251128.mbx

251128.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 28, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 238 Headlines ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit AIOS INC: Brenneise Suit Alleges Data Privacy Violations ALLIED AVIATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Alleges AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Simons Suit over SEC Disclosures ANAERGIA INC: Ontario Court Certifies Securities Class Action Suit ANGEION GROUP: Sues Over Settlement Administration Services ANTHONY'S RED: Echols Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ANTOJITOS MEXICANOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Angel Says ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Ashour Seeks to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal AVLI RESTAURANT: Cazares Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind B&B ACQUISITION: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BALLY'S MANAGEMENT: District Court Dismisses ERISA Class Action BB BEAUTY: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BEYOND INC: Johnson Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. BJH HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Weston Alleges BLUE CRANE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Youngren Says BOBER LAW: Seeks to Enforce Settlement Agreement in Hill BOGGI NEW: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says BYHEART INC: Zetterstrom Sues Over Mislabeled Infant Formula BYZFUNDER NY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Bid to Compel Arbitration of Narayan Claims OK'd COBRE CORP: Commercial Property Inaccessible to Disabled People CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges CROCS RETAIL: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Crosby Says DANONE INC: Settles Silk Canada Milk Class Action Suit for $6.5MM DOORDASH INC: Settles Deceptive Fees Class Action Suit for $18MM DOXIMITY INC: Bid for Class Cert Withdrawn EAST JEFFERSON: Junge Data Breach Suit Removed to E.D. La. ENGAGEMENT MARKETING: Anderson Seeks Equal Website Access to Blind EQUITY PROJECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thomas Alleges EXACT SCIENCES: M&A Investigates Sale to Abbott Laboratories FACTOR 75 LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Crosby Says FIGMA INC: Faces Class Suit for Using Customer Designs to Train AI FLAGSTAR BANK: $1.23MM Class Settlement Gets Court Prelim OK GOOGLE LLC: G Suite Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Jan. 5 JAYUD GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit KE HOLDINGS: $4.95MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 27 KENNECOTT UTAH: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Bascom" FLSA Suit KENNETH COLE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lewis Claims KENVUE INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Kimberly-Clark KIND PATCHES: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit KING.COM LIMITED: Faces Class Action Suit Over Marketing Deception KMART AUSTRALIA: May Face Suit Over Asbestos Contaminated Play Sand LAGUNA HONDA: Agrees to Settle Patient Safety Class Suit for $5.8MM MARINER WEALTH: Settles Employee Class Action Suit for $25.5MM MARY ELLEN BOWEN: Divorce Statute Case Removed to W.D. Tex. MERCY HEALTH: Seeks to Decertify FLSA Collective Action META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition MP2 ENTERPRISES: Brandi-Vanmeter Wins Class Cert Bid NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 20, 2026 NAVY FEDERAL: Agrees to $1.7MM EFTA Class Action Settlement NEXGEN AIR: Agrees to Settle Marketing Class Action for $3.8 Mil. NUVISTA ENERGY: M&A Investigates Merger With Ovintiv Inc OCUGEN INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal OISELLE LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Davis Says OLD DOMINION: Agrees to Settle ERISA Class Action for $1.9-Mil. OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: $39MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 6 ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Eagan Alleges OTTER TAIL CORP: Antitrust Suit Ongoing in Canada Court PERSONIC MANAGEMENT: Provides Notice to Patients on Data Breach STAKE CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Drake Suit Alleges TD BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Employee Discrimination TEREX CORP: M&A Investigates Merger With REV Group TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misuse of Personal Data TREX COMPANY: Frost Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TRINITY HEALTH: Agrees to Settle 2021 Data Breach Suit for $450,000 UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Class Suit Over Federal Bathroom Policy WILDERMUTH FUND: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 29 X CORP: John Doe NCII Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,669 PI Claims as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Defends 2,794 Active PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Still Faces Product Liability Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Faces 833 Pending PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $1.03BB Superfund Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Inc. Defends Product Liability Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $404MM Reserves at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Faces Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Reports 17,000 Pending PI Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Nexus Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $97MM Pending and Future Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck Has 605 Pending Talc Cases at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 2,013 New Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: ODP Corp. Estimates up to $25MM Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Has 17,540 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 163 Personal Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 119 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Defends PI Lawsuits ********* ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on December 3, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed on October 16, 2024 against the company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled "Kachrodia v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:24-cv-01238, which was pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, was consolidated with another suit. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on September 8, 2025. Plaintiffs' responsive brief was due last November 7, 2025 and defendants' reply is due by December 22, 2025. The complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the company between February 28, 2020 and September 26, 2024, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Acadia is a behavioral healthcare provider with 274 behavioral healthcare facilities with approximately 12,100 beds in 39 states and Puerto Rico. AIOS INC: Brenneise Suit Alleges Data Privacy Violations -------------------------------------------------------- HARVEY BRENNEISE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. AIOS, INC. d/b/a FELLA HEALTH and d/b/a DELILAH and FELLA MEDICAL GROUP, P.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-09779 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2025) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Washington Privacy Act, and the My Health My Data Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in improper, unauthorized, and illegal disclosure of users' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "Private Information") to third-party advertising platforms and data analytics companies without those users' knowledge or consent. The Defendants have systematically violated their users' privacy rights by deploying sophisticated tracking technologies throughout the Websites and telehealth platforms. These technologies include tracking pixels from X (formerly Twitter) and Quora, each of which surreptitiously captures and transmits Private Information to third parties in real-time. When users seek medical care through the Websites and Fella Medical's services, they reasonably expect that their sensitive health information—including weight, prescription medications, and medical histories—will remain confidential between them and their healthcare providers, says the suit. Aios, Inc. own and operate the website, fellahealth.com and joindelilah.com, as telehealth platforms that provide virtual weight loss consultations and prescription services for weight management medications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com ALLIED AVIATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ROSA FLORES; and DAVID HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLIED AVIATION SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06259 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as supervisors. Allied Aviation Services, Inc. provides fueling and airport services to the commercial aviation industry. The Company offers services such as tank farm management, equipment maintenance, into-plane refueling, fixed based operations, ground services, and infrastructure development. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com - and - Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. Carole Lynn Nowicki, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, New Jersey 08520 Telephone: (609) 469-2110 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 Email: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com cnowicki@s-tlawfirm.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Simons Suit over SEC Disclosures --------------------------------------------------------- AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on October 31, 2025, a purported securities class action captioned "Simons v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.," No. 1:25-cv-09042, was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading public statements and omissions by the Company during the period from August 18, 2022 to November 1, 2023 relating to the conversion of the AMC Preferred Equity Units. The complaint alleges damages of at least $178 million, plus prejudgment interest. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its direct and indirect subsidiaries, including American Multi-Cinema, Inc. and its subsidiaries, is principally involved in the theatrical exhibition business and owns, operates or has interests in theatres located in the United States and Europe. ANAERGIA INC: Ontario Court Certifies Securities Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Morningstar.com reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has granted leave pursuant to section 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act to commence a secondary market misrepresentation action against Anaergia Inc., Andrew Benedek, and Hani El-Kaissi. The Court also certified the action as a class proceeding against these defendants. The certified action alleges misrepresentations in the primary and secondary markets for Anaergia's securities during the class period. The primary market claims relate to the company's distribution of shares in an initial public offering in June 2021 and a subsequent distribution of shares in a secondary offering in April 2022. SMK Law represents the Anaergia investors. This news release is being issued in compliance with 138.9 of the Ontario Securities Act. Formal notice and opt out information will be issued upon further Order of the Court. A copy of the decision is available at https://smklawyers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/2025-ONSC-2167.pdf. Updates on the case are provided at https://smklawyers.ca/currentinvestigation/anaergia-inc-class-action/ About SMK Law P.C. SMK Law P.C. is a Canadian investor rights law firm representing institutional and individual investors. The firm is led by Soheil Karkhanechi who has decades of leadership experience in the securities and asset management industries in Canada and the US. [GN] ANGEION GROUP: Sues Over Settlement Administration Services ----------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER BARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANGEION GROUP LLC; EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC.; JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION; TREMENDOUS LLC; BLACKHAWK NETWORK HOLDINGS, INC.; DIGITAL SETTLEMENT TECHNOLOGIES LLC dba DIGITAL DISBURSEMENTS PAYMENTS; HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK; WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00891-DGK (W.D. Mo., Nov. 13, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants agreed with each other that they would implement a scheme to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the cost of class action settlement administration services. The Defendants proceeded to act accordingly, in concert with one another. Each of them made such demands, received illegal and unfair renumerations, and proceeded to hide these illicit transactions for themselves, and for each other. The Defendants have been acting in concert to keeping the kickbacks secret is easily evidenced by how little courts knew about these clandestine practices, and how the Defendants have been received the renumerations in special purpose entities ("SPEs"). The concerted actions by the Defendants raised the price of class action settlement administration services and lowered the total payouts to the Plaintiff and Class Members. Had the secret renumerations to the Defendants not been made, the money would have either reduced the costs of administration, or more money would have been paid out to the Plaintiffs and Class Members, the suit alleges. Angeion Group PA provides settlement administration and legal noticing services. The Company specializes in managing class actions and other types of mass litigation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan F. Aylstock, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Email: jaylstock@awkolaw.com ANTHONY'S RED: Echols Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY'S RED HOTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13771 (N.D., IL., Nov. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.joeysredhots.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Anthony's Red Hots, Inc. controls and operates Joeysredhots.com in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States offering Chicago-style restaurant menu. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law ANTOJITOS MEXICANOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Angel Says ---------------------------------------------------------- AMADO ANGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTOJITOS MEXICANOS DELI II CORP.; and ROBERTO O. BERNASCONI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06288 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Angel was employed by the Defendants as a cook. Antojitos Mexicanos Deli Inc is a local eatery in Brooklyn, NY that specializes in serving authentic Mexican cuisine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 203-2417 Email: www.StillmanLegalPC.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Ashour Seeks to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED ASHOUR, JOY BROWN, and CRYSTAL TOWNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., BEVERAGE MARKETING USA, INC., ARIZONA BEVERAGES HOLDINGS LLC, and ARIZONA BEVERAGES HOLDINGS 2 LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-07081-AT-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs shall move the Court, before the Honorable Analisa Torres, for an Order allowing: (1) public filing of Exhibits 4-6, 8, 9.1-9.23, 9.26-9.51, 10.1- 10.8, 10.10-10.11, 10.13-10.16, 11-12, 13.1-13.6, 13.9- 13.13, 14, 15.2-15.3, 15.5, 15.7 15.14, 15.16-15.22, 16-18, 19.2, 19.4-19.12, 20-22, 24, 28, 30 and 34 to the declaration of Melissa S. Weiner in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion to Seal redacting confidential information relating to the Defendants' business model, suppliers, production processes, sources of revenue and/or sales figures; (2) sealing the entirety of Exhibits 23, 31-33 and 37 to the Weiner Declaration containing confidential information relating to the Defendants' business model, suppliers, production processes, sources of revenue and/or sales figures; and (3) public filing of Exhibits 35 and 36 to the Weiner Declaration redacting confidential information relating to Plaintiffs' home and email addresses, and dates of birth; and (4) the redaction of Plaintiffs' motion regarding the sealed and redacted Exhibits and information contained therein. Arizona is engaged in the wholesale distribution of groceries and related products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VE7Mmp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com AVLI RESTAURANT: Cazares Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVLI RESTAURANT INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01764 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://avli.us, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Avli Restaurant Inc. controls and operates https://avli.us, an online platform that provides modern and contemporary Greek cuisine restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law B&B ACQUISITION: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B&B ACQUISITION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13817 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.candlewarmers.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. B&B Acquisition, Inc. controls and operates https://www.candlewarmers.com, a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale of fragrance warmers and candle lamps. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com BALLY'S MANAGEMENT: District Court Dismisses ERISA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Holland & Knight reports that in Williams v. Bally's Management Group LLC, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed a plaintiff's claims challenging the lawfulness of Bally's tobacco-free wellness program under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim that the increased insurance premium (i.e., surcharge) for tobacco-users who did not complete the tobacco cessation program, offered in connection with the wellness program, violated ERISA. This is the first decision granting a motion to dismiss in its entirety in an ERISA class action targeting companies that charge an additional insurance premium for participants who use tobacco products by claiming that the wellness programs violate ERISA's nondiscrimination test. The court's decision is a positive development for plan sponsors and fiduciaries. In particular, the court found that ERISA and applicable regulations do not require retroactive reimbursement of tobacco surcharges paid earlier in the plan year before a participant completes the tobacco cessation program. The court's decision underscores the importance of reviewing wellness programs to ensure compliance with ERISA and applicable regulations. As discussed in a previous Holland & Knight alert, there has been a recent uptick in Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class actions challenging employers' tobacco-free wellness programs. Plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that the tobacco-free wellness programs are noncompliant with ERISA and that plan fiduciaries are violating their fiduciary duties when they impose and collect an increased insurance premium (i.e., surcharge) for participants who use tobacco products. In Williams v. Bally's Management Group, LLC, a decision issued on Nov. 4, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island became the first court to dismiss an ERISA class action challenging a company's tobacco surcharge. