260806.mbx

260806.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 6, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 156 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Buchanan Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Derr Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Kirkwood Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: LaRocco Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: O'Day Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Storti Files Suit in D. South Carolina AGILITI INC: $32MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 17 AHS STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flegler Alleges ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Exclude Amended Expert Report Tossed ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Tang Bid for Class Certification Tossed ALPHABET INC: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Sept. 16 ALTO PHARMACY: Scheduling Order Entered in Muhammad Suit AMARIN CORP: Six Antitrust Class Actions Settled AMEREX CORPORATION: Initial Approval of Settlement Deal Sought AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Hinders Generic Competition, Value Claims ARCHROMA US: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Settlement Deal ATALCO GRAMERCY: Bosley Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action BEYOND BETTER FOODS: Mir Sues Over Misleading Practices BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Mishal and Berger Suits' Remanded Issues Heard BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Ongoing Troike Class, Derivative Suits BROOKS INVESTMENT: Quartell Sues to Recover Minimum Wages BUNN COMMERCIAL LP: Nieme Files Suit in C.D. Illinois CALIFORNIA DELUXE: Arellano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAREDX INC: Securities Class Suit Settled, Derivative Action Filed CARRIER GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Settlement Deal CLOUD RECRUITER: Posey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CONNECTICUT WEALTH: Gay Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $60MM Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 10 CROWN BUILDING: Barahona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CUSTOM BUILDING: Cazares Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 21 DOGIDS LLC: Hippe Wins Bid for Default Judgment ELF BEAUTY: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ELON MUSK: Claim Submission Deadline Set for Nov. 24 EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Class Settlement in Brown Suit Gets Final Nod FABULA HOLDINGS INC: Thomas Sues Over Blind Inaccessible-Website FAIR ISAAC: Antitrust Class Claims Proceed to Discovery FIRST SOLAR: Securities Class and Derivative Actions Filed FLOWERS FOODS: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadline FOLGERS COFFEE: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Consumer Illinois Class FORTINET INC: Securities Suit Pending, Derivative Action Stayed GEICO GENERAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Supplement GEMPLERS INC: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GKN DRIVELINE: Bids to Dismiss Ferges Class Suit Tossed GLOBAL PRECISION: Gomez Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification HARTENSIE D. IRVING: Grimes Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages HEARTLAND AMBULANCE: Richard Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime HYDE SCHOOL: Court Narrows Claims in Fuller Suit HYZON MOTORS: Seeks to Dismiss Claim Against DCRB Defendants IAEDPF: Zelikovsky Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice INSPIRE MEDICAL: Faces Ongoing Pontiac City Class, Derivative Suits INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Dismissal Bid Pending, Derivative Suits Filed JASON LUO: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to File Unredacted Docs Under Seal JASON LUO: Levy Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class JET LIMOUSINES: McGhee Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Supplement KRISTI NOEM: Jean Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification L&L EXCAVATING: McCarter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LABORATORY SERVICES: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod LATHROP LOGISTICS: Removes Flores Suit to E.D. Cal. LIFE INSURANCE: Hoffman Suit Seeks Class Certification LIFESPAN PHYSICIANS: Mingels Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI LIVE VENTURES: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Sieggreen Due Nov. 13 LIVE VENTURES: Class Certification Bid in Sieggreen Due Nov. 13 LKQ CORP: Faces Securities Class Action, Derivative Suits LOS ANGELES, CA: Newman Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action LPL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep Class Suit META PLATFORMS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 9, 2027 MGP INGREDIENTS: Securities Suit Dismissed, Appeal Pending MID AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing in FC Suit Due Nov. 10 MIDEA AMERICA: Catalano Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid MONUMENT CAPITAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in McCraw Due Sept. 11 NATION FORD: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Settlement Deal NEW YORK, NY: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by August 14 ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Derivative Suits Stayed Pending Hubacek Ruling ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Removes Geaudreau Suit to E.D. Wash. OOFOS INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Saunders Due June 24, 2027 ORIENTAL TRADING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gray Alleges PENNYMAC LOAN: Discloses Financial Info to 3rd Parties, Cohen Says PHENOMENEX INC: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Sept. 4 PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Johnson's Bid for Class Certification Tossed QUEST HOSPITALITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response RAYTHEON BARGAINING: Time to File Class Cert Reply Extended ROSCO PRODUCTION: Parties Seek to Defer Date for Class Cert Filing SCRIPPS HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to file Class Cert Bid SELENE FINANCE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response SHOPNOMIX LLC: Standing Order Entered in Ad.Com Class Action SOUTHERN CO: Move to Dismiss Amended Antitrust Class Suit Filed STANLEY BLACK: Renewed Dismissal Bid in Securities Case Pending STAR POWER: Garcia Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid SUPERNUS PHARMA: Continues to Defend Korver Class, Derivative Suits TIM TIPTON: Court Narrows Claims in Leatherwood Suit TWIST BIOSCIENCE: $17.05MM Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 18 TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Securities, Derivative Suit Settlements Reached UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wright Sues Over Priority Fee Misrepresentations UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cole Alleges UPONOR INC: Carrico Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota VESTIS CORP: Plaintiff Seeks to Extend Class Cert Reply Deadline VICOR CORP: Pouladian Securities Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend VIN LUX LLC: Nieto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WALMART INC: Settlement Deal in Morris Suit Gets Final Nod WAX CENTER PARTNERS: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WERNER ENTERPRISES: Settlement Classes in Smith Win Certification WERNER ENTERPRISES: Settlement Classes in Vester Win Certification WESTLAKE SERVICES: Madero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WIS IVS LLC: Banks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZUMBA FITNESS: Kueppers Suit Seeks More Time to File Reply ********* 3M COMPANY: Buchanan Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Carlton Buchanan, and others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemical Americas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S. Inc; Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc; Chemguard, Inc; Chemicals, Inc.; Chemours Company FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD; Clariant Corp.; Corteva, Inc.; Daikin America, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc. (f/k/a/ DowDuPont Inc.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Johnson Controls; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Perimeter Solutions, LP; The Chemours Comany; Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:26-cv-03081-RMG (D.S.C., July 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9456 Email: gary@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Derr Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Francis Derr, and others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemical Americas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S. Inc; Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc; Chemguard, Inc; Chemicals, Inc.; Chemours Company FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD; Clariant Corp.; Corteva, Inc.; Daikin America, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc. (f/k/a/ DowDuPont Inc.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Johnson Controls; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Perimeter Solutions, LP; The Chemours Comany; Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:26-cv-03084-RMG (D.S.C., July 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9456 Email: gary@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Kirkwood Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Alexa Kirkwood, and others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemical Americas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S. Inc; Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc; Chemguard, Inc; Chemicals, Inc.; Chemours Company FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD; Clariant Corp.; Corteva, Inc.; Daikin America, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc. (f/k/a/ DowDuPont Inc.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Johnson Controls; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Perimeter Solutions, LP; The Chemours Comany; Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:26-cv-03074-RMG (D.S.C., July 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9456 Email: gary@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: LaRocco Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Richard LaRocco, and others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemical Americas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S. Inc; Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc; Chemguard, Inc; Chemicals, Inc.; Chemours Company FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD; Clariant Corp.; Corteva, Inc.; Daikin America, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc. (f/k/a/ DowDuPont Inc.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Johnson Controls; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Perimeter Solutions, LP; The Chemours Comany; Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:26-cv-03086-RMG (D.S.C., July 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9456 Email: gary@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: O'Day Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Michael O'Day, II, as Personal Representative/Executor/Administrator of the Estate of Michael Charles O'Day, deceased Estate of Michael Charles O'Day; and others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemical Americas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S. Inc; Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc; Chemguard, Inc; Chemicals, Inc.; Chemours Company FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD; Clariant Corp.; Corteva, Inc.; Daikin America, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc. (f/k/a/ DowDuPont Inc.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Johnson Controls; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Perimeter Solutions, LP; The Chemours Comany; Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:26-cv-03079-RMG (D.S.C., July 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9456 Email: gary@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Storti Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Michael Storti, II, and others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemical Americas, Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S. Inc; Arkema, Inc.; BASF Corporation; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products, Inc; Chemguard, Inc; Chemicals, Inc.; Chemours Company FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD; Clariant Corp.; Corteva, Inc.; Daikin America, Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc. (f/k/a/ DowDuPont Inc.); Dynax Corporation; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Johnson Controls; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Perimeter Solutions, LP; The Chemours Comany; Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:26-cv-03087-RMG (D.S.C., July 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9456 Email: gary@elglaw.com AGILITI INC: $32MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE AGILITI, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION (CONSOLIDATED) C.A. No. 2024-1247-MTZ SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record holders and beneficial owners of shares of Agiliti, Inc. ("Agiliti") stock whose shares were exchanged for or who had the right to receive $10.00 per share in cash in exchange for their Agiliti stock in connection with the merger transaction with Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. and THL Agiliti LLC (collectively, "THL") that closed on May 7, 2024 (the "Merger"), including their heirs, successors in interest, successors, transferees, and assigns. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) Plaintiff Eric M. Maglione ("Maglione" or "Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of the Class; (ii) THL, Thomas J. Leonard, Scott M. Sperling, Michael A. Bell, Joshua M. Nelson, Megan M. Preiner, and James B. Pekarek (collectively, the "THL and Agiliti Defendants"); (iii) John L. Workman, Diane B. Patrick, Gary L. Gottlieb, and C. Martin Harris (collectively, the "Special Committee Defendants," and together with the THL and Agiliti Defendants, the "Defendants"); and (iv) Agiliti (together with Plaintiff and Defendants, the "Settling Parties," and each a "Party") have reached a proposed settlement for $32,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release between Plaintiff, Defendants, and Agiliti, dated May 18, 2026 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at https://www.AgilitiStockholderSettlement.com. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action as against Defendants. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on September 17, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable Morgan T. Zurn, Vice Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by Zoom (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (ii) determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against Defendants; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (iv) determine whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and any incentive awards to Plaintiff, should be approved; (v) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, including any incentive awards to Plaintiff; and (vi) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, https://www.AgilitiStockholderSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at Agiliti Stockholder Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, https://www.AgilitiStockholderSettlement.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" consist of all Class Members who held or beneficially owned shares of Agiliti common stock at the Closing on May 7, 2024, and therefore received, or were entitled to receive, the Transaction Consideration for their "Eligible Shares." Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares. As explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made in the same manner in which Eligible Class Members received the Transaction Consideration. Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and any incentive awards to Plaintiff in connection with the Settlement must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and Defendants' counsel such that they are received no later than September 2, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: Agiliti Stockholder Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Kimberly Evans BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 kim@blockleviton.com Silpa Maruri ELSBERG, BAKER & MARURI PLLC 350 Fifth Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10118 smaruri@elsberglaw.com Dated: June 2, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AHS STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flegler Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- BETH FLEGLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHS STAFFING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-01923-G (W.D. Okla., July 27, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Flegler was employed by the Defendant as a recruiter. AHS Staffing, LLC is a diversified healthcare staffing firm that has verticals in pharmacy, dialysis, travel nursing, and allied health professions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff A. Taylor, Esq. THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK 5621 N. Classen Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 286-1600 Facsimile: (405) 842-6132 - and - Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Email: ciones@shavitzlaw.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Exclude Amended Expert Report Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jasibel Canchola et al., v. Allstate Insurance Company et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to exclude the second amended expert report and testimony of Frank Bernatowicz, and denying the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled on July 30, 2026, (see Dkt. 407), is VACATED and OFF CALENDAR. Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the Motion to Exclude is DENIED, and the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. Because Defendant fails to adequately demonstrate Bernatowicz's expert testimony should be excluded, the court DENIES the Motion to Exclude. The court is not persuaded that the Class Notice restricts the recovery period for expenses because the Class Certification Order defines the individuals that are able to recover without limiting the recovery period. This case concerns Defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s classification of insurance agents as independent contractors under California law, which resulted in the agents being required to bear expenses from both selling Defendant’s insurance and servicing its customers. In the Second Amended Declaration of Bernatowicz, Bernatowicz estimated $1.25 billion in classwide damages. Bernatowicz divides the class into two groups: "Group 1," consisting of the 536 class members, in which he analyzed various and substantial data sources including income tax returns and/or form W2/1099 documents provided by the class members, spreadsheet data sets maintained by Defendant showing expense amounts for class members for certain claimed expense categories, spreadsheet data sets produced by third-parties showing amounts of certain claimed expense categories for all class members, and publicly available data and reference materials, and "Group 2," consisting of the remaining 430 class members which are not based on class member specific data, (Stoker Decl. ¶ 3; Dkt. 404-4. Allstate sells property and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ll8Lll at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jasibel Canchola et al., v. Allstate Insurance Company et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-007 34-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The court grants partial summary judgment on the following issues: (1) The Plaintiffs and the class members provided services for Allstate; (2) Allstate did not reimburse expenses incurred by Plaintiffs and class members; (3) Allstate did not separately designate reimbursements from other compensation as required under Gattuso; and (4) Allstate's Seventeenth Affirmative Defense is barred under Edwards. The court finds there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Allstate did not separately designate reimbursements from other compensation as required under Gattuso. Allstate does not dispute that Allstate "'did not separately denominate amounts of sales-related compensation that would cover such business expenses.'" At trial, the Plaintiffs do not need to prove that Allstate did not reimburse expenses, and Allstate is precluded from arguing that Plaintiffs and class members were properly reimbursed under Gattuso. However, the Plaintiffs still bear the burden to prove the three elements of their Section 2802 claim at trial. Allstate sells property and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lJj7Af at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Tang Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kexin Tang, et al., v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09734-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Because the declaration of the Plaintiffs' expert Hakob Tokatlyan was not material to the Court's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Allstate's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert is denied as moot. Accordingly, because the Court would be required to conduct an individualized inquiry to determine liability, the Court concludes that common questions do not predominate and thus that certification is not appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). On May 19, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Allstate improperly deducted certain charges from the total loss settlement payments made to the Plaintiffs for the loss of their vehicles in contravention of the language in the Plaintiffs' insurance policies. The Plaintiff Kexin Tang's 2018 Mercedes-Benz was declared a total loss on September 5, 2024. On her CCC One Market Valuation Report, Allstate itemized separate negative line items for "non covered" charges including, towing ($495.00), teardown ($802.50), and storage ($1,875.00), totaling $3,172.50. Plaintiffs now move to certify the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): "All persons whom Allstate’s own records show, during the period beginning four years before the filing of the original Complaint and continuing through the date of final judgment, (1) were insured under an automobile physical-damage policy issued by Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company in California that provided for payment of the vehicle’s actual cash value, less the applicable deductible, in the event of a total loss; (2) submitted a claim Allstate adjusted and paid as a covered total loss; (3) whose total loss Allstate evaluated using an Allstate-prepared CCC ONE Market Valuation Report on which Allstate itemized one or more negative line items that reduced the Report "Total," other than by depreciation reflected within actual cash value and the policy deductible, as any of: (a) a combined towing-and-storage charge; (b) a combined repair-facility (shop) and storage charge; (c) a storage charge; (d) a towing charge; or (e) a vehicle-teardown charge; (4) whose claim Allstate settled and paid, to the insured or a lienholder, using the amount determined in that Report as so reduced; and (5) whose claim was paid without the parties agreeing to use, and using, an appraisal or signed settlement process that resolved the claim at the full CCC ONE actual cash value without the reduction described in (3)." Excluded: any reduction Allstate's own records identify as a prior-, initial-, or advance-payment offset; and Allstate, its officers and counsel, and the judicial officers assigned to this case. Allstate sells property and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t8oNmy at no extra charge.[CC] ALPHABET INC: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Sept. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMI - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALPHABET INC., GOOGLE LLC, and SUNDAR PICHAI Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PURCHASERS AND ACQUIRERS OF ALPHABET INC. CLASS A AND/OR CLASS C SHARES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES ON (i) ANY STOCK EXCHANGES LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES, (ii) ON ANY ALTERNATIVE TRADING SYSTEMS LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES, OR (iii) PURSUANT TO OTHER DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JANUARY 23, 2023 (the "Class") Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, members of the immediate family of the Individual Defendant, Alphabet Inc.'s ("Alphabet" or the "Company") subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who is or was an officer or director of the Company or any of the Company's subsidiaries or affiliates during the Class Period; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any such excluded person or entity. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"), entered on May 18, 2026, certifying the action as a class action. This Summary Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any party in this Action. The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or on Defendants' denials or other defenses, and Defendants deny all of Plaintiff's allegations, and deny any wrongdoing or violation of law. This Action has not been settled and continues to be litigated. Accordingly, no claim form need be filed at this time. Please note: at this time, there is no judgment, settlement, or monetary recovery. If you are a member of the Class, your rights are affected by this Action and you may have the right to participate in any recovery. You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in accordance with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, which is available on the settlement website, www.AlphabetSecuritiesLitigation.com. That Notice of Pendency of Class Action describes the Class Action and your rights with respect thereto. If you have not received a Postcard Notice by mail, please contact us in writing: Alphabet Securities Litigation PO Box 6018 Portland, OR 97228-6018 info@AlphabetSecuritiesLitigation.com www.AlphabetSecuritiesLitigation.com 877-386-7785 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: Jeremy Lieberman POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: 212-661-1100 Facsimile: 212-661-8665 If you are a Class member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in Alphabet Class A and/or Class C stock. You will automatically be included in the Class, and you will be bound by the proceedings in the Action, including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable to you. If you are a Class member and do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps to exclude yourself. If you do not timely request exclusion from the Class in writing postmarked by September 16, 2026, you will be considered a Class Member, and you will be bound by any judgment in this Action and will not be able to pursue any individual remedy which you may have. Class members are represented by Class Counsel. You will not be personally responsible for counsel's fees and expenses. You may also hire your own attorney, at your own expense. If you do, your attorney must file a notice of appearance with the Court. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator or by visiting the website www.AlphabetSecuritiesLitigation.com. INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL Dated: July 27, 2026 By Order of the Court United States District Court Northern District of California ALTO PHARMACY: Scheduling Order Entered in Muhammad Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFIYFAH MUHAMMAD, et al., v. ALTO PHARMACY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11315-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Parker entered a scheduling order as follows: On July 23, 2026, Alto Pharmacy LLC (Alto) filed a letter concerning the scheduling of opt-in plaintiff depositions. Alto represents that Plaintiffs failed to produce most of the ten opt-in plaintiffs Alto selected for deposition and instead proposed substitute deponents. The Plaintiffs filed a response on July 23, 2026, contending that they acted in good faith by producing one selected opt-in plaintiff, making another available, and identifying additional willing opt-in plaintiffs. They further contend that dismissal is premature because no specific opt-in plaintiff has violated a court order or received a warning that nonparticipation could result in dismissal. The Plaintiffs propose voluntarily dismissing only the opt-in plaintiff who expressly stated that he no longer wishes to participate, proceeding with depositions of available substitute witnesses, and extending the class-certification deadline if additional depositions are ordered. There will be no adjustment to the class-certification schedule at this time. Accordingly, the parties are further directed to schedule, by August 6, 2026, the depositions of the nine remaining opt-in plaintiffs selected by Alto. Alto shall make itself available to conduct those depositions between August 6 and August 17, 2026. Alto provides pharmacy and healthcare services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wap4Fw at no extra charge.[CC] AMARIN CORP: Six Antitrust Class Actions Settled ------------------------------------------------ Amarin Corp PLC\UK 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 six putative antitrust class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of federal antitrust laws in connection with the IPE drug and API markets and later entered into a confidential settlement agreement on April 14, 2026 that resulted in the negotiated settlement payment being recognized in selling, general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and settled during the three months ended June 30, 2026. Each of the six actions alleges that the violations restrain trade in the said markets and asserts related state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims. Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, treble damages, other costs and fees, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief against the alleged violating activities. Amarin Corp PLC\UK is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health, including its lead product, Vascepa (icosapent ethyl). It markets and develops therapies primarily in the United States and select international regions. AMEREX CORPORATION: Initial Approval of Settlement Deal Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v. AMEREX CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-02798-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a), (b) and (e) as follows: the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a), (b) and (e) as follows: (1) preliminary approving proposed Settlement Agreement with Carrier Global Corporation; (2) preliminary certifying, for settlement purposes only, of the Settlement Class; (3) approving the form of Notice to the Settlement Class; (4) approving the Notice Plan and approval of its commencement; (5) appointing Class Counsel; (6) appointing Class Representatives; (7) appointing the Notice Administrator; (8) appointing the Claims Administrator; (9) appointing the Opt Out Administrator; (10) appointing the Special Master; (11) scheduling of Objection, Opt Out, and other deadlines; and (12) scheduling of a Final Fairness Hearing. The Plaintiffs include City of Camden, California Water Service Company, City of Sioux Falls, City of South Shore, Coraopolis Water & Sewer Authority, and Township of Verona. Carrier is an American multinational heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, refrigeration, and fire and security equipment corporation. Amerex is a large American manufacturer of firefighting products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m0qykF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. London, Esq. DOUGLAS AND LONDON P.C. One State Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 566-7500 Facsimile: (212) 566-7501 E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com - and - Scott Summy, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com - and - Joseph F. Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Hinders Generic Competition, Value Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALUE DRUG COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.; ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC.; and ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-07780 (N.D. Cal., July 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' anticompetitive market allocation scheme to suppress price competition for Impax's brand drug Rytary, a combination of carbidopa (an aromatic amino acid decarboxylation inhibitor) and levodopa (an aromatic amino acid) indicated for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, post-encephalitic parkinsonism, and parkinsonism that may follow carbon monoxide intoxication or manganese intoxication. According to the complaint, this scheme and the unlawful market allocations allowed Impax to continue to charge supracompetitive prices and enjoy monopoly profits on its Rytary sales that would have otherwise precipitously declined had generic entry occurred earlier. As a result, Rytary purchasers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges on both brand and generic purchases from Defendants Impax and Zydus. Value Drug Company is a provider of retail and specialty pharmacy services, with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Pennington, New Jersey. Zydus Lifesciences Limited is a pharmaceutical company based in India. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 906-1522 Email: kgibboney@bergermontague.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq. Andrew Curley, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: dsorensen@bergermontague.com ccoslett@bergermontague.com acurley@bergermontague.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Dan Litvin, Esq. David B. Rochels, Esq. Deborah A. Elman, Esq. Jonathan M. Gerstein, Esq. Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com dlitvin@garwingerstein.com drochelson@garwingerstein.com delman@garwingerstein.com jgerstein@garwingerstein.com sbonderoff@garwingerstein.com - and - Susan Segura, Esq. David C. Raphael, Esq. Erin R. Leger, Esq. SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL LEGER LLP 221 Ansley Boulevard Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com draphael@ssrllp.com eleger@ssrllp.com - and - Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq. Dan Chiorean, Esq. Thomas J. Maas, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2350 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 522-0077 Email: stuart@odrlaw.com dan@odrlaw.com tmaas@odrlaw.com - and - Russell A. Chorush, Esq. Chris First, Esq. Carlos Ruiz, Esq. Kyle Ruvolo, Esq. HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP 1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2000 Email: rchorush@hpcllp.com cfirst@hpcllp.com cruiz@hpcllp.com kruvolo@hpcllp.com - and - Peter Kohn, Esq. Joseph Lukens, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com - and - Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 685 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: bdemuth@faruqilaw.com ARCHROMA US: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Settlement Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v. ARCHROMA U.S., INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-02802-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a), (b) and (e) as follows: (1) preliminary approving proposed Settlement Agreement with Archroma U.S., Inc.; (2) preliminary certifying, for settlement purposes only, of the Settlement Class; (3) approving the form of Notice to the Settlement Class; (4) approving the Notice Plan and approval of its commencement; (5) appointing Class Counsel; (6) appointing Class Representatives; (7) appointing the Notice Administrator; (8) appointing the Claims Administrator; (9) appointing the Opt Out Administrator; (10) appointing the Special Master; (11) scheduling of Objection, Opt Out, and other deadlines; and (12) scheduling of a Final Fairness Hearing. The Plaintiffs include City of Camden, California Water Service Company, City of Sioux Falls, City of South Shore, Coraopolis Water & Sewer Authority, and Township of Verona Archroma manufactures specialty chemicals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8zLLLG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. London, Esq. DOUGLAS AND LONDON P.C. One State Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 566-7500 Facsimile: (212) 566-7501 E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com - and - Scott Summy, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com - and - Joseph F. Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com ATALCO GRAMERCY: Bosley Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINA BOSLEY and SHAWN COOK SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATALCO GRAMERCY LLC (f/k/a GRAMERCY HOLDINGS I, LLC) Case No. 2:24-cv-02540-JTM-EJD (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order designating and certifying a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c). The Plaintiffs seek certification of a proposed Class depicted in Exhibit 6 to the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities and includes: "All owner/occupants and renters of residential property within the following area since Sept. 25, 2022: Starting at Louisiana Highway 641 and Airline Highway, proceed west on Airline Highway to the 2.5 Mile Radius Marker. Follow the 2.5 Mile Radius Marker west then south to St. John Parish Street. Follow St. John Parish street north across the river, where it turns into LA-3213. Proceed north on LA-3213 to the point of origin." The Plaintiffs advance claims for nuisance, negligence, and trespass on behalf themselves and a proposed Class of their neighbors in Gramercy who have for years been subjected to excessive fugitive dust emissions from the Atalco Gramercy alumina refinery ("Facility"). The Defendant has been the subject of persistent community dust complaints since 2022 and has received multiple violations from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality in that time relating to fugitive dust emissions, the suit alleges. The Plaintiffs and the proposed Class have been forced to endure the unreasonable and substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of their private residential properties and diminution in property values as a result of the Defendant's fugitive dust emissions. Atalco is a major alumina refinery. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=58FogC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com lsheets@lsccounsel.com rsolt@lsccounsel.com BEYOND BETTER FOODS: Mir Sues Over Misleading Practices ------------------------------------------------------- Roya Mir, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEYOND BETTER FOODS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02602-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal., July 28, 2026), is brought as a result of Defendant's misleading and deceptive practices regarding its "Bada Bean Bada Boom Plant-Based Protein, Crunchy Roasted Broad (Fava) Bean Snacks" (the "Products"). The Defendant markets its Products in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting the quantity and quality of the protein contained therein. Specifically, Defendant markets the Products as "Plant-Based Protein" snacks that contain "6g" of protein, while representing on the Nutrition Facts Panel that a serving provides "12%" of the daily value for protein—a figure that materially overstates the corrected, digestible amount of protein the Products actually provide. The Defendant's sales are driven by consumers seeking protein supplementation. To market to these consumers, Defendant prominently displays the total protein content of its Products on the front of each label. And while Defendant does include a percent of daily value ("%DV") for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel ("NFP"), the disclosed "12%" figure is not the corrected value the law requires; it is derived from the raw protein quantity without any adjustment for the protein's plant-based origin, and therefore overstates the amount of usable protein the Products provide. The Defendant shows the total protein amount on the front of its product and discloses a "12%" daily value on the back that does not reflect the required correction for protein quality. This is misleading because plant-based proteins often are less digestible, meaning the human body does not absorb the full amount of protein. So 6g of plant-based protein oftentimes has a lower daily value percentage than 6g of meat-based protein. And by disclosing an inflated, uncorrected daily value, Defendant misleads consumers into believing they are getting more protein than they actually are, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Products for her personal use during the applicable statute of limitations while residing in Elk Grove, California. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the popular Products throughout the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC. 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nathaniel@gucovschilaw.com BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Mishal and Berger Suits' Remanded Issues Heard ------------------------------------------------------------------ Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, 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 Aug. 3, 2026, that a hearing on the remanded issues on the Mishal and Berger class suit was held at the Trial Court in July 2026. A purported class action initiated by plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger on May 25, 2018, on behalf of themselves and the purported class, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. They brought the action against the Company, Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC, and BPHC regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the issued and outstanding common units of the Company not already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (the Purchase Right). On Sept. 28, 2018, the Trial Court denied approval of the Proposed Settlement. On Feb. 11, 2019, a substitute verified class action complaint was filed in this proceeding, which, among other things, added Loews as a Defendant. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Trial Court in July 2019. In October 2019, the Trial Court ruled on the motion and granted a partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to trial. A trial was held the week of Feb. 22, 2021. Post-trial oral arguments were held on July 14, 2021, concluding this phase of the litigation process in the Trial Court. In addition, on Nov. 12, 2021, the Trial Court issued a ruling in the case, holding that Boardwalk GP breached the Limited Partnership Agreement and finding Boardwalk GP liable to the plaintiffs for approximately $690.0 million in damages, plus pre-judgment interest of approximately $166.0 million, post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees. The ruling and damages award were entered against Boardwalk GP and not the Company or its subsidiaries. Believing the ruling contained factual and legal errors, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware on Jan. 3, 2022, and the plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal on Jan. 17, 2022, contesting the Trial Court's damages calculation. Following oral arguments on Sept. 14, 2022, the Supreme Court on Dec. 19, 2022, reversed the Trial Court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings on claims not decided by the Trial Court; briefing on the remanded issues was completed in September 2023, and a hearing was held in April 2024, after which, in September 2024, the Trial Court ruled in favor of the defendants on all remanded issues. The plaintiffs appealed again on Oct. 21, 2024, challenging the Trial Court's ruling on the remanded issues to the Supreme Court, with briefing completed in March 2025 and a hearing held in June 2025. On Dec. 10, 2025, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that Boardwalk GP had breached the Limited Partnership Agreement in its exercise of the Purchase Right but noting that, in its 2022 decision, it had already determined Boardwalk GP was exculpated from damages. The remaining tortious interference and unjust enrichment claims related to the exercise of the Purchase Right against the non-Boardwalk GP defendants were remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings. Briefing on these remanded issues was completed in June 2026, and a hearing on the remanded issues was held at the Trial Court in July 2026. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is a master limited partnership that owns and operates natural gas and natural gas liquids pipeline and storage systems in the United States. It provides transportation and storage services to producers, marketers, distributors, utilities, and industrial users across key energy corridors. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Ongoing Troike Class, Derivative Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corp. 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 Aug. 3, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Troike class suit and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against it in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts stemming from a decline in its stock price on Feb. 4, 2026, following the release of its fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results. On March 5, 2026, purported Company shareholder John Rudolph Troike, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain current officers. The complaint arises from the drop in the Company's stock price on Feb. 4, 2026, following the release of the Company's fourth quarter and full year 2025 results. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial guidance and anticipated growth in the U.S. electrophysiology business unit. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, and costs and expenses. On May 20, 2026, the Court appointed the Indiana Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff in the securities class action. On July 20, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding additional named plaintiffs, Miami Fire Fighters and Police Officers Retirement Trust and Detroit General Retirement System. The amended complaint additionally alleges violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a current officer. The securities class action remains pending, and the related derivative matters described below have been consolidated or stayed in part pending the anticipated motion to dismiss in this case. Separately, the Company has been named in multiple shareholder derivative proceedings and has received a shareholder demand concerning substantially the same set of factual allegations as those asserted in the related securities class action. On March 16, 2026, purported Company shareholder Greg Valen (the Valen Derivative Complaint), and on April 23, 2026, purported Company shareholder Elliot Feder (the Feder Derivative Complaint), each filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors. On July 9, 2026, purported Company shareholder Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust (the Gusinsky Derivative Complaint), and on July 10, 2026, purported Company shareholders Joseph Crognale and Feghali Foods, Inc. PSP (the Crognale Derivative Complaint), also filed shareholder derivative complaints in the same court. Each of these derivative complaints contains substantially the same set of factual allegations as those asserted in the related securities class action, with the Gusinsky and Crognale Derivative Complaints also including allegations concerning the safety of batteries in the Company's Accolade products. Each complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, and costs and expenses. The Valen and Feder derivative matters have been consolidated and stayed until the final resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the related securities class action case. The Gusinsky and Crognale Derivative Complaints remain pending. In addition, on March 23, 2026, the Company received a letter dated March 18, 2026 from a purported Company shareholder, Roberta Poznick, demanding that the Company's Board of Directors take action against certain current and former officers and directors and other unidentified individuals and entities. This demand letter relates to substantially the same set of factual allegations as those asserted in the related securities class action and the derivative complaints. Boston Scientific Corp. is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and markets devices used in a broad range of interventional medical specialties. It offers products in areas such as cardiovascular, rhythm management, endoscopy, urology, and neuromodulation for patients worldwide. BROOKS INVESTMENT: Quartell Sues to Recover Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Kahlique Quartell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BROOKS INVESTMENT INC. d/b/a RUTH CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, Domestic Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-04271-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 28, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover from Defendant minimum wage, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours per week but was never paid overtime wages as required by law. Plaintiff was routinely assigned up to two hours of side work and other duties that were not related to his server position. The non server duties included hosting and cleaning. The Plaintiff was also required to tip out or pay the Defendant's non-tipped employees that are not part of a valid tip pool. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendant required the Plaintiff and other tipped employees to share their tips with "back of house" or non-tipped employees. The Defendant was aware it was illegal for servers to share tips with back of house employees. The Defendants' failure and/or refusal to properly compensate the Plaintiff and the class members at the rates and amounts required by the FLSA were willful. The Defendants' retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff and the class members for complaining about the Defendants' pay practices was willful, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a server from December 28, 2024 to present. The Defendant is a bar and restaurant that offers food and drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra R. Carmon, Esq. Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Anthony J. Hall, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: acarmon@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ahall@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com BUNN COMMERCIAL LP: Nieme Files Suit in C.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bunn Commercial LP. The case is styled as Michelle Nieme, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bunn Commercial LP, Case No. 3:26-cv-03241-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill., July 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. BUNN -- https://commercial.bunn.com/ -- is the single source for beverage-dispensing expertise in Equipment, Service, and Digital Solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com CALIFORNIA DELUXE: Arellano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Deluxe Windows Industries, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Carlos Arellano, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. California Deluxe Windows Industries, Inc., Case No. 26STCV23747 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case General Jurisdiction)." California Deluxe Windows -- https://cdwindows.com/ -- specializes in custom windows and doors, offering a wide range of products including bay windows, bi-fold doors, and sliding glass doors.