $5,000 and/or credit monitoring from a class action settlement. The cybersecurity incident impacted more than 626,000 current and former patients from multiple medical provider practices. ApolloMD Business Services LLC agreed to pay $4.02 million to settle a class action lawsuit claiming a data security incident that occurred in May 2025 compromised personally identifiable and protected health information, resulting in unauthorized access to sensitive patient data. Who can file a claim for a data breach settlement payout? Class members are individuals residing in the United States who received a notice regarding the ApolloMD data breach, indicating the incident may have impacted their private information. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Cash payment A - documented losses: Class members can claim up to $5,000 for reimbursement of reasonable documented losses that occurred due to fraud or identity theft related to the data breach. -- Cash payment B - alternate cash: Class members who do not submit a documented losses claim can submit a claim to receive an estimated $75 pro rata cash payment. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the number of claims filed. -- Medical data monitoring: All class members can elect to receive one year of CyEx's medical data monitoring, which includes real-time one-bureau credit file monitoring, dark web scanning, security freezing assistance, victim assistance, $1 million in identity theft insurance with no deductible and access to fraud resolution agents. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Settlement Administrator - #83375, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324 The claim deadline is Sept. 30, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- All class members must provide the class member ID from the settlement notice to submit a claim online or by mail. -- Documented losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include receipts, invoices, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges and other proof of identity theft or fraud. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $4,020,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,340,000 -- Attorneys' costs: To be determined -- Medical data monitoring: Cost determined by the number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Exclusion deadline: Aug. 31, 2026 -- Claim form deadline: Sept. 30, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 5, 2026 When is the ApolloMD data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit claimed ApolloMD discovered suspicious activity in its IT network in May 2025. An investigation revealed an unauthorized third party may have accessed or acquired files containing sensitive patient information. The plaintiffs alleged ApolloMD failed to adequately safeguard personal patient data, leading to claims of negligence and breach of implied contract. ApolloMD denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and cost of further litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,000 and/or credit monitoring Deadline: September 30, 2026 [GN] APRO LLC: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Garza Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- DESTINY GARZA, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. APRO, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21141 (Cal. Super., July 6, 2026) is a Private Attorney General Action Complaint, pursuant to California Labor Code, on behalf of Representative Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated who worked for Defendants in their California locations as non exempt, hourly employees for: -- failure to provide employment records; -- failure to pay overtime and double time; -- failure to provide rest and meal periods; -- failure to pay minimum wage; -- failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; -- failure to pay reporting time wages; -- failure to pay split shift wages -- failure to pay all wages earned on time -- failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation -- failure to pay all paid time off and vacation time owed upon separation; -- failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses in violation of the California Labor Code. The aggrieved employees worked for all of the Defendants or for any of the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly-paid employees. The Defendant operates a gas station and convenience store company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 433-4977 Facsimile: (818) 484-2654 E-mail: raffi@tapanianlaw.com ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Josh Recamara, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a class action investigation has been opened following a data breach at AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency, with state breach filings and reports now estimating the incident affected approximately 6.9 million people -- a sharp increase from the roughly 611,000 individuals initially confirmed through South Carolina's breach notification alone. The scale escalation from initial notification to full estimated scope is explained by the organizational structure of the target: AssuranceAmerica is an Atlanta-based MGA that manages non-standard auto, renters and commercial auto policies through a network of about 9,500 agents across 14 states. A breach at the platform level triggers notification and remediation obligations across that entire agent network -- a broader exposure than a breach at a single carrier would typically involve, because the data held at MGA level spans the policy and personal information of every client across every agent relationship the platform supports. The intrusion itself followed the most common pattern in the sector. AssuranceAmerica first detected suspicious activity on March 17, 2026, and traced it to a targeted attack on a single employee the day before, consistent with a credential-stealing phishing technique. An unauthorized third party gained access to the company's systems and copied a number of data files. External forensic experts were engaged immediately, but the review of accessed files to identify affected individuals was not completed until June 15 -- three months after initial detection -- with mail notifications beginning shortly after and expected to continue through around July 10. The exposed data may include names, contact details, auto insurance policy and account information, driver and vehicle information, claims-related information, driver's license numbers, Tax ID information and Social Security numbers, per breach notifications filed with the California and Nebraska Attorneys General and South Carolina's Department of Consumer Affairs. An attack method that dominates sector losses The phishing-based, employee-targeted intrusion reflects the leading cause of cyber losses across the insurance sector rather than an isolated incident. Coalition's 2026 Cyber Claims Report found business email compromise and funds transfer fraud together accounted for 58% of cyber incidents in 2025. Resilience data shows social engineering drove 57% of incurred cyber claims and 60% of losses in the first half of 2025. A similar incident disclosed in May 2026 by Beacon Mutual, a Rhode Island workers compensation insurer, followed the same pattern -- an unauthorized party accessing systems for a week before detection, exposing Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and financial account information. Regulators themselves are not immune. The NAIC confirmed its own Oracle PeopleSoft systems had been breached by ShinyHunters, a group known for large-scale data theft. The FBI's 2026 Internet Crime Report found US cyber losses reached nearly $21 billion in 2025, with government and regulatory bodies ranking among the three most targeted sectors globally -- a finding that underscores the systemic rather than sector-specific nature of the threat. Class action exposure as a near-automatic consequence Multiple law firms have already opened investigations into potential class claims on behalf of affected individuals. Data privacy class action filings exceeded 1,800 in 2025, averaging more than 150 new filings per month and representing growth of more than 25% over 2024 and more than 200% since 2022, according to Duane Morris' Class Action Review 2026. Courts certified more than 68% of class certification motions decided in 2025 -- a consistently high rate that gives plaintiffs' firms confidence that filed cases will proceed rather than being dismissed early. For breaches involving Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers at the scale now estimated for AssuranceAmerica, class action investigation has become a near-standard response rather than an exceptional one. The widening cost exposure IBM's Cost of a Data Breach Report put the global average breach cost at $4.88 million in 2025, up 10% year-over-year and the highest figure on record. That figure sits alongside separate litigation costs, settlement funds and credit monitoring obligations that follow once a breach is disclosed -- costs that for a breach now estimated to affect nearly 7 million people could dwarf the forensic and notification expenses. For MGAs and carriers, the AssuranceAmerica case illustrates that breach costs extend well beyond investigation and notification: class action exposure has become a near-automatic feature of large personal data breaches, adding materially to the total cost of a cyber event that insurers and reinsurers price into cyber liability coverage. [GN] ASSURANCEAMERICA: Edelson Probes Potential Data Breach Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Edelson Lechtzin LLP is investigating potential class claims arising from a data breach at AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency, LLC ("AssuranceAmerica") and is offering free case evaluations to affected individuals. The incident reportedly exposed data from up to 6.9 million people, including driver's license numbers. What happened in the AssuranceAmerica data breach? AssuranceAmerica is an insurance managing general agency headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Reports state that hackers accessed parts of AssuranceAmerica's IT environment via a credential‑stealing phishing attack and copied certain data files. Approximately 6.9 million individuals are listed as impacted in state breach filings and reports. What information was exposed? Reports indicate exposure of names, contact details, insurance policy/account information, driver and vehicle information, claims information, and driver's license numbers. Some reports also reference potential exposure of Social Security numbers and Tax ID information. When did AssuranceAmerica discover the breach? Suspicious activity was identified on March 17, 2026, following malicious activity on March 16, 2026, targeting an employee. When were individuals affected? Reports indicate the file review concluded on June 15, 2026, with mail notifications beginning thereafter and expected around July 10, 2026. Contact Edelson Lechtzin LLP for a Free Case Evaluation Marc Edelson, Esq., Edelson Lechtzin LLP, 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300, Newtown, PA 18940; Phone: 844-696-7492; Email: medelson@edelson-law.com; or click HERE. About Edelson Lechtzin LLP Edelson Lechtzin LLP is a national class action law firm with offices in Pennsylvania and California, handling complex litigation, including data breach cases, securities and investment fraud, federal antitrust violations, ERISA, wage and hour, and consumer fraud. Media Contact For media and partnership inquiries, please use the contact information above to connect with our team regarding interviews, co‑counsel opportunities, and referral partnerships. Legal Notice This release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. The firm's investigation is ongoing; the facts summarized above are based on company notices and public reports, which may be updated. [GN] AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Lyles Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avenue5 Residential, LLC. The case is styled as Amber Lyles, Myriam Calderon, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Avenue5 Residential, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03864-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal., July 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Avenue5 -- https://www.avenue5.com/ -- provides professional property management services for nearly 800 multifamily and single-family properties for rent across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER , PA 1990 North California Blvd., Ste. 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com BACKCHECKED LLC: Agrees to Settle Cyberattack Suit for $535,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that United States residents whose private information the September 2024 Backchecked data breach may have impacted could be eligible to claim up to $2,500 plus credit monitoring from a class action settlement. Backchecked LLC agreed to pay $535,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging a targeted cyberattack compromised its computer systems. The complaint alleges the attack exposed files containing personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals residing in the United States whose personal information the September 2024 Backchecked data breach may have impacted. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Cash payment A - documented losses: Class members can claim up to $2,500 for documented losses traceable to the data breach that occurred between Sept. 26, 2024, and Aug. 26, 2026. Eligible losses include monetary losses caused by identity theft or fraud, fees for credit reports or credit monitoring, costs to replace IDs and postage to contact financial institutions. -- Cash payment B - alternative cash payment: Class members who do not submit a documented losses claim can submit a claim to receive a one-time pro rata cash payment of up to $50. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the number of claims filed. -- Credit monitoring: All class members can enroll in one year of three-bureau credit monitoring and identity protection services, which includes $1 million in identity theft insurance, real-time credit file and public records monitoring and dark web scanning. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Backchecked Data Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 The claim deadline is Aug. 26, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- Online claims require the unique ID and PIN from the settlement notice. -- Documented losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include receipts, invoices, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees of fraudulent charges and other proof of identity theft or fraud. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $535,000 settlement fund will include: Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $178,333 -- Attorneys' costs: To be determined -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each -- Credit monitoring: Cost determined by number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 26, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 26, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 10, 2026 When is the Backchecked data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments and credit monitoring benefits to approved claimants no later than 55 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit claimed a targeted cyberattack on Backchecked's computer systems in September 2024 may have exposed files containing private information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. The plaintiffs alleged Backchecked failed to adequately protect this sensitive data. Backchecked denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $2,500 plus credit monitoring Deadline: August 26, 2026 [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Dismissal of Goolsby EFTA Notice Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Patricia Goolsby, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00009-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va.), Judge Jasmine H. Yoon of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division, granted Defendant Bank of America's motion to dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. A fraudster tricked Goolsby into disclosing her Bank of America account information and used it to empty her account. Goolsby disputed the transfer, prompting a Bank investigation under U.S.C. Section 169f(a). The Bank concluded no error occurred and sent Goolsby a denial letter. When Goolsby requested the documents the Bank relied on, it responded with screenshots of its internal systems. Goolsby sued on March 7, 2025, and later amended her complaint. On December 31, 2025, the court found she stated claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act's Excess Liability provision and for breach of contract, but dismissed her notice claim under the EFTA. Goolsby filed a second amended complaint realleging the notice claim with additional allegations, prompting the Bank's renewed motion to dismiss. Under the EFTA, a bank that concludes no error occurred must deliver a written explanation of its findings and notify the consumer of the right to request reproductions of documents relied upon. In Count III, Goolsby alleged the Bank failed to provide a meaningful explanation and failed to provide the underlying documents. The court found Goolsby did not sufficiently allege that the Bank's explanation was deficient. The Bank had provided two distinct reasons for its conclusion, including that the transaction was validated by an authentication code sent to a phone number on the account and that funds went to an account benefiting a signer. The court noted no authority holding that a plaintiff states a claim when the response letter includes reasons for the conclusion reached, even if the plaintiff disputes the reasoning's accuracy. On the document production claim, the court found the Bank's screenshots satisfied its obligation to reproduce reproductions of documents relied upon in an understandable form. The court rejected Goolsby's argument that the screenshots were indecipherable, noting they included transaction amounts, types, dates, and account information. Goolsby's assertion that the Bank withheld complete records was conclusory and unsupported. Accordingly, the court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss, and Count III was dismissed without prejudice. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated July 08, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=drQkxT fron PacerMonitor.com BEIERSDORF INC: Faces Suit Over Eucerin Baby Eczema Relief Cream ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Beiersdorf Inc. deceptively charges more for its Eucerin Baby Eczema Relief Cream even though the product is essentially identical in formulation to the company's regular Eucerin Eczema Relief Cream. The 18-page complaint contends that Beiersdorf promotes that its baby eczema cream is a distinct product specially formulated for infants to justify charging a roughly 35-percent price premium over the standard Eucerin eczema cream. According to the class action lawsuit, the company's labeling conveys that its baby cream is uniquely designed for infants through the prominent use of terms such as "Baby," claims like "Pediatrician Recommended," and imagery of babies and animals. "Beiersdorf's marketing does more than merely suggest that the Baby Product is suitable for infants: it conveys to reasonable consumers that the Baby Product is specially formulated, and therefore uniquely appropriate for use on babies, and, by implication, that the Adult Product is not," the complaint states. The suit states, however, that the two products have the same active ingredient, colloidal oatmeal, at the same one percent concentration, and identical inactive ingredients listed in the same order. Furthermore, the case mentions that the products share the same application directions, warnings, indications and restrictions. "The only difference is the addition of 'Baby' representations and related vignettes on the Baby Product's label," the filing asserts. The lawsuit argues that there is "no rational, economic reason" for consumers to pay more for what are materially identical products. According to the complaint, a five-ounce container of Eucerin Eczema Relief Cream retails for $9.78 at Walmart, whereas the same-size Eucerin Baby Eczema Relief Cream is $13.19. Although the back label of the baby cream states in fine print that it contains the "[s]ame trusted formula as Eucerin Eczema Relief Cream," the case argues that this disclosure is insufficient to correct the allegedly misleading impression created by the product's front-label marketing. The complaint contends that consumers are unlikely to notice the statement before purchase and are not informed that they can buy the same product for less. The lawsuit alleges that Beiersdorf's marketing allows the company to charge a premium for a product that has no meaningful formulation differences or added benefits, in violation of California consumer protection law. The Eucerin class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in California who purchased the "Eucerin Baby" Eczema Relief Cream for personal or household use, and not for resale, at any time from four years before the filing of the complaint on June 29, 2026 to the date a class is notified. [GN] BLAIZE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Blaize Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: BZAI) resulting from allegations that Blaize may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Blaize securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=64126 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 28, 2026, Investing.com published an article entitled "Blaize stock tumbles on short seller fraud allegations." The article stated that Blaize stock had fallen after "short seller Pelican Way Research published a report alleging the company's recent $50 million deal with NeoTensr is fraudulent." On this news, Blaize's stock fell 12% on April 28, 2026. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BLANK ROME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Delapaz Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA DELAPAZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BLANK ROME LLP, Case No. 2:26-cv-04655 (E.D. Pa., July 6, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. Defendant is a law firm with 16 offices that offers comprehensive legal and advocacy services to clients operating in the United States and around the world. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current, former, and prospective clients. But, Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On May 21, 2026, Defendant experienced an incident in which an unauthorized third party caused Defendant to upload files containing sensitive Private Information to an external Google Drive account. In other words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to the Private Information of 57,554 of its current, former, and prospective clients, including names, Social Security numbers, address, email address, phone number, date of birth, taxpayer identification number, driver's license number, state identification card number, passport number, other government-issued identification number, financial account number, payment card information, medical information, and/or health insurance information. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff, Laura Delapaz, is a natural person and citizen of California. She resides in Encino, California where she intends to remain. The Defendant is law firm with 16 offices that offers comprehensive legal and advocacy services to clients operating in the United States and around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CALL-ON-DOC INC: Settles Tracking Pixels Class Suit for $1.8MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Call-On-Doc agreed to a $1.8 million class action settlement to resolve claims it violated California privacy laws by using tracking pixels on its website. The Call-On-Doc settlement benefits individuals who created an account with Call-On-Doc while in California on or after Nov. 7, 2023, or who were registered users with Call-On-Doc and started to book appointments for medical care in California on or after Nov. 7, 2021. Call-On-Doc is a telehealth service that allows users to connect with medical providers online for common, non-emergency conditions. According to a class action lawsuit, Call-On-Doc violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by using tracking pixels on its website. These tracking pixels allegedly allowed third parties to access and collect information about users without their consent. The plaintiffs in the case argue that Call-On-Doc's actions violated CIPA, which requires businesses to get the consent of individuals before recording or sharing their communications. Call-On-Doc has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.8 million to resolve the class action allegations. Under the terms of the Call-On-Doc settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Each class member is eligible to receive up to $20 from the settlement. Exact payment amounts may vary depending on the number of participating class members. If a large number of class members file claims, payments may be reduced to a pro rata share of the net settlement fund. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 10, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Call-On-Doc settlement is scheduled for Aug. 31, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 29, 2026. Meanwhile, attorneys are investigating whether health, recovery and medical websites unlawfully shared users' private information through tracking technology. If you visited one of the affected websites within the past two years, you may qualify to join a class action investigation. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits California residents who created an account with Call-On-Doc on or after Nov. 7, 2023, or who were registered users with Call-On-Doc and started to book appointments for medical care on or after Nov. 7, 2021. Potential Award Up to $20 Proof of Purchase N/A 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 08/29/2026 Case Name Lucas v. Call-On-Doc Inc., Case No. 2026LA000403, in the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois Final Hearing 08/31/2026 Settlement Website CallOnDocCIPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Call-On-Doc Pixel Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25191 Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 info@CallOnDocCIPASettlement.com (833) 421-7259 Class Counsel Philip L. Fraietta Alec M. Leslie BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Scott R. Drury DRURY LEGAL LLC Defense Counsel Usama Kahf FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP [GN] CAMBRIDGE MOBILE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Derer Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD DERER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAMBRIDGE MOBILE TELEMATICS INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-13108 (D. Mass., July 6, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to secure and safeguard affected individuals' personally identifiable information including their names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, insurance policy identifiers, driver identifiers, vehicle information, GPS location and trip history, driving behavior metrics, and mobile device information. According to the complaint, on or about June 12, 2026, the Defendant experienced a data security incident when the notorious ransomware group CoinbaseCartel breached its Personally identifiable information generally incorporates information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information. The Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the sensitive PII it collects and stores from unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant also owed a duty to notify Plaintiff and Class Members as soon as reasonably possible about the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures, despite possessing the financial resources and technological means to do so, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies to address both past and future harms, including compensation for financial losses, identity theft prevention services, enhanced data security protocols, and periodic audits to ensure compliance with cybersecurity standards. CMT specializes in offering driver telematics services to insurance companies and rideshare companies, among others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (7710 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com CE SOLUTIONS: Faces Abesalashvili Suit Over Systemic Wage Theft --------------------------------------------------------------- GIORGI ABESALASHVILI, ILIA BABUTSIDZE, RUSLAN DAVITADZE, JEMAL DAVITASHVILI, GIGA GABAIDZE, GELA GULBIANI, DAVID KATAMADZE, NIKA ONIANI, and KAKHA TSETSKHLADZE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CE SOLUTIONS, INC. a/k/a CE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC a/k/a CE, A&M TRANSPORT TRANSPORS INC., NABIH KOUBAISSAY, JEANNINE NAPOLEONE-COLBERT, MADINA SHUKUROVA, ABDULA (last name unknown), ASH (last name unknown), and CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05690 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2026) is a class action against Defendants for wage violations of the New York Labor Law and its accompanying violations, and the Fair Labor Standards Act and for Defendants' national origin discrimination, and aiding and abetting national origin discrimination, in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants' conduct was willful and wanton and showed a reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs and the laws prohibiting discrimination, which causes and continues to cause Plaintiffs to suffer substantial economic and noneconomic damages and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. The Plaintiffs emigrated to the United States in search of a better life with economic opportunity, free of the oppression that marked their everyday existence in Georgia. Instead, they found themselves in a nightmare scenario with exploitative employers willfully engaging in systemic wage theft against Plaintiffs and scores of fellow employees, with abuses of power and working conditions tantamount to human trafficking, the suit contends. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as traffic spotters, flaggers, and "group leaders" at ConEd job sites, playing an integral role in ConEd's daily operations. The Corporate Defendants and ConEd were joint employers, working together to maintain significant oversight and direct control over Plaintiffs, their working conditions, schedules and firing practices.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Debra L. Wabnik, Esq. STAGG WABNIK LAW GROUP LLP 401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 812-4504 E-mail: dwabnik@staggwabnik.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: $5.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- Cognizant (Nasdaq: CTSH) has released the following notice: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY VISWANATHA PALEMPALLI, Derivatively on Behalf of COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL PATSALOS-FOX, JOHN N. FOX, JR., MAUREEN BREAKIRON-EVANS, LEO S. MACKAY, JR., ZEIN ABDALLA, FRANCISCO D'SOUZA, KAREN MCLOUGHLIN, RAJEEV MEHTA, GORDON J. COBURN, STEVEN SCHWARTZ, RAMAKRISHNAN CHANDRASEKARAN, JOHN E. KLEIN, JONATHAN CHADWICK, THOMAS M. WENDEL, LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, and ROBERT E. WEISSMAN, Defendants, -and- COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant. TO: ALL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION ("COGNIZANT" OR THE "COMPANY") CURRENTLY AND AS OF NOVEMBER 25, 2025: THIS NOTICE RELATES TO THE PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU ARE A COGNIZANT STOCKHOLDER, THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS. THIS DERIVATIVE ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR MONETARY PAYMENT. IF YOU DO NOT OBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, THE AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, OR THE AMOUNT OF THE SERVICE AWARD DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. The parties to the stockholder derivative action have reached an agreement to settle the derivative claims brought on behalf of and for the benefit of Cognizant. The terms of the settlement are set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated November 25, 2025 (the "Stipulation"). This notice should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which has been filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. A link to the text of the Stipulation and the full-length Long-Form Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Action may be found on the "Investors" page of Cognizant's website at http://investors.cognizant.com. Under the terms of the Stipulation, as a part of the proposed Settlement, the Defendants shall cause their insurers to pay to Cognizant a sum of $5.5 million (the "Settlement Fund"), minus the court-approved Fee and Expense Amount. Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's Counsel's demand, litigation, and settlement efforts caused Defendants' insurers to agree to make the cash payment to Cognizant. In consideration of the substantial benefit conferred upon Cognizant as a direct result of the Settlement and the efforts of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel in the Derivative Action, Plaintiff's Counsel will request Court approval of an award of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $1,830,000 (or approximately 33% of the Settlement Fund). Plaintiff's Counsel also will apply to the Court for a service award of up to $15,000 to Plaintiff, subject to Court approval, which will be paid from any approved Fee and Expense Amount. A hearing will be held on September 14, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Stacey D. Adams of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey at the Frank R. Lautenberg Post Office and U.S. Courthouse, 2 Federal Square, Courtroom 9, Newark, New Jersey 07102 (the "Settlement Hearing"), at which the Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement. Any Current Cognizant Stockholder has a right, but is not required, to appear and to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, providing that he, she, or it is a stockholder of record or beneficial owner of Cognizant common stock and was a stockholder of record or beneficial owner of Cognizant common stock as of November 25, 2025. Any Current Cognizant Stockholder who satisfies this requirement may enter an appearance through counsel of such stockholder's own choosing and at such stockholder's own expense, or may appear on his or her own. However, you shall not be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless, no later than August 31, 2026, you have filed with the Court a written notice of objection containing the following information: 1. Your name, legal address, and telephone number; 2. The case name and number (Palempalli v. Patsalos-Fox, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-12025-EP-SDA); 3. Proof of being a Cognizant stockholder currently and as of November 25, 2025; 4. The date(s) you acquired your Cognizant stock; 5. A statement of each objection being made; 6. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing (you are not required to appear); and 7. Copies of any papers you intend to submit to the Court, along with the names of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of their testimony. If you wish to object to the proposed Settlement, you must file the written objection described above with the Court on or before August 31, 2026. All written objections and supporting papers must be filed with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, at the Martin Luther King Building and U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, N.J. 07101, and served by that date on each of the following Settling Parties' counsel: Counsel for Plaintiff: Stephen J. Oddo ROBBINS LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Counsel for Defendants: Daniel Roeser Charles A. Brown GOODWIN PROCTER LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 James Holsey Keale TANENBAUM KEALE LLP Three Gateway Center, Suite 1301 100 Mulberry Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Nina Yadava Sarah D. Efronson JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, New York 10281 Andrew J. Ehrlich Alison R. Benedon PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN AUGUST 31, 2026. Only stockholders who have filed and delivered valid and timely written notices of objection will be entitled to be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless the Court orders otherwise. If you fail to object in the manner and within the time prescribed above, you shall be deemed to have waived your right to object (including the right to appeal) and shall forever be barred, in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising such objection(s). Inquiries may be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Robbins LLP, 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92122, telephone: (619) 525-3990. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE DATED: June 29, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY About Cognizant Cognizant (NASDAQ: CTSH) -- http://www.cognizant.ai-- is an AI builder and technology services provider, building the bridge between AI investment and enterprise value by building full-stack AI solutions for its clients. COMMTOW LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Extra Fees ------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Rodriguez of WFLA reports that a Tampa towing company responded to reports of a proposed class action lawsuit after a man claimed he had to pay an extra $250 to pick up his car. James Adair claimed that he had a $250 lien release fee when his car was towed by CommTow. While Adair admitted to parking in the wrong spot, Adair said he shouldn't have had the lien release fee because he picked it up before Hillsborough County's 48-hour waiting period, per county ordinance. However, in a statement to 8 On Your Side, CommTow's attorney stated it had the authority to charge the fee based on a state law amended in 2024. When they learned of Hillsborough County's legal policy, they refunded Adair his $250. CommTow state that it acted lawfully and that the lawsuit will call into question whether a Hillsborough County Resolution can prohibit a towing business's ability to charge the lien when it is expressly allowed by Florida state law. CommTow also disputed a claim by Adair's attorney, Craig Rothburd, that there were "well over 1,000 people" in situations like Adair's. They said there has only been one claimant in the "class action lawsuit": Adair. CommTow's attorneys said there have only been eight customers who had lien charges that were "voluntarily and promptly refunded" to each of them. The company also ceased assessing the fees in Hillsborough County altogether while pursuing an appellate review of the county's enforcement of the resolution. A full statement from the Heekin Law firm, which represents CommTow, is below: https://www.wfla.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2026/07/Media-Statement.pdf A Hillsborough County judge recently denied CommTow's motion to dismiss, allowing the lawsuit to continue through court. [GN] COMMUNITY 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 CHCB 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 CHCB data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. CHCB Security Incident: What Happened? Community Health Center of Buffalo (CHCB) is notifying the public about a recent data security incident involving patient information. An online notice states that on April 21, 2026, CHCB detected suspicious activity within its network. The investigation, supported by digital forensic and cybersecurity experts, revealed that an unknown actor accessed the network on April 20 and April 21 of the same year, retrieving files without authorization. Presently, Community Health Center of Buffalo is reviewing the data involved and plans to send written notices to those potentially affected. Information believed to be impacted includes personal information, such as names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and driver's licenses. Protected health information that may have been exposed may include prescription information, treatment location and information, medical diagnoses/conditions, lab results, medications, medical record numbers, provider names, patient medical history, and health insurance policy information and identification numbers. The Community Health Center of Buffalo data breach was reported to the Department of Health and Human Services on June 19, 2026. What You Can Do After the CHCB Data Breach If your information was exposed in the CHCB 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 CHCB to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert Briefs Must be Filed Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS CASTILLO, MARK KNOWLES, ALEX RODRIGUEZ, NICHOLAS JAMES THROLSON, R.S., KIMBERLY SCOTT, ROBIN WARBEY, DANIEL SMITH, MATT GROVES, VERN DEOCHOA, TYRONE WASHINGTON, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01548-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order regarding sealing of class certification briefing: 1. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), each party will provisionally file under seal its class certification briefs (including any opening, response, and reply briefs), expert declarations or reports, exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which that Party relies (collectively, "Class Certification Papers") which contain material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by any party or nonparty. 2. Within four weeks of the plaintiffs' reply brief, which is due Oct. 1, 2026, pursuant to LCR 5(g), the parties, and any necessary nonparty, will meet and confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions of their Class Certification Papers, with necessary redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3). The deadline for filing any such public versions of the parties' Class Certification Papers and corresponding motion(s) to seal shall be Oct. 29, 2026. 3. The party or nonparty seeking to maintain material under seal (or under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes of any such motion(s) to seal associated with the parties' class certification briefing. Costco is an American multinational corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OHWYvx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Heather Lopez, Esq. Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristin M. Asai, Esq. Ashley L. Shively, Esq. Rebecca G. Durham, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1800 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 243-2300 E-mail: kristin.asai@hklaw.com ashley.shively@hklaw.com rebecca.durham@hklaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Suit Over Metals in Protein Powders ----------------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Herzlich, writing for New York Post, reports that Costco is facing a class-action lawsuit accusing the wholesale retailer of selling protein powders containing high levels of toxic metals -- and misleading consumers by marketing the products as "good clean fuel." The proposed class action, filed earlier this week in federal court for the Western District of Washington, alleged Costco failed to disclose that its Orgain Organic Plant-Based Protein Powder contained significant levels of arsenic, cadmium and lead, which can have adverse health effects. Plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages and a court order forcing Costco to disclose the presence of heavy metals -- accusing the retailer of unfair trade practices and violating numerous state laws and saying it "knew or, at a minimum, should have known" about the metals. "Many consumers who buy and use protein powder do so routinely as part of a continuing focus on their fitness and health," Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman, the Seattle-based law firm representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "These same health-conscious consumers have unknowingly ingested alarming levels of toxic heavy metals -- lead, cadmium and arsenic -- again and again, trusting that Costco's quality assurance would not allow something like this to happen." Costco and Orgain did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment. The lawsuit filed Tuesday, July 7, cited an investigation by the Clean Label Project and Consumer Reports, which found that Orgain's Vanilla Bean protein powder exceeded its "level of concern" for lead. Independent laboratory testing conducted by one of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel confirmed the presence of heavy metals in Orgain's Vanilla Bean and Chocolate Fudge powders, according to the suit. Orgain has said its products are safe for daily use despite the Consumer Reports investigation, and their protein powders are not facing any recalls -- currently being sold by Costco and other major retailers including Amazon, Target and Walmart. There is no known safe level of exposure to heavy metals, and exposure can pose serious health risks, including cancers; liver, kidney and brain damage; reproductive disorders; skin disorders; and cardiovascular disease, according to the World Health Organization and US Food & Drug Administration. Yet Costco sold the product in stores and online without disclosing the presence of heavy metals, calling it "good clean fuel," saying the powders have "quality ingredients and higher standards" and that Orgain is "relentless about quality," according to the lawsuit. The suit also alleged that consumers purchased the protein powders at a higher price -- about $30 per container -- because they believed they were purchasing a health supplement, and they would have opted for cheaper alternatives if they were made aware of the presence of toxic metals. As the market for protein powders and other health supplements has exploded, so has the presence of toxic heavy metals in these products, according to the Consumer Reports investigation. More than two-thirds of the 23 protein powders and ready-to-drink shakes tested by Consumer Reports contained more lead than food safety experts said would be safe to consume in a day -- some by more than 10 times. [GN] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Parties Seek to Seal Class Certification Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS CASTILLO, MARK KNOWLES, ALEX RODRIGUEZ, NICHOLAS JAMES THROLSON, R.S., KIMBERLY SCOTT, ROBIN WARBEY, DANIEL SMITH, MATT GROVES, VERN DEOCHOA, TYRONE WASHINGTON, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01548-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for sealing of class certification briefing as follows: 1. