260810.mbx

260810.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 10, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 158 Headlines 1988 SAINTS LLC: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages 5905 AHK LLC: Saldana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AAA CLUB: Underpays Customer Service Representatives, Royal Says ACADIA PHARMA: Sept. 2 Final Pretrial Conference in Securities Suit ACEOLUTION INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sims Alleges ADIDAS AMERICA: Removes Heck Class Suit to M.D. Pa. ADMA BIOLOGICS: Continues to Defend Mazzarino Securities Class Suit AESTO LLC: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Secure Information AESTO LLC: Sibthorpe Sues Over Leaked Private Information AFFORDACARE INSURANCE: Owen-Brooks Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas AIR LINE PILOTS: Hansen Suit Alleges Violation of Railway Labor Act ALABAMA POWER: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Maryland Court ALIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits AMAZON.COM INC: Must Return Unlawfully Charged Tariffs, Suit Says AMERICAN STATES: PFAS Class Settlements Boost GSWC's Cash Flows AMGEN INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Claims ANDERSONS INC: $5M Reserve Set for Antitrust Class Settlement APERION CARE INC: Miceli Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages APPLE INC: Faces $32.5BB Class Suit Over Biometric Security System ARIZONA PUBLIC: Defends Nuclear Wage Class Suit in Maryland AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES: Davis Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ATLAS ENERGY: Ayers Reorg. Class/Derivative Suit Term Sheet Reached AUTOZONERS LLC: Grunahuer Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Breach Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Oct. 29 BE HURD INC: Justice Sues Over Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages BELL COUNTY: Court Denies Bid to Certify Inmate Video Class BELL PROPERTIES: Damoulakis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BETTER BASEBALL: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BEVERLY HILLS REHABILITATION: Macias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLACKROCK INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims BLOCK INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits BLOOM ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 28 BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Suit Over Shared Savings Fees in W.D. Mich. BOOKING HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Contractual Parity Class Suit BOOSTER FUELS: Court of Appeals Revives Arbitration Bid in Tafoya BOUQS COMPANY: Rudolph Files Suit in S.D. California BRIGHTON-BEST INTERNATIONAL: Knowles Balks at Inaccessible Website BUNN COMMERCIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sonneck Alleges CAPRI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits in Del. CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 28 CARDIOVASCULAR INSTITUTE: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach CASTLE BUILDERS SUPPLY: Quimby Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CATERPILLAR INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gross Says CBE GROUP INC: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida CBIZ INC: Reaches $7.2M Settlement in MOVEit Cyberattack MDL CGT GLOBAL LLC: Paredes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHAD YOUKER: Van Dobbs Bids for Class Certification Tossed CHARLES RIVER: Defends Securities Class, Derivative Suits CHARMING MEDICAL: Response to Amended Class Complaint Due Aug. 11 CHICK-FIL-A INC: Dapeer Law Investigates Potential Class Action CHILDREN'S RESCUE FUND: Robinson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. CINDY VO CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Evans Alleges CLAY-PLATTE FAMILY: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $1MM CLEAR CHOICE JANITORIAL: Andrade Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COINBASE GLOBAL: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Underwood" COLUMBIA BANKING: Continues to Defend MOVEit Data Breach MDL Suits COMMUNITY ANIMAL MEDICINE: Medina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER: Bowman Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. CONSUMER SAFETY: Fails to Secure IT Network, Million Says CORNICK GARBER & SANDLER: Chandra Files Suit in S.D. New York CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in Michigan DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Klinefelter Suit Removed to C.D. California DATAVANT LLC: McIntosh Suit Removed to W.D. Washington DDELA GROUP: Fernandez-Castillo Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota DELTA AIR: Bid to Strike Berrin's Sham Declaration Tossed DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Gyamerah Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Kamara Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI DISC MEDICINE: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Business Info DLS EVENTS LLC: Tucker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DNOW INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements DOUGLAS BURGUM: Joint Status Report Due Oct. 13 DRIVETIME CAR SALES: Thompson Suit Removed to C.D. California ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER: Escobedo Sues Over Data Privacy Violations EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Prelim Nod ELITE SOURCE: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EMPLOYBRIDGE LLC: Sosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit EP WEALTH ADVISORS: Wu Files Suit in C.D. California EUROFINS DONOR & PRODUCT: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. California FAIRLIFE LLC: Montalvo Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII FASTLY INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits FEDERAL EXPRESS: Amended Pretrial Sched Order Entered in Masinas FN LOGISTICS: Sumbler Sues to Recover Regular and OT Pay FORD MOTOR: Bid for Leave to File Supplemental Authority OK'd FRANKLIN-CHRISTOPH LLC: Suit Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website FRESHWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities, Derivative Suits FURNITURELAND SOUTH: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind G.S.E. CONSTRUCTION: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California GATE GOURMET INC: Link Suit Removed to W.D. Washington GAVIN NEWSOM: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Feb. 4, 2027 GENEDX HOLDINGS: Faces Kanungo Securities Class Action in Conn. GEORGIA POWER: Move to Dismiss Amended Antitrust Class Suit Lodged GKN AEROSPACE: Guadarrama Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. GLOBE LIFE: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Continues to Defend Securities, Derivative Suits GREEN TRIPS: Washington Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge GULFPORT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Underpaid Royalties Class Suit GUTIERREZ FAMILY: Gutierrez Family Sues Over Shell Egg Monopoly GUY RENTS INC: Yugovich Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HAIN CELESTIAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action Over $35MM HANESBRANDS INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due March 15, 2027 HAQ CONVENIENCE: Chema Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages HARBOR GROUP: Shapovalov Files Wage-and-Hour Suit in Wash. Super. HCF MANAGEMENT: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Action HERBALIFE LTD: Continues to Defend DeSimone Class Suit in L.A. HERTZ GLOBAL: Schweitzer Files Suit Over Share Price Drop HIGHT ENTERPRISES: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HILLCREST VINEYARD: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages HOMELIGHT INC: Class Cert Filing in Hopkins Due Feb. 12, 2027 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Sivitos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HUT 8: Securities Class Suit Final Settlement Hearing Set for Nov 6 HYLIION HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims IBOTTA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Colorado IMMUNITYBIO INC: Continues to Defend Class, Derivative Suits INDEPENDENCE REALTY: Discovery Ongoing in Sherman Act Class Suit INDEPENDENT BANK: Reaches $1.85M Deal in Overdraft Fee Class Suits INSTRUCTURE INC: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California INSULET CORP: Continues to Defend Hu Securities Class Suit in Mass. INTEGER HOLDINGS: West Palm Securities Suit Dismissed, Appeal Filed INTEGRATED SECURITY: Ward Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Continues to Defend Artuso Pastry Class Suit INTREPID POTASH: Continues to Defend NMMWA Class Suit in New Mexico IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to $45MM Securities Class Settlement JASON LUO: Bid to File Class Cert Materials Under Seal Tossed JR CAPITAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 14, 2027 K TOWN 32 CORP: Tobas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages KIDS AT HEART: Vennick Sues Over Facial Masks' Deceptive Marketing KIND PATCHES LIMITED: Maggi Files Suit in N.D. New York KMB GROWTH LLC: Voorhees Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. KUVA LABS: Faces Lisata Sues Over Breach of Merger Agreement LASERSHIP INC: Casillias Files Suit in E.D. Virginia LATCH INC: Faces Securities Class Actions in NY, Delaware LATOYA HUGHES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid LEGAL RIGHTS DEFENDERS: Othman Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Hunnicutt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LHK LLC: Sapede Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Securities Class Settlement Awaits Final OK LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Hicks Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Meraz Files Class Suit in C.D. Cal. LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Riganian Class Suit Discovery Ongoing LUCID GROUP: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits LUSHA SYSTEMS: Collects Data Without Consent, Stavros Alleges LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Vacates Remand Order in Jackson Suit M&S SKIN: Russo Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MANHATTAN ASSOC: Derivative Action Stayed Pending Class Suit Ruling MARIO'S PIZZA: Faces Galvez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. MARQETA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits MCCARTER & ENGLISH: Karnas Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey MCLANE/SUNEAST INC: Flores Suit Removed to E.D. California MEDLINK GEORGIA: Shelnut Class Suit Filed in M.D. Ga. MERCHANT MARKETPLACE: Vargas Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MERCK SHARP: Bid for Leave to Amend Pleadings Due Sept. 28 MIANOR RESTAURANT: Shahriar Wins Conditional Certification Bid MICHAEL HERNANDEZ: Murry Seeks to Conduct Class Cert Discovery MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept 21 MID AMERICA: Antitrust Deal Gets Prelim Nod; Derivative Suits Filed MIDWEST PETROL: Pardo Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers MISSISSIPPI POWER: Move to Dismiss Amended Antitrust Suit Filed MOCHITHINGS LLC: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MONAHAN PRODUCTS: Court Dismisses UPPAbaby Car Seat Class Suit MONOLITHIC POWER: Continues to Defend Class, Derivative Suits MONSANTO COMPANY: Berti Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONUMENT CAPITAL: McGraw Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 11 MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Nov. 6, 2026 MRS BPO: Brooks Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Cal. MULLIGAN