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims alleging that Bally's (the Company) violated the ERISA nondiscrimination provisions by imposing an unlawful tobacco surcharge on plan participants and alleging that the Company breached its ERISA fiduciary duty by imposing the tobacco surcharge. The court held that neither ERISA nor its implementing regulations requires retroactive reimbursement of previously paid tobacco surcharges. In addition, the court determined that the Company's plan documents satisfied the disclosure obligations with respect to the tobacco surcharge because they provided sufficient notice to participants of a reasonable alternative standard and the accommodation of physician recommendations. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's fiduciary breach claims holding that the plaintiff failed to allege specific harm to the plan. The Parties' Arguments The plaintiff alleged that the Company's imposition of a tobacco surcharge violates ERISA and its implementing regulations because the plan did not provide the "full reward" to participants who completed the alternative standard by failing to retroactively reimburse participants who completed the tobacco cessation program after the beginning of the plan year. The plaintiff also alleged that the Company's plan materials insufficiently notified participants of the availability of a reasonable alternative standard for obtaining the full reward. With respect to her breach of fiduciary duty claim, the plaintiff alleged that the company breached its fiduciary duties as plan administrator by imposing an allegedly unlawful tobacco surcharge on participants to offset its own contributions to the plan, constituting a prohibited transaction under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1106. In its motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the Company argued that the tobacco surcharge was lawful and that the Company was not prohibited from using funds from the tobacco surcharge to pay plan benefits. The Company also argued that the plan materials regarding the availability of a reasonable alternative standard were sufficient as a matter of law, and they did, in fact, provide retroactive reimbursement for compliance with its tobacco cessation program -- despite not being legally required to do so under ERISA or its implementing regulations, which require only that a "full reward" be provided to plan participants. Finally, the Company argued that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. The Court's Decision The most notable aspect of the court's decision is its holding that ERISA and its regulations do not require plan sponsors to provide retroactive reimbursement of previously paid surcharges. The court declined to read a "retroactive reimbursement requirement into the meaning of 'full reward' as provided by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300gg-4(j)(3)(D) and 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2590.702(f)(4)(iv)." The court specifically agreed with the Company that "the terms 'discount . . . of a premium' and 'absence of a surcharge' provided in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300gg-4(j)(3)(A) as possible rewards do not mandate a retroactive reimbursement of previously paid surcharges." To that end, the court noted: Whether an individual who receives only a prospective "absence of a surcharge" halfway through the plan year obtains the same reward as an individual who did not have to pay the surcharge from the beginning of the year is a matter of perspective: while on the one hand the first individual received a different reward because that individual had to pay the tobacco surcharge up until the time they completed the program, on the other hand both receive the same reward of not being prospectively charged a tobacco surcharge. The court refused to interpret the statute to impose a retroactive reimbursement requirement for the tobacco surcharge due to this "statutory ambiguity." The court declined to defer to the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) interpretation of the statute as requiring retroactive reimbursement. The court determined that deference was not required under the anti-parroting doctrine. The anti-parroting doctrine provides that a "court need not defer to an agency's interpretation of a parroting regulation because '[a]n agency does not acquire special authority to interpret its own words when, instead of using its expertise and experience to formulate a regulation, it has elected merely to paraphrase the statutory language.'" As applied to this case, the court found that the regulation at issue, 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2590.702(f)(4)(iv), "simply repeats the statutory 'full reward' requirement found in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300gg-4(j)(3)(D)" and, thus, is not entitled to deference. With respect to ERISA's notice requirement regarding the availability of a "reasonable alternative standard" to the tobacco cessation program, the court held that the Company's statements in its Summary Plan Descriptions "comply with the statutory and regulatory notice requirements as a matter of law" particularly because "the description of the wellness program substantively matches the sample language -- indeed, almost verbatim -- provided by the DOL." With respect to benefit guides issued by the Company containing a mention of the availability of the tobacco cessation program, the court held "that those guides did not describe the terms of the wellness program in a way that would trigger the full notice requirements." The court dismissed the plaintiff's ERISA Sec. 502(a)(2) fiduciary breach claim finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert this claim because she failed to adequately allege harm to the Plan. The court noted "the only injuries to the Plan (as opposed to participants in the Plan) alleged by Ms. Williams are speculative, contained in conclusory statements such as Bally's Management having pocketed the tobacco surcharge 'to the detriment of the Plan,' . . . or that Bally's Management 'enriched itself at the expense of the Plan.'" Conclusions and Considerations The Williams decision is a positive development for plan sponsors and fiduciaries. Critically, it supports the position that a "full reward" can be provided prospectively once a participant is tobacco-free or meets the reasonable alternative standard, without mandating retroactive refunds. In addition, the decision further underscores the need for well-drafted plan documents that address the reasonable alternative requirements. If you would like assistance with reviewing and evaluating your plan document or wellness program disclosures, or if you have any questions about the impact of the tobacco surcharge litigation on your business or wellness plan, please contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's ERISA Litigation Team or Executive Compensation and Benefits Team. [GN] BB BEAUTY: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BB BEAUTY LLC D/B/A FRAGRANCE USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13815 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.fragranceusa.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. BB Beauty LLC controls and operates https://www.fragranceusa.com, a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale of authentic premium fragrances. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com BEYOND INC: Johnson Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CONNIE JOHNSON, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEYOND, INC., DBA OVERSTOCK.COM, a Delaware corporation; SHOPIFY INC., a Canadian corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CU25-07409, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-at-01104 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges three causes of action against Defendants: a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA); a violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA); and a claim for invasion of privacy of the California Constitution. The Plaintiff alleges that Overstock deploys Shopify's e-commerce software and online payment forms on its website, which installs trackers and cookies onto website visitors' internet browsers. Moreover, Overstock and Shopify capture "routing, addressing, or signaling information" in violation of CIPA; knowingly access, alter, and use data and computer systems without permission in violation of CDAFA; and invade a reasonable expectation of privacy by collecting and transmitting personally identifiable address information in violation of the California Constitution. Overstock is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Utah. Shopify Inc. is a Canadian multinational e-commerce company headquartered in Ottawa that operates a platform for retail point-of-sale systems.[BN] Defendant Shopify Inc. is represented by: Benedict Hur, Esq. Simona Agnolucci, Esq. Joshua Anderson, Esq. Tiffany M. Lin, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: +1 415 693 2000 Facsimile: +1 415 693 2222 E-mail: bhur@cooley.com sagnolucci@cooley.com joshua.anderson@cooley.com tiffany.lin@cooley.com BJH HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Weston Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- YETTA WESTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJH HOLDINGS III CORP.; and JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01951-JHE (N.D. Ala., Nov. 11, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendants solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiffs and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. As a result of Defendants' inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. BJH Holdings III Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, serves in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PTTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 110 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com BLUE CRANE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Youngren Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE CRANE STUDIO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13814 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://brooklyncandlestudio.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Blue Crane Studio, LLC controls and operates Brooklyncandlestudio.com, a commercial website that offers products and services for home fragrance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law BOBER LAW: Seeks to Enforce Settlement Agreement in Hill -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADEAN HILL, JR., v. BOBER LAW FIRM, PLLC, and ZERORISK CASES, INC., (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to enforce settlement agreement and dismiss with prejudice. Zerorisk requests that the Court enforce the Settlement Agreement, dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims against Zerorisk with prejudice, enter an injunctive Order prohibiting future litigation against these Defendants, and grant Zerorisk such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which they may be entitled. Bober is a full service family law, estate planning, personal injury, and oil, gas & energy law firm. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x62T10 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Edward W. Allred, Esq. ALLRED LAW FIRM 10500 Heritage Dr., Suite 102 San Antonio, TX 78216 Telephone: (210) 685-1845 E-mail: Edward@AllredMediation.com BOGGI NEW: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says -------------------------------------------------------------- EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOGGI NEW YORK LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09402 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.boggi.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212)982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BYHEART INC: Zetterstrom Sues Over Mislabeled Infant Formula ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA ZETTERSTROM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYHEART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09419 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2025) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the Defendant's infant formula product throughout the state of California and throughout the United States (hereinafter the "Products"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products are contaminated with clostridium botulinum, also known as infant botulism. Had the Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions regarding the contents of the Products, Plaintiff would not have been willing to purchase the Products or pay as much for the Products, says the suit. ByHeart, Inc. provides infant and baby nutrition products. The Company specializes in developing baby foods and formulas based on nutrition science and production transparency to support immune, cognitive, digestive, and microbiome health. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: mreese@reesellp.com BYZFUNDER NY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Byzfunder data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Byzfunder data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Byzfunder Security Incident: What Happened? Byzfunder NY LLC, a New York-based company that provides funding to small and mid-sized businesses, has disclosed a data breach potentially impacting 15,164 individuals, according to a report submitted to the Maine Attorney General's Office. On September 19, 2025, suspicious activity was detected within one of its software solutions. Byzfunder engaged cybersecurity experts, discovering unauthorized access to certain files between September 1 and September 20, 2025. The investigation identified that some individuals' personal information, such as names and Social Security numbers, was involved. The company is mailing letters to notify affected individuals of the Byzfunder data breach. What You Can Do After the Byzfunder Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Byzfunder data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Byzfunder to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Bid to Compel Arbitration of Narayan Claims OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cinemark Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that it is defending the case "Latishma Narayan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated vs. Cinemark USA, Inc., Century Theatres, Inc., et al." On July 31, 2025, the court granted Cinemark's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims. This class action lawsuit was filed December 27, 2024, in the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of San Mateo alleging violations of the California Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay vacation wages, failure to maintain payroll records, and failure to reimburse necessary expenditures. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a holding company. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cinemark USA, Inc., operates in the motion picture exhibition industry, with theatres in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia and Paraguay. COBRE CORP: Commercial Property Inaccessible to Disabled People --------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COBRE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-25274-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property located at 920 SW 82nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33144, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. Anthony J. Perez Law Group, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- B.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17429 (D.N.J., Nov. 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite the Defendant's duty to safeguard the Private Information of its current and previous customers, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in a data breach when, on or about January 13, 2024, Defendant discovered that it was the victim of cyber incident impacting its network (the "Data Breach"). As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now exposed to cybercriminals, says the suit. Conduent Business Services, LLC is a technology and business process outsourcing (BPO) company that delivers digital business solutions to commercial, government, and transportation clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi Jason H. Alperstein CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Email:jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com CROCS RETAIL: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Crosby Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CROSBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROCS RETAIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09359 (S.D.N.Y., Nov 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.crocs.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Crocs Retail, LLC owns and operates www.crocs.com, a nationwide e-commerce platform offering footwear, accessories, and customer service tools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. Joseph & Norinsberg, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com DANONE INC: Settles Silk Canada Milk Class Action Suit for $6.