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), each party will provisionally file under seal its class certification briefs (including any opening, response, and reply briefs), expert declarations or reports, exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which that Party relies (collectively, "Class Certification Papers") which contain material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by any party or nonparty. 2. Within four weeks of the plaintiffs' reply brief, which is due Oct. 1, 2026, pursuant to LCR 5(g), the parties, and any necessary nonparty, will meet and confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions of their Class Certification Papers, with necessary redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3). The deadline for filing any such public versions of the parties’ Class Certification Papers and corresponding motion(s) to seal shall be Oct. 29, 2026. 3. The party or nonparty seeking to maintain material under seal (or under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes of any such motion(s) to seal associated with the parties' class certification briefing. Costco is an American multinational corporation. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7ZJzc3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Heather Lopez, Esq. Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristin M. Asai, Esq. Ashley L. Shively, Esq. Rebecca G. Durham, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1800 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 243-2300 E-mail: kristin.asai@hklaw.com ashley.shively@hklaw.com rebecca.durham@hklaw.com COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BALDINO-MILLER, on behalf of herself and all similarly aggrieved employees, v. COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:23-cv-01613-KES-FJS (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their ex parte application for extending the deadline for the Defendants to file their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by 28 days, from July 31, 2026 to Aug. 28, 2026. On June 26, 2026, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification, together with supporting declarations and exhibits. Courtyard operates as a chain of hotels. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TQJ12d at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Greg Stephen Labate, Esq. Kristi L. Thomas, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com kthomas@sheppardmullin.com CRINETICS PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Vertex ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2025 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRNX) related to its sale to Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Crinetics shareholders are expected to receive $85.00 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/crinetics-pharmaceuticals-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. 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 one 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] DELTA AIR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Seattle, WA Job Posting ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shawn Garrett, writing for King5, reports that Delta Air Lines has moved a proposed class-action lawsuit over Washington's job posting pay transparency law back to federal court, according to a notice filed Wednesday, July 8, in U.S. District Court in Seattle. The lawsuit was filed by Brian Davis, a Snohomish County resident who alleges Delta violated state law by failing to include a wage scale or salary range in a job posting for a Seattle-based position. According to the complaint, Davis applied on or about April 24, 2024, for an in-flight service field operations support coordinator position in King County. The job posting listed benefits and other perks but did not disclose a wage scale or salary range. The complaint said Davis completed the application process without learning the position's pay. He alleges that prevented him from evaluating the job, comparing it with other opportunities and negotiating his salary. The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of people who applied for Delta jobs in Washington on or after Jan. 1, 2023, if the job posting did not disclose a wage scale or salary range. Davis and the proposed class seek $5,000 each in statutory damages, along with attorney fees, court costs, declaratory relief and an order requiring Delta to include wage scales or salary ranges in Washington job postings. Delta denies the allegations and the requested relief. In its latest filing, Delta argued the case belongs in federal court because the proposed class includes at least 1,100 applicants under Davis' class definition. The airline said that would place at least $5.5 million in statutory damages at issue. Including an estimated $362,500 in attorney fees, Delta argued the amount in controversy exceeds $5.8 million. The case has already moved between state and federal court once. Davis originally filed the lawsuit in King County Superior Court on May 29, 2024. Delta removed the case to federal court in June 2024, but a federal judge returned it to state court in April 2026 after finding Delta had not established that Davis was a bona fide job applicant. Delta now argues newly obtained discovery responses resolve that issue. According to the filing, Davis acknowledged he applied for the Delta position "with the intent of obtaining employment with Delta" and denied applying for any reason other than obtaining employment. Delta argued those responses support its renewed effort to have the case heard in federal court. [GN] DISTRICT HOSPITAL: Faces Bragdon Labor Suit Over Pay Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI BRAGDON, KRISTIN KOHN, SHAMEKA INGRAM, and PATRICIA SOUZA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DISTRICT HOSPITAL PARTNERS, L.P., Case No. 1:26-cv-02369 (D.D.C., July 6, 2026) challenges the Defendant's timekeeping and pay practices, by which it willfully violated its employees' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the D.C. Minimum Wage Act Revision Act, and the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law. Plaintiff Heidi Bragdon was a citizen of the United States. From approximately June 2, 1993 through September 2, 2025, Ms. Bragdon was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt Registered Nurse with Labor and Delivery and charge nurse duties at Defendant's hospital in Washington, D.C. The Defendant is a short-stay hospital in Washington, D.C. affiliated with the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Scott Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Settles $1MM Job Applicant Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who applied for a job with Carpe Diem Pizza or King Beast Pizza, which both operate Domino's Pizza locations, in Washington state between Jan. 1, 2023, and May 26, 2026, may be eligible to receive a cash payment from a class action settlement. The settlement class includes 2,065 applicants. Carpe Diem Pizza Inc. agreed to pay $1,000,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to disclose wage scales, salary ranges and general descriptions of benefits and other compensation in job postings as required by Washington law. Who are the class members? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They applied for a job opening in the state of Washington with Carpe Diem Pizza or King Beast Pizza, both operating at Domino's Pizza. -- They submitted their application between Jan. 1, 2023 and May 26, 2026. -- The job posting they responded to did not include the wage scale or salary range and a general description of benefits or other compensation. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Eligible class members will receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund. No claim form required Class members do not need to file a claim to receive to receive a payment. Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address on file Settlement fund breakdown The $1,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $25,000 -- Attorneys' fees: $333,333.33 -- Attorneys' costs and expenses: Up to $5,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $7,500 each ($15,000 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Aug. 10, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 8, 2026 When is the Domino's Pizza Washington job posting settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will mail payments to eligible class members approximately 90 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Carpe Diem Pizza and King Beast Pizza failed to include required wage and benefit information in job postings in violation of Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (RCW 49.58.110). The companies deny the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of further litigation. [GN] DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Settles Services Fees Class Suit for $9-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Dovenmuehle Mortgage has agreed to a $9,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the residential loan servicer unlawfully assessed service fees to North Carolina mortgagors who made residential loan payments by telephone or interactive voice recognition (IVR). The $9 million Dovenmuehle Mortgage class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 4, 2026. The deal covers all individuals with a residential mortgage loan serviced or subserviced by Dovenmuehle for a North Carolina property and who paid a fee to the company when making a mortgage payment by telephone or IVR between April 10, 2020 and January 13, 2026. The court-approved website for the Dovenmuehle Mortgage settlement can be found at DovenmuehlePhoneFeeLawsuit.com. Dovenmuehle settlement class members do not need to take any action to receive a cash payment from the deal via paper check. Each class member’s cash payout will be a pro rata share of the settlement fund after payment of all court-approved deductions. It is estimated that each class member will receive approximately $425 for each pay-to-pay fee they paid. Class members who prefer to receive their cash payment electronically can head to this page and log into the payment preference form using the ILYM ID listed on their copy of the settlement notice. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Dovenmuehle pay-to-pay fee settlement following a hearing on November 5, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Dovenmuehle Mortgage class action lawsuit alleged that the residential mortgage loan servicer improperly assessed pay-to-pay fees to North Carolina borrowers making loan payments by phone or IVR, allegedly in violation of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. [GN] DUDE PRODUCTS: Dude Wipes are Falsely Advertised, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Dude Wipes are falsely advertised as plant-based, hypoallergenic, and fragrance-free or scented with natural botanicals because the products allegedly contain synthetic ingredients, known contact allergens, and undisclosed fragrance components. The 47-page complaint contends that defendant Dude Products runs a large-scale "greenwash[ing]" advertising campaign centered on representations that its flushable wipes are made almost entirely of water and plant-based ingredients, gentle on skin, and suitable for consumers seeking natural personal-care products. According to the lawsuit, all six Dude Wipes varieties -- including five scented versions and one marketed as fragrance-free -- contain several ingredients that are not naturally occurring and require substantial chemical processing and refinement. In particular, the case relays that these ingredients include Cocamidopropyl PG-dimonium, sodium benzoate and citric acid. The suit argues that although certain ingredients may originate from plant sources, they are chemically altered such that they no longer qualify as plant-based ingredients as a consumer would understand the term. The lawsuit also challenges Dude Wipes' "hypoallergenic" and "gentle" marketing claims. According to the complaint, all six varieties contain multiple ingredients identified by dermatological institutes as potential contact allergens, including Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Extract, which the filing says has been associated with allergic skin reactions. Further, the complaint alleges that many of these ingredients appear higher on the products' ingredients lists than the botanical extracts highlighted in Dude Wipes' marketing materials, indicating that the "predominant constituents" of the wipes, after water and glycerin, are not plant-based, but rather synthetic. Per the suit, fragrance is also listed higher on the ingredients list in four of the scented Dude Wipes varieties than the specific botanicals from which the wipes purportedly derive their scents, allegedly because the products' scent comes primarily from undisclosed fragrance ingredients and chamomile extract. "Fragrance serves no functional or therapeutic purpose in a flushable wipe, it is included purely for sensory appeal," the filing asserts. "Indeed, Defendant itself sells a 'Fragrance Free' variant of the Products, demonstrating both that fragrance is unnecessary to the Products' function and that Defendant is aware fragrance presents an allergen concern." However, the complaint alleges that the fragrance-free Dude Wipes are not free from fragrance ingredients that might irritate sensitive skin. The lawsuit claims that fragrance-free wipes contain ingredients classified as fragrance components, while the products' labeling provides no disclosure regarding the specific chemicals used or whether they are naturally derived. According to the complaint, consumers are unable to independently verify the true nature, source or allergenic properties of the ingredients contained in the wipes and therefore must rely on representations made by the manufacturer. The case argues that the ingredient lists do not cure the alleged false advertising, as consumers cannot be expected to understand chemical composition, sensitization risks, or other back-label claims associated with listed ingredients. The Dude Wipes class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased Dude Wipes flushable wipes for personal use during the maximum period of time permitted by law. [GN] EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: $9.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NICHOLAS MILLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SCOTT TARRIFF, and BRIAN CAHILL, Defendants. Case No. 2:23‐CV‐23011‐MAH NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES Your rights may be affected by the securities class action (the "Action") pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), if you purchased the publicly traded common stock of Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between August 9, 2022 and October 1, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"). The Court‐appointed lead plaintiff Evans Associates I, LLC ("Lead Plaintiff") and named plaintiffs Nicholas Miller, Liyu Wang, and Joanna Pluta (together with Lead Plaintiff, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $9,500,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). This Notice relates to a proposed Settlement of claims in a pending securities class action brought by investors alleging, among other things, that defendants Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Eagle" or the "Company"), and defendants Scott Tarriff and Brian Cahill (collectively, "Individual Defendants"; and together with Eagle, "Defendants") violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements regarding sales of Eagle's drug Pemfexy. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will settle claims of the Settlement Class. Subject to Court approval, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, have agreed to settle the Action in exchange for a settlement payment of $9,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") to be deposited into an escrow account. The Net Settlement Fund (i.e., the Settlement Amount plus any and all interest earned thereon (the "Settlement Fund") less (a) any Taxes, (b) any Notice and Administration Costs, (c) any Litigation Expenses awarded by the Court, and (d) any attorneys' fees awarded by the Court) will be distributed in accordance with a plan of allocation that is approved by the Court, which will determine how the Net Settlement Fund shall be allocated among members of the Settlement Class. Assuming that all Settlement Class Members elect to participate in the Settlement, the estimated average recovery (before the deduction of any Court‐approved fees, expenses and costs as described herein) per eligible share of Eagle common stock is $1.18. Settlement Class Members should note, however, that the foregoing average recovery per share of Eagle common stock is only an estimate. Some Settlement Class Members may recover more or less than this estimated amount depending on, among other factors, when and at what prices they purchased and/or sold their Eagle common stock, and the total number of valid Claim Forms submitted. Court‐appointed Lead Counsel, Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP ("Lead Counsel") and liaison counsel Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C ("Liaison Counsel"), which have been prosecuting the Action on a wholly contingent basis since their appointment by the Court in 2024, and additional counsel for Plaintiffs, Jack I. Zwick, Esq., and the Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, have not received any payment of attorneys' fees for their representation of the Settlement Class and have advanced the funds to pay expenses necessarily incurred to prosecute this Action. Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 331⁄3% of the Settlement Fund. In addition, Lead Counsel will apply for reimbursement of Litigation Expenses paid or incurred in connection with the institution, prosecution and resolution of the claims against the Defendants, in an amount not to exceed $185,000, which may include an application for reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Settlement Class in an aggregate amount not to exceed $35,000. Any fees and expenses awarded by the Court will be paid from the Settlement Fund. Settlement Class Members are not personally liable for any such fees or expenses. Estimates of the average cost per affected share of Eagle common stock, if the Court approves Lead Counsel's fee and expense application, is $0.42 per eligible share. Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are represented by Garth Spencer, Esq. of Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, (310) 201‐9150, settlements@glancylaw.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you are subject to the Settlement, unless you timely request to be excluded. The Settlement Class consists of: all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between August 9, 2022 and October 1, 2024, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) persons and entities that suffered no compensable losses; and (b)(i) Defendants; (ii) any person who served as a partner, control person, officer and/or director of Eagle during the Settlement Class Period, and members of their Immediate Families; (iii) present and former parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, and predecessors of Eagle; (iv) any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest; (v) any trust of which an Individual Defendant is the settlor or which is for the benefit of an Individual Defendant and/or member(s) of their Immediate Families; (vi) Defendants' liability insurance carriers; and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, predecessors, and assigns of any person or entity excluded under provisions (i) through (vi) hereof. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. To be eligible for a payment from the proceeds of the Settlement, you must be a member of the Settlement Class and you must timely complete and return the Claim Form to the Claims Administrator by first‐class mail to: Eagle Pharmaceuticals Securities Litigation c/o Epiq P.O. Box 4790 Portland, OR 97208‐4790 OR SUBMITTED ONLINE at www.EaglePharmaSecuritiesSettlement.com. The completed Claim Form must include adequate supporting documentation and must be postmarked or received no later than October 16, 2026. A Claim Form is available on the website maintained by the Claims Administrator for the Settlement, www.EaglePharmaSecuritiesSettlement.com, or you may request that a Claim Form be mailed to you by calling the Claims Administrator toll‐free at 1‐877‐313‐8718. Please retain all records of your ownership of and transactions in Eagle common stock, as they may be needed to document your Claim. If you request exclusion from the Settlement Class or do not submit a timely and valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund. Unless the Court otherwise orders, any Settlement Class Member who fails to submit a Claim Form postmarked or received on or before October 16, 2026, shall be fully and forever barred from receiving payments pursuant to the Settlement but will in all other respects remain a Settlement Class Member and be subject to the provisions of the Stipulation, including the terms of any Judgment entered and the releases given. Each Settlement Class Member will be bound by all determinations and judgments in this lawsuit, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless such person or entity mails or delivers a written Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class, addressed to the Claims Administrator at Eagle Pharmaceuticals Securities Litigation, EXCLUSIONS, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 4790, Portland, OR, 97208‐4790. The exclusion request must be received by, or postmarked no later than, July 29, 2026. You will not be able to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class after that date. Each Request for Exclusion must: (a) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity requesting exclusion, and in the case of entities, the name and telephone number of the appropriate contact person; (b) state that such person or entity "requests exclusion from the Settlement Class in Miller v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:23‐CV‐23011‐MAH"; (c) state the number of shares of publicly traded Eagle common stock that the person or entity requesting exclusion purchased and sold during the Settlement Class Period, as well as the dates and prices of each such purchase and sale; and (d) be signed by the person or entity requesting exclusion or an authorized representative. A Request for Exclusion shall not be valid and effective unless it provides all the information called for in this paragraph and is submitted within the time stated above, or is otherwise accepted by the Court. The Settlement Hearing will be held on August 19, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Michael A. Hammer in Courtroom MLK 2C of the Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and/or any other matter related to the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing without further notice to the members of the Settlement Class. The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means, in which event the Claims Administrator will update its website regarding the Settlement Hearing's telephonic or virtual format. Any Settlement Class Member who or which does not request exclusion may object to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Objections must be in writing. You must file any written objection, together with copies of all other papers and briefs supporting the objection, with the Clerk's Office at the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey at the address set forth below on or before July 29, 2026. You must also serve the papers on Lead Counsel and on Defendants' Counsel at the addresses set forth below so that the papers are received by, or postmarked no later than, July 29, 2026. Clerk's Office United States District Court District of New Jersey Clerk of the Court Martin Luther King Building U.S. Courthouse 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07101 Lead Counsel Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP Garth A. Spencer, Esq. 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Defendants' Counsel Cooley LLP Koji F. Fukumura, Esq. 10265 Science Center Drive San Diego, CA 92121‐1117 ‐and‐ Ropes & Gray LLP Jeremiah L. Williams, Esq. 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed Settlement. For more detailed information about the matters involved in this Action, you are referred to the papers on file in the Action, including the Stipulation, which may be inspected during regular office hours at the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101. Additionally, copies of the Stipulation and any related orders entered by the Court will be posted on the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.EaglePharmaSecuritiesSettlement.com. All inquiries concerning this Notice and the Claim Form should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel at: Eagle Pharmaceuticals Securities Litigation c/o Epiq P.O. Box 4790 Portland, OR 97208‐4790 Telephone: 877‐313‐8718 www.EaglePharmaSecuritiesSettlement.com and/or Garth Spencer, Esq. Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201‐9150 Email: settlements@glancylaw.com DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT, THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. By Order of the Court United States District Court District of New Jersey ELANCO ANIMAL: Fair Fund Claims Bar Date Set for Sept. 14 --------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-22309 In the Matter of Elanco Animal Health Inc. PLAN NOTICE OF ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH FAIR FUND TO: Individuals and entities, or their lawful successors, who purchased or acquired Elanco Animal Health Inc. common stock registered with the Commission and traded under the symbol ELAN (the "Security") during the period of May 9, 2019, through May 6, 2020, inclusive ("Relevant Period"). If you fall within the group above, you must submit a completed Claim Form with the necessary documentation on or before the deadline to be considered for eligibility to receive a Distribution Payment from the Elanco Animal Health Fair Fund. If you send the Claim Form by U.S. Mail, it must be postmarked by SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 (the "Claims Bar Date"). If you submit the Claim Form online, it must be received by SEPTEMBER 14, 2026. I. Purpose of this Plan Notice The purpose of this Plan Notice is to inform you that you may be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Elanco Animal Health Fair Fund described herein. To be potentially eligible to share in the Elanco Animal Health Fair Fund, you must file a Claim Form in accordance with the steps set forth in this Plan Notice and in the Plan of Distribution (the "Plan") approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission"). Claim Forms, together with this Plan Notice, are being mailed to all known Preliminary Claimants who are identified as Preliminary Claimants by the Commission-appointed Fund Administrator ("Fund Administrator"), Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq"). Copies of the Plan, this Plan Notice, and the Claim Form are available on the Elanco Animal Health Fair Fund website at www.ElancoAnimalHealthFairFund.com and through the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/distributions-harmed-investors/elanco. Certain persons are excluded from eligibility under the Plan; these exclusions are summarized in Section III below. Please Note: Receipt of this Plan Notice does not mean you are a Preliminary Claimant as that term is defined in the Plan. SPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEE PURCHASERS: If you purchased or acquired shares of the Security during the Relevant Period as a nominee for a beneficial owner, then within fourteen (14) days after you receive this Plan Notice, you must either: (a) send a copy of this Plan Notice and the accompanying Claim Form by First-Class Mail to all such beneficial owners; or (b) provide a list of the names and addresses of such beneficial owners to the Fund Administrator listed in Part VI of this Plan Notice. PLEASE READ THIS PLAN NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU SATISFY THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA DESCRIBED BELOW, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A DISTRIBUTION PAYMENT FROM THE ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH FAIR FUND. THIS PLAN NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR POSSIBLE ELIGIBILITY TO SHARE IN THE ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH FAIR FUND. II. Background On November 12, 2024, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order (the "Order") against Elanco Animal Health Inc. ("Elanco"). In the Order, the Commission found that Elanco violated Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) and Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-15(a) thereunder. The Commission ordered Elanco to pay a $15,000,000.00 civil money penalty. The Commission also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to allow the penalty collected to be distributed to harmed investors (the "Fair Fund"). The Fair Fund consists of the $15,000,000.00 collected from Elanco. On May 1, 2026, the Commission approved the Plan of Distribution. III. Eligibility Criteria and the Distribution Methodology To qualify for a payment from the Elanco Animal Health Fair Fund, you must satisfy certain eligibility criteria that are described in detail in the Plan. The Plan is available on the Fair Fund website at www.ElancoAnimalHealthFairFund.com and on the Commission's public website at https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/distributions-harmed-investors/elanco. You can also request a copy of the Plan by calling the Fund Administrator at 1-877-239-1876 or by emailing info@ElancoAnimalHealthFairFund.com. The eligibility criteria include the following: * You must have purchased the Security during the Relevant Period. * Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss as calculated according to the Plan of Allocation attached to the Plan as Exhibit A, and your Distribution Payment must equal or exceed $20.00. You are excluded from participation in the Elanco Animal Health Fair Fund if you are an Excluded Party as defined in the Plan, including the following: * The Respondent ("Elanco Animal Health Inc."). * Present or former officers or directors of the Respondent or any assigns, creditors, heirs, distributees, spouses, parents, dependent children or controlled entities of any of the foregoing Persons or entities. * Any employee or former employee of the Respondent or any of its affiliates who has been terminated for cause or has otherwise resigned, in connection with the conduct described in the Order. * Any Person who, as of the Claims Bar Date, has been the subject of criminal charges related to the conduct described in the Order or any related Commission action. * Any firm, trust, corporation, officer, or other entity in which the Respondent has or had a controlling interest. The Fund Administrator, its employees, and those Persons assisting the Fund Administrator in its role as the Fund Administrator. * Any purchaser or assignee of another Person's right to obtain a recovery from the Fair Fund for value; provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed to exclude those Persons who obtained such a right by gift, inheritance or devise. The Recognized Loss incurred by a Preliminary Claimant shall be determined as set forth in the Plan. The methodology used to determine eligibility and calculate Distribution Payments is set forth in the Plan of Allocation attached to the Plan as Exhibit A. IV. Claim Forms A CLAIM FORM IS BEING MAILED TOGETHER WITH THIS NOTICE TO ALL PRELIMINARY CLAIMANTS KNOWN TO THE FUND ADMINISTRATOR. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A CLAIM FORM IN THE MAIL OR REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CLAIM FORMS, FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW UNDER "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION." CLAIM FORMS MAY BE SUBMITTED (I) BY U.S. MAIL TO THE PO BOX BELOW, (II) THROUGH THE ONLINE CLAIMS PORTAL, OR (III) VIA EMAIL TO INFO@ELANCOANIMALHEALTHFAIRFUND.COM. MAILED SUBMISSIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 14, 2026. ONLINE AND EMAIL SUBMISSIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY 11:59 P.M. PACIFIC TIME ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2026, ALSO REFERENCED HEREIN AS THE "CLAIMS BAR DATE." IF YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT A COMPLETED MAILED CLAIM FORM POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 14, 2026, OR RECEIVED ONLINE ON OR BEFORE 11:59 P.M. PACIFIC TIME ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2026, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM RECEIVING A PAYMENT FROM THE ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH FAIR FUND. THE CLAIM FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR EACH TRANSACTION LISTED IN PART III OF THE CLAIM FORM. V. Claim Determinations The Fund Administrator will provide a Claim Status Notice within 60 days of the Claims Bar Date to each Preliminary Claimant who has filed a deficient Claim Form with the Fund Administrator. The Claim Status Notice will provide to each Preliminary Claimant whose claim is deficient, in whole or in part, the reason(s) for the deficiency (e.g., failure to provide required information or documentation). In the event the claim is denied, in whole or in part, the Claim Status Notice will state the reason(s) for such denial. The Claim Status Notice will also notify the Preliminary Claimant of the opportunity to cure any deficiency, request reconsideration, or dispute the determination made by the Fund Administrator and provide instructions regarding what is required to do so. Within 150 days of the Claims Bar Date, the Fund Administrator will complete all claims determinations and send a Determination Notice to all Preliminary Claimants who timely submitted a Claim Form notifying the Preliminary Claimant of its eligibility determination. The Determination Notice will further provide to each Preliminary Claimant that is determined to be a Preliminary Claimant his, her, or its calculated Recognized Loss. The Determination Notice will constitute the Fund Administrator's final ruling regarding the eligibility status of the claim. The Fund Administrator may consider disputes of a Preliminary Claimant's Recognized Loss calculation if presented in writing to the Fund Administrator within 30 days of the date of the Determination Notice. Within 30 days of receiving a Preliminary Claimant's dispute, the Fund Administrator will notify the Preliminary Claimant, in writing, of its calculation of the Preliminary Claimant's Recognized Loss after considering the dispute. This notice will constitute the Fund Administrator's final ruling regarding the loss calculations for the claim. Instructions for Submitting a Claim Form Claim Forms may be submitted (i) by U.S. Mail, (ii) by electronic submission through the online claims portal, or (iii) via email, as set forth below. U.S. Mail: Claim Forms submitted by U.S. Mail must be postmarked on or before September 14, 2026 (the "Claims Bar Date"). Claim Forms should be mailed to: Elanco Animal Health Inc. Fair Fund Fund Administrator PO Box 2228 Portland, OR 97208-2228 IMPORTANT: A Claim Form that is not postmarked on or before the Claims Bar Date shall be deemed untimely and shall bar the claimant from receiving a distribution from the Elanco Animal Health Fair Fund. Online Submission: Claim Forms may be submitted online through the claims portal located at www.ElancoAnimalHealthFairFund.com. Online submissions must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time on September 14, 2026. Email Submission: Claim Forms may also be submitted via email to info@ElancoAnimalHealthFairFund.com. Email submissions must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time on September 14, 2026. Online and email submissions must include all required supporting documentation for each transaction listed in Part III of the Claim Form. IMPORTANT: A Claim Form that is submitted online or by email that is not received on or before the Claims Bar Date shall be deemed untimely and shall bar the claimant from receiving a distribution from the Elanco Animal Health Fair Fund. VI. Additional Information Additional information regarding the Elanco Animal Health Fair Fund may be found at www.ElancoAnimalHealthFairFund.com. Additional Claim Forms and Plan Notices may also be downloaded at the Elanco Animal Health Inc. Fair Fund's website. You may obtain additional information or request copies of Claim Form and Plan Notice by calling the Elanco Animal Health Fair Fund's toll-free number at 1-877-239-1876, or by emailing info@ElancoAnimalHealthFairFund.com. PLEASE CHECK THE WEBSITE WWW.ELANCOANIMALHEALTHFAIRFUND.COM FREQUENTLY FOR UPDATES. Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss as calculated according to the Plan of Allocation attached to the Plan as Exhibit A, and your Distribution Payment must equal or exceed $20.00. Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss as calculated according to the Plan of Allocation attached to the Plan as Exhibit A, and your Distribution Payment must equal or exceed $20.00. ELEMENT SOLUTIONS: M&A Investigates Sale to Solstice Advanced ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2025 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Element Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: ESI) related to its sale to Solstice Advanced Materials, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Element Solutions shareholders will receive $10.00 in cash and 0.500 shares of Solstice common stock for each Element Solutions share. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, Element Solutions shareholders are expected to own approximately 44% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/element-solutions-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. 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 one 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] ELITE NURSES: Parties Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KASONDRA MATHEWS, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ELITE NURSES MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01518-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting the joint motion for final approval of class and collective action settlement; 2. Granting final certification to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action defined as: "All Elite Nurses Management LLC employees employed in Colorado who were classified as 1099 contractors from July 1, 2020 through Dec. 31, 2023 and who were not paid proper overtime wages"; 3. Granting final certification to the Fed. R. Civ. P. class action defined as: "All Elite Nurses Management LLC employees employed in Colorado who were classified as 1099 contractors from July 1, 2020 through Dec. 31, 2023 and who were not paid proper overtime wages"; and 4. Granting final approval to the Settlement Agreement as fair and reasonable for the purposes of the FLSA and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Plaintiff filed this action for unpaid wages in Colorado state court on May 1, 2024 alleging that the Defendant misclassified a number of its health care provider employees as independent contractors and failed to pay them proper overtime wages. The Defendant is a nurse staffing agency. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Etqf1S at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt P. Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com The Defendant is represented by: Colin L. Barnacle, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 2700 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 702-0904 E-mail: Colin.Barnacle@gmlaw.com FIRST NATIONAL: 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 First National Assets 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 First National Assets data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. First National Assets Security Incident: What Happened? First National Holdings, which does business as First National Assets and operates property tax financing companies Propel Financial Services and Hunter-Kelsey of Texas, has reported a data breach affecting 34,507 Texans. A July 10, 2026 report published on the website of the Texas Attorney General indicates that names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial information and health insurance information were involved in the First National Assets data breach. Notification letters are being mailed to potentially affected individuals. What You Can Do After the First National Assets Data Breach If your information was exposed in the First National Assets 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 First National Assets to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] FIRSTENERGY CORP: Fair Fund Claims Bar Date Set for Sept. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-22111 In the Matter of FirstEnergy Corp., Respondent. NOTICE OF FIRSTENERGY FAIR FUND TO: Individuals and entities, or their lawful successors, who purchased or acquired FirstEnergy Corp common stock (the "Security") during the period between January 1, 2017, and November 19, 2020, inclusive ("Relevant Period"). If you fall within the group above, you must do one of the following to be considered for eligibility to share in the FirstEnergy Fair Fund: 1. Complete and mail the Claim Form postmarked on or before September 14, 2016; or 2. Submit a claim through the Fair Fund website at www.FirstEnergyFairFund.com so it is received on or before 11:59 p.m. ET September 14, 2016. I. Purpose of the Plan Notice The purpose of the Plan Notice is to inform you that you may be eligible to share in the proceeds of the FirstEnergy Fair Fund described herein. To be potentially eligible to share in the FirstEnergy Fair Fund, you must file a Claim Form in accordance with the steps set forth in the Plan Notice and in the Plan of Distribution (the "Plan") approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission"). Claim Forms, together with the Plan Notice, are being mailed to all known Preliminary Claimants who are identified as Preliminary Claimants by the Commission-appointed Fund Administrator ("Fund Administrator"), Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq"). Copies of the Plan, the Plan Notice, and the Claim Form are available on the FirstEnergy Fair Fund website at www.FirstEnergyFairFund.com and through the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/distributions-harmed-investors/firstenergycorp. Certain persons are excluded from eligibility under the Plan; these exclusions are summarized in Section III below. Please Note: Receipt of the Plan Notice does not mean you are an Eligible Claimant as that term is defined in the Plan. SPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEE PURCHASERS: If you purchased or acquired shares of FirstEnergy Corp common stock during the Relevant Period as a nominee for a beneficial owner, then within fourteen (14) calendar days after you receive the Plan Notice, you must either: (a) send a copy of the Plan Notice and the accompanying Claim Form by First-Class Mail to all such beneficial owners; or (b) provide a list of the names and addresses of such beneficial owners to the Fund Administrator listed in Part VI of the Plan Notice. PLEASE READ THE PLAN NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU SATISFY THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA DESCRIBED BELOW, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A DISTRIBUTION PAYMENT FROM THE FIRSTENERGY FAIR FUND. THE PLAN NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR POSSIBLE ELIGIBILITY TO SHARE IN THE FIRSTENERGY FAIR FUND. II. Background On September 12, 2024, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order (the "Order") against FirstEnergy Corp. (the "Respondent"). In the Order, the Commission found that FirstEnergy participated in a multi-year political corruption scheme. Between 2017 and 2020, FirstEnergy and FirstEnergy Solutions ("FES") made payments totaling approximately $60 million to Generation Now ("GenNow") in exchange for specific official action for the benefit of FirstEnergy and FES. GenNow, an Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) entity, was controlled by a member of the Ohio House of Representatives who was elected as its speaker in January 2019. FirstEnergy made payments to a 501(c)(4) entity to help conceal the source of the payments. On July 23 and 24, 2020, FirstEnergy violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act by making misrepresentations about its role in the political corruption scheme to investors in an earnings call and in a filing with the Commission. Additionally, FirstEnergy failed to disclose material related party transactions with respect to payments FirstEnergy made to a 501(c)(4) organization funded and controlled in part by certain former FirstEnergy executives. FirstEnergy also failed to keep accurate books and records and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls with respect to payments to organizations organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and the identification and disclosure of material related party transactions. As the news of the scope and consequences of the bribery scheme were released, FirstEnergy's stock price dropped, harming investors who bought shares at inflated prices. The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay a $100,000,000.00 civil money penalty to the Commission. The Commission also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalty collected can be distributed to harmed investors (the "Fair Fund"). The Respondent has paid in full. The Fair Fund has been deposited in a Commission-designated account at the United States Department of the Treasury ("U.S. Treasury"), and any accrued interest will be added to the Fair Fund. III. Eligibility Criteria and the Distribution Methodology To qualify for a payment from the FirstEnergy Fair Fund, you must satisfy certain eligibility criteria that are described in detail in the Plan. The Plan is available on the Fair Fund website at www.FirstEnergyFairFund.com and on the Commission's public website at https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/distributions-harmed-investors/firstenergycorp. You can also request a copy of the Plan by calling the Fund Administrator at 1-877-269-8770 or by emailing info@FirstEnergyFairFund.com. The eligibility criteria include the following: * You must have purchased or acquired The FirstEnergy Corp common stock during the Relevant Period. * Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss as calculated under the Plan and your Distribution Payment must equal or exceed $20.00. You are excluded from participation in the FirstEnergy Fair Fund if you are an Excluded Party as defined in the Plan, including the following: * The Respondent; * Present or former officers or directors of Respondent or any assigns, creditors, heirs, distributees, spouses, parents, dependent children or controlled entities of any of the foregoing Persons or entities; * Any employee or former employee of the Respondent or any of its affiliates who has been terminated for cause or has otherwise resigned, in connection with the conduct described in the Order; * Any Person who, as of the Claims Bar Date, has been the subject of criminal charges related to the conduct described in the Order or any related Commission action; * Any firm, trust, corporation, officer, or other entity in which Respondent has or had a controlling interest; * The Fund Administrator, its employees, and those Persons assisting the Fund Administrator in its role as the Fund Administrator; or * Any purchaser or assignee of another Person's right to obtain a recovery from the Fair Fund for value; provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed to exclude those Persons who obtained such a right by gift, inheritance or devise. The Recognized Loss incurred by an Eligible Claimant shall be determined as set forth in the Plan. The methodology used to determine eligibility and calculate Distribution Payments is set forth in the Plan of Allocation attached to the Plan as Exhibit A. IV. Claim Forms A CLAIM FORM IS BEING MAILED TOGETHER WITH THE NOTICE TO ALL PRELIMINARY CLAIMANTS KNOWN TO THE FUND ADMINISTRATOR. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A CLAIM FORM IN THE MAIL OR REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CLAIM FORMS, FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW UNDER "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION." YOU MUST DO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ELIGIBILITY TO SHARE IN THE FIRSTENERGY FAIR FUND: 1. COMPLETE AND MAIL THE CLAIM FORM POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 14, 2026; OR 2. SUBMIT A CLAIM THROUGH THE FAIR FUND WEBSITE AT WWW.FIRSTENERGYFAIRFUND.COM SO IT IS RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE 11:59 P.M. ET SEPTEMBER 14, 2026. V. Claim Determinations The Fund Administrator will send a Claim Status Notice within 60 days of the Claims Bar Date to any Preliminary Claimants who submitted a deficient Claim Form. The Claim Status Notice will provide the reason(s) for the deficiency and in the event the claim is denied, the Claim Status Notice will state the reason(s) for such denial. The Claim Status Notice will also notify the Preliminary Claimant of the opportunity to cure any deficiency, request reconsideration, or dispute the determination made by the Fund Administrator and provide instructions regarding what is required to do so. Within 150 days of the Claims Bar Date, the Fund Administrator will complete all claims determinations and send a Determination Notice to all Preliminary Claimants who timely submitted a Claim Form notifying the Preliminary Claimant of its eligibility determination. The Determination Notice will constitute the Fund Administrator's final ruling regarding the eligibility status of the claim. The Fund Administrator may consider disputes of the recognized loss calculation pursuant to the procedures outlined in the approved Plan of Distribution. VI. Instructions for Submitting a Claim Form YOU MUST DO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ELIGIBILITY TO SHARE IN THE FIRSTENERGY FAIR FUND: 1. COMPLETE AND MAIL THE CLAIM FORM POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 TO FIRSTENERGY FAIR FUND, FUND ADMINISTRATOR, P.O. BOX 2874, PORTLAND, OR 97208-2874; OR 2. SUBMIT A CLAIM THROUGH THE FAIR FUND WEBSITE AT WWW.FIRSTENERGYFAIRFUND.COM SO IT IS RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE 11:59 P.M. ET SEPTEMBER 14, 2026. VII. Additional Information Additional information regarding the FirstEnergy Fair Fund may be found at www.FirstEnergyFairFund.com. Additional Claim Forms and Plan Notices may also be downloaded at the FirstEnergy Fair Fund's website. You may obtain additional information or request copies of Claim Forms and Plan Notices by calling the FirstEnergy Fair Fund's toll-free number at 1-877-269-8770, or by emailing info@FirstEnergyFairFund.com. PLEASE CHECK THE WEBSITE WWW.FIRSTENERGYFAIRFUND.COM FREQUENTLY FOR UPDATES. FREEPORT, NY: Whaley Class Cert Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Whaley v. The Village of Freeport et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02720 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge Diane Gujarati entered an order denying motion to certify class. Given the upcoming Global Settlement Conference, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew. In the event that the case does not settle, Plaintiffs do not need to file a new motion; they can rely on the papers they already submitted at ECF No. 54, and the parties shall file a joint proposed briefing schedule for Defendants' opposition brief. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Freeport is a village located within the town of Hempstead, in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long Island, in New York, United States.[CC] FRESNO, CA: Faces Phased Class Certification Schedule ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lewis Dewane Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City of Fresno, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00216-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone issued a Scheduling Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 adopting a phased approach to the litigation. The court ordered the first phase to address class certification. Initial disclosures are due August 6, 2026. Certification non-expert discovery closes June 4, 2027, and certification expert discovery closes October 15, 2027. Expert disclosures are due July 30, 2027, with rebuttal expert disclosures due August 27, 2027. Any motion for class certification, or motion to deny certification, must be filed by January 26, 2028. The court noted this case is related to three other pending actions against the City of Fresno. The scheduling conference was held via videoconference on July 7, 2026. Kevin G. Little appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Lewis Dewane Brown. Nichole M. Santiago appeared on behalf of Defendants City of Fresno, Mayor Jerry Dyer, Lt. Robert Beckwith, Officer Gary Holden, Officer Andrew Diaz, and Officer Nicholas Quisenberry. Bruce J. Berger appeared on behalf of Defendant Sgt. Troy Miller. The parties have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The court set January 15, 2027 as the deadline for amendments to pleadings, and directed that any proposed amendment requiring modification of the existing schedule must be supported by good cause. The order also capped moving and opposition briefs at 25 pages and reply briefs at 10 pages, and set non-dispositive motions for hearing on Wednesdays before Judge Boone. A merits schedule, including a trial date, will follow resolution of the certification phase. A Copy of the Scheduling Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xv5GxT from PacerMonitor.com FUNRISE INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT, Bailey Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIA BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUNRISE, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26VECV03890 (Cal Super., July 6, 2026) is a class action to remedy wage-and-hour violations by Funrise arising from: -- failure to Pay Minimum Wage -- failure to Pay Overtime Wages -- failure to Provide Meal Periods -- failure to Provide Rest Periods -- failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements -- failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay -- failure to Reimburse for Business Expenditures and Losses, in violation of the California Labor Code. For at least four years prior to the filing of this complaint and through the present, the Defendants have engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against Plaintiff in violation of applicable California laws, says the suit. Funrise is a global toy company that designs, manufactures, and distributes a wide range of toys for children and is based in Sherman Oaks, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Adams, Esq. Levon S. Yepremian, Esq. Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. Caspar Jivalagian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Telephone: (818) 507.8525 E-mail: chris@kjtlawgroup.com levon@kjtlawgroup.com vache@kjtlawgroup.com caspar@kjtlawgroup.com FUTUREDONTICS LLC: Faces Class Suit After Ransomware Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westlaw Today reports that dental referral service 1-800-Dentist failed to protect patient information from a June data breach perpetrated by the Qilin ransomware gang, a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in Florida federal court alleges. Lincoln v. Futuredontics LLC, No. 26-cv-24625, complaint filed (S.D. Fla. July 6, 2026). Former customer Lariesha Lincoln sued Futuredontics LLC, the parent company of 1-800-Dentist, on July 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She seeks to represent a nationwide class of people whose private information was compromised. Futuredontics was founded in 1986, its website claims, adding that 1-800-Dentist has helped more than 12 million people find a new dentist among its network of 25,000 independent practitioners, dental practice groups and support organizations. The lawsuit follows a data breach that occurred on or around June 28. The ransomware gang Qilin later claimed responsibility, publishing sample files containing patient records, payroll data, and financial and treatment information, according to the suit. The complaint alleges 1-800-Dentist negligently failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information it collects from customers. The company maintained the private information in an unencrypted format on computer systems that were vulnerable to cyberattacks, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the suit says. As a result of the company's "grossly negligent" failures, Lincoln and other class members are under the risk of identity theft and fraud and have already lost time and money responding to the incident, according to the suit. Lincoln, represented by Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, brings claims of negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of implied contract. She seeks damages, "significant improvements" to 1-800-Dentist's data security systems and long-term credit monitoring services at the defendant's expense. [GN] GEICO GENERAL: Marcelletti Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) (or alternatively, under Rule 23(c)(4) or (b)(2)), his breach of contract claim against Defendant Geico General Insurance Company on behalf of the following class: "All persons (1) who insured a vehicle for private-passenger auto physical damage coverage for comprehensive or collision loss under an insurance policy issued in the State of New York by GEICO General Insurance Company ("GEICO"), (2) who made a first-party claim for loss of the vehicle, (3) whose claim was adjusted by GEICO as a total loss between April 17, 2017 and the date of the Court's class certification order, and (4) who were not paid the applicable New York sales tax owed for the total loss claim." Excluded from the Class is the Defendant, its officers, employees, agents and affiliates, their subsidiaries, legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, and any of the Plaintiff's counsel, their officers, employees, agents, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns. Geico operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SAWq80 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. Kaitlyn M. Burns, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 29 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, NY 10006-3205 Telephone: (212) 952-0014 E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com kburns@fdpklaw.com - and - Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. Andrea Clisura, Esq. VOZZOLO LLC 499 Route 304 New City, NY 10956 Telephone: (201) 630-8820 Facsimile: (201) 604-8400 E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com aclisura@vozzolo.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Facsimile: (888) 974-2175 E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Facial Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Google has collected and stored the biometric information of millions of people through the Familiar Face Detection feature built into Nest security cameras and doorbells without providing notice to or obtaining consent from bystanders and passersby. The 26-page privacy lawsuit states that the Familiar Face Detection feature -- with which Nest cameras learn to recognize the faces of friends, family members and other known individuals -- was deliberately designed by Google to be invisible when scanning the faces of anyone who enters a camera's field of view. Per the case, Nest cameras scan individuals' faces without warning or an opportunity for a person to consent to having their biometric facial data captured. According to the lawsuit, the feature uses artificial intelligence to create a mathematical template or faceprint of a person's facial geometry -- including the shape of their eyes, cheekbones, facial contours, and other unique characteristics. These biometric identifiers are then stored locally or in Google's cloud and are used to determine whether an individual appearing before a camera is "familiar" or not, the case describes. Per the suit, Google has yet to disclose exactly how long it retains the unlabeled facial data collected by its Nest cameras. The case states that Google heavily markets Familiar Face Detection as a premium feature available for a $10-per-month subscription to Google Home Premium, creating a financial incentive for the tech giant to encourage widespread use of its surveillance technology. However, while Nest owners can choose whether to activate the feature and consent to facial data collection, the lawsuit argues that the same cannot be said for every person who enters a camera's view. The case stresses that a consequence of this surveillance is that an ordinary person moving through a neighborhood or past a business may unknowingly have their face scanned by multiple Nest cameras in a single trip. "Google has not modified the feature to obtain consent from bystanders, has not implemented any mechanism for bystanders to opt out, and has not disclosed to bystanders that their facial-recognition data is being collected," the filing asserts. The suit further alleges that Google provides no mechanism to distinguish or protect the biometric data of children, nor does the company obtain parental consent before scanning the faces of minors and creating faceprints. According to the complaint, biometric information is particularly sensitive because, unlike passwords or credit card numbers, facial geometry cannot realistically be changed. The lawsuit argues that this makes the unauthorized collection and storage of faceprints especially concerning, given the threat of a data breach. The case claims that Google is aware of the legal risks surrounding biometric privacy, noting that Illinois is the only state in which Google disables Familiar Face Detection by default due to the requirements of the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act. Elsewhere, however, the company instructs all Nest camera owners to "check [their] local privacy laws" before saving facial-recognition data, the suit adds. The lawsuit argues that Google's decision to disable the feature only where it faces heightened legal exposure "demonstrates a knowing, deliberate business decision to collect bystanders' facial-recognition data wherever Google calculates that the risk is manageable." The Nest facial recognition class action lawsuit seeks to represent all natural individuals in the United States whose facial-recognition data was collected, created, stored or used by Google's Familiar Face Detection feature on Nest cameras and doorbells without consent during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Gomez Files Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greystar Management Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Juan Carlos Gomez, Thomas Ballenger, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Greystar Management Services, LLC, Greystar California, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03862-JES-JLB (S.D. Cal., July 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Greystar Real Estate Partners -- https://www.greystar.com/ -- is an international real estate developer and manager based in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER - WALNUT CREEK 1990 North California Blvd., Ste. 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com GUARDIAN CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid in Gassman Suit Due Jan. 15, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID GASSMAN, v. GUARDIAN CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00176-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Ludwig entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties' initial disclosures as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) must be provided on or before July 31, 2026. 2. All fact discovery must be completed no later than July 19, 2027. 3. All expert discovery must be completed no later than Oct. 30, 2027. 4. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed by Jan. 15, 2027. The Defendant's response brief must be filed on or before Feb. 15, 2027, and any reply brief must be filed before March 1, 2027. 5. Motions for summary judgment must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Civil L. R. 7 and shall be served and filed on or before Dec. 3, 2027. The Defendant is a federally insured credit union serving members who live or work in seven counties in southeastern Wisconsin. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GKCxDe at no extra charge.[CC] HARVARD BUSINESS: Akselrod Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled GREG AKSELROD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION doing business as HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, Case No. 26-218671-5 SEA, was removed from the Washington Superior Court, King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 13, 2026. The Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case 2:26-cv-02472 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' violations of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act and alleged unfair or deceptive practices. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent commercial email messages to the residents with subject lines that inaccurately represented that advertised sales, discounts, or prices were limited-time offers despite extending, reinstating, or replacing them shortly thereafter with comparable offers. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation is a publisher founded in 1994 as a not-for-profit, independent corporation and an affiliate of Harvard Business School.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael Rosenberger, Esq. GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP 600 University Street, Suite 2915 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-6477 E-mail: mrosenberger@gordontilden.com - and - John D. Cadagan, Esq. GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 614 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (206) 467-6477 E-mail: jcadagan@gordontilden.com HP INC: Derivative Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE HP INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION This Document Relates To: All Actions Lead Case No. 4:21-cv-04805-JSW (Consolidated with Case No. 4:22-cv-00254-JSW) NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT CURRENTLY HOLD HP INC. COMMON STOCK AS OF APRIL 22, 2026. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. This Notice relates to a proposed settlement ("Settlement") of the following actions purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of HP Inc. ("HP" or the "Company"): Franklin v. Weisler, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-04805-JSW (N.D. Cal.) and Lovoi v. Weisler, et al., Case No. Case 4:22-cv-00254-JSW (N.D. Cal.), consolidated as In re HP Inc. Deriv. Litig., Lead Case No. 4:21-cv-04805-JSW (N.D. Cal.) (together, the "Action"). If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, you, HP, and all Current HP Stockholders will be forever barred from contesting the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and from pursuing the Released Stockholder Claims. The Parties subsequently reached a definitive agreement to settle the Action, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, dated April 22, 2026. In consideration of the Settlement and the releases provided therein, and subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation, the Parties agree that the Company will implement and maintain certain management and governance measures, including: (i) enhancements to the Ethics & Compliance Committee's Charter and membership requirements; (ii) enhancements to the Disclosure Committee's Charter and membership requirements; (iii) commitments to HP's Internal Audit and Compliance programs; (iv) commitments to properly resource key internal programs; and (v) continuing HP's practice of explaining at the outset of earnings calls that references to "channel inventory" address data from Tier 1 partners only. The Settlement resolves the claims asserted in the Action, which alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, among other claims, against certain current and former officers and directors of HP by, among other things, causing the Company to make allegedly false and misleading statements to the public. Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel negotiated for a single, maximum Fee and Expense Amount that encompasses all of Plaintiffs' attorneys' claimed fees and expenses in the Action. That maximum agreed-upon Fee and Expense Amount is $625,000.00. If the Fee and Expense Amount (or a reduced amount) is approved by the Court, Plaintiffs' Counsel will resolve amongst themselves how to allocate the Fee and Expense Amount amongst Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Action. As part of this agreement, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel agree not to seek any fees or expenses related to the Action through any other proceeding. The Court's decision granting, in whole or in part, any request by Plaintiffs' Counsel for approval of the Fee and Expense Award is not a condition of the Stipulation or to entry of the Judgment. The request by Plaintiffs' Counsel for approval of the Fee and Expense Amount is to be considered by the Court separately from consideration of whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of HP and its stockholders. Any orders or proceedings relating to any request for approval of the Fee and Expense Amount, or any appeal from any order or proceedings relating thereto, shall not affect the validity or Finality of the Settlement, operate to terminate or cancel the Stipulation, and/or affect or delay either the Effective Date or the Finality of the Judgment approving the Settlement. Any Current HP Stockholders who object to the Settlement, the Judgment to be entered in the Action, and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or who otherwise wishes to be heard at the Settlement Hearing must send any objections in writing to Plaintiffs' Counsel and Counsel for Defendant by August 28, 2026. The Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on September 18, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Courtroom 5, Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612 to consider whether the Judgment should be entered: (i) approving the terms of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of HP and its stockholders; (ii) dismissing with prejudice the Released Claims pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation; and (iii) ruling upon Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for approval of the agreed amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel. THIS NOTICE PROVIDES ONLY A SUMMARY OF THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASES. You can obtain more information by reviewing the Stipulation, which is available at www.HPDerivativeSettlement.com. If you have questions regarding the Settlement, you may contact Plaintiffs' Counsel Correy A. Suk LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Brian P. Murray BRIAN MURRAY LAW PLLC 750 E. Main St., Suite 620 Stamford, CT 06902 Shane Rowley Danielle Rowland Lindahl ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT IMEMORIES LLC: Faces Cvejanovich Suit Over False Pricing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBBY CVEJANOVICH, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. IMEMORIES LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-06892 (N.D. Cal., July 6, 2026) is a class action brought against iMemories for false and deceptive pricing practices in connection with Defendant's sale of digitization products and services on the website https://www.imemories.com/. The Defendant offers digitization services for VHS tapes and photographs through the Website and other online and retail channels. Unfortunately, the Defendant advertises fake and inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a false belief that iMemories is offering its products and services at deeply discounted bargain prices. For example, anyone visiting the Website on a given day may see products and services advertised with a struck-through or "regular" price displayed alongside a lower purported "sale" price. The products are offered for sale with a purported original or regular value alongside the purported sale offer. In doing so, Defendant misleads its customers into believing that they are receiving a significant discount from the ordinary price for these products and services, the suit contends. This is deception because Defendant rarely, if ever, sold in the recent past on the Website or elsewhere these products and services for the purported original or "regular" amount. Stated differently, the Defendant's advertised "sales" are not really sales at all. It is a misrepresentation that Defendant repeats daily, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of California. On or about September 9, 2024, the Plaintiff visited the Website to purchase a Safeship Kit. He allegedly fell victim to Defendant's false advertising and deceptive pricing practices. iMemories operates as a multi media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Ben-Meir (SBN 192028) BEN-MEIR LAW GROUP 3818 Sherview Dr. Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5033 Telephone: (818) 903-0007 Facsimile: (818) 788-1449 E-mail: David@benmeirlaw.com - and - Omer Salik, Esq. CARTER ARNETT PLLC 111 Pier Ave., Suite 101 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 E-mail: osalik@carterarnett.com INNAGO LLC: Faces Clark Class Action Suit Over Convenience Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNAGO, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01356 (W.D.N.Y., July 6, 2026) is a class action complaint against Innago for relentless imposition of add-on fees in excess of advertised rental rates -- including "pay-to-pay" fees. The class action complaint contends that consumers are charged add-on junk fees by third-party middlemen merely for doing what they are required to do under the terms of their residential leases: make their rent payments. Innago is a middleman foisted onto consumers after they decide to lease an apartment. The existence of Innago is a surprise to consumers who, at the time they decide to rent an apartment, have no idea they will need to make their lease payments through this surprise middleman -- or that they will have to pay this surprise middleman for the privilege of making their lease payments. Without authorization or warning, Innago inserts itself into the relationship between renters and their landlords, then in effect extracts additional, unauthorized rent payments from renters, the suit contends. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action seeking statutory, monetary and injunctive relief arising from Innago's deceptive and unfair imposition of junk "Convenience Fees" on rent payments completed through its online platform. Innago provides property management software solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin J. Swofford, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jswofford@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com JAMES JAMES: Zamichieli Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZAMICHIELI v. JAMES R. JAMES, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01258-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of "H-block prisoners incarcerated at SCI Houtzdale." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eWQLA4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JBS USA: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit for $7.49-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that Canadians who bought beef after 2015 could be eligible for a share of nearly $8 million as part of a proposed settlement with companies over allegations of price-fixing. A statement from multiple Canadian law firms says JBS USA Company, Swift Beef Company, JBS Packerland Inc. and JBS Canada ULC have agreed to pay $7.49 million while National Beef has agreed to pay $495,000. The deal still needs to be approved by the courts and is not considered an admission of wrongdoing by the companies. A settlement hearing for members in all provinces except Quebec is scheduled for Sept. 10, while the Quebec settlement hearing is slated for Dec. 1 of this year. The class-action lawsuit was filed in 2022 alleging that companies that sell beef were involved in an unlawful conspiracy involving the supply or price of beef sold in Canada. The settlement was brought forward by a number of legal teams, including CFM Lawyers LLP in B.C., Strosberg Wingfield Sasso LLP in Ontario and Belleau Lapointe LLP in Quebec. The settlement does not include beef products and beef purchased by the food service industry, such as restaurants. The law firms say class actions continue against certain defendants from the companies Cargill and Tyson. Any eligible Canadians who want to opt out -- which they would need to do if they wanted to bring a lawsuit of their own -- have to do so by Aug. 10. The settlement over beef comes after Canadians began receiving payments in May related to a bread price-fixing class action involving a number of companies. Loblaw and its parent company George Weston Ltd. agreed in 2024 to pay $500 million to settle the class action, and any Canadians who bought bread between 2001 and 2021 were eligible to apply. [GN] KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Parties Seek Initial Approval of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA GAMBOA on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KISS NUTRACEUTICALS, KISS INDUSTRIES, LLC, COLE EVANS and GRANT DEAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-01141-WJM-TPO (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting final certification to the conditionally certified collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") defined as "All hourly employees who worked on or after May 9, 2019 who were not paid overtime wages for overtime hours worked"; 2. Granting preliminary approval to the Parties' settlement agreement (Exhibit 1) as fair and reasonable and order that the proposed settlement notice (Exhibit 2) be disseminated to class members; 3. Enter as a final judgment the confession of judgment attached to Exhibit 1 as Exhibit A; and 4. Setting a final fairness hearing at the Court's earliest convenience at least 80 days after the date on which the Court grants this Motion. The settlement provides that the Defendants would make payment of $352,000.00 ($350,000.00 by the Defendant Evans and $2,000.00 by Defendant Dean) into the Court's Registry Treasury by June 1, 2026 to compensate the Plaintiff and the Members of the Class who do not opt-out for their damages, inclusive of attorney fees, costs and incentive awards to representative Plaintiff Gamboa and opt-in party Plaintiff Maria Hernandez. The Plaintiff filed this action for unpaid wages on May 9, 2022. On Sept. 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for conditional collective action certification pursuant to the FLSA. On Aug. 4, 2023, the Court preliminarily certified the following FLSA Collective Action: "All hourly employees who worked on or after May 9, 2019 who were not paid overtime wages for overtime hours worked.” Kiss manufactures vitamin supplements and [cannabidiol] ['CBD'] gummies. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r8yo3w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt P. Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com The Defendant is represented by: Shannon Weigel, Esq. KLINE ALVARADO VEIO 100 Garfield Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (303) 534-3390 E-mail: sweigel@kvfirm.com - and - Sam John, Esq. MILGROM DASKAM & ELLIS 1550 Larimer Street, #503 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 900-3804 E-mail: samuel.john@milromlaw.com KNIGHT PORT: Class Cert Filing Continued to Jan. 25, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMERY SMITH, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC; KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION INC.; SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; BARR-NUNN TRANSPORTATION INC.; ABILENE MOTOR EXPRESS, INC.; KOLD TRANSPORTATION; MIDNITE EXPRESS INC.; KNIGHT REFRIGERATED, LLC; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-10797-MEMF-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting the stipulation to continue class certification, pretrial, and trial dates by 120 days and to set class certification briefing schedule. 1. The dates and deadlines set in the Civil Trial Order are continued as follows: Event/Deadline Date Class Certification — discovery cut-off: Dec. 28, 2026 Class Certification — motion filing Jan. 25, 2027 deadline: Class Certification — opposition March 15, 2027 Deadline: Class certification — reply deadline: April 12, 2027 Final pretrial conference: Jan. 13, 2028 Jury Trial: Feb. 1, 2028 2. All other dates and deadlines set in the Civil Trial Order not listed above, including the trial-filing deadlines and any collective-action notice and opt-in deadlines, are continued by 120 days, with any date falling on a weekend or court holiday continued to the next court day; the final pretrial conference and jury trial dates remain subject to the Court's availability. Knight offers a range of services including dry van, refrigerated, and port services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wko0Yb at no extra charge.[CC] L'OREAL SA: Faces Class Suit Over CeraVe Baby Eczema Relief Cream ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hillel Aron, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal class action has accused French cosmetics company L'Oreal of fraud, arguing that while it sells its CeraVe skin creams for babies at a premium, they are virtually identical to their comparable adult creams. On its website, L'Oreal states that its CeraVe baby healing ointment and CeraVe baby eczema relief cream are "designed for baby's sensitive skin." But the baby creams have the same active ingredients, inactive ingredients and overall formulation as their adult counterparts, consumers claim in a new class action. "Each baby product and its corresponding standard product are materially identical in all relevant respects," the plaintiffs say in their complaint, filed Thursday, July 9. "The only difference is the addition of 'baby' representations and related messages, including vignettes invoking baby products, on the baby products' labels." The plaintiffs add: "The directions for use are likewise identical as between the baby and standard versions: 'apply as needed.'" Despite the products' similarities, the baby creams are more expensive -- costing about 20% to 30% more per ounce, according to the plaintiffs. "Consumers who purchase the baby products pay a significant price premium by virtue of L'Oreal's misleading marketing," the plaintiffs say in their complaint. The suit names one plaintiff, Monica Raymundo of San Diego County. Raymundo says she purchased CeraVe baby healing ointment from Amazon in 2024. The suit is seeking more than $5 million from the French multinational corporation, which purchased CeraVe and two other companies in 2017 for $1.3 billion. Television ads for CeraVe have featured actor Michael Cera and basketball star Kevin Durant. Durant has at times been teased by fans for his dry skin and "ashy" legs -- a joke Durant has leaned into for his brand partnership. The popular skin care brand -- endorsed by none other than the New York Times' Wirecutter -- is currently facing six other federal class actions with far more serious allegations: that some of its products contain benzene, a known carcinogen. L'Oreal did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the latest lawsuit. [GN] LA FORCE: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Dispute With Ascension Parish ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Buruss, writing for WBRZ, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against the LA Force soccer club following a dispute with the parish, court documents show. According to court records, 20 people are currently named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, with the soccer club, GeoSport Lighting and Ascension Parish being named defendants. The petition said that lighting structures put up by the GeoSport were 90 feet above ground level, which were "90 feet above ground level -- substantially taller than the lighting found objectionable by Louisiana courts in prior nuisance litigation." The suit also says the lighting causes "intense artificial illumination" to shine directly into home, yards, bedrooms and living spaces of the plaintiffs during nighttime hours. Additionally, the plaintiffs said the commercial operations generate "excessive and unreasonable noise." Ascension Parish is included in the lawsuit because the parish "should have known" that the venue is being operated in violation of "applicable zoning classifications, building codes and/or land use ordinances." "Despite actual or constructive knowledge of these violations, Ascension Parish failed to take enforcement action to compel compliance with applicable zoning and building code requirements," the suit said. Previously, a judge ruled Louisiana Force could use the new facility after Ascension Parish tried blocking the opening over a permitting issue; Ascension Parish Government filed a temporary restraining order on the club, saying at the time the club installed exterior lights without a permit. [GN] LAND O'LAKES: Initial Scheduling Conference Continued to Sept. 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE NAVARRETTE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. LAND O'LAKES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03153-JLT-SAB (E.D .Cal.), the Hon. Judge Boone entered an order continuing the initial scheduling conference to Sept. 8, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. The parties are directed to file a joint scheduling report one (1) week prior that addresses the issues discussed in this order. The Court finds continuing the initial scheduling conference appropriate in order for the issue of mediation to be determined. In addition, the Court notes that as this is a putative class action, the parties have contemplated phased discovery in order to address the issue of class certification. However, the parties did not give specific dates for the first phase of discovery—namely, the close of discovery (either non-expert or expert) or a deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. Should mediation efforts prove unfruitful, the Court directs the parties to resubmit a joint scheduling report one (1) week prior to the initial scheduling conference that includes specific dates and deadlines for the anticipated first phase of discovery. On June 29, 2026, the parties filed a joint scheduling report in anticipation of the initial scheduling conference. In the report, the parties have indicated that this matter is related to a number of cases pending in the superior courts of California. Land O'Lakes is a national, farmer-owned food and agricultural cooperative. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WwL1KY at no extra charge.