SECURITY: "Mossiah" Class Settlement Wins Prelim Approval NATIONAL TENANT: $1.625MM Settlement Suit Final OK Hearing Set Dec 8 NBA PROPERTIES INC: Yee Suit Removed to N.D. California NCR ATLEOS: Hoak Retirement Plan Class Suit Settlement Finalized NCR VOYIX: November Final Hearing on Retirement Plans Suit Deal NEW JERSEY: High Court Rules Council Overstepped on DWI Surcharge NEW YORK, NY: Has Until Aug. 31 to Oppose Class Cert Bid NEXTDOOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend KVSB Class Suit NIAGEN BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Suit OPPENHEIMER & CO: Agrees to Settle ABDP Cash Sweep Suit for $70MM OTTER TAIL: $103.5M Settlement Reached in PVC Pipe Antitrust MDL PACS GROUP: Manchin Suit Dismissal Pending, Derivative Suit Stayed PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Oral Arguments Held in Securities Class Suit PARK HA BIOLOGICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sep 28 PASTA DE PASTA: Ramirez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend Verthelyi Class Suit in Cal. PENTAIR PLC: Walters Sues Over Misleading Business Statements PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Zantac MDL Suits PINNACLE WEST: Defends Sherman Act Class Suit in Maryland PNC FINANCIAL: November Final Hearing on Payment Card Suit Deal PREMIO INC: Faces Romero Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. PRIMORIS SERVICES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit PROG HOLDINGS: $5.3M IP Settlement Reached, Class Suit Pending PUBLIC SERVICE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Md. QUEST HOSPITALITY: Must File Class Cert Response by August 20 RAYMOND JAMES: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep Class Suit RESOURCING EDGE: Villarta Sues to Recover Regular and OT Pay RIGHT AT SCHOOL: McGinnis-Aquilina Suit Removed to N.D. California RIVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity Class Suits RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Securities Class Action Settlement Approved ROLEX WATCH: Wiretaps Users' Private Info, Says Del Salto RXLINK INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Newell Due Jan. 13, 2027 RXSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits SEABOARD CORP: Pork Antitrust Settlements Reached, DPP Suits Remain SEAGATE TECH: Nov. 17 Final Hearing on $70M Securities Suit Deal SEPHORA USA: Wiretaps Users' Private Info, Smith Says SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits SINCLAIR INC.: Trial in TV Ad Antitrust MDL Set for Nov. 1, 2027 SKI-PRO INC: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SMART & FINAL: Watson Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class, Derivative Suits SONITOR TECHNOLOGIES: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach SOUTHERN COMPANY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Antitrust Class Suit Filed STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep, ERISA Class Suits SUNRISE MFG: Romero Sues for Employment Law Violation SUZUKI MOTOR: 9th Cir. Affirms Jackson Brake Class Suit Dismissal SWEAT EQUITY: Dar Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Cert Discovery TENNESSEE: Seeks Leave to File Docs and Exhibits Under Seal TEXAS ROTISSERIE: Romero Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages TIDALHEALTH INC: Purnell Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages TRAJECTOR HOLDINGS: Bankruptcy Filing Halts Class Action Lawsuit TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit TRIVEST PARTNERS: Class Settlement in Hall Suit Gets Initial Nod UL SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Martucci Class Suit in Illinois ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICAL: Keeps Defending Class, Derivative Suits UNIFI AVIATION: Honroth Suit Removed to W.D. Washington UNITED NATURAL FOODS: Martinez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Reedy Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Ill. UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Owens Says UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Saunders Sues Over Inadequate Data Security UPBOUND GROUP: McBurnie Class Action Settled, Paid in Full UPSTART HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities, Derivative Suits USFREIGHTMASTER LLC: Faces Le Suit Over Telemarketing Calls VALASSIS DIRECT MAIL: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California VALLEY HUNT CLUB: Alberto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VANCOUVER COLLEGE: $30M School Abuse Class Settlement Gets Final OK VASSAR COLLEGE: Agrees to Settle Pay Equity Class Action for $5MM VERDUGO RESTAURANT: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VERSANT MEDIA: Court Compels Arbitration in "Rada" VERSAR DATA SOLUTIONS: Hudson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington VICOR CORP: Moore Sues Over Unjust Removal from Board of Directors VICTORIA'S SECRET: Gallardo Suit Removed to C.D. California VIGILANT ASSET PROTECTION: Rojas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION: Barbery Files Suit in D. Rhode Island VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION: Randall Sues Over Recent Cyberattack VISION PATH: African Can File Certain Docs Under Seal VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Agrees to Settle Defective Water Pumps Class Suit VONS COMPANIES: Lloyd Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Smith Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina WELLS FARGO: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Elgin Tossed WESTMONT LIVING: Lopez Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. WHOOP INC: Sanderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING: Egan Sues Over Data Security Incident WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ECOA Class Suit in Ill. WISE GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Business Statements YAD&PRE LLC: Kadakia Sues Over Failure to Compensate Wages YARDI SYSTEMS: Larancuent Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ********* 1988 SAINTS LLC: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Henry Lopez, Nelson Nacipucha, and Alejo Flores, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. 