260805.mbx

260805.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 5, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 155 Headlines 533 SOUTH: Underpays Company Employees, Alvarez Alleges 8AM LLC: Agrees to Settle Docketwise Data Incident Class Action ABB DE INC: Van-Horn Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations ALCLEAR LLC: Scott Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Starting System ANALOG DEVICES: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ANMED: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach Claims ANTHROPIC PBC: Smith Files Suit Over Deceptive AI Product Marketing ASP UNIFRAX: Fails to Keep Private Information Secure, McGill Says ASP UNIFRAX: Fails to Secure Private Info, Gould Alleges ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Folkner Files Suit Over Data Breach AUTOSEP TECHNOLOGIES: O'Leary Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AVANTOR INC: Dismissal Move Filed in Consolidated Securities Suits AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Edgerton Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. AZLE SMILES: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach Claims BAYADA HOME: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Grove Alleges BIO GREEN: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Future NRG BLOOM ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jordan Sues Over Defective Medical Implants BOT COMPANY: Faces Class Action for Contract Workers' Unpaid Wages BRITISH AMERICAN: Suit Challenges "No Additives" Cigarette Claims C & C NORTH AMERICA: McLemore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAPITAL ONE: Paquin Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy CHEMOCENTRYX INC: $69MM Class Settlement Claims Filing Due Oct. 1 CLARIVATE PLC: Prelim Objections Pending in Securities Class Suits CLINIC INC: Burke Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages CLOVER HEALTH: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Karwoski Says COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit COMPANION ASSET: Young Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CREDIT CONTROL: Masri Files Suit in E.D. New York CRUISE YACHT: McDermott Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages CSS DISTRIBUTIONS: Navarrete Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages DAMBROSIO TRADING: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DECK HELMET: Markland Files Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages DESERT HAVEN: Rodriguez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages DMC GLOBAL: Securities Class and Derivative Claims Dismissed DONALD P. DICK AIR: Yang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EAST TERRACE: Saiz-Hardwick Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept 21 EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Contreras Sues Over Unpaid Compensation FAMOUS INDUSTRIES: Hartwell Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FANNIE MAE: Appeals Court Affirms $499M Stockholder Judgment FEDERAL EXPRESS: Williams Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification FENIX CONSULTING: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages FENIX CONSULTING: Jamison-Smith Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages FINWARD BANCORP: M&A Investigates Sale to First Financial FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit FNJ STUDIOS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Moore-Pryor Alleges GENERAL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Claims Dismissed With Prejudice GKN DRIVELINE: Bids to Dismiss Carson Class Suit Tossed GKN DRIVELINE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Ayers" GLOBAL PARKING SYSTEMS: Estrada Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages GLUE DOTS: Website Conceals Tracking Software, Hughes Says GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Data Sharing with Temu, Baidu GPGI INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements GREAT MOSES: Property Rife with ADA Breaches, Henderson-Thomas Says GROUPON INC: Tompkins Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois GUNTHER'S QUALITY ICE: Yang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Securities Settlement Paid, Derivatives Filed HEALTHSTREAM INC: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach Claims HIGNELL INCORPORATED: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Wages HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Sale of Consumer Data HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Graves-Smith Sues Over Unpaid Wages INDICO DATA: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Perez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages IQ CREDIT: Overdraft Suit Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Sept. 25 JACK'S FAMILY: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Court OK JAGUAR LAND ROVER: Bilhorn Files Suit in D. New Jersey JBT MAREL: Dyer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JEFF & TONY'S DSD: Lozano Sues Over Unpaid Compensation JOHN RATCLIFFE: Doe Files Suit in E.D. Virginia KPMG LLP: Proposed Settlement in 2022 Audit Report Suit Reached KROGER CO: Nance Files Suit Over False Ad Scheme LAS VEGAS VALLEY: Customers Challenge "Excessive Use" Surcharge LIFESPAN PHYSICIANS: Nadeau Files Suit Over Data Breach LOS ANGELES CENTERS: Juarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Tista Sues Over Unpaid Wages LULULEMON USA: Suit Seeks Refunds for Unlawfully Charged Tariffs MACY'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Warranty Service MANITOBA: Faces Suit Over Electrical Infrastructure Negligence MARKETAXESS HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Sale to Intercontinental Exchange MAXIM ERMILOV: Newton Suit Seek Rule 23 Class Certification MCKINLEY CHILDRENS: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Wages MERCADIEN PC: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII META PLATFORMS: Cal. Judge Dismisses Fraudulent Scheme Class Suits MGM TRANSFORMER: Mendoza Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages MICHAELS COMPANIES: Faces Suit Over Misleading Marketing Emails MOODSWINGS LLC: Ticket Class Suit Settlement to be Heard Dec. 17 MORNINGSTAR SENIOR: Carrillo Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages NEXT STOP: Reina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages NORDSTROM INC: Cordero Suit Transferred to C.D. California ODIN PROPERTIES: Illegal Rent Class Settlement Gets Initial OK OPERATION PAR INC: Whitford Files Suit in M.D. Florida PAPA JOHN: Faces Suit Over Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses PARK HA BIOLOGICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit PEABODY ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 24 PERMOBIL INC: Agrees to Settle SpeedControl Dial Suit for $4.1MM PERRIN BERNARD SUPOWITZ: Gomez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages PERSONALIS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Tempus AI PONCE RECYCLING: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages PRADA USA CORP: Pitchford Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages PRIMORIS SERVICES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 21 PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS: Faces Suit Over Misleading Company Statements RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit RBD CALIFORNIA: Teodores Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages REACH WIRELINE: Gaston Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages REALPAGE INC: $360MM Class Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Oct. 15 RED DOOR EXPERIENCES: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Wages RUBEN LEYVA: Guinac Files Suit in D. Utah SAKE ASIAN: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Liong Alleges SANARA MEDTECH: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to MiMedx Group SATELLITE HEALTHCARE INC: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SCOPE HEALTH: OPTASE Eye Treatments Lack FDA Approval, Suit Claims SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Sheffield Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. SMITH & NEPHEW: Agrees to $350,000 ERISA Class Action Settlement SPEED XPRESS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Kanatzar Says STANFORD FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Suit for $450,000 STEVE MADDEN: Faces Class Suit Over Inflated Reference Prices SUNSET OAKS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Marino Says TABOOLA INC: De La Torre Sues Over Unlawful Surveillance Practices TALBOTS LLC: Park Sues Over Unlawful Hidden Processing TAMKO BUILDING: Faces Suit Over Design Defect in Asphalt Shingles TERMINAL SECURITY: Pasa Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages TOM'S OF MAINE: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Deodorants TPUSA INC: Harper Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Uber Eats' "Priority" Fees UNION PACIFIC: Sutherland Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU: Masri Files Suit in E.D. New York UNITED STATES: Sued for Halting Federal Class Action Complaints VALIDUS ENERGY: White Family Sues Over Unpaid Gas Royalties WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Biometric Collection WHITTIER CHRISTIAN: Civil Standing Order Entered in Baldeo Suit WILLIAM BLAIR: Baxter Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. WIX.COM LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 21 WIX.COM LTD: Misled Investors on Product Performance, Yappi Says ZYMERGEN INC: $125MM Class Settlement Claims Filing Due Oct. 11 ********* 533 SOUTH: Underpays Company Employees, Alvarez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- LUCERO DIAZ ALVAREZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 533 SOUTH FAIRFAX AVENUE, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2STCV23225 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., July 23, 2026) is a class action seeking relief against Defendants for their practices of violating the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, Code of Regulations, and California Labor Code. The complaint relates that the Defendants have, at times, maintained and enforced against Plaintiff and Class these unlawful practices and policies. The Defendants violate the laws for their (1) failure to pay all wages (including minimum, regular, overtime, and double time compensation); (2) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (3) failure to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses; and (6) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered common injuries as a result of Defendants' systemic employment policies and practices, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of herself and the Plaintiff Class to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and penalties pursuant to Labor Code and California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff LUCERO DIAZ ALVAREZ was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee during the Class Period, until her employment ended in July of 2025. Defendant 533 SOUTH FAIRFAX AVENUE, INC. is engaged in providing inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services. DOES 1 through 100 are Defendants under fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Zaghi, Esq. Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq. Nur Egilmezcan, Esq. ZAGHI & CHRZAN, LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 230-5353 E-mail: brian@zclawyers.com zach@zclawyers.com nur@zclawyers.com 8AM LLC: Agrees to Settle Docketwise Data Incident Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Morningstar reports that the following statement is being issued by Kroll Settlement Administration LLC regarding Emerokwam v. 8am LLC d/b/a Docketwise, Case No. 2026-011702-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct.). A Settlement has been reached with 8am, LLC d/b/a Docketwise ("Docketwise") in a class action lawsuit about a data incident that occurred in or around October 2025 in which cybercriminals accessed the credentials of one of Docketwise's third-party partner repositories (the "Data Incident") and potentially acquired the personally identifiable information ("PII") of current and former customers of companies that use Docketwise's services. Docketwise denies Plaintiffs' claims and denies any liability or wrongdoing. You are a Settlement Class Member if you were sent Notice that your PII may have been involved in the Data Incident. If the Settlement is approved, Docketwise will provide Settlement Class Members with the following benefits: (1) reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses and/or lost time (up to $5,000 per person), or (2) an Alternative Cash Payment of $50. In addition, Settlement Class Members may receive two (2) years of Credit Monitoring. To receive benefits, you must submit a Claim Form by October 15, 2026. Docketwise will separately pay Notice and Administration Expenses and any Court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs and incentive awards. If you do nothing, you get no benefits, and you give up your right to sue Docketwise about these claims. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must opt out by September 15, 2026. If you do not opt out, you may object to the Settlement by September 15, 2026. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing to determine whether to approve the Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee Award and Expenses of up to $300,000, and a $2,500 Service Award for both Settlement Class Representatives. The Final Approval Hearing date has not been scheduled yet. Please check the website for updates. For more information, or to file a Claim Form, visit www.DocketwiseSettlement.com or call (833) 930-0562. [GN] ABB DE INC: Van-Horn Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations ----------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Van-Horn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABB DE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV197013 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked (minimum, straight time, and overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to indemnify employees for expenditures. The Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period, Defendants have, at times: Failed to pay some, but not necessarily all employees for all hours worked, including all minimum, straight time, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failed to provide some, but not necessarily all employees with timely and duty-free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failed to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failed to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failed to authorize and permit some, but not necessarily all employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failed to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Willfully failed to pay some, but not necessarily all employees all minimum wage, straight time wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; Failed to provide some, but not necessarily all employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; and Failed to indemnify some, but not necessarily all employees for expenditures incurred in direct discharge of duties of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from October 2023 to present. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq. Shealene P. Mancuso, Esq. Mohamed Bholat, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: john.yslas@wilshirelawfirm.com jeffrey.bils@wilshirelawfirm.com shealene.mancuso@wilshirelawfirm.com mohamed.bholat@wilshirelawfirm.com ALCLEAR LLC: Scott Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Asha Lee Scott, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ALCLEAR LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20829 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("the PAGA" or "PAGA") and the California Labor Code due to the Defendants' violation to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to timely pay all wages due to Aggrieved Employees during their employment and timely upon separation from employment, failing to provide Aggrieved Employees with meal and rest periods, failing to maintain required records, and failing to issue accurately itemized wage statements, among other violations. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code and relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) and seeks redress for these violations in the form of civil penalties and other amounts as authorized under PAGA. Aggrieved Employees consistently worked at Defendants behest without being paid all wages due. Aggrieved Employees were either not paid by Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and overtime rates. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants failed to pay Aggrieved Employees all wages due and owing, including by requiring off the clock work, failing to incorporate non -discretionary bonuses, commissions and/or shift differentials into the regular rate of pay used to calculate and pay for overtime pay, sick pay, and meal and rest break premiums; failing to provide meal and rest breaks, and failing to pay meal and rest break premiums, all in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee within the State of California. ALCLEAR LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and lists its principal address with California Secretary of State in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Rose Haritoonian, Esq. Eve Howe, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N. Madison Avenue 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law e.howe@d.law AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Starting System --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against American Honda Motor Co. Inc. and Honda Motor Co. Ltd. Why: They claim Honda Odyssey minivans have a defective starting system that can cause the vehicles to suddenly become inoperable. Where: The Honda class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. Honda Motor was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging its Odyssey minivans have a defective starting system that can cause the vehicles to become inoperable. Plaintiff Carole Bodney and four others claim Honda Odyssey minivans, from model years 2018 to 2025, have a defective starting system that can cause the vehicles to fail to start during normal operation. "The defect occurs because the batteries in the [class] vehicles fail to adequately charge during normal operation, resulting in a perpetual low state of charge and lack of sufficient power to crank the engine," the Honda class action lawsuit says. The plaintiffs argue the defective starting system can cause the Honda Odyssey minivans to fail to restart when the engine shuts off during an idle stop event and fail to restart after being parked subsequent to use. "Consequently, the starter motor cannot efficiently transfer torque to the flywheel and crank the engine," the Honda class action says. Automaker long aware of Honda Odyssey defect, class action alleges Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit argue Honda has long been aware of the alleged defect yet has failed to recall the Honda Odyssey minivans or to offer a suitable repair or replacement free of charge. According to the class action, Honda had "extensive notice and knowledge of the defect" from multiple sources, including numerous consumer complaints, information from dealers, pre-sale durability testing and NHTSA complaints and investigations. The class action lawsuit also points to Honda's own internal records, including similar idle stop and parked start failures in prior model years, as evidence the automaker knew about the issue. Despite this, Honda "has not recalled the [class] vehicles to repair the defect." It also has not offered consumers a free repair or replacement, nor reimbursed those who paid out of pocket to fix the defect, the lawsuit claims. The plaintiffs claim Honda is guilty of breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment and violations of state consumer protection laws. They demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, exemplary and statutory penalties, damages and restitution. In another alleged coverup, a group of consumers is suing Honda for marketing and distributing certain vehicles, including the Honda Odyssey, without disclosing a front camera defect despite numerous reports of safety system failures and no recall being issued. The plaintiffs are represented by Timothy G. Blood, Thomas J. O'Reardon II and Paula R. Brown of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP and Eduard Korsinsky and Mark Reich of Levi & Korsinsky LLP. The Honda class action lawsuit is Bodney, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-05939, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] ANALOG DEVICES: 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 Analog Devices 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 Analog Devices data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Analog Devices Security Incident: What Happened? Analog Devices, a publicly traded semiconductor manufacturer and data processing company, has disclosed a data breach in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to the SEC filing, Analog Devices identified unauthorized access to certain of its systems on June 23, 2026. Following this, the company launched an investigation with cybersecurity experts to determine the scope and impact of the incident. The investigation is ongoing but has so far revealed that certain files were exfiltrated from the affected systems. Analog Devices will provide notifications to affected parties and regulators as it continues to evaluate the incident and determine what information was potentially impacted. At the time this post was made, no additional information about the scope or nature of the Analog Devices data breach was publicly available. The filing also discloses that Analog Devices was made aware on July 26, 2026 of an unrelated cybersecurity matter that it is currently assessing for validity. What You Can Do After the Analog Devices Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Analog Devices 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 Analog Devices 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] ANMED: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the AnMed cyberattack. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who believe their information may have been exposed in the incident, including current and former AnMed patients and employees. AnMed Security Incident: What Happened? AnMed, a healthcare system operating in Georgia and South Carolina, has suspended service operations at multiple locations in response to an active cybersecurity disruption on its network. According to a notice posted on its website on July 26, 2026, AnMed reported that it was assessing its systems as part of a cybersecurity disruption involving malware and announced widespread office closures for the following day. The investigation is ongoing, and the healthcare company has not disclosed whether sensitive information was affected by the incident. AnMed will continue to provide updates on the cybersecurity event and investigation on its website as more information becomes available. The AnMed cyberattack was also reported by The HIPAA Journal, which noted the delay of patient services with the temporary closure of 79 of its 106 facilities while computer systems, phone lines and internet connectivity are interrupted. What You Can Do After the AnMed Cyberattack If you believe your information may have been affected by the AnMed cybersecurity incident, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, lost time, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force AnMed 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] ANTHROPIC PBC: Smith Files Suit Over Deceptive AI Product Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------- SOLOMON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTHROPIC, PBC dba ANTRHOPIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-07789 (N.D. Cal., July 27, 2026) arises from Defendant Anthropic's deceptive marketing and sale of its Claude Max subscription plans. Defendant Anthropic, PBC develops, markets, sells, administers, and controls Claude (a generative artificial intelligence product that consumers use to conduct research, draft and edit text, analyze information, and generate computer code, among other tasks), its subscription tiers, its usage-accounting systems, and the challenged purchase, upgrade, and renewal interfaces. Plaintiff Solomon Smith is a computer-science student at California State University, San Bernardino, and purchased Claude subscriptions primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, including coursework, personal coding projects, and hackathon work. The complaint relates that Anthropic markets its premium plans through specific numerical promises. It represents that the Max 5x plan provides "5x more usage than Pro" and that the Max 20x plan provides "20x more usage than Pro," while charging approximately $100 and $200 per month, respectively. In reality, the advertised multiples are not fixed or reliably delivered. Anthropic retains and exercises unilateral discretion to alter five-hour session limits, imposes weekly and monthly caps, restricts access to particular models and features, and causes subscribers' usage allowances to deplete more rapidly during periods of high demand. The amount of service a subscriber receives therefore depends on Anthropic's undisclosed capacity constraints and internal prioritization decisions, not the objective and proportionate usage multiples represented at the point of sale. Anthropic did not clearly disclose that central qualification before obtaining consumers' billing information, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class Members suffered economic harm by paying for subscription premiums and, in some instances, additional usage charges for a service worth less than Anthropic represented, asserts the complaint. Had Anthropic truthfully disclosed the variable, discretionary, and capacity-dependent nature of the plans, reasonable consumers would not have purchased or renewed the same plans, would have selected less expensive plans, or would have paid less, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks damages, including compensatory damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate relief. The requested injunction would prohibit unsubstantiated numerical usage claims and require Anthropic to disclose, clearly and before purchase, the objective units, material caps, reset periods, and capacity-dependent restrictions that determine the amount of service consumers actually receive.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn Danas, Esq. Zarrina Ozari, Esq. Michael Boelter, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com zozari@clarksonlawfirm.com mboelter@clarksonlawfirm.com ASP UNIFRAX: Fails to Keep Private Information Secure, McGill Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aaron McGill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASP Unifrax Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Alkegen, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1531 (W.D.N.Y., July 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers' and employees' personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively, the "Private Information"), from criminal hackers. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving services and/or employment, Defendant requires that its customers and employees entrust it with highly sensitive personal information. On April 23, 2026, Defendant suffered a cyberattack, which resulted in the theft and publication of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. The ransomware group, Akira, confirmed the theft of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and potential out-of-pocket expenses to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained. Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Aaron McGill is a resident citizen of Fenton, Michigan and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant ASP Unifrax Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Alkegen provides specialty materials designed to save energy, reduce pollution, and improve fire safety for people, buildings, and equipment.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth Brehm, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: 929-220-2758 Facsimile: 646-417-5967 E-mail: ebrehm@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: thilton@sirillp.com ASP UNIFRAX: Fails to Secure Private Info, Gould Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW GOULD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASP UNIFRAX HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a ALKEGEN, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01521 (W.D.N.Y., July 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, names and Social Security numbers (collectively "personally identifiable information" or "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Defendant received highly sensitive Private Information from Representative Plaintiff in connection with the goods Representative Plaintiff obtained. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's information was among the data accessed by an unauthorized third party in a data breach. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as April 1, 2026, Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until July 17, 2026 and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. As a result, Representative Plaintiff spent time dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which included and continues to include, time spent verifying the legitimacy and impact of the Data Breach, exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options, self-monitoring Representative Plaintiff's accounts and seeking legal counsel regarding Representative Plaintiff's options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring their information is and remains safe, and seek entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Plaintiff Andrew Gould is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant ASP Unifrax Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Alkegen is a manufacturer of specialty materials, including insulation, filtration, and battery materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert King, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT KING PLLC 650 Clinton Square Rochester, NY 14604 Telephone: (585) 460-2193 E-mail: rking@robertkinglawfirm.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com E-mail: mtf@colevannote.com E-mail: LegalDept@colevannote.com ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Folkner Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER FOLKNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING GENERAL AGENCY, LLC d/b/a ASSURANCEAMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04259-MHC (N.D. Ga., July 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant seeking monetary damages, restitution, and/or injunctive relief for the proposed Class and Subclasses. The Plaintiff relates that Plaintiff Folkner disclosed his private information to AssuranceAmerica including his name, contact information, automobile insurance policy and insurance account information, driver and vehicle information, claims related information, driver's license number and information, Tax ID information, and Social Security number as a prerequisite to receive insurance products and services. On March 17, 2026, AssuranceAmerica discovered suspicious activity on its network caused by "malicious activity that targeted one of the Company's employees. On July 10, 2026, AssuranceAmerica admitted that it experienced a data breach on a disclosure on its website. The complaint alleges that AssuranceAmerica failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Identifiable Information ("PII"). This PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. By this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Tyler Folkner is a resident of Muncie, Indiana who obtained automobile insurance from AssuranceAmerica. Defendant AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency, LLC d/b/a AssuranceAmerica markets itself as an "enterprise in the insurance and financial services industry". It provides automobile and renter's insurance in thirteen states, including Indiana, Plaintiff's state of residence. The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Kelly A. Aristides, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com karistides@cpmlegal.com AUTOSEP TECHNOLOGIES: O'Leary Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN O'LEARY, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. AUTOSEP TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01474 (W.D. Pa., July 10, 2026) is a collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Defendant. The complaint relates that like the other Day Rate Employees, O'Leary regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But AutoSep did not pay O'Leary and the other Day Rate Employees premium overtime wages when they worked over 40 hours. Instead, they were paid a fixed sum for each day actually worked in the field, plus a nominal "salary" each week (AutoSep's "'salary' plus day rate pay scheme"). AutoSep misclassified O'Leary and the other Day Rate Employees as exempt from overtime. AutoSep's "salary" plus day rate pay scheme violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by depriving O'Leary and the others of overtime wages at 1.5 times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked after 40 in a week. Likewise, the scheme violates the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law by depriving them of their agreed, earned overtime wages on their regular paydays and/or following the termination of their employment, says the suit. Plaintiff Ryan O'Leary worked for AutoSep as a flowback supervisor, including in Pennsylvania. O'Leary and the Day Rate Employees are non-exempt employees entitled to overtime wages. Defendant AutoSep Technologies LLC was an "enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce" within the meaning of the FLSA because it had employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials such as cell phones, computers, and personal protective equipment that has been moved in or produced for commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com AVANTOR INC: Dismissal Move Filed in Consolidated Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Avantor, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2026, that two putative securities class action lawsuits naming the company and certain current and former officers and directors as defendants were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 30, 2025, and Nov. 25, 2025. They were later consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under the caption "In re Avantor, Inc. Securities Litigation." Lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on April 24, 2026 asserting claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The amended complaint alleged that defendants made misleading or false statements regarding Avantor's competitive position, goodwill, and various aspects of the company's business, organization, operations, and management. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief on behalf of the putative class. On July 9, 2026, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Two related shareholder derivative cases, "Murray v. Stubblefield et al." and "Huston v. Stubblefield, et al.," were also filed by Avantor shareholders, putatively on behalf of the company against certain current and former officers and directors. The derivative cases have since been consolidated before the District of Delaware, styled as "In re Avantor, Inc. Derivative Litigation," and purport to assert claims based on similar allegations against the individual defendants for alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste. The complaints seek damages from the individual defendants, attorneys' fees, and other relief. Avantor, Inc. is a global provider of mission-critical products and services to customers in the biopharma, healthcare, education, government, and advanced technologies and applied materials industries. It supplies a broad range of chemicals, laboratory products, and equipment that support research, development, and production activities worldwide. AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Edgerton Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ETHAN EDGERTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL LLC, a Delaware foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-19029-1 KNT, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02650 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) payment of wages less than entitled, in violation of Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"); (2) failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of RCW; (3) failure to provide rest breaks, in violation of Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"); (4) failure to provide meal periods, in violation of WAC; (5) failure to provide and pay sick leave, in violation of WAC; (6) failure to pay all wages due at separation, in violation of RCW; (7) willful refusal to pay wages, in violation of RCW; and (8) unlawful noncompetition covenant, in violation of RCW. Avenue5 Residential LLC provides multifamily and single-family property management services across the United States. The Defendant is represented by: Tiffany L. Lee, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP 2800 First Avenue, Suite 326 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: 206-474-3281 E-mail: tlee@bradleybernstein.com - and - Gal Gressel, Esq. Victoria B. Ayeni, Esq. Jaskarenpreet K. Gill, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: 415-434-9100 Facsimile: 415-434-3947 E-mail: ggressel@sheppard.com vayeni@sheppard.com jgill@sheppard.com AZLE SMILES: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Azle Smiles 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 Azle Smiles data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Azle Smiles Security Incident: What Happened? Azle Smiles, a general and cosmetic dental practice in Texas, has reported a data breach involving sensitive patient information. According to a notice posted to its website, Azle Smiles was informed by its IT support company of irregularities related to remote access session hosts on May 26, 2026. Following an investigation, the practice determined that data impacted by the incident may have included names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, government-issued IDs and medical information. The Azle Smiles data breach was also reported to the Texas Attorney General's Office on July 28, 2026, which noted that health insurance information may have also been exposed. What You Can Do After the Azle Smiles Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Azle Smiles 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 Azle Smiles 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] BAYADA HOME: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Grove Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ RANDY GROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-09326 (D.N.J., July 24 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") stored within Defendant's information network. The complaint relates that the Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI. By obtaining, collecting, and storing Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that they were thereafter responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI from unauthorized disclosure. On March 2, 2026, Bayada became aware that unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII and PHI, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI. Following the event on March 2, 2026, Bayada determined that unauthorized actors gained access to their systems and copied data between February 18, 2026 and March 2, 2026. Upon completion of their review, Defendant began sending written notices on July 17, 2026 to those affected by the breach. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence and negligence per se, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will suffer injury, including but not limited to: (i) actual identity theft; (ii) the loss of the opportunity of how their PII and PHI is used; (iii) the compromise, publication, and/or theft of their PII and PHI; (iv) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII and PHI; (v) lost opportunity costs associated with effort expended and the loss of productivity addressing and attempting to mitigate the actual and future consequences of the Data Breach, including but not limited to, efforts spent researching how to prevent, detect, contest, and recover from embarrassment and identity theft; (vi) the continued risk to their PII and PHI, which may remain in Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI in its continued possession; and (vii) future costs in terms of time, effort, and money that will be expended to prevent, detect, contest, and repair the impact of the PII and PHI compromised as a result of the Data Breach for the remainder of the lives of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek an Order of the Court requiring Defendant to refund, disgorge, and pay as restitution any profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by Defendant from its wrongful conduct and/or the establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class Members may seek restitution. Plaintiff Randy Grove is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. is a home health care service corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsauken, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 559-6072 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com BIO GREEN: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Future NRG ------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Arcosa, Inc. (NYSE: ACA) related to its sale to CRH Americas, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Arcosa shareholders are expected to receive $150.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arcosa-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Bio Green Med Solution, Inc. (NASDAQ: BGMS) related to its merger with Future NRG Sdn. Bhd. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/bio-green-med-solution-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Non-Invasive Monitoring Systems, Inc. (OTCPK: NIMU) related to its merger with Gravitics, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Non-Invasive shareholders are expected to own 4.5% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/non-invasive-monitoring-systems-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- First Seacoast Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSEA) related to its sale to Cambridge Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, First Seacoast shareholders are expected to receive $17.25 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 27, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-seacoast-bancorp-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] BLOOM ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Nevins v. Bloom Energy Corporation, et al., Case No. 26-cv-07944, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bloom Energy Corporation ("Bloom" or the "Company") (NYSE: BE) securities between February 27, 2025 and July 8, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR BLOOM INVESTMENTS, VISIT https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/bloom-energy-corporation/ TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On July 8, 2026, at approximately 1:00 p.m. EST, Hunterbrook Media published a report alleging, among other things, that "Bloom is, in fact, reliant on Chinese scandium, according to global trade data, Chinese corporate filings, satellite imagery, and Hunterbrook's messages with Bloom's suppliers in China." The report states "Hunterbrook traced four separate China-linked routes into Bloom's supply chain -- scandium oxide shipped directly to its Delaware plant, plus scandium-bearing ceramics and powders flowing through intermediaries in Thailand, Japan, and South Korea." On this news, Bloom's stock price fell $15.28, or 5.7%, to close at $254.29 per share on July 8, 2026, thereby injuring investors. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Bloom Energy obtained scandium through intermediaries who sourced the metal from China; (2) that, as a result, the Company understated the extent to which it relied on scandium from China; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased Bloom securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please visit https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/bloom-energy-corporation/ or contact at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jordan Sues Over Defective Medical Implants -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Jordan, Plaintiff v. Boston Scientific Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-8151 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2026) is an action for injuries sustained as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's defective Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator ("SCS") system and Defendant's negligent and intentional conduct. The complaint relates that the Boston Scientific SCS Products have an unacceptably high rate of failure, including lead fracture, insulation breach, migration from the implantation site, and IPG/battery malfunction causing interruption or alteration of therapy delivery. These failures are not incidental side effects of an otherwise effective therapy; they are evidence of fundamental defects in the design and manufacture of Boston Scientific's leads and IPGs. When SCS leads or components fail, whether by fracturing, breaching insulation, or migrating, the electrical current delivered to the spinal cord is no longer directed to the therapeutic target. According to the complaint, on August 5, 2018, Plaintiff was permanently implanted with a Boston Scientific SCS Device. On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff underwent revision of the SCS device implanted in 2018 due to a battery malfunction. Prior to implantation, the Representative(s) represented to Plaintiff that the Device would provide reliable, long-term pain relief; that the Device was safe for long-term implantation; that the Device was supported by clinical evidence of safety and effectiveness; and that any initial adjustments or reprogramming would optimize therapeutic outcomes. The Representative(s) failed to advise Plaintiff of the known risk of lead failure, the risk of IPG/battery failure, the risk of permanent nerve damage resulting from lead or IPG failure, and the risk that complications would not be resolvable through reprogramming alone. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the Representative(s)' representations in consenting to the trial implantation of the first Boston Scientific SCS device. Had Plaintiff been fully and accurately informed of the risks of lead failure, IPG/battery failure, and permanent nerve damage, Plaintiff would not have consented to the implantation or would have elected an alternative treatment. As a direct and proximate result of Boston Scientific's institutional conduct, Plaintiff was induced to undergo SCS implantation, was misled about device performance, and was dissuaded from seeking timely removal of the device after complications arose, thereby sustaining permanent nerve damage that would not have occurred or would have been less severe but for Defendant's conduct, says the suit. Plaintiff Elizabeth Jordan is a resident and citizen of Springfield, Sangamon County, Illinois. Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed the SCS products at issue, and conducted business throughout the United States, including within the Central District of Illinois, by marketing, selling, and distributing its SCS devices to physicians, hospitals, and patients, and by deploying sales and clinical representatives in this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carasusana B. Wall, Esq. Ameena Alauddin, Esq. BULLOCK LEGAL GROUP, LLC One Seagate, Ste. 710 Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (833) 853-4258 Facsimile: (470) 412-6708 E-mail: Cara@bullocklegalgroup.com Ameena@bullocklegalgroup.com BOT COMPANY: Faces Class Action for Contract Workers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Brown, writing for SFGATE, reports that a San Francisco robot startup, already embroiled in a local controversy over an Airbnb rental, is now facing a class action lawsuit from former workers who say the company failed to pay them. Former contract workers are suing the Bot Company, also known as Botco, and multiple contract agencies for allegedly unpaid overtime wages, reimbursements of expenses, allegedly not providing work-free lunches and breaks, and termination pay. Originally filed in San Francisco Superior Court in April, the lawsuit obtained class action status on June 29, with three more former Botco workers signing on to a new complaint. Botco is the latest venture of Kyle Vogt, the former CEO of failed robotaxi startup Cruise. The company purportedly makes robots designed to do household chores, according to the company's website, and had a valuation of $4 billion last year. Botco and attorneys for the contracting companies named in the lawsuit did not respond to a request for comment. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also did not respond to requests for comment. Vogt launched Botco in 2024, according to his LinkedIn, but the lawsuit alleges that the company started soliciting contract work two years before that. The lawsuit does not name any other individuals other than the four plaintiffs, but it estimates that, in California, there are "hundreds of employees who satisfy the Class definition." It also notes that factoring in employee turnover in the last four years "increases this number substantially." No set number of damages has been established, either. Instead, the lawsuit seeks to create a recovery fund for plaintiffs to get back pay, restitution and other damages potentially owed. The class action lawsuit comes on the heels of another San Francisco lawsuit accusing the company of causing more than $12,000 in damages after it allegedly used an Airbnb rental as a makeshift robot testing lab. Resident Sean Donovan told SFGATE in May that he saw extensive wiring set up at his Portola home, along with what appeared to be a "Roomba with treads" set up on his dining room table. Donovan alleged in his May complaint that the group damaged furniture, family heirlooms and accessed a locked closet where personal items, now missing, were stored. Ring camera footage, reviewed by SFGATE, caught dozens of individuals coming and going from the house throughout the weekslong rental. In one video, one woman can be heard referring to his home as a work site and talking about shifts. Three individuals associated with Botco were subpoenaed to appear in his case, but Donovan withdrew the lawsuit on July 8 before they could testify. It's not clear if any of the three still work for Botco, and two of the subpoenaed individuals have #OpenToWork labels on their LinkedIn profiles. [GN] BRITISH AMERICAN: Suit Challenges "No Additives" Cigarette Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a divided U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday, July 29, that British American Tobacco (BATS.L) must face class-action litigation claiming it misled consumers into believing Natural American Spirit cigarettes were safer than other cigarettes and contained no additives. The 2-1 decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver included a dissent from a Republican-appointed judge who said the case "likely warrants Supreme Court review," after the majority let consumers sue Reynolds American -- the main U.S. subsidiary of British American -- and its units, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco, as a group for damages. A spokesperson for the tobacco companies declined comment, saying they do not discuss pending litigation. Lawyers for the consumers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Consumers from 12 U.S. states sued over cigarettes whose labels contained terms such as "100% Additive-Free," "Natural" and "Organic." They claimed to have ⁠overpaid because the labels falsely conveyed that the cigarettes were "safer and healthier to smoke" than competing cigarettes, despite a disclaimer that the absence of additives "does NOT mean a safer cigarette." Consumers who bought menthol cigarettes pursued separate class action claims, on the theory that menthol is an additive. The 12 states are California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Washington. 'SAFER CIGARETTE' THEORY PREMATURELY REJECTED In a 423-page decision in 2023, U.S. District Judge James Browning in Albuquerque, New Mexico, declined to certify a 12-state class premised on the "safer cigarette" theory, saying individual claims would overwhelm class claims. He did certify a class action for consumers in eight states -- California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and North Carolina -- premised on the "menthol" theory, saying individual inquiries weren't needed and damages were easier to prove. July 29 decision upheld certification of the menthol claims, and set aside the denial of certification of the ⁠safer cigarette claims. Circuit Judge Veronica Rossman said Browning wrongly concluded that the damages model for the 12-state class violated a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision to decertify an antitrust class action by Comcast (CMCSA.O) cable TV subscribers. She also said the judge prematurely addressed the merits of the disclaimer's effectiveness. "Whether a reasonable consumer would have interpreted the labels to mean something other than health benefits is a factual dispute about how and whether the label was misleading," Rossman wrote. "At the certification stage, (courts) must focus on how -- not ⁠whether -- plaintiffs will prove their claims." The appeals court rejected the defendants' argument that it would be unfeasible to administer the proposed classes. It returned the case to Browning for further proceedings. DISSENT WARNS OF WEAPONIZATION Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented, saying neither class should have been certified. He said the damages model for the safer cigarette claims didn't show how ⁠much consumers overpaid because they read the labels, and opened the door for "uninjured" consumers who never read the labels to collect. "Courts must be vigilant in ensuring that [a federal class certification rule] is not weaponized with classes that are overinflated or only theoretically exist," Tymkovich wrote. Tymkovich also said more clarity from the Supreme ⁠Court on how administrative feasibility applies to class actions would resolve lower court confusion that could encourage plaintiffs to shop around for class-action-friendly courts. Rossman was appointed to the appeals court by former Democratic President Joe Biden. Tymkovich was appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush. The other judge in the majority, David Ebel, was appointed by former Republican President Ronald Reagan. [GN] C & C NORTH AMERICA: McLemore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C & C North America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Elnorse McLemore, III, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. C & C North America, Inc., Case No. CU26-06701 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., July 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil." C & C North America, Inc. is a corporate entity doing business as Cosentino North America, operating as a subsidiary of the global stone producer Cosentino S.A. to distribute architectural surfaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: alindsay@d.law CAPITAL ONE: Paquin Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------ DAVID PAQUIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-02118 (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2026 is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff subscribed to a cellular telephone service for the number (xxx) xxx-5446. In December 2025, Defendant began attempting to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff. Defendant attempted to collect the debt from Plaintiff by transmitting to him multiple collection communications in the form of telephone calls to his cellular telephone number. One such communication was received by Plaintiff on his personal phone number on April 20, 2026 at 9:51 p.m. in his time zone. Defendant knew that it did not have consent to communicate with Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., and that doing so would be disruptive, inconvenient, and annoying to Plaintiff. Plaintiff wasted several minutes of his time upon receiving Defendant's communication in retrieving his cellular telephone to determine the nature and origin of the apparent alert, reviewing Defendant's communication, and comprehending and evaluating the subject matter thereof. The Defendant's communications injured Plaintiff by invading his privacy, intruding upon his seclusion, disrupting his sleep, interfering with his cellular telephone phone, wasting his time, and causing him aggravation, annoyance, and inconvenience, says the suit. In addition to available statutory damages, Plaintiff and the members of the Class seek injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from violating the FCCPA in the future. Plaintiff David Paquin is an individual person and a resident of Dade City, Florida. Defendant Capital One Financial Corporation is a financial services company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in McLean, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 2750 N. 29th Avenue, Suite 209A Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Andrew Grim, Esq. Richard Peck, Esq. PECK LAW FIRM, PA 12515 Spring Hill Dr. Spring Hill, FL 34609 Telephone: (352) 835-7977 E-mail: litigation@pecklawfirmfl.com CHEMOCENTRYX INC: $69MM Class Settlement Claims Filing Due Oct. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired ChemoCentryx Inc. common stock between Nov. 26, 2019, and May 6, 2021, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. ChemoCentryx Inc. and its former CEO Thomas J. Schall agreed to pay $69 million to settle a securities class action lawsuit alleging they made material misrepresentations about the company's Advocate study, the Phase 3 clinical trial of its vasculitis drug avacopan and its communications with the Food and Drug Administration about the drug's approval. Who can file a claim? The settlement class includes all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired ChemoCentryx common stock between Nov. 26, 2019, and May 6, 2021, inclusive, and suffered damaged. Additional details -- Both individuals and entities can be class members. -- Each separate legal entity or separately managed account must submit a separate claim. -- The beneficial owner, not the record owner, must sign the claim form, and all joint beneficial owners must sign. -- Agents, executors, administrators, guardians and trustees may submit claims on behalf of others and must provide proof of authority. -- Participants in and beneficiaries of any employee retirement or benefit plan covered by ERISA should report only shares purchased or held outside the plan on an individual claim form. -- Plan trustees may submit claims for shares purchased or held through an ERISA plan. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $69,000,000. The amount each class member receives depends on several factors: -- The number of valid claims submitted -- The number of shares purchased or acquired during the class period -- The timing and prices of each purchase and sale -- The total recognized claims of all claimants The settlement administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis according to the court-approved plan of allocation: -- The estimated average recovery is $2.88 per eligible share before deductions. After estimated attorneys' fees and litigation expenses of $0.84 per share, the estimated net average recovery is approximately $2.04 per share before taxes and administration costs. -- Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on individual claims and the total number of valid claims. -- The settlement administrator will calculate a recognized loss for each purchase or acquisition the class member made during the class period based on the artificial inflation in the stock price, the purchase and sale prices and the timing of each transaction. -- For shares sold before the close of trading on May 3, 2021, the recognized loss is $0. -- For shares sold from May 4, 2021, through the close of trading on May 6, 2021, the recognized loss is the lesser of the artificial inflation on the purchase date minus the artificial inflation on the sale date or the purchase price minus the sale price. -- For shares sold from May 7, 2021, through the close of trading on Aug. 4, 2021, the recognized loss is the least of the artificial inflation on the purchase date, the purchase price minus the average closing price from May 7, 2021, through the sale date or the purchase price minus the sale price. -- For shares held as of the close of trading on Aug. 4, 2021, the recognized loss is the lesser of the artificial inflation on the purchase date or the purchase price minus $12.85, the mean closing price during the 90-day look-back period. -- Class members must have held their class period shares through at least the close of trading on May 3, 2021, to have a recognized loss. Those who purchased on May 4, 2021, or May 5, 2021, must have held those shares through at least the close of trading on May 5, 2021. -- The settlement administrator will match purchases and sales on a first-in, first-out basis. -- The settlement administrator will set any recognized loss that calculates to a negative number or zero to $0. -- For claimants who had an overall market gain on their class period transactions, the settlement administrator will set their recognized claim to $0. For claimants whose overall market loss is smaller than their recognized claim, the settlement administrator will limit their claim to the market loss. -- If total recognized claims exceed the net settlement fund, the settlement administrator will reduce payments on a pro rata basis. -- Class members whose payment would be less than $10 will not receive a payout. How to claim a ChemoCentryx securities class action settlement payment Class members may file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Oct. 1, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: ChemoCentryx Securities Litigation, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, P.O. Box 5013, New York, NY 10150-5013 Proof or documentation required to submit a claim All class members must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or taxpayer identification number. They must also provide holding, purchase and sale information, including: -- Number of shares held as of the opening of trading on Nov. 26, 2019 -- Trade dates for purchases and sales from Nov. 26, 2019, through Aug. 4, 2021 -- Number of shares purchased, acquired or sold -- Total purchase, sale or acquisition price -- Number of shares held as of the close of trading on Aug. 4, 2021 Class members must also provide documentation to support their holdings and transactions in ChemoCentryx common stock. Acceptable proof includes: -- Broker confirmation slips -- Broker account statements -- Authorized statements from a broker or other financial institution containing the transactional and holding information found in a confirmation slip or account statement Payout options -- Physical check $69 million settlement fund breakdown The $69,000,000 settlement fund includes: -- Notice and administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $15,180,000 -- Litigation expenses: Up to $5,000,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 1, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Oct. 29, 2026 When is the ChemoCentryx securities class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible claimants after it processes all claims and the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged ChemoCentryx and its former CEO made false and misleading statements about the safety and efficacy of the company's vasculitis drug avacopan, the results of its Advocate Phase 3 clinical trial and the company's communications with the FDA about the drug's approval. The plaintiff claimed these statements inflated ChemoCentryx's stock price and caused investor losses when the company issued corrective information. The defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the risks, burden and expense of continued litigation. [GN] CLARIVATE PLC: Prelim Objections Pending in Securities Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Clarivate PLC disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2026, that it is currently facing securities class action suits over violations of the federal securities laws. Between January and March 2022, three putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court. The complaints collectively initiated a primary securities class action proceeding that is expected to address common questions of law and fact on behalf of a proposed class of investors. These actions typically seek remedies such as damages, interest, and attorneys' fees, and they may eventually be consolidated or coordinated by the court for pretrial purposes. Separately, in a separate but related litigation, in June 2022, a class action was filed in Pennsylvania state court in the Court of Common Pleas. This state court matter proceeds in parallel to the federal securities class action complaints and may assert overlapping or related claims under state law. Although related, it is procedurally distinct from the primary federal securities class action and is being handled within the Pennsylvania state court system. Additionally, in the related Pennsylvania state court action, a class complaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933, based on substantially similar allegations regarding alleged misstatements and omissions in the offering documents for two issuances of Clarivate ordinary shares in June and September 2021. The company moved to stay this proceeding in August 2022 and filed its preliminary objections to the state court complaint in October 2022. After granting a partial stay in January 2023, the court denied a further stay of the proceedings in April 2023. Further developments followed, as in April 2024, the court sustained the company's preliminary objections but permitted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff filed in May 2024. In August 2024, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, to which the company filed preliminary objections in September 2024. In April 2025, the court issued an order permitting the parties to take discovery on issues raised in the company's preliminary objections related to standing and to file supplemental briefs upon completion of such discovery, which the parties submitted in December 2025. Subsequently, in February 2026, following oral argument, the court entered an order sustaining in part the preliminary objections for plaintiff's failure to plead standing, dismissing the second amended complaint without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to file a third amended complaint, and overruling the remainder of the preliminary objections without prejudice to being reasserted, if appropriate, in response to any third amended complaint. In March 2026, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, and in April 2026, the company filed preliminary objections to that pleading. Briefing on the preliminary objections was completed in June 2026. Clarivate PLC is a global analytics and data provider that offers insights and workflow solutions to accelerate innovation across scientific research, intellectual property, and life sciences. It delivers subscription-based content, analytics, and tools used by corporations, governments, and academic institutions worldwide. CLINIC INC: Burke Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Burke, on behalf of herself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. THE CLINIC, INC. D/B/A TO HELP EVERYONE (T.H.E.) HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTERS, a California Nonprofit Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21214 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2026), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages, restitution, statutory penalties, and related relief. The Plaintiff 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 double time wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them for all vested vacation pay; failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from July 2021 through June 5, 2026. THE CLINIC, INC. D/B/A TO HELP EVERYONE (T.H.E.) HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTERS, is a California Nonprofit Corporation doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley Fagnani, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradley@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com CLOVER HEALTH: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Karwoski Says -------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH KARWOSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLOVER HEALTH INVESTMENTS, CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01054 (M.D. Tenn., July 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII") stored within Defendant's information network. The complaint relates that the Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI. On no later than July 4, 2026, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII and PHI, including marketing and selling them. The Plaintiff has suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from their PII and PHI, in combination with their information, being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek an Order of the Court requiring Defendant to refund, disgorge, and pay as restitution any profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by Defendant from its wrongful conduct and/or the establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class Members may seek restitution. Plaintiff Kenneth Karwoski is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Clover Health Investments, Corp. is a private health care company that offers Medicare Advantage plans, which bundle hospital, medical, and often prescription drug coverage into a single plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Darrius D. Dixon, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com ddixon@stranchlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W. Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCOI) that a class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between February 29, 2024 and May 1, 2026. Submit your information now. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or (212) 363-7500. CCOI allegedly declined from more than $86.00 in November 2024 to less than $17.00 after the Class Period, a drop of more than 80% and approximately $69.00 per share. IMPORTANT DATE: September 21, 2026 is the deadline for investors to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Alleged SEC Risk Warning Gap The complaint challenges Cogent's regulatory disclosure language concerning pledged shares. Cogent's SEC filings stated that a pledge of a significant number of shares posed a risk if a lender foreclosed and sold a large block in a manner that disrupted the market. The action alleges that this warning was inadequate because the Company also told investors that, after Audit Committee review, there was not a material risk that the chief executive could be forced to sell Cogent shares involuntarily. The lawsuit contends investors were not fully informed of the alleged risk that pledged shares, deteriorating personal collateral, and falling CCOI prices could combine to pressure the market. Audit Committee Statements Under Regulatory Scrutiny As pleaded, the Company's 2023 Form 10-K and later quarterly filings discussed dividend capacity, liquidity, and business-plan execution while the wavelength backlog was allegedly overstated. The complaint further asserts that the Company's pledge-related disclosures did not adequately address the alleged magnitude of forced-sale exposure. In August 2025, lenders at JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Royal Bank of Canada reportedly seized and sold approximately $82.5 million of Cogent stock pledged by Defendant Schaeffer after he was unable to meet a margin call. The lawsuit alleges that event illustrated the market-disruption risk that the filings had described in general terms. Disclosure Gaps Alleged in Cogent SEC Filings -- Cogent's filings allegedly warned about pledged-share foreclosure risk in general language. -- The action claims investors were also told there was no material risk of an involuntary sale. -- The complaint alleges pledged-share limits were exceeded after internal review. -- The filings allegedly did not adequately connect stock-price risk, margin loans, and market disruption. -- The securities action ties the alleged disclosure gap to the later $82.5 million stock sale. -- Plaintiffs contend dividend sustainability disclosures became more significant after the later 98% dividend cut. "Generic risk factor language cannot substitute for disclosing specific, known problems that are allegedly already affecting a company's operations or investor risk profile. Here, the complaint focuses on whether Cogent's SEC filings gave shareholders enough information about pledged-share exposure before investors allegedly suffered a severe decline." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Find out if you might qualify to recover losses or call (212) 363-7500. ABOUT THE FIRM -- For over two decades, Levi & Korsinsky has represented shareholders in securities class actions. Ranked in ISS Top 50 for seven consecutive years. Investors who suffered losses have until September 21, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Frequently Asked Questions About the CCOI Lawsuit Q: What specific misstatements does the CCOI lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc. made materially false or misleading statements regarding optical wavelength demand, backlog quality, dividend sustainability, and pledged-share forced-sale risk during the Class Period. When alleged issues regarding backlog loss and the dividend cut became apparent, the stock price declined sharply. Q: What court was the CCOI class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and is governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Q: Who is eligible to join the CCOI investor lawsuit? A: Investors who purchased CCOI stock or securities between February 29, 2024 and May 1, 2026 and suffered financial losses may be eligible. Eligibility is based on purchase date and documented losses, not on whether you still hold the shares. 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 happens after I contact Levi & Korsinsky? A: An attorney can review your trading history at no cost and provide an initial assessment of potential eligibility based on purchase dates, sale dates, share quantities, and losses. Q: What if I already sold my CCOI 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 be eligible to 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. If there is a settlement or recovery, eligible class members generally submit a claim form to seek their portion. Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to contact the firm. Securities class actions are generally handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, and no out-of-pocket costs. Any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to class counsel are subject to court approval. Contacts 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] COMPANION ASSET: Young Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ MALLORY YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPANION ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a CAMS; and CSI ACQUISITION CORP. d/b/a COMPANION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00120-JCB (D. Utah, July 27, 2026) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendant. Defendant CAMS provides services to clean, repair, and maintain ATMs and ATM networks. CAMS maintains a group of employees to provide its services. The complaint alleges that these employees are paid by the service they perform, without regard to the amount of time they worked. For this reason, these employees were frequently not paid overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Young is one such employee of CAMS. Because Young was not paid for all the time she worked, CAMS failed to pay Young and other hourly workers like her at the proper overtime rate when she worked over 40 hours in a workweek, the complaint says. CAMS's failure to pay Young and workers like her the proper overtime wages violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. CAMS's failure to pay Young and workers like her in Ohio the proper overtime wages, and to pay within the time allowed by Ohio law, also violates Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (together, "Ohio Wage Laws"), says the suit. This collective and class action seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed to Young and other piece rate workers at CAMS. Plaintiff Mallory Young worked for CAMS in Ohio from June to December 2025.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Nichamoff, Esq. NICHAMOFF LAW, P.C. 10 West 100 South, Ste. 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (713) 775-9141 E-mail: seth@nichamofflaw.com - and - Andrew G. Deiss, Esq. DEISS LAW PC 10 West 100 South, Ste. 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (689) 433-0226 E-mail: deiss@deisslaw.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 999 5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law CREDIT CONTROL: Masri Files Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC. The case is styled as Aaron Masri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC doing business as: Credit Collection Services, Case No. 1:26-cv-03989-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control, LLC -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- has partnered with our clients to help care for their customers, bridging the gap between lenders and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec B. Deborin, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: adeborin@steinsakslegal.com CRUISE YACHT: McDermott Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA MCDERMOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRUISE YACHT OPCO LTD CO, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-62020-RS (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for making telemarketing calls, including sending text messages to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including her own. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff's number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since October 31, 2007. Despite that, Plaintiff received at least two telemarketing calls from Defendant in February and May 2026. The calls came from telephone number (754) 241-1771. The calls were meant to advertise and market the Defendant's luxury yacht business by providing a custom quote for a travel package and assisting Plaintiff in booking a trip. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's privacy has been violated by the telemarketing calls. Plaintiff never provided her consent or requested these messages. In fact, the Plaintiff never did any business whatsoever with any of the Defendant. The aforementioned calls that were sent to the Plaintiff were unwanted. The Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed. In addition, the messages occupied their telephone storage space, rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication and other legitimate uses, including while driving, working, and performing other critical household tasks for which storage is required, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, as permitted by law; and such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Angela McDermott is an individual who resides in Delaware County, Ohio. Defendant Cruise Yacht OPCO LTD CO is the operating company behind the Ritz-Carlton Yacht Collection, a luxury cruise line that operates small high-end yachts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com CSS DISTRIBUTIONS: Navarrete Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Edith Navarrete, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CSS DISTRIBUTIONS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20969 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought seeks to remedy CSS's systematic failure to: pay overtime wages, pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest breaks (or pay the statutory compensation due), issue accurate wage statements, pay all wages upon resignation, and reimburse business expenses. The Defendants required Plaintiff and the Class to regularly perform compensable tasks off-the-clock for which they did not receive any compensation. Specifically, at all times relevant, Plaintiff and Class members were required to use their personal cell phones both on and off the clock for work-related activities, such as texting and calling supervisors, calling clients, texting and calling co-workers, and downloading work applications, for approximately 2 hours per day. Defendants were aware of this required cell phone use and refused to provide Plaintiff with a work phone. As a result, and because they improperly treated such off-the-clock work as non-compensable, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class for such time. The Plaintiff and the Class routinely worked schedules such that they were due pay at overtime rates. Plaintiff worked approximately 1 to 2 hours of overtime every week. During this period, it was the practice and policy of Defendants to not pay employees overtime wages at the required time-and-a-half rate. Monies for unpaid overtime remain due and owing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by CSS as an hourly-paid, non-exempt cashier at various locations in North Hollywood, California. The Defendants have been and are, a factory direct distributor specializing in kitchen and bathroom products including kitchen cabinets and stone, operating as a wholesaler with retail store locations in North Hollywood, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 1060 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 100 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: (310) 322-2211 Fax: (310) 322-2252 Email: mark@kallaw.com DAMBROSIO TRADING: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dambrosio Trading, Inc. The case is styled as Shelton Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Dambrosio Trading, Inc., Case No. 26CU01780 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., June 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." D'Ambrosio Trading Inc. is a textile recycling company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618-4375 Phone: 949-379-6250 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com DECK HELMET: Markland Files Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ LISA MARKLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DECK HELMET INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-02882 (D. Md., July 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for sending unwanted text messages. The complaint relates that to promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in aggressive telephonic text messages campaigns to consumers with no regard for consumers' rights under the TCPA, even after customers opt out from Defendant's text messages. Beginning on April 2021, Defendant sent or caused to be sent multiple telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's 7154 Number from multiple telephone numbers. On April, 2021, Plaintiff revoked her consent to be contacted, sending an opt-out request via text message in an attempt to opt out of any further text message communications with Defendant. Despite Plaintiff's clear opt-out request, Defendant resumed sending unsolicited telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff in 2025, approximately four years after Plaintiff had revoked any consent, demonstrating Defendant's complete disregard for Plaintiff's prior request to stop receiving such messages. In early 2026, Plaintiff again revoked any prior consent by calling Defendant and requesting that all text message communications cease. Despite this renewed revocation of consent, Defendant continued sending unsolicited telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff. Defendant's unwanted telemarketing text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendant's text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to her daily life, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff Lisa Markland is the sole subscriber of the residential telephone number ending in 7154 that received Defendant's text messages. Defendant Deck Helmet Inc. is a corporation engaged in the sale and marketing of home improvement products and related services to consumers based out of Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com DESERT HAVEN: Rodriguez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Frances Rodriguez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DESERT HAVEN ENTERPRISES, a California Non-profit Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20992 Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under California Labor Codes, California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 1, in addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate daily timekeeping records for Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with all legally compliant meal periods. The Defendants also failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees for necessary business expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties. As a result of Defendants' failure to pay all overtime wages, minimum wages, and meal and rest period premium wages, Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records for Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees, and issued inaccurate wage statements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. The Defendants operate a non-profit providing vocational training and community integration services for individuals with developmental disabilities in Lancaster.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Liam A. Hall, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com lhall@haineslawgroup.com DMC GLOBAL: Securities Class and Derivative Claims Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ DMC Global Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2026, that the class action and derivative claims it was facing have been dismissed. A securities class action lawsuit was filed by Samuel Garson, individually and on behalf of a putative class, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on Dec. 6, 2024, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b5-1 based on allegedly false and misleading statements about the company's business. This was followed by a substantially similar class action filed by Alessandro Laurent. Both actions were consolidated, followed by the filing of an amended complaint with additional allegations. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims March 20, 2026. Last Dec. 6, 2024, Samuel Garson, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the company and other defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b5-1 promulgated thereunder. It was brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the company's securities between May 3, 2024, and Nov. 4, 2024. The complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements during this class period concerning the company's business, resulting in injury to the purported class members. On Jan. 27, 2025, a second securities class action lawsuit was filed in the same court by Alessandro Laurent, individually and on behalf of a putative class. This complaint asserted substantially the same allegations as the Garson action. However, it was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities between Jan. 29, 2024, and Nov. 4, 2024. Both complaints sought certification of a class of purchasers of the company's securities during the respective class periods and an award of damages, interest, costs, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, to the respective plaintiffs and class members. On Feb. 5, 2025, the court ordered the two lawsuits consolidated into a single proceeding. On June 23, 2025, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated case filed an amended complaint that added additional allegations within the class period. On Aug. 22, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss all claims in the consolidated case. On March 20, 2026, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed all claims. In addition, on June 6, 2025, Michael Lewis filed a related stockholder derivative lawsuit in the same court against the company as nominal defendant and certain directors and officers, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under Delaware law and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, based in significant part on the allegations made in the Garson and Laurent complaints. On July 16, 2025, Lee Runey filed another related stockholder derivative lawsuit, also in same court, against the company as nominal defendant and certain directors and officers, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and other similar claims under Delaware law, as well as violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, based in significant part on the allegations made in Lewis and the amended complaint in Garson. On Aug. 23, 2025, the parties in both derivative cases jointly requested that the court consolidate and stay the derivative cases until after a ruling was issued on the pending Garson motion to dismiss, and the District Court granted that request on Oct. 14, 2025. Following the court's ruling on the securities class action, on May 1, 2026, it dismissed all claims associated with the derivative cases. DMC Global Inc. is a diversified holding company that owns and operates businesses in the energy, industrial, and building products sectors. It focuses on niche markets where it believes its subsidiaries can maintain differentiated technologies, engineering capabilities, and customer relationships. DONALD P. DICK AIR: Yang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donald P. Dick Air Conditioning, Inc. The case is styled as Nhia Yang, an individual, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Donald P. Dick Air Conditioning, Inc., Case No. 26CU01774 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., June 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Donald P. Dick Air Conditioning, Inc. is a HVAC contractor in Fresno, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aidin D. Ghavimi, Esq. STARPOINT, LC 15233 Ventura Blvd., PH16 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-2291 Phone: 310-424-9971 Fax: 424-255-4035 Email: aidin@starpointlaw.com EAST TERRACE: Saiz-Hardwick Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Saiz-Hardwick, on behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. EAST TERRACE REHABILITATION & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP, a California Limited Partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21216 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2026), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages, restitution, statutory penalties, and related relief in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff 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 double time wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them for all vested vacation 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from October 5, 2023, through June 16, 2026. EAST TERRACE REHABILITATION & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP is a California Limited Partnership doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley Fagnani, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradley@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired EquipmentShare.com Inc. ("EquipmentShare" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EQPT): (a) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January, 2026 initial public offering ("IPO"); and/or (b) securities between January 23, 2026 and June 23, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). EquipmentShare investors have until September 21, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM INC. (EQPT) INVESTMENTS, VISIT https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/equipmentshare-com-inc/ TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. You can also contact the Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss your legal rights by email at info@frankcruzlaw.com, by telephone at (310) 914-5007, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. What Happened? On January 26, 2026, EquipmentShare conducted its IPO, selling 30.5 million shares of Class A common stock at a price of $24.50 per share. On June 24, 2026, before the market opened, Umibōzu Research, a stock market focused media outlet, published a report alleging, among other things, that "undisclosed related-party transactions . . . have netted" entities affiliated with EquipmentShare founders "at least $77 million, with the true figure potentially running substantially higher." The report states that the Company maintains a high-net-worth individuals and family-office channel "built around three undisclosed entities -- EZ Equipment Zone ('EZ'), Bevel Financial ('Bevel'), and Armada Fleet Management ('Armada')." The report details how the Company uses its OWN program to funnel significant fees and other payments to these related parties, and details a "web of 130 Schlacks-affiliated entities," which "have further enabled [this] rampant self dealing." The report concludes "a key reason OWN exists is to enrich the Schlacks, with interviews and corporate filings indicating they own and manage Bevel and Armada." On this news, EquipmentShare's stock price fell $1.58, or 6.62%, to close at $22.30 on June 24, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to decline on the subsequent trading day, falling $2.61 or 11.7% to close at $19.69 on June 25, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, EquipmentShare stock has traded as low as $16.06 per share, a more than 34.5% decline from the $24.50 per share IPO price. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that in the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company participated in additional undisclosed related party transactions; (2) the Company had not terminated or substantially reduce a number of the transactions with entities owned or controlled by the co-founders; (3) as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially misleading; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased EquipmentShare securities, wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, visit https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/equipmentshare-com-inc/ or contact at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Contreras Sues Over Unpaid Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Pablo Contreras, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY EMPLOYEE SERVICES LLC., a Delaware limited liability company; EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY, LLC, a California corporation; MARK CHLOUPEK, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20980 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought under the California Labor Codes seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties, reimbursement for expenses incurred in furtherance of work duties, penalties, and other such provisions of California law, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime and double time wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and Class Members working over 8 hours per day, over 12 hours per day, over 40 hours per week, and 7 consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day in a work day, 12 hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week, and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes and hours actually worked at the proper overtime and double time rate(s) of pay; deducting time from employees' hours worked for meal periods shorter in length than the amount of time being automatically deducted; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to complete pre shift tasks before clocking in, to don and doff uniforms off the clock, to clock out for meal periods and continue working and/or suffering under Defendant's control; to make or respond to telephone calls and/or text messages off the clock, including during meal periods; failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay and other forms of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay; and, editing and/or deducting of time from time entries to show less hours than actually worked, all to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee. EVOLUTION is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a limited liability company organized in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasmin K. Gill, Esq. Ashlie E. Fox, Esq. William R. Denis, Esq. J. GILL LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation 515 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 459-6023 Fax: (310) 728-2137 Email: jasmin@jkgilllaw.com ashlie@jkgilllaw.com william@jkgilllaw.com FAMOUS INDUSTRIES: Hartwell Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHARA HARTWELL, Plaintiff, for herself and all others similarly situated v. FAMOUS INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a HEATING & COOLING PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00892-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, July 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that the Named Plaintiff and Similarly Situated Persons ("SSPs") were non-exempt employees and were paid on a piece rate basis. Named Plaintiff and the SSPs frequently worked more than 40 hours per week. The Defendant was aware that Named Plaintiff and the SSPs regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek but were not receiving overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Defendant willfully refused and continues to refuse to pay Plaintiff and the SSPs in accordance with the law. As a result, Plaintiff and the SSPs have been damaged, says the suit. The Named Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, post-judgment interest and other benefits to which Named Plaintiff is entitled in an amount to be determined at trial and as award of Named Plaintiff's costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred relating to this action, and all other relief as may be deemed just, necessary and proper. Plaintiff Shara Hartwell has been employed with Defendant since December 2, 2024. Defendant Famous Industries, Inc. d/b/a Heating & Cooling Products Company is in the business of manufacturing sheet metal products for use in Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning ("HVAC") systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica Ann Probst, Esq. Andrea L. Salvino, Esq. 88 West Mound Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 232-8692 Facsimile: (614) 469-7170 E-mail: Erica@ksrlegal.com ASalvino@ksrlegal.com FANNIE MAE: Appeals Court Affirms $499M Stockholder Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------ Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2026, that, on July 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's final judgment, and consideration is being given to the possibility of further action with regards to a consolidated class action "In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations" and the related non-class action lawsuit "Fairholme Funds v. FHFA" involve claims brought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders against the company, FHFA as the company's conservator, and Freddie Mac, challenging the August 2012 amendment to each company's senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments nullified certain of the stockholders' rights and caused them harm. Plaintiffs in the class action represent a class of Fannie Mae preferred stockholders and classes of Freddie Mac common and preferred stockholders. The cases were tried before a jury at a trial that commenced on July 24, 2023. On Aug. 14, 2023, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and awarded damages of $299.4 million to Fannie Mae preferred stockholders. On Oct. 24, 2023, the court held that these stockholders were entitled to receive prejudgment interest on the damage award. On March 20, 2024, the court entered final judgment and set the amount of prejudgment interest owed by Fannie Mae at $199.7 million. On April 17, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied on March 14, 2025. The defendants filed a notice of appeal on April 11, 2025, and on April 25, 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice of cross-appeal challenging several of the court's pretrial rulings, which they contend prevented them from seeking the full measure of their alleged damages. Fannie Mae is a leading source of residential mortgage credit in the United States, providing liquidity and stability to the housing finance system by purchasing and guaranteeing mortgage loans. It operates under a federal charter and supports both single-family and multifamily housing markets. FEDERAL EXPRESS: Williams Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLINDA WILLIAMS and RICHARD QUICHOCHO on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01056-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as follows pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. Certify the claim in this case on behalf of the following Classes: (1) All current and former permanent non-pilot employees of FedEx who took short-term military leave (periods of 14 days or fewer) from their employment with FedEx at any time from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2024, and during that short-term military leave were not paid the compensation they would have earned had they worked for FedEx instead of taking military leave (the "Pay Class"). (2) All permanent non-pilot employees of Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) in the military at the same time they were employed by FedEx at any time from January 1, 2025 until May 31, 2026 (the "Injunctive Relief Class"); and Excluded from the Classes are all former or current salaried employees of FedEx who have only worked at FedEx after October 31, 2020. 2. Certify the Pay Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (or, in the alternative, 23(b)(3)), and certify the Injunctive Relief Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (or, in the alternative, 23(b)(3)); 3. Appoint Charlinda Williams as the Class Representative of the Pay Class; 4. Appoint Richard Quichocho as the Class Representative of the Injunctive Relief Class and also the Pay Class; and 5. Pursuant to Rule 23(g), appoint R. Joseph Barton as Lead Class Counsel, Matthew Z. Crotty, and Thomas G. Jarrard as Class Counsel, and Stephen J. Anderson as Local Class Counsel. FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company focused on transportation, e-commerce and business services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CBJomA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. BARTON & DOWNES LLP 1633 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com - and - Stephen J. Anderson, Esq. KENNETH S. NUGENT, P.C. 4227 Pleasant Hill Road Building 11, Suite 300 Duluth GA 30096 Telephone: (770) 820-0893 E-mail: sanderson@attorneykennugent.com - and - Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq. RIVERSIDE NW LAW GROUP, PLLC 905 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 404 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 850-7011 E-mail: mzc@rnwlg.com - and - Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD LLC 1020 N. Washington St. Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (425) 239-7290 E-mail: Tjarrard@att.net FENIX CONSULTING: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Rene Flores, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIGHLAND HEALTHCARE CAMELLIA GARDENS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20853 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. As such and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants' business in California, Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failing to provide employees with timely and duty free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; and Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked. Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California from 2015 to March 2026. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Jaeyoung Lee, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com hsleviant@moonlawgroup.com jlee@moonlawgroup.com FENIX CONSULTING: Jamison-Smith Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Madison Jamison-Smith, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FENIX CONSULTING GROUP and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20933 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. As such and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants' business in California, Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failing to provide employees with timely and duty free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; and Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked; Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the County of Orange, State of California from approximately January 2026 to March 2026. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Orange County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Jaeyoung Lee, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com hsleviant@moonlawgroup.com jlee@moonlawgroup.com FINWARD BANCORP: M&A Investigates Sale to First Financial --------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Finward Bancorp (NASDAQ: FNWD) related to its sale to First Financial Bancorp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Finward shareholders are expected to receive 1.35 shares of First Financial common stock for each share of Finward common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/finward-bancorp-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Personalis, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSNL) related to its sale to Tempus AI, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Personalis shareholders are expected to receive $16.25 per share of common stock. The consideration is reported to be structured as a 100% stock transaction, with Tempus having the option to elect payment in cash at Tempus' discretion, capped at 50% of the consideration paid. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/personalis-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- BioLife Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLFS) related to its sale to Repligen Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, BioLife shareholders are expected to receive $11.25 per share in cash and 0.1442 shares of Repligen common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/biolife-solutions-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Utz Brands, Inc. (NYSE: UTZ) related to its sale to Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Utz shareholders are expected to receive $14.25 per share in cash. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/utz-brands-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received notification of the July 2025 cyberattack on First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $5,030 from a class action settlement. The data breach impacted approximately 4,251 people. First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana Inc. agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to adequately protect personal information, including names and Social Security numbers, during a targeted cyberattack in July 2025. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals whose personally identifiable information the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, data breach that occurred in July 2025 compromised. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Ordinary documented out-of-pocket expenses: Class members can claim up to $450 for ordinary documented out-of-pocket expenses that occurred between July 1, 2025, and Sept. 30, 2026, and are traceable to the data breach. Eligible expenses include fees for credit reports, credit monitoring costs, costs to freeze/unfreeze credit, costs to replace IDs and postage to financial institutions. -- Extraordinary documented out-of-pocket losses: Class members can claim up to $4,500 for documented monetary losses likely connected to the data breach that identity theft or fraud caused. Ordinary out-of-pocket expenses must not cover the expense, and the claimant must show they tried to recover the loss, such as by using insurance. -- Lost time: All class members can also claim up to four hours at $20 per hour for time spent responding to the data breach ($80 maximum). This includes time spent changing passwords, investigating suspicious activity and researching the data incident. -- Alternative cash payment: Class members who do not claim ordinary or extraordinary out-of-pocket expenses and/or lost time can submit a claim to receive a one-time cash payment of $50. 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: FBC Data Security Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799 The claim deadline is Sept. 30, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- Online claims require the login ID and PIN from the settlement notice the class member received. -- Ordinary out-of-pocket expenses require supporting documentation, which may include receipts and bank or credit card statements. -- Extraordinary losses claims require supporting documentation showing the monetary loss, evidence the data breach likely caused it and proof the claimant attempted to recover the loss. Evidence may include bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed charges due to fraud, bank or credit card company correspondence, police reports and other proof of identity theft and fraud. -- Lost time claims require a brief description of how the class member spent the time. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $250,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $2,500 each -- Payments to approved claimants: Total determined by the number of valid claims filed Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Sept. 16, 2026 -- Claim deadline: Sept. 30, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Nov. 30, 2026 When is the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit claimed a targeted cyberattack on FBC's computer systems in July 2025 resulted in unauthorized access to files containing personal information. The plaintiffs alleged FBC failed to adequately protect this information, which belongs to staff, contractors and volunteers. First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,030 Deadline: September 30, 2026 [GN] FNJ STUDIOS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Moore-Pryor Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDASCHA MOORE-PRYOR, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee under the Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. FNJ STUDIOS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; NATHAN SCHERRER, an individual; ALEX MARTINI, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-08316 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2026) is a hybrid wage-and-hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, California's Private Attorneys General Act, and related California law. The complaint relates that FNJ hires short-term production crews, assigns them to client productions, sets or approves their compensation, controls their working conditions, approves their time records, and funds payroll through a third-party payroll administrator. FNJ did not establish a system which was routinely capable of completing the steps in processing and approvals by the promised and legally required payday, perhaps partially explaining the Defendants' routine failure to pay timely wages. The Plaintiff alleges that FNJ failed to pay for all compensable time; used rounding practices which are illegal under California state law; fixed meal deductions at exactly thirty or sixty minutes; employed artificial call and wrap times that omitted pre-call and post-wrap work; failed to provide duty-free meal and rest periods or pay required premium wages; failed to reimburse required cell-phone, GPS, and equipment expenses; issued inaccurate wage statements; and failed to provide requested payroll and personnel records. Plaintiff ANDASCHA MOORE-PRYOR worked as a nonexempt driver on FNJ's "GER" Project on August 17, 2025, at a stated regular rate of $25.00 per hour. Defendant FNJ STUDIOS, LLC operates a motion-picture and still-photography production business. The Individual Defendants exercised operational control over FNJ's productions, working conditions, payroll practices, and compensation policies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-msil: harrisa@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com GENERAL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Claims Dismissed With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Dynamics Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending July 5, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2026, that, on May 18, 2026, the plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit dismissed with prejudice the case against General Dynamics and its subsidiaries, thereby terminating the class action claims against those entities while leaving the action pending, if at all, only as to other defendants. On Oct. 6, 2023, said class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against General Dynamics Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries, and various other companies. The complaint alleged that the defendants conspired, in violation of the Sherman Act, not to solicit naval architects and marine engineers from each other. The named plaintiffs purported to represent a class of individuals consisting of all naval architects and marine engineers employed by the shipyard and consultancy defendants, their predecessors, their subsidiaries, and their related entities in the United States at any time since Jan. 1, 2000. They alleged that this conspiracy suppressed compensation paid to the putative class members. The plaintiffs sought trebled monetary damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and other equitable relief based on the alleged anticompetitive conduct. An earlier decision of the said court had dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, but that dismissal did not end the matter. On May 9, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. This appellate ruling allowed the plaintiffs' claims to move forward in the trial court. On Sept. 11, 2025, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking further review of the Fourth Circuit's decision. While that petition was pending, the plaintiffs later altered their litigation strategy as to some parties. General Dynamics Corp. is a global aerospace and defense company that delivers a broad portfolio of products and services in business aviation, combat vehicles, weapons systems, munitions, shipbuilding, and communications and information technology systems. It serves government and commercial customers worldwide through four main business groups: Aerospace, Marine Systems, Combat Systems, and Technologies. GKN DRIVELINE: Bids to Dismiss Carson Class Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CARSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-CV-583 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Eagles entered an order denying the Defendant's motions to dismiss and alternatively to sever for separate trials. The plaintiffs' motions to consolidate, Ayers and Carson are granted in part as follows: a. In Ayers, the claims of plaintiffs Ayers and Cawthon will be consolidated for trial, to begin September 15, 2026. b. In Carson, the claims of plaintiffs Carson and Stark will be consolidated for trial, to begin immediately upon the conclusion of the trial in Ayers, on or about September 17, 2026. c. The Court will set detailed trial preparation schedules by separate order as time permits, consistent with and supplementing the schedule and deadlines set in open court at a hearing on July 20, 2026. The plaintiffs' motion to consolidate, Ayers, and Carson, are otherwise denied in part and the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate, Ferges, is denied, all without prejudice to consolidation after the first two trials are completed. The pre-2020 claims of the 11 remaining plaintiffs are logically related and involve at least some common questions of law and fact, so they are properly joined in each of these cases. And resolution of those common questions would promote judicial economy without unduly prejudicing GKN's ability to put on individualized defenses or confusing the jury, so some degree of consolidation for trial is appropriate. But the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they will be able to try these cases in a way that would allow a single jury to resolve all of the pre-2020 claims without undue confusion. Even consolidation of the claims of the plaintiffs into three trials is likely to cause trial management problems. GKN's motions to sever and for separate trials will be denied. The plaintiffs' motions for consolidation will be granted in part, to the extent that the pre-2020 claims of Mr. Ayers and Mr. Cawthon will be set for consolidated trial, the pre-2020 claims of Mr. Carson and Mr. Stark will be set for separate consolidated trial, and further consolidation of the remaining claims will be a likely possibility. In these three related wage and hour cases, the Court previously denied class and collective certification Only the claims of the 11 named plaintiffs remain for trial. The parties disagree about the best course for trying those claims. The plaintiffs propose consolidation of the pre-2020 claims for a single trial, or, as a late breaking alternative, one trial for each set of plaintiffs in each of the three cases, whereas the defendant proposes dismissing all but the first named plaintiff in each case as misjoined or, alternatively, severing the individual cases for 11 separate trials. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h5v31g at no extra charge.[CC] GKN DRIVELINE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Ayers" -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as James Ayers, et al., John Carson, et al., and Tameka Ferges, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action Nos. 1:23-CV-581, 1:23-CV-583, and 1:23-CV-585 (M.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motions to consolidate and denied the Defendant's motions to dismiss and to sever. In these three related wage and hour cases, the Court previously denied class and collective certification. Only the claims of the 11 named plaintiffs remain for trial. The parties disagree about the best course for trying those claims. The plaintiffs propose consolidation of the pre-2020 claims for a single trial, whereas the defendant proposes dismissing all but the first named plaintiff in each case as misjoined or, alternatively, severing the individual cases for 11 separate trials. The contention that the plaintiffs are misjoined is without merit. Rule 20 permits joinder of all reasonably related claims for relief by or against different parties. The plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Rule 20(a)(1), and the Court determines that the plaintiffs in each of these three cases were properly joined. The Defendant's assertion of the need for 11 separate trials is also unfounded. Eleven separate trials lasting close to a week each would be a waste of judicial resources, result in duplicative effort, and impose undue expense on the litigants. The claims of the plaintiffs in each case are logically related and share common questions of law and fact. The plaintiffs' pre-2020 rounding claims are based on the same policies implemented by the same employer over the same period of time. The issues of knowledge and willfulness will raise common questions of fact. Whether the evidence is sufficient to meet the burden to prove knowledge and willfulness will be common questions of law. There is an unacceptable risk of confusion and prejudice to both parties in a single trial involving 11 different employees. To strike an appropriate balance between efficiency and fairness, the Court will initially set two joint trials. The claims of James Ayers and Doyle Cawthon Jr. in the Ayers case will be consolidated and tried first. That trial will be followed immediately by a consolidated trial of the claims of John Carson and Randall Stark in the Carson case. The Court orders that the Defendant's motions to dismiss and alternatively to sever for separate trials are denied. The Plaintiffs' motions to consolidate are granted in part. In Ayers, the claims of Plaintiffs Ayers and Cawthon will be consolidated for trial, to begin September 15, 2026. In Carson, the claims of Plaintiffs Carson and Stark will be consolidated for trial, to begin on or about September 17, 2026. A full-text copy of the Decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NDMrBe GLOBAL PARKING SYSTEMS: Estrada Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Russell Estrada, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL PARKING SYSTEMS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20849 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. As such and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants' business in California, Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failing to provide employees with timely and duty free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; and Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked; Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California from November 2024 and within the statutory period. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Jaeyoung Lee, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com hsleviant@moonlawgroup.com jlee@moonlawgroup.com GLUE DOTS: Website Conceals Tracking Software, Hughes Says ---------------------------------------------------------- DANA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLUE DOTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-08181 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for installing the TikTok Software on its Website, http://gluedots.comin order to identify website visitors, including Plaintiff, and facilitate the collection and analysis of user data for mutual financial gain of both Defendant and TikTok. The complaint relates that as part of Defendant's marketing regime, Glue Dots has partnered with TikTok to install sophisticated software on its landing page to learn the location, source, and identity of consumers who happen to land on its website. Defendant accomplished this by intentionally sending electronic code to Plaintiff's device that extracted personal information about Plaintiff from that device and transmitted that information to TikTok. This extraction from Plaintiff's device and transmission to TikTok further prevented and interfered with Plaintiff's ability and right to own the data on her own device and control where it would be sent and how would be used. Most importantly, Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed because the information was used to fingerprint and identify the needle of an individual's visit from the haystack of all other anonymous internet traffic. Defendant and TikTok had no right to attempt to uncover and disclose anything about Plaintiff or Class Members' anonymous visits to Defendant's Website, much less transmit personal information to TikTok and essentially forcing Plaintiff and Class Members to do business with a registered Data Broker. This information was not for sale, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek injunctive relief and statutory damages. Plaintiff Dana Hughes visited Defendant's website on October 4, 2025. Defendant Glue Dots, International, LLC is a distributor of adhesive material and products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Chu, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: pchu@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Data Sharing with Temu, Baidu --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two consumers filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Google LLC. Why: The plaintiffs allege Google unlawfully transmitted Americans' sensitive personal information to Chinese companies, including Temu and Baidu, through its advertising technology. Where: The Google class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. Google is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it unlawfully shared Americans' sensitive personal information with Chinese companies through its online advertising infrastructure in violation of a federal data security rule designed to protect U.S. national security. Plaintiffs Corinne Pearson and Melenie Crutcher claim Google's advertising technology transmitted users' personal information to Temu and Baidu while consumers browsed websites using Google's tracking tools. According to the class action lawsuit, the alleged data sharing violated the Department of Justice's Bulk Sensitive Data Rule, which took effect in April 2025. The rule restricts large-scale transfers of certain categories of Americans' sensitive personal data to entities associated with designated "countries of concern," including China. The lawsuit alleges Google maintained direct integrations with Temu, Baidu and other Chinese technology companies that enabled those entities to receive persistent identifiers, IP addresses and other device-level information from U.S. consumers whenever Google's tracking code executed on participating websites. Plaintiffs claim those alleged transmissions fall within the DOJ rule's prohibition on transferring bulk sensitive personal data to covered foreign entities. According to the complaint, the Department of Defense has designated Baidu as a "Chinese Military Company" operating in the United States. The Google class action lawsuit also alleges Temu has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress over concerns that it could facilitate data collection involving U.S. consumers. The plaintiffs contend Google knew or should have known its practices were unlawful because the company participated in industry groups that commented on the DOJ's rulemaking process and publicly discussed the rule's restrictions. Plaintiffs further allege violations of privacy laws In addition to the DOJ rule allegations, the class action lawsuit claims Google's conduct violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act and California common law privacy protections. According to the complaint, Google intentionally intercepted consumers' online communications through its advertising technology and disclosed that information to entities allegedly subject to the jurisdiction or influence of the Chinese government. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose communications were allegedly transmitted through Google's tracking technology and whose personal information was allegedly shared with Baidu, Temu or other entities based in China on or after April 8, 2025. They also seek certification of a California subclass. The Google class action lawsuit requests injunctive relief, statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The plaintiffs also demand a jury trial. Meanwhile, a group of online tax filers is seeking class certification in a lawsuit against Google, alleging the company used Google Analytics to collect sensitive tax return information from the TaxAct and TaxSlayer websites without consumers' consent. The plaintiffs are represented by Brandt Silverkorn of Edelson P.C. The Google data sharing lawsuit is Pearson, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-07495, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] GPGI INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- WBOC reports that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against GPGI, Inc. ("GPGI") (NYSE: GPGI) f/k/a CompoSecure, Inc. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding GPGI's business, operations, and financial condition, including allegations that: (a) Defendants had materially overstated the value of Husky Technologies Limited ("Husky"); (b) Husky was not on track to achieve the revenue and Adjusted EBITDA targets provided in the Proxy Statement and such targets lacked a reasonable basis in objective fact; and (c) a primary motivation of the Husky Acquisition was to generate millions of dollars in fees for Resolute Holdings and the Individual Defendants, rather than to create long-term value for CompoSecure shareholders. If you purchased GPGI shares between November 3, 2025 and May 6, 2026, and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at mdees@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/gpgi/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is September 14, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (888) 508-6832 mdees@holzerlaw.com [GN] GREAT MOSES: Property Rife with ADA Breaches, Henderson-Thomas Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD HENDERSON-THOMAS, Plaintiff v. GREAT MOSES THE STRONG INC.; ROY EGARI, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-02006 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2026) is a civil rights action involving the lack of disabled access to the building, structure, facility, complex, property, land, development, and/or business complex located at 12126 Beach Blvd Stanton, CA 90680, known as "MA Liquor" or "Hero's Liquor and Market" (hereinafter, "Liquor Store"). The complaint relates that in 2016, Plaintiff was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident that left him with permanent mobility impairments. He lost sensation in his left leg, experiences drop foot and later sustained a fractured left femur that further limited his mobility. As a result, Plaintiff is substantially limited in one or more major life activities, including walking, and uses a wheelchair for mobility. Because Plaintiff relies on a wheelchair, he depends on accessible parking, routes of travel, entrances, and adequate maneuvering space to safely and independently access places of public accommodation. In March 2026, Defendants denied Plaintiff, a person with a disability who uses a wheelchair for mobility, full and equal access to the Liquor Store because numerous architectural barriers denied him full and equal access, including barriers affecting the accessible parking, exterior path of travel, entrance, interior path of travel, and service counter. Defendants' failure to provide accessible features and amenities that are provided to non-disabled patrons contravenes the "full and equal" access mandate of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, says the suit. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to ensure full and equal access. Plaintiff is also seeking a reimbursement of reasonable statutory attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, as provided for by federal statute. Plaintiff Richard Henderson-Thomas is a person with physical disabilities. Plaintiff has been issued a permanent disabled parking placard by the State of California. He resides in Anaheim, California, approximately 3.5 miles from the Liquor Store. Defendants are and at all relevant times were the owners, operators, lessors, and/or lessees of the subject business, property, and buildings relevant to this Complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irakli Karbelashvili, Esq. ALLACCESS LAW GROUP 2096 Walsh Ave, Ste C1 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 295-0137 Facsimile: (408) 295-0142 E-mail: irakli@allaccesslawgroup.com GROUPON INC: Tompkins Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Groupon Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Tompkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Groupon Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-07661 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Groupon, Inc. -- https://www.groupon.com/ -- is an American e-commerce marketplace that connects subscribers with local merchants by offering activities, travel, goods, and services in 13 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Awad, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (561) 379-9248 Email: samuel@jibraellaw.com GUNTHER'S QUALITY ICE: Yang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gunther's Quality Ice Cream, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Don Yang, Ella Avenell, and all others similarly situated employees v. Gunther's Quality Ice Cream, Inc., Marlena A. Klopp, Richard D. Klopp, Jennifer Orozco, Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV015903 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Gunther's Ice Cream -- https://gunthersicecream.com/ -- is a historic ice cream shop at 2801 Franklin Blvd. in Sacramento, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Renald Konini, Esq. SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC 9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120 Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050 Phone: 916-525-0716 Fax: 916-760-3733 Email: rkonini@shimodalaw.com HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Securities Settlement Paid, Derivatives Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Hayward Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 27, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2026, that, on Feb. 28, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted preliminary approval to a settlement and, on July 28, 2026, ordered its final approval in a consolidated securities class action involving allegations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 concerning its disclosures. During the three months ended June 27, 2026, the remaining $9.9 million was paid. On Aug. 2, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed in the District of New Jersey against the company and certain of its current directors and officers (Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones) as well as MSD Partners, L.P. and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of the company's common stock between March 2, 2022, and July 27, 2022 captioned "City of Southfield Fire and Police Retirement System vs. Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al." On Sept. 28, 2023, a second, related securities class action complaint was filed in the same court against the company and certain of its current directors and officers as well as MSD Partners, L.P. and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of the company's common stock between Oct. 27, 2021, and July 28, 2022 captioned "Erie County Employees Retirement System vs. Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al." On Dec. 19, 2023, the court issued a ruling consolidating the two securities class actions, City of Southfield and Erie County, under the City of Southfield docket and appointed a lead plaintiff. In another consolidated class action complaint filed on March 4, 2024, the lead plaintiff alleged that the Company, Kevin Holleran, and Eifion Jones violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired the Company's common stock between Oct. 27, 2021, and July 28, 2022, and alleged that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements regarding inventory, growth and demand trends, and the Company's 2022 financial projections. On Oct. 2, 2024, the court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the consolidated class action complaint and granting the lead plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. On Nov. 1, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting substantially similar allegations as in the consolidated class action complaint, but adding additional defendants affiliated with MSD Partners, L.P. and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP. On Dec. 18, 2024, the company and all other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. On June 4, 2025, the court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. It thereafter ordered the parties to mediation. On Nov. 20, 2025, the parties reported to the court that they had reached a settlement in principle, which was subject to court approval. Additionally, shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed in both federal and Delaware state courts relating to the same underlying subject matter as the securities class action and asserting breach of fiduciary duty and related claims against current and former company officers, directors, and affiliated entities. On Nov. 27, 2023, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the District of New Jersey against current and past officers and directors of the company captioned "Heicklen v. Holleran, et al." On Aug. 28, 2025, a second shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the same court against current and past officers and directors of the company, as well as defendants affiliated with MSD Partners, L.P., CCMP Capital Advisors, LP, and Alberta Investment Management Corporation, captioned Hertzog v. Holleran, et al. On Nov. 18, 2025, a third shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against same abovementioned defendants, LP, captioned "Roberta Tackett, Aqua Palace, LLC and Jennifer Roberts vs. Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al." On April 9, 2026, a fourth shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants captioned "David Aitken vs. Kevin Holleran, et al." These derivative actions alleged claims for breaches of fiduciary duties to company stockholders and/or aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the claims in the Securities Class Action. The Heicklen action also alleges claims for unjust enrichment, corporate waste, and violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act while the Hertzog action also alleges claims for insider trading, corporate waste, and violations of Sections 14(a), 21D, 20(a), and 29(b) of the Exchange Act. The Tackett action also alleges claims for insider trading and aiding and abetting insider trading while the Aitken action also alleges claims for unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets. The plaintiffs in the derivative actions seek recovery of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs, improvements to the company's corporate governance and internal procedures, disgorgement, and restitution. The Heicklen and Hertzog actions are presently stayed, and in the Tackett and Aitken actions, defendants' time to respond to the complaint has not yet commenced. Hayward Holdings, Inc. is a global manufacturer and marketer of residential and commercial pool equipment and related automation, safety, and energy-efficiency solutions. It sells its products through distributors, retailers, builders, and service professionals to pool owners and operators worldwide. HEALTHSTREAM INC: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the HealthStream 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 HealthStream data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. HealthStream Security Incident: What Happened? HealthStream, a major software solutions provider for healthcare organizations, has disclosed a data breach in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2026. According to the SEC filing, the company recently detected a cybersecurity incident in which an unauthorized party gained access to certain files on its corporate file servers. HealthStream's investigation into the incident, conducted with cybersecurity and forensic specialists, has so far determined that certain employee information and billing information for some customers and vendors was accessed and potentially exfiltrated during the breach. The company also announced that approximately 75 credentialing customers had been notified of the incident, as some of their data had been copied to the corporate file servers for conversion, troubleshooting and analytics purposes. The investigation into the HealthStream data breach is ongoing, but the company does not believe any protected health information or customer-facing systems were compromised. At the time this post was made, no additional details regarding specific information impacted by the breach and which individuals were affected were publicly available. What You Can Do After the HealthStream Data Breach If your information was exposed in the HealthStream 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 HealthStream 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] HIGNELL INCORPORATED: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Oscar Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIGNELL, INCORPORATED, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CV02695 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked (minimum, straight time, and overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to indemnify employees for expenditures, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment, failure to timely pay wages during employment, and unfair business practices. As such and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants' business in California, Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period, Defendants have, at times: Failed to pay some, but not necessarily all employees for all hours worked, including all minimum, straight time, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failed to provide some, but not necessarily all employees with timely and duty-free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failed to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failed to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failed to authorize and permit some, but not necessarily all employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failed to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Failed to indemnify some, but not necessarily all employees for expenditures incurred in direct discharge of duties of employment; and Failed to provide some, but not necessarily all employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Willfully failed to pay some, but not necessarily all employees all minimum wage, straight time wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a nonexempt employee paid hourly from 2001 to June 2026 as a Maintenance Technician. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Butte County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler J. Woods, Esq. Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq. Tanner F. Hosfield, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: tyler.woods@wilshirelawfirm.com cheryl.kenner@wilshirelawfirm.com tanner.hosfield@wilshirelawfirm.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Sale of Consumer Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff William E. Wright filed a class action lawsuit against The Home Depot Inc. Why: Wright claims Home Depot sold his and other consumers' personally identifiable information to third parties without providing notice. Where: The Home Depot class action lawsuit was filed in Virginia federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Home Depot of selling consumers' personally identifiable information (PII) to third parties without providing them with notice. Plaintiff William E. Wright claims Home Depot sells the PII it collects from its customers at retail stores to third parties without providing notice to them, in violation of Virginia's Personal Information Privacy Act. Wright argues Home Depot operates a retail media network called Orange Apron Media that allows brands to advertise directly to its customers through the Home Depot website, social media channels and in stores. "Home Depot collects and sells PII with the LiveRamp clean room to create enhanced profiles for its retail-media-network customers," the data privacy class action lawsuit says. Wright seeks to represent a nationwide class and a Virginia subclass of consumers whose PII was allegedly sold or disclosed by Home Depot without notice during the applicable class periods. Class action: Home Depot earns more revenue by selling PII Wright claims Home Depot is able to earn more revenue by offering enhanced consumer profiles that allow Orange Apron Media to better target advertisements to its customers. "Home Depot profits handsomely from the unauthorized sale and disclosure of consumers' purchasing patterns and other personal information and does so at the expense of its consumers' statutory privacy rights," the Home Depot class action lawsuit says. Wright claims Home Depot is guilty of unjust enrichment and violating Virginia's Personal Information Privacy Act. He demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory damages for himself and all class members. In other data privacy violations, Home Depot is accused of using automatic license plate recognition technology to track the movements of customers' vehicles without their knowledge or consent. The plaintiff is represented by Leonard A. Bennett and Craig C. Marchiando of Consumer Litigation Associates P.C. and Joe Marchese and Ira Rosenberg of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Home Depot class action lawsuit is Wright v. The Home Depot Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00683, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. [GN] HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Graves-Smith Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Graves-Smith, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21256 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 2, 2026), is brought as a result of the violation of California Labor Codes for unpaid minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight (8) hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants, jointly and severally, as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from March 2026 to April 2026. HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC was and is an employer whose employees are engaged throughout the State of California, including the County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 450 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 Email: aa@calljustice.com INDICO DATA: 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 Indico 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 Indico data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Indico Security Incident: What Happened? Indico Data Solutions, a Boston-based software company that provides an insurance intake and orchestration platform, has reported a data breach involving the information of its corporate customers. According to a notice posted on its website, Indico determined on May 7, 2026 that it had suffered a cybersecurity incident. Following an investigation with external cybersecurity specialists, the company found that an unauthorized party may have accessed online repositories containing corporate customer information. Information potentially impacted by the Indico Data data breach includes names, addresses and Social Security numbers. The investigation is ongoing but Indico Data has started notifying affected individuals of the incident. A sample notification letter, which was submitted to the Nebraska Attorney General's Office, can be seen below. What You Can Do After the Indico Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Indico 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 Indico 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] INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Perez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Enrique A. Perez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20991 Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under California Labor Codes, California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 1 ("Wage Order 1"), in addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees for all hours worked. Specifically, Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees clocked in and out on a timeclock located in a hallway between the breakroom and the safety committee room. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with all legally compliant meal periods due to Defendants' unlawful meal period policies and practices. Plaintiff and the other two employees assigned to his machine had to alternate meal periods, and work delays sometimes caused first meal periods to commence after the fifth hour of work. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employee with sufficient periods of net rest that would enable them to receive 10 minutes of net rest in Defendants' suitable resting facilities due to travel time to these areas. As a result of Defendants' failure to pay all minimum wages, overtime wages, and meal period premium wages, Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records for Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees, and issued inaccurate wage statements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt "Flex Assistant Operator" from August 2014 through the present. The Defendants manufacture packaging for multiple food and beverage companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Liam A. Hall, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com lhall@haineslawgroup.com IQ CREDIT: Overdraft Suit Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Sept. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that iQ Credit Union has agreed to a $750,000 class action settlement to resolve claims it charged unfair overdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees. The iQ Credit Union settlement benefits individuals who were charged overdraft fees on transactions that had sufficient funds at the time of authorization and NSF fees on second or third presentment of items that had previously been returned for insufficient funds between Dec. 12, 2018, and July 31, 2023. iQ Credit Union is a financial institution based in Washington that provides personal and business banking services, including checking accounts, savings options and various types of loans. The credit union has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $750,000 class action settlement to resolve the fee allegations. Under the terms of the iQ Credit Union settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid in challenged fees. Class members who paid a higher amount in fees will receive a larger share of the net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary. The settlement also includes $58,947 in forgiven fees that were assessed but not paid when an account was closed and the challenged fees were charged off. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 19, 2026. The final approval hearing for the iQ Credit Union overdraft fees class action settlement is scheduled for Sept. 25, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits consumers who were charged an APSN fee or retry fee by iQ Credit Union between Dec. 12, 2018, and July 31, 2023. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 08/19/2026 Case Name Thompson v. iQ Credit Union, Case No. 24-2-04242-06, in the Clark County Superior Court in Washington State Final Hearing 09/25/2026 Settlement Website Claims Administrator Thompson v. iQ Credit Union P.O. Box 301130 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1130 admin@ThompsonFeesSettlement.com (888) 808-6292 Class Counsel Lynn A. Toops COHEN & MALAD LLP Marty Schubert STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Defense Counsel Eric Evans GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP Kimberley McGair FARLEIGH WADA WITT [GN] JACK'S FAMILY: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood announces that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement in the data breach litigation against Jack's Family Restaurants LP. The Court also appointed William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood as Class Counsel to represent the interests of the nationwide settlement class. The lawsuit arises from a data security incident that allegedly compromised the private information of individuals associated with Jack's Family Restaurants. The Court preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes, a nationwide class consisting of all persons residing in the United States whose private information was compromised by the data incident, including those who received notice of the breach. In its Order, the Court found that the proposed settlement is likely to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied for settlement purposes. The Court also approved the proposed notice program and appointed Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator to oversee notice and claims administration. A Final Approval Hearing has been scheduled for December 15, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. If the settlement receives final approval, eligible class members who submit valid claims may be entitled to benefits under the settlement agreement. The Court established key deadlines, including a November 13, 2026 deadline for exclusions and objections and a November 30, 2026 deadline for submitting claims. For additional information regarding the proposed settlement, contact Federman & Sherwood at: (800) 237-1277 Email: info@federmanlaw.com [GN] JAGUAR LAND ROVER: Bilhorn Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Robert Bilhorn, Adeel Khan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Jaguar Land Rover Limited, Case No. 2:26-cv-08139-EP-JRA (D.N.J., July 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Nissan North America Inc. -- https://www.nissanusa.com/ -- operates in the automotive industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP - PA 1101 Market Street, Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 864-2800 Fax: (215) 864-2810 Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com JBT MAREL: Dyer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JBT Marel Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Nathaniel Dyer, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JBT Marel Corporation, Case No. 26CUB02572 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." JBT Marel Corporation -- https://jbtmarel.com/en/ -- is a global leader in advanced automation for the food and beverage industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Yoon, Esq. YOON LAW, APC 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 102 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: 213-612-0988 JEFF & TONY'S DSD: Lozano Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ------------------------------------------------------- Narciso Lozano, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. JEFF & TONY'S DSD, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive; Case No. 26STCV20986 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought under the California Labor Codes for as a result of unpaid compensations. The Defendants failed to authorize and/or permit non-exempt employees the right to take timely, compliant, uninterrupted, and/or duty-free meal and rest breaks pursuant to Labor Code Section 226.7 based on, at least, the following uniform policies and practices. First, Defendants, consistently failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with their legally mandated meal periods throughout their employment. Second, on the rare occasion when Plaintiff and Class Members were provided with their legally mandated meal and rest periods, such breaks were consistently interrupted. Indeed, Plaintiff and Class Members were expected to continue performing work tasks, such as completing paper work, despite being on break. Third, Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members to perform work related tasks while off the clock such as opening the gate for drivers as well as printing paper work. Fourth, Defendants implemented a rounding policy where, as a matter of uniform policy and practice, Class Members' hours were rounded, often to the detriment of Class Members. Further, by requiring employees to work during their meal and rest periods but preventing them from recording that time, Plaintiff and Class Members were forced to work off the clock and deprived of owed straight time wages. Finally, Plaintiff and Class Members were not fully reimbursed for necessary business expenditures to discharge their duties, which included out-of-pocket expenses for use of personal cellular devices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendants working as a Warehouse Supervisor from April 2025 through October 2025. JEFF & TONY'S DSD, LLC is a California limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bardia Aaron Akhavan, Esq. Margaret-Crystal Zeytounian, Esq. AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1720 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (855) 463-4733 Email: Bardia@baalaw.com Maggie@baalaw.com JOHN RATCLIFFE: Doe Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Ratcliffe. The case is styled as John Doe, Multidiscipline Security Officer; Jane Doe, Staff Operations Officer; Wayne Doe, Cybersecurity Architect Contractor; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. John Ratcliffe, Director, Central Intelligence Agency; Case No. 1:26-cv-01912-AJT-LRV (E.D. Va., June 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision. John Lee Ratcliffe is an American politician and attorney who has served as the ninth director of the Central Intelligence Agency since 2025.