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that Joey Zukran of LPC Avocats announced that a $6,500,000.00 settlement has been reached with Danone Inc. ("Danone Canada"), Wal-Mart Canada Corp., and Intact Insurance Company (collectively, the "Settling Defendants") to settle a nationwide class action lawsuit related to the Recall of Silk Canada Products and Great Value Products initiated on July 8, 2024 (the "Canadian Settlement"). The Class is comprised of all persons in Canada who purchased or ingested the Silk Canada Products or Great Value Products subject to the Recall initiated by Danone Canada on July 8, 2024, including those who have suffered any Personal Injury as a result thereof, and their successors, assigns, family members, and dependants. The settlement funds of $6,500,000.00, less court-approved expenses, will be distributed to Class members who meet certain criteria based on the category of Illnesses they belong to described in the Compensation Grid (Schedule A to the Settlement Agreement, available at: www.PlantBeverages-Settlement.com). Additionally, under the Settlement Agreement, Class members are entitled to benefit from the Voluntary Refund Program implemented by Danone Canada for Silk Canada Products and Great Value Products, which Danone Canada has undertaken to maintain in place until the last day of the Claim Period defined in the Settlement Agreement, available at the Settlement Website: www.PlantBeverages-Settlement.com. "This national settlement not only provides for fair and significant monetary compensation to those harmed, but ensures relief in a timely and efficient manner" said Joey Zukran, Founder, LPC Avocats. Danone Canada is fully cooperating with all parties and remains actively engaged in the legal proceedings to achieve a timely and appropriate resolution for its consumers. The Canadian Settlement is subject to approval by the Superior Court of Quebec and to the discontinuance or dismissal of similar proceedings subsequently filed in British Columbia on behalf of the same Class members. The settlement approval hearing will take place in the Montreal Courthouse on January 26, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. If the Canadian Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims against the Settling Defendants relating to this matter and they will receive a full and final release on behalf of all Class members. If you are somebody who purchased or ingested the Silk Canada Products or Great Value Products subject to the Recall initiated on July 8, 2024, or are their successors, assigns, family members, and dependants, you are automatically included in the class. If you do not want to participate in the class action, the deadline to opt-out/exclude yourself is December 22, 2025. If you want to object to or comment on the Canadian Settlement, the deadline is December 22, 2025. The Long-Form Pre-Approval Notice, additional information and documents, such as the Canadian Settlement and the Opt-Out Form, are available at the Settlement Website: www.PlantBeverages-Settlement.com or by calling 1-888-367-7705. Contact for the class action: Joey Zukran (jzukran@lpclex.com), LPC Avocats, (514) 379.1572 [GN] DOORDASH INC: Settles Deceptive Fees Class Action Suit for $18MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that the city of Chicago has reached an $18 million settlement with DoorDash. Why: The settlement resolves claims that the food delivery company used deceptive business practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Where: The DoorDash class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court. DoorDash has agreed to pay $18 million to settle a Chicago class action lawsuit alleging it used deceptive business practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson announced the DoorDash settlement Nov. 14, saying the food delivery company used deceptive business practices to gain market share during the pandemic when government shutdown orders restricted dining and customer demand for deliveries skyrocketed. Chicago's DoorDash class action lawsuit accused the company of misleading diners by charging "service fees," "small order fees" and a $1.50 "Chicago" fee along with delivery fees while hiding them from consumers by grouping them with taxes, suggesting they were imposed by the government. DoorDash also allegedly failed to disclose that the food prices featured on its app might differ from those found on the restaurant's own website or in-store menu, and offered discounts that only applied if diners met a minimum order amount. DoorDash will pay Chicago, restaurants, customers, drivers and city government According to terms of the proposed settlement, DoorDash will pay the city $4.5 million to recover legal fees and costs in prosecuting its case against DoorDash.. The $18 million DoorDash settlement will include $3.25 million to restaurants that were listed on DoorDash without their consent and are still not listed on the app today. DoorDash will provide instructions to those unaffiliated restaurants on how to enroll for settlement payment and in the future will not list those eateries without consent. Eligible restaurants will receive $5.8 million in delivery commissions and marketing credits, while eligible restaurants that were initially listed on the app without consent -- but have since joined -- will receive an additional share of those credits, the city said. Qualified Chicago customers with active DoorDash accounts will receive $4 million in DoorDash credits, which can be applied to food delivery orders. DoorDash will automatically make those credits available to eligible users starting January 28, the city said. Drivers who were delivering DoorDash orders in Chicago as of September 2019 -- the final month DoorDash's practice of using tips to subsidize driver pay was in effect -- will receive $500,000. DoorDash is currently facing a number of lawsuits. A class action filed in Maryland accuses the company of charging unlawful fees, while another lawsuit alleges DoorDash and Apple Pay charged users for DashPass subscriptions without their consent and made the subscription difficult to cancel. The city is represented by Rebecca Hirsch and Stephen J. Kane of the City of Chicago Department of Law's Affirmative Litigation Division, and Brian E. Bowcut of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. The DoorDash class action lawsuit is City of Chicago v. DoorDash Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05162, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] DOXIMITY INC: Bid for Class Cert Withdrawn ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Doximity, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-02281-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered an order that: 1. Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn, without prejudice to refile; 2. The Defendants' administrative motion for leave to file sur- reply is withdrawn, without prejudice to refile; and 3. A case management conference is scheduled for Jan. 13, 2026 at 9:00 am. Doximity operates as a digital platform for medical professionals in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pn9iRg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. Lauren M. Cruz, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Timothy G. Fleming, Esq. Matthew Arrow, Esq. Sarah Schmidt, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3470 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com lauren.cruz@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com timothy.fleming@blbglaw.com matthew.arrow@blbglaw.com sarah.schmidt@blbglaw.com - and - Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Blake, Esq. Hilary Wong, Esq. Camille Victoria Bole, Esq. Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 E-mail: sblake@stblaw.com hilary.wong@stblaw.com camille.boler@stblaw.com jyoungwood@stblaw.com EAST JEFFERSON: Junge Data Breach Suit Removed to E.D. La. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CHERYL L. JUNGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EAST JEFFERSON GENERAL HOSPITAL and LCMC HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 869731, was removed from the 24th District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02319 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that LCMC Health Holdings, Inc. ("LCMC") failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems with certain personally identifiable information and personal health information and that there was an alleged breach and disclosure of confidential information (the "Data Breach") which allegedly harmed Plaintiff and members of the putative class. The complaint asserts various claims under federal law including that (i) LCMC allegedly violated Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and (ii) LCMC allegedly violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. The state law claims asserted involved the same case or controversy as the federal claims as all the claims arise from the alleged improper conduct or practice of LCMC (now UHS) which allegedly resulted in the Data Breach. There is therefore federal question jurisdiction over this entire case. East Jefferson General Hospital is the registered trade name of Louisiana Children's Medical Center. University Healthcare System, L.C. ("UHS"), is the successor by way of merger to LCMC Health Holdings, Inc. It is an acute general hospital whose primary function is to provide inpatient diagnostic and therapeutic services for a variety of medical conditions, both surgical and non-surgical, to a wide population group.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter J. Butler, Jr., Esq. Richard G. Passler, Esq. Thomas M. Benjamin, Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 909 Poydras Street Suite 1500 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 619-1800 E-mail: Peter.Butler@bswllp.com Richard.Passler@bswllp.com Thomas.Benjamin@bswllp.com - and - Thomas R. Temple, Jr., Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 301 Main Street Suite 2300 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 Telephone: (225) 387-4000 E-mail: Thomas.Temple@bswllp.com ENGAGEMENT MARKETING: Anderson Seeks Equal Website Access to Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ DERRICK ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENGAGEMENT MARKETING GALLERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06270 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://theconservatorynyc.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Engagement Marketing Gallery, LLC controls and operates Theconservatorynyc.com, a commercial website and online platform that provides apparel, shoes, handbags, jewelry, skincare, fragrance, candles, and home decor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com EQUITY PROJECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thomas Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JELISSA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE EQUITY PROJECT CHARTER SCHOOL d/b/a EQUITY PROJECT CHARTER SCHOOL; CASEY ASH; and DOE SUPERVISOR, Defendants, (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Thomas was employed by the Defendants as a classroom teacher. The Equity Project Charter School d/b/a Equity Project Charter School is a non-profit 501(c)(3) New York City public charter school. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: O. Williams Igbokwe, Esq. IGBOKWE PLLC D/B/A LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM IGBOKWE 28 Liberty Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (347) 467-4674 Facsimile: (347) 467-6367 EXACT SCIENCES: M&A Investigates Sale to Abbott Laboratories ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Exact Sciences Corporation (NASDAQ: EXAS) related to its sale to Abbott Laboratories. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Exact Sciences shareholders are expected to receive $105.00 per common share. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/exact-sciences-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] FACTOR 75 LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Crosby Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CROSBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FACTOR 75, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09377 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.factor75.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Factor 75, LLC is a meal delivery service that ships healthy, restaurant-quality meals directly to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com FIGMA INC: Faces Class Suit for Using Customer Designs to Train AI ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nellius Irene, writing for Cryptopolitan, reports that Figma is facing a lawsuit for supposedly using customer data improperly to train its AI. This lawsuit is an example of the many cases raised against tech firms for using clients' data to train their generative AI systems. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction preventing Figma from utilizing AI models that infringe upon their rights. Figma, the web-based collaborative design platform, is facing a proposed class action lawsuit in a U.S. federal court, accused of using its customers' proprietary design data to train its generative AI models without proper permission. Filed on Nov. 21, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint alleges that the company secretly harvested users' intellectual property, including design files, layer properties, text, and images, and employed this data to improve its AI tools. Following this misuse, the company's valuation surged significantly to a record high during its $1.2 billion initial public offering earlier this year. Figma reportedly uses clients' data without seeking permission When reporters reached out to Figma for comment on the claims raised against it regarding the misuse of clients' information, the company responded. A representative from the firm denied the claims, stating that the company does not use any customer information to train its models without obtaining permission. According to the spokesperson, even when they are granted permission, they still have to eliminate identifying details and safeguard their customers' privacy. "We focus our training on general patterns rather than specific content, concepts, or ideas from our customers," Figma's representative added. Still, the plaintiffs' attorney, Carter Greenbaum, an Associate in the Litigation Department at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pointed out that this case highlights an important point. Consumers and businesses have the right to ensure that their unique and sensitive creative work is not used without their consent in training AI models. This recent lawsuit is an example of the numerous cases brought against tech companies for using content without obtaining permission to train their generative AI systems. While most of these lawsuits center on claims of copyright infringement, the Figma lawsuit alleges that the company misappropriated customer trade secrets and accessed their data without authorization. Founded in 2012, Figma offers cloud-based tools for collaborative design and counts major clients, including Alphabet, Microsoft, and Netflix, among its users. Additionally, Figma has partnered with OpenAI to integrate its app into ChatGPT. This partnership demonstrates that companies like Figma are eager to incorporate generative AI tools that automate tasks such as image creation, layout suggestions, and code generation. The lawsuit alleges that the firm automatically enrolled users in a program that enabled the company to utilize their data for training its AI software without informing them or obtaining their consent. "For years, Figma assured its customers that it would not use their data for its own purposes, including training its AI models," the lawsuit claims. Figma faces a lawsuit as individuals raise concerns about the tech industry Regarding the recent lawsuit against Figma, sources noted that this lawsuit claims that the worth of Figma users' intellectual property is "reasonably measured in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars." To settle this case completely, the plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of compensation and requesting that the court issue a permanent injunction preventing Figma from using AI models that infringe on their rights. This case is known as Khan v. Figma Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 3:25-cv-10054. For the proposed class, the attorneys are Carter Greenbaum and Casey Olbrantz from Greenbaum Olbrantz; Tina Wolfson, Robert Ahdoot, and Theodore Maya from Ahdoot & Wolfson; and Joseph Delich and Kyle Roche from Freedman Normand Friedland. [GN] FLAGSTAR BANK: $1.23MM Class Settlement Gets Court Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------ New York Community Bank (NYCB), now known as Flagstar Bank, is set to pay $1,233,500 to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the bank charged accountholders unjustified and excessive fees related to insufficient funds, account overdrafts, automated clearing house (ACH) payments and out-of-network ATM balance inquiries and withdrawals. The New York Community Bank class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 6, 2025 and covers current and former accountholders who may fall into one or both of the following groups: -- All NYCB accountholders who were issued one or more insufficient funds or overdraft fees on the same ACH transaction or check between March 2, 2017 and January 1, 2020 (the "Multiple Fees" class); and/or -- All NYCB accountholders who were charged more than one out-of-network (OON) ATM fee who had checked their account balance prior to initiating a cash withdrawal at an OON ATM between August 20, 2020 and February 20, 2024 (the "OON Fees" class). The court-approved website for the NYCB settlement can be found at https://NYCBSettlement.com/. New York Community Bank settlement class members do not need to do anything to receive their portion of the settlement fund, and the amount each class member receives will depend on which settlement class they fit into, the settlement site explains. Per the settlement agreement, 73.6 percent of the settlement fund (totaling $907,856) will be allocated to reimburse the "Multiple Fees" group, and 26.4 percent of the settlement fund (totaling $325,644) will be allocated to reimburse the "OON Fees" group. The settlement agreement outlines two formulas that will be used to determine the payment amount for each eligible class member in the Multiple Fees and OON fees groups: -- Multiple Fees members shall be paid based on dividing 73.6 percent of the net settlement fund by the total number of additional retry fees issued to all applicable class members, multiplied by the number of retry fees charged to each individual class member. -- OON Fees members shall be paid based on dividing 26.4 percent of the net settlement fund by the total number of OON fees issued to all applicable class members, multiplied by the number of OON fees charged to each individual class member. Importantly, settlement class members can receive both the Multiple Fees payout AND the OON Fees payout, the settlement site adds. For current NYCB accountholders, the settlement agreement says that their reimbursement will be issued in the form of a credit to the account that was assessed the relevant fees. For former NYCB accountholders, the settlement agreement says that their reimbursement will be issued in the form of a check to the address listed in NYCB’s systems. Settlement checks must be cashed within 180 days of issuance before expiration, court documents state. NYCB settlement class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement and retain any legal rights must send a letter to the settlement administrator stating their desire to be excluded, along with their name, last four digits of current or former account numbers, address, telephone number and email address. According to the settlement website, a class member must submit a letter to update their address for payment purposes (if necessary) or ask to be excluded from the deal by December 15, 2025, to the address listed here. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the NYCB settlement at a hearing on January 13, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to eligible consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The New York Community Bank class action lawsuit alleged that the bank violated the New York General Business Law by wrongfully assessing multiple $36 fees on singular items and/or transactions on accounts that were overdrawn or had insufficient funds, and by charging accountholders more than one out-of-network ATM fee when they completed a cash withdrawal preceded by a balance inquiry. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: G Suite Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Jan. 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- United States District Court, Northern District of California Rabin v. Google LLC Case No. 5:22-cev-4547-PCP Class Action Notice Authorized by the U.S. District Court Did you have the free version of Google Apps/G Suite until 2022 and either transitioned to paid Workspace or have your account suspeded in 2022? Did you use the service for a business or other commercial purpose? You may be a member of a class action lawsuit. Key things to know: * This is an important notice about a class action lawsuit, Rabin v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-4547-PCP. * A Google Apps account holder (the "Plaintiff") alleges that Google promised customers who signed up for a free version of Google Apps (also known as G Suite Legacy Free Edition) from 2006 to 2012 that they would have continuing access to a free version. Plaintiff alleges that Google acted unfairly and breached its agreements with certain of these customers (those who used the service for a business or other commercial purpose) when it ended the free program for them in 2022, giving them the options of transitioning to paid Workspace or having their account suspended. Google denies all of Plaintiffs allegations and legal claims. * If you used the service for a business or other commercial purpose, you are likely in the Class. * If you are in the Class and want to stay in the Class and be eligible for any benefits (if any) that may become available. do nothing, in which case any court ruling will apply to you, and you cannot sue Google about the same issues. If you do not want to stay in the Class, you must opt out by January 5, 2026. * Learn more at www.FreeGSuiteLawsuit.com or by calling 1-888-777-5996. JAYUD GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international securities and consumer rights litigation firm, announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants Jayud Global Logistics Limited, Xiaogang Geng, Alan Tan Khim Guan, Lin Bao, Mengmeng Hu, Freidman, LLP, and Marcum Asia CPAs, LLP (collectively, the "Defendants"). The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and captioned Lindstrom v. Jayud Global Logistics Limited et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-09662, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased Jayud Securities between April 21, 2023 and April 30, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby. The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is January 20, 2026. If you purchased Jayud Securities between April 21, 2023 and April 30, 2025, inclusive, and have suffered significant losses, realized or unrealized, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Mollie Chadwick at (619) 798-5307, or via email at mchadwick@scott-scott.com, for more information. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON JANUARY 20, 2026 Jayud is a logistics company that provides a range of worldwide cross-border supply chain solution services. Specifically, freight forwarding services, such as integrated cross-border logistics, fragmented logistics services, and chartered airline freight services. Also, supply chain management services, such as international trading and agent services; and other value-added services comprising custom brokerage and intelligent logistic IT systems are advertised on their website. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act by making materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of the trading activity in its securities. The complaint alleges that Defendants were uniquely situated to orchestrate a pump-and-dump scheme on its class A ordinary shares. After Plaintiffs and class members purchased Jayud securities, the complaint alleges that Jayud filed a Form 20-F with the SEC detailing the risks related to its Class A Ordinary Shares. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON JANUARY 20, 2026 The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is January 20, 2026. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 20, 2026. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Plaintiffs' counsel, Mollie Chadwick at (619) 798-5307, or via email at mchadwick@scott-scott.com. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States and is actively litigating several cryptocurrency cases. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide, with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, and Virginia. Mollie Chadwick, Esq. Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 798-5307 mchadwick@scott-scott.com [GN] KE HOLDINGS: $4.95MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the KE Holdings Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEN CHIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. KE HOLDINGS INC., COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., MORGAN STANELY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC AND CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (US) INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-11196-GHW-BCM SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO OR WHICH PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED KE HOLDINGS INC. AMERICAN DEPOSITORY SHARES ("ADS") BETWEEN NOVEMBER 19, 2020 AND MARCH 10, 2022, INCLUSIVE, OR TRACEABLE TO THE FOLLOW-ON OFFERING'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT ("SETTLEMENT CLASS") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees' Pension Plan, on behalf of itself and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and KE Holdings and Colleen A. De Vries (the "KE Holdings Defendants"), and Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, and China Renaissance Securities (US) Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants" and, together with the KE Holdings Defendants, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the class action in the amount of $4,950,000. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Gregory H. Woods on February 27, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 to determine whether the Court should: approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated September 8, 2025; approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement to Settlement Class Members; and approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.KEHoldingsSecuritiesSettlement.com. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website for the Settlement, www.KEHoldingsSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: KE Holdings Securities Settlement c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301171 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171 www.KEHoldingsSecuritiesSettlement.com 1-888-808-1457 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com 1-800-449-4900 If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than February 12, 2026. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than February 6, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than February 6, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: October 24, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KENNECOTT UTAH: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Bascom" FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Austin Bascom, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Kennecott Utah Copper LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00505-DBB-JCB (D. Utah), District Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Defendant's motion to dismiss a collective action complaint. Plaintiff brings this collective action on behalf of himself and other Kennecott employees who were paid a bonus and/or shift differential that was not included in their regular rate of pay. Kennecott has employed Plaintiff as a haulage operator since 2021. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Kennecott employees frequently work more than 40 hours a week. Kennecott pays Plaintiff and the other employees an hourly wage and other non-discretionary bonuses, such as production and safety bonuses and shift differentials. Kennecott pays the employees overtime at 1.5 times their hourly wage, but Kennecott does not include the non-discretionary bonuses in their calculations for overtime purposes. The terms of Plaintiff's and the other similarly situated employee's pay are set by a collective bargaining agreement between Kennecott and a union. On June 24, 2025, Plaintiff sued Kennecott for failing to pay overtime as required under the FLSA. Plaintiff alleges that the FLSA requires Kennecott to include the non-discretionary bonuses as part of the employee's regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. The Complaint makes no mention of the collective bargaining agreement, and Plaintiff does not claim that he is not receiving the correct amount of pay under the collective bargaining agreement. Defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint on two grounds: First, arguing that the National Labor Relations Act preempts Plaintiff's claims; and second, arguing that the Labor-Management Relations Act preempts Plaintiff's claims. The Court found that as a general matter, Plaintiff's claims do not arguably fall within the prohibitions of Section 7 or 8 of the NLRA. The Court stated that Plaintiff claims that he has not been paid according to the overtime requirements of the FLSA. The Court recognized that Congressionally granted FLSA rights take precedence over conflicting provisions in a collectively bargained compensation arrangement. An employee's FLSA rights to a minimum wage and to overtime pay under the Act cannot be abridged by contract or otherwise waived. Indeed, FLSA rights are independent of the collective-bargaining process. The Court explained that regardless of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, Plaintiff is entitled to the minimum wage and overtime protections of the FLSA. These FLSA rights are individual and not related to the collective bargaining rights under Section 7 or 8 of the NLRA. The Court noted that the FLSA assigns the judiciary as the place to address the FLSA's overtime requirements, not the NLRB. Regarding Defendant's first argument, the Court found that this argument relies on a misstatement of Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff does not dispute his pay under the collective bargaining agreement. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that he was not paid for overtime as required under the FLSA based on the amount he was actually paid. The Court explained that the regular rate may include more than just an employee's contractually-designated hourly wage if the employee is, in fact, paid more than that hourly wage. Regarding Defendant's second argument, the Court rejected Defendant's assertion that a ruling in Plaintiff's favor would require it to pay opt-in employees a higher overtime rate than others covered by the same collective bargaining agreement. The Court explained that when confronted with two Acts of Congress allegedly touching on the same topic, the Court must strive to give effect to both. The Court stated that the reconciliation of these two statutes is clear: If an employer abides by both, then it is not liable under either. The Court found that Plaintiff's claim depends on what was actually paid to him, not what was owed to him under the collective bargaining agreement. The Court explained that contractual stipulations as to the regular rate are not controlling, because the regular rate is an actual fact, rather than an arbitrary label chosen by the parties. Therefore, because Plaintiff's FLSA rights are not created by the collective bargaining agreement, and Kennecott has not shown that the FLSA claim requires interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, LMRA Section 301 preemption does not apply. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gpYRTe from PacerMonitor.com KENNETH COLE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lewis Claims ------------------------------------------------------ ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. KENNETH COLE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-017430 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Nov. 11, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. provides apparel and footwear products. The Company offers men's and women's shoes, bags, sunglasses, boots, jackets, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. Social Justice Law Collective, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone:(202) 709-5744 Facsimile:(866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com KENVUE INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Kimberly-Clark ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- Kenvue Inc. (NYSE: KVUE) related to its sale to Kimberly-Clark Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Kenvue shareholders will receive $3.50 per share in cash plus 0.14625 Kimberly-Clark shares for each Kenvue share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/kenvue-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Kimberly-Clark Corporation (NASDAQ: KMB) related to its merger with Kenvue Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Kimberly-Clark shareholders are expected to own approximately 54% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/kimberly-clark-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- SM Energy Company (NYSE: SM) related to its merger with Civitas Resources, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, SM Energy shareholders will own approximately 48% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sm-energy-company/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Coeur Mining, Inc. (NYSE: CDE) related to its merger with New Gold, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Coeur shareholders will own approximately 62% of the combined company. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/coeur-mining-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] KIND PATCHES: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Maria Alaimo filed a class action lawsuit against Kind Patches Limited. Why: Alaimo alleges the company falsely advertised its weight loss patches. Where: The Kind Patches class action was filed in New York federal court. A new nationwide class action lawsuit alleges Kind Patches falsely advertises its GLP-1 patches as increasing natural GLP-1 levels comparable to actual GLP-1 agonist medications like Ozempic. Plaintiff Maria Alaimo's class action lawsuit alleges Kind Patches falsely claims that "750k People Are Obsessed with the GLP-1 Patches." GLP-1 is a hormone naturally produced by the human body that serves many functions, including slowing digestion, increasing the sensation of satiety after eating, telling the pancreas when to release insulin, and stopping glucose from entering the bloodstream, the Kind Patches class action explains. Alaimo argues Kind Patches falsely claims its GLP-1 patches are a "Natural Version of Ozempic" that provide a "Stronger GLP-1 Boost" and "Support GLP-1 Production," despite the fact that the patches do not contain a GLP-1 agonist. Lawsuit: Kind Patches falsely claims GLP-1 patches 'cost-effective alternative' Alaimo alleges Kind Patches falsely claims its product contains "clinically proven ingredients that deliver real results." The company also falsely claims the GLP-1 patches are a "[a] smart, cost-effective alternative to expensive injections" that allow users to "skip the injections and discomfort" because "Kind Patches deliver active and all-natural ingredients through your skin—pain-free, mess-free, and easy to use anytime," the Kind Patches class action alleges. Alaimo seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Kind Patches' GLP-1 patches and a New York subclass. The Kind Patches class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law and unjust enrichment. Alaimo demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages and actual damages, trebled, exemplary and punitive damages, civil penalties, restitution and disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and expenses. In related news, a federal judge in September largely denied a motion to dismiss a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving over 2,600 lawsuits regarding their GLP-1 weight-loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy. If you were hospitalized due to side effects caused by Ozempic, Wegovy or Rybelsus, you may be eligible to pursue compensation. The plaintiff is represented by Raphael Janove of Janove PLLC and Ryan J. Ellersick of Zimmerman Reed LLP. The Kind Patches class action lawsuit is Maria Alaimo v. Kind Patches Limited, Case No. 1:25-cv-06092, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] KING.COM LIMITED: Faces Class Action Suit Over Marketing Deception ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that a gamer is suing Candy Crush Saga creator King.com Limited and its parent company, Activision Blizzard. Why: The plaintiff claims the companies misled players about their chances of winning the 2023 Candy Crush All Stars tournament. Where: The Candy Crush class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A California man is suing the creators of the popular mobile game Candy Crush, alleging they misled players about their chances of winning a recent tournament. Plaintiff Ruben Valenzuela filed the Candy Crush class action lawsuit against King.com Limited and its parent company, Activision Blizzard, on Sept. 24 in California federal court, alleging violations of California consumer protection laws. Valenzuela claims the companies misled players about the odds of winning the Candy Crush All Stars 2023 tournament, which promised $250,000 in prizes and a trip to London for the finalists. The lawsuit alleges that the companies failed to disclose key information about the tournament, including the number of players advancing through each stage, the presence of cheaters and so-called "super users" who had an unfair advantage and the ability of some players to play offline and hide their scores. Deception led to significant spending on in-app purchases, class action alleges The Candy Crush class action lawsuit accuses the company of inducing participants into spending countless hours of time on the game and untold amounts of money on in-app purchases, with the promise of a fair chance at winning a share of a $250,000 grand prize. "In reality, however, the tournament was administered by defendants in a deceptive manner that tricked players into believing they were performing better in comparison to other players," the class action lawsuit states. The lawsuit further alleges that the competition was "riddled with cheating and other conduct that severely decreased the plaintiff’s and class members’ chances of winning, which Defendants knew but failed to remedy." Valenzuela is looking to represent anyone in California who participated in the tournament and made in-app purchases. He is suing for violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act as well as unjust enrichment and fraud. He is seeking certification of the Candy Crush class action lawsuit, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In a separate ongoing lawsuit, a judge dismissed fraud claims alleging King.com entices Candy Crush users to invite their friends to download the game in exchange for free "lives," which are promptly deleted. Valenzuela is represented by Susan J. Welde of Ropers Majeski P.C. and Martin W. Jaszczuk, Margaret Schuchardt and Akshay Soman of Jaszczuk P.C. The Candy Crush class action lawsuit is Valenzuela v. King.com Limited and Activision Blizzard Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-09082, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] KMART AUSTRALIA: May Face Suit Over Asbestos Contaminated Play Sand ------------------------------------------------------------------- Imogen Wells, writing for Stuff reports that a group of concerned parents are weighing up a class action lawsuit after revelations children's play sand sold at Kmart and stationery stores may be contaminated with asbestos. Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, Kmart is liable for any costs or damages linked to the product -- including testing, decontamination or removal. But one mum says she's struggled to get in contact with the retail giant, and she and other concerned parents are now considering a class action lawsuit. Waikato mother of two Jessica Jordan says she's been extremely worried about her children's health since learning the Kmart magic sand they'd been playing with could potentially contain asbestos. "I was sort of in a tailspin for a few days," she said. A number of play sands sold at stationery stores and Kmart have tested positive for tremolite asbestos, both in New Zealand and Australia. On Monday, November 24, MBIE added another two sand products to the growing list, saying they're sold at various discount stores nationwide. Jordan's Kmart bought batch tested negative, but she's still frustrated by the lack of communication from Kmart. "There's radio silence from Kmart and other retailers so we're sort of working out what the next steps are going to be, and we feel like it'll be really big," she said. Basic testing costs around $100, while testing an entire home can cost upwards of $3000, and that's before any decontamination or removal fees. Consumer New Zealand told Stuff Kmart is legally responsible to pay for any testing or removal costs. "Kmart is 100% responsible for any damages incurred in relation to this kinetic sand," Consumer NZ's Gemma Rasmussen said. "So they (parents) really do have a strong case to go to Kmart if they can prove that these costs are in relation to the product. And if Kmart is not willing to play ball, then they would have that second backup of going through the disputes tribunal." Jordan said she's been contacted by a family in financial hardship, asking for help. "Her and her husband have lost their jobs and they're on the benefit and they're having to pay for decontamination, which is significant. If Kmart doesn't step up, Jordan said some parents are prepared to escalate. "If we can't get some communication from Kmart in terms of reimbursing, then there's a number of us who are considering a class action lawsuit." Stuff has contacted Kmart for comment, and asked whether it would cover related costs, but the retailer has not responded. [GN] LAGUNA HONDA: Agrees to Settle Patient Safety Class Suit for $5.8MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Marselas, writing for McKnights, reports that months after it secured a five-Star rating and was widely celebrated for completing its rebound from Medicare decertification, San Francisco's largest nursing home continues to pay the price for safety and privacy lapses that predated the pandemic. The city and its Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center were set to settle a lawsuit over explicit photos of patients for $5.8 million, if a legal agreement was blessed by a city oversight committee November 20, Thursday night. The settlement conditions were reported by San Francisco's PBS television station. The lawsuit is one of several connected to an alleged patient abuse scandal at Laguna Honda, which has a long history of caring for some of the city's most vulnerable residents, including seniors, the homeless and those with behavioral health needs and substance abuse issues. It was rocked by scandal and allegations of unacceptable care between 2016 and 2021, when two patients experienced non-fatal overdoses. That triggered intervention by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which revoked Medicare coverage for stays and moved to shutdown the massive facility. But after four patients died following transfers, CMS relented. The facility accepted significant federal oversight and intervention. During that time, city and building leaders acknowledged major shortfalls in previous years and developed a 960-point recovery plan. The building earned its certification back earlier this year. The expected settlement is the latest accounting for Laguna Honda, which the senior advocacy group Gray Panthers said will have paid out $12 million in settlements. In this case, the $5.8 million will be distributed among 735 current and former patients, PBS reported. The lawsuit had alleged that staff took explicit photos of multiple patients and disseminated them, and accused the facility of other abuse and privacy violations. The accusations reflect a national concern: Humiliating and demeaning social media posts made by nursing home staff without patient permission were the subject of a recent report calling on CMS to better protect residents from such abuse. In a statement, the San Francisco Public Health Department said it had implemented a "significant restructuring." Laguna Honda "has been the focus of extensive improvements facility-wide, including new policies, enhanced quality management protocols, and new programs that align with national best practices," a spokesperson said. "This is all with the goal of creating a lasting culture of safety, transparency, and continuous improvement." [GN] MARINER WEALTH: Settles Employee Class Action Suit for $25.5MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that a group of major asset and wealth management firms has agreed to pay $25.5 million to resolve claims in U.S. court that they conspired to restrict job mobility and suppress wages for thousands of financial professionals. Lawyers for the employees on Thursday, November 20, asked a federal judge in Kansas to grant final approval of the settlement. The nationwide accord covers more than 4,400 current and former employees who worked for companies including Mariner Wealth Advisors and American Century Companies between 2012 and 2020. The plaintiffs sued last year, alleging the companies violated antitrust law by agreeing not to recruit or hire each other's workers. American Century and another defendant, Montage Investments, previously reached non-prosecution agreements with the U.S. Justice Department over related allegations, according to the filing. In a statement, American Century said it was pleased to resolve the workers' lawsuit in Kansas and "remains committed to fair and honest competition in compliance with all laws and regulations." A lawyer for Mariner Wealth and Montage did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and neither did lead attorneys for the plaintiffs. The asset and wealth management firms denied any wrongdoing. The plaintiffs said the Mariner defendants have about $65.9 billion in assets under management and the American Century defendants manage about $230 billion in assets. The plaintiffs said the settlement offers significant and immediate relief and avoids the risk and costs of continuing litigation. Settlement payments will be based on factors including length of employment, the court papers showed. Lawyers for the plaintiffs estimated an average payout of about $3,700 per person. Eligible employees will receive payments automatically. The settlement also said the plaintiffs' lawyers will ask for up to one-third of the fund for legal fees, or about $8.5 million. The case is Jakob Tobler et al v. 1248 Holdings LLC, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, No. 2:24-cv-02068-EFM-GEB. For plaintiffs: George Hanson of Stueve Siegel Hanson, and Rowdy Meeks of Rowdy Meeks Legal Group For Mariner: Jonathan King of DLA Piper For American Century: John Schmidtlein of Williams & Connolly [GN] MARY ELLEN BOWEN: Divorce Statute Case Removed to W.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KENNETH TODD BOWEN, Plaintiff v. MARY ELLEN BOWEN, Defendant, Case No. 21-20960, was removed from the County Court at Law of Bastrop County, Texas to the United States District Court Western District of Texas, Austin Division on November 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01850 to the proceeding. In this complaint, Defendant May Ellen Bowen, on behalf of herself, generally on behalf of the Catholic Church, and also generally on behalf of all similarly situated persons, raise both facial and as-applied constitutional challenges against the single state statute of Texas Family Code Section 6.001, the State's "no-fault" divorce statute. The Defendant is the Plaintiff's wife, and is a resident citizen of Bastrop County, Texas. She is also a devout Catholic, and a long established Catholic teacher of and at a local Catholic School, specifically the Cathedral School of St Mary in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Defendant appears pro se. MERCY HEALTH: Seeks to Decertify FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE PECK, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MERCY HEALTH, MERCY HEALTH FOUNDATION, and MHM SUPPORT SERVICES, Case No. 4:21-cv-00834-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order decertifying the conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action. The Defendant files simultaneously herewith, and incorporates by reference herein, its Memorandum in Support of Decertification of Plaintiffs' Conditionally Certified FLSA Collective Action, explaining, in detail, why the claims of this collective should be decertified. Mercy is a Catholic health care system with locations in Ohio and Kentucky. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3TLAwa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Pezzani, Esq. ENGELMEYER & PEZZANI, LLC 13321 N. Outer Forty Road, Suite 300 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 532-9933 Facsimile: (314) 863-7793 E-mail: tony@epfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: James M. Paul, Esq. Mallory S. Zoia, Esq. Jeffrey L. Rudd, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 802-3935 Facsimile: (314) 802-3936 E-mail: james.paul@ogletree.com mallory.zoia@ogletree.com jeffrey.rudd@ogletree.com - and - Eric Sands, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER L. COOK, d/b/a JL Cook, JL Cook Sculptor and SNAKEARTS.COM, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., f/k/a FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02485-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and exhibits. Meta additionally requests the opportunity to dispose of any chambers copies containing documents addressed in this Motion to Seal and any other motions to seal Meta's confidential material filed in connection with Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YmQ7w2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Randi W. Singer, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mclean, Esq. Mary K. Clemmons, Esq. Adriane Peralta, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: randi.singer@sidley.com elizabeth.mclean@sidley.com katie.clemmons@sidley.com adriane.peralta@sidley.com MP2 ENTERPRISES: Brandi-Vanmeter Wins Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA BRANDI-VANMETER, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. MP2 ENTERPRISES, LLC; BRYANT PETERSON; LAYNE PETERSON; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Nuffer entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class certification. Further, MP2 shall refrain from any further communication regarding this lawsuit with Opt-in Plaintiffs, until after the opt in period has closed. On the one hand, Ms. Brandi-Vanmeter has demonstrated that Mr. Peterson's communications with opt-in Plaintiffs may unduly pressure them to enter into the Post-Litigation Arbitration Agreement and thereby dropping out of the collective action. But on the other hand, MP2 and their authorized agents may still communicate about matters outside of this action with the opt-in and putative opt-in Plaintiffs that currently are employed by them, just not about this lawsuit. Ms. Brandi-Vanmeter alleges that MP2 "willfully" failed to pay the required minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The district court conditionally certified the collective action after the parties stipulated on May 15, 2024,5 and Ms. Brandi-Vanmeter's counsel sent notice to those who satisfied the collective-action class definition (more specifically, defined as "delivery drivers who have worked at MP2' Pizza Hut stores dating back three years prior to the filing of the complaint[, September 27, 2023]"). MP2 is a Pizza Hut franchisee. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gfRq6w at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 20, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bethany Manley, individually and on behalf of a class of persons, v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, and Mortgage Connect LP, Case No. 3:25-cv-00159 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Chambers entered an amended scheduling order deadlines: -- Expert disclosure (Plaintiff): Feb. 27, 2026 -- Expert disclosure (Defendant): March 20, 2026 -- Motion for class certification: March 20, 2026 Nationstar offers mortgage services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i5HycQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq. Jed R. Nolan, Esq. KLEIN & SHERIDAN, LC PC 3566 Teays Valley Road Hurricane, WV 25526 E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com jed@kleinsheridan.com - and - Jason E. Causey, Esq. KATZ KANTOR STONESTREET & BUCKNER, PLLC 206 South Walker Street Princeton, WV 24740 Telephone: (304) 31-4050 E-mail: jcausey@kksblaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John C. Lynch, Esq. Jason E. Manning, Esq. Jonathan M. Kenney, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7500 Facsimile: (757) 687-7510 E-mail: john.lynch@troutman.com jason.manning@troutman.com jon.kenney@troutman.com - and - R. Terrance Rodgers, Esq. KAY CASTO & CHANEY PLLC Charleston, WV 25327-2031 Telephone: (304) 345-8900 E-mail: trodgers@kaycasto.com NAVY FEDERAL: Agrees to $1.7MM EFTA Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Navy Federal Credit Union has agreed to a $1.7 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) by denying claims for unauthorized electronic fund transfers. The settlement benefits a Written Explanation Settlement Class of Navy Federal Credit Union account holders whose claims of unauthorized electronic fund transfers were denied between Oct. 10, 2022, and Aug. 20, 2025. The settlement also benefits a Document Request Settlement Subclass of account holders in the Written Explanation Settlement Class who requested documents Navy Federal relied on to deny their claims and did not receive them. Navy Federal Credit Union is a financial institution that serves members of the military, veterans and their families. According to the Navy Federal website, the credit union has over 12 million members and $162 billion in assets. Navy Federal is accused of violating EFTA by denying claims for unauthorized electronic fund transfers. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit say the credit union failed to provide sufficient explanation for these denials and failed to provide documents when requested. The EFTA protects consumers by requiring financial institutions to follow certain rules when handling electronic fund transfers. Under the EFTA, financial institutions are required to investigate and resolve errors in electronic fund transfers, including unauthorized transactions. Navy Federal has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.7 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Navy Federal settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. No payment estimates are available at this time. Navy Federal also agreed to implement policy changes to better handle claims concerning unauthorized electronic fund transfers. These changes include updated written communications sent to members whose claims are denied and improved procedures for responding to document requests. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 3, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Navy Federal class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for Feb. 4, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 18, 2025. Who's Eligible All Navy Federal Credit Union account holders whose claims of unauthorized electronic fund transfers were denied between Oct. 10, 2022, and Aug. 20, 2025. In addition, all account holders in the written explanation settlement class who requested documents Navy Federal relied on in making its determination and who did not receive them. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 12/18/2025 Case Name Stephenson, et al. v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 3:23-cv-01851, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Final Hearing 02/04/2026 Settlement Website StephensonEFTALitigation.com Claims Administrator Stephenson, et al. v. Navy Federal Credit Union c/o Kroll Settlement Administration P.O. Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 (833) -621-8312 Class Counsel Scott Edelsberg Adam Schwartzbaum EDELSBERG LAW P.A. Edwin E. Elliott SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. Jeffrey D. Kaliel Sophia Goren Gold KALIEL GOLD PLLC Defense Counsel Fred Burnside DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP [GN] NEXGEN AIR: Agrees to Settle Marketing Class Action for $3.8 Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that NexGen Air Conditioning and Heating LLC has agreed to pay over $3.8 million to resolve a class action lawsuit over unsolicited, prerecorded messages allegedly sent by the company to consumers over a four-year period. The $3,803,835 NexGen class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 2, 2025 and covers approximately 181,135 United States residents who, within the four years prior to the filing of the suit, received a call, using a prerecorded or artificially generated voice, through the "Drop Cowboy" messaging platform that encouraged them to purchase, rent or invest in NexGen's properties and/or services. The court-approved website for the NexGen Air Conditioning and Heating class action settlement can be found at https://TCPASettlementNG.com/. Per the settlement website, NexGen settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of approximately $21. The final amount of each eligible class member's cash payout will depend on the total number of valid claims that are filed and what remains in the settlement fund after the payment of settlement administration expenses, attorney costs and fees, and any service awards from the fund. According to court documents, eligible class members will receive their payout via check, which must be cashed within 60 days after the date of issuance before it expires. To submit a NexGen settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID listed on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a settlement class member but did not receive a notice can contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the form. NexGen settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by February 10, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the NexGen settlement at a hearing on January 26, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The class action lawsuit alleged that NexGen Air Conditioning and Heating LLC used an automatic voicemail service called Drop Cowboy to receive and respond to business correspondence, and allegedly sent excessive, unsolicited AI promotional messages to consumers, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. [GN] NUVISTA ENERGY: M&A Investigates Merger With Ovintiv Inc -------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- NuVista Energy Ltd. (OTCMKTS: NUVSF) related to its merger with Ovintiv Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, NuVista shareholders will have the option to receive either (i) C$18.00 in cash per NuVista common share; (ii) 0.344 of a share of Ovintiv common stock; or (iii) a combination of cash and Ovintiv common stock, prorated so that, on a fully prorated basis, NuVista shareholders will receive C$9.00 in cash plus 0.172 of a share in common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nuvista-energy-ltd/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Northern Data AG (OTCMKTS: NDTAF) related to its sale to Rumble Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Northern Data shareholders will receive 2.0281 shares of Rumble common stock for each Northern Data share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/northern-data-ag/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (NYSE: THS) related to its sale to Industrial F&B Investments III Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, TreeHouse shareholders will receive $22.50 in cash per share plus a contingent value right. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/treehouse-foods-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cidara Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CDTX) related to its sale to Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Cidara shareholders will receive $221.50 per share in cash. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cidara-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] OCUGEN INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- Ocugen, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that in July 2025, the company's motion to dismiss a securities class action was granted. The lead plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the order that was entered in July 2025, which dismissed the action with prejudice. The lead plaintiff's appellant's brief and joint appendix were filed in October 2025, the company's appellees' brief will be filed in December 2025, and the lead plaintiff's reply brief will be due in January 2026. Initial case was filed against the company and certain of its agents in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Case No. 2:24-cv-01500 that purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by the company concerning its previously-issued audited consolidated financial statements for each fiscal year beginning January 1, 2020 and its previously-issued unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for each of the first three quarters in such years and the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and procedures during each such period. The complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. In October 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and in December 2024, the company filed a motion to dismiss. In February 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the company filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss in March 2025. Ocugen, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on discovering, developing, and commercializing gene therapies. The company is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania. OISELLE LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Davis Says ------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. OISELLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13768 (N.D. Il., Nov. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.oiselle.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Oiselle, LLC controls and operates Oiselle.com offering women's athletic apparel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (718)554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law OLD DOMINION: Agrees to Settle ERISA Class Action for $1.9-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who participated in or were a beneficiary of the Old Dominion 401(k) retirement plan at any time from Oct. 1, 2016, through Dec. 31, 2025, may be able to receive a share of a $1.9 million class action settlement. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc. agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The lawsuit claimed that Old Dominion Freight Line Inc. allowed the 401(k) plan to incur excessive administrative fees and offered imprudent investment options, resulting in financial losses for plan participants and beneficiaries. Who are the class members? The class includes all participants in or beneficiaries of the Old Dominion 401(k) retirement plan from Oct. 1, 2016, through Dec. 31, 2025. They must also have had an account balance in the plan at any time during this period. This includes both current and former employees. How much can class members get? Pro rata payment: The settlement administrator will distribute the net settlement amount, after deductions for attorneys' fees, litigation costs, administrative expenses and service awards, among eligible class members on a pro rata basis. The specific amount each class member will receive depends on their average account balance in the plan during the class period relative to the total average account balances of all class members. Here's how the payment calculation works: -- The settlement administrator will calculate each class member's average account balance over the class period. -- It will then total the average account balances of all class members. -- The settlement administrator will determine each class member's share by dividing their average account balance by the total then multiplying that percentage by the net settlement amount. -- If a calculated payment is less than $50, that class member will not receive a payment. No action needed to receive payment Class members do not need to file a claim to receive payment. The settlement administrator will use existing plan records to determine eligibility and payment amounts and automatically send them. Those who need to update their address should contact the settlement administrator as soon as possible. They can fill out the online form, email it to info@olddominionerisasettlement.com or send it via Sealy v Old Dominion, c/o settlement administrator, PO Box 23309, Jacksonville, FL 32241. Required information -- To fill out the online address change form, class members must provide the notice ID and PIN from their settlement notice. -- If the class member is deceased, the legal beneficiary must provide a copy of the death certificate and documentation showing their status as the legal beneficiary (such as a will or estate documentation). Payout options -- Current participants with active plan accounts will receive payments as direct deposits into their retirement account. -- Former participants will receive a paper check mailed to their last known address. $1.9 million settlement fund breakdown The $1,900,000 settlement fund covers: -- Administrative expenses: To be determined -- Fiduciary costs: Up to $25,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $633,270 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be determined -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 each -- Payments to class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Final fairness hearing: Jan. 27, 2026 When is the Sealy v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc. payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to class members after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Old Dominion Freight Line Inc. breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA by allowing excessive administrative fees and offering imprudent investment options in its 401(k) retirement plan. The plaintiffs claimed that these actions resulted in financial losses to plan participants and beneficiaries. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc. denies all allegations of wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of continued litigation. [GN] OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: $39MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP issued a statement regarding notice of a proposed class action settlement. IN RE OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 2:22-CV-01717-MTL SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES CLASS ACTION To: all persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired Opendoor Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ: OPEN; CUSIP: 683712103) common stock (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with Opendoor's de-SPAC Merger on or about December 21, 2020 and/or its February 2021 Offering on or about February 4, 2021, and/or (ii) on the NASDAQ or any U.S.-based trading platform during the period from December 21, 2020 through November 3, 2022, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, that Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and Opendoor and the other defendants, have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the class action in the amount of $39,000,000. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Michael T. Liburdi, either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on January 6, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, District of Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Courtroom 504, Phoenix, AZ 85003 to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 13, 2025; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain copies of the Postcard Notice, long-form Notice, and Claim Form by visiting www.OpendoorSecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Opendoor Securities Settlement c/o Verita Global, LLC Claims Administrator P.O. Box 301171 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171 info@OpendoorSecuritiesSettlement.com 1-888-999-6212 Inquiries, other than requests for copies of notices or about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP Michael P. Canty Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com 1-888-219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than December 27, 2025. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, available at www.OpendoorSecuritiesSettlement.com and www.labaton.com, and such request must be received no later than December 16, 2025. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, available at www.OpendoorSecuritiesSettlement.com and www.labaton.com, such that they are received no later than December 16, 2025. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE DATED: November 18, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Eagan Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA EAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01805 (W.D., Tex., Nov. 10, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former enterprise customers, and their current and former employees and contractors. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Oracle Corporation supplies software for enterprise information management. The Company offers databases and relational servers, application development and decision support tools, and enterprise business applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214)744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-11 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com OTTER TAIL CORP: Antitrust Suit Ongoing in Canada Court ------------------------------------------------------- Otter Tail Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on September 26, 2025, a putative nation-wide class action complaint (Case No. S-257310) was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada against Northern Pipe, Vinyltech Corporation, Otter Tail Corporation and several other PVC pipe manufacturers. The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in 2021, conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of PVC pipe through an information exchange, breaching Canada's Competition Act, and creating tortious liability. The plaintiffs seek general damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, cost, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. Otter Tail Corporation and its subsidiaries form a diverse, multi-platform business consisting of a vertically integrated, regulated utility with generation, transmission and distribution facilities complemented by manufacturing businesses providing metal fabrication for custom machine parts and metal components, manufacturing of extruded and thermoformed plastic products, and manufacturing of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe products. PERSONIC MANAGEMENT: Provides Notice to Patients on Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Personic Management Company LLC, on behalf of its affiliates, subsidiaries, and managed professional entities informed patients of a security incident that involved protected health information ("PHI"). We are providing you with information about the incident, what we have done in response, and steps you can take to protect your information, including activating the free credit monitoring and identity protection services we are making available to you. WHAT HAPPENED? On September 1, 2025, Personic was alerted to unauthorized activity involving a third-party software platform the company uses to process patient information (the "Platform"). After learning of the activity, Personic promptly initiated a comprehensive investigation with the assistance of third-party experts to determine the circumstances surrounding the incident and notified law enforcement authorities. The investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed the Platform on August 29, 2025, and acquired certain data. With the assistance of a third-party data review expert, Personic conducted a comprehensive review to determine what data had been accessed and acquired, whether the data contained PHI, and to whom the information pertained. On October 13, 2025, the review determined that some of your PHI was subject to unauthorized access and acquisition. WHAT INFORMATION WAS INVOLVED? The following types of your PHI were involved: name, address, date of birth, full or partial Social Security number, driver's license number, date of service, diagnostic treatment information, insurance information, Medical Record Number, medical history, medications, patient number, provider name, surgical information, and treatment location. WHAT WE ARE DOING. Personic takes protecting your PHI seriously. We conducted a diligent investigation to confirm the nature and scope of the incident. In addition, we have taken steps to reduce the likelihood of a similar incident from occurring in the future, and we continue to make additional improvements that strengthen our cybersecurity protections. Although we are unaware of any instances in which the PHI that was subject to unauthorized access and acquisition in this incident has been misused, we are providing you with access to twenty-four (24) months of complimentary credit monitoring and identity protection services. WHAT YOU CAN DO. You can review the enclosed Additional Steps to Protect Your Information for further guidance, which includes information on monitoring your accounts, credit freezes, and fraud alerts. We encourage you to remain vigilant by reviewing your financial account statements and credit reports for any anomalies, and we encourage you to notify your financial institution of any unauthorized transactions or suspected instances of identity theft or fraud. You should also be on guard for schemes where malicious actors may pretend to represent Personic or reference this incident. As a precautionary measure and to help protect your identity, we are offering you free access to Cyberscout Single Bureau Credit Monitoring/Single Bureau Credit Report/Single Bureau Credit Score for twenty-four (24) months. This helps detect possible misuse of your PHI and provides you with identity protection support focused on immediate identification and resolution of identity theft. The enrollment requires an internet connection and e-mail account and may not be available to minors under the age of 18 years of age. Please note that when signing up for monitoring services, you may be asked to verify personal information for your own protection to confirm your identity. FOR MORE INFORMATION. Should you have any questions, please contact 1-833-716-2114 toll-free Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern time (excluding major U.S. holidays). Additional Steps to Protect Your Information Monitor Your Accounts We recommend that you regularly review statements from your accounts and periodically obtain your credit report from one or more of the national credit reporting companies. You may obtain a free copy of your credit report online at www.annualcreditreport.com, by calling toll-free 1-877-322-8228, or by mailing an Annual Credit Report Request Form (available at www.annualcreditreport.com) to Annual Credit Report Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA, 30348-5281. You may also purchase a copy of your credit report by contacting one or more of the three national credit reporting agencies listed below. Equifax(R) P.O. Box 740241 Atlanta, GA 30374-0241 1-800-685-1111 www.equifax.com Experian P.O. Box 9701 Allen, TX 75013-9701 1-888-397-3742 www.experian.com TransUnion(R) P.O. Box 1000 Chester, PA 19016-1000 1-800-888-4213 www.transunion.com When you receive your credit reports, review them carefully. Look for accounts or creditor inquiries that you did not initiate or do not recognize. Look for information, such as home address and Social Security number that is not accurate. If you see anything you do not understand, call the credit reporting agency at the telephone number on the report. Credit Freeze You have the right to put a security freeze, also known