[CC] LUCID GROUP: Plaintiff Seeks to Partially Seal Class Cert Reply --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation., Case No. 4:22-cv-02094-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its administrative motion to partially seal the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion to certify class, appoint class representative, and appoint class counsel, and seal Exhibit 12 attached to the declaration of Stacey M. Kaplan, and maintain confidential treatment of Exhibits 44 and 45 to the declaration of Shon Morgan in support of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class representative and class counsel. Exhibit 12 identifies one of AP7's investment managers, which constitutes confidential business information, and the Reply cites to and refers directly to portions of Exhibit 12, revealing the identity of that investment manager. Similarly, the Defendants' Exhibits 44 and 45, which are subject to a pending request to seal filed by the Plaintiff on May 8, 2026, are communications between the Defendants' counsel and counsel for certain of AP7's investment managers that concern sensitive business processes and confidential business information. The Plaintiff's narrowly-tailored sealing requests will not "impair the public's ability to understand the nature or basis" of the claims. Lucid Group is an American automotive and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nqUaDo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. David A. Bocian, Esq. Margaret E. Mazzeo, Esq. Evan R. Hoey, Esq. Aubrie L. Kent, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com dbocian@ktmc.com mmazzeo@ktmc.com ehoey@ktmc.com akent@ktmc.com LUMIWEALTH INC: Faces Alban Class Suit Over Illegal Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER VARGAS ALBAN, ALEXANDERVARGAS ALBAN, individually individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LUMIWEALTH, INC., Case No. CACE-26-010925 (Cal. Cir., July 6, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by the use of illegal robocalling to promote their joint services to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from the Defendants. The Plaintiff had no relationship with the Defendants and had never requested that the Defendants contact the Plaintiff in any manner, let alone by robocall. In addition to causing statutory damages, these illegal call(s) caused annoyance, intrusion on privacy and seclusion, and wasted Plaintiff's time. The Plaintiff therefore seeks an injunction requiring the Defendants to stop their unconsented calling, as well as an award of actual and statutory damages to the Class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. LUMIWEALTH, INC. is a fintech company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josseph A. Loochkartt, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: joseph@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com MADISON SQUARE: Faces Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corporation failed to protect the sensitive personal information -- and potentially biometric-linked threat-assessment data -- of employees, visitors and other individuals whose data was compromised in a June 2026 data breach. The 33-page Madison Square Garden data breach lawsuit contends that the iconic Manhattan arena failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the trove of information it collects and stores from millions of people who visit the venue every year, including employees, sports fans, concertgoers and celebrities. According to the complaint, the cybercriminal group ShinyHunters announced on June 16 that it had infiltrated MSG's network and accessed 26 million allegedly unencrypted consumer records. The data breach lawsuit emphasizes the particularly sensitive nature of the information exposed in the breach, given the venue's use of facial-recognition technology and other controversial surveillance techniques to create threat-assessment profiles for visitors. Per the suit, MSG has collected facial scans and other biometric data since 2018 and combines that information with social media activity and other data to assess perceived security risks. The complaint further alleges that the company's security systems collect information related to surrounding neighborhoods, local protesters and even law firms that may pursue litigation against the venue. "This is the sort of data which was compromised in the Data Breach -- an amalgamation of biometric and sensitive information compiled to create threat assessments for Defendant," the MSG data breach lawsuit contends. The complaint says sample data provided to the media reportedly included threat-assessment reporting, addresses, information about celebrities -- including actor and Knicks fan Ben Stiller -- and internal documents about the costs to secure talent and their contact information. Despite its extensive investments in security and threat monitoring, MSG allegedly failed to implement basic cybersecurity safeguards, including practices recommended for businesses by the Federal Trade Commission. The suit argues that MSG knew or should have known that it could be the target for cybercriminals given the volume and sensitivity of the information it maintained. As a result of the breach, affected individuals now face an increased, ongoing risk of identity theft, fraud, and other misuse of their private information, the case claims. The complaint contends that with this data, cybercriminals can commit a variety of crimes and sell it on illicit marketplaces, such as the dark web, where it has high value. "It is likely that the Data Breach happened because Defendant was not adequately monitoring its systems for breaches; to this point Defendant likely only became aware of the Data Breach because of the ransomware which locked their systems and collected the PII until a ransom was paid," the filing asserts. The lawsuit also notes that the June 2026 incident was not MSG's first cybersecurity event. According to the complaint, a point-of-sale attack compromised the payment card information of visitors in 2015 and 2016, and a separate 2025 attack by another cybercriminal group, Cl0p, exposed the information of current and former employees by way of an Oracle Business Suite vulnerability. The Madison Square Garden data breach lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States whose personally identifiable information was maintained by the venue and was compromised in the data breach. [GN] MANZANA LLC: Bid to Temporary Stay All Deadlines Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO JAVIER ZAVALA MARTINEZ, RENE MEZA QUIRINO, CARLOS GIOVANNI PEREZ CASTRO, LUIS ADRIAN PEREZ GARCIA, and VICTOR HUGO MAXIMO DIAZ, v. MANZANA, LLC; N. CASERTANO GREENHOUSES & FARMS, INC.; LAWRENCE WILLIAMS; and JOHN CASERTANOPENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, Case No. 3:24-cv-01900-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary stay of all deadlines. -- By July 17, 2026, Defendants shall complete the following: 1. Supplemental searches and production: The Defendants shall conduct reasonable and diligent supplemental searches for documents and communications responsive to the Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production, consistent with the Court's March 31, 2026 and June 17, 2026 Orders. 2. Sworn certifications: The Defendants shall submit one or more sworn declarations from the individuals who conducted or directly supervised the searches and who have personal knowledge of the searches performed. -- By July 24, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status report stating whether Defendants have completed the discovery required by this Order. -- The Court declines to stay all deadlines at this time. The existing scheduling deadlines, including the Aug. 21, 2026 deadline for completion of fact discovery and the filing of any motion for class certification, remain in effect. Manzana is a major agricultural labor contractor. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C0eG54 at no extra charge.[CC] MARATHON PETROLEUM: Faces Class Suit Over Fuel Price Inflation -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that three consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Marathon Petroleum Company LP, BP Products North America Inc. and multiple other gas station companies. Why: The plaintiffs claim the gas station companies conspired to use an artificial intelligence-based algorithm to inflate the price of fuel in California. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. AA new class action lawsuit accuses gas station companies, including Marathon Petroleum, 7-Eleven and BP Products, of conspiring to use an artificial intelligence-based algorithm to inflate the price of fuel in California. Plaintiff Joel Casciani and two other consumers claim the gas station companies colluded to use Kalibrate's AI-based pricing software to fix fuel prices, leading to inflated prices at the pump. The plaintiffs argue the algorithmic pricing system, Kalibrate Fuel Pricing, enabled gas stations to coordinate price hikes, eliminating traditional competition and driving up costs for consumers. "This artificial surcharge inflicts a severe, daily financial toll on millions of Californians who rely on their vehicles for basic necessities," the gas station class action lawsuit says. The plaintiffs want to represent a class of all persons and entities who purchased gasoline at any of the defendants' gas stations in California where Kalibrate Fuel Pricing was in use from and including June 22, 2022, to the present. Kalibrate allegedly used competitor pricing data to coordinate fuel prices The class action lawsuit claims Kalibrate's software connects directly to gas stations' pumps and signs and uses data from competing stations to set prices. Instead of lowering prices to attract drivers, however, the software coordinates high prices, promising gas station operators increased profits for surrendering their pricing decisions to the algorithm, the complaint alleges. "For everyday commuters, the inflated cost of fuel means struggling to afford the gas needed to travel to work, care for loved ones or visit family," the gas station class action lawsuit says. The full list of companies named in the class action lawsuit include Marathon, BP Products North America and its subsidiary TravelCenters, 7-Eleven and its subsidiary Speedway, Quik Stop owner EG America, Walmart and its subsidiary Sam's Club, Circle K and its TMC franchise, Albertsons and a number of "Doe" gas station chains. The plaintiffs claim the gas station companies' alleged actions constitute an unlawful trust, violating California's antitrust law, the Cartwright Act, and violate the state's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and treble damages for themselves and all class members. In another case involving a gas station, Circle K recently agreed to settle a class action lawsuit revolving around a 2024 data breach. The plaintiffs are represented by Constantine P. Economides of Dynamis LLP and Nicolas Stebinger of Simonsen Sussman LLP. The gas station class action lawsuit is Casciani, et al. v. Knowledge Support Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-at-01044, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN] MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bishins Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT BISHINS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SCOTT BRAUNSTEIN, STEVEN PFANSTIEL, and JOSEPH HULIHAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-02430-JP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative, and approving his selection of The Rosen Law Firm P.A. as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). This motion is supported by the concurrently filed Memorandum of Law; the Declaration of Jacob A. Goldberg and exhibits thereto; and such other evidence and argument as the Court may consider. Marinus Inc is a biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UNtpiM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Gonen Haklay, Esq. Leah Leifetz-Li, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com ghaklay@rosenegal.com lheifetz@rosenlegal.com MARYLAND: Response to Class Cert Bid Extended to August 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALPHEAUS BANGURA, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Case No. 1:23-cv-02728-JKB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Bredar entered an order granting the Defendant's consent motion to extend time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants shall file a response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on or before Aug. 12, 2026, and the Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of their motion for class certification on or before Sept. 10, 2026. The Defendant protects the public, its employees, and detainees and offenders under its supervision. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fxltGX at no extra charge.[CC] MASTER LOCK: Padlocks Are Not Pick-Resistant, Class Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Charles Miller filed a class action lawsuit against Master Lock Co. LLC and Fortune Brands Innovations. Why: Miller claims Master Lock falsely advertises its 140 line of padlocks as pick-resistant. Where: The Master Lock class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Master Lock falsely advertises its 140 line of padlocks as pick-resistant when, in reality, they are "shockingly easy to pick." Plaintiff Charles Miller filed the class action complaint against Master Lock Co. LLC and Fortune Brands Innovations on May 15 in California federal court, alleging violations of state consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Master Lock sells its 140 line of padlocks with claims of being pick-resistant, but the products are easy to pick due to a critical design defect. Miller claims the 140 line of padlocks, marketed as having a pick resistance level of 4 out of 10, can be easily unlocked with a simple $2 tool, contradicting the advertised claims of pick resistance. The Master Lock class action lawsuit alleges that the company's representations of pick resistance are false and misleading, as the padlocks offer no resistance to picking. The complaint claims that the padlocks are so easy to pick that they can be used as practice locks for those learning how to pick locks. Master Lock 140 design flaw makes it easy to pick, lawsuit claims Miller argues that the padlocks have a design flaw that allows them to be picked with a comb pick, a tool that can lift the pins in the lock above the shear line, allowing the lock to be opened without a key. The Master Lock class action lawsuit alleges that this design flaw makes the padlocks vulnerable to picking despite being marketed as pick-resistant. Miller claims that Master Lock's misrepresentations about the padlocks' pick resistance were part of the basis of the bargain, as consumers, including himself, relied on the advertised pick resistance when purchasing the products. He argues that he would not have purchased the padlocks, or would not have paid the same price, if he had known they were not pick-resistant as advertised. The class action lawsuit accuses Master Lock of violating California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Act and False Advertising Law. Miller demands a jury trial and requests damages, restitution and injunctive relief to prevent Master Lock from continuing to market its padlocks as pick-resistant. In other alleged false claims, a consumer is suing Kidde and Amazon for failing to disclose that Kidde's ionization-only home smoke detectors are "fundamentally incapable of detecting smoldering fires." The plaintiff is represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Luke W. Sironski-White and Joshua B. Glatt of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Master Lock class action lawsuit is Miller v. Master Lock Company LLC, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-03081, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] MATCH.COM LLC: Deceptively Promotes 'Highlights' Feature, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Match.com misleadingly advertises that users can connect with their "most compatible" matches on the platform with a premium subscription, while failing to disclose that accessing this feature still requires paid add-ons. The 20-page complaint contends that Match.com prominently promotes its "Highlights" feature as a collection of profiles curated by the platform daily that, should a user want to connect with a profile, can be accessed simply by sending a "Super Like." However, the lawsuit alleges that Match's advertisements fail to mention that Super Likes are an additional paid feature and not automatically included in most users' Match.com subscriptions. According to the complaint, Match.com offers four different account subscription tiers in addition to its free version: bronze, silver, platinum, and diamond. Per the suit, the only subscription tiers that include the Super Likes feature are the two most expensive, platinum and diamond, which provide one and three Super Likes per month, respectively. Any additional Super Likes must be paid for, the complaint says. The case argues that this contradicts what prospective users are led to believe based on the dating site's marketing, which touts that free users can benefit from "unlimited messaging" with matches, and premium members can "explore unlimited profiles." As a result, the case claims, many users discover only after paying for a premium subscription that access to Highlights is not unlimited or included in most subscription tiers. "By this clear and unequivocal language, users are informed that they have the ability to connect with any other user on an 'unlimited' basis by paying for a subscription with Match," the filing asserts. "Match fails to note that users cannot, in fact, connect with any other user and must pay an additional fee to connect with their Highlights." The lawsuit references a 2019 complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Match.com over the company's alleged promotion of fake love interests to dupe thousands of users into purchasing paid subscriptions. The Match.com class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals who paid for a Match subscription from June 2023 through the present. [GN] MAXIMUS EDUCATION: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $3-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received an artificial or prerecorded voice call on their cell phone from Maximus Education, d/b/a Aidvantage, and were not an Aidvantage customer may qualify to claim an estimated $500 to $1,000 from a class action settlement. The settlement class includes approximately 32,188 unique cellular numbers. Maximus Education LLC agreed to pay $3 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it placed artificial or prerecorded voice calls to certain cell phone numbers without prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Who can file a claim for a TCPA settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They reside in the United States and received a call on a cell phone placed by or on behalf of Maximus Education, d/b/a Aidvantage. -- They received the call between Feb. 12, 2021 and Sept. 26, 2025. -- The call used an artificial or prerecorded voice. -- The cell number called was not assigned to a current or former Aidvantage customer or accountholder. How much are settlement payments? Cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund estimated between $500 and $1,000. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To claim a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or complete the paper claim form included with their notice and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Knox v. Maximus Education LLC, d/b/a Aidvantage Settlement Administrator, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 The claim deadline is Aug. 24, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- Online claims require the class member ID from the settlement notice. -- If a class member did not receive a settlement notice, they must provide proof that they received an artificial or prerecorded call during the qualifying period to the settlement administrator to receive a claim form. Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $3,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $300,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,000,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $12,500 -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to request exclusion: Aug. 24, 2026 -- Deadline to submit a claim: Aug. 24, 2026 -- Final fairness hearing: Oct. 7, 2026 When is the Aidvantage TCPA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Aidvantage violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing artificial or prerecorded voice calls to noncustomer cell phone without prior express consent. Aidvantage denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $500-$1,000 (estimated) Deadline: August 24, 2026 [GN] MCKESSON CORPORATION: Court Confirms Final Disposition of Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, INC. and MCLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Individually and as the Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, MCKESSON TECHNOLOGIES INC. and JOHN DOES 1- 10, Case No. 4:13-cv-02219-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order confirming final disposition of action and directing entry of final judgment. The Court enters this Order to confirm that, following entry of the May 22, 2026 Order, there are no claims, counterclaims, crossclaims, third-party claims, requests for relief, issues concerning class certification, or other merits issues remaining for this Court to adjudicate in this action. The Court further confirms that its prior orders, including the April 27, 2022 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the April 27, 2022 Judgment, and the May 22, 2026 Order Denying Second Renewed Motion for Class Certification, collectively dispose of the entire action as to all parties. The Court determines that this action is fully and finally resolved, that nothing remains to be adjudicated, and that this Order and the accompanying final judgment are final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. section 1291. McKesson distributes pharmaceuticals and provides health information technology, medical supplies, and health management tools. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dqxjcV at no extra charge.[CC] MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Settlement in Hulewat Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linda Hulewat, v. Medical Management Resource Group LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00377-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Humetewa entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court further order as follows: 1. Solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Court conditionally certifies the following Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) ("Damages Settlement Class"): "The approximately 258,070 U.S. residents whose Social Security numbers and other personal information were compromised in the Data Breach." Excluded from the Damages Settlement Class are the Defendant, their representatives, any judicial officer presiding over the matter, and such judicial officer's immediate family members and staff. The Plaintiffs Karen Foti Williams, Michael Martinez, Robert Kirk, Lynda Israel, Ken Waters, and David Yeager are Damages Settlement Class Members. 2. The Court conditionally certifies the following Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) ("Injunctive Relief Class", and together with the Damages Settlement Class, the "Settlement Class"): "All individuals whose personal information is collected or maintained by the Defendant." Excluded from the Injunctive Relief Class are the Defendant, their representatives, any judicial officer presiding over the matter, and such judicial officer’s immediate family members and staff. The Plaintiffs Linda Hulewat; Karen Foti Williams; Ralph Gallegos; Michael Martinez; Lynnae Anderson; Marie Therese Montoya; Charles Peterson; Robert Kirk; Marilyn Zajacka; Lynda Israel; Latricia Pelt; Barry Pelt; Ken Waters; Robert Ahrensdorf; and David Yeager are Injunctive Relief Class Members. 3. The Court appoints Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, Terence Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, and J. Austin Moore of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP as Class Counsel. 4. A final approval hearing shall be held before the Court at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 605, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85003-2161 on Dec. 10, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Defendants will endow a non-reversionary "Settlement Fund" in the amount of $1,750,000.00. This case arises from a cyberattack and resulting data breach that occurred on Nov. 14, 2023. The Defendants provide eye care physician services to patients across the country. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lijeMj at no extra charge.[CC] MEDLINK GEORGIA INC: Meadows Files Suit in M.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medlink Georgia, Inc. The case is styled as Christy Meadows, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Medlink Georgia, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00078-TES (M.D. Ga., July 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Medlink Georgia, Inc. -- https://medlinkga.org/ -- offer a broad array of primary and preventive care services for patients of all ages, including screening, diagnosis, and management of chronic illnesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. 260 Peachtree St. NW, Ste. 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com MEDLINK GEORGIA INC: Senecal Files Suit in M.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medlink Georgia, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Senecal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Medlink Georgia, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00079-TES (M.D. Ga., July 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Medlink Georgia, Inc. -- https://medlinkga.org/ -- offer a broad array of primary and preventive care services for patients of all ages, including screening, diagnosis, and management of chronic illnesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. 260 Peachtree St. NW, Ste. 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com MEGAN HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, a national securities litigation firm, reminds investors that a class action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Megan Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: MGN) securities between September 26, 2025, and March 25, 2026, inclusive. The lawsuit also asserts claims on behalf of investors who purchased shares pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering. Investors who suffered losses on their MGN investments are encouraged to obtain additional information and learn about participating in this action or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. A Six-Month Timeline of Alleged Fraud The complaint filed against Megan Holdings and its officers paints a detailed chronological picture of how a purported Malaysian aquaculture company became the vehicle for a market manipulation and pump-and-dump scheme that ultimately destroyed over 93% of shareholder value in a single day. The following timeline, drawn from the allegations in the complaint, traces the key events from the Company's IPO through its catastrophic stock collapse. September 26, 2025 -- The IPO Megan Holdings Limited filed its IPO Prospectus, which formed part of the Registration Statement permitting the Company to issue 1,250,000 ordinary shares at an initial offering price of $4.00 per share, raising $5,000,000 in gross proceeds. D. Boral Capital LLC served as the sole bookrunning manager and underwriter on a firm commitment basis. The Prospectus described Megan as "a company principally engaged in the development, construction and maintenance of aquaculture farms and related works" operating in Malaysia, with a focus on shrimp farm maintenance and the design of hatchery centers. Management outlined plans to allocate expected net proceeds of approximately US$2,801,000 across four areas: 20% for sales and marketing, 30% for expansion through mergers and acquisitions, 30% for development of a proprietary "Smart Farming System," and 20% for working capital. Critically, the complaint alleges the Prospectus contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions, including a failure to disclose that the Company was the subject of a market manipulation scheme, that its underwriter DBC had a troubling track record of conducting microcap IPOs that suffered similar manipulation-induced collapses, and that the Company suffered from material weaknesses in its internal accounting and financial reporting controls. September 29, 2025 -- IPO Completion Megan Holdings completed its initial public offering and its ordinary shares began trading on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the ticker symbol "MGN." Shares were sold at $4.00 per share. September 2025 Through February 2026 -- Class Period Trading During these months, the complaint alleges, impersonators acting as financial advisors touted Megan Holdings stock in online forums, chat groups, and social media posts using baseless claims designed to create a buying frenzy among retail investors. The complaint asserts that these individuals used social-media based misinformation to build false narratives around the stock, laying the groundwork for the pump-and-dump scheme that would culminate in the spring. During this period, the Company's own risk factor disclosures acknowledged in boilerplate language that "[c]ertain recent initial public offerings of companies with public floats comparable to the anticipated public float of our company have experienced extreme volatility that was seemingly unrelated to the underlying performance of the respective company." However, the complaint alleges these disclosures were materially inadequate because they failed to address the specific, realized risk that Megan's own stock was being actively manipulated. Meanwhile, the complaint alleges, the Company's auditor, WWC, P.C., had issued a clean audit opinion on the financial statements incorporated into the Registration Statement despite the existence of material weaknesses in internal controls. WWC served as Megan's auditor from 2022 through December 15, 2025. February 25, 2026 -- The Pump Begins in Earnest Megan Holdings stock closed at $1.23 per share on February 25, 2026. Over the next four weeks, the stock would surge more than 400% despite the absence of any fundamental news, material corporate developments, or operational changes that could justify such a dramatic price increase. The complaint alleges this meteoric rise was the direct product of the coordinated promotional scheme. March 25, 2026 -- The Peak MGN shares reached an intraday high of $5.18 per share -- exceeding even the $4.00 IPO price -- and closed at $4.24 per share. By this point, the stock had appreciated more than 320% from its February 25 closing price. The complaint alleges no legitimate business catalyst supported this valuation. The pump phase of the scheme was complete. March 26, 2026 -- The Dump: A 93.4% Single-Day Collapse The fraudulent promotion scheme collapsed. Megan Holdings shares plummeted 93.4%, falling $3.96 from the prior day's close of $4.24 to close at just $0.28 per share. The stock has not recovered and continues to trade well below that level. The complaint alleges that the sudden collapse revealed the true nature of Megan's trading activity -- that the stock had been artificially inflated by a coordinated market manipulation scheme involving impersonators posing as financial professionals, and that once the promotional activity ceased, the stock returned to a level reflecting the Company's actual value. The Underwriter's Track Record The complaint further alleges that Megan's IPO underwriter, D. Boral Capital LLC, had conducted numerous other microcap initial public offerings since January 2024 that followed a strikingly similar pattern of manipulation-induced volatility and collapse, including: -- Park Ha Biological Technology, Co. Ltd. (December 2024 IPO at $4.00/share) -- collapsed in July 2025, losing 94% of its value; -- Masonglory Limited (July 2025 IPO) -- collapsed approximately 97.6% from its highest closing price, including an 85.5% single-day decline on October 2, 2025; -- Phoenix Asia Holding (April 2025 IPO) -- surged from $12.35 to $133.12 on January 30, 2026, then crashed to $17.60 the next trading day; -- Robot Consulting Co., Ltd. (July 2025 IPO) -- trading halted by the SEC, with a subsequent NASDAQ halt that remains in effect; -- rYojbaba Co., Ltd. (August 2025 IPO) -- experienced a dramatic run-up to $11.43 intraday before declining sharply, now trading at just $1.99. The complaint alleges these patterns should have alerted all Defendants to the heightened risk that Megan's IPO would be similarly exploited. Legal Claims The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint names as defendants the Company; its CEO and Executive Director, Darren Hoo AKA Hoo Wei Sern; its CFO, Ng Kai Tie; its former auditor, WWC, P.C.; and its IPO underwriter, D. Boral Capital LLC. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2026 If you suffered a loss on your investment in Megan Holdings Limited and wish to learn more about this class action, request additional information about participating in or leading this lawsuit now. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. The lead plaintiff deadline is September 8, 2026. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP -- Top 50 securities litigation firm (ISS, seven consecutive years). Over 70 professionals. Hundreds of millions recovered. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Frequently Asked Questions About the MGN Lawsuit Q: How much did MGN stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 93.4% -- a decline of $3.96 per share -- after the collapse of the pump-and-dump promotional scheme on March 26, 2026. Investors who purchased shares during the class period at artificially inflated prices may be entitled to compensation. Q: When did Megan Holdings Limited allegedly mislead investors? A: The class period runs from September 26, 2025, to March 25, 2026. The alleged fraud was revealed through corrective disclosures on March 26, 2026, when the market manipulation scheme collapsed and the stock price fell 93.4% in a single trading session. Q: Who are the defendants named in the MGN lawsuit? A: The complaint names Megan Holdings Limited and individual defendants including CEO and Executive Director Darren Hoo AKA Hoo Wei Sern and CFO Ng Kai Tie, who signed SEC filings, made public statements, and bore responsibility for the accuracy of the Company's disclosures. It also names the Company's former auditor, WWC, P.C., and IPO underwriter, D. Boral Capital LLC. Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run. Q: What documents do I need to make a claim? A: Brokerage statements or trade confirmations showing purchase dates, share quantities, prices paid, and any subsequent sale dates and prices. Q: What if I already sold my MGN 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: What if I missed the lead plaintiff deadline? A: The deadline applies only to investors seeking lead plaintiff appointment. Class members who miss it can still participate in any settlement or recovery. Q: What if I live outside the United States? A: U.S. securities class actions generally cover purchases on U.S. exchanges regardless of the investor's country of residence. CONTACT: 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] MEMPHIS, TN: Kiner Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gerald Kiner, v. City of Memphis, Memphis, Light Gas & Water Division (MLGW), John Does (1-10), Case No. 2:25-cv-02987-BCL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Lea entered an order adopting report and recommendation: The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for class certification. On May 15, 2026, Chief Magistrate Judge Tu Pham1 issued a Report and Recommendation that the Motion should be denied. The deadline to file objections has passed and Defendant did not file an objection. The district court is not required to review-under a de novo or any other standard—those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Based upon the lack of any objection, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in full. Accordingly, the Motion for Class Certification is denied. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ElNfux at no extra charge.[CC] MEUNDIES INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Haley Gray filed a class action lawsuit against MeUndies Inc. Why: Gray claims MeUndies unlawfully shared consumers' personally identifiable information without their consent despite promises of data privacy. Where: The MeUndies class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges MeUndies secretly intercepts customers' personal information and shares it with major advertising companies despite promising shoppers their data would remain private. Plaintiff Haley Gray filed the MeUndies class action lawsuit on June 15, claiming the underwear and loungewear retailer embeds tracking technologies from Meta, Google, TikTok, Snapchat and AppLovin on its website without disclosing their true function to customers. Gray alleges MeUndies warrants to customers that its website cookies "do not store any personally identifiable information" -- a promise the complaint alleges the company knowingly violates. In August 2025, Gray claims she visited meundies.com and purchased bralettes, during which she alleges her identity and purchase information were intercepted and transmitted to third parties without her knowledge or consent. The MeUndies complaint alleges the interceptions capture a wide range of personally identifiable information, including customers' names, email addresses, phone numbers, locations and detailed purchase information, all of which are funneled to advertising companies to build targeted ad profiles. MeUndies lawsuit details data Meta, Google, TikTok and others allegedly received The MeUndies class action lawsuit alleges that Meta's Pixel technology captures users' Facebook IDs, cookie identifiers, IP addresses and purchase details in real time as they navigate the website, transmitting that data to Meta, where it is stored and used to build advertising audiences. The complaint claims that Google's tracking technologies intercept customers' email addresses, phone numbers, first and last names, and partial addresses during checkout -- encoded in a format that Google can decode and link to individual user profiles. TikTok and Snapchat receive similarly detailed information, the lawsuit claims, with Snapchat specifically receiving customers' hashed email addresses, names, city and ZIP code, alongside product details, and AppLovin receiving hashed emails and purchase information. The complaint further alleges that hashing customer data does not render it anonymous, citing Federal Trade Commission guidance stating that hashed information "can still be used to identify users, and their misuse can lead to harm." Gray asserts MeUndies is guilty of violating the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and the California Constitution. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests compensatory damages, statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, disgorgement, punitive damages and injunctive relief for herself and all class members. Currently, over two dozen websites are being investigated for alleged data privacy violations. See if you qualify to join a website tracking and data privacy class action investigation. The plaintiff is represented by Philip L. Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The MeUndies class action lawsuit is Gray v. MeUndies Inc., Case No. 2:26-at-01023, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegaly Procures Consumer Report, Goodwin Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDI GOODWIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01417-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 6, 2026) is a consumer class action for actual and statutory damages for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of consumers throughout the country who have had their consumer report impermissibly procured by the Defendant. Prior to March 6, 2024, the Plaintiff had an account with Defendant. The alleged obligation arose from a personal credit card debt. On March 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana, commencing bankruptcy case number 24-01022-JMC-7. At the time Plaintiff filed her Bankruptcy Petition, she owed 3 debts to creditors for credit card balances that were all assigned or purchased by Defendant for Collection from Plaintiff. The Debts were each included in Plaintiff's Bankruptcy Petition. At the time Plaintiff filed her bankruptcy petition, she had no other accounts with On or about June 11, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order discharging Plaintiff's debts, thereby extinguishing her liability for the Debts. When the Bankruptcy Court entered the Discharge Order, the debtor-creditor relationship ended between Plaintiff and Defendant as to the Debts. Moreover, at the time of the Discharge Order, there were no assets in the bankruptcy estate from which to make any distribution to Plaintiff’s potential creditors. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following class of individuals: "All persons about whom, during the two (2) year period prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter, Defendant obtained a consumer report pertaining to a consumer after that consumer had obtained a bankruptcy discharge of any debt said consumer owed to Defendant and/or any debt that was being collected from such consumer by Defendant, and for any secured debts, after said consumer had been dispossessed of any property securing such a debt." Midland Credit Management, Inc. is an American debt buyer and debt collection company headquartered in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 7204 Kyle Court Sarasota, FL 34240 Telephone: (312) 546-6539 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com NARA ORGANICS: Faces Class Suit Over Bacterial Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Nara Organics falsely represented its infant formula as safe despite its alleged contamination with certain bacteria that can be life-threatening to infants, prompting a June 2026 recall. The 21-page complaint contends that Nara Organics "improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly" marketed its infant formula by failing to disclose that the product was contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium responsible for infant botulism. According to the lawsuit, exposure to Clostridium botulinum can lead to potentially fatal health complications in infants because the bacterium can colonize in the immature intestinal tract and produce dangerous neurotoxins. Per the filing, infant botulism may result in constipation, poor feeding, lethargy, low muscle tone, difficulty sucking and swallowing, weakness and respiratory distress. The case says that Nara Organics recalled its infant formula on June 12, 2026, due to the apparent contamination and associated health risks. According to the complaint, consumers in search of refunds under the recall program must still possess the affected product. However, the lawsuit alleges that Nara Organics is "well aware" that many consumers would likely discard the recalled formula immediately after learning of the contamination. The filing also mentions that many consumers do not habitually retain receipts and may purchase formula from multiple retailers, making it difficult to obtain reimbursement from the point of sale. As a result, the class action lawsuit argues, the infant formula recall was "deliberately designed to preclude the vast majority of consumers" from receiving compensation. The suit further contends that Nara Organics knew or should have known about the risk of bacterial contamination long before the recall because, as the manufacturer, it was uniquely positioned to test and monitor its products before they entered the stream of commerce. Despite the alleged contamination risk, Nara Organics led consumers to believe the formula was safe for consumption and failed to disclose any contamination concerns on the product's packaging or in advertising campaigns, the complaint maintains. As a result, consumers reasonably relied on the company's representations when making purchasing decisions and paid a premium price for a formula they believed was free of harmful ingredients, the case alleges. The Nara Organics class action lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who purchased Nara Organics infant formula in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Suit Over 2026 Age Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) newly adopted age-based eligibility rule unlawfully restricts competition by limiting many college athletes' opportunities to compete, receive athletic scholarships, and earn compensation through name-image-likeness (NIL) deals and direct revenue-sharing payments. The 36-page complaint explains that the NCAA's age-based rule, adopted on June 23, 2026, generally replaced the organization's eligibility framework for most athletes with a rigid age-based system that bars otherwise eligible collegiate athletes from competing solely because of their age. According to the lawsuit, the new rule unlawfully restricts competition in the market for Division I athletes' services by reducing opportunities to play, earn compensation, and increase their value to professional sports teams. The suit relays that the age-based rule came during a fundamentally distinct era of college athletics in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's seismic 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston, which rejected the broad reliance on "amateurism" as justification for compensation restrictions and paved the way to allow athletes to profit off the use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL). More recently, the filing describes that the 2025 House settlement authorized D-I collegiate institutions to pay athletes directly through a revenue-sharing process, making an additional year of eligibility substantially more valuable to athletes than in years past. According to the complaint, NCAA athletes for nearly 50 years operated under a "Four-in-Five Rule," which allowed them to compete in four full seasons over a five-year eligibility window. The case says that the system accounted for injuries, development, adjustments to college academics, and other career-interrupting circumstances outside of an athlete's control. However, the case reiterates that the NCAA's new rule instead starts a five-year eligibility clock granting five years of eligibility when an athlete first enrolls or with the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever occurs first. The suit contends that this cutoff can cause athletes who delay college to work, care for family members or face other life circumstances to lose years of sports eligibility before even entering college. "The NCAA's rush to implement an ostensibly one-size-fits all age-based eligibility rule does not fit all but, instead, simply imposes a new and different set of unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions that arbitrarily and disparately cut short college athletes' ability to compete and earn NIL," the filing charges. The complaint alleges that the age rule also fails to offer waivers for circumstances outside of an athlete's control—like injury—and only provides exceptions for pregnancy, religious missions, and military duty. As such, affected athletes may be deprived not only of playing time but access to scholarships, NIL income and revenue-sharing compensation. Furthermore, the lawsuit challenges the NCAA's implementation of the rule, alleging that athletes who finished their fourth season of competition during the 2025-2026 academic year were denied the benefits of a fifth year, while current athletes who have not yet completed a fourth year have the opportunity to play under the four-in-five or age-based rule. According to the complaint, the NCAA restrictions at issue are not about preserving amateurism or "advancing any legitimate procompetitive goal." The case contends that the NCAA has already abandoned that rationale by permitting compensation via NIL and revenue sharing, and by recognizing multiple exceptions to the age rule in principle. "Notably, and not accidentally, when it comes to restraining competition and establishing rules that ostensibly are intended to protect amateurism or the principles of college competition, the NCAA has decided it is the athletes, not other profit-recognizing wings of the market, that have to literally pay the price, further exemplifying that the NCAA's justifications are pretextual," the complaint asserts. The plaintiff, a basketball player at the University of California, Berkeley, says he exhausted his fourth year of eligibility and graduated in 2026. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff would have been eligible for an additional fifth year of competition under the NCAA's new framework but was excluded because the organization declined to apply the rule retroactively, depriving him and many other athletes of opportunities to earn additional revenue. The NCAA class action lawsuit seeks to represent all Division I student athletes who exhausted their fourth year of athletics at the end of the 2025-2026 academic year and were ineligible for a fifth year of competition under the age-based rule adopted on June 24, 2026, or who have forfeited/will forfeit eligibility because the age-based rule does not allow for waivers other than pregnancy, active-duty service and official religious missions. [GN] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Illegal Fees Class Suit for $1.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Nationstar Mortgage agreed to a $1.5 million class action settlement to resolve claims it charged illegal fees on mortgage loan accounts. The Nationstar Mortgage settlement benefits a Florida class of borrowers whose mortgage contracts have been or are being serviced by Nationstar acting on behalf of U.S. Bank and for other note or mortgage holders from May 29, 2013, through July 24, 2025, who were charged fees on mortgage loan accounts for process service on unknown spouses and tenants, property maintenance fees, property inspection fees and attorneys' fees from prior unsuccessful foreclosure actions. According to a class action lawsuit, Nationstar Mortgage charged fees on mortgage accounts that were not outlined in servicing contracts. The lawsuit claims these mortgage fees violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and breached the company's mortgage contracts with borrowers. Nationstar Mortgage, now known as Mr. Cooper, is one of the largest mortgage servicers in the country. Nationstar has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.5 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Nationstar Mortgage settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Each class member will receive a pro rata share of the net settlement fund based on the number and type of fees they paid. Class members can receive up to $300 from the settlement, but exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the amount deducted for attorneys' fees and other costs. The deadline for exclusion is Aug. 17, 2026. The deadline for objection is Aug. 31, 2026. The final approval hearing for the mortgage fees class action settlement is scheduled for Sept. 14, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 15, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits Florida borrowers whose mortgage contracts have been or are being serviced by Nationstar acting on behalf of U.S. Bank and for other note or mortgage holders from May 29, 2013, through July 24, 2025, who were charged fees on mortgage loan accounts for process service on unknown spouses and tenants, property maintenance fees, property inspection fees and attorneys' fees from prior unsuccessful foreclosure actions. Potential Award Up to $300 Proof of Purchase N/A 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 08/15/2026 Case Name Colombo v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. 502017CA000532, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Final Hearing 09/14/2026 Settlement Website FloridaNationstarLawsuit.com Claims Administrator Florida Nationstar Lawsuit c/o A.B. Data Ltd. P.O. Box 173062 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53217 info@FloridaNationstarLawsuit.com (866) 963-9973 Class Counsel James A. Bonfiglio LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. BONFIGLIO Jack Scarola SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY Louis Silber SILBER & DAVIS Philip M. Burlington Nichole J. Segal BURLINGTON & ROCKENBACH P.A. Defense Counsel Sara F. Holladay MCGUIREWOODS LLP [GN] NB CHICKEN: Gallardo Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN GALLARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NB CHICKEN LLC d/b/a POPEYES LOUISIANA KITCHEN; AR GROUP OF RESTAURANTS INC.; MOURAD ELAYAN; and ALI S. BUTT, jointly and individually, Case No. 2:26-cv-08274-ES (D.N.J., July 6, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and select provisions of the New Jersey Administrative Code. The Plaintiff brings this action as a collective action under the FLSA, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Defendants at any of the Defendants' New Jersey locations and who were not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek at any time within three years prior to the filing of this Complaint. Accordingly, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, Defendants paid all of Plaintiff's hours at his straight-time regular rate of pay. On average, Plaintiff was denied payment for approximately 10 overtime hours per workweek. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a full-time, non-exempt fast-food worker (cook) at the Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen located in North Bergen, New Jersey, beginning on or about May 15, 2025, and continues to work for Defendants to date. The Defendants operate an extensive network of Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen restaurants throughout the State of New Jersey through a web of nominally separate limited liability companies, all under the common ownership, control, and direction of Defendants Mourad Elayan and Ali S. Butt, and their management entity, Defendant AR Group of Restaurants Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com Jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com NERDWALLET INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Davis Due Sept. 21, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis, v. NerdWallet, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-02384-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Sept. 25, 2028 Expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 17, 2027 Last day to hear motion for class Nov. 16, 2027 certification: Last day to file motion for class Sept. 21, 2027 certification: Fact discovery cut-off: Aug. 27, 2027 The Court further orders that the parties and counsel refer to and comply with Judge Thompson's Civil Standing Order and Civil Pretrial and Jury Trial Standing Order or Civil Pretrial and Bench Trial Standing Order located on the court's website (https://cand.uscourts.gov/trina-lthompson/). NerdWallet is an American personal finance company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wGQPdT at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Bid for Adverse Inferences Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.G., et al., v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-04639-SHS-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lehrburger entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for adverse inferences as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion is denied with respect to proposed adverse inferences Nos. 1, 3-8, and 52. 2. With respect to proposed adverse inferences Nos. 2, 9-49, 51, 53, 57-60, the Plaintiffs are granted the following relief: (i) the City will be precluded from introducing any evidence not already produced; (ii) the City will be precluded from making any argument based on the absence of a complete data and record set; (iii) the Plaintiffs are entitled to a non-rebuttable presumption that the non-produced data and records would be helpful to the Plaintiffs and unhelpful to the City in the same way and to the same extent that the data and records the City did produce were helpful to the Plaintiffs and unhelpful to the City. It remains the Plaintiffs' burden, however, to show that the data and records that the City did produce were helpful to the Plaintiffs and unhelpful to the City. 3. Proposed adverse inference No. 42 shall be deemed an admission by the City. 4. With respect to proposed adverse inference No. 50, the Plaintiffs are granted an adverse inference that from May 30, 2010, through the present, there were at least 40 members of the Autism Services Class who are Section 504 eligible. The Court has considered the parties' arguments and found them to be either moot or without merit. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 507. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs to a limited extent, insofar as establishing that the City has a practice of not recommending or providing a particular service or not engaging in some activity such as monitoring, or the like. Accordingly, the Court finds that the least harsh sanction with respect to the issue of Section 504 eligibility is granting an adverse inference that, from May 30, 2010, through the present, there were at least 40 members of the Autism Services Class who are Section 504 eligible. This class action challenges the City's, and New York State's, alleged failure to provide a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") to New York City school children with autism, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). On Jan. 4, 2016, the Court certified four classes and subclasses: Autism Services Class consisting of: "children diagnosed with autism who have Individualized Education Programs ("IEPs") and have been subject to the City's policies and practices with respect to providing autism services." Due Process Autism Subclass consisting of: "members of the Autism Services Class who have won or will win administrative decisions or court orders, or entered into resolution agreements, for autism services." "autism services" refers to three types of services: (i) one-to-one ("1:1") instruction with a teacher for all or part of the day; (ii) Applied Behavior Analysis ("ABA"), and (iii) extended school day, after school, or homebased services (for students attending a school-day program). NPS Class consisting of: "children with disabilities who have IEPs, were recommended for or attended an approved non-public school ("NPS") program, and have been or will subject to the "NPS Directive" issued by New York State in 2012. Due Process NPS Subclass consisting of: "members of the NPS Class who invoked or will invoke their due process rights, and obtained stay-put rights." The New York City Department of Education manages the city's public school system. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WGRkhJ at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT PINEY, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00671-JMF-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order granting preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement. 1. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the settlement memorialized in the Queens Yeshiva Ketana Agreement falls within the range of reasonableness and, therefore, meets the requirements for preliminary approval such that notice to the Class is appropriate. 2. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who worked for Queens Yeshiva Ketana in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program (the "PDP"), at any time from Jan. 23, 2019 through Feb. 29, 2024." 3. For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who worked for Queens Yeshiva Ketana in New York State, through the PDP, at any time from Jan. 23, 2022 through Feb. 29, 2024." 4. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Faysal and Ting to represent the Queens Yeshiva Ketana Class and finds that Plaintiffs meet all the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). 5. The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) on Dec. 8, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PPotOk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Must Oppose Phillips Class Cert Bid by August 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL PHILLIPS, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08149-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: 1. A telephonic discovery status conference is scheduled for July 27, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. ET on the Court's conference line. The parties are directed to call: (855) 244-8681; access code: 2308 226 4654, at the scheduled time. 2. Before the July 27 conference, a. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the search for Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") including the search terms relating to the search of the Civilian Complaint Review Board ("CCRB") and Department of Correction ("DOC") databases as discussed in the Court's Order dated May 28, 2026. b. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide the Defendants' counsel with any helpful information regarding how to conduct a reasonable search of the CCRB's records; 3. By Monday, July 6, 2026, the parties shall request a copy of the transcript of today's conference using the annexed form. 4. By Friday, Aug. 7, 2026, the Defendants shall file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply, if any, by Friday, Aug. 21, 2026. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N2hXdj at no extra charge.[CC] NFL ENTERPRISES: Faces CIPA Class Action Over 182 Website Trackers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Blake Landis, writing for National Law Review, reports that well, it was only a matter of time before the plaintiff's bar set its sights on the biggest brand in American sports. With the FIFA World Cup dominating sports headlines this summer, you might think the NFL could lay low until kickoff in September. Think again. A new California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") class action landed in Alameda County Superior Court, and the defendant is none other than NFL Enterprises LLC, the company behind NFL.com. The case is Kimmons v. NFL Enterprises LLC, No. 26CV197596 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cnty., filed July 6, 2026), and was filed on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and a California subclass. So let's kick it off with a breakdown. Plaintiff is a 49ers fan from San Leandro who visited NFL.com in and around January 2026 to check live scores and game schedules. Sounds harmless enough, right? Not according to the complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the moment she landed on the site, the NFL caused a whole roster of trackers and cookies developed and operated by Google, The Trade Desk, Rubicon Project, OpenX, LogRocket, Inc., and Shape Security to be installed on her browser. And the numbers pleaded here are eye-popping. Forensic testing allegedly confirmed that the website deployed 182 third-party trackers, including 24 cookies, 4 separate canvas fingerprinting scripts, and 1 session recorder, with data flowing to four major advertising networks. But here's the allegation that really caught my attention. Opting out allegedly did not stop the tracking. The complaint acknowledges that NFL.com displays a cookie opt-out banner but claims the banner gives users a false and misleading sense of security for two reasons. First, the trackers allegedly deploy immediately upon a user landing on the website, so before a user can even configure their privacy choices, the trackers have already begun fingerprinting the device, recording the session, and downloading cookies and pixels. Second, opting out of cookies allegedly does nothing to stop session recorders, canvas fingerprinting, or other scripts that don't rely on cookies to operate. In fact, the complaint alleges that after a user affirmatively opts out, the website continues to run 186 third-party trackers. Yes, you read that correctly. Four more trackers after opting out than before. Now let's talk about the session recorder, because these allegations are the centerpiece here. Plaintiff alleges the NFL deployed session replay technology from LogRocket that intercepted, recorded, and transmitted user interactions in real time. The technology allegedly captured the full Document Object Model ("DOM") state and a reconstructed visual replay of each browsing session, enabling LogRocket to reproduce exactly what the user saw, viewed, selected, and interacted with. We're talking every mouse movement, cursor location, click, click coordinate, hover event, and navigation path, plus scrolling depth, speed, and direction. The session recorder allegedly captured keystrokes entered into search bars and other input fields, including the sequence and timing of individual keystrokes, regardless of whether the user deleted or submitted the entry. Next, which I find fascinating, the canvas fingerprinting allegations deserve a close look too. The complaint alleges the NFL deployed four separate canvas fingerprinting scripts, three through Google Tag Manager and one through Shape Security. All four instances allegedly capture what the complaint calls the full trifecta of canvas-based fingerprinting signals, meaning font rendering, geometry rendering, and data URL extraction, which together produce a highly detailed, device-specific graphical signature reflecting the user's GPU, graphics drivers, operating system font library, and browser rendering engine. Three of the Google Tag Manager instances are allegedly tied to Google Ads and Campaign Manager, which the complaint says shows the fingerprints are being collected for cross-site advertising attribution and user tracking. And because fingerprints don't rely on cookies, they allegedly persist even when a user clears their browser data. So what claims did Plaintiff bring? Five causes of action. Violations of CIPA sections 631(a) and 638.51(a), violations of the federal Wiretap Act under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510 et seq., violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"), Cal. Penal Code Sec. 502, invasion of privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq. If you've been following this space, the legal theories will look familiar. On the Section 631 wiretapping side, the complaint alleges the trackers intercepted the "contents" of communications, citing Mikulsky v. Bloomingdale's, LLC, 2025 WL 1718225, at *1 (9th Cir. June 20, 2025) for the proposition that session recording technology captures "contents" for Section 631 purposes. The complaint also leans on Smith v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc., 2025 WL 1085169, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2025) and Ambriz v. Google, LLC, 2025 WL 830450, to argue the tracking vendors are unauthorized third-party interceptors rather than mere "extensions" of the website. On the Section 638.51 pen register side, the complaint invokes Greenley v. Kochava, Inc., 2023 WL 4833466 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2023), alleging the trackers record outgoing routing, addressing, and signaling information, including IP addresses, without a court order or prior consent. Based on these theories, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $5,000 per violation under CIPA section 637.2, statutory damages under the ECPA of the greater of $100 per day per violation or $10,000, plus restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The complaint also puts a price tag on the data itself, alleging that the behavioral information collected has tremendous value and comparing it to focus group participation, which allegedly pays $30 to $500 per session. In other words, the theory goes, the NFL and its ad-tech partners took something valuable from users and never paid for it. So what are the takeaways? First, no brand is too big for the CIPA docket. The NFL is about as mainstream as defendants come, and this filing shows the plaintiff's bar is perfectly comfortable running these theories at household names. If you operate a high-traffic consumer website, this case is another reminder that prominent brands and heavily trafficked websites remain attractive targets. Second, the "opt-out that doesn't opt you out" allegation is the one to watch. Pleading that 186 trackers kept running after the user declined cookies is a powerful narrative against a consent-based defense. If your cookie banner only governs cookies while session recorders and fingerprinting scripts keep firing, this complaint is a preview of how that gap may be pleaded against you. Additionally, the pre-consent deployment allegation goes right at the timing element courts have focused in on. Of course, keep in mind whether the banner governed all of the challenged technologies, whether adequate disclosures were presented, and whether legally valid consent was otherwise obtained are separate questions that will likely be contested. Third, canvas fingerprinting is stepping more and more into the spotlight. We've watched pen register theories evolve from IP address collection to device fingerprinting, and this complaint includes unusual technical details supporting the fingerprinting allegations, right down to the specific rendering signals captured and the ad platforms the scripts feed into. Fourth, and as always, remember this is a complaint, not a ruling. These are allegations only, and the NFL has yet to respond. But between the session recorder, the fingerprinting scripts, and the consent-banner allegations, this case checks nearly every box in the modern CIPA playbook. We'll be watching how these theories fare. [GN] NORTH ATLANTIC: July 30 Class Cert Hearing Vacated -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES WELCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NORTH ATLANTIC IMPORTS, LLC d/b/a/ BLACKSTONE PRODUCTS, and DOES 1–10, Case No. 2:25-cv-07106-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order granting the stipulation to continue briefing schedule and hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: 1. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification set for July 30, 2026, is vacated. 2. A status conference will be held on Sept. 24, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. to allow the parties sufficient time to engage in mediation. 3. The Parties will update the Court on the outcome of the mediation via the submission of a joint report no later than seven (7) days prior to the Sept. 24, 2026, status conference. 4. In the event a settlement is not reached at mediation, the hearing on the motion for class certification will be set for Jan. 21, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. with the reply brief to be filed by Jan. 7, 2027. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xTwUPG at no extra charge.[CC] OPTUM SERVICES: Pasquale Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Wade Pasquale, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OPTUM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV003409 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02331-CKD. The Complaint asserts eight claims for: "Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods"; "Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods"; "Failure to Pay Overtime Wages"; "Failure to Provide Pay Minimum Wages"; "Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees"; "Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements"; "Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties"; "Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew M. Paley, Esq. Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: apaley@seyfarth.com jbrophy@seyfarth.com - and - Bernard D. Olshansky, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10018-1405 Phone: (212) 218-5500 Facsimile: (212) 218-5526 Email: bolshansky@seyfarth.com OREGON: New Class Action Takes Aim at Packaging EPR Program ----------------------------------------------------------- Arnold & Porter reports that as litigation by a trade association challenging Oregon's packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) program gears up for trial this month, a producer has filed a new federal class action seeking to invalidate the program. On June 25, 2026, Lollicup USA, Inc., a Texas-based food serviceware manufacturer, filed the putative class action, Lollicup USA, Inc. v. Feldon, in Oregon District Court against the Director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The lawsuit seeks to bar enforcement of the Oregon EPR law and its implementing regulations against a class of producers left unprotected by the preliminary injunction entered in February 2026 in the more advanced trade association lawsuit, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, which is set for trial on July 13, 2026. In NAW, the February preliminary injunction has prevented Oregon from enforcing the EPR law against the specific trade association plaintiff and its members through resolution of its claims. In the meantime, however, Oregon has been permitted to -- and has in fact -- continued to ramp up its enforcement efforts against other covered producers. In limiting the preliminary injunction and denying motions by other trade associations to intervene in NAW, the district court suggested that other parties were free to file their own lawsuits and seek their own injunctions to prevent enforcement of the EPR law against them. The Lollicup litigation seeks to do exactly that. To What Extent Does the Class Action Complaint Overlap With the Existing NAW Litigation? The Lollicup class action complaint presses the two federal claims that survived Oregon's motion to dismiss in NAW. The first is a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge. As in NAW, the class action complaint alleges that the EPR law's burdens on interstate commerce are clearly excessive relative to its local benefits; that it discriminates in practice against out-of-state producers; and that it reaches beyond Oregon's borders by forcing nationwide packaging and sourcing decisions to conform to an Oregon-specific regime. The second claim is a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim. Like NAW, the class action complaint argues that Oregon has unconstitutionally handed core regulatory power (fee-setting, material classification, audits, and enforcement referrals) to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the sole approved producer responsibility organization, a nonprofit organization selected by the state to administer the EPR program. It also alleges, as in NAW, that a confidential, retrospective fee methodology reviewable only through binding arbitration denies producers fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. How Does the Complaint Build on the NAW Case? The complaint is drafted as a deliberate sequel to the NAW case, but with some meaningful differences. First, it is a class action; rather than bringing claims on behalf of one trade association's members, Lollicup seeks relief for every covered producer that the NAW injunction leaves unprotected. Second, it incorporates a new legal theory that recently appeared in a challenge to California's packaging EPR law; specifically, the Lollicup complaint alleges that the EPR law additionally violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because EPR program fees function as an impermissible tariff or excessive charge on interstate commerce. This theory was not raised in NAW. Third, the Lollicup complaint is narrower by design than the amended complaint originally filed in NAW; the class action complaint presses only the two claims the NAW court allowed to proceed past the motion to dismiss, leaving out the theories the NAW court dismissed -- namely the equal protection and unconstitutional-conditions claims and the state-law claims under the Oregon Constitution -- noting that the Oregon federal court has already found those claims to be properly pled. The complaint also leans on NAW's progress. It cites the NAW court's early finding at the preliminary injunction hearing that the Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process claims raise "serious questions." It also expressly includes in its Prayer for Relief a request for a preliminary injunction, suggesting that Lollicup's efforts to obtain interim relief similar to the relief obtained in NAW are likely to follow in short order. (As of writing, no motion for a preliminary injunction has yet been filed.) What to Watch as Trial Approaches The NAW case begins a five-day trial on July 13, 2026. The parties' late-June pretrial filings preview the issues that are likely to be the focus of the upcoming trial. For example, in its June 29 filings, Oregon stresses that producers are not required to join CAA and may instead form a competing producer responsibility organization, handle their own recycling, or stop selling into the Oregon market. Oregon also pushes back on the idea that CAA's fees are "retrospective," describing them instead as forward-looking estimates based on the prior year's volumes. NAW, on the other hand, presses its argument that Oregon has improperly put regulatory power in private hands and emphasizes that the act favors in-state businesses, pointing to specific exemptions that it says shift the program's costs disproportionately onto out-of-state producers. The parties' joint status report previews a contested set of motions in limine, including cross-challenges to each side's experts; admissibility rulings will further shape the record and framing of the issues as the case proceeds to trial. Of note, the district court in NAW has been freely granting leave to file amicus briefs to third parties on both sides of the issues in the lead-up to trial. A merits ruling in NAW is likely to directly impact, if not resolve, the questions Lollicup raises for the broader class of covered producers. Given that both the timing and scope of such a ruling are unclear however, the Lollicup litigation seems clearly aimed at obtaining at least interim relief pending a final decision in NAW and enabling covered producers outside NAW's members to benefit from any favorable rulings that may come out of the NAW trial while still pressing ahead with their own claims (including a new Dormant Commerce Clause theory) in the meantime. Producers affected by the Oregon EPR program should watch both cases closely and consider potential avenues for involvement. With the NAW trial about to begin, the window to participate as an amicus may be closing; it is unclear whether the court will continue to entertain additional amicus curiae participation up until the time the court rules. Given that the outcome at trial will almost undoubtedly be appealed, producers might additionally or alternatively consider amicus participation at the appellate stage. The earlier-stage Lollicup litigation offers a more immediate avenue for active involvement, where producers may seek to file or join amicus briefs as the case develops, consider potential coordination with plaintiff in support of the class claims, or, as Lollicup itself illustrates, bring their own parallel claims to secure relief that does not depend on membership in another producer's case. [GN] PEDIATRIC PRODUCTS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Geter Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN GETER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEDIATRIC PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00655-JPH (S.D. Ohio, July 6, 2026) is a class action against Pediatric Products for its failure to properly secure the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and personal health information. The PII and PHI may have included names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnosis codes, insurance information, and identification numbers. Pediatric Products failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII and PHI, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Pediatric Products to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure (the Data Breach) in the future. On April 14, 2026, Pediatric Products disclosed to the California Attorney General that it had discovered the Data Breach on or around February 17, 2026. On the same day, Pediatric Products disclosed to the Texas Attorney General that 5,911 individuals were affected by the Data Breach in Texas alone. As a result of Pediatric Products' failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI is now in the hands of criminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members face a substantial increased risk of identity theft, both currently and for the indefinite future. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to spend significant time and money in the future to protect themselves due to Pediatric Products' failures, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements to Pediatric Products' data security systems. Plaintiff Geter is a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina. In 2025, Mr. Geter purchased a nebulizer from Xpress Nebs, a name under which Pediatric Products Mr. Geter recently received a letter from Pediatric Products reflecting that his PII and PHI were exposed as a result of the Data Breach. Pediatric Products, LLC is an Ohio corporation, with its principal office in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashlie Case Sletvold, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 6370 SOM Center Road, Suite 108 Cleveland, Ohio 44139 Telephone: (216) 589-9280 E-mail: asletvold@peifferwolf.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida Anderson, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com - and - David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Younjin(Jennifer) Lee, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com jlee@tomorrowlaw.com PEOPLE DATA: Settlement Deal in Cochrane Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANELLE COCHRANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PEOPLE DATA LABS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-09533-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. -- The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and the terms embodied therein pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). -- The Court provisionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a "Settlement Class," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), consisting of: "all individuals in People Data Labs' database with an (1) inferred mobile number as determined by the information available in the Defendant's records, (2) a Colorado area code, (3) an inferred Colorado location (current or historical), (4) whose data was sourced on or after September 2022, and (5) whose information was disclosed at least once from September 2022 to March 3, 2026." -- The Court appoints the Plaintiff Janelle Cochrane as the Class Representative. -- The Court appoints the law firm of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- The Court will hold a final approval hearing on Nov. 17, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. People Data Labs is a software firm offering compliant data and their b2b solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DbIjWo at no extra charge.[CC] PEOPLES CARTAGE: Residents Sue Over Warehouse Fire in Wood County ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Lawrence, writing for MetroNews, reports that less than 24 hours after a fire at the Peoples Cartage warehouse in Wood County was declared out, the first lawsuit has been filed. Charleston attorneys Jesse Forbes and Dante DiTrapano along with others have filed the suit which is proposed for class action status in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia. "Unfortunately and sadly on July 4th weekend we have this devastating incident happen in this community. It affected a widespread area and you've got people who are scared. They're afraid of the air they are breathing, they're afraid of the affect it had on their kids, on their parents, and on elderly folks," said Forbes in an appearance on MetroNews Midday. The lawsuit alleges the defendants' negligence caused the release of smoke, ash, soot, and other airborne contaminants which impacted surrounding neighborhoods. Forbes said residents were forced into a multi-day emergency shelter-in-place order. According to the complaint, the warehouse first caught fire on July 4 and the blaze was initially thought to be under control. The lawsuit alleges after the facility's fire suppression system was shut down and before it had been restored, employees began opening fire-damaged containers of combustible material, causing the fire to reignite and rapidly engulf the warehouse in flames, without proper water suppression sprinklers or other safety measures in place. The sprawling fire sent massive plumes of thick black smoke across the Parkersburg area and forced residents to take shelter in their homes. The smoke was visible for miles. Our state has a history of out-of-state corporations coming in, having safety issues, and resulting in tragedy. Luckily here nobody was initially seriously injured apparently from what happened," Forbes said. The complaint further alleges operators of the warehouse had prior notice of recurring fire hazards, chemical incidents, regulatory violations, and fire safety deficiencies at this and other West Virginia operations under common ownership and centralized safety management, yet failed to adequately assess and address similar risks before the July 2026 fire and failed to have proper safety protocols in place at the Camden Avenue facility. Gov. Patrick Morrisey was asked about the history of safety issues which were addressed by state regulators during a Wednesday, July 8, appearance in Williamstown. "We've indicated there was a compliance action by DEP and we take that seriously. But by all accounts, they followed up on that order and came into compliance and that was a separate building and not directly tied to the fire," said Morrisey. Morrisey visited the fire scene Sunday, July 5, and declared a state of emergency in Wood County to free up additional state assets and funds to help with the fire fighting effort. Morrisey was reluctant to say much more at this point. "I'm not going to comment until the investigation is complete, so I'm not going to engage in speculation. Obviously, you're always going to have a lawyer or two try to get out in front and make their mark and file a suit," Morrisey said. Forbes said such criticism of attorneys filing such suits so soon in an incident is typical, but added there is a reason for it. "We can't start preserving evidence, we can't get our experts on the ground, and we can't investigate what happened for these folks until this is filed. By doing that, it allows us to get out on the civil justice side of things and make sure all evidence is preserved and we know what happened and hopefully get answers for these people," he said. The suit is filed on behalf of James Leonard Anthony and Doris Jean Anthony, but could be converted to class action status once assigned to a judge. The class action status would create parameters for class of individuals who would be qualified to receive compensation for the incident if the courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the case. Peoples Cartage and Total Distribution, Incorporated are identified as defendants in the action. [GN] PEREZ TIRE: Williams Bid for Limited Discovery Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. Perez Tire Center LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00275 (D. Conn., Filed Feb. 22, 2026), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order denying motion for limited discovery and extension of time for entry of default judgment. The Plaintiff James Williams filed the present motion seeking permission to take discovery for the next 120 days in advance of moving for class certification and entry of default judgment. The Plaintiff asserts that he will attempt to identify members of the proposed class and their damages by serving discovery on Defendant and any third parties who were involved in making calls that, as the Complaint alleges, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Although the Clerk has entered the default of Defendant pursuant to Rule 55(a), a default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b) has not yet been sought nor entered and, therefore, it is premature for Plaintiff to seek discovery. In other words, if Plaintiffs damages are not certain, he must apply to the Court for a default judgment and, thereafter, the Court may conduct a hearing or make referrals to determine the amount of damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Discovery and Extension of Time for Entry of Default Judgment is denied , and the Court's prior order setting a deadline of July 17, 2026 , for Plaintiff to move for default judgment remains in effect. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant provides new and used tires, rims, and wheels, plus alignments and repairs.[CC] PHOTRONICS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP tracks the evolution of Wall Street analyst opinion on Photronics, Inc. (NASDAQ: PLAB) following the company's May 28, 2026 corrective disclosure that erased $19.49 per share in shareholder value. Find out if you qualify to recover losses from PLAB's decline. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or (212) 363-7500. PLAB shares collapsed 36.42% on May 28, 2026, falling from 53.51 to 34.02 in a single session after Photronics revealed IC revenue had dropped 11% sequentially and issued Q3 2026 guidance well below consensus. The lead plaintiff deadline is September 4, 2026. Initial Analyst Optimism Built on Management's Representations Throughout the Class Period, sell-side coverage reflected the bullish narrative management cultivated. After Photronics reported Q4 2025 results on December 10, 2025, analysts highlighted the company's record high-end IC revenue mix at 42% of total IC revenue, its position as the sole U.S. high-end trusted mask producer, and its stated plans for strategic capacity expansions. Management's guidance of 217 million to 225 million in Q1 2026 revenue reinforced expectations of continued momentum. D.A. Davidson and Singular Research, among others, engaged with management on the earnings call, probing growth trajectories that management answered with confidence about "growing high-end demand" and capacity investments. The Downgrades Begin: Consensus Shattered in a Single Morning The May 28, 2026 earnings release forced a rapid recalibration. According to the lawsuit, management admitted that "the seasonal recovery following Chinese New Year has not occurred to the extent anticipated" and that "fabs have been unable to accommodate additional design releases from some of their customers because of this limited capacity." Analysts who had modeled continued high-end IC strength were confronted with: -- IC revenue of $147.5 million, down 11% sequentially and 5% year-over-year -- Q3 2026 revenue guidance of 207 million to 215 million, below the prior quarter's guidance range and continuing a decline from Q4 2025's $225 million performance -- Operating margin guidance of 18% to 20%, down from the 24.4% achieved in Q1 2026 -- Management's acknowledgment that new design release activity had slowed "at the very beginning" of its "new design release" pipeline Execution Concerns on Wall Street: From Growth Story to Uncertainty The complaint chronicles how analyst questions during the May 28 call reflected alarm. Lake Street Capital's analyst pressed management on when visibility "really start[ed] to get cloudy," eliciting the admission that the slowdown extended well beyond normal post-holiday patterns. Singular Research's analyst questioned whether the deferred designs were pipeline delays or entirely new slowdowns, and management confirmed the problem originated at the design house level, not mid-pipeline. These exchanges revealed the depth of the disconnect between prior management assurances and operational reality. Why Analyst Shifts Matter for PLAB Investors "When analyst expectations are built on incomplete or misleading company disclosures, the resulting corrections can cause significant investor harm," stated Joseph E. Levi, Esq. "The speed and magnitude of the PLAB repricing on May 28 suggests the market had been operating on fundamentally inaccurate assumptions about the company's near-term trajectory." Analysts depend on management representations to build financial models. The lawsuit contends that management's repeated assurances of "robust global order patterns" and "growing high-end demand" provided the foundation for consensus estimates that proved dramatically wrong. Speak with an attorney about recovering your PLAB investment losses or call (212) 363-7500. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: September 4, 2026 WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY — Ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report for seven consecutive years, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation. With a team of over 70 professionals, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Investors who suffered losses have until September 4, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Frequently Asked Questions About the PLAB Lawsuit Q: What specific misstatements does the PLAB lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Photronics made materially false or misleading statements regarding its high-end IC product pipeline strength, customer demand forecasts, and the expected seasonal recovery following the Chinese New Year holiday. When the true state of the design release pipeline was revealed on May 28, 2026, the stock declined 36.42%. Q: How much did PLAB stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 36.42%, a decline of $19.49 per share, after the company disclosed that IC revenue collapsed 11% sequentially and issued Q3 guidance below expectations. Investors who purchased during the Class Period at inflated prices may be entitled to compensation. Q: What do PLAB 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 PLAB shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. 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 any 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 September 4, 2026 ensures your losses are considered. CONTACT: 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] PHOTRONICS INC: Faces Cooper Class Suit Over Common Stock Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- VAUGHN COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHOTRONICS, INC., GEORGE C. MACRICOSTAS, ERIC RIVERA, and KANGJYH LEE, Case No. 3:26-cv-01069 (D.N.J., July 6, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Photronics securities between December 10, 2025, to May 27, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Photronics' expected revenue for the first quarter of fiscal year 2026 and provided growth expectations for its high-end integrated circuit (IC) photomask product line. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in allegedly robust global order patterns, emphasizing Photronics' position as the "only U.S. headquartered company that can produce trusted masks," with the "only commercial high-end U.S. trusted mask facility," positioning the Company to implement strategic capacity expansions to aggressively capitalize on the claimed "growing high-end demand" for Photronics' product, while minimizing risks associated with mainstream market headwinds and the aggressive mix-shift toward the high-end market. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Photronics' high-end product pipeline, customer schedules, and the stability of the alleged demand for its products; notably, that the seasonal recovery and design release momentum following the Chinese New Year holiday the Company was claiming would develop had stalled, says the suit. Photronics was experiencing a critical bottleneck in its design release pipeline that rendered its forward growth expectations unachievable. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Photronics' securities at artificially inflated prices. On May 28, 2026, Photronics announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2026, revealing revenue and earnings well-below internal projections and highlighting a critical collapse of IC revenue by 11% sequentially. Management further provided third-quarter guidance below market consensus as the slowdown was expected to continue and margins were expected to continue their trend of compression. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Photronics' revelation. The price of Photronics' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $53.51 per share on May 27, 2026, Photronics' stock price fell to $34.02 per share on May 28, 2026, a decline of about 36.42% in the span of just a single day. The Plaintiff purchased Photronics common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Photronics is a global manufacturer of photomasks, which are microscopic circuit patterns contained on very precise glass or quartz plates. These photomasks are a necessary element in the manufacturing of integrated circuits (ICs) and flat panel displays (FPDs).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com -and- - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com PHOTRONICS INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Photronics, Inc. (NASDAQ:PLAB) securities. If you suffered a loss on your Photronics, Inc. investment and would like to explore a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, Learn about Photronics, Inc. Class Action or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212)363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Photronics, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between December 10, 2025 and May 27, 2026. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Photronics' high-end product pipeline, customer schedules, and the stability of the alleged demand for its products; notably, that the seasonal recovery and design release momentum following the Chinese New Year holiday the Company was claiming would develop had stalled. Photronics was experiencing a critical bottleneck in its design release pipeline that rendered its forward growth expectations unachievable. On May 28, 2026, Photronics announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2026, revealing revenue and earnings well-below internal projections and highlighting a critical collapse of IC revenue by 11% sequentially. Management further provided third-quarter guidance below market consensus as the slowdown was expected to continue and margins were expected to continue their trend of compression. Management claimed that the projected seasonal recovery following the Chinese New Year holiday had failed to materialize due to extensive new product launch delays, elevated fab utilization rates, and geopolitical uncertainty. Following this news, the price of Photronics' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $53.51 per share on May 27, 2026, Photronics' stock price fell to $34.02 per share on May 28, 2026, a decline of about 36.42% in the span of just a single day. WHAT'S NEXT? If you purchased Photronics, Inc. stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares, learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212)363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] PHREESIA INC: Retirement System Sues Over Misleading Business Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ Retirement System for the General Employees of the Utility Board of the City of Key West, Florida, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHREESIA, INC., CHAIM INDIG, and BALAJI GANDHI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00846-UNA (D. Del., July 13, 2026) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Phreesia common stock between May 28, 2025 through March 30, 2026, inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff seeks remedies and equitable relief arising from Phreesia's wrongful conduct and scheme to deceive the market that artificially inflated the price of its common stock during the class period. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the Defendants disseminated materially misleading information concerning such critical business matters as Phreesia's visibility into key revenue streams, the drivers of Company growth prospects, and anticipated revenue. At the same time, the Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts pertaining to, inter alia, (i) the decline of Phreesia's subscriptions; (ii) the slow-down of the Company's digital advertising growth; (iii) the Company's ever-increasing reliance on acquired payment solutions, in lieu of its legacy payment systems as durable organic drivers of revenue growth; (iv) the loss of visibility into the spending commitments in the Company's Network Solutions segment; and (v) the execution risks around adoption of new business modules. Such misstatements and omissions caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Phreesia's securities at artificially inflated prices On March 30, 2026, Phreesia announced significantly reduced revenue growth projections for its fiscal year 2027. Along with this disclosure, the Company finally acknowledged the "worsening visibility" into spending commitments by the pharmaceutical manufacturers within the Network Solutions business. On this news, the price of Phreesia's common stock nose-dived by 27% and the Company was downgraded by a number of Wall Street firms, says the suit. Plaintiff Key West Retirement purchased common stock from Phreesia between May 28, 2025 through March 30, 2026 at artificially inflated prices and suffered economic loss when the common stock fell precipitously. Phreesia, Inc. is a Delaware-based provider integrated software, payments, and engagement platform for the healthcare industry in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Foulds, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS P.A. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone:(302) 573-3500 E-mail: cfoulds@friedlandergorris.com PREMIER SELECT: 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 Premier Select Sires 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 Premier Select Sires data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Premier Select Sires Security Incident: What Happened? Premier Select Sires, a member cooperative that provides resources for cattle farmers across 23 states, has reported a data breach that may have compromised sensitive personal information. In a July 9, 2026 report filed with the Vermont Attorney General's Office, the organization disclosed that Social Security numbers, financial account codes, and credit and debit card account details were involved in the Premier data breach. At the time this post was made, no additional information about the nature or scope of the Premier Select Sires data breach was available. What You Can Do After the Premier Select Sires Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Premier Select Sires 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 Premier Select Sires 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] PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Banks Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Banks, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio Corporations, Case No. 1:22-cv-00878-SKC-TPO (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order (1) preliminarily approving the Settlement, (2) provisionally certifying the Settlement Classes, (3) appointing Plaintiffs Michael Curran and Andrew Rodriguez as Settlement Class Representatives, (4) appointing Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Jacobson Phillips PLLC, Normand PLLC, Edelsberg Law, P.A., Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and Bailey Glasser LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes, (5) approving Verita Global, LLC (formerly known as KCC Class Action Services, LLC) as Settlement Administrator, (6) approving the form and manner of Class Notice to the Settlement Classes, (7) approving the proposed schedule of events, and (8) scheduling a final fairness hearing. Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SCLw1E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Hank Bates, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com - and - Allison A. Bruff, Esq. Brian A. Glasser, Esq. James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq. David L. Selby, II, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: abruff@baileyglasser.com bglasser@baileyglasser.com jkauffman@baileyglasser.com dselby@baileyglasser.com QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Perez Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as REAGAN PEREZ, CAROLYN MELODY, ANASTASIA BYRNE, et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MARIE HARDIN, and GREG AMODIO, Case No. 3:26-cv-00898-KAD (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Dooley entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The Court does not reach this conclusion lightly and recognizes the hardship visited upon the student athletes on the women's rugby team as a result of the decision to offer only club status women's rugby. In an effort to mitigate that hardship, the Court intends to issue a condensed case management schedule with an aim of bringing this case to trial as quickly as possible. If the Plaintiffs prevail at trial and are awarded the injunctive relief they seek, at least with respect to the Title IX claims relating to the women's rugby program, the expectation is that there will be sufficient time, in advance of the 2027–2028 academic year, to reinstate the team as a varsity sport. Further, for those Plaintiffs who remain at Quinnipiac, whether they have participated in club rugby or not, they will hopefully still have eligibility to compete at the varsity level should Plaintiffs ultimately prevail. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating either likely success on the merits of their claims or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation on the issue. The Plaintiffs allege that the demotion of the rugby team constitutes a violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), as both gender discrimination and illegal retaliation for Title IX complaints made by the team's head coach Rebecca Carlson. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of: "all present and future female students at Quinnipiac who participate in or seek to participate in Quinnipiac's athletics program." The Plaintiffs include GEORGIA BROWN, REGAN JACKSON, MACEY DUNN, BROOKE HARNISCH, DELILAH STABERG, MEILIN LEMIS, GRACE HINTON, ALEXA KIRSCHNER, EMMA PEREZ, MORGAN SAYLORS, AVA DECOOPER WRIDE, SAMANTHA AGOSTIN, MELANIE SANCHEZ, ANNA WRIGHT, LAYLA COX, MCKENZIE KROEGER, AVA THAYER, SORYAH HART, EMILY HARTMAN, and CASSY LEWANDOWSKI. Quinnipiac University grants undergraduate, graduate, and professional degrees. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HJzWqW at no extra charge.[CC] QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: $48MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY INC. MERGER LITIGATION C.A. No. 2024-0104-JTL NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR Your rights will be affected by the stockholder class action (the "Action") pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") if you were a record holder or beneficial holder of shares of Quotient Technology Inc. ("Quotient" or the "Company") common stock whose shares were converted into the right to receive $4.00 per share in cash when Quotient was acquired on September 5, 2023. Plaintiffs Steven Boal, Scott Raskin, The Spieker Living Trust, Spieker 2010 Irrevocable Children's Trust, SPK Investors LLC, and SPK Apartment Investors II LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class; and Defendants Matthew Krepsik ("Krepsik"); Houlihan Lokey Inc. ("Houlihan"); Charlesbank Capital Partners LLC ("Charlesbank"); and CB Neptune Holdings, LLC ("Neptune") (collectively, "Defendants," and together with Plaintiffs, the "Parties" and each a "Party") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement") for $48,000,000 (United States Dollars) in cash (the "Settlement Amount"). The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action against Defendants, and the Action will be dismissed with prejudice. On June 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Verified First Amended Stockholder Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), in which Plaintiffs again asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Krepsik and also asserted new claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against Defendants Houlihan Lokey, Inc. ("Houlihan"), Neptune, and Charlesbank. Plaintiffs alleged in the Amended Complaint that Krepsik breached his fiduciary duties as both an officer and a director of Quotient in connection with the Transaction, that Houlihan, Neptune, and Charlesbank aided and abetted those breaches, and that, as a consequence thereof, Quotient common stockholders suffered damages. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that: * Krepsik allegedly had conflicts of interest in connection with the Merger, including because Neptune had allegedly indicated he would eventually lead the post-Merger company; * Krepsik and Houlihan, which served as Quotient's financial advisor in connection with the Merger, allegedly tilted Quotient's sale process in favor of Neptune and Charlesbank by allegedly favoring them over other potential bidders and by allegedly providing the Quotient Board of Directors with incomplete information; and as a result, Quotient stockholders received $4.00 per share in the Merger, which Plaintiffs alleged was below the fair value of the Company's shares and the merger consideration that could have been obtained from Neptune or an alternative bidder, but for the breaches of duty alleged by Plaintiffs. On March 5, 2026, the Parties informed the Court of their agreement in principle to settle the Action and agreed to suspend all deadlines in the Action. After additional negotiations regarding the specific terms of their agreement, the Parties entered into the Stipulation on May 11, 2026. The Stipulation, which reflects the final and binding agreement between the Parties on the terms and conditions of the Settlement and supersedes the Term Sheet, can be viewed at https//:www.QuotientStockholderSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you are subject to the Settlement. The Settlement Class, preliminarily certified by the Court solely for purposes of the Settlement, consists of: All record and beneficial stockholders of Quotient as of September 5, 2023 (the date of the consummation of the Transaction), whose shares were converted into the right to receive $4.00 per share in cash in connection with the Transaction, together with their respective successors and assigns, except the Excluded Persons. The Excluded Persons are: (i) Defendants; (ii) Yuneeb Khan and Connie Chen (former named executive officers of the Company); (iii) Robert McDonald, Lorraine Hariton, Alison Hawkins, David Oppenheimer, Matthew O'Grady, Joseph Reece, Eric Higgs, Kimberly Anstett, Andrew Jody Gessow, and Michael Wargotz (former directors of the Company); (iv) any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, partner, executive officer, director, heir, successor, assign, or controlling person of any of the foregoing; (v) spouses and minor children of any of the foregoing; and (vi) any entity in which any of the foregoing has or had a controlling interest on September 5, 2023. The Settlement Class is a non-"opt-out" class pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2). Accordingly, Settlement Class Members do not have the right to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. If you are eligible to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund, you do not have to submit a claim form in order to receive your payment. Plaintiffs' Counsel have not received any payment for their services in pursuing the claims asserted in the Action, nor have Plaintiffs' Counsel been paid for their litigation expenses incurred in connection with the Action. Before final approval of the Settlement, Plaintiffs' Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel in connection with achieving the creation of the Settlement Fund (the "Fee and Expense Award") in an amount not to exceed 24% of the Settlement Fund. Plaintiffs may also petition the Court for incentive awards (the "Incentive Awards") to be paid to Plaintiffs, to be paid solely from out of any Fee and Expense Award to Plaintiffs' Counsel, and not to exceed $1,250,000 USD. Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award, including any application by Plaintiffs for Incentive Awards, is not the subject of any agreement among the Parties other than what is set forth in the Stipulation. Defendants do not believe Plaintiffs should receive any Incentive Awards and expressly reserve the right to object to Plaintiffs' application for Incentive Awards. Settlement Class Members do not need to attend the Settlement Hearing. The Court will consider any submission made in accordance with the provisions below even if a Settlement Class Member does not attend the Settlement Hearing. Settlement Class Members can recover from the Settlement without attending the Settlement Hearing. The Settlement Hearing will be held on September 22, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable J. Travis Laster, Vice Chancellor, at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by Zoom (at the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes; (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class, and whether Plaintiffs should be finally appointed as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class and Plaintiffs' Counsel should be finally appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class and in their best interests, and should be approved by the Court; (iv) determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against Defendants and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether the application by Plaintiffs' Counsel for a Fee and Expense Award (including any Incentive Awards to Plaintiffs) should be approved; (vii) hear and determine any objections to the Settlement or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award and any Incentive Awards to Plaintiffs; and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any Settlement Class Member may object to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award (including any requested Incentive Awards to Plaintiffs) (an "Objector"); provided, however, that no Objector shall be heard or entitled to object unless, on or before September 8, 2026, such person: (1) files his, her, or its written objection, together with copies of all other papers and briefs supporting the objection specified in paragraph 44 below, with the Register in Chancery electronically through File & ServeXpress or by hand, by First-Class U.S. Mail, or by express service at the address set forth below; (2) serves such papers (electronically by email, electronically by File & ServeXpress, by hand, by First-Class U.S. Mail, or by express service) on each of Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel identified below; and (3) if the objection is served on counsel other than by email, also emails a copy of the objection to tcurry@saxenawhite.com, cliff.gardner@skadden.com, sacksr@sullcrom.com, and gchepiga@paulweiss.com. REGISTER IN CHANCERY Register in Chancery Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL Thomas Curry SAXENA WHITE P.A. 824 N. Market Street, Suite 1003, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 tcurry@saxenawhite.com DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL Cliff C. Gardner SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 636, Wilmington, Delaware 19899 cliff.gardner@skadden.com Counsel for Defendant Matthew Krepsik Geoffrey R. Chepiga PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019 gchepiga@paulweiss.com Counsel for Defendants CB Neptune Holdings, LLC and Charlesbank Capital Partners LLC Robert A. Sacks SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1888 Century Park East, Los Angeles, California 90067 sacksr@sullcrom.com Counsel for Defendant Houlihan Lokey, Inc. Any objection: (i) must state the name, address, and telephone number of the Objector and, if represented by counsel, the name, address, and telephone number of his, her, or its counsel; (ii) must be signed by the Objector; (iii) must contain a written, specific statement of the Objector's objection or objections, and the specific reasons for each objection, including any legal and evidentiary support the Objector wishes to bring to the Court's attention, and must state whether the objection applies only to the Objector, to a specific subset of the Settlement Class, or to the entire Settlement Class; (iv) must state the objection is being filed with respect to "In re Quotient Technology Inc. Merger Litigation, C.A. No. 2024-0104-JTL"; and (v) must include documentation sufficient to prove that the Objector is a member of the Settlement Class. If the Objector has indicated that he, she, or it intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing, the Objector shall provide the identity of any witnesses the Objector may call to testify, and any exhibits the Objector intends to introduce into evidence at the hearing. If you wish to be heard orally at the hearing in opposition to the approval of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award (including any Incentive Awards to Plaintiffs) (assuming you timely file and serve a written objection as described above), you must also file a notice of appearance with the Register in Chancery and serve it on Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel through File & ServeXpress or by email so that the notice is received on or before September 15, 2026. Persons who intend to object and desire to present evidence at the Settlement Hearing must include in their written objection or notice of appearance the identity of any witnesses they may call to testify and exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence at the hearing. Such persons may be heard orally at the discretion of the Court. This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed Settlement. For more detailed information about the matters involved in the Action, you are referred to the papers on file in the Action, including the Stipulation, which may be inspected during regular business hours at the Office of the Register in Chancery, Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. Additionally, copies of the Stipulation and any related orders entered by the Court will be posted on the Settlement website, https://www.QuotientStockholderSettlement.com. If you have questions regarding the Settlement, you may contact the Settlement Administrator by mail at Quotient Stockholder Settlement, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217; by telephone at 1-877-888-9446; or by email at info@QuotientStockholderSettlement.com. You may also contact the following counsel for Plaintiffs: Saxena White P.A., Attn: Thomas Curry, 824 N. Market Street, Suite 1003, Wilmington, Delaware 19801; (302) 485-0483; corpgov@saxenawhite.com. QUTEN RESEARCH: Faces Suit Over Qunol Fish Oil Deceptive Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA WILLIS ALBRIGO, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. QUTEN RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03875-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal., July 6, 2026) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly-situated California consumers to recover damages, restitution, and other appropriate relief resulting from Quten's deceptive labeling and sale of the Qunol Fish Oil. Quten markets and sells Qunol Ultra Omega-3 Fish Oil (the Qunol Fish Oil). Quten prominently represents on the front label of the Qunol Fish Oil that each serving, comprising two soft gel capsules, contains "1000 mg Omega-3." According to the complaint, independent laboratory testing in May 2026, however, demonstrates that the Qunol Fish Oil contains substantially less omega-3 fatty acids than represented. Had Plaintiff known that the Qunol Fish Oil did not provide the represented amount of omega-3 fatty acids, she would not have purchased it or would have paid substantially less. Because the Qunol Fish Oil did not provide the represented amount of omega-3 fatty acids, it was worth less than what Plaintiff paid, and Plaintiff suffered economic injury as a result. The Plaintiff remains in the market for fish oil supplements and wishes to purchase fish oil in the future. The Plaintiff would purchase Qunol Fish Oil in the future if Quten accurately labeled the amount of omega-3 fatty acids provided in each serving. However, absent injunctive relief, in the future, the Plaintiff will not reasonably be able to determine whether Quten's representation regarding the amount of omega-3 fatty acids per serving is truthful, says the suit. Quten markets itself as a provider of science-backed dietary supplements, and has developed the Qunol brand into one of the leading supplement brands in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Kaden Byron, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel Sachs, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com kbyron@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com RAKUTEN KOBO: Lopez-Ambrosio Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Camille Lopez-Ambrosio and Amelia Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RAKUTEN KOBO INC., Case No. 25-CIV-00820 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06718. The Plaintiffs filed and served Kobo, the only remaining defendant in the State Court Action, with the FAC on June 10, 2026, through which, for first time in the State Court Action, Plaintiffs asserted a federal cause of action, specifically, violation the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA" or the "Wiretap Act"). The Plaintiffs allege that the use of the third-party tracking technologies to "track and intercept" Plaintiffs' internet communications while accessing the Website, "without the authorization or consent of Plaintiffs," constitutes violations of the federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rebekah S. Guyon, Esq. Jennifer C. Cooper, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Phone: 310-586-7700 Fax: 310-586-7800 Email: rebekah.guyon@gtlaw.com jennifer.cooper@gtlaw.com RAPID INVESTMENTS: Hall Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY HALL, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RAPID INVESTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, d/b/a RELEASE PAY; and AXIOM BANK N.A., Case No. 3:25-cv-05039-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the Nationwide Class and the Washington Subclass, Nationwide Class: "All persons in the United States who were: (1) taken into custody at a jail, correctional facility, detention center, or any other law enforcement facility; (2) entitled to the return of money either confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from the facility; and (3) issued a prepaid debit card by Rapid Financial Solutions, LLC and/or Axiom Bank between Jan. 16, 2024 and June 30, 2026, inclusive" Washington Subclass: "All persons who were: (1) taken into custody at a jail, correctional facility, detention center, or any other law enforcement facility located in the State of Washington; (2) entitled to the return of money either confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from the facility; and (3) issued a prepaid debit card by Rapid Financial Solutions, LLC and/or Axiom Bank between Jan. 16, 2024 and June 30, 2026, inclusive"; -- appointing Ashley Hall as Class Representative, and -- appointing Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). The Plaintiff filed this action on Jan. 16, 2025. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the EFTA by issuing unsolicited, prevalidated release cards and by imposing service and inactivity fees prohibited by the statute, and asserts related claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act and for conversion and unjust enrichment on behalf of a Washington subclass. The Parties have executed a Settlement Agreement that, if approved, would create a nonreversionary $4,200,000 fund to pay valid claims, attorney's fees and costs, notice and administration costs, and a case contribution award, with any remaining funds distributed cy pres. Rapid is a private market investment management firm specializing in placing commitments from institutional and private investors. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PQbmw9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 223-0303 E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com ehamburger@sylaw.com REDWIRE CORP: Derivative Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION NICHOLAS YINGLING, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant REDWIRE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PETER CANNITO, LES DANIELS, REGGIE BROTHERS, JOANNE ISHAM, KIRK KONERT, JONATHAN E. BALIFF, JOHN S. BOLTON and WILLIAM READ, Defendants, and REDWIRE CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant Case No. 3:24-CV-01172-TJC-LLL NOTICE OF PROPOSED DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE REDWIRE CORPORATION ("REDWIRE" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2026 (THE "RECORD DATE") PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED DERIVATIVE ACTION (THE "DERIVATIVE ACTION") AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS. IF YOU HOLD REDWIRE COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER. Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of this stockholder derivative litigation. This Notice is provided by Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Court"). It is not an expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the truth of the allegations in the litigation or merits of the claims or defenses asserted by or against any party. It is solely to notify you of the terms of the proposed Settlement, and your rights related thereto. The terms of the proposed Settlement are set forth in a written Stipulation of Settlement dated February 26, 2026 ("Stipulation") that has been publicly filed with the Court. Your rights may be affected by the settlement of the action styled Yingling v. Cannito, et al., Case No. 3:24-CV-01172-TJC-LLL (the "Derivative Action"). Plaintiff Nicholas Yingling ("Yingling" or "Plaintiff") on behalf of himself and derivatively on behalf of Redwire; individual defendants Peter Cannito, Les Daniels, Reggie Brothers, Joanne Isham, Kirk Konert, Jonathan E. Baliff, John S. Bolton, and William Read, (the "Settling Defendants"); and Nominal Defendant Redwire (together with Plaintiff and the Settling Defendants, the "Settling Parties") have agreed upon terms to settle the litigation and have signed the Stipulation setting forth those settlement terms. On July 30, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") in the Derivative Action at the Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202, Courtroom 10D. The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine: (i) whether the Settlement and the agreed to Fee and Expense Amount for Plaintiff's Counsel is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved; (ii) whether a final judgment should be entered and the Derivative Action dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation; and (iii) such other matters as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances. The Derivative Action On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Court") asserting claims in the Derivative Action for breach of fiduciary duties, violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, among other causes of action, against the Settling Defendants. The Derivative Action alleges that the Settling Defendants failed to maintain adequate internal controls and made and/or permitted the issuance of materially false or misleading statements, in violation of their fiduciary duties, causing harm to Redwire. On June 29, 2022, due to the overlap between the alleged facts and circumstances of the Derivative Action and the putative securities class action captioned Jed Lemen v. Redwire Corporation, 3:21-cv-01254 (M.D. Fla.) (the "Class Action") pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Court"), the Settling Parties stipulated to stay the Derivative Action until the then-anticipated motion to dismiss in the Class Action was resolved On April 21, 2023, following the denial, in part, of the motion to dismiss in the Class Action, the Delaware Court, upon joint stipulation, further stayed this Derivative Action pending certain events in the Class Action, including an announcement that the parties to the Class Action agreed to settle. On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Verified Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint in the Delaware Court (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleged that the Settling Defendants are liable to Redwire for issuing a series of false and misleading statements that failed to disclose, inter alia, that the Company did not maintain effective internal controls or reporting systems concerning the Company's compliance with accounting and finance policies and procedures; and that, as a result, the Settling Defendants' statements about Redwire's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Among other new allegations, the Amended Complaint included details regarding the Court's denial, in part, of the motion to dismiss in the Class Action and newly named Individual Defendant William Read. On November 14, 2024, following numerous conferences among the Settling Parties, the Settling Parties agreed, and the Delaware Court so ordered, the Parties' stipulation to transfer the Derivative Action from the Delaware Court to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Court"). On December 19, 2024, following the transfer, the Court entered the Parties' Stipulated Joint Motion to stay the Derivative Action pending resolution of the settlement proceedings in the Class Action. On August 18, 2025, the Court approved the proposed settlement of the Class Action as well as the requested fee award for the plaintiffs' counsel in that case. Settlement Negotiations In late 2024, the Settling Parties agreed to engage in settlement discussions in order to explore a potential resolution of the Derivative Action. Accordingly, on November 18, 2024, Plaintiff sent the Settling Defendants a detailed settlement demand. Over the next several months, the Settling Parties engaged in good faith and extensive negotiations over Plaintiff's settlement demand, including exchanging various drafts of proposed corporate governance reform enhancements. Ultimately, following the lengthy, arm's-length, negotiations, on August 14, 2025, the Settling Parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Derivative Action, whereby the Settling Defendants agreed to adopt the comprehensive corporate governance reforms detailed in the Stipulation. After negotiating and reaching full agreement on the Reforms, Plaintiff's Counsel and Redwire, acting by and through Counsel for Defendants, attempted to negotiate the attorneys' fees and expenses the Defendants' insurers would pay to Plaintiff's Counsel based on the substantial benefits conferred upon Redwire and its stockholders by the Settlement. Having reached an impasse, the parties agreed to mediate with Ms. Yoshida, an independent mediator with substantial experience mediating shareholder derivative actions. Ultimately, the parties reached agreement after accepting Ms. Yoshida's double-blind mediators' recommendation. In light of the substantial benefits conferred by Plaintiff's Counsel's efforts upon Redwire and its stockholders, Redwire, acting by and through its Board, has agreed that Defendants' insurers will pay nine hundred twelve thousand five hundred dollars and no cents ($912,500.00) in attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to Court approval (the "Fee and Expense Amount"). Plaintiff's Counsel has informed Defendants that they intend to apply to the Court for a service award to Plaintiff for the time and expenses Plaintiff expended in the prosecution of the Derivative Action of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to be payable from the Fee and Expense Amount awarded to Plaintiff's Counsel (the "Service Award"). Any current Redwire stockholder may appear and show cause, if he, she, or it has any reason why the Settlement of the Derivative Action should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, or why a judgment should not be entered thereon, or why requested attorneys' fees and expenses should not be approved. You must object in writing, and you may request to be heard at the Settlement Hearing. If you choose to object, then you must follow these procedures. A. You Must Make Detailed Objections in Writing Any objections must be presented in writing and must contain the following information: 1.Your name, legal address, and telephone number; 2. The case name and number (Yingling v. Cannito, et al., Case No. 3:24-CV-01172-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla.)); 3. Proof of being a Redwire shareholder as of the Record Date, February 26, 2026; 4. The date(s) you acquired your Redwire shares; 5. A statement of each objection being made; 6. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing. You are not required to appear; and 7. Copies of any papers you intend to submit, along with the names of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of their testimony. The Court may not consider any objection that does not substantially comply with these requirements. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, no current Redwire shareholder shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of all or any of the terms and conditions of the Settlement, or, if approved, the District Court Approval Order to be entered thereon approving the same, unless that person has, at least eight (8) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, filed with the Clerk of the Court appropriate proof of Redwire stock ownership, along with written objections, including the basis therefore, and all other information detailed herein. All written objections and supporting papers must be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Middle District of Florida Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse 300 North Hogan Street, 9th Floor Jacksonville, Florida 32202 OR by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. An attorney hired by a shareholder for the purpose of objecting to the Settlement must file a notice of appearance with the Clerk of the Court no later than eight (8) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing. YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR ON FILE WITH THE CLERK FOR THE COURT NO LATER THAN JULY 22, 2026. Unless the Court orders otherwise, your objection will not be considered unless it is timely filed with the Court. Your written objection must also be mailed to: Plaintiff's Counsel: RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. Seth D. Rigrodsky Vincent A. Licata 225 Broadway, Suite 3707 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 201-7692 sdr@rl-legal.com vl@rl-legal.com - And - Defendants' Counsel: SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP ALFRED J. BENNINGTON, JR. Florida Bar No. 0404985 bbennington@shutts.com GLENNYS ORTEGA RUBIN Florida Bar No. 556361 grubin@shutts.com 300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 835-6755 - And - MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP DANIEL M. SILVER dsilver@mccarter.com SARAH E. DELIA sdelia@mccarter.com Renaissance Centre 405 N. King St., 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-6331 Any Person or entity who fails to object or otherwise request to be heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have waived the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement as incorporated in the Stipulation or otherwise request to be heard (including the right to appeal) and will be forever barred from raising such objection or request to be heard in this or any other action or proceeding, and, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, shall be bound by the Judgment to be entered and the releases to be given. This Notice summarizes the Stipulation. It is not a complete statement of the events of the Derivative Action or the Settlement contained in the Stipulation. You may inspect the Stipulation and other papers in the Derivative Action at the United States District Court Clerk's office at any time during regular business hours of each business day. The Clerk's office is located at the United States District Court for the Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202, Courtroom 10D. However, you must appear in person to inspect these documents. The Clerk's office will not mail copies to you. You may also view and download the Stipulation via the Investor Relations page of Redwire's website at https://ir.redwirespace.com/ or via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at pacer.uscourts.gov. If you have any questions about matters in this Notice, you may contact: RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. Seth D. Rigrodsky Vincent A. Licata 225 Broadway, Suite 3707 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 201-7692 sdr@rl-legal.com vl@rl-legal.com PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE. BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY: Conley Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Les Conley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY, Case No. 26LA456 was removed from the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on July 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-07747. The Plaintiff alleged individual damages on behalf of himself and a larger class that may exceed 100 persons under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act ("the Act").