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Scott Lloyd, Esq. LLOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC 106 Chester Street, Suite 1 Front Royal, VA 22630 Phone: (540) 823-1110 Email: scott@lloydlg.com KPMG LLP: Proposed Settlement in 2022 Audit Report Suit Reached --------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton of Investment Executive reports that accounting giant KPMG LLP has reached a proposed settlement in an investor class action alleging that its 2022 audit report for Canopy Growth Corp. contained a misrepresentation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted a motion brought by KPMG and the plaintiff in a proposed class action, certifying the case as a class action for the purpose of settling the case. In 2023, the proposed class action on behalf of investors was filed against Canopy Growth, certain directors and officers, and its auditors, alleging that they overstated certain disclosures about sports drink subsidiary BioSteel Sports Nutrition Inc. -- including that they "materially" overstated BioSteel's revenue, its goodwill and the effectiveness of its internal controls. Those allegations have not been proven. In late 2025, the court granted leave and certified the case to proceed as a class action. Now, the court has granted a certification motion to facilitate the proposed settlement with KPMG, which would cover investors who bought Canopy shares on the secondary market after June 1, 2021 and still had some of those shares up until May 10, 2023. The terms of the settlement were not announced and won't be released until the proposed class action against all defendants is resolved, the decision said. In the meantime, the court approved a proposed notice to investors, and processes for investors to opt out of the proposed settlement. [GN] KROGER CO: Nance Files Suit Over False Ad Scheme ------------------------------------------------ TIERA NANCE, for Herself, as Private Attorney General, and/or on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-08090 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for selling falsely-labeled products at a premium price to California consumers. The complaint relates that in its retail stores, as well as online, Kroger advertises, markets, and sells numerous packaged food products under various private label brands, including Kroger, Private Selection, Simple Truth, and Simple Truth Organic. Many of these private label branded food products advertise boldly and prominently on the front of the package that the products contain "No Preservatives" or "No Artificial Preservatives." Despite these front-of-package claims, the ingredients listed in small print on the back of the packages disclose that many such products in fact contain additives which are widely recognized in the food industry as preservatives and/or chemically-processed, preservative-like ingredients -- additives such as citric acid, lactic acid, ascorbic acid, sodium citrate, sodium phosphate, disodium phosphate, natamycin, and sodium acid pyrophosphate. These labeling practices create a direct contradiction between the products' front label and their actual ingredient composition, misleading consumers like Plaintiff Tiera Nance into believing that they are purchasing products that are free from preservatives and/or artificial additives, when the products in fact contain preservatives and artificial additives, asserts the complaint. Such labeling misrepresentations appear across multiple Kroger private label lines -- specifically the Kroger, Private Selection, Simple Truth, and Simple Truth Organic brands -- and span multiple product categories, including macaroni and cheese, rice products, prepared meals, canned soup, salad dressing, and frozen breakfast foods, indicating a coordinated, uniform corporate mislabeling practice rather than isolated formulation decisions. As a direct and proximate result of Kroger's acts and omissions, all consumers who have purchased a subject Product from a Kroger store have been harmed, have suffered an injury in fact, and have lost money or property, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually on her own behalf as a deceived Kroger customer, as a private attorney general seeking the imposition of public injunctive relief against Kroger, and as a representative plaintiff in this proposed class action, seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief for herself and all California citizens who purchased any complained-of, falsely-advertised product in a brick-and-mortar Kroger, Ralphs, Food 4 Less, or Foods Co. store located in California. Plaintiff Tiera Nance resides in Gardena, California. Plaintiff purchased (a) Kroger Rich N Creamy Macaroni and Cheese and (b) Kroger Three Cheese Shells Macaroni and Cheese at the Food 4 Less Store located at 1299 W. Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, California 90248, on August 4, 2023. Defendant The Kroger Co. owns and operates hundreds of retail supermarkets and multi-department stores in California and throughout the United States, under the names Kroger, Ralphs, Food 4 Less, and Foods Co.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. ABIRI LAW, PC 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: 949-459-2133 Facsimile: 949-534-4367 E-mail: rabiri@abirilaw.com - and - Stephen DeNittis, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 525 Route 73 N. Marlton, NJ 08057 Telephone: 856-797-9951 Facsimile: 856-797-9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com sprince@denittislaw.com LAS VEGAS VALLEY: Customers Challenge "Excessive Use" Surcharge --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Wolford, writing for 3 News, reports that a new class action lawsuit is being filed challenging the Las Vegas Valley Water District's "excessive use charge," with plaintiffs arguing the fee goes beyond encouraging conservation and instead amounts to a punitive penalty for customers who exceed certain usage levels. The lawsuit targets a charge the plaintiffs say affects about 10 percent of the district's roughly 370,000 customers. They argue the fee is excessive and functions as a "money grab" under the guise of conservation. Carol Reynolds, a Clark County resident who lives on a half-acre lot served by the Las Vegas Valley Water District, said her most recent bill totaled $658.05, including $261 in excessive use charges. Reynolds said she and her husband, who are on fixed incomes, have made significant changes to keep the charge from overwhelming their budget at the home they have lived in for 36 years. "We are recycling Water, laundry water. We put it in a giant tub," Reynolds said. "We monitor toilet flushes. We monitor showers." Sam Castor, managing partner at Lex Technica, the law firm leading the class action, criticized the policy and said the district's role is to provide water at a reasonable price. "Well, it is bureaucratic debauchery," Castor said. Castor said the excessive use charge, which went into effect three years ago, raises due process concerns. "There's no way to contest these fines. So Las Vegas Valley Water District has more authority than the police, and no one is has any oversight over them," Castor said. Castor also alleged the firm has seen communications and heard reports of threats tied to nonpayment. "We've seen emails where they've even and we've heard that they've even threatened to turn off people's water and never let them have water again, which is ridiculous, unless they pay the fines. And there's no ways to say, well, hold on, maybe the meter's broken," he said. Castor said the lack of due process is a constitutional violation and said the charge has generated more than $100 million in fees. He also argued the fee can be far higher than the cost of the water itself. "That excessive use charge is as high as five times the cost of the actual water, and they claim that it's only affecting people that are wealthy, or it's only affecting people who can afford it, who are cost insensitive or price insensitive, but it's really just hurting everyone," Castor said. Laura McSwain, founder of the Water Fairness Coalition, said she believes the water authority needed a way to reduce consumption to accommodate growth and tax revenue. "They're a growth junkie," McSwain said. "And so they thought, well, no, we'll just take it from the residents. So they put together a series of schemes, and the excessive use charges happened to be one of them," she said. "They wanted water. They wanted to come after and get consumption within the community go down so that they could give it to growth. The problem is, is that they've gone too far," McSwain said. Customers who want more information about the excessive use charge can visit the coalition's website at waterfairnesscoalition.com. Customers are also being urged to review their bills line by line to see whether they are being assessed the excessive use charge. [GN] LIFESPAN PHYSICIANS: Nadeau Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- LISA NADEAU, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LIFESPAN PHYSICIANS GROUP OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. d/b/a BROWN HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP-MA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-488 (D.R.I., July 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their Private Information in connection with the medical services Defendant provides. On December 16, 2025, Defendant became aware of a cybersecurity incident where an unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's network and systems and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. On July 16, 2026, Defendant began sending individualized Notice of Data Breach letters to victims of the Data Breach. The Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members exposed in the Data Breach includes: demographic information (such as names, dates of birth, and contact information), health insurance information, medical information, billing, claims, and payment information, and other personal information (such as Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers or other government-issued identification numbers, credit or debit card numbers, and financial account information). Now, and for the rest of their lives, Plaintiff and the Class Members will have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and misusing their Private Information. Even those Class Members who have yet to experience identity theft must spend time responding to the Data Breach and are at an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, notes the complaint. Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, deprivation of the value of their Private Information, loss of privacy, and/or additional damages, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was exposed in the Data Breach. 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 Defendant's data security policies and practices. Plaintiff Lisa Nadeau is a citizen and resident of New Bedford, Massachusetts and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Lifespan Physicians Group of Massachusetts, Inc. d/b/a Brown Health Medical Group-MA is a part of the Brown University Health System, the largest healthcare system in Rhode Island, and provides primary and specialty medical services through physicians.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kensley R. Barrett, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENSLEY R. BARRETT 1000 Chapel View Blvd, Suite 260 Cranston, RI 02920 Telephone: 857.229.2442 Cellphone: 401.601.8646 E-mail: ken@krbarrettlaw.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com LOS ANGELES CENTERS: Juarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Yessenia Juarez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOS ANGELES CENTERS FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20936 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. As such and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants' business in California, Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failing to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; and Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked; Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California from November 2024 and within the statutory period. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Jaeyoung Lee, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com hsleviant@moonlawgroup.com jlee@moonlawgroup.com LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Tista Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------- Gildardo Tista, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY, a California Nonprofit Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20988 Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under California Labor Codes, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 1 ("Wage Order 1"), in addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution. The Plaintiff regularly performed off-the-clock work both before and after his scheduled shifts. Specifically, Plaintiff was required to perform work off-the-clock approximately once per week for about 10-15 minutes each time, including responding to calls from coworkers who forgot their keys and needed to be let into buildings, or completing other minor tasks before clocking in for his shift. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with all legally-compliant meal periods. The Defendants also failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees for necessary business expenses. As a result of Defendants' failure to pay all overtime wages, minimum wages, and meal and rest period premium wages, Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records for Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees, and failed to pay all final wages owed to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees upon their respective separations of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt "Housing Maintenance" worker from about November 2011 through about May 2025. The Defendants operate a non-profit university.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Liam A. Hall, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com lhall@haineslawgroup.com LULULEMON USA: Suit Seeks Refunds for Unlawfully Charged Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two consumers filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Lululemon USA Inc. Why: Plaintiffs allege Lululemon raised prices to offset unlawful tariffs and refused to refund customers after seeking government refunds. Where: The Lululemon class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court. Lululemon is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it unlawfully retained millions of dollars in tariff-related price increases paid by consumers after the tariffs were struck down by a Supreme Court ruling. Plaintiffs Zeinab Alsaady and Abraham Kazan claim Lululemon increased the prices of apparel imported from countries, including Vietnam, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Bangladesh, in response to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The complaint alleges that Vietnam alone manufactures about 40% of Lululemon's products, and consumers ultimately paid those higher prices while shopping at Lululemon stores. After the Supreme Court invalidated the tariffs, Lululemon allegedly sought government refunds, while consumers, on the other hand, do not have the option of recovering overcharges directly. Plaintiffs argue that while the retailer is legally entitled to recover those tariffs from the government, it has not returned any portion of the recovered funds to consumers who allegedly paid higher prices because of the tariffs. "Lululemon generated and retained a windfall from unlawful government action, and consumers -- not Lululemon -- are the ones left paying for it," the class action lawsuit states. Lululemon allegedly maintained post-tariff prices despite government refunds The proposed class action lawsuit alleges Lululemon was unjustly enriched by retaining both the higher prices charged to consumers and any tariff refunds it may obtain from the government. According to the complaint, once tariff refunds became available, Lululemon's continued retention of the tariff-related price increases became "unfair, oppressive and substantially injurious" because consumers had already absorbed the economic burden of the tariffs. The plaintiffs also point to other companies that allegedly implemented tariff refund programs after the tariffs were invalidated, arguing Lululemon could have adopted a similar approach but chose not to. Alsaady alleges she purchased three Lululemon apparel items at a Michigan store in May 2025 for a total of $318.95, while Kazan alleges he purchased four apparel items at a New York store in November 2025 totaling $413.05. Both plaintiffs claim they paid prices that were higher because of the tariffs and have not been reimbursed. The Lululemon class action asserts claims under Washington, Michigan and New York consumer protection laws as well as claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received and constructive trust. The plaintiffs seek restitution of the alleged tariff overcharges or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Lululemon recovers, along with interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief the court deems appropriate. Meanwhile, a consumer recently sued Amazon, alleging it passed tariff costs on to consumers while claiming to offer the lowest prices among major retailers. The plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman, Dana Abelson and Christopher R. Pitoun of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and E. Powell Miller and Dennis A. Lienhardt of The Miller Law Firm P.C. The Lululemon class action lawsuit is Alsaady, et al. v. Lululemon USA Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-05708, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. [GN] MACY'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Warranty Service --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Macy's and the administrator of its furniture protection plan have misled consumers about the terms of the warranty service and wrongfully denied valid claims filed by customers. The 24-page lawsuit alleges that Tarmo, the administrator of the retailer's WorryNoMore Warranty, has systematically and intentionally denied valid warranty claims. Meanwhile, Macy's has continued to promote and profit from the plan despite knowing the warranty is a "sham," the complaint asserts. Per the filing, the warranty's marketing materials promise those who purchase the furniture protection plan five years of coverage for structural and mechanical defects, as well as twenty common issues, including rips, burns, punctures, accidental pet stains, chipping and more. However, the lawsuit alleges that Tarmo has unfairly exploited vague, fine-print exceptions to the policy terms and designed its service portal to mislead and funnel consumers filing a claim into receiving an automated denial. This flies in the face of the warranty's representations as the "most extensive coverage in the industry," the complaint contends. For example, the suit says that while the plan's customer brochure promises to cover "seams and stitching that come loose" and "all accidental stains," the fine-print terms exclude "wear and tear" and "cosmetic damage" from coverage. The filing alleges that Tarmo has used these and other ill-defined terms to wrongfully deny consumers' claims. According to the suit, Tarmo has intentionally interpreted the terms "in a slippery and overbroad manner, effectively using such exclusions as a basis to deny valid claims." Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that the process of filing a claim on Tarmo's web portal is intentionally misleading and designed to trick customers into misdescribing the damage to their furniture as something the company's automated systems can easily deny. Per the suit, the website presents consumers with a series of drop-down menus that list almost entirely different and much more limited options than are offered in the WorryNoMore Warranty marketing. The filing alleges that the listed options often do not accurately describe or fully encompass the issues the warranty claims to cover. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that some of the drop-down menus present customers with options whose wording specifically comes from the exclusions listed in the policy's fine print, such as "wear and tear." This is done in the hopes that a consumer will click one of these options, not knowing they are selecting one of the exclusions to the warranty, the complaint contends. "In sum, the portal menus are designed to elicit incorrect or contradictory answers, which Tarmo then uses to deny claims," the suit says. The filing cites a host of consumer complaints about the WorryNoMore Warranty, which express frustration at the allegedly systematic, wrongful denials. Tarmo has routinely reneged on the promises made in the warranty's marketing, the lawsuit alleges, arguing that the company's treatment of customers' claims is the result of a system that is "designed to manufacture grounds for denial." The Macy's class action lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, filed a WorryNoMore Warranty claim and were denied. [GN] MANITOBA: Faces Suit Over Electrical Infrastructure Negligence -------------------------------------------------------------- Ozten Shebahkeget, writing for CBC News, reports that a northern First Nation hit by a power outage that led to evacuations and damaged infrastructure is suing Manitoba Hydro, the province and the federal government, alleging negligence after years of warnings the community's power line was "old and vulnerable." Cross Lake Band of Indians, a community of about 8,000 residents approximately 500 kilometres north of Winnipeg, is seeking class-action certification for its statement of claim filed in Manitoba Court of King's Bench on Tuesday, July 28. The lawsuit stems from a four-day power outage that turned into a "community-wide humanitarian emergency" last winter, Chief David Monias said at a news conference Wednesday, July 29. Roughly 4,000 people were evacuated from the community, also known as Pimicikamak Cree Nation. Pipes froze and burst in homes, pumps and tanks failed, and flooding led to mould contamination, Monias said. The power was out for about 110 hours, from late on Dec. 28 until the afternoon of Jan. 2, Monias said. "The harm continued long after the lights came back on." About 650 evacuees remain outside of the community and are staying at hotels in Thompson, Brandon and Winnipeg, he said. "Families left quickly, often with only essential belongings and no clear idea of when they could return," Monias said. "Some homes needed major repairs, some needed replacements. Some were damaged so badly that demolition was required." The winter power outage was not unforeseeable, as Manitoba Hydro failed to act on the community's warnings as far back as 2018 that its electrical infrastructure was "unreliable, vulnerable and inadequate," the suit says. Pimicikamak Coun. Shirley Robinson says Hydro acknowledged her community experienced nine power outages in 2018 as of July of that year, including five outages that month. The community continued to warn Hydro about power outages it experienced from 2022 to 2025, the lawsuit says. It was left to depend "on one old and vulnerable power line, even though the danger was known and the community repeatedly asked for backup power and better protection," Robinson said. That power line from the Jenpeg generating station crosses muskeg, rivers and difficult terrain, making repairs difficult, she said. "Hydro chose the closest route from the generating station to [Cross Lake] rather than the most accessible route," the lawsuit says. The most accessible route would follow the highway to the community, the lawsuit says, alleging Hydro's routing choice added to the First Nation's vulnerability in the event of a power outage. The First Nation also claims human error delayed the repairs. "In our lawsuit, we allege that Hydro first found the [line] break, but then pointed crews to the wrong location on a map," Coun. David Muswaggon said in a statement read aloud at the news conference. Hydro was unprepared to respond to the power outage, he said. "Crews were sent to the wrong location, backup power was late, and the restoration itself was mishandled," Muswaggon said. “This was not only a broken line. The lack of planning and mistakes during the response made a serious emergency even worse.” None of the allegations have been proven in court. A loss of electrical service is always a possibility and crews work to restore power as quickly as possible, Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Peter Chura said in a statement to CBC News. The Crown corporation plans to "defend itself vigorously" against the lawsuit, he said. A provincial spokesperson declined to comment while the lawsuit is before the courts. A representative for Canada's justice department said it is reviewing the lawsuit to determine the next steps. Weeks after power was restored, Manitoba Hydro said shotgun pellet damage was found on aerial marker balls attached to the power line, an allegation Cross Lake's lawsuit calls misleading. The Crown corporation told the community's leaders in June that the power went out after aluminum strands in the power line's conductor failed and melted steel inside a marker ball, the lawsuit alleges. "Hydro later found another marker ball on the same crossing that appeared to be developing a similar problem," Robinson said. While the mechanism explained how the power line failed, Hydro said it "could not explain why the failure occurred" and that the outage "remains a mystery," the lawsuit says. The circumstances of the power line failure and Hydro's inability to provide a "non-negligent explanation" suggests a breach of duty and a failure to meet its obligations to the community, establishing negligence by the Crown corporation, the lawsuit alleges. Manitoba Hydro CEO Allan Danroth said in June an investigation did not conclude that firearm damage, or any form of vandalism, caused or contributed to the conductor failure inside the marker ball, the lawsuit says. The community has been unable to obtain the full report outlining the investigation's findings, Muswaggon said. The lawsuit accuses Manitoba and Canada of negligence and of breaching their fiduciary duty to Cross Lake. The suit also accuses the governments of breaching the Charter right of residents to be free of discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, and their right to life, liberty and security. The First Nation is seeking a range of damages, but the lawsuit doesn’t say how much money it wants. The amount will be in the multiple millions of dollars, lawyer Brian Meronek said at the news conference. The lawsuit asks for a mandatory injunction that would force Hydro to immediately build and fund a secondary or backup power line to the First Nation. Untreated or partially treated sewage was discharged into a nearby waterway in the wake of the power outage, the lawsuit claims. "The full extent of the damage to the [community's] water, wastewater and sewage infrastructure is not presently known." The lawsuit seeks a court declaration stating Canada must immediately build or fund water, water treatment and backup power infrastructure to prevent damage similar to what followed the winter outage. [GN] MARKETAXESS HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Sale to Intercontinental Exchange ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: MKTX) related to its sale to Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, MarketAxess shareholders are expected to receive $167.00 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/marketaxess-holdings-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] MAXIM ERMILOV: Newton Suit Seek Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Newton AC/DC Fund, L.P., Patagon Management LLC, and Scallion Trading Ltd., on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. Maxim Ermilov, Case No. 5:26-cv-05055-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification, to appoint class representatives, and to appoint class counsel. The Plaintiffs will move for class certification, and appointment of class representatives and class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on September 10, 2026. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S348yZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Newman, Esq. Tara Q. Higgins, Esq. NEWMAN LITIGATION PLLC 33 Nassau Avenue, Second Floor Brooklyn, NY 11222 Telephone: (718) 218-3360 E-mail: will@newmanl.com tara@newmanl.com MCKINLEY CHILDRENS: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Michael Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MCKINLEY CHILDRENS CENTER INC, a stock corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20813 Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked (minimum, straight time, and overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to indemnify employees for expenditures. As such and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants' business in California, Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period, Defendants have, at times: Failed to pay some, but not necessarily all employees for all hours worked, including all minimum, straight time, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failed to provide some, but not necessarily all employees with timely and duty-free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failed to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failed to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failed to authorize and permit some, but not necessarily all employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failed to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Willfully failed to pay some, but not necessarily all employees all minimum wage, straight time wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; Failed to provide some, but not necessarily all employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; and Failed to indemnify some, but not necessarily all employees for expenditures incurred in direct discharge of duties of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from September 2025 to June 2026. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Rachel J. Vinson, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com rachel.vinson@wilshirelawfirm.com MERCADIEN PC: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII -------------------------------------------------------- Erika Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCADIEN, P.C., CPAS and EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. 3:26-cv-07976-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., June 30, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard personally identifying information ("PII"), including names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license/Government ID numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, usernames and passwords, IRS pin numbers, and payment card information, compromised in a data breach involving Mercadien's information systems. Between September 17, 2025, and October 9, 2025, an unauthorized third-party cybercriminal or criminals gained access to Mercadien's information systems and exfiltrated the PII of Evolve's customers whose PII Evolve had provided to Mercadien (the "Data Breach"). Mercadien discovered the unauthorized access on or about November 7, 2025, having failed to detect an active intrusion that had been ongoing for approximately three weeks. The Defendants 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. Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to, or sharing PII with third parties that failed to, implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current member of Evolve who has maintained financial accounts with Evolve and provided her PII to Evolve. Evolve Bank & Trust is an Arkansas financial institution with its principal place of business located in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.621.2000 Fax: 312.641.5504 Email: aparkhill@barnowlaw.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone:(510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com META PLATFORMS: Cal. Judge Dismisses Fraudulent Scheme Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that a California federal judge dismissed two class action lawsuits against Meta Platforms Inc. Why: The judge ruled the Meta class actions were barred by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. Where: The Meta class action lawsuits were filed in California federal court. A California federal judge has dismissed two class action lawsuits alleging Meta Platforms used its artificial intelligence tools to enable pump-and-dump schemes that caused nearly $30 million in investor losses. U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick ruled the Meta class actions were barred by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, which prevents private parties from filing a class action based on state law claims alleging defendants made a "misrepresentation or omission or employed any manipulative or deceptive device" in connection with the purchase or sale of certain securities. The first Meta class action lawsuit, filed in November 2025, involved a scheme allegedly connected to shares of Ostin Technology Group Co. Ltd., a Chinese company that manufactures LCD technology used in consumer electronics. The second lawsuit, filed in February, alleged a similar pump-and-dump scheme involving the stock of Chinese logistics company Jayud Global Logistics. Class actions alleged Meta was aware of scam ads on its platform The plaintiffs claimed Meta has long been aware of scam ads on its social media platforms but has failed to implement technology or processes to monitor, identify and prevent them. They said they were targeted through advertisements for supposed investment clubs associated with famous people. According to the complaints, Meta users who clicked the ads were added to WhatsApp groups where scammers posing as financial advisers urged them to purchase securities whose prices had been manipulated, enabling the scammers' co-conspirators to sell their shares at inflated prices for substantial illicit profits. The plaintiffs argued Meta's alleged role in the fraudulent scheme was limited to its early stages and did not directly involve the purchase or sale of securities. They said that at a later stage in the scheme, scammers made misrepresentations to the victims within WhatsApp chat groups. Judge Orrick found that the cases aligned with a recent ruling finding such state claims are barred under federal securities law. He dismissed the Meta class action lawsuits without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs can file them again. Meanwhile, another class action lawsuit alleges WhatsApp, Meta, Accenture PLC and Accenture LLP intercepted users' private WhatsApp messages and shared them with third parties without authorization. The plaintiffs are represented by Leonid Kandinov, Aaron T. Morris, Andrew W. Robertson and William H. Spruance of Morris Kandinov LLP. The Meta class action lawsuits are Irving, et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01127, and Daigneau, et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-10180, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] MGM TRANSFORMER: Mendoza Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Alexander Rojas Mendoza, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees v. MGM TRANSFORMER LLC, a California corporation; SEVEN STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21233 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 2, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, associated with Defendant's violations of the Labor Code brought on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated employees. This is a wage and hour class action lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff and other current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants in California seeking within the applicable statute of limitations periods: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages for all overtime hours worked; failure to pay overtime at the proper overtime rate by failing to include all remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and compliant meal periods and/or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and compliant rest periods and/or pay rest period premium wages; failure to pay accrued and vested vacation/PTO wages; failure to pay sick pay at the proper regular rate; failure to provide proper sick pay; failure to indemnify all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties; statutory penalties for failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment; and statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly non-exempt employee from December 2024 through February 3, 2026. MGM TRANSFORMER operate in Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. Arie Ebrahimian, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (213) 213-0000 Facsimile: (213) 213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com arie@ebralavi.com MICHAELS COMPANIES: Faces Suit Over Misleading Marketing Emails --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that The Michaels Companies, Inc. d/b/a Michaels faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the arts and crafts retailer sends consumers misleading marketing emails that promote "limited-time" sales. The 35-page false advertising lawsuit claims that Michaels "constantly" sends consumers on its mailing list promotional emails that advertise "fake" discounts and misrepresent the duration of sales. According to the case, the company has violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, which prohibits sending commercial emails with misleading subject lines. The filing relays that Michaels regularly sends promotional emails multiple times a week with subject lines such as "LAST DAY for up to 50% off! This sale ENDS TODAY" to lead consumers to believe that there is a "substantial" sale in effect that offers a good deal compared to a product's regular or former price. However, the lawsuit says that for many products, the ostensible discounts were fake, as the products were frequently available at a discount on Michaels' website. Per the case, since the products were regularly on sale, consumers were misled into believing that they were receiving a special deal. Further, the suit accuses Michaels of regularly extending sales after their supposed expiration date or offering comparable sales almost immediately -- oftentimes within one week of the previous sale's end. According to the suit, this practice leads consumers to falsely believe that they must buy the discounted products before the sale ends in order to take advantage of lower prices. The case provides one example of the allegedly misleading sales emails, stating that Michaels sent an email on September 27, 2025 that read, "ENDS TODAY: Up to 60% off trees online only! Plus, FREE shipping!" Notably, the complaint says that the 60-percent-off sale was reinstated just four days later on October 1, 2025, announced in an email subject line that read, "EXTENDED: Up to 60% off Christmas trees online only! Plus, FREE shipping!" The case accuses Michaels of employing a strategy whereby the company "pressures" consumers to make purchases with misleading representations about the extent and availability of its discounts or sales. Consumers are more likely to purchase an item immediately, rather than comparison shop, when they believe they only have a short time to act, the filing conveys. Indeed, the case notes that the Federal Trade Commission has identified the "False Limited Time Message" as one way retailers create an artificial sense of scarcity to consumers' detriment. "This creates a sense of value and urgency: buy now, and you will receive something worth more than you pay for; or wait, and you will pay more for the same thing later," the complaint states. Per the filing, an investigation by the plaintiff's counsel revealed that Michaels sent promotional emails advertising limited-time sales nearly every day between December 8, 2025 and June 8, 2026. The Michaels class action lawsuit looks to cover all Washington residents who, during a timeframe to be established by the court and while present in Washington, received promotional emails from Michaels with subject lines either: -- Advertising "% off" discounts; -- Stating a sale, discount or price would end at a specified date but the same sale, discount or price was extended upon expiration; or -- Stating a sale, discount or price was time limited, ending or tethered to a holiday or event, when Michaels reinstated the same or a comparable sale, discount or price for a longer time. [GN] MOODSWINGS LLC: Ticket Class Suit Settlement to be Heard Dec. 