as a credit freeze, on your credit file, so that no new credit can be opened in your name without the use of a Personal Identification Number (PIN) that is issued to you when you initiate a freeze. A credit freeze is designed to prevent potential credit grantors from accessing your credit report without your consent. If you place a credit freeze, potential creditors and other third parties will not be able to access your credit report unless you temporarily lift the freeze. Therefore, using a credit freeze may delay your ability to obtain credit. Pursuant to federal law, you cannot be charged to place or lift a credit freeze on your credit report. Should you wish to place a credit freeze, please contact all three major consumer reporting agencies listed below. Equifax P.O. Box 105788 Atlanta, GA 30348-5788 1-800-685-1111 www.equifax.com/personal/ credit-report-services Experian P.O. Box 9554 Allen, TX 75013-9554 1-888-397-3742 www.experian.com/ freeze/center.html TransUnion P.O. Box 2000 Chester, PA 19016-2000 1-888-909-8872 www.transunion.com/ credit-freeze You must separately place a credit freeze on your credit file at each credit reporting agency. The following information should be included when requesting a credit freeze: 1) Full name, with middle initial and any suffixes; 2) Social Security number; 3) Date of birth (month, day, and year); 4) Current address and previous addresses for the past five (5) years; 5) Proof of current address, such as a current utility bill or telephone bill; and 6) Other personal information as required by the applicable credit reporting agency. If you request a credit freeze online or by phone, then the credit reporting agencies have one (1) business day after receiving your request to place a credit freeze on your credit file report. If you request a lift of the credit freeze online or by phone, then the credit reporting agency must lift the freeze within one (1) hour. If you request a credit freeze or lift of a credit freeze by mail, then the credit agency must place or lift the credit freeze no later than three (3) business days after getting your request. Fraud Alerts You also have the right to place an initial or extended fraud alert on your file at no cost. An initial fraud alert lasts one (1) year and is placed on a consumer’s credit file. Upon seeing a fraud alert display on a consumer’s credit file, a business is required to take steps to verify the consumer’s identity before extending new credit. If you are a victim of identity theft, you are entitled to an extended fraud alert, which is a fraud alert lasting seven (7) years. Should you wish to place a fraud alert, please contact any one of the agencies listed below. Equifax P.O. Box 105788 Atlanta, GA 30348-5788 1-888-766-0008 www.equifax.com/personal/ credit-report-services Experian P.O. Box 9554 Allen, TX 75013-9554 1-888-397-3742 www.experian.com/ fraud/center.html TransUnion P.O. Box 2000 Chester, PA 19016-2000 1-800-680-7289 www.transunion.com/fraudvictim-resource/place-fraudalert Additional Information You can further educate yourself regarding identity theft and the steps you can take to protect yourself, by contacting your state Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission. Instances of known or suspected identity theft should be reported to law enforcement, your Attorney General, and the FTC. The Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 1-877-ID-THEFT (1-877-438-4338) TTY: 1-866-653-4261 www.ftc.gov/idtheft STAKE CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Drake Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN DRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03031 (W.D. Tenn., Nov. 10, 2025) 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 Drake was employed by the Defendant as a fiver locator technician. Stake Center Locating, LLC infrastructure and fiber optic network locating in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com TD BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Employee Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero of HRD reports when federal regulators came down hard on TD Bank for money laundering failures last October, the bank moved fast to show it was serious about compliance. What followed, according to a lawsuit filed this week, was a targeted campaign against Chinese and Chinese-American employees that went far beyond anything resembling objective investigation. When federal regulators came down hard on TD Bank for money laundering failures last October, the bank moved fast to show it was serious about compliance. What followed, according to a lawsuit filed this week, was a targeted campaign against Chinese and Chinese-American employees that went far beyond anything resembling objective investigation. The case, filed November 19 in federal court in Manhattan, centers on how HR investigations can veer into discrimination when conducted under regulatory pressure. Five named plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class they say includes more than 22 workers terminated from the bank's New York City Chinatown branches between 2022 and now. The narrative here carries a particular sting. The bank had actively recruited Chinese-speaking employees to those branches to build trust with Chinese customers. Executives encouraged these employees to develop relationships with the community and bank with TD to boost credibility. Then, when the DOJ launched an investigation into how criminal networks were using TD branches to launder money, those same employees became targets. On October 10, 2024, TD Bank had pled guilty to violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and agreed to pay 1.8 billion dollars in penalties. The money-laundering scheme itself involved networks using Chinese intermediaries. But according to the allegations now in court, investigators didn't distinguish between the actual criminals running the scheme and the bank employees who happened to be Chinese or Chinese-American. What makes this case particularly relevant to HR professionals is what the investigation actually looked like on the ground. Employees describe being summoned to TD's corporate headquarters for questioning, greeted by lawyers and corporate security, placed on paid suspension for weeks or months, and eventually fired for unspecified violations of the company's code of conduct. Many say they still don't know exactly what they did wrong. One employee, promoted five times in a decade and awarded the CEO WOW! Leadership Award in 2022, was questioned about a five-thousand-dollar gift from his parents for a down payment and rent payments from tenants. He provided explanations. He had documentation. None of it mattered. He was terminated anyway. Another employee, newly pregnant, was let go in April 2023 after investigators grilled her about twenty-five-thousand dollars her parents had loaned her for a car. She had made timely deposits as the money came in. The investigators still treated it as suspicious. The pattern the lawsuit describes is striking: of the employees terminated at those Chinatown branches, all but one were Chinese or Chinese-American. Investigators, the suit alleges, conducted exhaustive dives into transaction histories, dismissed legitimate explanations, and applied standards that simply didn't exist for employees elsewhere in the bank. After termination, the bank also closed these employees' personal accounts and barred them from banking relationships with TD going forward. For HR leaders watching regulatory scrutiny intensify across the financial industry, the case carries a cautionary lesson. Appearing responsive to regulators doesn't require sacrificing due process or investigation integrity. When oversight pressure drives investigation decisions, discrimination tends to follow. [GN] TEREX CORP: M&A Investigates Merger With REV Group -------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- Terex Corporation (NYSE: TEX) related to its merger with REV Group. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Terex shareholders will own approximately 58% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/terex-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- REV Group, Inc. (NYSE: REVG) related to its merger with Terex Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, REV Group shareholders will receive 0.9809 of a share of the combined company and 8$8.71 in cash for each REV Group share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/rev-group-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- FirstSun Capital Bancorp (NASDAQ: FSUN) related to its merger with First Foundation Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, FirstSun shareholders will own 59.5% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/firstsun-capital-bancorp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cadence Bank (NYSE: CADE) related to its sale to Huntington Bancshares Incorporated. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Cadence shareholders will receive 2.47 shares of Huntington common stock for each share of Cadence common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cadence-bank/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misuse of Personal Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Rieger, writing for Betakit, reports that TikTok is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit that alleges the social media app did not disclose the scale or scope of personal information it collects from Canadian users, or disclose how that data was used to sell targeted advertising. The lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of B.C. on Nov. 14, on behalf of a British Columbia resident and TikTok users across Canada. It names parent company ByteDance as a defendant, alongside TikTok and TikTok's Canadian division. It also suggests a proposed subclass of victims: children. None of the suit's allegations have yet been proven in court, and the lawsuit has not yet been certified. Earlier this fall, provincial and federal privacy watchdogs released a report that found TikTok had taken "inadequate measures" to keep children off its platform—resulting in the collection of personal and potentially sensitive information of "a large number" of Canadian children. TikTok has been available on Canadian app stores since 2017, and serves more than 14 million active monthly users in the country. However, it did not have a stand-alone Canadian privacy policy until this year, and previously relied on a bucket policy referring to "other regions." "None of the iterations of the privacy policy disclosed to users that TikTok was combining and categorizing the personal information it collected on them in order to create detailed profiles," the lawsuit alleges. "Neither did they disclose that TikTok's purpose for creating these profiles was to entice users to spend more and more time on the platform and to be able to sell advertising targeted at those users while they were on the platform." TikTok kept data from children's deleted accounts Users younger than 13 are banned from using TikTok's platform, and TikTok has said that it deletes roughly 500,000 accounts belonging to children each year. However, privacy commissioners found that TikTok kept information collected from those children's accounts even after their profiles were deleted. In response to the privacy commissioners' concerns, TikTok has committed to implementing new models to detect underage users. It also vows to clearly communicate its policies regarding how it retains, stores, and uses user data. However, the lawsuit maintains that these actions aren't adequate responses to any harm caused by TikTok's alleged previous collection of user data without informed consent. It further asks that TikTok be forced to disgorge any profits it collected through the use of that data. Last year, TikTok was ordered to wind down its Canadian business by an unspecified date. Its app remains available in the country as of this writing. The company claimed that last year it contributed $2.3 billion in GDP to Canada's economy through its own operations, as well as content creators and small businesses promoting their work through the platform. BetaKit has reached out to representing law firm Charney Lawyers, as well as ByteDance and TikTok, for comment. [GN] TREX COMPANY: Frost Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ CLARENCE FORST; and TAMMY FROST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TREX COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04288-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., Nov. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.trex.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Trex Company, Inc. manufactures non-wood decking alternative products. The Company offers decking and railing, outdoor lighting, and accessory hardware products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com TRINITY HEALTH: Agrees to Settle 2021 Data Breach Suit for $450,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Trinity Health Corporation has agreed to pay $450,000 to settle a class action lawsuit over a January 2021 data breach impacting the Accellion file-transfer platform that allegedly compromised private patient information. The Trinity Health class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 2, 2025 and covers the 18,153 California residents whose data may have been impacted in the incident and who were mailed a notice about the Trinity Health data breach to a California address. The court-approved website for the Trinity Health settlement can be found at https://TrinityHealthClassClaim.com/. Per the settlement site, Trinity Health settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit documented proof of out-of-pocket losses with their claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $1,000. The settlement agreement details that reimbursable expenses include those related to identity theft, card replacements, overdraft fees and other costs reasonably incurred as a result of the data breach. In lieu of documented-loss reimbursement, class members with a valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the amount that remains in the net settlement fund after the payment of legal fees, service awards, administrative expenses and out-of-pocket loss claims. According to the settlement website, the amount each class member will receive depends on the total number of valid claims submitted. Court documents state that cash payouts could be between $115 and $231, depending on the number of people who participate in the settlement. The settlement agreement outlines that class members may elect to receive their payout via check or electronic payment, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days after issuance before expiration. To submit a Trinity Health settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a settlement class member but did not receive a settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. Trinity Health settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by January 19, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Trinity Health settlement at a hearing on April 29, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Trinity Health class action lawsuit claimed that the Michigan-based healthcare provider was notified in late January 2021 by Accellion, a third-party vendor, that certain files present in the secure email-sending file transfer platform were likely downloaded by an unauthorized, unknown user. According to court documents, the sensitive information present in the Accellion file-transfer platform at the time of the Trinity Health data breach included patient names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, health providers, dates and types of services received, medical record numbers, lab results, Social Security numbers, credit card details and more. [GN] UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Class Suit Over Federal Bathroom Policy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Kavalauskas, writing for Vanguard News Group, reports that a civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard has filed a class-action lawsuit challenging a Trump-Vance administration policy that blocks intersex and transgender federal employees from using bathrooms aligned with their affirmed gender, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU, along with the ACLU of D.C., the ACLU of Illinois and Democracy Forward, filed the complaint on behalf of LeAnne Withdrow. Withdrow, from Springfield, Illinois, is a civilian employee for the Illinois National Guard and serves as a lead military and family readiness specialist. As a former staff sergeant for the National Guard, she has earned multiple awards and commendations, including the Illinois National Guard Abraham Lincoln Medal of Freedom, according to the ACLU press release. According to the release, after President Trump issued the Jan. 20 executive order, officials from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. Department of Defense and the federal National Guard Bureau required all employees to use restrooms that aligned with their "biological sex." Shortly after, Withdrow was no longer permitted to use the women’s restroom as instructed by her supervisors. In response, Withdrow filed a class-action complaint disputing the order to the Army National Guard Bureau Equal Opportunity Office (NGB-EO), and soon after to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, "both the NGB-EO and EEOC failed to resolve the matter. Ms. Withrow has now gone to court to stop this unlawful and discriminatory order," the press release states. [GN] WILDERMUTH FUND: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Wildermuth Fund ("Wildermuth Fund" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WESFX) and reminds investors of the December 29, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, by (1) miscalculating the fair value of the Fund's investments without sufficient, reliable evidence to support them; (2) failing to disclose that certain portfolio companies with questionable going concern value were being propped up with monthly cash infusions by the Fund; and (3) intentionally inflating the Fund's net asset value, leading to the payment of excessive and unearned advisory fees to the Adviser, all of which damaged Class members. On June 29, 2023, the Fund announced that, based upon the recommendation of the Adviser, the Fund's Board of Trustees had approved a plan of liquidation for the Fund (the "Liquidation Plan"). The Adviser Defendants reassured investors that there were no issues with the underlying investments held by the Fund and the Fund continued trading at or around a NAV of $10 per share. The reason for the liquidation stemmed from the loss of certain tax advantages. On November 1, 2023, Daniel and Carol Wildermuth resigned from the Board and from their roles as officers of the Fund. Daniel Wildermuth further resigned as Chairman of the Board and the agreement with the Adviser was terminated. The Board replaced Wildermuth Advisory with BW Asset Management Ltd. ("BWAM"), a subsidiary of Kroll, as the Fund's investment adviser. Compared with reported values in March 2022, by October 2024, the value of the Fund's investments had dropped by 63.6% and the NAV had declined by 73.7%. Compared to the values reported in March of 2023, by October 2024, the value of the Fund's investments had dropped by 47.4% and the NAV had declined by 57.7%, in comparison to the March 2023 valuations. Finally, by 2024, Kroll revised its NAV to less than $2.00 per share, an 80% reduction in NAV per share. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding the Wildermuth Fund's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Wildermuth Fund class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/WESFX or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] X CORP: John Doe NCII Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOHN DOE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. X CORP., (f/k/a Twitter, Inc., d/b/a X), and X.AI CORP., (d/b/a xAI), Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-07597, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on November 14, 2025. The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01282 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that X (formerly Twitter) violates the right to control the bounds of the disclosure of one's intimate visual depiction through the nonconsensual disclosure of identifiable individuals' intimate images ("NCII"), including intimate images of minors and child sexual exploitation images. Specifically, Plaintiff John Doe asserts that he did not consent to the disclosure of his NCII by X, which were taken from his OnlyFans account, a subscription-based platform where creators produce content for subscribers or fans to view. In disclosing the Plaintiff's and Class Members' intimate visual depictions, the Defendants recklessly disregarded whether Plaintiff and the Class Members consented to such disclosures. As a consequence, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to recover liquidated damages in the amount of $150,000 per each and every disclosure per Plaintiff and each Class Member from October 1, 2022, to the present, says the complaint. Plaintiff John Doe further seeks recovery of the cost of the action, including attorney's fees and other litigation costs incurred, and injunctive relief. X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, is a social networking service where users can post text, images and videos. X.AI Corp., doing business as xAI, is an American company working in the area of artificial intelligence, social media and technology.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Derek Lawrence Shaffer, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 1300 I Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 538-8000 - and - Shon Morgan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES LLP 865 S Figueroa St 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,669 PI Claims as of Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. is defending 3,669 claims as of September 30, 2025, in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of September 30, 2025, we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 38,074 claims at a total cost of $10.9 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b4hqTo ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Defends 2,794 Active PI Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, has recorded 2,794 and 3,207 total active claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid (the "Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50 defendants) in claims filed in various state and federal courts. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VnWSgw ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Still Faces Product Liability Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- A wholly-owned subsidiary of CarParts.com, Inc., Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gXTSq5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Faces 833 Pending PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, at both September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, has approximately 833 pending against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID) alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products. "With limited exception, the Company previously rejected EID’s demand for indemnity and defense of asbestos and product liability matters arising from an EID subsidiary, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., ("SGPI"). EID brought an arbitration proceeding on this issue and in November 2024, the Company and EID reached an agreement in principle and adjourned the arbitration. The Company finalized the settlement agreement in March 2025. Per the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company assumed approximately 20 current SGPI asbestos cases as well as all future SGPI asbestos and product liability claims. The agreement also includes that the Company is entitled to insurance recoveries where applicable under certain existing insurance policies as well as potential cost sharing between the parties for certain cases. As of September 30, 2025 there are approximately 30 SGPI asbestos litigation claims outstanding. The Company is entitled to insurance recoveries where applicable under certain existing insurance policies as well as potential cost sharing between the parties for certain cases. "At September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, Chemours had accruals of $90 and $61 related to these matters, respectively. " A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C9wHsK ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $1.03BB Superfund Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., at September 30, 2025, has reported accrued liabilities of US$939,000,000 for manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites and US$90,000,000 for Other Superfund sites for a total of US$1,029,000,000 in environmental liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Hazardous substances, such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and coal tar, have been used or generated in the course of operations of the Utilities and their predecessors and are present at sites and in facilities and equipment they currently or previously owned, including sites at which gas was manufactured or stored. "For Superfund Sites where there are other potentially responsible parties and the Utilities are not managing the site investigation and remediation, the accrued liability represents an estimate of the amount the Utilities will need to pay to investigate and, where determinable, discharge their related obligations. For Superfund Sites (including the manufactured gas plant sites) for which one of the Utilities is managing the investigation and remediation, the accrued liability represents an estimate of the company's share of the undiscounted cost to investigate the sites and, for sites that have been investigated in whole or in part, the cost to remediate the sites, if remediation is necessary and if a reasonable estimate of such cost can be made. Remediation costs are estimated in light of the information available, applicable remediation standards and experience with similar sites." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5i0c8v ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Inc. Defends Product Liability Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Coty Inc. has been named as a defendant in numerous civil actions alleging that certain cosmetic talcum powder products sold by the Company were contaminated with asbestos leading to bodily injury, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants and, to date, many such actions have been resolved by settlement or other resolution acceptable to the Company. In each of the previous fiscal years the value of settlements, both individually and in the aggregate, has not been material but, due to the rising number of filed and pending cases against the Company, as well as the evolving litigation landscape, settlement values and other costs associated with these cases are likely to increase in the future. The Company believes that a limited portion of its costs incurred in defending and resolving certain of these claims will be covered by insurance policies issued by several insurance carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions and policy limits and in some cases there may be indemnity obligations of third parties. While the Company and its legal counsel intend to continue to defend these cases vigorously, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or collectively. The Company has accrued for such litigation when the likelihood of loss is probable and a reasonable estimate of such loss can be made, and such accruals are not material to the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. However, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities currently cannot be reasonably estimated." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JnOZn5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "To date, we have not been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in our products make it unlikely that we will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. We maintain insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xgPlsY ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $404MM Reserves at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $404 million at September 30, 2025, and $396 million at December 31, 2024. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based on Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2045 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2045 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $557 million at September 30, 2025, and $539 million at December 31, 2024. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gfic3O ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Faces Product Liability Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emerson Electric Co. is a party to a number of pending legal proceedings and claims, including those involving general and product liability (including asbestos) and other matters, several of which claim substantial amounts of damages, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company accrues for such liabilities when it is probable that future costs (including legal fees and expenses) will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. Accruals are based on developments to date; management's estimates of the outcomes of these matters; and the Company's experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters. The Company engages an outside expert to develop an actuarial estimate of its expected costs to resolve all pending and future asbestos claims, including defense costs, as well as its related insurance receivables. The reserve for asbestos litigation, which is recorded on an undiscounted basis, is based on projected claims through 2065. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RKb08u ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Reports 17,000 Pending PI Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants in legal actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. At September 30, 2025, there were approximately 17,000 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. The vast majority of these actions were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), of which the majority of such actions were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the New York Supreme Court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. A relatively small portion of cases are on the Active or In Extremis docket in New York County or on active dockets in other jurisdictions. The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard demand of significant damages, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any Company product. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nXS94D ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Nexus Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- One of FG Nexus Inc.'s subsidiaries is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate defendants in addition us. In our experience, a large percentage of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=llYYbb ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in or accompanying its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The claims in our current lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work, or were settled by us for immaterial amounts. We believe that the resolution of these asbestos-related lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. However, legal matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and there exists the possibility that the ultimate resolution of these asbestos-related lawsuits could have a material adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wyrcGz ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $97MM Pending and Future Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of certain companies it previously acquired, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. International Paper states, "The Company's total recorded liability with respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was $97 million and $100 million net of insurance recoveries as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability, and do not believe additional material losses are probable." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g7olAf ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Defends Exposure Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. We cannot predict with certainty the extent to which we will be successful in litigating or otherwise resolving lawsuits on satisfactory terms in the future and we continue to evaluate different strategies related to asbestos claims filed against us including entity restructuring and judicial relief. Unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could have a material adverse impact on our business and financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c3QUJF ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck Has 605 Pending Talc Cases at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. arising from consumers' alleged exposure to talc in Dr. Scholl's foot powder, which Merck acquired through its merger with Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the divestiture of Merck's consumer care business to Bayer in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In these actions, plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc and developed mesothelioma as a result. As of September 30, 2025, approximately 605 cases were pending against Merck in various state courts." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wNDKAM ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 2,013 New Exposure Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc., for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, MLIC received approximately 2,013 and 2,251 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. "MLIC's defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; and (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hsPh52 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ODP Corp. Estimates up to $25MM Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------ The ODP Corporation's operating subsidiary OfficeMax, is named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for all pending, threatened and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale. The Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows; however, the Company has made provision for losses with respect to the pending proceedings. Additionally, as of September 27, 2025, the Company has made provision for environmental liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may be located. For all of the above-mentioned liabilities, the Company's combined estimated range of reasonably possible losses was approximately $15 million to $25 million. The Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to contingent liabilities. As additional information becomes known, these estimates may change." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pezxzz ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Has 17,540 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Skydance Corporation is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of September 30, 2025 (Successor), we had pending approximately 17,540 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 18,310 as of December 31, 2024 (Predecessor). For the period from August 7 - September 30, 2025 (Successor) and for the period from July 1 - August 6, 2025 (Predecessor) we received approximately 450 and 330 new claims, respectively, and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 910 and 120 claims, respectively. We report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs for the years 2024 (Predecessor) and 2023 (Predecessor) for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately $34 million and $54 million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DkKjmP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 163 Personal Injury Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in 119 cases asserting claims on behalf of 163 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NAXZhz ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 119 Exposure Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. was a co-defendant in 119 cases asserting claims on behalf of 163 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ohowOA ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Defends PI Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of its products many years ago, including products from divested businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Currently there are lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our products or products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition caused by our products. We defend those cases vigorously. However, certain of our agreements relating to divested businesses do not provide us the ability to directly control management of those claims, and our ongoing reimbursement of outside counsel and other expenses relating to defense of such claims represent the vast majority of our annual asbestos net litigation spend. Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of claims with no payment to claimants. "Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for many of these asbestos claims. We believe these arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity costs for these claims for many years into the future. The uncertainties of claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting claim litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience defending these claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. In the fourth quarter of 2025, we elected to change our method of accounting for net legacy asbestos-related defense costs from expensing as incurred to accruing for all future defense costs." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sLaqO3 ********* 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 2025. 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 ***