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Win Pham, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law CAREDX INC: Securities Class Suit Settled, Derivative Action Filed ------------------------------------------------------------------ CareDx, 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 30, 2026, that a securities class action it is facing is agreed-in-principle and awaiting final settlement approval. Derivative actions have also been filed against the company. On April 22, 2025, the company reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve a securities class action, under which it would pay or cause to be paid a settlement payment of approximately $20.25 million. On Dec. 4, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California provided final approval of the settlement, and the company paid the settlement amount. Litigation settlement expenses decreased by $5.1 million, or 89%, for the six months ended June 30, 2026, compared to the same period in 2025. The decrease in litigation settlement expense was mainly due to the settlement of $5.4 million related to said class action lawsuit and an additional litigation settlement expense of $0.4 million during the six months ended June 30, 2025. This decrease was partially offset by a $0.6 million settlement related to derivative actions during the six months ended June 30, 2026. On Feb. 26, 2025, the plaintiffs in a previously dismissed consolidated derivative action initiated a new action captioned "Edelman v. Bickerstaff," 3:25-c-02036 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 26, 2025), purporting to reinstate their claims and updating and amending their prior complaint. It asserts claims against the company as the nominal defendant and Drs. Seeto and Maag and Mr. Dhingra, and other current and former members of the company's Board of Directors, alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty and various state and federal claims based on the factual allegations of the securities class action. On March 19, 2025, the parties to the Edelman derivative action and the securities class action filed an administrative motion to consider whether the derivative action should be related to the class action. On April 1, 2025, the court granted the motion. CareDx, Inc. is a precision medicine company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of clinically differentiated, high-value diagnostic solutions for transplant patients. It offers a portfolio of testing services, products, and digital health solutions used by transplant centers and clinicians to improve long-term patient outcomes. CARRIER GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v. CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-02805-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a), (b) and (e) as follows: (1) preliminary approving proposed Settlement Agreement with Carrier Global Corporation; (2) preliminary certifying, for settlement purposes only, of the Settlement Class; (3) approving the form of Notice to the Settlement Class; (4) approving the Notice Plan and approval of its commencement; (5) appointing Class Counsel; (6) appointing Class Representatives; (7) appointing the Notice Administrator; (8) appointing the Claims Administrator; (9) appointing the Opt Out Administrator; (10) appointing the Special Master; (11) scheduling of Objection, Opt Out, and other deadlines; and (12) scheduling of a Final Fairness Hearing. The Plaintiffs include City of Camden, California Water Service Company, City of Sioux Falls, City of South Shore, Coraopolis Water & Sewer Authority, and Township of Verona Carrier is an American multinational heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, refrigeration, and fire and security equipment corporation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zG4rzN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. London, Esq. DOUGLAS AND LONDON P.C. One State Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 566-7500 Facsimile: (212) 566-7501 E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com - and - Scott Summy, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com - and - Joseph F. Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com CLOUD RECRUITER: Posey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cloud Recruiter LLC, et al. The case is styled as Robert Clifton Posey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cloud Recruiter LLC, Ceryx Management LLC, Socially Oriented United Living Inc. dba Soul Housing And Soul Housing Recuperative, Case No. 26STCV23790 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Cloud Recruiter LLC is an employment and social services staffing agency based in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Harteker, Esq. Manny Starr, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 6200 Canoga Ave/, 470 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 818-914-3433 Email: rebecca@frontierlawcenter.com manny@frontierlawcenter.com CONNECTICUT WEALTH: Gay Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connecticut Wealth Management, LLC. The case is styled as Catherine Gay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Connecticut Wealth Management, LLC, Case No. HHD-CV26-6228954-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Cty., July 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Misc - All Other." Connecticut Wealth Management -- https://ctwealthmgmt.com/ -- is a unique financial planning and investment advisory firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $60MM Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN RE CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION Case No. CJ-2022-4162 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: Any former record holders and all beneficial owners of the common stock of Continental Resources, Inc. ("Continental") who held or owned such stock at any time during the period beginning on and including October 17, 2022, through and including November 22, 2022 (the "Class Period"), including any and all of their respective legal representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, estates, heirs, and any Person acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them (excluding Defendants, Former Defendants, and their immediate family members, affiliates, subsidiaries, legal representatives, heirs, estates, successors, or assigns; and any entity in which any Defendant or Former Defendant has or had a direct or indirect controlling interest) (the "Class"). Plaintiffs Ralph Donald Turlington and Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund ("Co-Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the stockholder class action (the "Action") for $60,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. The Action involves allegations that Defendants Harold Hamm ("Hamm") and Bill Berry ("Berry," and together with Hamm, "Defendants") and the Former Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the November 2022 transaction whereby the former minority shareholders of Continental were bought out by Hamm and his affiliates for $74.28 per share (the "Transaction"). The "Former Defendants" are Shelly Lambertz ("Lambertz"), John T. McNabb II ("McNabb"), Mark E. Monroe ("Monroe"), Ellis "Lon" McCain ("McCain"), Timothy G. Taylor ("Taylor"), and several trusts affiliated with the Hamm family. Co-Lead Plaintiffs allege in the Action that: (i) Hamm and his affiliates caused the Class to be cashed out of their Continental shares for inadequate consideration after an unfair process; (ii) Hamm and his affiliates breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in insider trading prior to publicly announcing his offer to take Continental private; (iii) Berry, McNabb, and Monroe breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Transaction; and (iv) McCain and Taylor breached their fiduciary duties by recommending that Continental's Board of Directors approve the Transaction. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on November 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before the honorable Richard C. Ogden of the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, in Courtroom 325 of the Oklahoma County Courthouse, 321 Park Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73102, for the following purposes: (i) to determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) to determine whether a Final Order substantially in the form attached as Exhibit E to the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice against Defendants; (iii) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (iv) to determine whether and in what amount any award of attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation Expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel ("Fee and Expense Award"), including any service awards to Plaintiffs ("Service Awards") to be deducted solely from any Fee and Expense Award, should be paid out of the Settlement Fund; (v) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award, including any application by Plaintiffs for Service Awards (the "Fee and Expense Application"); and (vi) to consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. The Court may adjourn the Settlement Hearing without further mailed notice to the Class, and may approve the proposed Settlement with such modifications as the Parties may agree to, if appropriate, without further notice to the Class. The Court may decide to hold the Settlement Hearing by telephone or video conference without further mailed notice to the Class. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the case website, www.ContinentalShareholderLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the full Notice of Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Long-Form Settlement Notice"). You may obtain copies of the Long-Form Settlement Notice on the case website, www.ContinentalShareholderLitigation.com; by contacting the Settlement Administrator at: Continental Shareholder Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217; by calling toll-free 877-507-0919; or by emailing info@ContinentalShareholderLitigation.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Class Members who held shares of Continental stock at the closing of the Transaction and therefore received or were entitled to receive the Transaction consideration ("Eligible Class Members"), in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Long-Form Settlement Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of shares of Continental common stock held as of the closing of the Transaction, excluding shares held by Excluded Persons ("Eligible Shares"); and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further detail in the Long-Form Settlement Notice, Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be filed with the Court and mailed or emailed to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than October 26, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long-Form Settlement Notice. The Class was previously certified and, in connection with class certification, Class Members previously had the opportunity to request exclusion from the Class. There will not be a second opportunity to request exclusion in connection with the Settlement proceedings. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your potential payment from the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Co-Lead Counsel. Requests for the Long-Form Settlement Notice should be made to: Continental Shareholder Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217 877-507-0919 info@ContinentalShareholderLitigation.com www.ContinentalShareholderLitigation.com All other inquiries should be made to Co-Lead Counsel: Grant Goodhart KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com www.@ktmc.com Greg Varallo BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Ave. Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 (800) 380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com www.blbglaw.com By Order of the Court CROWN BUILDING: Barahona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crown Building Maintenance Co. The case is styled as Maria Barahona, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Crown Building Maintenance Co., Case No. 26STCV23765 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Crown Building Maintenance Co.offers general maintenance, janitorial, construction cleanup, parking lot, solid waste recycling, and pest control services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CUSTOM BUILDING: Cazares Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Juana Martinez Cazares v. Custom Building Products, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10422-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order that: 1. All pending deadlines and proceedings are vacated. 2. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement no later than Sept. 21, 2026. The Defendant may also file a brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval by the same deadline. 3. The Motion shall include appropriate evidentiary support and a thorough discussion of the requirements set forth in Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to, the following issues: (A) All class certification and FLSA collective action requirements, including (i) declarations from proposed class representatives as to the adequacy of their representation of the class; and (ii) any differences between the settlement class and the class proposed in the operative complaint (if the class has already been certified, the difference between the settlement class and the previously certified class), and an explanation as to why the differences are appropriate. 4. With respect to any settlement involving claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the parties shall address whether the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency received notice of the settlement, and any response to such notice. 5. Failure to file the motion for preliminary approval by the deadline set by the court may result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or to comply with a court order. Custom manufactures building products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FLmZMr at no extra charge.[CC] DOGIDS LLC: Hippe Wins Bid for Default Judgment ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as XINYUE HIPPE, v. DOGIDS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00371-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pepper entered an order as follows: -- Granting the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. -- Granting the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief for the Defendant's violation of Title III of the ADA. The court finds that the complaint states a claim that the defendant violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to make its website accessible to the plaintiff. The balance of hardships weighs in favor of granting the injunction. Absent an injunction, the plaintiff will continue to be unable to purchase products from the defendant’s website. The injunction the plaintiff seeks will serve that public interest by making the defendant's website more accessible to visually impaired individuals. The court will issue a permanent injunction. On March 8, 2026, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant had violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. sections 12181 et seq., because the defendant’s website is not formatted to allow a legally blind customer like the plaintiff to access its content. The Defendant is an e-commerce company founded in 2005 that manufactures personalized pet accessories, including custom ID tags, collars, leashes, and harnesses. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nXs2W9 at no extra charge.[CC] ELF BEAUTY: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned re e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:25-cv-02316-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification and appointment of class representative and class counsel. Specifically, the Lead Plaintiff Metropolitan Employee Benefit System will and do move this court for entry of an order: 1. Certifying a class of investors defined as: All persons and entities who or which, during the period from November 21, 2024, through February 6, 2025, inclusive, purchased the publicly traded common stock of e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF), and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate family of any Defendant who is an individual; (iii) any person who was an officer, director, and/or control person of ELF during the Class Period, and members of their immediate families; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling or beneficial interest; (v) ELF’s employee retirement and benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through such plan(s); and (vi) the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in- interest, or assigns of any such excluded person, in their capacities as such; 2. Appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. Appointing Lead Counsel Labaton Keller Sucharow (“Labaton”) as Class Counsel. Lead Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), on the grounds that this action meets the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Lead Plaintiff brought this federal securities class action against Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.1 ELF is a California based multi-brand beauty company that offers low-cost cosmetics and skincare products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FvGWFU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Nicholas D. Manningham, Esq. Stephen C. Boscolo, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com nmanningham@labaton.com sboscolo@labaton.com - and - Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: lucasg@hbsslaw.com ELON MUSK: Claim Submission Deadline Set for Nov. 24 ---------------------------------------------------- If you publicly traded stock or call options, or purchased the put options, of Twitter, Inc. from May 13, 2022, through October 4, 2022, you could be entitled to payment from a class action verdict You are potentially entitled to a payment from a verdict in a class action lawsuit against Elon Musk ("Defendant") in the case of Pampena v. Elon R. Musk, Case No 3:22-CV-05937-CRB. A two-week trial began on March 2, 2026, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. On March 20, 2026, the jury returned a verdict and found that defendant Elon Musk violated the federal securities laws by making a false and misleading statement about his acquisition of Twitter and that Musk did so in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As a result of this fraudulent conduct, the jury determined that Twitter's stock price was artificially deflated between May 13, 2022 and October 4, 2022 (inclusive). If you are a Class Member, the verdict entitles you to submit a Claim Form for the full value of your damages plus interest. Am I a member of the Class? The Class is defined as follows: All persons and entities who sold the publicly traded stock or call options, or purchased the put options, of Twitter, Inc. during the period from May 13, 2022 through October 4, 2022, both dates inclusive, and who suffered damages by Defendant's violations of Sec. 10(b) and of the Exchange Act. Excluded from the Class are Elon Musk and any individuals who previously opted out of this Litigation. How much money are Class Members entitled to receive? If you are a member of the Class, you can submit a Claim Form online or postmarked by November 24, 2026, for the following: Shares Sold: For shares sold between May 13, 2022, and October 4, 2022, damages were awarded for each trading day as reflected in the verdict, plus interest, with the exception of certain purchases and sales. Options: For put options purchased or call options sold between May 13, 2022 and October 4, 2022, damages were awarded for each trading day as reflected in the verdict, plus interest, with the exception of certain purchases and sales. Purchases and Subsequent Sales Made During the Class Period: For purchases and related sales made during the Class Period, the damages per share or per option awarded by the jury for that day may be reduced to account for any gains attributable to deflation for any shares or call options purchased and any inflation for any put options sold during the Class Period. How much might a payment be? If you submit a valid Claim Form, your payment will depend on a variety of factors including the number of shares sold and options purchased or sold and the corresponding damages awarded by the jury plus interest. However, any final award may be proportionally reduced to account for any attorneys' fees, expenses, or service awards awarded by the Court. Here is an example of how a valid claimant's damages would be calculated: If you purchased 1,000 Twitter shares any time before May 13, 2022, and sold those shares on May 18, 2022, your damages would equal $7,940.00 (1,000 shares x $7.94, as awarded by the jury for May 18, 2022) plus interest (less any Court approved deductions). What are my rights as a Class Member? Unless you previously requested to be excluded from the Class, you are bound by all decisions and judgments in the Litigation. You must submit a Claim Form to collect for any damages you suffered. You may do nothing at all and not submit a Claim Form. If you choose that option, you will not recover anything, but you are and will be bound by any judgments entered by the Court. You may not opt out of this Litigation at this time. Where to get more information? For more detailed statements of the matters involved in this Litigation, please see the pleadings and other papers filed with the Court. The operative Complaint, Jury Verdict and other important filings may be accessed at www.TwitterAcquisitionLitigation.com. Court filings in the Litigation can also be examined and copied at any time on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website for a fee at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3489 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. Inquiries, other than requests for the Long-Form Notice, may be made to Lead Counsel COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP, www.cpmlegal.com, (650) 697-6000, TwitterInquiries@cpmlegal.com and BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC., www.bottinilaw.com, (858) 914-2001, fbottini@bottinilaw.com. URL: www.TwitterAcquisitionLitigation.com EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Class Settlement in Brown Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, ANGELINA MAGANA, NORMA RODRIGUEZ, DAVID BONFANTI, and SHANNAH SMITH individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, a real estate investment trust, ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a partnership, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., EQRWOODLAND PARK A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and EQR-WOODLAND PARK B LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 4:16-cv-01225-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge White entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and entering final judgment. The Court directs the Parties and the Settlement Administrator to effectuate the Settlement according to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment. The Court approves the distribution of the restitution payments and account credits to Class Members in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. No later than 14 days after the Effective Date, Equity will deliver to the Qualified Settlement Fund $22,707,238.38—the sum total of restitution payments to be made to Class Members. No later than 42 days after the Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator shall cause funds to be distributed to Class Members via check. Before issuing payments, the Administrator shall perform a national change of address (NCOA) database review of Class Members’ mailing addresses Any payments to Class Members, Plaintiffs, and Class Counsel that are not timely made within the deadlines above shall accrue post-judgment interest at the rate of 4.02%, which is "equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment." The action arises out of the Standard Late Fee of 5% of monthly rent, minimum $50, that Defendants Equity Residential, et al. (Equity) charged their California tenants from September 3, 2010 through April 2024, and the Woodland Park Late Fee ($50) that Equity charged tenants at the Woodland Park Property in East Palo Alto from December 2011 to February 2016. On October 23, 2017, the Court certified two classes pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): the Standard Late Fee Class and the Woodland Park Class. In October 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions to certify an injunctive relief class and expand membership in the Standard Late Fee Class. The Standard Late Fee Class is defined as: All Equity Residential tenants in California who were first charged one or more late fee(s) under Equity Residential's "Standard Late Fee” provision: 5% of the outstanding balance owed (capped at 5% of the total amount of monthly recurring charges) or $50, whichever is greater, from September 3, 2010, through October 28, 2022. The recovery period for the Standard Late Fee Class is September 3, 2010, through April 30, 2024.2 The Woodland Park Preexisting Lease Class is defined as: All Equity Residential tenants in the Woodland Park Property from December 1, 2011, until Defendant sold the property in February 2016 who were charged one or more late fee(s) of $50 under Equity Residential’s policy of charging a flat $50 late fee to tenants on pre-existing non-EQR leases. Equity Residential is a United States–based publicly traded real estate investment trust that invests in apartments. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IshV4W at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Margaret McBride, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO 1861 Bay Road East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 326-6440 Facsimile: (866) 688-5204 E-mail: mmcbride@clsepa.org - and - Linda M. Dardarian, Esq. Andrew P. Lee, Esq. Katharine F. Trabucco, Esq. Stephanie E. Tilden, Esq. DARDARIAN HO KAN & LEE 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 E-mail: ldardarian@dhkl.law alee@dhkl.law ktrabucco@dhkl.law stilden@dhkl.law - and - Craig Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: craig@nicholaslaw.org alex@nicholaslaw.org FABULA HOLDINGS INC: Thomas Sues Over Blind Inaccessible-Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FABULA HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FABULA COFFEE, Case No. 1:26-cv-06399 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026), is brought for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its e-commerce website, www.fabulacoffee.com, is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. This action arises under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, challenging Defendant's operation of a public-facing Website that denies blind and visually impaired individuals full and equal access. Plaintiff, a legally blind resident of this District, attempted to access Defendant's Website using screen-reading software but encountered multiple access barriers that prevented meaningful engagement with its products and related services. Defendant's failure to design and maintain its Website in accordance with recognized accessibility principles constitutes unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a legally blind resident of Bronx County, New York. FABULA HOLDINGS, INC. owns, operates, and controls the commercial retail Website, www.fabulacoffee.com, through which it markets and sells coffee products and related wellness-oriented merchandise directly to consumers nationwide, including consumers in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com FAIR ISAAC: Antitrust Class Claims Proceed to Discovery ------------------------------------------------------- Fair Isaac Corp. 