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Moodswings, LLC has agreed to a settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the production company failed to timely disclose service charges for online ticket purchases to Moodswings' shows in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Tennessee. The Moodswings class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 17, 2026. The deal covers all individuals who bought tickets to one of Moodswings' shows through https://Tickets.Mesmerica.com, https://Tickets.Beautifica.show, https://Tickets.ChangeWorlds.org, or https://Ticketshop.Mesmerica.c... in any of the following states during the relevant time periods: -California - July 1, 2024 to June 20, 2025 (the California Settlement Class); -Colorado - August 7, 2024 to August 31, 2025 (the Colorado Settlement Class); -Connecticut - October 1, 2023 to August 31, 2025 (the Connecticut Settlement Class); -Maryland - July 1, 2024 to June 20, 2025 (the Maryland Settlement Class); -New York - August 29, 2022 to June 20, 2025 (the New York Settlement Class); and -Tennessee - July 1, 2023 to August 26, 2025 (the Tennessee Settlement Class). The court-approved website for the Moodswings class action settlement can be found at MoodswingsTicketingSettlement.com. Moodswings settlement class members who do nothing can receive a discount code for a 25 percent discount on one future purchase of tickets to one of Moodswings' shows from the company's websites. Discount codes can be used in one transaction for up to four tickets or the number of tickets the class member purchased during the relevant period, whichever is greater. Discount codes are freely transferable and stackable and can be used toward any of Moodswings' shows in the United States, including Astronomica, Beautifica, Mesmerica, Mesmerica XL, and any future offerings by Moodswings. Alternatively, class members can file a timely, valid claim form to receive a cash payment for each Moodswings ticket purchased during the relevant time period. California class members will receive $3.37 per ticket, Colorado class members will receive $2.54 per ticket, Connecticut class members will receive $2.65 per ticket, Maryland class members will receive $3.48 per ticket, New York class members will receive $7.12 per ticket, and Tennessee class members will receive $3.70 per ticket. To file a Moodswings settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Moodswings claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 18, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Moodswings settlement final approval following a hearing on December 17, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Moodswings class action lawsuit alleged that the company, which co-presents the immersive 360-degree dome visual music experience Mesmerica, among other productions, failed to timely disclose service charges added to online ticket purchases for shows in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Tennessee during certain time periods. [GN] MORNINGSTAR SENIOR: Carrillo Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa Carrillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MORNINGSTAR SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20954 Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and penalties pursuant to Labor Codes. Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failing to pay wages timely during employment; and failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants during the relevant time periods as alleged herein. The Defendants provide services or goods throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com NEXT STOP: Reina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Ernesto Sanabria Reina, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NEXT STOP LOGISTICS, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 268TCV20928 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for unpaid minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the Class Members, as a class action, against Defendants for: Failure to pay all minimum wages, Failure to pay all overtime wages, Failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums, Failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums, Failure to maintain accurate employment records, Failure to pay wages timely during employment, Failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation, Failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures, Failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, Violations of the California WARN Act, Violations of the Federal WARN Act, and Violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by CSS as an hourly-paid, non-exempt cashier at various locations in North Hollywood, California. The Defendants were authorized to and doing business in Los Angeles County and is and/or was the legal employer of Plaintiff and the other Class Members during the applicable statutory periods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. Christian Valenzuela Cabral, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Fax: (310) 862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com cvc@melmedlaw.com NORDSTROM INC: Cordero Suit Transferred to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Cordero, on behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:26-cv-03621 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 30, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03762 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights - Employment. Nordstrom, Inc. -- https://www.nordstrom.com/ -- is an American upmarket department store chain headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amy K. Todd, Esq. Riley B. Doyle, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Amy.Todd@jacksonlewis.com Riley.Doyle@jacksonlewis.com - and - Kelli M. Dreger, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: Kelli.Dreger@jacksonlewis.com ODIN PROPERTIES: Illegal Rent Class Settlement Gets Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Moselle, writing for WHYY, reports that tenants at Bentley Manor in West Oak Lane are celebrating. A Philadelphia judge granted preliminary approval this week to a class-action settlement residents reached with Odin Properties over illegal rent collection. If given final approval, Odin would be required to provide roughly $142,000 in relief. More than half of the money would go directly to the building's tenants in the form of cash refunds, according to court documents. The company would also have to forgive nearly $67,000 in unpaid rent and associated fees or interest. "We all deserve a safe place to live, no matter who we are," said Dawn Colbourne, a Bentley Manor tenant and named plaintiff, in a statement. "This agreement is a step forward in making sure that happens, and I'm glad that we're taking this step together." The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed last March against Odin and two related entities. In it, tenants alleged that Odin demanded and collected rent from tenants at Bentley Manor for months despite city inspectors finding the 71-unit building to be an "unsafe structure." The dangerous conditions included "loose and missing bricks" and a "leaning parapet" on the roof, according to the suit. City and state law requires landlords to keep their properties safe and habitable. In Philadelphia, violators are barred from collecting rent until the property is compliant. Odin has since made the necessary repairs, but the company is now poised to pay tenants for the period during which it was collecting rent while the building posed an "immediate danger or hazard" to residents. "Our residents are incredibly important to us and have been since our founding. All of our properties are free and clear of City of Philadelphia violations and current on our licensure, and we look forward to being assets for our communities long into the future," said Philip Balderston, CEO and founder of Odin Properties, in a statement. The city's Department of Licenses and Inspections deemed Bentley Manor unsafe in November 2024, giving Odin 30 days to make repairs to avoid falling out of compliance with the city's rental code. According to the lawsuit, the company did not appeal the notice and failed to meet the deadline, forfeiting its ability to collect rent from tenants. But over the next four months, the suit alleges, Odin illegally collected rent, leading tenants to take the unusual step of filing a proposed class-action lawsuit against their landlord. A judge gave initial approval to the settlement Monday, July 27. It will now be the subject of a hearing set for Oct. 26, during which the court is expected to make a final determination on the settlement. Under the agreement, individual cash refunds will differ depending on the "amount of rent and associated late fees each settlement class member paid for tenancy . . . compared to the total amount of rent and associated late fees paid by all settlement class members" between Dec. 14, 2024, and April 28, 2025. [GN] OPERATION PAR INC: Whitford Files Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Operation Par, Inc. The case is styled as Cheri Whitford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Operation Par, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-01917-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., July 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Operation PAR Inc. -- https://www.operationpar.org/ -- is a private non-profit organization offering outpatient treatment in Pinellas, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Leonard Kahn, Esq. BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C. 3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 261-7711 Email: jkahn@bfvlaw.com - and - Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com PAPA JOHN: Faces Suit Over Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------ Clark Kauffman, writing for News From The States, reports that another proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed in federal court on behalf of food-delivery drivers in Iowa, this time targeting a large Papa John's franchise. The lawsuit, which is similar to others filed against Pizza Hut, Casey's General Stores, Papa John's and Domino's in recent years, was filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. As with the other lawsuits, the new filing alleges that food-delivery drivers wind up working for less than the minimum wage once they are forced to "kick back" some of their pay to their employer in the form of uncompensated use of their personal vehicles. Named as a defendant is PJIOWA of Des Moines, a company that, according to court records, has owned and operated at least 26 Papa John's pizza restaurants in Iowa, Illinois and South Dakota, with most of those outlets based in Iowa. According to the lawsuit, PJIOWA reimburses its delivery drivers, who use their own vehicles to deliver the pizzas, on a per-mile basis that is substantially less than their actual cost of owning and operating a vehicle. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that while the average cost of owning and operating a vehicle ranges from 77 cents to 82 cents per mile, PJIOWA has reimbursed its drivers at a rate of 35 cents per mile, while also paying the drivers $5 per hour -- an amount that includes a "tip credit" enabling the company to pay less than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. The lawsuit claims when factoring in the expense of the unreimbursed vehicle-related costs, every mile driven by the named plaintiff, Christina Knox of Iowa, has decreased her net wages by approximately 42 cents. During her employment, the lawsuit alleges, Knox has averaged about three deliveries each hour that she has worked, which has resulted in her driving an average of 15 miles each hour. By that calculation, the lawsuit alleges, every hour Knox has worked has reduced her net wages by approximately $6.30. All of PJIOWA's "delivery drivers had similar experiences" to those of Knox, as they were subject to the same company policy on reimbursement, the lawsuit claims. Because the delivery drivers incurred unreimbursed automobile expenses, the delivery drivers were essentially "kicking back" to their employer enough money to trigger the alleged minimum-wage violations, the lawsuit asserts. PJIOWA's "low reimbursement rates were a frequent complaint of delivery drivers," the lawsuit states, yet the company "continued to reimburse at a rate much less than any reasonable approximation of delivery drivers' automobile expenses." PJIOWA has yet to file a response to the lawsuit but has denied similar allegations of wrongdoing in other lawsuits alleging violations of the same wage-and-hour laws. The plaintiffs in the case are represented by Des Moines attorney Harley C. Erbe of the Erbe Law Firm. Previous settlement kept secret In 2015, a similar class-action lawsuit was filed against PJIOWA, alleging the company's drivers collected unreasonably small reimbursement for vehicle expenses while also being forced to pay for their work uniforms. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Brandon Tegtmeier, a delivery driver at a Papa John's restaurant in Davenport, alleged the franchise had been paying drivers $5.50 an hour, less than the minimum wage, because they were "tipped employees." The workers, however, alleged they were regularly assigned tasks that didn't generate tips, such as cleaning, answering calls and preparing pizzas. After two years of litigation, that case was settled out of court, with the terms of the deal kept confidential at the insistence of all parties. In successfully arguing for the terms of the deal to be kept secret by the court, attorneys for the drivers and Papa John's told the judge in the case that confidentiality "serves the compelling public interest of promoting the amicable resolution of disputes, and the approval of the agreement is necessary in order to allow the final resolution of this matter. This is not a case which involves information of significant interest to the public." In court filings, the parties also stated that confidentiality would "prevent injury" to Papa John's reputation "by ensuring that employees and other individuals who are not fully informed about the settlement do not mistakenly perceive this settlement as an admission of liability." 2017 case involved 230 PJIOWA workers In 2017, PJIOWA was again the target of a class-action lawsuit filed by employees. In that case, Billy D. Frazier of Cedar Rapids and 229 other workers alleged they were paid as hourly employees who collected tips, but were required to spend more than 20% of their working time engaged in non-tipped labor, such as folding pizza boxes, washing dishes, sweeping, mopping, scrubbing the freezer, working on food preparation station, painting, purchasing inventory and general maintenance. In 2020, the case was settled out of court, with the terms of the deal kept confidential at the request of the plaintiffs' attorneys. The Papa John's cases are similar to those filed on behalf of Iowa delivery drivers working for other companies. A 2021 lawsuit filed against Domino's on behalf of driver Alexia Stevens and others was dismissed in 2022 with no public record of any settlement that may have been reached. A similar lawsuit against Casey's General Stores was filed in 2021 and was settled in 2022 with the company agreeing to pay the one named defendant, Jolene Greever, $3,000. A separate lawsuit was filed against Casey's in 2022 on behalf of delivery driver Derek Powell and more than a dozen other workers. Court records show three of the plaintiffs in that case settled their claims out of court for sums ranging from $1,200 to $3,500 each, while the claims made by the other plaintiffs were dismissed in 2024 for an alleged failure to respond to Casey's requests for information. [GN] PARK HA BIOLOGICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Morris Kandinov LLP announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders of Park Ha Biological Technology Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: BYAH) (the "Company") in the Southern District of New York and captioned Robert Thomas, et al. v. Park Ha Biological Technology Co., Ltd., et al., No. 26-cv-6421 (the "PHH Action"). The Company previously traded under the ticker symbol PHH. Purchasers or acquirers of the Company's ordinary shares between December 27, 2024 and July 8, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until September 28, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the PHH Action. The PHH Action charges certain of the Company's officers and directors, its auditor (WWC, P.C.), and the underwriters of its initial public offering (Dawson James Securities, Inc. and D. Boral Capital LLC) with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action alleges, among other things, that the defendants orchestrated a "pump-and-dump" scheme to defraud investors in PHH, in which impersonators using the stolen identities of legitimate financial advisors touted the Company's shares with baseless claims. The scheme was facilitated by an IPO deliberately structured with an extremely low public float, and collapsed on July 8, 2025, when PHH's share price fell approximately 93% in a single trading session. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired PHH ordinary shares during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the putative class in the PHH Action. Investors are not required to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in order to share in a future recovery obtained in the PHH Action. As of the date of this release, the plaintiffs in the PHH Action intend to apply to the court for appointment as lead plaintiffs as well as the appointment of Morris Kandinov LLP as lead counsel. To learn more about this investigation and your rights, visit: https://moka.law/case-contact-form/. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. Morris Kandinov LLP is a national law firm that represents individual and institutional investors in cases involving fraud and fiduciary misconduct. For further information, contact: Leo Kandinov, Esq. Morris Kandinov LLP 550 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 780-3993 leo@moka.law [GN] PEABODY ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Peabody Energy Corporation ("Peabody Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE:BTU) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Peabody Energy common stock between October 14, 2024 to May 4, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 24, 2026 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Allegation 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 Peabody Energy's Centurion mine and the multitude of issues causing delays to the ramp-up and the return to full longwall production dates. On March 30, 2026, Peabody Energy issued a press release lowering guidance pertaining to Centurion mine's expected first quarter 2026 output ahead of the Company's full earnings release. In pertinent part, defendants announced that sales volume from the Centurion mine was expected to deliver approximately 250,000 tons in the first quarter due to mining commissioning challenges (compared to previous estimates of around 700,000 tons). Following this news, the price of Peabody Energy's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $39.50 per share on March 27, 2026, Peabody Energy's stock price fell to $35.68 per share on March 30, 2026, a decline of about 9.7% in the span of a single trading day. On May 5, 2026, Peabody Energy issued a press release disclosing the Company's failure to ramp-up Centurion by the long-awaited March 2026 deadline and cutting guidance related to full year met segment volumes to reflect the increased cost and substantial volume decrease. Following this news, Peabody Energy's common stock declined from a closing market price of $26.52 per share on May 4, 2026, to $25.00 per share on May 5, 2025, a decline of 5.7%. Next Steps: If you purchased or otherwise acquired Peabody Energy shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, South Carolina, and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in securities, derivative, and commercial litigation as well as individuals in consumer protection and data privacy litigation. The firm has a nationwide practice and routinely handles cases in both federal and state courts. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] PERMOBIL INC: Agrees to Settle SpeedControl Dial Suit for $4.1MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that Consumers who purchased or used a SpeedControl Dial between April 1, 2022, and July 1, 2026, may be eligible to claim a cash payment or reimbursement from a class action settlement. Permobil Inc. and Max Mobility LLC agreed to pay $4.1 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging they sold a defective SpeedControl Dial for the SmartDrive MX2+ Power Assist Device that did not function as intended. Who can file a claim? The settlement class includes all individuals who purchased or used a SpeedControl Dial between April 1, 2022, and July 1, 2026, including those who received a notice of the settlement by email or mail. How much can class members receive? The settlement provides two types of awards for eligible class members: -- Cash benefit: Every eligible class member who submits a valid claim is entitled to a cash payment. The exact amount will depend on the total number of valid claims and the net settlement fund remaining after deductions for settlement administration costs, attorneys' fees and costs, and service awards to the class representatives. -- Repair/replacement reimbursement: Class members who incurred out-of-pocket expenses to repair or replace a SpeedControl Dial during the class period may receive reimbursement up to $1,000 per claim with a total cap of $100,000 for all such reimbursements. If the total valid claims for reimbursement exceed $100,000, the settlement administrator will reduce payments proportionally. How to claim a class action payment Class members can complete the online claim form or print the PDF claim form, fill it out and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: SpeedControl Dial Settlement, 1060 Broadway, Suite 309, Albany, NY 12204 The claim deadline is Aug. 31, 2026. What proof or documentation is necessary to submit a claim? Claimants must attest to and provide details about their purchase or use of the SpeedControl Dial. For repair/replacement reimbursement claims, class members must provide proof of expense, such as a receipt or other documentation showing payment for the repair or replacement during the class period. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- ACH transfer -- Zelle -- Virtual Mastercard -- Physical check $4.1 million settlement fund breakdown The $4,100,000 settlement fund will cover: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,366,666.67 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be determined -- Service awards to class representatives: $10,000 each ($30,000 total) -- Payments to approved class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 31, 2026 -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 31, 2026 -- Final fairness hearing: Oct. 29, 2026 When is the SpeedControl Dial Settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants approval to the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Permobil Inc. and Max Mobility LLC sold a defective SpeedControl Dial for the SmartDrive MX2+ Power Assist Device that did not function as intended. The companies denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the risks and costs of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Varies Deadline: August 31, 2026 [GN] PERRIN BERNARD SUPOWITZ: Gomez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Evelyn Gomez, individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. PERRIN BERNARD SUPOWITZ, LLC, dba INDIVIDUAL FOODSERVICE and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21214 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2026), is brought to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and penalties in violations of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, Code of Regulations, and Labor Codes. The Plaintiff against the Defendants due to the Defendants' failure to pay all wages, failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof, failure to produce Wage Statements (Payroll Records), failure to produce personnel records, failure to provide signed records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay Waiting Time Penalties, failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed at the Defendants' as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a wholesale distribution facility within the county of Los Angeles and throughout the State of California, which functions as a warehouse distribution center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY, APLC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (949) 208-3400 Email: jose@garaylaw.com - and - Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq. THE WHEELER LAW FIRM, APC 250 West First Street, Suite 216 Claremont, CA 91711 Phone: (909) 621-4988 Email: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com PERSONALIS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Tempus AI ----------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- LXP Industrial Trust (NYSE: LXP) related to its sale to Brookfield Asset Management and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, LXP shareholders are expected to receive $61.20 per share in cash. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/lxp-industrial-trust/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- BioLife Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLFS) related to its sale to Repligen Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, BioLife shareholders are expected to receive $11.25 per share in cash and 0.1442 shares of Repligen common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/biolife-solutions-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Personalis, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSNL) related to its sale to Tempus AI, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Personalis shareholders are expected to receive $16.25 per share of common stock. The consideration is reported to be structured as a 100% stock transaction, with Tempus having the option to elect payment in cash at Tempus' discretion, capped at 50% of the consideration paid. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/personalis-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Finward Bancorp (NASDAQ: FNWD) related to its sale to First Financial Bancorp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Finward shareholders are expected to receive 1.35 shares of First Financial common stock for each share of Finward common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/finward-bancorp-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] PONCE RECYCLING: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amilcar Huaynate Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PONCE RECYCLING INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20845 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought pursuant to the California Labor Codes seeking unpaid overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for non-compliant meal and rest periods, statutory penalties, reimbursement for business related expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants, on multiple occasions, have had a pattern and practice of not compensating Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt employees' wages for all time worked, including overtime wages, as a result of, including but not limited to, requiring them to perform off-the-clock work, such as performing pre-and-post shift work and performing work during meal periods. The Defendants have had a pattern and practice of, on multiple occasions, failing to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt employees or former employees within the State of California a 30 minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees worked more than 5 hours in a workday and a second 30 minute uninterrupted meal periods for days on which the employees worked in excess of 10 hours in a work day, and on multiple occasions, failing to provide compensation at the regular rate of pay for such unprovided meal periods., says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee in California. PONCE RECYCLING INC., a California corporation, operates recycling centers within the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310)553-3600 Facsimile: (310)553-3603 Email: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com PRADA USA CORP: Pitchford Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Aryana Pitchford, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. PRADA USA CORP.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21217 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2026), is brought as a result of the Defendants' violation of the California Labor Codes to recover unpaid wages and all available remedies including but not limited to actual and liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and Class Members but, among other things, failed to properly pay them all wages owed for all time worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them with all meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages to which they were entitled, failed to timely pay them all wages due during their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon termination of their employment, failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to reimburse them for necessary business expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from January 2025 through July 2025 as a Cashier. PRADA USA CORP, was and is an employer who does business in California, with locations throughout the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sage S. Stone, Esq. Zachary T. Gershman, Esq. Matthew R. Soto, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 Email: sstone@blackstonepc.com zgershman@blackstonepc.com msoto@blackstonepc.com PRIMORIS SERVICES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Primoris Services Corporation ("Primoris" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRIM) common stock between August 5, 2025 and June 22, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Primoris investors have until September 21, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR PRIMORIS SERVICES CORPORATION (PRIM) INVESTMENTS, VISIT https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/primoris-services-corporation/ TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. You can also contact the Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss your legal rights by email at info@frankcruzlaw.com, by telephone at (310) 914-5007, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. What Happened? On February 23, 2026, after market hours, Primoris released its fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results, disclosing increased costs on certain renewable energy projects, more challenging-than-anticipated soil conditions, and margin compression within its Energy segment, acknowledging that these issues adversely affected fourth-quarter profitability despite higher revenue. On this news, Primoris' stock price fell $13.72, or 8.3%, to close at $151.92 per share on February 24, 2026, thereby injuring investors. On May 5, 2026, after market hours, Primoris released its first quarter 2026 financial results, reporting results below analyst expectations and slashing full-year adjusted EBITDA guidance from $560-$580 million to $480-$500 million. Primoris attributed the reduction to lower renewable energy activity, delayed project starts, and increased costs on renewable energy projects. On this news, Primoris' stock price fell $101.69 per share, or 50.11%, to close at $101.23 per share on May 6, 2026. Then, on June 8, 2026, Primoris announced that its President of Renewables was departing the Company, effective immediately. On this news, Primoris' stock price fell $18.92, or 15.4%, to close at $103.90 per share on June 9, 2026. Then, on June 22, 2026, Primoris revealed a series of business updates including the departure of its Chief Operating Officer and a further slash to its financial outlook for the full year of 2026, in part due to "cost overruns and delays" related to six of the Company's projects. The Company also said it anticipates lower revenue and gross profit for full year 2026, primarily driven by lower expected revenue and gross profit in the renewables business, where it now sees full-year revenue at $2.1 billion to $3 billion. On this news, Primoris' stock price fell $23.39, or 21.6%, to close at $84.95 per share on June 22, 2026, thereby injuring investors further. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Primoris' cost estimation, cost-to-complete forecasting, and project oversight processes were deficient and failed to provide reliable estimates of the costs and expected profitability of significant fixed-price renewable energy projects; (2) as a result, Primoris systematically underestimated the costs and risks of significant fixed-price renewable energy projects that were experiencing material cost overruns, execution problems, and schedule delays; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Contact to Participate or Learn More: If you purchased Primoris common stock, wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, visit https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/primoris-services-corporation/ or contact at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com[GN] PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS: Faces Suit Over Misleading Company Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation, ("PROCEPT" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PRCT) investors of a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). PROCEPT investors have until September 22, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. The Procept class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements because they failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to Procept's business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them as follows: (i) that, during the Class Period, Procept had utilized an extensive discount program designed to incentivize its customers to place bulk orders in excess of procedure demand; (ii) that Procept's undisclosed discount program had artificially and unsustainably inflated Procept's reported U.S. handpiece unit sales and revenues by pulling forward sales at the expense of future periods; (iii) that Procept's undisclosed discount program had caused customer handpiece orders to materially exceed underlying procedure demand throughout the Class Period and that this differential had materially grown over time; (iv) that Procept's consistent surplus of U.S. handpiece unit sales relative to performed procedures had created a glut of field inventory and overstocking amongst Procept's customer base, amounting to more than 10,000 excess units by the end of the Class Period; (v) that, as a result of (i)-(iv) above, defendants' representations during the Class Period regarding Procept's handpiece unit sales and the utilization of Procept's field Systems were materially overstated; (vi) that, as a result of (i)-(v) above, Procept was acutely exposed to material undisclosed risks of significant operational and financial harm; and (vii) that, as a result of (i)-(vi) above, Procept was unable to achieve its stated 2025 handpiece sales and revenue guidance and such guidance lacked a reasonably achievable factual basis. The Procept class action lawsuit further alleges that on August 6, 2025, Procept announced earnings for its second fiscal quarter of 2025, revealing that Procept had only sold approximately 12,750 handpieces in the United States during the quarter. During Procept's earnings call, defendant Kevin Waters reported that Procept expected to ship approximately 13,350 units in the following quarter, significantly below consensus estimates of more than 13,840 units. Procept's quarterly handpiece sales guidance also implied that Procept would need to grow handpiece sales by approximately 25% year-over-year in the fourth quarter in order to meet Procept's annual unit sales guidance. In addition, defendant Reza Zadno revealed that Procept was eliminating the role of Chief Commercial Officer in order to "strengthen" Procept's "commercial execution." On this news, the price of Procept stock fell approximately 16% over a two-day trading period. Then, on November 4, 2025, Procept announced earnings results for its third fiscal quarter of 2025, revealing that Procept had only sold 13,225 handpieces during the quarter, which missed Procept's sales guidance issued during the prior quarter. During the corresponding conference call, defendant Kevin Waters further revealed that Procept was reducing its annual handpiece sales guidance by 1,000 units, down from 53,000 units to 52,000 units to allow for the "optimization of field inventory." Defendant Larry L. Wood further admitted that Procept had not "been managing customer inventory by establishing par levels" and that some customers were "probably carrying too much inventory." On this news, the price of Procept stock fell more than 10% over a two-day trading period. Finally, on February 25, 2026, Procept announced earnings results for its fourth fiscal quarter and year ending December 31, 2025. Procept revealed that handpiece sales had materially exceeded procedures in every quarter since the first fiscal quarter of 2023, a differential which had consistently grown over time, ultimately resulting in cumulative excess field inventory of more than 10,000 units. Procept further revealed that quarterly handpiece unit sales in the United States had declined significantly from 13,225 units in the third quarter to 9,400 units, representing a sequential decline of nearly 30%. On this news, the price of Procept stock fell more than 18% over a two-day trading period. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. The Portnoy Law Firm (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Morgan-Reed v. Rackspace Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-cv-06491, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Rackspace Technology, Inc. ("Rackspace" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RXT) securities between May 7, 2026 and July 8, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (RXT) INVESTMENTS, VISIT https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/rackspace-technology-inc/ TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On July 9, 2026, Rackspace released preliminary second quarter 2026 financial results and lowered its 2026 outlook "[t]o account for [its] transition away from certain low-margin engagements that will be redeployed to [its] enterprise AI business." The Company now estimates revenue midpoint at $2.5B (versus prior midpoint at $2.65B) and EBITDA midpoint at $290M (versus prior midpoint at $310M). On this news, Rackspace's stock price fell $2.21, or 33.6%, to close at $4.37 per share on July 9, 2026, thereby injuring investors. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company's enterprise AI efforts would require Rackspace to significantly re-prioritize its capacity and capital away from the profitable Private Cloud segment; (2) that Rackspace's Public Cloud revenue was declining as customers contracted directly with hyperscale cloud platforms; (3) that, as a result, Rackspace was likely to significantly reduce a material portion of its Public Cloud infrastructure resale business; (4) as a result, the Company's fiscal year 2026 revenue would be significantly impacted; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased Rackspace securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please visit https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/rackspace-technology-inc/ or contact at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] RBD CALIFORNIA: Teodores Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Felix Teodores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RBD CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS LIMITED; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20954 Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and penalties pursuant to Labor Code. Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failing to pay wages timely during employment; and failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants during the relevant time periods as alleged herein. The Defendants continue to employ non-exempt employees within California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com REACH WIRELINE: Gaston Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- AVEREZ GASTON, Individually and For All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. REACH WIRELINE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-4710 (W.D. Tex., July 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff Averez Gaston worked for Reach as a field engineer from March 18, 2024 until May 23, 2026. His job was to arm explosives, build perforating tool strings weighing roughly 1,000 pounds, run them 20,000 feet or more down an oil well, detonate them, pull them back out, and disarm them. He did that work outdoors at Texas well sites, in the mud, rain, sleet, and snow, for up to 15 hours a day. Reach paid him the same salary whether he worked 40 hours or 120. Reach knows the overtime laws apply to the crews working on its well sites. It pays the hourly operators standing next to Gaston an overtime premium for their overtime hours. It simply put a different label on Gaston and paid him nothing extra for the same long days, asserts the complaint. Reach's failure to pay the overtime premium required by law allows it to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment practices, the complaint relates. Reach knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation to Gaston and the Salaried Field Engineers, in clear violation of the FLSA, says the suit. Gaston brings this action for himself and for the other salaried field engineers Reach paid the same way, to recover the overtime pay they earned and were never paid, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs. Defendant Reach Wireline, LLC is an oilfield services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com - and - Douglas B. Welmaker WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 505 E. Magrill Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: 512-799-2048 E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com REALPAGE INC: $360MM Class Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Oct. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that thirty-seven settlements with a combined value of $359,925,000 have been reached to partially resolve multidistrict litigation alleging that a laundry list of property management companies participated in an unlawful conspiracy to fix and inflate rental prices for multifamily residential housing using RealPage software. The second set of RealPage class action settlements, which includes 11 deals with 14 companies, received preliminary approval from the court on May 22, 2026, following a group of 26 settlements that were preliminarily approved in November 2025. The second set of deals covers all individuals and entities in the United States and its territories who paid rent on at least one multifamily residential real estate lease directly to any owner, manager, and/or owner-operator on a property subject to a license for RealPage's Revenue Management Solutions, Lease Rent Options, YieldStar, and/or AI Revenue Management at any time from October 18, 2018 through November 21, 2025. Individuals who are unsure if they are included in the class can check whether their rental property appears on the list of affected properties here, though the settlement website notes that even those whose buildings do not appear on the list may still qualify. The court-approved website for the RealPage class action settlements can be found at RealPageRentalSettlement.com. RealPage settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment based on the amount of rent paid during the timeframe covered by the deals, subject to adjustment based on estimated overcharges. The final amount of each class member's cash payout will depend on the number of valid claims filed, among other factors. To submit a RealPage settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and select whether they have a notice ID and confirmation code, which appeared on settlement notices sent to class members. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All RealPage settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than January 29, 2027. The court will determine whether to grant the RealPage settlements final approval following a hearing on October 15, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The RealPage multidistrict litigation alleged that the defendants engaged in an illegal conspiracy to inflate and fix rental rates for multifamily residential housing in the United States by exchanging competitively sensitive information about rental pricing and leasing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and a slew of state antitrust laws. The lawsuits further alleged that because of the defendants' illegal conduct, tenants were overcharged for housing and had fewer rental options available to them. The litigation will continue against the defendants that have not chosen to settle their claims. The defendants that have resolved their claims in the RealPage class action settlements include the following property management groups: -Allied Orion Group, LLC; -Apartment Income REIT Corp. d/b/a AIR Communities; -Avenue5 Residential, LLC; -Bell Partners, Inc.; -BH Management Services, LLC; -Bozzuto Management Co.; -Brookfield Properties Multifamily LLC; -Camden Property Trust; -CH Real Estate Services, LLC; -CONAM Management Corporation; -Cortland Management, LLC; -Crow Holdings, LP; -Trammell Crow Residential Co.; -CWS Apartment Homes, LLC; -ECI Management, LLC; -Equity Residential; -First Communities Management, Inc.; -FPI Management, Inc.; -Greystar Management Services, LLC; -Highmark Residential, LLC; -Kairoi Management, LLC; -Knightvest Residential; -Lantower Luxury Living, LLC; -Lincoln Property Co.; -Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.; -Mid-America Apartments L.P.; -Mission Rock Residential, LLC; -Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC; -Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.; -Rose Associates, Inc.; -RPM Living, LLC; -Sares Regis Management Company, L.P.; -Security Properties Residential, LLC; -Sherman Associates, Inc.; -Simpson Property Group, LLC; -The Related Companies, L.P.; -Related Management Co., L.P.; -Thrive Communities Management, LLC; -Windsor Property Management Co.; -WinnCompanies, LLC; and -WinnResidential Manager Corp. [GN] RED DOOR EXPERIENCES: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Ian Nathan Brown, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RED DOOR EXPERIENCES, LLC dba RED DOOR ESCAPE ROOM, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CV197013 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked (minimum, straight-time, and overtime wages); failure to provide legally compliant meal periods, failure to authorize and permit legally compliant rest breaks; failure to reimburse employees for all necessary, business-related expenses; failure to furnish timely, accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment; failure to keep and maintain required records; failure to timely pay wages owed every pay period during employment; and for unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business practices. As such and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants' business in California, Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period, Defendants have: Failed to pay Class Members for all hours worked, including all minimum, straight-time, and overtime wages, in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failed to keep and maintain accurate records of all hours worked, including all meal periods taken or missed; Failed to provide Class Members timely, full-length, and duty-free, uninterrupted meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failed to pay an additional hour of pay at the regular rate for each workday with a meal period violation; Failed to authorize and permit Class Members to take timely, duty-free, full length rest breaks in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failed to pay an additional hour of pay at the regular rate for each workday with a rest break violation; Failed to reimburse Class Members for all necessary, business-related expenditures incurred in direct discharge of their duties of employment, as required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; and Failed to provide Class Members with timely, accurate itemized wage statements containing all information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; and Willfully failed to pay Class Members all outstanding minimum wages, straight-time wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and/or rest break premium wages due to each separating Class Member at the time of separation from Defendants, within the applicable time period set forth under the California Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Game Master from November 2024 through May 14, 2026. The Defendants are business entities that offer in-person recreational "escape room" challenges to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler J. Woods, Esq. Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq. Tanner F. Hosfield, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: tyler.woods@wilshirelawfirm.com cheryl.kenner@wilshirelawfirm.com tanner.hosfield@wilshirelawfirm.com RUBEN LEYVA: Guinac Files Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruben Leyva, et al. The case is styled as Oscar Ramos Guinac, on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Ruben Leyva, Acting Field Office Director, Salt Lake City Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE/ERO); Brian Henke, Field Office Director for Las Vegas/Salt Lake City; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary United States Department of Homeland Security; Todd Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General; Respondents, Case No. 4:26-cv-00075-AMA-PK (D. Utah, July 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal). Ruben Leyva is an Acting Field Office Director.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Carlos Trujillo, Esq. TRUJILLO ACOSTA LAW 8783 S. Redwood Rd., Ste. C West Jordan, UT 84088 Phone: (801) 988-9933 Fax: (801) 931-2009 Email: carlos@tagteamlaw.com - and - Christopher Alvin Vizcardo, Esq. TRUJILLO ACOSTA LAW 1258 W. South Jordan Pkwy., Ste. 303 South Jordan, UT 84095 Phone: (801) 590-9139 Fax: (801) 931-2009 Email: chris@tagteamlaw.com The Respondents are represented by: Danielle Carter, Esq. US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 111 S. Main St., Ste. 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176 Phone: (801) 325-3209 Email: danielle.carter@usdoj.gov SAKE ASIAN: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Liong Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- HOK BOEN LIONG, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. SAKE ASIAN RESTAURANT INC., d/b/a SAKE ASIAN, KUMO SUSHI 76 INC., d/b/a KUMO, WANG & LIN SAKE ASIAN INC., d/b/a SAKE ASIAN MASSAPEQUA, SAKURA 618 INC., d/b/a SAKURA, SUSHI YA HIBACHI INC., d/b/a SASA HIBACHI, and ZHENDONG LIU, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04457 (E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2026) is a class and collective action to recover from Defendants for knowingly and willfully failing to timely compensate Plaintiff and Class Members, in violation of New York Labor Law. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are manual workers. Plaintiff and Class Members spent the majority of their workdays performing duties that required sustained physical effort. For Plaintiff, these duties included cooking, lifting heavy pots and pans, standing for extended periods of time, operating commercial kitchen equipment, handling food preparation, and maintaining kitchen cleanliness and organization throughout shifts lasting 11 to 13 hours. Due to their status as manual workers, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to weekly compensation pursuant to NYLL. However, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to timely pay Plaintiff and Class Members on a weekly basis. Rather, Defendants made payments on a monthly basis. At times, those monthly payments were an additional two weeks late, leaving Plaintiff and Class Members without wages for four to six week periods. As a result of Defendants' policy and tardiness, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive their wages within seven calendar days of the end of the week in which those wages were earned, in violation of NYLL. This delayed payment caused Plaintiff and Class Members to struggle to timely pay bills and other financial obligations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime premiums, due to an improper fixed salary policy, (2) liquidated damages, and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wage, due to an improper fixed salary policy, (2) unpaid overtime premiums, due to an improper fixed salary policy, (3) unpaid spread of hours premiums, (4) damages for late payments of wages, (5) statutory penalties, (6) liquidated damages, and (7) attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to pay employer payroll taxes for Plaintiff and Class Members, as required by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that, in retaining those sums for themselves, Defendants unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs also seek an award of their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff HOK BOEN LIONG was a resident of Queens County, New York. Defendants have owned and operated the Japanese/Asian fusion restaurants located on Long Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLL 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: 212-465-1188 Facsimile: 212-465-1181 SANARA MEDTECH: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to MiMedx Group -------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Sanara MedTech Inc. (NASDAQ: SMTI) related to its sale to MiMedx Group, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Sanara shareholders are expected to receive $33.00 in cash and 0.4735 shares of MiMedx common stock for each share of Sanara common stock. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/psb-holdings-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] SATELLITE HEALTHCARE INC: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Satellite Healthcare, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Elita Pershia Robinson, and all others similarly situated employees v. Satellite Healthcare, Inc., Does 1 to 50, Case No. 26CV016004 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Satellite Healthcare Inc. -- https://www.satellitehealthcare.com/ -- provides kidney disease care and dialysis services to patients. The Company offers personalized training and support.[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 SCOPE HEALTH: OPTASE Eye Treatments Lack FDA Approval, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Scope Health has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit after receiving a 2025 warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicating that its OPTASE-brand eye treatments are effectively unapproved new drugs and/or misbranded and thus unlawful to sell. The 15-page lawsuit claims that according to the July 9, 2025 FDA warning letter, the agency found that OPTASE eye products are marketed as intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, including dry eye disease, meibomian gland dysfunction, and blepharitis. As a result of the marketing, the suit says, the FDA determined that the OPTASE eye treatments at issue are drugs within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and require FDA approval to be lawfully sold. In addition, the case states that the FDA found that the following OPTASE products were "not generally recognized as safe and effective" for their labeled uses, and that the agency was "not aware of any adequate and well-controlled clinical trials in the published literature" supporting their touted safety and effectiveness: -- MGD Advanced Dry Eye Drops; -- Dry Eye Intense Drops (multi-use bottle and single dose); -- Allegro Eye Drops; -- HYLO Night Eye Ointment; -- Tea Tree Oil Eyelid Wipes; -- Tea Tree Oil Eyelid Gel; and -- Protect Eyelid Cleansing Spray. According to the case, the FDA also found that four of the above OPTASE products are misbranded as they contain active ingredients -- like sacha inchi seed oil, trehalose and sodium hyaluronate -- that do not comply with FDA rules for unapproved over-the-counter eye treatments. One product was also determined to lack a required warning on its label, the lawsuit relays. Consumers would not have bought the OPTASE eye treatments at issue, or would have paid less for them, had they known the products were unlawfully marketed and sold, the lawsuit says. The OPTASE class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in California who, at any time from four years prior to the date of the filing of the complaint until the time a class is notified, purchased, for personal or household use, and not for resale or distribution, any of the OPTASE products listed on the page. [GN] SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Sheffield Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tiffany Sheffield, Plaintiff v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-09159-1, was removed from the Pierce County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma) on July 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05751-DGE to the proceeding. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the Defendant for Personal Property Fraud. SharkNinja Operating LLC manufactures innovative kitchen and home appliances. The Defendant is represented by: Steven Rich, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (WA) 701 5TH AVE STE 6800 SEATTLE, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 344-7620 E-mail: srich@shb.com SMITH & NEPHEW: Agrees to $350,000 ERISA Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that participants in or beneficiaries of the Smith & Nephew Inc. U.S. savings plan at any time between Aug. 30, 2018, and May 13, 2026, may be eligible to receive a cash payment from a class action settlement. Smith & Nephew Inc. agreed to pay $350,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in connection with its management of managed account services in its U.S. savings plan. Who are the class members? Class members are participants in or beneficiaries of the Smith & Nephew U.S. savings plan at any time from Aug. 30, 2018, through May 13, 2026. The class includes both current and former employees. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Eligible class members will receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine each individual's final payment amount by their average account balance during the qualifying period. Only class members with a calculated payment amount of $10 or more will receive a payment. No claim form required Class members do not need to file a claim to receive a settlement payment. Payout options -- Current plan participants: Smith & Nephew will credit payment to their plan account -- Former plan participants: The settlement administrator will mail a paper check to the last known address Settlement fund breakdown The $350,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $115,500 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $10,000 each -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Fairness hearing: Sept. 18, 2026 When is the Smith & Nephew ERISA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible class members after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Smith & Nephew and related fiduciaries breached their duties under ERISA by allowing the plan to incur excessive managed account service fees. The plaintiffs claimed these decisions were not in the best interests of plan participants. Smith & Nephew denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation. As part of the settlement, Smith & Nephew will also direct the plan's fiduciaries to conduct a request for proposal for managed account services by Dec. 31, 2027. [GN] SPEED XPRESS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Kanatzar Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEE KANATZAR and TARA RUSSELL, individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPEED XPRESS INC., a Delaware company; CHRISTOPHER WISE LLC, a California company; CHRISTOPHER McCRAY, an individual; CHRIS ZHENG, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 268TCV23315 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., July 24, 2026) arises from Defendants' failure to comply with the California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders with respect to Plaintiffs during their employment. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs worked over eight hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week, and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay to the detriment of Plaintiffs. Despite employing individuals such as Plaintiffs, Defendants fail to comply with numerous provisions of the California Labor Code. Defendants do not issue paystubs, do not track all hours worked, and do not pay wages in a timely manner. Defendants do not provide meal or rest breaks. Defendants do not reimburse employees, including Plaintiffs, for the mileage used on their own vehicles in the course of fulfilling their work for Defendants. Defendants do not pay employees all wages owed for the work they perform, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to, including but not limited to, the Labor Code, and California Code of Regulations, seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages; waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties for failure to indemnify work-related expenses, failing to pay vested vacation time at the proper rate of pay, other such provisions of California law, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff TARA RUSSELL worked for Defendants in 2025 as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to obtaining and delivering packages for Defendant. Plaintiff ASHLEE KANATZAR worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee in 2025 to conduct package delivery. Defendants, and each of them, are joint employers of Plaintiff. DOES 1 through 50 are the defendants with fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas Wheeler, Esq. Mac E. Nehoray, Esq. Kambiz Drake, Esq. Southern California Attorneys, APC 24007 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 222-2227 E-mail: tom@socalatt.com labor@socalatt.com STANFORD FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Suit for $450,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Stanford Federal Credit Union (SFCU) agreed to a $450,000 class action settlement to resolve claims it charged unfair overdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees. The Stanford Federal Credit Union settlement benefits current and former SFCU members who had a checking account with the credit union between June 19, 2016, and Sept. 22, 2025, and were charged two or more non-sufficient fund fees followed by an overdraft fee on the same ACH transaction or check. According to the class action lawsuit, Stanford Federal Credit Union charged multiple NSF fees on transactions that had already been charged a non-sufficient fund fee. The credit union also allegedly charged overdraft fees on transactions that had already been charged an NSF fee, which allegedly violated the credit union's account agreements. Stanford Federal Credit Union is a financial institution that serves the California Bay area. Stanford Federal has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $450,000 class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Stanford Federal Credit Union settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of NSF and overdraft fees they were charged during the class period. No payment estimates are available at this time. Stanford Federal Credit Union will also provide non-monetary relief to class members. The credit union agreed to amend its account agreements to clarify its NSF fee and overdraft fee policies. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 13, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Stanford Federal Credit Union fees settlement is scheduled for Dec. 10, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the class action settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits consumers who had a checking account with Stanford Federal Credit Union between June 19, 2016, and Sept. 22, 2025, and who were charged two or more non-sufficient fund fees followed by an overdraft fee on the same ACH transaction or check. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Exclusion and Objection Deadline 08/13/2026 Case Name Saldivar, et al. v. Stanford Federal Credit Union, Case No. 20cv367408, in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County Final Hearing 12/10/2026 Settlement Website SFCUFeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Saldivar, et al. v. Stanford Federal Credit Union c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 (833) 421-7330 Class Counsel Taras Kick Tyler Dosaj Katherine Lehe THE KICK LAW FIRM APC Defense Counsel Mark K. Worthge KAUFMAN DOLOWICH James R. Branit GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI [GN] STEVE MADDEN: Faces Class Suit Over Inflated Reference Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Steve Madden has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the footwear and apparel brand has advertised products as on sale from inflated reference prices to make it appear as though consumers are getting a significant discount. The 29-page false advertising lawsuit contends that Steve Madden uses a false price-discounting scheme both in its stores and online by displaying inflated strikethrough "original" or reference prices next to "sale" prices to create the impression that customers are receiving a special bargain. In reality, the suit says, many of the products are "almost always" sold at prices below the advertised reference prices. According to the complaint, discount retailers frequently deploy inflated reference prices to "manipulate" consumer perception of their products. A higher original price communicates that the products are valuable and high quality and that consumers are getting a bargain, which induces them to make a purchase, the filing says. The case claims that Steve Madden "rarely, if ever," sells its merchandise for the listed reference prices and simply uses them to increase the overall demand and prices of its products, which allows the company to turn a profit at consumers' expense. Even if the retailer had offered its merchandise for the advertised original prices in the past, California law requires that the reference price represent the prevailing market price in the same locality for the three months preceding the advertised discount, the lawsuit explains. Steve Madden's reference prices were not bona fide former prices given its products are often on sale for many weeks, the suit alleges. For example, in October 2024, the plaintiff purchased a pair of "Bouquet Black Satin" shoes from the Steve Madden website for $59.97, with an advertised reference price of $79.95, per the complaint. The suit says that after reviewing the prices, the plaintiff believed that the shoes were worth the higher value listed and that she was getting a bargain. However, an investigation by the plaintiff's counsel using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine found that the shoes were never offered at the purported reference price in archived screenshots of the product page taken over time. For instance, on both July 15, 2024 and September 17, 2024, the shoes were available online with the same sale price of $59.97 from an advertised $79.95 reference price, per the case. Retailers like Steve Madden benefit "substantially" from fake discount schemes because consumers do not have access to "complete" information about products they are buying and therefore must rely on pricing information from sellers to determine a product's value and decide whether to make a purchase, the case says. "[Steve Madden] seeks to capitalize on these known and proven effects of false price comparisons by advertising perpetual (or near perpetual) discounts from false reference prices to entice consumers into buying products that they would not otherwise purchase and/or to pay more than they otherwise would, absent the false discounts," the lawsuit summarizes. The Steve Madden class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals who, while in California and within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the complaint's filing, purchased from Steve Madden's brick-and-mortar stores or website one or more products at a discount from an advertised reference price and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchases. [GN] SUNSET OAKS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Marino Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MARINO, Plaintiff v. SUNSET OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., and CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-24983-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Defendant SUNSET OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. manages, operates, maintains, and/or oversees a commercial plaza at 9210 SW 72nd Street, Miami, Florida 33173, which conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami, Florida. Defendant CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA owned and operated a commercial property located at 9240 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida 33173 and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The complaint relates that the subject commercial plaza and commercial property within it are each open to the public. The individual Plaintiff visited the commercial plaza and commercial property on March 31, 2026 and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial plaza and commercial property. The Plaintiff found the commercial plaza and commercial property to be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued by other Plaintiffs for ADA violations. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial plaza and commercial property have also endangered Plaintiff's safety in violation of the ADA, asserts the complaint. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying him access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of their places of commercial plaza and commercial property facility. Defendants have also discriminated against Plaintiff for excluding Plaintiff by reason of disability from participation in and denying him benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, the complaint adds. Plaintiff JOSE MARINO is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-Mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com, mds@ajperezlawgroup.com TABOOLA INC: De La Torre Sues Over Unlawful Surveillance Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALESSANDRO DE LA TORRE and JOHN BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TABOOLA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06338 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawfully intercepting users' online communications, using that data to build highly detailed, persistent "cradle-to-grave" consumer profiles, and disseminating their data to numerous third parties, including foreign adversaries, in violation of state and federal law and fundamental privacy rights. This case challenges Defendant Taboola's operation of a sweeping and nearly invisible "commercial surveillance" system targeting U.S. consumers. Taboola runs one of the most pervasive and intrusive consumer surveillance operations on the internet: a platform that silently tracks hundreds of millions of users across thousands of unrelated websites, intercepting the private browsing activity of millions of Americans, amassing details about their personal lives, and building rich individual-level behavioral profiles on each. Taboola aggressively monetizes these profiles, transmitting these sensitive details to numerous third parties for advertising, analytics, and related commercial purposes. The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs and Class members never signed up for Taboola's services. They did not create Taboola accounts. They did not intend to communicate with Taboola. Most have never heard of Taboola. Yet Taboola intentionally acquires and exploits intimate information about unsuspecting consumers through hidden tracking code embedded in thousands of websites across the internet -- code that activates the moment a page loads, before a user has read a single word or clicked a single link, and that operates entirely out of sight, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek statutory and compensatory damages as well as equitable relief, including an injunction prohibiting Taboola from continuing to intercept user communications and from aggregating or transmitting sensitive user data to third parties in violation of federal and state law and fundamental privacy rights. Plaintiffs Alessandro De La Torre and John Baker are U.S. citizens who have had their information unlawfully collected and shared and have been injured by Defendant's misconduct at issue. Defendant Taboola, Inc. operates one of the most pervasive and recognizable "content recommendation" and programmatic advertising platforms in the global digital advertising industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Ovca, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312.589.6370 Facsimile: 312.589.6378 E-mail: movca@edelson.com TALBOTS LLC: Park Sues Over Unlawful Hidden Processing ------------------------------------------------------ Jane Park, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE TALBOTS LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01719 (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Codes; California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), is brought challenging the Defendants' practice of imposing a hidden processing (also referred to herein as "handling") charge on consumers who purchase merchandise through its website at www.talbots.com (the "Website"). When a consumer browses the Website, the Defendant displays product prices that do not reflect the full cost of the transaction. It is not until the consumer has selected an item, chosen a size (and color, if applicable), added the product to a bag, and proceeds to their shopping bag to checkout, that the Defendant informs them that the Shipping fee is actually a "Shipping & Processing" fee, which includes internal handling costs that California law requires to be disclosed in the advertised price. The Defendant further demonstrates the discretionary character of this charge through its promotional structure. The Defendant waives the Fee entirely for consumers who hold its Premier Credit Card. A charge that a retailer can waive at will as a marketing incentive is not an unavoidable pass-through of carrier postage, but rather it is an internal cost of business. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement and recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of herself and all similarly situated California consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff made several purchases from Defendant's Website during the applicable statute of limitations for which she was charged the Fee. Talbots operates the Website, through which it sells apparel, accessories, and related merchandise directly to consumers throughout the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa M. Freeman, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 11500 W Olympic Blvd, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: 323-701-0508 Email: lisa@dapeer.com - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 619-353-7966 Email: ben@bentravislaw.com TAMKO BUILDING: Faces Suit Over Design Defect in Asphalt Shingles ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Tamko Building Products and Viera Builders have failed to disclose that Tamko Heritage Series Shingles are hampered by a design defect that can cause property-damaging water intrusion. The 36-page lawsuit alleges, specifically, that the Tamko shingles at issue suffer from a design defect that allows moisture intrusion and causes them to prematurely degrade, rendering them unfit for their primary purpose. The suit claims that the defendants have therefore misleadingly advertised that Tamko Heritage Series Shingles are durable, reliable, and have a useful life of 30 years on homes sold by Viera Builders. The case explains that asphalt shingles, such as those manufactured by Tamko, are made of rolled glass fiber that is saturated and coated with asphaltic materials. The filing states that after the shingles are fully permeated, they are covered in a layer of mineral granules and must be free from visible defects to comply with industry standards and Florida building codes. However, the class action lawsuit says Tamko's Heritage shingles are manufactured with less asphalt than required by industry standards, leading to excessive surface and granule loss. As a result, the shingles are more susceptible to tears, cracking, splitting and blistering, per the suit. The filing says that despite numerous consumer complaints, Tamko Building Products has not provided consumers with notice of the design defect. Moreover, Viera Builders, which uses Tamko Heritage shingles on new home builds, has "refused" to fully repair the damage. According to the class action suit, the Tamko Heritage shingles defect is latent and undetectable until problems begin to manifest, meaning consumers who purchased homes from Viera had no way to discern at the time of purchase that the shingles would be unable to withstand typical weather conditions in Florida and fail prematurely. Subsequently, consumers are required to spend "large sums of money" to repair the defectively designed shingles and prevent continued damage to their homes, the complaint states. The case says that, to bring their homes fully into compliance with building codes and standards, Viera would need to use a "wholly different" shingle or roofing material. The Tamko Building Products class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals who purchased homes from Viera in Florida and currently own such homes on which Tamko shingles were installed at the time of sale and remain on the homes, within the statutory period. [GN] TERMINAL SECURITY: Pasa Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Poto Salamasima Pasa, on behalf of herself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. TERMINAL SECURITY SOLUTIONS INC., a California Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21215 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2026), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages, restitution, statutory penalties, and related relief in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff 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 double time wages at the correct rate; and failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from September 2021 through the present. TERMINAL SECURITY SOLUTIONS INC. is a California Stock Corporation doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley Fagnani, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradley@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com TOM'S OF MAINE: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Deodorants ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Tom's of Maine 'Unscented' deodorant is falsely advertised since the product contains fragrance derived from lemongrass oil. The 19-page false advertising lawsuit claims that Tom's of Maine has attempted to capitalize on consumers' interest in unscented skincare and hygiene products by "prominently and unambiguously" advertising that its "Unscented" deodorant is fragrance-free. However, the suit says that Tom's of Maine discloses only in the fine-print ingredients list on the product's back label that the deodorant contains Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, also known as lemongrass oil, a potentially irritating fragrance ingredient. The complaint relays that Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, which has a strong, earthy scent, poses a risk of skin irritation ranging from redness, itchiness and "breakout-like" rashes to less noticeable effects such as a weakened skin barrier. Products with fragrances are also potentially irritating for people with allergies, respiratory disorders or other sensitivities, the filing notes. The case asserts that Tom's of Maine has used sophisticated marketing to induce consumers to purchase the deodorant at a price premium, highlighting that consumer demand for natural, gentle unscented products has grown drastically in recent years. According to the filing, because the deodorant is conspicuously labeled "unscented," reasonable consumers are unlikely to detect the inclusion of fragrance at the end of the fine-print ingredients list found on the product's back label. Moreover, although the Tom's of Maine website acknowledges that the purportedly unscented deodorant contains Cymbopogon Schoenanthus oil, consumers may not understand that the ingredient, which is functionally equivalent to Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, is a fragrance compound. Additionally, Tom's of Maine fails to disclose on its website that the oil's primary purpose is to provide fragrance, the lawsuit says. The Tom's of Maine class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who purchased the product for personal or household use during the four years preceding the date of the filing of this complaint to the time a class is notified. [GN] TPUSA INC: Harper Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ RHONDA HARPER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TPUSA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-697 (D. Utah, July 24, 2026) is a collective action to recover for TPUSA's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were subjected to Defendant's policy and practice of failing to compensate its remote Sales and Customer Services Representatives ("SCSR") employees for their necessary pre-shift work, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate them as required under the FLSA. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving the proper overtime pay for all their overtime hours worked, asserts the complaint. According to the complaint, the Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's right to use intermittent medical leave as approved to attend one doctor's appointment and to use one full illness day per week, subject to the needs of her serious health conditions. On several occasions, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the FMLA, and each time, she appropriately followed TPUSA's procedure to request and to utilize protected medical leave. The Plaintiff was terminated from her employment on March 24, 2026, a day after undergoing an emergency diagnostic medical procedure, despite obtaining the prerequisite approvals, and because she engaged in FMLA-protected activities. As a result of TPUSA's violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective members suffered and continue to suffer damages, namely failing to receive overtime compensation earned during their employment. TPUSA owes to Plaintiff and the Putative Collective members liquidated damages in an amount equal to their unpaid overtime, says the suit. This collective action seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiff, as well as for all similarly situated current and former hourly employees who worked remotely for Defendant as SCSR employees (or in similar, hourly roles) and worked over 40 hours in at least one workweek during the three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiff also seeks to recover for TPUSA's violations of the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA") during her employment. Plaintiff Rhonda Harper worked for TPUSA as an hourly, remote SCSR from August 2024 until March 2026. Defendant TPUSA, Inc. provides digital business services for companies specializing in outsourced omnichannel customer experience management, including but not limited to customer care, technical support, sales, content moderation, back-office processing, AI-enabled analytics, and healthcare support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2901 Dobbs Avenue Nashville, TN 37211 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - April Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW HC 63 Box 8715 Duchesne, UT 84021 Telephone: (801) 415-9909 E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as In re TransMedics Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TransMedics Group, Inc. et al, Defendants, Civil No. 25-10385-LTS (D. Mass.), Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied in part and allowed in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss an amended complaint. This was a putative class action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against TransMedics and two of its executives. The Plaintiff, who brought this suit on behalf of a class of similarly situated investors, alleged that class members were harmed when they purchased TransMedics' common stock at prices inflated by the company's false and misleading statements. The Plaintiff's securities-fraud claim arose from various statements made by the Defendant and its officers lauding the success and cost-effectiveness of the National OCS Program (NOP), a bundle of organ retrieval, transport, and logistics services. The Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court addressed five categories of challenged statements: (1) pricing of the NOP, (2) denials of forced bundling, (3) insurance reimbursement, (4) customer retention, and (5) the cause of the company's decline during the third quarter of 2024. Regarding the pricing of the NOP, the Court found that all challenged statements broadly praising the efficiency and cost savings of the offerings were inactionable puffery. These statements amounted to generalized assertions of corporate optimism that were not tethered to any objective standard. Furthermore, allegations that the Defendant charged high prices for aviation and other services did not allege the falsity of these challenged statements with plausibility or particularity. Regarding allegations of forced bundling, the Plaintiff contended that the Defendant engaged in a policy requiring customers to purchase the NOP in order to access the company's OCS technology. The Court found that these allegations sufficed to plead the falsity of this category of statements. Multiple sources uniformly asserted that the Defendant engaged in a policy that forced customers to bundle the NOP with the OCS. Additionally, the Court found that the Plaintiff adequately pled that these misrepresentations were material. The Defendant's repeated statements denying the existence of such a policy strongly implied a conscious intent to defraud or a high degree of recklessness. Public, condemnatory allegations from a congressman in the Gosar Letter put the Defendant on notice about accusations of forced bundling. Regarding insurance reimbursement, the Plaintiff alleged that statements claiming every NOP service charge was fully reimbursed were false. While these accounts sufficed to plead the falsity of the claims, the Court found they did not plead that the executive acted with scienter. None of these customers stated that they informed the executive about their reimbursement difficulties, and the complaint alleged no facts about the executive's participation in the reimbursement process. Similarly, the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to plead scienter regarding the March 4, 2024, statement about customer retention. Regarding the decline in the third quarter of 2024, the Plaintiff alleged that revenue losses were due to customers moving to competitors based on high pricing, rather than seasonality. The Court found that the Plaintiff sufficiently pled the falsity of portions of the earnings call statements denying competitive dynamics played any role. However, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to plead the executive's scienter as to the statements explaining the third quarter decline, as nothing indicated the executive knew or was informed of specific market losses at the time. Regarding loss causation, the Court found that the Scorpion Report sufficed for pleading loss causation as to the surviving category of challenged statements. The Scorpion Report unveiled information from multiple confidential witnesses who reported that the Defendant forced customers to bundle NOP services. The market quickly responded to this news, and the stock price for TransMedics dropped around 12 percent within two days of the report's publication. The Court declined to exclude external sources on a wholesale basis and instead evaluated them in the context of the allegations. The Court also found that the Plaintiff sufficiently pled Section 20(a) claims against the individual executives. The CEO plainly could not escape control-person liability where he made the allegedly false or misleading statements. In the absence of substantive arguments from the Defendant regarding the other executive, the Court declined to grant dismissal. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied in part and allowed in part. The motion to dismiss Count I was denied as to the category of challenged statements regarding forced bundling and otherwise allowed. The motion to dismiss Count II was denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CX6B9I from PacerMonitor.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Uber Eats' "Priority" Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Mactas, writing for Delish, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit that was just filed claims that Uber Eats has been duping customers with a $1-$5 "priority" fee that doesn't actually prioritize your delivery. The suit claims that drivers are not informed of priority orders and often will take detours or pick up and drop off other orders before delivering a "priority" order. The suit is seeking damages, restitution, and an injunction barring Uber from continuing to advertise the fee as a "direct to you" guarantee. A new class action lawsuit alleges that Uber Eats is scamming customers with its "priority" fees. When customers go to checkout on Uber Eats, they can pay $1–$5 more for "priority" delivery, which promises "direct to you" service. However, the suit claims that Uber never informs its drivers which orders are priority, making the service null and void. According to the suit, Uber Eats instructs drivers to pick up other batch orders before delivering priority orders -- and at the same time, its drivers can also work for other delivery apps before making a "priority" delivery. Dozens of customer complaints are cited in the suit, detailing drivers who made detours, picked up other orders, or made deliveries for other apps mid-route, even though the customer had paid extra for an expedited delivery. This is not the first time Uber Eats has come under fire. A suit filed earlier this year alleges that the company charges customers for its subscription service, Uber One, through a negative option feature that fails to provide a simple way for customers to stop recurring charges. Additionally, the suit claims that it has charged consumers without their consent, violating the FTC Act and ROSCA -- and that's just the tip of the iceberg. "This case sits at the intersection of deceptive advertising and the fine print companies use to evade accountability," Elizabeth Aniskevich, senior counsel at Singleton Schreiber, said. "Uber wants to profit from a premium fee without actually delivering anything extra. We intend to hold Uber accountable for its failure to deliver on its promise." The proposed lawsuit claims that Uber Eats has violated California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as common-law fraud. Prosecutors seek damages, restitution, and an injunction barring Uber from continuing to advertise the fee as a "direct to you" guarantee. [GN] UNION PACIFIC: Sutherland Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTON SUTHERLAND (on behalf of himself and others similarly situated), Plaintiff v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 26-CV-675 (W.D. Wis., July 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for denying employment to potential applicants because of benign medication that they take to manage their disability. Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company provides railroad transportation, freight shipping, logistics, and rail safety services. In March 2025, Mr. Sutherland who is disabled applied to work as a driver ("Train Crew employee") for Union Pacific. He disclosed that he was prescribed Suboxone and took that regularly to treat his Opioid Use Disorder ("OUD") and was denied employment. In denying Mr. Sutherland employment, Union Pacific relied on a policy that prohibits employees in safety related jobs from using buprenorphine, as well as methadone and naltrexone. Union Pacific has similarly rejected all Class Members from employment because of their use of buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone to treat their OUD. The complaint alleges that Defendant refuses to hire people as train drivers because they take buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone, medications used to treat OUD, without any meaningful individualized determination of whether they can perform the essential functions of the job despite their disability medication. Union Pacific illegally discriminated against named Plaintiff Duston Sutherland, and similarly situated individuals, on the basis of their actual disabilities, record of disabilities, and because they were regarded as disabled; and Union Pacific used qualification standards that screened out and tend to screen out individuals with disabilities in violation of the ADA. They did all this without the individualized assessment and determination required under the ADA, says the suit. This class action seeks to enjoin Union Pacific from such unlawful employment practices and recover the lost wages of Plaintiff and Class Members, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine A. Donahoe, Esq. Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Martha L. Burke, Esq. Connor J. Clegg, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, SC 5150 N. Port Washington Rd. Ste 243 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: (414) 271-4453 Facsimile: (414) 207-6079 E-mail: cdonahoe@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com mburke@hq-law.com cclegg@hq-law.com UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU: Masri Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau Inc. The case is styled as Aaron Masri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Collection Bureau Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03993-HG (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. United Collection Bureau Inc. -- https://ucbinc.com/ -- provides debt collection and accounts receivable management services to creditors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec B. Deborin, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: adeborin@steinsakslegal.com The Defendant is represented by: William P. Reiley, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 700 East Gate Drive, Suite 330 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054-0015 Phone: (856) 761-3400 Email: reileyw@ballardspahr.com UNITED STATES: Sued for Halting Federal Class Action Complaints --------------------------------------------------------------- Government Executive reports that the nation's largest federal employee union on Tuesday, July 28, sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to force the quasi-judicial agency undo an unpublished edict that has blocked all class-action cases involving federal agencies for more than six months. The American Federation of Government Employees accused EEOC Chairwoman Andrea Lucas of surreptitiously issuing a directive halting proceedings in all class-action discrimination and harassment complaints involving federal agencies last December. Though the document has never been published, administrative judges have since issued indefinite stays or otherwise paused class action case proceedings, including certifications, hearings and other appearances, and evidentiary and discovery processes. "Effective immediately, all case processing in the above-captioned matter must be paused until further notice," wrote EEOC Administrative Judge Erania Ebron on Dec. 10, 2025. "All scheduled deadlines and appearances are also cancelled. This notification applies to all class cases in the federal sector, including those alleging disparate impact." AFGE filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alongside union members and U.S. Bureau of Prisons correctional officers Deanna Chelette and Alexzandria Boyd, both of whom are within a certified class alleging their employer does not do enough to prevent rampant sexual harassment of female employees by inmates at the Federal Correctional Complex in Pollock, La. Their EEO case, filed in 2024 and receiving class-action certification for around 200 employees in March 2025, reports that inmates routinely verbally harass female correctional officers and subject them to "exhibitionist nudity," public masturbation, rape threats and unwanted touching. The EEOC's own regulations encourage the use of class-action cases as a cheaper and faster manner of resolving allegations of discrimination or harassment than requiring each employee to file complaints individually -- or filing individual or class-action lawsuits in federal court -- and requires that class complaints "shall be processed promptly." The union's lawsuit accuses the commission of violating its own regulations, engaging in arbitrary and capricious decision-making in halting the processing of cases without any public announcement or rationale, among other violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. "Defendants have not published the suspension directive or provided any explanation or authority for the decision," the union wrote. "They have provided no procedure for an affected party to seek an exception or case-specific review. The directive has no stated termination date, leaving thousands of federal employees with no indication of when the EEOC will permit the adjudication of class claims to resume, and under what circumstances." AFGE argued that Lucas' directive does far more than simply block class action EEO cases from moving forward. Because of how classes are determined by the commission, individuals who are not involved in a case but could be covered by its class cannot pursue their own claims on their own. "The directive is also harmful to absent class members. In class cases, they cannot opt out, as their overlapping individual complaints are subsumed as soon as a formal class complaint is filed," the union wrote. "They therefore cannot pursue their own claims in any form, administrative or judicial, while the proceeding that governs their rights remains frozen." [GN] VALIDUS ENERGY: White Family Sues Over Unpaid Gas Royalties ----------------------------------------------------------- WHITE FAMILY MINERALS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALIDUS ENERGY II MIDCON LLC, and ROAN RESOURCES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03368 (D. Colo., July 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant concerning its actual, knowing, and willful underpayment or non-payment of royalties on natural gas and constituent products, including natural gas liquids, through improper accounting methods and by failing to account for and pay royalties as required by the applicable agreements and Oklahoma law. The complaint relates that that Validus is precluded from passing along to royalty owners, like Plaintiff, any costs incurred in transforming raw gas and its constituents, including natural gas liquids, into a marketable product. Because raw or unprocessed gas must typically undergo certain field processes -- such as gathering, compressing dehydrating, treating, and processing ("GCDTP"), including transportation, fractionation, and storage ("TF&S") of raw mixed natural gas liquids into marketable products -- to make the gas and its constituents marketable products, lessees and operators, like Validus, bear the costs associated with performing such GCDTP and TF&S services. But Validus has deducted GCDTP and TF&S services costs, sometimes in-kind, by adjusting or failing to pay on the full volume, price, or value of the gas and its constituents, including natural gas liquids. These adjustments do not appear on Plaintiff's check stubs, says the complaint. Validus breached the terms of Plaintiff's and the Class leases by its actions in underpaying royalty or not paying royalty on all products sold from the gas stream, including as a result of GCDTP and TF&S Services. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class members have been damaged through underpayment of the actual amounts due, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to the actual damages caused by Validus' breaches and are further entitled to statutory interest and other allowable damages imposed by Oklahoma law, including punitive damages, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff White Family Minerals, LLC owns a royalty interest in the Norpo 1H-25-24 well in Grady County, Oklahoma under an oil-and-gas lease dated January 6, 1978. Defendant Validus Energy II Midcon LLC is in the business of producing and marketing natural gas and constituent products, including natural gas liquids, from oil-and-gas wells in Oklahoma in which the Class members hold royalty interests. Defendant Roan Resources LLC is an affiliate and/or subsidiary of Validus Energy II Midcon LLC that owns working interests (i.e., a lessee's interest) in wells operated by Validus Energy II Midcon LLC in which Plaintiff and Class members own royalty interests.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Scott B. Goodger, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com sgoodger@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Biometric Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Walmart faces a proposed class action lawsuit that claims the mega-retailer unlawfully collects, stores, and uses without consent the voiceprints of Illinois consumers who place a phone call to their local store. The 15-page lawsuit alleges that when a consumer calls a Walmart store, they have to go through an automated AI voice system that, unbeknownst to them, collects, stores, and uses their biometric voiceprint information, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The complaint relays that the BIPA was enacted by the Illinois legislature in 2008 to regulate companies' use of sensitive biometric data. Per the filing, biometric information -- such as voiceprints, fingerprints, palm prints, iris or retinal scans, and scans of facial geometry -- is unique and cannot be changed once compromised, meaning there is a critical need for adequate privacy protections for such data. According to the lawsuit, Walmart captures the voiceprints of people who call one of its stores, purportedly to reduce the risk of fraud. However, the suit alleges that Walmart does not adequately inform consumers that their voiceprints are being collected, have a written data retention policy explaining the purpose and length for which the biometric identifiers are stored, or obtain consent before collecting biometric information. While Walmart discloses in its privacy policy that it collects biometric information, including voiceprints, the case says that this admission is "inadequate" for the purposes of providing notice or obtaining consumer consent. Indeed, the case claims that Walmart's customers are forced to "unknowingly surrender" their biometric data to the retailer. Furthermore, the filing says that Walmart does not disclose a retention and deletion schedule for voiceprints collected by its AI system, in "direct contravention" of BIPA requirements. The lawsuit highlights the importance of protecting biometric information, noting that it can be used to create links between individuals and data records or payment methods. Moreover, biometric data can even be utilized by fraudsters to create false digital identities, the case states. "In fact, many organizations, including banks, now allow users to gain access to their accounts over the phone through the use of their voiceprint -- which exemplifies how valuable voiceprints are and the need to protect them from parties who collect them without consent," the complaint emphasizes. The Walmart class action lawsuit looks to cover all Illinois residents who had their biometric identifiers, including scans of their voiceprints, collected, captured, received, disseminated, or otherwise obtained by Walmart through the Walmart AI voice system. [GN] WHITTIER CHRISTIAN: Civil Standing Order Entered in Baldeo Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARLECIA BALDEO, et al., v. WHITTIER CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL, et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-01939-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Slaughter entered a civil standing order: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l) and Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service Lead trial counsel shall attend any proceeding before this court, including all Scheduling, Pretrial, and Settlement Conferences. Scheduling Conference and Rule 26(f) Meeting of Counsel Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), the court will issue an Order Setting a Scheduling Conference. All discovery matters have been referred to a Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. If this action is a putative class action, the parties are to act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6t69Ml at no extra charge.[CC] WILLIAM BLAIR: Baxter Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lucienda Baxter individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. William Blair & Company, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. C26-01855, was removed from the Contra Costa County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on July 10, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07091-SK to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. William Blair & Company, LLC is an American multinational independent investment bank and financial services company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jasmine Jane Stanzick, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (312) 460-7320 E-mail: jstanzick@seyfarth.com WIX.COM LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Wix.com Ltd. ("Wix") (NASDAQ: WIX). The lawsuit alleges that: (i) Wix had overstated the competitiveness and performance of its AI product offerings relative to those offered by other companies; (ii) Wix had understated the costs associated with developing and promoting its AI product offerings; and (iii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the commercial and financial benefits of Wix's AI product offerings. If you purchased Wix shares between February 19, 2025 and May 12, 2026, and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at mdees@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/wix/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is September 22, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Marshall P. Dees, Esq. Holzer & Holzer, LLC (888) 508-6832 mdees@holzerlaw.com [GN] WIX.COM LTD: Misled Investors on Product Performance, Yappi Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SETRA YAPPI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. WIX.COM LTD., AVISHAI ABRAHAMI, LIOR SHEMESH, and NIR ZOHAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-08852 (N.D. Ill., July 23, 2026) is a federal securities class action seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5, against the Company and certain of its top officials. The complaint relates that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wix had overstated the competitiveness and performance of its AI product offerings relative to those offered by other companies; (ii) Wix had understated the costs associated with developing and promoting its AI product offerings; (iii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the commercial and financial benefits of Wix's AI product offerings; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading. During the Class Period, Wix securities were traded on an active and efficient market. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, relying on the materially false and misleading statements, which the Defendants made, issued or caused to be disseminated, or relying upon the integrity of the market, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Wix securities at prices artificially inflated by Defendants' wrongful conduct. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased or otherwise acquired said securities, or would not have purchased or otherwise acquired them at the inflated prices that were paid. At the time of the purchases and/or acquisitions by Plaintiff and the Class, the true value of Wix securities was substantially lower than the prices paid by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. The market price of Wix securities declined sharply upon public disclosure of the alleged facts to the injury of Plaintiff and Class members. By reason of the alleged conduct, Defendants knowingly or recklessly, directly or indirectly, have violated the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Defendant Wix.com Ltd. operates a cloud-based web development platform. Defendants Avishai Abrahami, Lior Shemesh, and Nir Zohar are collectively referred to as the "Individual Defendants" who possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Wix's SEC filings, press releases, and other market communications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 229-8811 E-mail: jbsilverman@pomlaw.com ZYMERGEN INC: $125MM Class Settlement Claims Filing Due Oct. 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClassAction.org reports that investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Zymergen Inc. common stock traceable to the company's April 2021 initial public offering may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Certain former Zymergen officers and directors, the underwriters of the company's April 2021 IPO and several venture capital firms agreed to pay $125 million to settle a securities class action lawsuit alleging the registration statement and prospectus for the offering contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts. Who can file a claim? The settlement includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Zymergen Inc. common stock between April 21, 2021, and Aug. 3, 2021, inclusive, pursuant or traceable to the registration statement for the company's April 2021 initial public offering. Additional details -- Both individuals and entities can be class members. -- Investment vehicles, such as mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, hedge funds, retirement accounts and employee benefit plans, can be class members. -- The settlement includes shareholders who held stock directly and those who held through a broker or other nominee. -- Joint claimants must each sign the claim form. -- Executors and administrators may sign the claim form on behalf of others and must state the capacity in which they are acting. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $125,000,000. The amount each class member receives depends on several factors: -- The number of valid claims submitted -- The number of shares purchased or acquired traceable to the offering -- The prices paid and the timing of each purchase and sale -- The total recognized claims of all claimants The settlement administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis according to the court-approved plan of allocation: -- The estimated average distribution is approximately $6.21 per share before deductions. After estimated attorneys' fees and expenses of $2.01 per share, the estimated net average distribution is approximately $4.20 per share before taxes and administration costs. -- Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on individual claims and the total number of valid claims. -- The settlement administrator will calculate a recognized loss for each purchase or acquisition traceable to the offering based on the $31 offering price, the $8.25 closing price on Aug. 4, 2021, the purchase and sale prices and the timing of each sale. -- For shares sold before Aug. 4, 2021, the recognized loss is the lesser of the purchase price minus the sale price or $31 minus the sale price. -- For shares sold on or after Aug. 4, 2021, or still held, the recognized loss is the least of the purchase price minus the sale price, $31 minus the sale price, the purchase price minus $8.25 or $22.75. -- For shares purchased on or after Aug. 4, 2021, the recognized loss is $0. -- The settlement administrator will match purchases and sales on a first-in, first-out basis. -- The settlement administrator will set any recognized loss that calculates to a negative number or zero to $0. -- For claimants who had an overall market gain on their Zymergen transactions, the settlement administrator will set their claim to $0. For claimants whose overall market loss is smaller than their recognized claim, the settlement administrator will limit their claim to the market loss. -- If total recognized claims exceed the net settlement fund, the settlement administrator will reduce payments on a pro rata basis. -- Class members whose payment would be less than $10 will not receive a payout. How to claim a Zymergen securities class action settlement payment Class members may file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Oct. 11, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Zymergen Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Verita Global, P.O. Box 301135, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135 Proof or documentation required to submit a claim All class members must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or their full taxpayer identification number. They must also provide holding, purchase and sale information, including: -- Number of shares held as of the close of trading on April 20, 2021 -- Trade dates for purchases and sales from April 21, 2021, through Aug. 4, 2021 -- Number of shares purchased, acquired or sold -- Total purchase, acquisition or sale price -- Number of shares held as of the close of trading on Aug. 4, 2021 Class members must also provide documentation to support their holdings and transactions in Zymergen common stock. Acceptable proof includes: -- Broker confirmation slips -- Broker account statements -- Other documentation of holdings and transactions in Zymergen common stock Payout options -- Physical check $125 million settlement fund The $125,000,000 settlement fund includes: -- Notice and claims administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $37,500,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $3,000,000 -- Service awards to plaintiffs: Up to $40,000 total -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 11, 2026 -- Settlement hearing: Oct. 13, 2026 When is the Zymergen securities class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after it completes claims processing and the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged the registration statement and prospectus for Zymergen's April 2021 initial public offering contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts. The plaintiff claimed investors suffered losses when the company later revealed material adverse facts. The settling defendants denied all allegations of fault, liability and wrongdoing but agreed to settle to eliminate the uncertainty, risk, costs and burdens of continued litigation. Zymergen filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October 2023 and is not a party to the settlement. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $6.21 per share before deductions Deadline: October 11, 2026 [GN] ********* 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 ***