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ryan A. Danahey, Esq. DOWNEY & LENKOV LLC 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 377-1501 Email: rdanahey@dl-firm.com RENAISSANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Ticket Suit Final Hearing Set Sept. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Renaissance Entertainment Productions agreed to a $1.9 million class action settlement to resolve claims it failed to disclose service fees for tickets to its New York Renaissance Faire in Tuxedo, New York. The Renaissance Faire settlement benefits individuals who purchased an electronic ticket to the New York Renaissance Faire between Aug. 29, 2022, and April 4, 2025. According to the class action lawsuit, Renaissance Entertainment Productions failed to disclose service fees for tickets to its New York Renaissance Faire. Plaintiffs in the case say that these hidden fees violated New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. Renaissance Entertainment Productions is a company that produces Renaissance fairs, including the New York Renaissance Faire. Renaissance Entertainment has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay up to $1.9 million to resolve the hidden ticket fee class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Renaissance Faire settlement, class members can receive a cash payment of up to $20. Renaissance Entertainment also agreed to provide non-monetary relief to consumers by changing the way New York Renaissance Fair sells tickets on its website. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 24, 2026. The final approval hearing for the class action settlement is scheduled for Sept. 22, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 24, 2026. Who's Eligible The Renaissance Faire settlement benefits individuals who purchased an electronic ticket to the New York Renaissance Faire between Aug. 29, 2022, and April 4, 2025. Potential Award Up to $20 Proof of Purchase Unique ID and PIN on class notice you received by email 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 08/24/2026 Case Name Hammond v. Renaissance Entertainment Productions Inc., Case No. 603099/2026, in the New York Supreme Court of Nassau County Final Hearing 09/22/2026 Settlement Website NYRenFaireTicketFeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator New York Renaissance Faire Ticket Fee Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2569 Portland, OR 97208-2569 info@NYRenFaireTicketFeeSettlement.com (877) 239-7771 Class Counsel Philip L. Fraietta Stefan Bogdanovich Eleanor R. Grasso BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Defense Counsel James D. Macri GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP [GN] SAFEWAY INC: Clark Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Debbie Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAFEWAY, INC., a California corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Washington, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-18199-3 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02319. The Plaintiff alleges that she is a Washington resident that was employed by Safeway as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, performing customer service and operational duties, from approximately December 29, 2025 through February 20, 2026. See First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Plaintiff's operative FAC alleges nine causes of action under Washington law: failure to provide rest periods in violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126 092; failure to provide meal periods in violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130; failure to pay minimum wages (payment of wages less than entitled) in violation of RCW 49.46.090; failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave in violation of RCW 49.46.210 and WAC 296-128-620; unlawful deductions and rebates in violation of RCW 49.52.060 and WAC 296.126-028; failure to pay all wages due at termination in violation of RCW 49.48.010; willful refusal to pay wages in violation of RCW 49.52.050; and failure to pay all wages due at established pay periods in violation of WAC 296-126-023.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: KC Hovda, Esq. Christopher J. Riley, Esq. MILLER NASH LLP 605 5th Avenue S. Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206.624.8300 Facsimile: 206.340.9599 Email: Kc.hovda@millernash.com Christopher.riley@millernash.com - and - Mara D. Curtis, Esq. Brittany M. Hernandez, Esq. Tanner J. Hendershot, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 515 S. Flower St., Suite 4300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-457-8000 Facsimile: 213-457-8080 Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com bmhernandez@reedsmith.com thendershot@reedsmith.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Seeks to Continue Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANGEL ULLOA II, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-01752-ASK (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on July 2, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., shall apply, ex parte, for an Order to continue the briefing schedule (opposition due July 7, 2026) and hearing date on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant makes this ex parte application pursuant to FRCP 6(c)(1)(C). Good cause exists for continuing the class certification deadlines: 1) Six motions to compel arbitration of putative class representative plaintiffs are under submission or pending additional discovery after the June 24, 2026 hearing; 2) There is a pending motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiff Ulloa's ability to be a class representative set for Aug. 19, 2026; 3) The outstanding issues go to the heart of whether any class action can be maintained; and 4) Additional time is needed to analyze the source code and analysis of the Plaintiffs' expert witness, Gabriel Anello, because the current production continues to be facially incomplete, in violation of the Court's order. Securitas is a provider of integrated electronic security solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VrnYmB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Frank A. Magnanimo, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. Jacob P. Waschak, Esq. Jasmine R. Kiaei, Esq. Landon R. Schwob, Esq. Lauren M. Guggisberg, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 650 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 230-4250 Facsimile: (818) 230-4251 E-mail: fmagnanimo@fisherphillips.com lking@fisherphillips.com jwaschak@fisherphillips.com lschwob@fisherphillips.com lguggisberg@fisherphillips.com SECURITY SERVICES: Mossiah Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LENEISJE MOSSIAH, v. Security Services Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04561-JAV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court, on a date and time to be designated by the Court, for an Order, substantially in the form of the proposed Preliminary Approval Order submitted herewith: (i) granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release; (ii) conditionally certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); (iii) appointing Rissmiller PLLC as Class Counsel and Leneisje Mossiah as Class Representative; (iv) approving the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and directing its distribution to the Settlement Class; and (v) scheduling a final fairness hearing to consider final approval of the settlement. The Defendant provides armed and unarmed security guards, remote video monitoring, K9 security, executive protection, and fire watch services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q1SlfR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Rissmiller, Esq. RISSMILLER PLLC 5 Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (646) 664-1412 E-mail: arissmiller@rissmiller.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Evans Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRET A. EVANS and LISA DESIMONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-05985-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying the following Classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): Nationwide the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") Class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in the United States serviced or subserviced by SPS; (2) with mortgage or deed of trust agreements incorporating standard uniform covenants from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or the Federal Housing Administration; (3) whose loans were in default when SPS began servicing or subservicing the loan; and (4) who paid an inspection fee added to their loan by SPS since Oct. 25, 2017: (a) in an amount greater than the cost of the inspections charged by inspection vendors Safeguard and ServiceLink; (b) when the inspection of the property resulting in the inspection fee did not conclude the home was Vacant or Abandoned; and/or (c) when an inspection fee was charged within 30 days of SPS's Account Notes reflecting contact with or from the borrower (including a promise to pay)." Nationwide Breach of Contract Class: All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in the United States serviced or subserviced by SPS; (2) with mortgage or deed of trust instruments incorporating standard uniform covenants from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or the Federal Housing Administration; (3) who paid an inspection fee added to their loan by SPS during the applicable statutes of limitations (set forth in Exhibit 35) calculated from Nov. 16, 20222 when the loan did not have a SPS loan status code of "DELQ" or "FC": (a) in an amount greater than the cost of the inspections charged by inspection vendors Safeguard and ServiceLink; (b) when the inspection of the property resulting in the inspection fee did not conclude the home was Vacant or Abandoned; and/or (c) when an inspection fee was charged within 30 days of SPS's Account Notes reflecting contact with or from the borrower (including a promise to pay)." Alternative Multi-State Good Faith and Fair Dealing Contract Class: If the Court does not certify the Nationwide Breach of Contract Class, the Plaintiffs seek the following alternative Multi-State Good Faith and Fair Dealing Contract Class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in the 'GFFD States' serviced or subserviced by SPS; (2) with mortgage or deed of trust instruments incorporating standard uniform covenants from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or the Federal Housing Administration; (3) who paid an inspection fee added to their loan by SPS during the applicable statutes of limitations (set forth in Exhibit 35) calculated from Nov. 16, 2022 when the loan did not have a SPS loan status code of "DELQ" or "FC": (a) in an amount greater than the cost of the inspections charged by inspection vendors Safeguard and ServiceLink; (b) when the inspection of the property resulting in the inspection fee did not conclude the home was Vacant or Abandoned; and/or (c) when an inspection fee was charged within 30 days of SPS's Account Notes reflecting contact with or from the borrower (including a promise to pay)." The GFFD States are New York as well as Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. The Classes exclude (i) SPS's officers, directors, employees, and agents as well as any outside counsel in this litigation; (ii) any judge to whom this case is assigned, along with his or her staff; and (iii) immediate family of any individual excluded by (i) or (ii). (2) Designating Plaintiff Lisa DeSimone as Class Representative for all Classes; and (3) Appointing Proposed Co-Lead Class Counsel as Co-Lead Class Counsel. SPS allegedly violated the FDCPA by charging unreasonable inspection fees not expressly permitted by Class members’ uniform mortgage agreements. The Defendant is a mortgage servicer founded in 1989 and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KwQfyi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Geman, Esq. Ellie Olson, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com eolson@lchb.com - and - Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. 55000 Main Road, 2nd Fl. Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tuspc@gmail.com - and - Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. Oren Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com ogiskan@gslawny.com - and - Ross E. Shanberg, Esq. SHANBERG STAFFORD LLP 4100 Newport Place, Suite 820 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 205-7515 E-mail: rshanberg@ssbfirm.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Evans Seeks to File Unredacted Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Evans v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05985-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion to file unredacted versions of the following redacted documents under seal: -- The Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Amended Motion for Class Certification -- Joint Decl., Ex. 6 (SPS Certificate of Authority) -- Joint Decl., Ex. 7 (SafeGuard Price List) -- Joint Decl., Ex. 8 (ServiceLink Price List) -- Joint Decl., Ex. 9 (SPS 2019 Inspection Knowledge Guide) -- Joint Decl., Ex. 10 (SPS 2024 Inspection Knowledge Guide) -- Joint Decl., Ex. 12 (SPS inspection ordering rules) -- Joint Decl., Ex. 13 (SPS REO Dept. Policy Manual) The redacted documents and testimony were designated "confidential" by SPS or Plaintiffs, in whole or the portion redacted, or contained personal and/or financial information about Plaintiff DeSimone and her SPS serviced mortgage covered by FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2. Select is a mortgage servicer founded in 1989 and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah with an additional office in Florida. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=453QST at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. 55000 Main Road, 2nd Fl. Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tuspc@gmail.com SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Valdez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sensata Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Benjamin Lopez Valdez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sensata Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE069246 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., July 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Sensata Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.sensata.com/ -- is a global industrial technology company headquartered in Attleboro, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Oct. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN FERRER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00535-DMS-GC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cabrera entered an order granting in part the joint motion to amend scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's class certification motion must be filed by Oct. 27, 2026. 2. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by Nov. 24, 2026. 3. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by Dec. 22, 2026. 4. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by March 9, 2027. 5. A Mandatory Settlement Conference will be held by video conference on Dec. 14, 2026 at 2:00 PM. 6. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw on Aug. 13, 2027 at 10:30 AM. 7. The trial is scheduled to start on Sept. 13, 2027 at 9:00 AM. The parties request an approximate 90-day extension of all deadlines in the Scheduling Order. The Court finds the parties have only established good cause for a 60-day extension. The Defendant is an American product design and technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ullwEE at no extra charge.[CC] SHAWN BENGE AGENCY: Donahue Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shawn Benge Agency, Inc. The case is styled as David Donahue, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Shawn Benge Agency, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-00316-JFB-RCC (D. Neb., July 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Shawn Benge Agency, Inc. -- https://shawnbenge.com/ -- is an insurance agency in Omaha, Nebraska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: cmiller@straussborrelli.com SKIN LAUNDRY: Case Management Conference Set for Nov. 16 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOURDES PADRON, et al., v. SKIN LAUNDRY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-02769-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order that a further case management conference will be held on Nov. 16, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom (public webinar). Except as modified by the Order, the Court adopts the dates set forth in the Joint Case Management Statement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court further orders that: -- Jury trial will begin on Aug. 15, 2028 at 8:30 a.m. -- All non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than Dec. 31, 2027. -- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than March 3, 2028. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than Jan. 21, 2028; The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than Feb. 4, 2028; and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be noticed for a hearing on Feb. 28, 2028. The Defendant provides laser facials and dermatology products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b251ZD at no extra charge.[CC] SKY CHEFS LLC: Hollis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sky Chefs, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mark Hollis, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sky Chefs, LLC, LSG Sky Chefs Supply Chain Solutions, LLC, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 26CV015793 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." SkyChefs -- https://skychefs.com/ -- is America's first, foremost, and finest aviation culinary company and has provided catering to airlines since 1942.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 SODEXO SA: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 27 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT PLATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SODEXO, S.A. and SODEXO, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02211-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carter entered an order granting the joint stipulation to extend class certification deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Motion for class certification N/A – occurred Opposition to motion for class July 27, 2026 certification: Reply in support of motion for class Aug. 10, 2026 certification: Hearing on class certification: Sept. 14, 2026 Sodexo is a French-based, multinational corporation founded in 1966 by Pierre Bellon. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sFIovS at no extra charge.[CC] TDB COMMUNICATIONS: Morgan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TDB Communications Inc. The case is styled as Derek Lanier Morgan, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. TDB Communications Inc., Does 1 to 25, Case No. 26CV015810 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." TDB Communications, Inc. -- https://www.tdbgov.com/ -- specializes in providing multilingual BPO, KPO, and LPO solutions, focusing on healthcare and legal services for both commercial and government clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Chuman, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Email: rchuman@blackstonelawpc.com TENNESSEE GAS: BJC Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO., LIMITED CIVIL ACTION individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, V. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carl J. Barbier entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks an answer to a question that would fail to propel this case forward. Numerous individualized factual issues abound. The Plaintiff cannot circumvent these issues with Louisiana suppletive law. The class cannot be certified, the Court says. This litigation concerns an alleged breach of contract between landowners and pipeline companies. The Plaintiff moves to certify the following class: "All natural and juridical persons who own immovable property within the Louisiana coastal zone that is subject to pipeline right of use servitudes granted to, or pipeline right of use servitudes procured by expropriation in favor of, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, Kinetica Energy Express, LLC, and Kinetica Partners, LLC, and/or their predecessors in interest, pursuant to which the pipelines denominated as TGP 500-1, TGP 500-2, and TGP 527A-100 were constructed in flotation canals." Tennessee Gas provides gas transportation and storage services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uLoS2V at no extra charge.[CC] TENNESSEE: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1 et al., v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00777 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a proposed class, and Disability Rights Tennessee ("DRT") via its associational standing and on behalf of a proposed class, move for certification of the Proposed Class, as defined in the Plaintiffs' amended complaint and set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. The Plaintiffs further move for appointment of Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP, the Youth Law Center, Disability Rights Tennessee, and attorneys Jonathan Tepe, David Tracey, Kasi Wautlet, David McNamee, Shannon Henris, Jack Derryberry, Jr., Bruce H. Little, Jasmine Miller, Stuart Seaborn, Diane Smith Howard, and Christopher Middleton as Class Counsel. Tennessee is a landlocked state in the U.S. South. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EhWYkE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kasi Wautlet, Esq. Jonathan Tepe, Esq. David McNamee, Esq. David Tracey, Esq. Shannon Henris, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7000 E-mail: kwautlet@sanfordheisler.com jtepe@sanfordheisler.com dmcnamee@sanfordheisler.com dtracey@sanfordheisler.com shenris@sanfordheisler.com - and - Jack Derryberry, Jr., Esq. Bruce H. Little, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS TENNESSEE 2 International Plaza, Suite 825 Nashville, TN 37217 Telephone: (615) 298-1080 E-mail: jackd@disabilityrightstn.org brucel@disabilityrightstn.org - and - Jasmine Miller, Esq. Stuart Seaborn, Esq. Diane Smith Howard, Esq. Christopher Middleton, Esq. YOUTH LAW CENTER 832 Folsom Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 413-0174 E-mail: jmiller@ylc.org sseaborn@ylc.org dsmith@ylc.org cmiddleton@ylc.org TESLA INC: Bid to Stay Waller Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WALLER, v. TESLA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-05350-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order denying without prejudice the motion to stay pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal in In re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation. Tesla implicitly requests a stay under the first-to-file rule, as the only legal authority cited in its motion applies that rule. The rule, however, does not apply here because both In re Tesla and the instant action are pending before the undersigned, the Court says. This action is in its early stages, and no case schedule has been set, so it is likely that the parties will have the benefit of the Ninth Circuit's decision in In re Tesla by the time this action reaches the class certification stage. No efficiency is to be gained, therefore, by staying this action now. If the Ninth Circuit has still not issued a decision within 45 days of the eventual deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification in this action, Tesla may renew its stay request, the Court adds. Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z478vj at no extra charge.[CC] TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Delaney Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT DELANEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-04686 (E.D. Pa., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard individuals' personal identifiable information including their names, contact information, Social Security numbers, and financial account information. On or around February 3, 2026, the Defendant experienced a data security incident when an unauthorized party breached its cybersecurity systems, leading to the compromise of the Personal Information Defendant collects and maintains. The Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect customers' and/or employees' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure, including Defendant's client's customers. The Defendant also owed a duty to notify Plaintiff and Class Members as soon as reasonably possible about the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures, despite possessing the financial resources and technological means to do so. Its misconduct includes failing to detect and prevent the Data Breach, failing to encrypt sensitive data, failing to adequately notify affected individuals in a timely manner, and not taking necessary steps to safeguard data post-breach. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was accessed and disclosed, alleges the suit. This action seeks to remedy Defendant's failures and their consequences. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all United States residents whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach. TAS is a financial services and insurance company which administers payment of insurance premiums and bi-weekly mortgage acceleration programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Expert Disclosure Continued to July 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting the stipulation to continue expert disclosure and expert discovery cutoff dates following ruling on class certification motion. The Parties stipulate and request that the initial expert disclosure/discovery cutoff dates be continued for two weeks pursuant to the following schedule: Expert disclosures: July 23, 2026; Expert rebuttal disclosures: Aug. 13, 2026; Expert discovery to close by: Aug. 27, 2026. Transamerica operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cAN5UL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jwinters@singletonschreiber.com sball@einsurelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Larry M. Golub, Esq. SACRO & WALKER LLP 700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 610 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 721-9597 Facsimile: (818) 721-9670 E-mail: lgolub@sacrowalker.com - and - Vivian I. Orlando, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 596-4378 Facsimile: (205) 254-1999 E-mail: VOrlando@maynardnexsen.com TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Parties Seek to Continue Expert Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint stipulation to continue the expert disclosure and expert discovery cutoff dates following ruling on class certification motion. So that the case can proceed efficiently, the Parties stipulate and request that the initial expert disclosure/discovery cutoff dates be continued for two weeks pursuant to the following schedule: Expert disclosures: July 23, 2026; Expert rebuttal disclosures: Aug. 13, 2026; Expert discovery to close by: Aug. 27, 2026. This request is made in light of the Court issuance of its June 18, 2026 Order Denying Motion for Class Certification as the Parties are now in the process of addressing how this case will proceed following the issuance of the Order, as well as potential resolution of this matter. The Parties are not requesting that any other dates be reset. On May 28, 2026, the Court conducted oral argument on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and the matter was “taken under submission with written order to follow." Transamerica operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ZUrVm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jwinters@singletonschreiber.com sball@einsurelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Larry M. Golub, Esq. SACRO & WALKER LLP 700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 610 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 721-9597 Facsimile: (818) 721-9670 E-mail: lgolub@sacrowalker.com - and - Vivian I. Orlando, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 596-4378 Facsimile: (205) 254-1999 E-mail: VOrlando@maynardnexsen.com TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Credit Reporting Errors ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Dennis Goyette filed separate class action lawsuits against Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions Inc. and TransUnion LLC. Why: Goyette claims the credit reporting agencies misreported accounts on his consumer report after they had been properly discharged in bankruptcy. Where: The class action lawsuits were filed in Florida federal court. How to get help: Did you lose money paying for services that failed to improve your credit or resolve your debt as promised? You may qualify to pursue compensation. Three new class action lawsuits accuse TransUnion, Equifax and Experian of misreporting an account on consumer reports that had been properly discharged in bankruptcy. Plaintiff Dennis Goyette filed the complaints after discovering the three credit reporting agencies continued reporting joint credit card accounts as past due, despite the account being discharged in his and his wife's joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Goyette and his wife, Peggy Goyette, filed a joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy on or about Dec. 26, 2024, and received a discharge on or about April 8, 2025, which included their Achieva Credit Union account. According to the complaints, Goyette's reports with all three agencies reflected the grant of his bankruptcy petition generally, but each agency separately continued reporting the Achieva account as past due rather than discharged. The Experian complaint further alleges the agency listed the account as "closed at consumer's requests." Goyette claims the same Achieva account, however, was reported correctly as discharged in bankruptcy on Peggy Goyette's consumer report with each of the three agencies. "The fact that the same account, included in the same bankruptcy, is being reported two different ways by TransUnion plainly elicits that it does not have the adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure that it prevents such logically inconsistent and inaccurate information from being reported on consumers' reports," the credit reporting class action lawsuits say. Credit reporting class action lawsuits allege violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act Goyette claims TransUnion, Equifax and Experian violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to maintain reasonable procedures regarding the accuracy of its consumer reports. All three credit reporting lawsuits raise identical allegations against each respective agency, claiming each "fails to have reasonable procedures to ensure the accurate reporting of joint accounts associated with joint bankruptcy filings." Goyette alleges the inaccurate credit reporting unfairly lowered his credit score and caused him embarrassment, frustration, emotional distress and anxiety each time his credit was reviewed. Each lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class that includes consumers who, within two years of filing, had a joint account reported by that agency as not discharged in bankruptcy, while the same account was correctly reported as discharged on the other joint accountholder's report. Goyette demands a jury trial in respect of each agency and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with statutory and punitive damages for himself and the class. In another case involving credit reports, a federal judge recently certified a class action lawsuit filed against TransUnion over claims it sold credit reports to an alleged sham debt collector. Goyette is represented by Joseph H. Kanee of Marcus & Zelman LLC. The TransUnion, Equifax and Experian class action lawsuits are Goyette v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01838; Goyette v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-01840; and Goyette v. TransUnion LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01841, all in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN] UDR INC: Keller Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UDR, Inc. The case is styled as Jacob Keller, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. UDR, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03865-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal., July 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. UDR Inc. -- https://www.udr.com/ -- (formerly United Dominion Realty) is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that invests in apartments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER , PA 1990 North California Blvd., Ste. 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com UNILEVER UNITED: Court Narrows Claims in Novick Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELICIA NOVICK et al., v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04804-EP-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Padin entered a judgment that will grant in part and deny in part Unilever's motion to dismiss. All dismissals are without prejudice. In summary, the Court will: dismiss Counts One (California's Unfair Competition Law, "UCL") and Two (California's False Advertising Law, "FAL"), dismiss the Plaintiffs' omission theory in Count Six (New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, "NJCFA"), dismiss Count Ten (Common-law Fraud and Fraudulent Concealment) without prejudice, deny the Motion as to Counts Three, Four, Five, Seven, Eight, and Nine, and deny in part as to Count Six. The Plaintiffs will have 30 days from the entry of the Order to file an amended complaint. The UCL and FAL claims fail because the Plaintiffs have not pleaded that they lack an adequate remedy at law. The California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claim survives because it seeks damages, which the adequate-remedy bar does not reach The Plaintiffs allege that the "hypoallergenic" and "sensitive skin" representations on Unilever's Dove Sensitive Skin Body Wash are false and misleading because the body wash contains ingredients that are known skin sensitizers that cause allergic reactions, and that Plaintiffs suffered an economic injury by paying for a product that was not as represented. The Plaintiffs define six classes of putative plaintiffs: Nationwide Class: "All people in the United States who purchased the Product for personal or household use during the last four years." California Subclass: "All people in California who purchased the Product for personal or household use during the last four years." New York Subclass: "All people in New York who purchased the Product for personal or household use during the last four years." New Jersey Subclass: "All people in New Jersey who purchased the Product for personal or household use during the last four years." Multi-State Warranty Class: "All people who purchased the Product for personal or household use (1) in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, or Wyoming within the applicable statute of limitations; or (2) in Colorado or Massachusetts within the applicable statute of limitations." Multi-State Consumer Protection Class: "All people who purchased the Product for personal or household use (1) in the states of Michigan, Minnesota, or New Jersey within the applicable statute of limitations; (2) in the state of Missouri within the applicable statute of limitations; (3) in the states of California, Florida, Massachusetts, or Washington within the applicable statute of limitations; or (4) in the states of Illinois and New York within the applicable statute of limitations." Unilever manufactures personal care products. A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bcuztz at no extra charge.[CC] UNION PACIFIC: Class Definition Modified in Black Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYE BLACK et al., v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-01218-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Melgren entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff's motion to revise Class Area is granted. -- The Plaintiff's class definition is modified to exclude single-family home residential real properties that have existing vapor barriers. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted subject to the revision of the class area described in the Plaintiff's motion to revise the Class Area and the Court's modification. -- William R. Griffin, Ryan D. Ellis, Christopher T. Nidel, Jonathan Nace, Ari Kresch, and Steven J. German are appointed as class counsel. Because the Court found that there are fewer individual issues than Union Pacific posits, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has met her burden of showing that class treatment of the claims here is superior to individual suits—especially considering the expense of this litigation and anticipated recovery for individual plaintiffs. The Plaintiff alleges that Union Pacific has caused trichloroethylene ("TCE") to contaminate her and the proposed class members' properties. The Plaintiff's proposed class is defined as: "Any and all persons that currently own any single-family home residential real property depicted by the area outlined in blue and identified in pink representing groundwater contamination of 1.2 µg/L." On June 5, 2026, the Court denied Union Pacific's motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part Union Pacific's motion to exclude. Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cPHrXj at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AIRLINES: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Window Seat Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Goodman, writing for Global News, reports that a U.S. federal judge rejected a bid by United Airlines to dismiss a lawsuit brought by passengers who claimed they paid extra money to sit by a window, only to discover their seats had no windows. U.S. District Judge James Donato rejected United's argument that the term "window" referred only to a seat's position relative to the cabin wall and aisle, rather than guaranteeing passengers a view outside. He also said United's ⁠ticketing terms, boarding passes and reservation screens clearly state that it would provide window seats to passengers who paid for them. "No more is needed at this stage for ⁠the breach claims to go forward," he ruled, Reuters reported. The class action lawsuit was filed last August against United Airlines, after passengers who had purchased what they believed were window seats found themselves seated next to walls on Boeing 737, Boeing 757, and Airbus A321 planes, and claimed the carriers did not disclose that there were missing windows during the booking process. "When consumers choose to book an airplane seat adjacent to the wall, they expect it to have a window," the lawsuit states. "Indeed, during the seat selection process on its mobile app, United affirmatively describes every wall-adjacent seat as having a 'window' -- including the windowless seats," it continues. Sometimes plane walls align with other components, such as air-conditioning ducts, electrical conduits and wiring, or structural joints. United, which is based in Chicago, has not commented on the lawsuit but told Reuters it had "added more detail to our seat selection process, so customers can have more information about what ⁠to expect when they choose a seat." Delta, which is headquartered in Atlanta, is also seeking to dismiss a lawsuit in a federal court in New York on the same issue, Reuters added. According to the legal filing, the plaintiffs claimed they purchased window seats to combat motion sickness and fears of flying, to keep children entertained, or to enjoy the view. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for passengers who were under the impression they would be seated next to a window when they purchased a window seat, to which it claims there are likely "millions." Class action lawsuits against airlines don't always come from passengers; earlier this year, six former Spirit Airlines employees sued the now-defunct carrier, alleging it failed to provide proper written notice of termination and that they are still owed pay and benefits. On May 2, Spirit Airlines announced that it had gone out of business after 34 years and "started an orderly wind-down of our operations, effective immediately." The lawsuit states that approximately 17,000 employees were "suddenly without jobs or benefits and still owed pay for their accrued sick leave and vacation time." Also in May, in a move to bolster financial safeguards for airline passengers, the Canadian government announced it would increase the maximum fine that can be levied against carriers for repeated violations of the air passenger bill of rights from $250,000 to $1 million and that under new legislation, airlines will be required to pay out compensation to customers within 30 days. While the rules don't include protections against the misrepresentation of seats, Canada's air passenger protection regulations (APPR) do require airlines to compensate passengers for delays or cancellations that are within the carriers' control. [GN] UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Marcella Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN MARCELLA, ALEXANDRA ALTAMIRANO, RICHARD HELM, TRINA MARIE WILLIAMS, and JULISA VILLEGAS, on behalf of themselves and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a Georgia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21267 (July 6, 2026) alleges that Defendants have: -- failed to provide Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; -- failed to provide them with rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; -- failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; -- failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; -- failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; -- failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; -- failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and -- failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment in violations of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff marcella worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from approximately November 2019, through January 15, 2026. Throughout all relevant times, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees experienced computer malfunctions, login errors, software issues, or system crashes that required restarting the computer and repeating the entire boot-up process. During this time, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees remained under Defendants' control and were required to wait until the computer became operational before they could clock in. The time spent waiting for the computer to boot up was not accurately recorded or compensated. As a result, by the time Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees successfully logged into the employer's timekeeping system, several minutes -- often up to five minutes or more -- had already elapsed. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees for this pre- shift work time, resulting in unpaid wages for all hours worked, the suit says. UPS is an American multinational shipping and logistics giant headquartered in Sandy Springs, Georgia. Operating globally, it provides package delivery, supply chain management, and freight services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-010 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Right Steps Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Right Steps LLC and Alala LLC on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUM INSIGHT, CHANGE HEALTCHARE INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC., OPTUM, INC., OPTUM FINANCIAL, INC., OPTUM BANK, AND OPTUM PAY, Case No. 3:26-cv-02256 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 1, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-03159 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational for-profit company based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, specializing in health insurance and health care services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kyle R. Hair, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1120 South Tryon Street, Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28203-6818 Phone: (704) 444-1167 Email: kyle.hair@alston.com VA SNF CONSULTING: King Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- DIONDRA KING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VA SNF CONSULTING LLC d/b/a EASTERN HEALTHCARE GROUP and BLUE RIDGE REHABILITATION AND NURSING LLC, Defendants, Case No. Case 5:26-cv-00093-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va, July 13, 2026) is a class and collective action complaint seeking damages and equitable relief arising from the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant have violated and continues to violate the federal and state laws for its policy or practice of auto-deducting 30 minutes of compensable working time per shift for purported meal periods and fails to include non-discretionary bonuses and other forms of incentive compensation in the calculation of overtime rates. Plaintiff King is a resident of Virginia who was employed by the Defendants as an LPN Wound Nurse from approximately January 15, 2025 to August 25, 2025. Eastern Healthcare Group operates multiple healthcare facilities across Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev Antell , Esq. BUTLERCURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 123 East Main Street, Suite 100 #8 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Extension of Remaining Deadlines Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MURPHY AND MARIA MURPHY, as guardians of OLIVIA MURPHY, et al., and all other Persons similarly situated, v. VILLAGES AT NOAH'S LANDING LTD., a Florida limited partnership, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00022-TPB-T_W (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the remaining deadlines in the operative amended case management & scheduling order by 90 days. The Parties are in agreement, that completing discovery and proceeding with dispositive motion practice and trial as currently scheduled, without the benefit of the Court's ruling on the outstanding Motions, has the potential to result in the Parties directing unnecessary time and expense towards claims and issues that may be narrowed or re-framed by the outcome of the Motions. The Parties also agree that, because the Motions have not yet been resolved and the pleadings are not set, and also given the recent unforeseen tragedy affecting the Defendant Bamberg and her family, there is good cause to extend the deadlines for completion of the remaining case management deadlines by 90 days. On Nov. 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their updated motion to certify class as to Counts IV-VI of the second amended complaint, appoint class representatives and class counsel, and authorize notice. Villages is a dynamic residential community for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sP6Kuj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Scarola, Esq. Victoria Mesa-Estrada, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com ScarolaTeam@searcylaw.com vmestrada@searcylaw.com; MesaTeam@searcylaw.com - and - Matthew W. Dietz, Esq. DISABILITY INCLUSION & ADVOCACY LAW CLINIC NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY SHEPARD BROAD COLLEGE OF LAW 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 262-6138 E-mail: mdietz@nova.edu - and - Matthew W. Dietz, Esq. E-mail: Fldislaw@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey M. Partlow, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 400 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, FL 32810 Telephone: (321) 972-0079 Facsimile: (321) 972-0099 E-mail: jeffrey.partlow@csklegal.com - and - Geraldine P. Asher, Esq. ZIMMERMAN, KISER & SUTCLIFFE P.A. 315 E. Robinson Street, Suite 600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 425-7010 Facsimile: (407) 425-2747 E-mail: gasher@zkslaw.com tpoore@zkslaw.com service@zkslaw.com - and - Tori C. Simmons, Esq. Allison M. Stevenson, Esq. HILL, WARD & HENDERSON, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700 Tampa, FL 33601 Telephone: (813) 221-3900 Facsimile: (813) 221-2900 E-mail: tori.simmons@hwhlaw.com michelle.armstrong@hwhlaw.com allison.stevenson@hwhlaw.com teri.richards@hwhlaw.com - and - Noel F. Johnson, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2401 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 957-1157 Facsimile: (786) 957-1158 E-mail: Noel.Johnson@Dinsmore.com Jessica.SanMartin@Dinsmore.com VINTAGE WINE: $7.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA MARILYN EZZES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VINTAGE WINE ESTATES, INC., PATRICK RONEY, KATHERINE DEVILLERS, and KRISTINA JOHNSTON, Defendants. Case No. 2:22-cv-01915-GMN-DJA NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES Your rights may be affected by the securities class action (the "Action") pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Court"), if you purchased the publicly traded common stock of Vintage Wine Estates, Inc. ("Vintage Wine" or the "Company") between October 13, 2021 and February 8, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were damaged thereby. The Court-appointed lead plaintiffs Marilyn Ezzes and Jeffrey A. Davies (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), and additional plaintiff Michael F. Salbenblatt (together with Lead Plaintiffs, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $7,500,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). This Notice relates to a proposed Settlement of claims in a pending securities class action brought by investors alleging, among other things, that defendants Patrick Roney, Katherine DeVillers, and Kristina Johnston (collectively, "Defendants"), all of whom were executives of Vintage Wine, violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose that Vintage Wine's inventory was overstated and that its cost of goods was understated. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will settle claims of the Settlement Class. Assuming that all Settlement Class Members elect to participate in the Settlement, the estimated average recovery (before the deduction of any Court-approved fees, expenses and costs as described herein) per eligible share of Vintage Wine common stock is $0.79. Settlement Class Members should note, however, that the foregoing average recovery per share of Vintage Wine common stock is only an estimate. Some Settlement Class Members may recover more or less than this estimated amount depending on, among other factors, when and at what prices they purchased and/or sold their Vintage Wine common stock, and the total number of valid Claim Forms submitted. Court-appointed Lead Counsel, Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP ("Lead Counsel"), which have been prosecuting the Action on a wholly contingent basis since its appointment as Lead Counsel in 2023, and additional counsel for Plaintiffs, Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd. and Block & Leviton LLP (together with Lead Counsel, "Plaintiffs' Counsel"), have not received any payment of attorneys' fees for their representation of the Settlement Class and have advanced the funds to pay expenses necessarily incurred to prosecute this Action. Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 331⁄3% of the Settlement Fund. In addition, Lead Counsel will apply for reimbursement of Litigation Expenses paid or incurred in connection with the institution, prosecution and resolution of the claims against the Defendants, in an amount not to exceed $280,000 (consisting of actual expenses of up to $265,000 for litigating the case and negotiating the Settlement, and reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Settlement Class in an aggregate amount not to exceed $15,000). Any fees and expenses awarded by the Court will be paid from the Settlement Fund. Settlement Class Members are not personally liable for any such fees or expenses. Estimates of the average cost per affected share of Vintage Wine common stock, if the Court approves Lead Counsel's fee and expense application, is $0.29 per eligible share. Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are represented by Casey E. Sadler, Esq. of Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, (310) 201-9150, settlements@glancylaw.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you are subject to the Settlement, unless you timely request to be excluded. The Settlement Class consists of: all persons and entities that purchased the publicly traded common stock of Vintage Wine between October 13, 2021 and February 8, 2023, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) persons and entities that suffered no compensable losses; and (b)(i) Defendants and Vintage Wine; (ii) any person who served as a partner, control person, officer and/or director of Vintage Wine during the Settlement Class Period, and members of their Immediate Families; (iii) present and former parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, affiliates, and predecessors of Vintage Wine; (iv) any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest; (v) any trust of which a Defendant is the settlor or which is for the benefit of a Defendant and/or member(s) of their Immediate Family; (vi) Defendants' liability insurance carriers; and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, predecessors, and assigns of any person or entity excluded under provisions (i) through (vi) hereof. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. To be eligible for a payment from the proceeds of the Settlement, you must be a member of the Settlement Class and you must timely complete and return the Claim Form to the Claims Administrator by first-class mail to: Vintage Wine Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063 OR SUBMITTED ONLINE at www.VintageWineSecuritiesSettlement.com. The completed Claim Form must include adequate supporting documentation and must be postmarked or received no later than October 9, 2026. A Claim Form is available on the website maintained by the Claims Administrator for the Settlement, www.VintageWineSecuritiesSettlement.com, or you may request that a Claim Form be mailed to you by calling the Claims Administrator toll free at (866) 274-4004. Please retain all records of your ownership of and transactions in Vintage Wine common stock, as they may be needed to document your Claim. If you request exclusion from the Settlement Class or do not submit a timely and valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund. Unless the Court otherwise orders, any Settlement Class Member who fails to submit a Claim Form postmarked or received on or before October 9, 2026 shall be fully and forever barred from receiving payments pursuant to the Settlement but will in all other respects remain a Settlement Class Member and be subject to the provisions of the Stipulation, including the terms of any judgment entered and the releases given. The Settlement Hearing will be held on September 22, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro in Courtroom 7-D of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Lloyd D. George Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89101. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and/or any other matter related to the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing without further notice to the members of the Settlement Class. The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means, in which event the Claims Administrator will update its website regarding the Settlement Hearing's telephonic or virtual format. Any Settlement Class Member who or which does not request exclusion may object to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Objections must be in writing. You must file any written objection, together with copies of all other papers and briefs supporting the objection, with the Clerk's Office at the United States District Court for the District of Nevada at the address set forth below on or before September 1, 2026. You must also serve the papers on Lead Counsel and on Defendants' Counsel at the addresses set forth below so that the papers are received by, or postmarked, no later than September 1, 2026. Clerk's Office United States District Court for the District of Nevada Clerk of the Court Lloyd D. George Courthouse 333 Las Vegas Blvd. South Las Vegas, NV 89101 Lead Counsel Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP Casey E. Sadler, Esq. 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Defendants' Counsel Snell & Wilmer LLP Joseph G. Adams, Esq. One East Washington Street Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 All inquiries concerning this Notice and the Claim Form should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel at: Vintage Wine Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (866) 274-4004 www.VintageWineSecuritiesSettlement.com and/or Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Email: settlements@glancylaw.com DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT, THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. By Order of the Court United States District Court District of Nevada VIP INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 3, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fedorchuk v. V.I.P., Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-11257 (D. Mass., Filed May 7, 2025), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered amended scheduling order as follows: Amended Pleadings due by Sept. 30, 2026 Fact Discovery to be completed by March 1, 2027 Motion for Class Certification due by Sept 3, 2027 Opposition due by Oct. 22, 2027 Reply due by Nov. 19, 2027 The nature of suit states Statutory Actions.[CC] VITAL FARMS: Wang Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Wilkerson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON WILKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VITAL FARMS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00738-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Pitman entered an order that Wang's motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel, is granted. The Court further orders that: -- Wang is appointed to serve as Lead Plaintiff in this action pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. -- Wang's selection of Lead Counsel is approved. -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. is appointed as Lead Counsel for the Class. -- Condon Tobin Sladek Sparks Nerenberg PLLC is appointed as Liaison Counsel for the Class. -- Roy's Motion, Firemen Retirement System's Motion, and Maddock's duplicative motions are dismissed as moot. Given that Wang filed a timely motion to be appointed lead plaintiff, is the movant with the largest financial interest in the case and satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23, the Court finds that Wang should be named lead plaintiff The Court also approves of Wang's selection of Rosen Law as lead counsel and Condon Tobin as liaison counsel, given the firms' prior experiences "in the area of securities litigation and class actions" and successful prosecutions of many "securities litigations and securities fraud class actions on behalf of investors." The Plaintiff brought this Class Action Complaint against the Defendants on March 27, 2026 "on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Vital Farms securities between May 8, 2025 and Feb. 26, 2026." Vital Farms is a Certified B Corporation that offers a range of ethically produced foods nationwide. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ECTVLu at no extra charge.[CC] WAL-MART TRANSPORTATION: Piccolo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anthony Piccolo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART TRANSPORTATION, LLC, an Arkansas corporation, and CORY LANGE, a Washington individual, Case No. 25-2-01521-21 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for Lewis County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05725. The Plaintiff seeks to recover alleged compensatory and exemplary damages arising from Walmart's allegedly unlawful policies and practices that denied Plaintiff overtime premiums in accordance with the Washington State Minimum Wage Act ("MWA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: E. Ashley Paynter, Esq. Lauren S. Titchbourne, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 876-5320 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: Ashley.paynter@ogletree.com Lauren.titchbourne@ogletree.com WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Moldy Chia Seeds ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Walmart has failed to warn consumers that its Great Value Organic Chia Seeds contain excessive levels of mold and yeast, despite marketing the product as a nutritious, organic food. The 26-page complaint states that the Walmart Great Value chia seeds were found to have levels of mold that "indicate spoilage," even though the products were tested "well before their expiration dates." Per the suit, consuming excessive amounts of mold and yeast could lead to serious adverse health consequences, and the Great Value chia seeds at issue were found to have eight times the allowable level of mold, the case states. The product packaging for the Great Value chia seeds identifies no contaminants, and neither mold nor yeast nor any warning about their potential inclusion are listed anywhere on product labels, the filing says, alleging the products are "in no way safe for human use and entirely worthless." According to the lawsuit, chia seeds are widely regarded as a nutrient-dense superfood valued for their high levels of fiber, healthy fats, proteins and essential minerals. The case argues that consumers reasonably expect a product advertised for its health benefits to be safe and void of any dangerous constituents. However, the complaint alleges that independent testing found that Great Value Organic Chia Seeds contain excessive amounts of harmful contaminants. Central to the lawsuit is testing conducted in June 2026 by ConsumerLab.com, an independent product testing organization that evaluated chia seed products from multiple retailers for nutrient content, pathogenic microbes and contaminants such as yeast, mold, lead and arsenic. According to the complaint, the testing revealed that Walmart's chia seeds contained approximately 8,000 colony-forming units (CFU) of mold per gram—which is eight times the 1,000 CFU per gram limit on mold and yeast set out by the United States Pharmacopeia. The suit notes that although the tested samples had mold levels indicative of spoilage or expiration, all products were examined well before their expiration dates. The case specifies that mold was not visibly apparent on the chia seeds, but "grew from samples." The case claims that Walmart knew or should have known about the alleged contamination given its role in manufacturing processes, sourcing and quality control. According to the complaint, consumers have no way to reasonably determine whether packaged food contains unsafe ingredients before purchasing it and must rely on the company's representations. The lawsuit further contends that the alleged contamination is particularly inconsistent with consumers' expectations of the Great Value brand, which the suit says has an "industry-wide reputation for quality," and the product's organic designation. The Walmart class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased Great Value Organic Chia Seeds during the fullest period allowed by law. [GN] WALMART INC: Thomas Sues Over the Use of Sensitive Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeanne Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart Inc., a Delaware Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00960-SMY (S.D., Ill., July 13, 2026) is a class action complaint demanding the Defendant to stop it's unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. The Plaintiff is asking the Defendant to return or destroy the biometric information it has retained for over three years and for which the initial use is no longer pertinent, and to obtain appropriate consents, among other things. Plaintiff Thomas is a consumer from Illinois who has made telephone calls to Walmart's customer line for its Vandalia Superstore. Walmart Inc. is a multinational retail corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard R. Gordon, Esq. GORDON GORDON & CENTRACCHIO, LLP 200 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 332-5200 Email: rrg@ggclaw.com - and - Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THE GRANT LAWFIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 292-4441 Facsimile: (212) 292-4442 E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com - and - Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Melissa R. Emert, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER, GRAIFMAN, PEARLMUTTER & CABALLO, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com memert@kgglaw.com WASHINGTON FINE WINE: Kellogg-Fulghum Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aliesha Kellogg-Fulghum and Jacob Kellogg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WASHINGTON FINE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-17913-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02329. The Complaint sets forth the following purported claims for relief: Violations of RCW 49.12 and WAC 296-126-092 – Failure to Compensate for Noncompliant Meal and Rest Periods; Violations of RCW 49.46 et seq. – Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Violations of RCW 49.46.130 – Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Violations of Seattle Wage Theft Ordinance, SMC 14.20; and Violation of the Seattle Secure Scheduling Ordinance Violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian K. Keeley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone (206) 626-3802 Email: Brian.Keeley@jacksonlewis.com WATTS REGULATOR: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal Due August 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL E. CORDERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WATTS REGULATOR CO., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-01656-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chi Soo Kim entered an order deferring full case schedule setting discovery pending the Court's ruling on the Defendant's forthcoming motion to enforce the parties' settlement agreement and dismiss the Plaintiff's claims. The Defendant requested "that the Court defer setting a full case schedule pending resolution of Defendant's anticipated motion to enforce the parties' settlement agreement and to dismiss Plaintiff's claims." The Plaintiff did not object to Defendant's request in the joint status report. The Defendant's motion to enforce the parties' settlement agreement and to dismiss must be filed by Aug. 1, 2026. The Plaintiff's opposition must be filed by Aug. 22, 2026. The Defendant's reply must be filed by Sept. 7, 2026. The Defendant's motion shall be heard on Sept. 22, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. If the case proceeds past the Defendant's motion to enforce the parties' settlement agreement and to dismiss, the parties will be required to submit an Updated Joint Scheduling Report, and a further scheduling conference will be held where the full case schedule will be set. This is a wage-and-hour lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Daniel Cordero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against his former employer Watts Regulator Co. Watts Regulator designs and manufactures flow control products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8hB2GI at no extra charge.[CC] WAYNE COUNTY, MI: County Must Notify Claimants, Court Says ---------------------------------------------------------- WDIV ClickOnDetroit reports that a federal judge ruled Tuesday, July 7, that Wayne County failed to notify tens of thousands of homeowners of its involvement in a pending federal class action lawsuit alleging "gross governmental abuse" in the county's foreclosure process. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in October 2020, names Wayne County and County Treasurer Eric Sabree, arguing that the county illegally seized surplus proceeds from foreclosure sales, often resulting in significant losses for the homeowners. The injunction entered on July 7 found that the county's failure to notify past homeowners of the pending class action lawsuit -- combined with the county's practice of having tax foreclosure claimants sign waivers denying their right to any surplus proceeds in the sale -- constituted a "material omission," as they may be eligible to join the action. "When Wayne County sells a foreclosed property for more than what is owed, the homeowner is entitled to all the surplus proceeds under the law. That's not a gift; it's their money," said Jason Thompson, interim co-class counsel in the case. "The court found that Wayne County was not telling homeowners the full story or that the federal lawsuit was on file." As part of the ruling, the county must contact the tens of thousands of homeowners foreclosed upon who signed waivers to notify them of the pending litigation. It also requires the county to notify any future homeowners entering foreclosure agreements of the case, so they can make an "informed decision regarding whether to proceed with a settlement, join this putative class, or pursue another option," the ruling said. The injunction, entered by U.S. District Court Judge Linda V. Parker, will be valid as long as the class action lawsuit is pending. [GN] WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY: Patrick Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westchester Community Opportunity Program, Inc. The case is styled as Yolanda Patrick, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Westchester Community Opportunity Program, Inc., Case No. 67446/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty., July 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor & Employment)." Westchester Community Opportunity Program, Inc., (WestCOP) -- https://westcop.org/ -- is a private not-for-profit, multi-purpose social service company, having proudly operated community programs combating poverty and its adverse effects in the Hudson Valley for over 50 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 WILLOWS APARTMENTS: Judge Approves $3-Mil. Class-Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanh Truong, writing for Fox8Live, reports that outside U.S. Federal Court in New Orleans on Thursday, July 8, Cierra and Michael Dobard shared a moment of joy with attorneys representing them in a class-action lawsuit against the former owners of the Willows Apartments in New Orleans East. For Cierra Dobard, who called the Fox 8 Defenders four years ago about conditions at the apartments, the day would never have come. "I just had no idea that it would go this far. I had no idea that I would like affect city leaders to come out, and it was just incredible how one person could make a difference," said Cierra Dobard. The Dobards say there were unsanitary and, in some cases, unsafe conditions at the complex where they once lived. The Willows Apartments was owned by Global Ministries Foundation. For years, the Tennessee-based religious nonprofit paid no property taxes because of its religious designation. Global Ministries Foundation also received millions of dollars in state financing for the two local properties it owned: the Willows Apartments and the Parc Fontaine Apartments in Algiers. Conditions at both complexes were the focus of a series of Fox 8 Defenders reports by Meg Gatto. The stories caught the attention of city and state leaders, who stripped Global Ministries Foundation of its tax-exempt status. The Dobards eventually filed a class-action lawsuit against Global Ministries Foundation. On July 8, U.S. District Judge Barry Ashe approved a $3 million settlement in the case, opening the door for hundreds of claimants to receive refunds of the rent they paid. "It will depend on the months they were there and how many, but essentially, they'll receive a refund of the lease payments provided for each month that they were there. So, for the people there from 2014-2025, that's going to be a reimbursement for each month. It's going to depend on the length of stay," said Jacob Young, class counsel and claims administrator in the lawsuit. Plaintiff attorney Megan Kiefer said the settlement is a victory for housing rights. "This case really represents what happens when there is a cross cooperation of government. It represents the cooperation of the news media and Meg Gatto and Fox 8 having shed so much light on the uninhabitable conditions of a property that all of our citizens are living in," said Megan Kiefer. The Dobards said their four-year fight for justice started with a call to the Fox 8 Defenders. While they're happy with the outcome, they said many people in the city are facing housing problems and encouraged them to speak out. "If we hadn't said anything, I don't think anything would've been done. You know, some people are just used to being kicked in the butt," said Michael Dobard. The attorney representing Global Ministries Foundation declined to comment after Thursday's court hearing. The Willows Apartments ultimately fell into foreclosure and was sold at auction earlier this year. The new owners pledged to revitalize the complex. [GN] WORKDAY INC: Mobley Seeks to Extend Class Cert Schedule ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK L. MOBLEY; FAITHLINH ROWE; JILL E. HUGHES; AND SHEILAH JOHNSONROCHA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WORKDAY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to change time pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1 and 6-3(a) to extend class certification and collective decertification schedule. The Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the class certification and collective decertification briefing schedule for two months. The Plaintiffs also request an adjustment to the briefing schedule to create parity between the Parties on opposition time, as reflected in the proposed scheduled attached as Exhibit 1. The Plaintiffs did not – and could not – build the current schedule around a disclosure and document production Workday did not make until this month. Workday's late disclosure are significant: they reveal that Workday intends to rely on customer applicant flow data as a defense, which suggests that Workday is gathering customer data to support its own defense while telling Plaintiffs and the Court that it cannot access the data for production purposes. The proposed extension is modest, introduces no new procedural steps in the class certification and ADEA decertification briefing schedule. Granting the extension will permit the Parties to complete the discovery already in motion and brief class certification on a more complete record, while denying it risks prejudicing Plaintiffs and potentially less streamlined presentation of evidence after pending disputes are resolved. Workday is an American on‑demand (cloud-based) financial management, human capital management, and student information system software vendor. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xi64wj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee D. Winston, Esq. Roderick T. Cooks, Esq. Bethany Mae Logan, Esq. WINSTON COOKS, LLC 420 20th Street North, Suite#2200 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 482-5174 Facsimile: (205) 278-5876 E-mail: lwinston@winstoncooks.com rcooks@winstoncooks.com bneal@winstoncooks.com - and - Jay Greene, Esq. GREENE ESTATE, PROBATE, AND ELDER LAW FIRM 447 Sutter Street, Suite 435 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 905-0215 E-mail: greeneattorney@gmail.com - and - Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Esq. Ann K. Wiggins, Esq. Samuel Fisher, Jr., Esq. Jennifer Wiggins Smith, Esq. Nicki Leili Lawsen, Esq. Freddrick M. Moore, Esq. Lori Kisch, Esq. Meredith Burrell, Esq. Jennifer M. Swedish, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: rwiggins@wigginschilds.com awiggins@wigginschilds.com sf@wigginschilds.com jsmith@wigginschilds.com nlawsen@wigginschilds.com mmoore@wigginschilds.com lkisch@wigginschilds.com mburrell@wigginschilds.com jswedish@wigginschilds.com X.AI CORP: Class Suit Over Deepfake Sexual Abuse Material Expands ----------------------------------------------------------------- Huo Jingnan, writing for NPR, reports that new plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Elon Musk's AI company, SpaceXAI (formerly xAI), allege that the company's image-generation models were used to create child sexual abuse material and that the company failed to adequately share information about an alleged perpetrator with authorities. Two plaintiffs, one in Wyoming and the other in Wisconsin, joined the lawsuit filed by three Tennessee teenagers earlier this year, according to an amended complaint filed on Tuesday, July 7. All the plaintiffs are referred to as Jane Does. The suit was also expanded to include Stability AI, the company behind the Stable Diffusion image generator, as a defendant. The suit alleges that the perpetrators, including a plaintiff's male friend and another plaintiff's stepfather, used the companies' AI models to alter photos taken when the plaintiffs were underage to make child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The five plaintiffs accuse the companies of producing CSAM, benefiting from sex trafficking ventures, negligence, defective product design and creating a public nuisance. "Public nuisance means that this is not just something that is problematic for our clients . . . this is something that is a scourge on society," said Annika Martin, an attorney for all five plaintiffs. "We want to put these guardrails in place so that we do not cause this harm across an entire generation of children." The plaintiffs are asking the AI companies to install more effective guardrails to prevent the creation of exploitative and abusive imagery as well as seeking monetary compensation. The case of Jane Doe 4 While SpaceXAI, like other internet companies, is required by law to report suspected child sexual exploitation, including CSAM, to the nonprofit National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), the lawsuit alleges that the company failed to adequately do so. SpaceXAI was previously known as xAI. The company rebranded this month following its merger with Musk's SpaceX earlier this year. According to the complaint, the stepfather of Jane Doe 4, a woman in her 20s in Wyoming, used SpaceXAI's chatbot, Grok, to generate about 7,000 sexually explicit images and videos from a single photograph taken when Jane Doe 4 was about 11. The AI-generated images included depictions of her nude, performing sexual acts on men, including her stepfather. Some images also included explicit captions. SpaceXAI only sent one tip regarding Jane Doe 4 to NCMEC in February, when the stepfather asked the model to generate an image depicting the girl being raped by multiple men, according to the complaint. The company did not include any of the abusive images with its report, and also failed to share the alleged perpetrator's IP address with NCMEC and law enforcement, even after officials requested it multiple times, according to the complaint. Many electronic service providers submit a large volume of reports of suspicious activity to NCMEC, but do not include "sufficient or actionable information" because the law did not require it, the center wrote in a report in March. When law enforcement eventually tracked down and investigated the stepfather, they found that he, like the other perpetrators mentioned in the lawsuit, traded the sexually explicit images with others online, according to the complaint. Two days after law enforcement searched his digital devices and charged him with child exploitation offenses, he died by suicide. "Jane Doe 4 entered a period of extreme personal crisis," the complaint said. "She had to grapple with the trauma of her own sexual exploitation while at the same time assisting her mother in navigating the loss of her stepfather . . . Her family was torn apart, and her life became a nightmare." Law enforcement told Jane Doe 4 that her stepfather had used Grok because it was more responsive to his prompts than other AI models, according to Martin, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. NCMEC declined to comment on the case and referred NPR to law enforcement. The Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, whose task force on internet crimes against children was identified as one of the law enforcement agencies involved in Jane Doe 4's case in the complaint, did not respond to a request for comment. SpaceXAI did not respond to a request for comment. Apps that can alter photographs to make intimate images and pornography have existed for years in the shadows of the internet. But the creation of nonconsensual intimate images became much more mainstream in 2025 when major AI companies including Google, OpenAI and xAI updated their image generation tools in a way that allowed users to strip people down to bikinis. From late 2025 into early this year, people used xAI's tools to make a large number of altered photos showing women and children stripped down to bikinis or even less. As a result, countries including Indonesia, Malaysia and the UK launched investigations and imposed temporary bans on xAI. Currently, according to NPR's testing, chatbots created by Google and OpenAI refuse to respond to the prompt "put her in a bikini." A free version of Grok showed an error in loading images after receiving the same prompt. Stability AI is a new defendant Stability AI, which makes the image generation tool Stable Diffusion, was added as a new defendant in connection with the claims filed by the three initial teenage plaintiffs in Tennessee. The complaint was updated to add that "The application on the perpetrator's phone used to create the AI CSAM of Plaintiffs relied on Stability AI's image-producing tools." Unlike proprietary models such as those made by SpaceXAI, OpenAI and Anthropic, Stability AI's models are open-weight, which means it's much easier for users to remove restrictions that model makers have put in place. What's more, the model maker generally doesn't have insight into user queries. Nonetheless, the lawsuit alleges Stability AI could have restricted its models' ability to generate CSAM but chose not to in its more recent releases. The Verge reported in November 2022 that Stability AI said it filtered out not-safe-for-work (NSFW) content from its training data to restrict the Stable Diffusion Version 2 model's ability to generate CSAM. This decision drew backlash from users, including one who decried the update as "censorship," The Verge reported. A more recent version of Stability AI's model was frequently used to generate NSFW content and generated a higher proportion of such content compared with outputs from Stable Diffusion Version 2, according to a research paper by scholars from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other institutions, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. Stable Diffusion Version 2 was also much less popular than the Stability AI models that came before and after it, the researchers found. "When they realized that nobody wanted to use their model when they put those guardrails in place, they rolled those guardrails right back so that everybody would want to use their model again," Martin said. "They knew exactly how to rein this behavior in and they chose not to for profit." "Any suggestion that safety is not a top priority for us is categorically wrong. We take our ethical responsibilities seriously," Stability AI said in a statement to NPR. The company said it has "implemented robust safeguards" and works regularly with civil society groups and other tech companies to strengthen them. [GN] ZILLOW GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of Class A or Class C common stock of Zillow Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZG) (NASDAQ: Z) between February 11, 2025 and May 7, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 10, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased Zillow common stock during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Zillow class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/zillow-group-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 10, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Zillow's agreement with Redfin Corporation was not a "partnership," but rather an acquisition of Redfin's business; (2) as a result of the Redfin Agreement, Zillow faced a materially heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and liability under federal antitrust laws; (3) upon the filing of an antitrust lawsuit, Zillow continued to downplay its legal exposure; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Zillow's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Zillow class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/zillow-group-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Court Allows Mesothelioma Claims Against CIHL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Oppenheimer, writing for mesothelioma.net, reports that South Carolina Supreme Court's decision in the case of John A. Tibbs and his wife represents a significant shift for both the lung cancer victim and for countless mesothelioma and asbestos victims impacted by the actions of companies outside of the United States. The Tibbs had filed suit to hold Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited responsible for its sales of the raw asbestos that caused his lung cancer. They asked for a court-appointed receiver to pursue ESAB Corp. for asbestos liabilities through veil-piercing theories tied to the English company. The original lawsuit named numerous defendants, including Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited (CIHL), alleging that exposure to asbestos provided by Cape Asbestos Company caused Mr. Tibbs' lung cancer. The company is said to have sold more than 95% of the type of asbestos commonly used in industry and on U.S. Navy ships from the early 1950s through the late 1970s. The case involved significant confusion about which of several "Cape" entities should be held responsible, but the parties ultimately agreed that CIHL, as successor to Cape Asbestos Company, was the correct defendant in the case. The trial court had previously appointed a receiver for Cape in a related asbestos case, but was faced with the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. This led to appeals and an eventual remand to ensure the receivership complied with established legal guidelines. In its ruling in the asbestos lung cancer case, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed that the trial court did have jurisdiction in the case, and that appointment of a pre-judgment receiver was justified specifically because CIHL's conduct was intended to defeat or hinder mesothelioma and asbestos claimants rather than on the purported basis of insolvency. The Court modified the order to limit the receiver's authority to collect insurance assets and pursue related claims responsive to the Tibbs plaintiffs, while clarifying that foreign court decisions did not control personal jurisdiction determinations in South Carolina. The receiver will be pursuing claims alleging that ESAB and other entities are the alter ego of Cape, a company long tied to mesothelioma and asbestos litigation across the United States. According to a representative for the Tibbs family, "Cape Asbestos was responsible for almost all of the amphibole asbestos imported into the United States. … This opinion allows the court-appointed receiver to move forward in proving that case." Beyond the immediate case involving the Tibbs, the court's ruling raises broader questions about mesothelioma and lung cancer litigation exposure for multinational corporations. The decision means mesothelioma and lung cancer victims pursuing claims tied to Cape Asbestos's decades of asbestos sales now have a clearer legal path to hold ESAB Corp. accountable, despite having strategically buried assets and identification within complex corporate structures spanning multiple countries. ********* 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 ***