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 facing a consolidated putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) and the credit bureaus Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, alleging antitrust violations related to the distribution of FICO Scores. These actions assert that defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct in connection with how such scores are distributed. The lawsuits are structured as putative class actions and have been consolidated before a single court. On Nov. 24, 2024, the court ruled on FICO's and the credit bureaus' motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaints. The court dismissed with prejudice all claims in the consolidated lawsuit other than a Sherman Act Section 2 claim and accompanying state law claims asserted against FICO. Those remaining federal and state law claims have been allowed to proceed into the discovery phase of the litigation. FICO has stated that it intends to vigorously defend against the remaining claims in this proceeding. Fair Isaac Corp., commonly known as FICO, is a data analytics and decision management company best known for its FICO credit scores used widely in consumer lending decisions. It provides analytics, software and tools to help businesses automate and improve credit risk assessment, fraud detection and other decision processes. FIRST SOLAR: Securities Class and Derivative Actions Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- First Solar, 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 30, 2026, that it is facing a securities class action lawsuit and derivative action the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A securities class action lawsuit was filed in said court on June 23, 2026. The action was commenced by Claire Day, a purchaser of First Solar common stock, against First Solar and certain executive officers of First Solar, individually and on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired First Solar securities between Feb. 26, 2025 and Feb. 24, 2026, seeking to recover damages. The complaint challenges statements regarding the company's business, operations, and compliance policies, and focuses on disclosures about the company's capacity to manage the impact of U.S. tariff policy on its business and the effect of its responses to such policy on projected 2026 performance. The plaintiff alleges that the company made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning these issues, and further alleges that the company understated the extent to which its responses to U.S. tariff policy were likely to negatively impact projected performance in 2026. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. A shareholder derivative lawsuit was commenced in the Eastern District of New York. The derivative action was filed by Manh Ho, a purchaser of First Solar common stock, against certain directors and executive officers of First Solar, on behalf of the company. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and equitable relief for the benefit of the company. It asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The Company indicates that the derivative action arises from the same underlying factual allegations concerning its disclosures and responses related to U.S. tariff policy and projected 2026 performance. The Company has not yet provided an assessment of the likelihood of loss, potential financial impact, or expected course of proceedings in the derivative action. First Solar, Inc. is a U.S.-based provider of photovoltaic solar energy solutions, specializing in the design and manufacture of thin-film solar modules. It serves utility-scale power plant developers, operators, and other energy customers worldwide. FLOWERS FOODS: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Salgado, v. Flowers Foods Incorporated, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00420-JGZ (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Zipps entered an order granting the parties' stipulation and joint motion to extend the deadline for Plaintiff's response and Defendants' reply Re: Defendants' Motion to Decertify Plaintiff's Conditional FLSA Certification and to Extend the Deadline for Defendants' Response and Plaintiff's Reply Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. Flowers Foods manufactures, markets, and distributes packaged bakery products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PPoEw3 at no extra charge.[CC] FOLGERS COFFEE: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Consumer Illinois Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned re: Folgers Coffee Marketing, Case No. 4:21-md-02984-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for an order: -- Granting class certification on behalf of herself and the proposed Illinois Class of consumers, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b), and -- Appointing the law firms of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, and Faruqi & Faruqi as Class Counsel. The briefing schedule and oral argument are as follows: Moving Papers: July 24, 2026 Opposition Papers: Sept. 22, 2026 Reply Papers: Nov. 20, 2026 Oral Argument: None set. Folgers retails packaged coffee. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5lOVXg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim E. Dollar, Esq. DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Lubna M. Faruqi, Esq. Timothy J. Peter, Esq. Nina M. Varindani, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: lfaruqi@faruqilaw.com tpeter@faruqilaw.com nvarindani@faruqilaw.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 Facsimile: (866) 503-8206 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com FORTINET INC: Securities Suit Pending, Derivative Action Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Fortinet, 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 30, 2026, that it is facing a consolidated securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arising from multiple complaints filed in late 2025. The actions are brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of Fortinet's common stock from Nov. 8, 2024, through Aug. 6, 2025. The plaintiffs allege that defendants made false or misleading statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects, including with respect to the 2026 firewall refresh cycle, and seek damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief the court may deem appropriate. On Sept. 22, 2025, a securities class action was filed against the company, its chief executive officer, its chief technology officer, its current chief financial officer, and its former chief financial officer in the Northern District of California, captioned "Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Fortinet, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-08037. On Oct. 16, 2025, a second securities class action was filed against the Company, its chief executive officer, its current chief financial officer, and its former chief financial officer in the same court, captioned "State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer v. Fortinet, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-08888. Both suits were brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the company's common stock during the period from Nov. 8, 2024, through Aug. 6, 2025, and allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects, including regarding the 2026 firewall refresh cycle. The complaints purport to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court subsequently consolidated these actions under a new caption, "In re Fortinet, Inc. Securities Litigation," Lead Case No. 3:25-cv-08037, and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2026, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act against the Company's chief executive officer, chief technology officer, current chief financial officer, and former chief financial officer, relating to the same events and circumstances alleged in the initial complaints, and adds a Section 10(b) claim against its head of investor relations. Consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief that the court may deem appropriate. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 15, 2026. Related stockholder derivative actions filed in the Northern District of California, which have been consolidated and stayed pending the final resolution of the consolidated action. These actions are brought on behalf of the company as a nominal defendant against certain of its current and former directors and officers and are based on events similar to those alleged in the securities class action. The derivative plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement, remedial actions, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs. On Oct. 8, 2025, plaintiff Jack Pittrof filed a stockholder derivative complaint against the company as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the Northern District of California, captioned "Pittrof v. Xie, et al.," Case No. 3:2025-cv-08592, alleges claims based on events similar to those in the securities class action and asserts causes of action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. On Nov. 5, 2025, plaintiff Michael J. Marrinan filed a stockholder derivative complaint against the Company as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the same court, captioned "Marrinan v. Xie, et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-09546 alleging claims based on events similar to those in the securities class action and asserts causes of action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, insider trading, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, violations of California Corporations Code Sections 24400, 25500, et seq., and violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. On Nov. 6, 2025, plaintiff Bryan Foster filed a stockholder derivative complaint against the company as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the same court, captioned Foster v. Xie, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-09611, alleging claims based on similar claims. On Dec. 2, 2025, plaintiff LR Trust filed a stockholder derivative complaint against the company as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the same court, captioned "LR Trust v. Xie, et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-10350 alleging claims based on events similar to those in the securities class action and asserts causes of action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, insider trading, aiding and abetting, violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and for contribution under Section 21D of the Exchange Act. The derivative actions have been consolidated under a new caption, "In re Fortinet, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation," Lead Case No. 3:2025-cv-08592. On April 2, 2026, the court stayed all its proceedings pending the final resolution of the consolidated securities class action. Fortinet, Inc. is a global cybersecurity company that provides network security, cloud security, and related products and services to enterprises, service providers, and government organizations. It is known for its FortiGate firewalls and a broad security fabric platform designed to protect IT infrastructure across on-premises, cloud, and hybrid environments. GEICO GENERAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Supplement ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file supplement to opposition to the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel, and request for evidentiary hearing. Geico operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xvXl37 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Jamie L. Halavais, Esq. Claire E. F. Grimes, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 285-5000 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 E-mail: Dan.Goldfine@stinson.com Jamie.Halavais@stinson.com Claire.Grimes@stinson.com - and - Jennifer M. Schauerman, Esq. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP 1900 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, NY 14604 Telephone: (585) 987-2800 Facsimile: (585) 445-2393 E-mail: JSchauerman@woodsoviatt.com GEMPLERS INC: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gemplers Inc. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Gemplers Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06394 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gemplers -- https://gemplers.com/ -- provides a wide selection of professional-grade tools, equipment, supplies, and clothing and footwear for work and play.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal GKN DRIVELINE: Bids to Dismiss Ferges Class Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMEKA FERGES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-CV-585 (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=3BNQ2B at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBAL PRECISION: Gomez Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT GOMEZ, ALVARO RODRIGUEZ, ERIC BORUNDA, and DANIEL PORRAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL PRECISION SYSTEMS, LLC and ASSET PROTECTION AND SECURITY SERVICES, LP, Case No. 3:21-cv-00269-DCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Guaderrama entered an order accepting Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation with modifications and partly granting motion for judicially supervised notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Court therefore overrules Defendants' "Joint Objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" and accepts Magistrate Judge Castañeda's "Report and Recommendation" with modifications. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' "Opposed Motion for Judicially Supervised Notice Under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)" in part to the extent the Motion asks the Court to: (1) certify a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) consisting of: (a) current and former detention officers who worked for Defendants between May 13, 2019, and the present and whom Plaintiffs sought to add as named plaintiffs in their "Opposed Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint;" and (b) all other detention officers—whether or not current employees of Defendants—who worked for Defendants at the Facility within the three years preceding this Order. (2) order Defendants to produce the names and addresses of all Potential Optin Plaintiffs; and (3) authorize mailing notice to all Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs. By August 7, 2026, Defendants shall provide the Plaintiffs with a computer-readable data file containing the names, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of all Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs. Subject to the changes noted above,200 the Court ACCEPTS Plaintiffs’ proposed form of notice and authorizes Plaintiffs to issue notice to the Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs. The Court denies "Opposed Motion for Judicially Supervised Notice Under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)" in part to the extent the Motion asks the Court to expand the scope of its prior order equitably tolling the statute of limitations period for persons that Plaintiffs previously identified as Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs. The Defendants haven't identified any clear error in Judge Castañeda’s evidentiary determinations. Nor can the Court. The Court therefore overrules Defendants’ objections to Judge Castañeda’s denial of their request to strike the Declarations. This is an FLSA case in which Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages. Global Precision is an Alaska Native Corporation-owned federal contractor specializing in facility operations, maintenance, logistics, and administrative support. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wj8yXK at no extra charge.[CC] HARTENSIE D. IRVING: Grimes Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Larry Leroy Grimes, III, by and through undersigned counsel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HARTENSIE D. IRVING, EMPOWERMENT OPTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02925-CJC (D. Md., July 28, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and statutory damages under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL") and the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law ("MWPCL"). The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week. Empowerment and Irving are aware that the Plaintiff engaged in, suffered and was permitted to work more than forty hours per week in carrying out his job responsibilities, as the Plaintiff's paystubs clearly indicate. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff proper overtime wages for the overtime hours he worked. The Defendants' payment practices violate the provisions of the FLSA, MWHL, and MWPCL. As a result of these unlawful payment practices, Plaintiff suffered a loss of wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants. Empowerment provides various services for individuals with intellectual disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Whelan, Esq. BREGMAN, BERBERT, SCHWARTZ & GILDAY, LLC 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 West Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: (301) 656-2707 HEARTLAND AMBULANCE: Richard Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Richard, Sarah Rusin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HEARTLAND AMBULANCE SERVICE LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00196-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind., July 28, 2026), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to them in accordance with the FLSA. Specifically, Defendant deducted 45 minutes of pay from each of Plaintiffs' shifts as a "lunch break." Plaintiffs were not given breaks in actuality, and if they were, they remained on call during these "breaks" and were still required to respond to emergency situations if they arose during the "breaks." Many of these breaks would be eligible for overtime pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Heartland as an EMT-B from September 15, 2025 to May 31, 2026. The Defendant is in the business of providing ambulance services to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brenly Pereira, Esq. Andrew Dutkanych, Esq. BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC 144 Delaware Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 991-4765 Facsimile: (812) 424-1005 Email: bpereira@bdlegal.com ad@bdlegal.com HYDE SCHOOL: Court Narrows Claims in Fuller Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA FULLER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. HYDE SCHOOL, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00354-SDN (D. Me.), the Hon. Judge Stacey D. Neumann entered an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss: -- The Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss parts of Counts III and VIII to the extent they assert trafficking on a recruitment theory and denies dismissal of those counts on a harboring theory against the School, Malcolm Gauld, and Laura Gauld. -- The Court DENIES Defendants' motion as to all other claims asserted on behalf of Ms. Fuller and the putative class members: direct and beneficiary liability against the School, Malcolm Gauld, and Laura Gauld for involuntary servitude and forced labor (Counts I, II, and parts of VIII); direct liability against the School, Malcolm Gauld, and Laura Gauld for attempt and conspiracy to violate forced labor statutes (Counts VI, VII, and X); and direct liability against the School, Malcolm Gauld, and Laura Gauld for violations of section 2255 (Counts V and IX). -- The Court DISMISSES Georgia Gauld MacMillan, Donald MacMillan, and Laurie Gauld Hurd as Defendants, without prejudice, and grants Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to provide proper factual support for the claims against them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Court has already dismissed the recruitment theory of direct liability under section 1590, and beneficiary liability predicated on that theory fails for the same reason. See Subsection III.D.1. But because the harboring theory survives, Plaintiff’s beneficiary liability claim survives to the same extent, and against the same Defendants, as the underlying harboring violation. The Court has found that Plaintiff adequately pleaded forced labor under section 1589 against the School, Malcolm Gauld, and Laura Gauld, and has sustained a trafficking claim against those Defendants on a harboring theory. Because either predicate violation suffices to support a claim under section 2255, Counts V and IX survive as to those Defendants and the Court DENIES the motion as to those counts. Ms. Fuller sues on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, alleging that Hyde School forced labor upon and abused teenagers with emotional and behavioral issues at its campus in Bath, Maine. The FAICC sets forth the following factual allegations. The FAICC alleges that the School subjected putative class members to regular surveillance, public humiliation, emotional manipulation, and substantial physical punishments, such as the "5:30" program, the "2-4" program, and the Work Crews. It further alleges a culture of racism and sexism in which staff used derogatory slurs toward female, gay, and Asian students, and that staff slammed them into walls, choked, grabbed, and pushed them. Hyde is a private, co-educational, college-preparatory boarding school for grades 9–12 and postgraduate in Bath, Maine. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nkakze at no extra charge.[CC] HYZON MOTORS: Seeks to Dismiss Claim Against DCRB Defendants ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kauffmann v. Hyzon Motors Inc. et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-06612-MAV-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order dismissing the Plaintiff's Section 14(a) claim against the Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation (DCRB) Defendants because the claim was released in the Delaware Settlement. The Plaintiff's Section 14(a) claim was released in the Delaware Settlement. This is the only remaining claim as to the DCRB Defendants, and the 4AC should be dismissed as to the DCRB Defendants with prejudice. The Delaware judgment has become final and non-appealable, and its Release now forecloses the Section 14(a) claim for two reasons at the pleading stage. First, the Court must enforce the preclusive effect of the Delaware judgment under the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1738. Second, dismissal is also required because Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue released claims. On October 21, 2025, over Plaintiff's vehement objection, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved an $8.8 million settlement of a parallel non-opt out class action alleging that the same deficiencies in the same proxy statement at issue in this case had impaired overlapping class members' decision whether to redeem their DCRB Class A shares rather than approve DCRB's proposed merger with Hyzon and continue as public stockholders. On Sept. 19, 2025, having failed to obtain an injunction halting the Delaware process, Plaintiff filed his Notice of Intent to Appear and Objection to the Settlement in the Court of Chancery The Plaintiff filed the 4AC on July 16, 2026, reasserting his Section 14(a) claim against the DCRB Defendants based on alleged proxy statement deficiencies as to Hyzon customer information. Malork brought claims on behalf of "all holders of [DCRB] common stock who held stock prior to the July 13, 2021, redemption deadline and were entitled to elect to redeem their shares but did not" do so. Hyzon is a hydrogen fuel cell technology supplier and commercial vehicle upfitter. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=80pwhw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Holmes, Esq. Jeffrey Crough, Esq. Marisa Antonelli, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3900 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 220-7700 IAEDPF: Zelikovsky Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY ZELIKOVSKY, PsyD, DEBRA MILLER, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EATING DISORDER PROFESSIONALS' FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01474-MMM-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order that: -- The Plaintiffs' motion to file first supplemental complaint is denied; -- IAEDP's motion to defer is granted in part and dismissed in part; -- IAEDP's motion to dismiss is granted; -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is dismissed as moot. -- Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Court grants IAEDP's motion to defer class certification in part, deferring the issue of class certification until after the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. Because the Court finds dismissal is warranted, IAED's request to defer class certification until after the completion of discovery is moot. This is Plaintiffs' fifth attempt to state a claim. In its prior Order the Court warned them that this would be their last opportunity to surpass the pleading stages. Because they were unable to do so, the Court finds that further amend would be futile and dismissal is with prejudice. The Plaintiffs have brought this anti-trust class action against IAEDP who they allege instituted an illegal tying arrangement. The Plaintiffs are board certified eating disorder professionals, and they seek to represent an anti-trust class defined as follows: "All individuals in the United States who held IAEDP eating-disorder board certification and, during the class period, 2017 to present, were required to purchase IAEDP membership or attend iaedp-mandated symposiums as a condition of maintaining certification." The Defendant is an organization that offers education and training classes for practitioners in the field of eating disorders. A copy of the Court's order and opinion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eJhBub at no extra charge.[CC] INSPIRE MEDICAL: Faces Ongoing Pontiac City Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Inspire Medical Systems, 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 Aug. 3, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Pontiac City class suit and the derivative suits. On Nov. 6, 2025, the City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees Retirement System, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated investors, filed a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company and certain of its executive officers. The action was captioned City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees Retirement System v. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc., et al. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. It was based on purportedly materially false and misleading statements made between Aug. 6, 2024, and Aug. 4, 2025, regarding the launch of the Company's Inspire V neurostimulator. The complaint in the City of Pontiac lawsuit further alleged that when subsequent disclosures were made concerning issues with the Inspire V launch and when the Company announced its third-quarter fiscal 2025 results, the Company's stock price declined, purportedly causing investor losses. On Dec. 23, 2025, the plaintiff in that action filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. On Dec. 29, 2025, the case was administratively closed without prejudice. On Dec. 22, 2025, the Indiana Public Retirement System, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated investors, filed a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its executive officers. That action was captioned Indiana Public Retirement System v. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc., et al. The Indiana PRS lawsuit arises from the same underlying subject matter as the City of Pontiac lawsuit. It alleges the same violations of law and is based on the same or similar purportedly materially false and misleading statements made regarding the Inspire V launch and related disclosures. In addition to these putative securities class actions, a related shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed on March 3, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former directors and officers. The derivative complaint alleges that these individuals breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched, and violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the same alleged misstatements and omissions regarding the launch of the Company's Inspire V neurostimulator that underlie the securities class actions. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, damages purportedly sustained by the Company, corporate governance reforms, restitution from the individual defendants, and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to the plaintiff and its counsel. A second, related shareholder derivative action was filed on April 15, 2026, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, asserting similar claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on substantially the same alleged course of conduct. The Delaware derivative action likewise names certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers as defendants and purports to proceed derivatively on the Company's behalf. The plaintiff in that action seeks overlapping relief, including monetary damages for alleged harm to the Company and changes to the Company's internal controls and oversight of product launch disclosures. The Company believes that the derivative claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against both actions. The federal derivative action has been stayed by agreement of the parties pending further developments in the Indiana PRS lawsuit, and the parties in the Delaware action have stipulated to coordinate certain discovery with the federal securities class action. No trial dates have been set in either derivative case, and the Company is currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of these proceedings or reasonably estimate any potential loss or range of loss. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. is a medical technology company that develops and markets minimally invasive, implantable neurostimulation systems for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Its flagship Inspire therapy is designed to provide an alternative to traditional continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Dismissal Bid Pending, Derivative Suits Filed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp. 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 March 16, 2026, the plaintiffs in a securities class action complaint filed their Supplemental Amended Complaint after their class action complaint was dismissed without prejudice. In response, the company filed its Supplemental Motion to Dismiss on April 3, 2026. The litigation therefore remains at the motion to dismiss stage. On Sept. 12, 2023, a complaint captioned "Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund v. Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation" was filed by a purported stockholder of the company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against it and certain of its current and former executive officers. The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between March 11, 2019, and May 22, 2023, inclusive. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations are based on purportedly materially false and misleading statements and omissions relating to certain quality systems issues identified by the FDA at the company's Boston facility, its efforts to remediate those issues, and forecasts for certain products in its Tissue Reconstruction segment. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. On July 1, 2025, the class action complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on Aug. 14, 2025, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on Oct. 14, 2025. On May 13, 2025, and May 16, 2025, derivative lawsuits captioned "Leverett v. Integra LifeSciences Holding Corp. et al" and "Simpkins v. Integra LifeSciences Holding Corp. et al" were filed in the District of New Jersey. The actions purport to assert derivative claims on behalf of the company against its current Board of Directors and certain of its current or former officers and directors. They assert that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and harmed the company by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to certain quality systems issues identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the company's Boston, Massachusetts manufacturing facility, its efforts to remediate those issues, and forecasts for certain products in its Tissue Reconstruction segment. The complaints seek, among other things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp. is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and markets surgical, neurologic, and regenerative care products. It serves hospitals, physicians, and health care providers worldwide with a portfolio focused on neurosurgery, extremity orthopedics, and tissue technologies. JASON LUO: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to File Unredacted Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHMUEL LEVY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JASON LUO, JAMES TAYLOR, ALBERT LI, MARSHALL KIEV, DAVID BORIS, and BDO USA, LLP, Case No. 1:23-cv-00653-GBW-LDH (D. Del.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting them to electronically file under seal unredacted versions of: (1) the Memorandum of Law in Support of Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel; and (2) the Declaration of Jonathan Zweig in Support of Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel and attached exhibits. These filings contain material which has been designated "highly confidential" and "confidential" by Defendant and non-parties, respectively, pursuant to the Stipulation and Protective Order Concerning Confidential Documents or Information. Lead Plaintiff will also file redacted versions of the aforementioned documents on the public docket within seven days, as is required under the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. In these public versions, Lead Plaintiff will redact material that Defendant and the designating non-parties indicate to Lead Plaintiff should be redacted, consistent with their confidentiality assertions. Although Lead Plaintiff does not believe there is reason for continued nondisclosure of the materials and information contained in these filings, Lead Plaintiff is moving to file these materials under seal in light of the Defendant’s and the nonparties’ asserted confidentiality interests. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0gFNRN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq. David Hahn, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-3500 E-mail: jgorris@friedlandergorris.com dhahn@friedlandergorris.com - and - Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq. Benjamin Potts, Esq. Chad Johnson, Esq. Noam Mandel, Esq. Desiree Cummings, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 221 W. 10th Street, Suite 423 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 330-8010 E-mail: andrew@jvk-law.com benjamin@jvk-law.com chad@jvk-law.com noam@jvk-law.com desiree@jvk-law.com jonathan@jvk-law.com - and - Christopher H. Lyons, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 467-2660 E-mail: clyons@rgrdlaw.com JASON LUO: Levy Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHMUEL LEVY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JASON LUO, JAMES TAYLOR, ALBERT LI, MARSHALL KIEV, DAVID BORIS, and BDO USA, LLP, Case No. 1:23-cv-00653-GBW-LDH (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. Certifying the Class, defined as: All persons and entities who directly purchased common stock of Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. in the private investment in public equity (PIPE) offering conducted in connection with the June 25, 2021, merger by which publicly traded Forum Merger III Corporation combined with Electric Last Mile, Inc. to form the Company. Excluded from the Class are Defendant, the former officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity in which Defendant or former officers and directors of the Company have or had a controlling interest. 2. Appointing Ben-Shmuel, Green, Levy, and Mayrock as Class Representatives; and 3. Appointing Johnson Van Kwawegen LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nxdVmz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq. David Hahn, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-3500 E-mail: jgorris@friedlandergorris.com dhahn@friedlandergorris.com - and - Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq. Benjamin Potts, Esq. Chad Johnson, Esq. Noam Mandel, Esq. Desiree Cummings, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 221 W. 10th Street, Suite 423 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 330-8010 E-mail: andrew@jvk-law.com benjamin@jvk-law.com chad@jvk-law.com noam@jvk-law.com desiree@jvk-law.com jonathan@jvk-law.com - and - Christopher H. Lyons, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 467-2660 E-mail: clyons@rgrdlaw.com JET LIMOUSINES: McGhee Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Supplement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as William McGhee and Michael Reynolds, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation, LLC; JET Limousines Operations, LLC; Arizona Commercial Transportation Services, LLC; Transportation Inc.; Salt River Tubing & Recreation, Inc.; Salt River Tubing Operations, LLC; William Jinks; Mary Ann Cleary; and Eugene Thomas, Case No. 2:24-cv-03394-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to supplement the record on their pending motion for class certification with relevant evidence that the Defendants did not produce until after briefing concluded. Although the existing record is sufficient to grant class certification, the Plaintiffs' limited supplementation is warranted because the Defendants urged the Court to deny class certification based on the purported absence of merits evidence that was within their possession but not produced until after briefing closed, the Plaintiffs aver. That evidence included ESI identified through gratuity-related ESI search terms and the Charge Item Booking Analysis reports readily available to Defendants through the Fasttrak platform they use, which identify each gratuity remitted to JET that can be compared with Driver pay records to determine withheld gratuities on a classwide basis. The Defendants most recently represented on June 29, 2026 that the emails identified through the parties' agreed-upon gratuity-related ESI search terms would be produced by July 2, 2026. On July 13, however, after class-certification briefing had concluded, the Defendants produced the emails they contend are responsive to those search terms. J.E.T. provides luxury transportation services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ckTwnI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com KRISTI NOEM: Jean Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN A., et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. Case No. 3:26-cv-30031-RGS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The proposed class consists of: "All individuals with refugee status who have not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and who have been or will be detained pursuant to the Refugee Detention Policy." In the alternative, if the Court finds Plaintiffs have not established the requirements for certification, Plaintiffs request class discovery. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O3NxDS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ghita Schwarz, Esq. Guadalupe Aguirre, Esq. Mevlüde Akay Alp, Esq. Kimberly Grano, Esq. Pedro Sepulveda, Esq. Dalia Fuleihan, Esq. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT One Battery Plaza, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 939-9169 E-mail: gschwarz@refugeerights.org laguirre@refugeerights.org makayalp@refugeerights.org kgrano@refugeerights.org psepulveda@refugeerights.org dfuleihan@refugeerights.org - and - Erez Reuveni, Esq. Jennie L. Kneedler, Esq. Ryan Cooper, Esq. Kali Schellenberg, Esq. Steven Y. Bressler, Esq. Robin F. Thurston, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 316-9538 E-mail: ereuveni@democracyforward.org jkneedler@democracyforward.org rcooper@democracyforward.org kschellenberg@democracyforward.org sbressler@democracyforward.org rthurston@democracyforward.org - and - John Nathanson, Esq. Andrew Tannenbaum, Esq. Leila Siddiky, Esq. Emily Westridge Black, Esq. Gideon J. Duke-Cohan, Esq. ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 E-mail: john.nathanson@aoshearman.com andrew.tannenbaum@aoshearman.com leila.siddiky@aoshearman.com emily.westridgeblack@aoshearman.com gideon.duke-cohan@aoshearman.com L&L EXCAVATING: McCarter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Michael McCarter, an individual, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. L&L Excavating, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, and Larry Strickland, an individual, Case No. 2:26-cv-00905-EAS-SCS (S.D. Ohio, July 28, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty hours in a workweek. In addition to working days that exceeded eight hours while performing his Equipment Operator duties, Defendants required Plaintiff to work weekends. The Defendants also required Plaintiff, the only African American employee, to perform additional work that Caucasian employees were not required to perform, including picking up and dropping off Caucasian employees who could not drive themselves to and from work. The Plaintiff was not required to punch in or out, and Defendants failed to maintain an accurate record of his hours worked. Despite Plaintiff's regular work in excess of forty hours per workweek, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at one-and-one half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an Equipment Operator for Defendants from 2022 until January 9, 2026. L&L is an Ohio Domestic Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Safir, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 150 W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (313) 739-1954 Email: gary.safir@forthepeople.com - and - Ertis Tereziu, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 150 W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (313) 739-1953 Email: etereziu@forthepeople.com LABORATORY SERVICES: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Laboratory Services Cooperative Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00685-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barabara J. Rothstein entered an order: -- Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), and for purposes of settlement only, the Action is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the following Settlement Class: "All U.S. residents whose Personal Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident which the Defendant became aware of on or about Oct. 27, 2024." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) the judge presiding over the Litigation and the Judge's direct family members, and court personnel working on this matter and their direct family members, (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or the Defendant's parent companies have a controlling interest and their current or former officers and directors, and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. -- The Court finds and concludes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), and for purposes of settlement only, that the Plaintiffs Keefe John and Tori McMillan are adequate class representatives and appoints them as the Class Representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class. -- The Court appoints Thomas E. Loeser of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP and Cecily C. Jordan of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Class Representatives with respect to the Settlement. -- The Settlement provides for a non-reversionary $6,100,00.00 Settlement Fund that the Defendant shall pay or cause to be paid in the manner described in the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Df5y6S at no extra charge.[CC] LATHROP LOGISTICS: Removes Flores Suit to E.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of NICEFORO FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LATHROP LOGISTICS LLC; C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, LLC; DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Dan Joaquin (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001424) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 27, 2026. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01261 to the proceeding. Lathrop Logistics LLC operates as a logistics company. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Telephone: (415) 659-2600 Facsimile: (415) 659-2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com LIFE INSURANCE: Hoffman Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hoffman et al v. LIfe Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No. 5:23-cv-04068-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Because the Class seeks recovery for fees charged all within the four-year statute of limitations, regardless of when the contract was issued, all Class Members’ claims are timely. Accordingly, whether someone visited 403bcompare.com is not relevant to any issue in this case, and the Court should find predominance and superiority satisfied. Life specializes in annuity and life insurance products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AnBs0H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. Ariana B. Kiener, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. Joshua P. Davis, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bergermontague.com jalbanese@bergermontague.com akiener@bergermontague.com jhashmall@bergermontague.com jdavis@bergermontague.com - and - Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Steven J. Eiden, Esq. Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 729 N. Washington Ave., Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: cengstrom@engstromlee.com mthomson@engstromlee.com seiden@engstromlee.com jlee@engstromlee.com LIFESPAN PHYSICIANS: Mingels Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kerstin Mingels, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIFESPAN PHYSICIANS GROUP OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. D/B/A BROWN HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP-MA, Case No. 1:26-cv-00512 (D.R.I., July 28, 2026), is brought for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI"), personally identifiable information ("PII"), and financial information stored within Defendant's information network. The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII financial information. The Defendant knew or should have known, that Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PHI/PII. Upon information and belief, unauthorized third party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PHI/PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PHI/PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a patient of Defendant. Lifespan Physicians Group of Massachusetts, Inc. d/b/a Brown Health Medical Group-MA is a Rhode Island non-profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Phone: 401-831-7730 Fax: 401-861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - James J. Reardon, Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com LIVE VENTURES: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Sieggreen Due Nov. 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL E. SIEGGREEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. LIVE VENTURES INCORPORATED, JON ISAAC, and VIRLAND A. JOHNSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-01517-CDS-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Elayna J. Youchah entered an order granting the joint motion to extend the deadlines applicable to the briefing of the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification. The Court further entered an order setting the following briefing schedule for the motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification on or before Nov. 13, 2026; 2. The Defendants will file an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on or before Jan. 15, 2027; and 3. The Plaintiff will file a reply in support of the motion for class certification on or before Feb. 26, 2027. Live is a diversified holding company focused on value-oriented acquisitions of well-run, domestic middle-market businesses across multiple industries. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QNfAC3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq. Christopher Fallon, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com cfallon@glancylaw.com LIVE VENTURES: Class Certification Bid in Sieggreen Due Nov. 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL E. SIEGGREEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. LIVE VENTURES INCORPORATED, JON ISAAC, and VIRLAND A. JOHNSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-01517-CDS-EJY (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to extend the deadlines regarding the briefing for the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification Because of the current uncertainty of the representation for the Live Ventures Defendants, good cause exists for the relief sought herein. Good cause also exists for the Joint Motion because: (1) counsel for JanOne, Inc. currently has a trial scheduled for Sept, 1, 2026, which would conflict with the current briefing schedule for class certification; and (2) the parties have recently devoted time in the case in an attempt to determine if the parties can resolve the case through mediation and/or settlement. As a result, the Court should grant the Joint Motion. The Moving Parties propose the following dates for briefing for the motion for class certification subject to the approval of the Court: 1. The Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification on or before Nov. 13, 2026; 2. The Defendants will file an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on or before Jan. 15, 2027; and 3. The Plaintiff will file a reply in support of the motion for class certification on or before Feb. 26, 2027. Live is a diversified holding company focused on value-oriented acquisitions of well-run, domestic middle-market businesses across multiple industries. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZW1i00 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq. Christopher Fallon, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com cfallon@glancylaw.com - and - Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq. MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD. 7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 330-4505 Facsimile: (702) 825-0141 E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Dylan T. Ciciliano, Esq. GARMAN TURNER GORDON LLP 7251 Amigo Drive, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Telephone: (725) 777-3000 Facsimile: (725) 777-3112 E-mail: dciciliano@gtg.legal LKQ CORP: Faces Securities Class Action, Derivative Suits --------------------------------------------------------- LKQ Corp 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 30, 2026, that it is facing class action suits and derivative actions with regards to it disclosure with the SEC. On April 22, 2026, a purported stockholder of LKQ Corporation filed a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the company and certain of its officers. The complaint generally alleges that they made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material information regarding the company's acquisition and integration of Uni-Select Incorporated and Uni-Select's U.S. operating subsidiary, FinishMaster. It further alleges that these statements and omissions artificially inflated the market price of LKQ common stock and that investors suffered damages when the truth was revealed. It seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders. On June 22, 2026, the court entered an order extending defendants' time to respond to the complaint until after a lead plaintiff has been appointed by the court. The matter currently remains in the lead-plaintiff appointment phase, and defendants have not yet filed a response to the operative complaint. An evidentiary hearing on the pending motions to appoint a lead plaintiff has been scheduled for Aug. 13, 2026, and subsequent briefing and case scheduling are expected to follow that decision. On May 26, 2026, a derivative action was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee that largely mirrors the securities action but is filed by a purported shareholder on behalf of nominal defendant LKQ Corporation against certain current and former directors and officers, asserting both a federal securities claim and breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to the same alleged misconduct during the same purported class period as the Securities Action. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of LKQ, unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement, and other relief. On July 24, 2026, this was stayed pending resolution of LKQ's anticipated motion to dismiss the Securities Action. On July 29, 2026, a second derivative action that largely mirrors Derivative Action 1 was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee by another purported shareholder on behalf of nominal defendant LKQ Corporation against certain current and former directors and officers. LKQ Corp is a global provider of alternative and specialty parts, components, and systems used to repair and accessorize automobiles and other vehicles. It supplies collision and mechanical repair shops, aftermarket retailers, and vehicle owners through operations across North America, Europe, and other international markets. LOS ANGELES, CA: Newman Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMMY NEWMAN and ANTONIO RINCON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-03467-CAS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order certifying a class action under Rule 23(b) for damages and appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g). This proposed class action arises from allegations related to a security incident at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail ("MCJ") on Sept. 7, 2021. The Plaintiffs challenge the manner in which the searches were conducted. Even assuming that strip searches were warranted, the Plaintiffs contend that LASD's response reflected an exaggerated and unjustified response to the security threat. The Plaintiff proposes the following class: "All Men's Central Jail (MCJ) prisoners housed in units 2500 and 2700 who, on Sept. 7, 2021, were subjected to the mass search incident, during which they were required to submit to visual body cavity inspections, and after which some inmates were required to remain nude, and were restrained while being transported through the facility to body-scanning machines." Los Angeles is a county in the U.S. state of California, in the southern region of the state. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WCXgxp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barrett S. Litt, Esq. Lindsay Battles, Esq. Rodrigo Padilla, Esq. McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP 975 E. Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670 E-mail: blitt@mbllegal.com lbattles@mbllegal.com rpadilla@mbllegal.com - and - Jovan Blacknell, Esq. Deion Benjamin, Esq. Kellen Davis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF J. BLACKNELL 200 Corporate Pointe, suite 495 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 469-9117 Facsimile: (310) 388-3765 E-mail: jovan@fight4justice.com deion@fight4justice.com kellen@fight4justice.com LPL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- LPL Financial Holdings 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 Aug. 3, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated cash sweep class suit in the federal district court. In July 2024, putative class action lawsuits were filed against LPL Financial in federal district court alleging certain violations of law in connection with its cash sweep programs. These lawsuits assert that the Company engaged in misconduct related to how customer cash balances were managed or swept and seek relief on behalf of a proposed class of affected investors or customers. The Company intends to defend vigorously against these allegations and maintains that its conduct complied with applicable laws and regulations. Following their initial filing, the separate lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one case in federal district court. This consolidation places the claims into a single proceeding for coordinated pretrial and trial management. The consolidated action remains in its early stages, and the Company continues to prepare its defense in response to the asserted claims related to the cash sweep programs. LPL Financial Holdings Inc. is a leading independent broker-dealer and registered investment adviser that provides technology, brokerage, and investment advisory services to independent financial advisors and financial institutions across the United States. It offers a broad range of financial products, platforms, and support services designed to help advisors serve retail investors and small businesses. META PLATFORMS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 9, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRON TRIBE FITNESS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03281-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered a joint case management statement & order: The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and any class certification expert report(s): April 9, 2027 Meta's opposition to the motion, any rebuttal expert report(s), and any Daubert motion(s): July 2, 2027 The Plaintiff’s reply brief, any rebuttal expert report(s), and any opposition to any Daubert motion(s): August 27, 2027 The Hearing on Plaintiff's class certification motion: September 10, 2027, at 10:00 a.m. The case is about Facebook's systematic overcharging of Facebook advertisers for several years between 2013 and 2017 (the "Class Period") due to a coding change in Facebook’s ad auction process that Facebook internally calculated to have caused its advertisers to overpay by billions of dollars. The Plaintiff seeks to maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all Facebook customers that purchased advertisements during the period when the 2013 coding change caused Facebook to overcharge advertising customers and were damaged thereby. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of itself and a proposed class of Facebook advertisers that purchased advertisements during the Class Period that present at least the following common legal issues: a) whether Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; b) whether Defendant breached its contractual obligations owed to Plaintiff and the members of the Class; c) whether Plaintiff and the members of the Class were harmed by Defendant's breaches and the amount of damages they incurred. Meta is an American technology company that owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yfGSlo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of The Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: James P. Rouhandeh, Esq. Andrew Yaphe, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800 E-mail: rouhandeh@davispolk.com andrew.yaphe@davispolk.com MGP INGREDIENTS: Securities Suit Dismissed, Appeal Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- MGP Ingredients 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 is facing consolidated federal securities class actions and subsequent appellate developments arising out of alleged misstatements in its public disclosures. On Dec. 16, 2024, a putative securities class action, captioned "Operating Engineers Construction Industry Miscellaneous Pension Fund v. MGP Ingredients, Inc. et al.," was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, two of its former Chief Executive Officers, and its current Chief Financial Officer. The Operating Engineers Action was brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly traded MGP common stock between May 4, 2023 and Oct. 30, 2024. On Feb. 13, 2025, a second putative securities class action, captioned "Bronstein v. MGP Ingredients, Inc. et al.," was filed in the Southern District of New York against the same defendants. This was brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly traded MGP securities between May 4, 2023, and Oct. 30, 2024. Both actions assert securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements made in the company's quarterly earnings releases and on earnings calls during the alleged class period. Both abovementioned cases were subsequently consolidated and transferred to the District of Kansas, where they are now captioned "In re MGPI Ingredients, Inc. Securities Litigation." Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 15, 2025, which defendants moved to dismiss on July 15, 2025. On March 25, 2026, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint and denied plaintiffs leave to amend. On April 24, 2026, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal of the March 25, 2026, decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Multiple related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the District of Kansas. On Jan. 23, 2025, a putative derivative lawsuit captioned "Sebald v. Colo, et al." was filed against two of the company's former Chief Executive Officers, its current Chief Financial Officer, and the members of its Board of Directors. On March 17, 2025, a second putative derivative lawsuit captioned "Reid v. Bratcher, et al." was filed in the same court against the same defendants. On July 1, 2025, the respective plaintiffs in these cases filed a consolidated amended complaint. On May 15, 2025, a third putative derivative lawsuit captioned "Kruitwagen v. Bratcher, et al., was filed the District of Kansas against the same defendants named in the consolidated action. The company is a nominal defendant in these lawsuits, reflecting that they are maintained by the respective named plaintiffs on the Company's behalf and that the plaintiffs seek damages for the benefit of the Company. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated federal securities laws by causing the company to make false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in public filings during the class period alleged in the securities action, and also allege breaches of fiduciary duties by failing to maintain internal controls. The complaints further allege breaches of fiduciary duties by seeking shareholder approval of an equity incentive plan and by causing the company to repurchase its own stock at artificially inflated prices. They assert additional claims for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and waste of corporate assets, and they seek indemnity and contribution from the named current and former officers. On July 24, 2025 and July 28, 2025, the court entered orders staying the consolidated Action and the Kruitwagen action, respectively, pending an outcome on the motion to dismiss filed in the putative securities class action. On April 8, 2026, the court entered an order extending the stays and directing the parties to file a status report by May 1, 2026. The court subsequently issued orders continuing the stays in both actions pending the outcome of the Tenth Circuit appeal in the related securities class action. MGP Ingredients Inc. is a producer and supplier of premium distilled spirits, branded spirits, and food ingredients, serving beverage alcohol and food industry customers worldwide. It develops, produces, and markets a broad range of bourbon, rye, neutral grain spirits, and specialty wheat- and corn-based ingredients for consumer packaged goods companies. MID AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing in FC Suit Due Nov. 10 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as F.C., L.H., M.M., KIMBERLY STEAKLE, SUSAN OAKES, ASHLEY BUEHLER, MUKHLISA ISKANDAROVA, CHELSEA ROTH, SARAH FRAUNDORFER and her minor child I.F., TERESA MORE, and JENNETTE HANSEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00685-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Ketchmark entered a second amended scheduling and trial order: The Plaintiff Expert Designation on Class Aug. 30, 2026 Certification issues: Completion of Discovery (on Class Oct. 27, 2026 Certification issues): The Plaintiffs' motion for class Nov. 10, 2026 certification: The Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs' Dec. 10, 2026 Motion for Class Certification and Daubert challenges to the Plaintiffs' Class Certification experts: The Plaintiffs' Reply to the Defendant's Jan. 11, 2027 Response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Daubert challenges to the Defendants' Class Certification experts: Hearing on class certification motion: Jan. 27, 2027 at 1:30 pm Mid America is a healthcare company that provides infertility, gynecology, and hysterectomy treatments. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hamAEq at no extra charge.[CC] MIDEA AMERICA: Catalano Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Catalano v. Midea America Corp., Case No. 7:25-cv-04850-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file their motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and class certification. On June 10, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a letter informing the Court that the parties had agreed in principle upon key terms for a proposed class-wide settlement in this matter and requested that the Court terminate all pending deadlines and grant Plaintiffs permission to file a motion for preliminary approval by July 31, 2026. On June 12, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiffs' request. While the parties have been working diligently and cooperatively in negotiating the terms of the formal settlement agreement, additional time is needed to finalize the agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests a brief extension to August 31, 2026, for Plaintiffs to file their motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and class certification. Plaintiffs' counsel has spoken with Defendant's counsel and Defendant does not oppose Plaintiffs’ request. This is the first request for an extension of the deadline to file Plaintiffs’ preliminary approval motion. The Defendant is the official United States subsidiary and regional headquarters of the global home appliance manufacturer Midea Group. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DQcZTr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 MONUMENT CAPITAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in McCraw Due Sept. 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIONNE McCRAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Monument Capital Management, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-25550-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant this motion, extend the class certification motion, opposition, and reply deadlines through September 11, September 25, and October 2, 2026, respectively, and grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff Dionne McCraw moves, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(4), Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), and this Court’s Scheduling Order [ECF No. 28], for a 35 day extension -- from August 7, 2026, through September 11, 2026 -- of the deadline to file her motion for class certification, with corresponding extensions of the opposition and reply deadlines. The Plaintiff has acted diligently by timely serving class discovery, conferring with Defendant, jointly presenting the dispute, and obtaining an order compelling production before the current deadline. Plaintiff cannot reasonably prepare her class certification motion before receiving and analyzing the data that the Court ordered Defendant to produce. The extension will not prejudice Defendant as it preserves the existing opposition and reply intervals. The Plaintiff therefore requests the following specific modifications to the class certification briefing schedule: Filing Deadline The Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 11, 2026 Certification: The Defendant's opposition: Sept. 25, 2026 The Plaintiff's reply: Oct. 2, 2026 Monument is a fully integrated real estate investment firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IaVBaB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 246 Shore Court Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, FL 33308 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com NATION FORD: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Settlement Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v. NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, Case No. 2:26-cv-02806-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a), (b) and (e) as follows: the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a), (b) and (e) as follows: (1) preliminary approving proposed Settlement Agreement with Carrier Global Corporation; (2) preliminary certifying, for settlement purposes only, of the Settlement Class; (3) approving the form of Notice to the Settlement Class; (4) approving the Notice Plan and approval of its commencement; (5) appointing Class Counsel; (6) appointing Class Representatives; (7) appointing the Notice Administrator; (8) appointing the Claims Administrator; (9) appointing the Opt Out Administrator; (10) appointing the Special Master; (11) scheduling of Objection, Opt Out, and other deadlines; and (12) scheduling of a Final Fairness Hearing. The Plaintiffs include City of Camden, California Water Service Company, City of Sioux Falls, City of South Shore, Coraopolis Water & Sewer Authority, and Township of Verona. Nation Ford is a custom and toll manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1sBlpk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. London, Esq. DOUGLAS AND LONDON P.C. One State Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 566-7500 Facsimile: (212) 566-7501 E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com - and - Scott Summy, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com - and - Joseph F. Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com NEW YORK, NY: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by August 14 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL PHILLIPS, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08149-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order as follows: The Plaintiffs may serve a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice with respect to how to search the records of the New York Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau for complaints, similar to the Plaintiffs' complaints in this action, that an individual with outstanding warrants was taken directly to Rikers Island or another city jail rather than taking them to court in the first instance. By July 30, 2026, the parties shall request a copy of the transcript of the Conference using the annexed form. By August 10, 2026, the parties are to file a joint status letter, not to exceed 750 words, attaching the Department of Corrections hit report discussed during the Conference. A telephonic discovery status conference is scheduled for August 13, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. ET on the Court’s conference line. The parties are directed to call: (855) 244- 8681; access code: 2308 226 4654, at the scheduled time. The Defendants' request for an extension of time to file their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. By August 14, 2026, Defendants shall file their opposition). The Plaintiffs shall file their reply, if any, by August 28, 2026. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jor3dd at no extra charge.[CC] ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Derivative Suits Stayed Pending Hubacek Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- ON Semiconductor Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending July 3, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2026, that the Hubacek securities class suit dismissal motion is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and the derivative suits are stayed pending resolution of the Hubacek securities class suit. On Dec. 13, 2023, a putative securities class action captioned Hubacek v. On Semiconductor Corp., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01429 (D. Del.), was filed by an alleged stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its officers, disclosing a series of claims concerning the Company's disclosures about its SiC business. This action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in March 2024, where it continued under the same caption. The initial complaint asserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleged that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the Company's SiC business. An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2024, again asserting claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks a ruling that the case may proceed as a class action and also seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 30, 2024. Upon reviewing the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the plaintiff deemed it necessary to further amend the pleading. On Sept. 6, 2024, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this second amended complaint on Oct. 10, 2024, and a full briefing on that motion was completed on Dec. 20, 2024. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint were subsequently heard by the court. A ruling on the motion to dismiss remained pending following oral argument, and the outcome of this motion will determine whether the action proceeds beyond the pleading stage or is dismissed in whole or in part. Separately, on Jan. 3, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Silva v. El-Khoury, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00007 (D. Del.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On Feb. 12, 2024, another purported stockholder derivative action captioned Smalley et al. v. El-Khoury et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00183 (D. Del.), was filed in the same court. Both the Silva and Smalley derivative actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on April 15, 2024. Additionally, on Feb. 28, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Mumme et al. v. El-Khoury et al., Case No. CV2024-003974 (D. Ariz.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa. On March 15, 2024, another purported stockholder derivative action captioned Chan et al. v. Abe et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00552 (D. Ariz.), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On June 16, 2025, a further purported stockholder derivative action captioned Balsam-Respler et al. v. El-Khoury et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-001672 (D. Ariz.), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On September 23, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona consolidated the Balsam-Respler and Chan derivative complaints into a consolidated action entitled In re ON Semiconductor Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. CV-24-00552 (D. AZ.). The allegations in these derivative complaints are substantially similar to the allegations in the securities class action complaint described in the primary proceeding. The derivative suits purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers for contribution under the federal securities laws and assert claims against all of the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste. The plaintiffs in the derivative actions seek an award of damages, pre-judgment interest, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs and expenses related to the litigation. The Company believes that the plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims on the Company's behalf. These pending derivative actions were stayed by agreement of the parties, pending the resolution of Hubacek v. On Semiconductor Corp. ON Semiconductor Corp. is a global provider of power and sensing semiconductor solutions serving automotive, industrial, communications, consumer, and computing end markets. The company designs, manufactures, and supplies a broad portfolio of energy-efficient devices used in power management, sensing, and connectivity applications worldwide. ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Removes Geaudreau Suit to E.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of JOHN GEAUDREAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Spokane (Case No. 26-2-02942-32) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on July 27, 2026. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00312 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Alexander C. Ekstrom. OnTrac Logistics, Inc. provides logistics services. The Company operates in the United States. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert Flemer, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 Email: rflemer@littler.com - and - Nate Oleson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 815 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006.4046 Telephone: (202) 842-3400 Facsimile: (202) 842-0011 Email: noleson@littler.com - and - Leslie P. Currie, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1800 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 500 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 442-8425 Facsimile: (703) 442-8428 Email: lcurrie@littler.com OOFOS INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Saunders Due June 24, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERREY SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OOFOS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-02537-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered a JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT order as follows: Event Date Initial disclosures: Aug. 7, 2026 Motion for class certification: June 24, 2027 Opposition to Class Certification Aug. 5, 2027 Reply in Support of Class Certification Sept. 16, 2027 Oofos, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells footwear. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dAyJQy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Jared D. Brown, Esq. MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC 39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 318 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 402-4078 E-mail: jdbrown@mcdonaldhopkins.com ORIENTAL TRADING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gray Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- SVETLANA GRAY; and TAKODA KOHORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00365-BCB-JMD (D. Nev., July 27, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a customer service representative. Oriental Trading Company, Inc. manufactures and distributes toys and games. The Company provides party supplies, crafts, snacks, costumes, toys, games, yarn, needle arts, paper crafts, rubber duckies, novelty jewelry, spinners, fidgets, and other products for Halloween, weddings, birthdays, and education. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Oscar A. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW PLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone: (734) 415-9011 Email: oscar@orodlaw.com - and - Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 Novi, MI 48375 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com PENNYMAC LOAN: Discloses Financial Info to 3rd Parties, Cohen Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARK COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04524 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, violation of the New York General Business Law, and multistate unfair and deceptive trade practices. The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing the Plaintiff's and other consumers' personal financial information to third parties without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant installed tracking technologies with its online platform to track and record its customers' interactions and share the data to third parties. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff's and other Class members' privacy rights are violated, says the suit. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC is a financial institution based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 849-8060 Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com PHENOMENEX INC: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Sept. 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salma Ahamed v. Phenomenex, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01472-WLH-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that the hearing on Plaintiff's pending Motion for Class Certification is continued to September 4, 2026. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "similarly situated individuals who are presently employed or were formerly employed by Defendants in California from December 3, 2020 through trial who were: (1) misclassified as exempt employees; (2) not paid minimum wage for all hours worked; (3) not paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked; (4) not provided legally compliant rest periods; (5) not provided legally complaint meal periods; (6) not provided accurate wage statements; or (7) not paid all earned wages timely upon termination of their employment." Phenomenex provides analytical chemistry solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ruchIQ at no extra charge.[CC] PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Johnson's Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWANNA JOHNSON, et al., v. Providence Homeowners Association et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for appointment of class counsel is denied as moot. The Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to affirmatively demonstrate that Rule 23's requirements are met. Class certification will therefore be denied. As the class action device is not superior under the circumstances, deviation from the ordinary rule of individual representation is unwarranted. Class certification will therefore be denied. The Plaintiffs propose certifying "a Fed. R. Civ. P[.] 23(b)(3) class of voucher tenants residing in [Providence HOA] and injured by [FirstService’s] policies and actions for whom an award of damages is sought." Providence governs over 2,250 homes in the town of Providence Village, a suburb about an hour north of Dallas. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t44Jlo at no extra charge.[CC] QUEST HOSPITALITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY ANICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and KRYSTLE ANICH, v. QUEST HOSPITALITY CONCEPTS, LLC D/B/A THE CITIZEN, Case No. 3:25-cv-01994-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion and enlarging the deadline for Quest to respond to the motion to certify class for an additional fourteen days until Aug. 20, 2026. Accordingly, Quest requests an additional fourteen-day extension of time from the extended deadline for Quest to respond to the Motion to Certify Class. This requested relief will shift the deadline to respond from Thursday, Aug. 6, 2026 to Aug. 20, 2026. Such relief is necessary to allow Quest's counsel to depose the Plaintiffs and obtain copies of the transcripts back from the court reporter in reasonable time before the deadline to respond and is based on the shift in the deposition dates being changed due to Tropical Storm Bertha. Additionally, Counsel for Quest has communicated with the Plaintiffs' counsel via electronic mail on Monday, July 27, 2026, and the Plaintiffs' counsel has confirmed that the Plaintiffs do not oppose the requested extension of time as long as Plaintiffs still have fourteen days to reply. On Oct. 16, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Initial Complaint against Quest, alleging collective action claims under Florida and federal law as well as individual tortious interference claims. Quest Hospitality is a hospitality and restaurant management company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bOoMyy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jeremy C. Branning, Esq. Jacob F. Barnes, Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 13 Palafox Place, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (448) 239-6500 E-mail: jbranning@joneswalker.com jacobbarnes@joneswalker.com pimperial@joneswalker.com jdallman@joneswalker.com RAYTHEON BARGAINING: Time to File Class Cert Reply Extended ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timmieo Curry, v. Raytheon Bargaining Retirement Plan and Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00129-JAS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Soto entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file his reply in further support of his combined motion for class certification and motion for leave to amend complaint to conform to class definition. Raytheon is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rTjwHA at no extra charge.[CC] ROSCO PRODUCTION: Parties Seek to Defer Date for Class Cert Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE OLAGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROSCO PRODUCTION LA LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; DANIEL A. WORTHINGTON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-03314-JFW-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to defer the date for filing the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. This request will not require any change in the presently scheduled May 25, 2027, trial date, or any of the other established pretrial deadlines. The Parties request that this Court defer the Aug. 10, 2026, date for filing the Motion for Class Certification to Nov. 13, 2026, also extending the time for the defense Opposition to Dec. 4, 2026, with the Plaintiff's Reply to be filed on Dec. 11, 2026. Moving the class certification briefing deadline directly serves judicial economy, as avoiding intensive class discovery and briefing will save both the Parties and the judiciary significant resources while settlement is actively being pursued. This relief will permit the Parties to concentrate on resolving the case informally, completing Mediation and thereby potentially avoiding a four-day trial and the necessity of this Court hearing various discovery and summary judgment motions, as well as resolving motions in limine and other pretrial matters. On May 11, 2026, the Parties filed a Stipulation to continue the Scheduling Conference, but the court denied the Stipulation as moot because the Court issued dates based on the joint report. On July 24, 2026, the Parties filed a Stipulation for Extension of Time in Which to File Motion for Class Certification, but the Court struck the Stipulation due the failure to follow paragraph 7 of the Court's Standing Order. The Parties are now resubmitting this amended Stipulation to comply with paragraph 7 of the Court's Standing Order. Rosco is a full-service production company with locations in London, Paris, Los Angeles, and New York. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NJKemm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 E-mail: HarrisA@harrisandruble.com DGarrett@harrisandruble.com The Defendants are represented by: Camilla Chan, Esq. Megan Mallonee, Esq. FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN + SELZ PC 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2500N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 579-9600 Facsimile: (310) 579-9650 E-mail: cchan@fkks.com mmallonee@fkks.com SCRIPPS HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to file Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, and CATHERINE GOREY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SCRIPPS HEALTH, Case No. 3:23-cv-02215-AGS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending (1) deadline to complete discovery for class certification and (2) Plaintiffs' deadline to file motion for class certification. On March 12, 2026, the Court ordered that "all discovery for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification must be completed on or before August 7, 2026" and that Plaintiffs' "motion for class certification must be filed no later than September 11, 2026." Since that time, the Parties have worked diligently to meet these deadlines. The Parties met and conferred for months to resolve various discovery disputes, Plaintiffs have served numerous third-party subpoenas, the Parties are in the process of agreeing on ESI search terms, and a deposition was taken on July 22, 2026. Additionally, Scripps served its own discovery requests on Plaintiffs on June 15, 2026. Plaintiffs' requested, and Scripps agreed to, an extension of Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to such discovery requests. Scripps is a nonprofit health care system. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KKKIpw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com - and - Scott R. Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Telephone: (312) 358-8225 E-mail: scott@drurylegal.com - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Alex J. Tramontano, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com tramontano@whafh.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 375 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (747) 777-7748 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Dyanne J. Cho, Esq. Teresa C. Chow, Esq. Alexander Vitruk, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com dcho@bakerlaw.com avitruk@bakerlaw.com SELENE FINANCE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTEL ENGLAND, KAREN MEYERS, and ANGELA JOYNERPERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Case No. 1:23-cv-00847-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for extension of the deadline by which it must respond to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion up through and including Aug. 17, 2026, as well as corresponding extension of the Plaintiffs' reply to the same up through and including Sept. 14, 2026. The Defendant's deadline to file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification has not yet expired. This extension will not affect any other deadlines under the Court's Scheduling Order, including the discovery deadline of Sept. 4, 2026, and the Dispositive Motion deadline of Oct. 2, 2026. The Plaintiffs commenced this action on Oct. 4, 2023, asserting claims under the FDCPA, NCDCA, and the NCCAA, and for negligent misrepresentation. Selene operates as a residential mortgage company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xaEDNA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: D. Kyle Deak, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 301 S. College Street, 34th Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (919) 835-4133 E-mail: kyle.deak@troutman.com SHOPNOMIX LLC: Standing Order Entered in Ad.Com Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AD.COM INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC., v. SHOPNOMIX LLC, et al. Case No. 2:26-cv-07062-RGK-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered a standing order regarding newly assigned cases: The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule. Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court as a supplement to the petition. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance with Local Rules. Petitioner(s) shall file and serve within 3 days of the date of this order an ex parte application requesting a hearing on the Petition to ensure prompt resolution of the Petition in compliance with section 983(f)’s deadlines. All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to hear all discovery disputes. Shopnomix is a performance advertising platform. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OUg8k6 at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHERN CO: Move to Dismiss Amended Antitrust Class Suit Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Co Gas disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 29, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that it is facing a purported class action complaint filed in July 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against two nuclear consulting companies and all U.S. commercial nuclear power operators, or affiliated entities, including Southern Company. Plaintiffs consists of all persons employed in nuclear power generation by the defendants, including nuclear operators, nuclear engineers, and nuclear technicians, from May 1, 2003 to the present. The complaint alleges that, since at least May 2003, the nuclear power industry conspired to fix and suppress employee compensation for nuclear power generation employees in violation of federal antitrust law. Although not named as defendants, other entities are also accused of having participated in the alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs seek to recover, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. In October 2025, Southern Company moved to dismiss the complaint. In November 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming Southern Nuclear, among others, as a defendant. In December 2025, Southern Company and Southern Nuclear filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Southern Co. Gas, a subsidiary of The Southern Company, distributes natural gas to residential, commercial, and industrial customers across several states in the southeastern United States. It operates regulated utility businesses focused on providing reliable, affordable energy with an emphasis on safety and environmental compliance. STANLEY BLACK: Renewed Dismissal Bid in Securities Case Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending July 4, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2026, that it is facing a putative federal securities class action and related derivative proceedings arising from allegations about its public statements on consumer demand and macroeconomic conditions. On March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled "Naresh Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:23-cv-00369-KAD, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between Oct. 28, 2021, and July 28, 2022, inclusive. It asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to consumer demand for the Company's products amid changing COVID-19 trends and macroeconomic conditions. The complaint sought unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses. On Oct. 13, 2023, Lead Plaintiff General Retirement System of the City of Detroit filed an Amended Complaint that asserted the same claims and sought the same forms of relief as the original complaint. On Dec. 14, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. The briefing on that motion concluded on April 5, 2024. On Sept. 30, 2025, lead plaintiff provided Defendants with a proposed second amended complaint on Oct. 30, 2025, and defendants consented to its filing. Lead plaintiff subsequently filed its second amended complaint on Nov. 14, 2025, asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class and seeking the same forms of relief as the prior complaints. Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss on Dec. 18, 2025, while plaintiff filed its opposition to dismiss on Jan. 29, 2026. Defendants filed a reply in support of their renewed motion to dismiss on Feb. 19, 2026. On Aug. 2, 2023 and Sept. 20, 2023, derivative complaints were filed in the District of Connecticut, titled "Callahan v. Allan, et al.," Case No. 3:23-cv-01028-OAW, and "Applebaum v. Allan, et al.," Case No. 3:23-cv-01234-OAW, respectively. These actions were brought by putative stockholders against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company and are premised on the same allegations as the Rammohan case. The Callahan and Applebaum actions were consolidated by court order on Nov. 6, 2023. Defendants' responses to both complaints have been stayed pending the disposition of any motions to dismiss in the Rammohan Class Action. On Oct. 19, 2023, a derivative complaint was filed in Connecticut Superior Court, titled "Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Allan, et al.," Docket Number HHBCV236082260S, by a putative stockholder against certain current and former directors and officers of the company. The plaintiff seeks to recover for alleged breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment under Connecticut state law, premised on the same allegations as the Rammohan Class Action. By court order on Nov. 11, 2023, the Connecticut Superior Court granted the parties' motion to stay defendants' response to the complaint pending the disposition of any motions to dismiss in the Rammohan Class Action. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. is a global provider of hand tools, power tools, outdoor products, and industrial solutions serving professional, construction, and consumer markets worldwide. It is headquartered in New Britain, Connecticut. STAR POWER: Garcia Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEIHARIK GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STAR POWER MARKETING GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04823-CH (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting renewed motion for class certification. Because the Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 23's admittedly deferential requirements, Plaintiff requests that this Court (1) certify the proposed Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) and, concurrently, under Rule 23(b)(2) as to injunctive and declaratory relief only, (2) appoint Ms. Garcia to serve as the Class Representative, and (3) appoint Perrong Law LLC as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). Thus, class-wide liability is the only way to ensure that corporations such as Star Power stop systematically violating the law and compensate those who were injured. The Plaintiff requests that this Court certify the National DNC class and PTRA class as follows under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and, concurrently, for corresponding injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2): National DNC Class: All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf of Defendant encouraging the purchase of Star Power’s goods or services, (3) within a 12-month period (4) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial. Pennsylvania Telemarketer Registration Act Class: All persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as determined through their area codes, who (1) received a telephone call from or on behalf of Defendant, (2) at any time during which Defendant was acting as a “telemarketer” but not licensed as a “telemarketer” with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, (3) at any time in the period that begins two years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial. The Defendant is a marketing and promotional company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EFgZni at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 1669 Edgewood Road, Suite 218 Yardley, PA 19067 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 (CALL-LAW) Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com SUPERNUS PHARMA: Continues to Defend Korver Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Supernus Pharmaceuticals, 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 Aug. 3, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Korver securities class suit and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A federal securities class action pending in the Southern District of New York. On Aug. 28, 2024, plaintiff Darren Korver filed a purported federal securities class action lawsuit in that court against Sage Therapeutics, Inc. and individuals Barry E. Greene and Kimi Iguchi, both of whom are former officers of Sage (the Securities Class Action). The action alleges violations of U.S. securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks an as-yet unspecified amount of damages allegedly sustained by parties who purchased Sage Therapeutics stock between April 12, 2021, and July 23, 2024, as well as applicable attorneys' fees and costs. Sage denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against the Securities Class Action. Pursuant to a statutorily prescribed process, the court appointed two new class representatives, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds and Trust of the Retirement System of the UPR. These new class representatives filed an amended complaint on March 3, 2025, against the original defendants and five additional former officers of Sage. The amended complaint maintains the allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, based on the same alleged class period of April 12, 2021, through July 23, 2024, and continues to seek an unspecified amount of damages along with attorneys' fees and costs. On April 17, 2025, Sage Therapeutics, along with all of the individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action in the Southern District of New York. On Feb. 18, 2026, plaintiffs filed a letter with the court seeking leave to amend their complaint and asking the court to refrain from deciding the motion to dismiss pending the court's decision on the request to file an amended complaint. On March 10, 2026, defendants submitted a letter to the court joining plaintiffs' request of Feb. 18, 2026. On April 3, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation, which the court so ordered on April 9, 2026, permitting plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 15, 2026. On April 30, 2026, plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2026, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Lead plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss is due by Aug. 31, 2026, and defendants' reply in further support of their motion is due by Sept. 22, 2026. Related derivative actions remain stayed pending the resolution of this motion. Additionally, multiple shareholder derivative actions have been filed in the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Sage Therapeutics, against various current and former officers and directors of the Company. On March 26, 2025, plaintiff shareholder Qingping Zhu commenced derivative litigation in that court against sixteen current and former officers and directors of Sage (the Zhu Derivative Litigation). Based significantly on the allegations underlying the Securities Class Action, the Zhu Derivative Litigation alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks unspecified damages and various equitable relief. On April 14, 2025, the Southern District of New York granted a stay of the Zhu Derivative Litigation pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Securities Class Action. On May 13, 2025, plaintiff shareholder Jurgen Matton commenced derivative litigation in the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Sage Therapeutics, against sixteen current and former officers and directors of Sage Therapeutics (the Matton Derivative Litigation). Based significantly on the allegations underlying the Securities Class Action, the Matton Derivative Litigation alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks unspecified damages and various equitable relief. Separately, on May 22, 2025, plaintiff shareholder Joseph Pizzelanti commenced derivative litigation in the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Sage Therapeutics, against 16 current and former officers and directors of the Company (the Pizzelanti Derivative Litigation). Based significantly on the allegations underlying the Securities Class Action, the Pizzelanti Derivative Litigation alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks unspecified damages and various equitable relief. Related derivative actions remain stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Securities Class Action. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a U.S.-based biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing products for the treatment of central nervous system diseases. It markets a portfolio of neurology and psychiatry therapies and pursues a pipeline of additional CNS drug candidates. TIM TIPTON: Court Narrows Claims in Leatherwood Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DON LEATHERWOOD, v. TIM TIPTON, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01300-J (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Stephens entered a judgment granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss by dismissing the Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants except for his official-capacity claims against Defendant Doyle for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court further recommends that the Court deny the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of counsel and deny as moot the Plaintiff's motion to substitute. The parties are advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of Court not later than Aug. 17, 2026. Failure to object timely waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in this Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation does not dispose of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in this matter The undersigned agrees with the recent analysis of the Hamilton court and similarly concludes Plaintiff here has sufficiently alleged the Defendant Doyle has "some connection" with the enforcement of the sex offender designation requirement of section 6- 111(E). Because the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he cannot represent the interests of the proposed class, and the class therefore should not be certified. Because there is no class and no class will be certified, neither Rule 23(g)(1) nor Rule 23(g)(3) applies. Tim Tipton is the Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=et6QNV at no extra charge.[CC] TWIST BIOSCIENCE: $17.05MM Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ Simpluris, Inc., the court-appointed Claims Administrator, issued a statement regarding Anthony Joseph Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-08168-EKL. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ANTHONY JOSEPH PETERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TWIST BIOSCIENCE CORPORATION, EMILY M. LEPROUST, and JAMES M. THORBURN Defendants. Case No. 5:22-cv-08168-EKL CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TWIST COMMON STOCK (i) IN THE DECEMBER 2020 OFFERING PURSUANT TO THE 2020 REGISTRATION STATEMENT; AND/OR (ii) BETWEEN DECEMBER 20, 2018, AND NOVEMBER 15, 2022, BOTH INCLUSIVE. THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. Pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court") and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a hearing will be held on November 18, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Eumi K. Lee, in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the litigation (the "Litigation") for the sum of $17,050,000 in cash (the "Settlement") should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement; (3) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated April 30, 2026 (the "Stipulation"); (4) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; (5) the reasonableness of the application for payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation together with the interest earned thereon (and any payment to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with its representation of the Settlement Class); and (6) whether the Parties' mutual releases of the Released Claims as set forth in the Stipulation should be ordered, along with a permanent injunction barring efforts to prosecute any Released Claims extinguished by the Settlement. The Court may change the date of this hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. The Litigation has been preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of a Settlement Class of all Persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Twist common stock: (i) in the December 2020 Offering pursuant to the 2020 Registration Statement, and/or (ii) between December 20, 2018 and November 15, 2022, both inclusive, except for certain Persons or entities excluded from the Settlement Class, as defined in the full Long-Form Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Long-Form Notice"), which is available as described below. If the Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the Litigation. A detailed description of the Litigation, including important information about your rights and options, is in the detailed Long-Form Notice available at www.TwistSecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Twist Securities Litigation, c/o Claims Administrator P.O. Box 25199 Santa Ana, CA 92799. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") online at www.TwistSecuritiesSettlement.com or by mail postmarked no later than November 17, 2026. Failure to timely submit a Proof of Claim will subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from receiving any payment from the Settlement. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion electronically submitted or postmarked by October 7, 2026, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Long-Form Notice referred to above. All Members of the Settlement Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation should be sent only to the Court and must be mailed or delivered to the Clerk of Court at the address below such that it is received no later than October 7, 2026: Court: Clerk of the Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse 280 South 1st Street, Room 2112 San Jose, California 95113 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact counsel for Plaintiff at the address listed above, email twistsettlement@bfalaw.com, call (888) 879-9418, or go to the following website: www.TwistSecuritiesSettlement.com. DATED: July 17, 2026 BY THE COURT: Judge Eumi K. Lee TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Securities, Derivative Suit Settlements Reached ----------------------------------------------------------------- Twist Bioscience Corp. 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 Aug. 3, 2026, that Twist Bioscience Corporation delivered a Form 10-Q to the SEC on Aug. 4, 2026, disclosing that settlement is reached in both securities and derivative suits. On Dec. 12, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.) (the "Securities Class Action") was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks relief on behalf of a putative class of investors. The case was assigned to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for further proceedings. The defendants in the action are collectively referred to as the "Defendants." On March 31, 2026, the parties to the Securities Class Action engaged in mediation. Following that mediation session, they reached a settlement in principle under which the Company would pay, or cause its insurance carriers to pay, a settlement payment of approximately $17.1 million. The settlement in principle was presented to the relevant parties and is reflected in the Company's litigation accruals as of June 30, 2026. Additionally, the Company delivered a Form 10-Q to the SEC on Aug. 4, 2026, disclosing that it recorded a litigation settlement liability for a shareholder derivative action of $1 million as of June 30, 2026. This amount is included in its litigation accruals and relates to a consolidated derivative action based on substantially the same allegations as the Securities Class Action. The filing explains that the Company's liability insurers are expected to fund a fee payment to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the derivative settlement. On Sept. 25, 2023, a shareholder derivative suit captioned Shumacher v. Leproust et al., No. 1:23-cv-01048-UNA, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against directors of the Company and an employee (the "Shumacher Action"). The suit is based on substantially the same allegations as those asserted in the Securities Class Action and seeks to recover, on behalf of the Company, damages to the Company arising from, among other things, the Securities Class Action. On Nov. 13, 2023, the parties to the Shumacher Action entered into a stipulation staying the Shumacher Action pending further proceedings in the Securities Class Action. On Nov. 13, 2025, another derivative lawsuit captioned Sell v. Leproust, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01380-MN, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleging similar claims and seeking similar recovery as the Shumacher Action (the "Sell Action"). On Dec. 2, 2025, the Sell Action was consolidated with the Shumacher Action and stayed pending further proceedings in the Securities Class Action. On July 2, 2026, the parties to the consolidated action filed a stipulation for continued stay of the action pending mediation. On July 15, 2026, the parties engaged in mediation and reached a settlement in principle under which the Company will formally adopt and codify certain corporate governance policies. In addition, under the settlement in principle, the Company's liability insurers will pay a fee of approximately $1 million to the plaintiffs' counsel. The parties are in the process of documenting the derivative settlement, and it will be presented to the court for approval. Twist Bioscience Corp. is a synthetic biology and genomics company that manufactures and sells DNA-based products, including synthetic DNA, next-generation sequencing tools, and antibody libraries. It serves customers in industries such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, and academic research. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wright Sues Over Priority Fee Misrepresentations ------------------------------------------------------------------- HASSAN WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. d/b/a Uber Eats, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-07753 (N.D. Cal., July 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for fraud. The case arises from the Defendant's material misrepresentations and omissions regarding its delivery services' "priority fee" option. According to the complaint, under this option, the Defendant falsely promises that customers can pay extra to have food orders delivered directly to them. In reality, the Defendant's drivers are permitted, even encouraged, to make other stops along the way. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive business practices, the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers suffered damages, says the suit. Uber Technologies, Inc., doing business as Uber Eats, is an online food ordering and delivery platform solutions provider based in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 115 Broadway, 5th Fl. New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 Email: raphael@janove.law - and - Liana Vitale, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 979 Osos St., Ste. A5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 505-9550 Email: liana@janove.law - and - Elizabeth Aniskevich, Esq. Jennifer Yadoo, Esq. Ryan Crosswell, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 650 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (619) 771-3473 Email: eaniskevich@singletonschreiber.com jyadoo@singletonschreiber.com rcrosswell@singletonschreiber.com - and - Anna Haac, Esq. HAAC LAW, LLC 11810 Grand Park Ave., Ste. 500 North Bethesda, MD 20852 Telephone: (240) 389-0199 Email: anna@haaclaw.com UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cole Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- GARY COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00733-MWM (S.D. Ohio, July 27, 2026) is an action against the Defendant Unlimited's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with prompt and full notice of the Data Breach. The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information with which it was entrusted for treatment, says the suit. Unlimited Technology Systems, LLC was founded in 2003. The company's line of business includes providing computer programming services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com UPONOR INC: Carrico Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian Carrico, Kacie Carrico, Don Gatlin, Dora Gatlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uponor, Inc., Uponor North America, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, whose true names are unknown, Case No. 3:23-cv-00497 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-03440-JMB-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability. Uponor, Inc. -- https://www.uponor.com/en-us -- provides plumbing, indoor climate, and infrastructure systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Louis, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9989 Email: brian.louis@wilshirelawfirm.com VESTIS CORP: Plaintiff Seeks to Extend Class Cert Reply Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS AND APPRENTICES LOCAL NO. 112, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VESTIS CORPORATION, ARAMARK, KIMBERLY SCOTT, RICK DILLON, and JOHN J. ZILLMER, Case No. 1:24-cv-02175-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the class certification reply deadline from August 10, 2026, to August 19, 2026. In light of (i) the issues raised in Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification, as well as the Expert Report of Paul Zurek, Ph.D., submitted in support thereof; (ii) the fact that Dr. Zurek is getting deposed on July 30, 2026; and (iii) summer scheduling conflicts and other preexisting professional obligations on the part of Lead Counsel, Lead Plaintiffs request a modest nine-day extension of the reply deadline. Lead Plaintiffs have conferred with Defendants, and Defendants have confirmed that they do not oppose this request. Vestis is a major North American provider of uniform rental, workplace supplies, and facility services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MLyfbw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Dianne M. Pitre, Esq. Jonathan Lamet, Esq. Steven B. Singer, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com dpitre@saxenawhite.com jlamet@saxenawhite.com ssinger@saxenawhite.com - and - W. Thomas Lacy, Jr., Esq. LINDSEY & LACY, PC 200 Westpark Drive, Suite 280 Peachtree City, GA 30269 Telephone: (770) 486-8445 Facsimile: (770) 486-8889 E-mail: tlacy@llptc.com VICOR CORP: Pouladian Securities Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------------- Vicor Corp. 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 facing a consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against it and a subsequent ruling on a motion to dismiss. On July 11, 2024, purported short sellers of the company's stock filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California styled "Benjamin Pouladian et al. v. Vicor Corporation et al.," case number 3:24-cv-04196. The suit was brought against the company and its Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chairman. It alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements during earnings calls in 2023 about the Companys commercial relationship with an existing customer. It sought damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On Oct. 24, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and restyled the case as "In re Vicor Securities Litigation." An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 22, 2024, which similarly alleged purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Jan. 20, 2025, and on June 6, 2025, the Northern District of California granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Vicor Corp. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets modular power components and complete power systems for a broad range of performance-critical electronic applications. It serves customers in industries such as computing, industrial equipment, automotive, aerospace, and defense. VIN LUX LLC: Nieto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vin Lux LLC, et al. The case is styled as Luis Felipe Nieto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Vin Lux LLC, Traverse Resources LLC, Case No. 26STCV23813 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." VINLUX -- https://www.vin-lux.com/ -- is a family-owned business with over 50 years of expertise in the self-adhesive architectural vinyl industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache Thomassian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N Maryland Ave., Ste. 306 Glendale, CA 91206-4281 Phone: 818-507-8525 Fax: 818-507-8588 Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com WALMART INC: Settlement Deal in Morris Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDY MORRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC., previously known as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; TELECHECK SERVICES, LLC; and TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00016-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Morris entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to approve settlement agreement of class action, class certification, plan notice, and class counsel's attorneys' fee award. The above action is dismissed with prejudice as fully and finally settled and compromised. The Clerk is directed to close this matter. The Court approves the Settlement Agreement under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement proves fair, reasonable, and adequate, and its terms are within the range of reasonableness. The Court accordingly certifies, for settlement purposes only, a class under Rule 23(b)(2), consisting of: "All customers who have written or will write a check for payment of goods or services at any Walmart store in the United States of America." Excluded from the Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class are (i) counsel of record (and their respective law firms) for any of the Parties; (ii) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (iii) any appellate court to which this Lawsuit is assigned, and its immediate family and staff. The Court finds that Class Counsel's request for $1,821,724.88 in attorneys' fees is reasonable under the prevailing standard in the Ninth Circuit for the approval of fee awards for injunctive-relief-only class settlements. The Court finds Class Counsel's "lodestar multiplier of approximately 1.7" reasonable in light of the significant and valuable relief to the Class, rendered as against Walmart, especially in light of the novel and difficult legal questions raised by this Lawsuit. Lastly, the Court finds Class Counsel's out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the amount of $13,275.12 were reasonable and in furtherance of the litigation. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6MVeis at no extra charge.[CC] WAX CENTER PARTNERS: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, et al. The case is styled as Breana Williams, Lindsey Miller, and all others similarly situated employees v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 26CV016008 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Wax Center Partners -- https://www.waxcenterpartners.com/ -- is one of the fastest-growing franchisees of European Wax Centers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eve Howe, Esq. D.LAW 250 N. Madison Ave, 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: +1 818 962 6465 WERNER ENTERPRISES: Settlement Classes in Smith Win Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:15CV287 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Bataillon entered a final approval order as follows: For settlement purposes, the Court confirms its certification of the California Settlement Class and the Nebraska Settlement Class, defined as follows: California Settlement Class: "All current and former drivers who, while residing in California and working for Werner as a qualified driver at any time between June 4, 2010, and July 14, 2023, picked up or delivered at least one load for Werner in the state of California and who have not submitted a timely request for exclusion to prior class notices and did not timely request exclusion from the settlement after receiving the Settlement Notice;" Nebraska Settlement Class "All current and former drivers who worked for Werner anywhere in the United States as a qualified driver at any time between June 4, 2010, and July 14, 2023, and who have not submitted a timely request for exclusion to prior class notices and did not timely request exclusion from this settlement after receiving the Settlement Notice." The Court confirms the appointment of the seven Class Representatives, Ezequiel Olivares Abarca, Alfredo Alesna, Jr., David Cagle, Stephen L. Davis, Frank Eads, Kenneth J. Surman, and William Smith, as class representatives, and of Swartz Swidler, LLC; Dardarian Ho Kan & Lee; the Sitkin Law Office; and the Mara Law Firm, PC as Class Counsel. The objections of Jonathan Joe Esters, Samuel B. Goldstone, and Jacintha Sparks are OVERRULED in their entirety. The objection of Jacintha Sparks is further overruled as untimely and invalid. The settlement of the claims brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act is APPROVED. The $100,000 PAGA allocation shall be distributed, $75,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $25,000 to the PAGA Group, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The Court awards Class Counsel attorneys' fees of $6,000,000 (one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount) and reimbursement of litigation costs of $1,702,917.85, both payable from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The Court awards service awards of $15,000 to each of the seven Class Representatives and $250 to each of the twenty-one additional deposed class members, payable from the Settlement Fund. 10. Settlement Administration. The Court approves the reasonable fees and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, Atticus Administration, LLC, in the amount of $282,300, payable from the Settlement Fund. Werner is a major American transportation and logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cWqCoX at no extra charge.[CC] WERNER ENTERPRISES: Settlement Classes in Vester Win Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN VESTER and JOEL MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:17CV145 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Bataillon entered a final approval order as follows: For settlement purposes, the Court confirms its certification of the California Settlement Class and the Nebraska Settlement Class, defined as follows: California Settlement Class: "All current and former drivers who, while residing in California and working for Werner as a qualified driver at any time between June 4, 2010, and July 14, 2023, picked up or delivered at least one load for Werner in the state of California and who have not submitted a timely request for exclusion to prior class notices and did not timely request exclusion from the settlement after receiving the Settlement Notice;" Nebraska Settlement Class "All current and former drivers who worked for Werner anywhere in the United States as a qualified driver at any time between June 4, 2010, and July 14, 2023, and who have not submitted a timely request for exclusion to prior class notices and did not timely request exclusion from this settlement after receiving the Settlement Notice." The Court confirms the appointment of the seven Class Representatives, Ezequiel Olivares Abarca, Alfredo Alesna, Jr., David Cagle, Stephen L. Davis, Frank Eads, Kenneth J. Surman, and William Smith, as class representatives, and of Swartz Swidler, LLC; Dardarian Ho Kan & Lee; the Sitkin Law Office; and the Mara Law Firm, PC as Class Counsel. The objections of Jonathan Joe Esters, Samuel B. Goldstone, and Jacintha Sparks are OVERRULED in their entirety. The objection of Jacintha Sparks is further overruled as untimely and invalid. The settlement of the claims brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act is APPROVED. The $100,000 PAGA allocation shall be distributed, $75,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $25,000 to the PAGA Group, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The Court awards Class Counsel attorneys' fees of $6,000,000 (one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount) and reimbursement of litigation costs of $1,702,917.85, both payable from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The Court awards service awards of $15,000 to each of the seven Class Representatives and $250 to each of the twenty-one additional deposed class members, payable from the Settlement Fund. 10. Settlement Administration. The Court approves the reasonable fees and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, Atticus Administration, LLC, in the amount of $282,300, payable from the Settlement Fund. Werner is a major American transportation and logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PhIzIn at no extra charge.[CC] WESTLAKE SERVICES: Madero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westlake Services, LLC. The case is styled as Yasmin Madero, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Westlake Services, LLC, Case No. 26STCV23690 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2026). Westlake Services, LLC, doing business as Westlake Financial -- https://www.westlakefinancial.com/ -- operates as a finance company. The Company provides auto finance, equity loans, and other financial products, as well as specializes in servicing of prime to subprime automotive retail installment contracts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334 Phone: 323-775-9000 Fax: 323-775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com WIS IVS LLC: Banks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against WIS IVS, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michele Banks, and all others similarly situated v. WIS IVS, LLC, Retail Services WIS Corporation dba WIS International, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV018335 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." WIS IVS, LLC doing business as WIS International -- https://wisintl.com/ -- offers supply-chain & inventory management solutions empowering accuracy & efficiency across retail, healthcare, auto & warehousing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eve Howe, Esq. D.LAW 250 N. Madison Ave, 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: +1 818 962 6465 ZUMBA FITNESS: Kueppers Suit Seeks More Time to File Reply ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE KUEPPERS; and WATANYA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZUMBA FITNESS, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61983-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion and extending the Plaintiffs' deadline to reply in support of the motion for class certification by eight days, up to and including Aug. 10, 2026. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Oct. 10, 2024. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs request that the Court certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and award them and other class members monetary damages for the Defendant's alleged violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. The Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss on May 8, 2025. The Defendant provides fitness products and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CxzmEf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank Hedin, Esq. Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3332 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com tsomes@hedinllp.com ********* 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 ***