1988 SAINTS LLC d/b/a NINO'S RISTORANTE, NINO'S RESTAURANT GROUP, LTD d/b/a NINO'S RISTORANTE, and NINO SELIMAJ, Case No. 1:26-cv-06531 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid overtime wages. Even though Plaintiffs consistently worked overtime, Defendants did not pay them any overtime pay. Even when occasions Plaintiffs worked less than 40 hours in a week, Defendants did pay Plaintiffs for all of their hours worked. In addition, Plaintiffs' ability to advocate for themselves – both during their employment and now – and show that they were not paid for all of the time that they worked is harmed by Defendants' failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Defendants knew that nonpayment of minimum wage/overtime and improperly forcing and/or the Plaintiffs to share their tips with management would economically injure Plaintiffs and violated federal and state laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as servers at Nino's. The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant called Nino's located in Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 5905 AHK LLC: Saldana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 5905 AHK LLC, et al. The case is styled as Eduardo Daniel Saldana, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 5905 AHK LLC doing business Chevrolet Van Nuys, Keyes Motors Inc., Case No. 26STCV23908 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." 5905 AHK LLC doing business as Chevrolet Van Nuys Assembly -- https://www.chevroletvannuys.com/ -- was a General Motors automobile factory in Van Nuys, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony L. Draper, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: anthony@jameshawkinsaplc.com AAA CLUB: Underpays Customer Service Representatives, Royal Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY ROYAL, and LATOYA MATTHEWS individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. AAA CLUB ALLIANCE INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00906-UNA (D. Del., July 24, 2026) is a collective and class action arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act, and for common law claims of breach of contract or (in the alternative) unjust enrichment. The Defendant requires its customer service representatives to routinely work a full-time schedule, plus overtime. However, Defendant does not compensate CSRs for all work performed. The Defendant also requires its CSRs to perform compensable work tasks off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods. This policy results in CSRs not being paid for all time worked, including overtime, asserts the complaint. The Defendant knew or should have known how long it takes CSRs to complete their off-the-clock work, and Defendant could have properly compensated Plaintiffs and the putative Collective and Class for this work, but did not, alleges the suit. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as remote CSRs from their home offices in Kentucky and Maryland within the last three years. AAA Club Alliance Inc. offers insurance, travel services, travel information including maps, guides and information on hotels and restaurants, member discounts, auto repair recommendations, tow truck services and other services to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 Novi, MI 48375 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - Oscar A. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW PLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone: (734) 415-9011 E-mail: oscar@orodlaw.com ACADIA PHARMA: Sept. 2 Final Pretrial Conference in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated Monday, Aug. 4, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of California set a final pretrial conference for the City of Birmingham securities class suit on Sept. 2, 2026, and it continues to defend itself from derivative suits. On April 19, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative securities class action complaint (captioned City of Birmingham Relief Retirement Systems v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-0762) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its then-current executive officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to disclose that the materials submitted in support of the Company's sNDA seeking approval of pimavanserin for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with dementia-related psychosis contained statistical and design deficiencies and that the FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA in its current form. The action has progressed through class certification, discovery, and pretrial proceedings and remains pending. On September 29, 2021, the Court issued an order designating lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On Dec. 10, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that set forth the alleged disclosure deficiencies relating to the Company's sNDA for pimavanserin. The amended complaint continues to seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of the putative class. On March 11, 2024, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. The parties concluded discovery on Sept. 24, 2025. The parties submitted pretrial motions on Nov. 12, 2025, and briefing for these motions was completed on Feb. 25, 2026. The Court held a hearing for pretrial motions on April 10, 2026. The parties exchanged pretrial disclosures on July 10, 2026. The parties must lodge the pretrial order with the Court by Aug. 5, 2026; a mandatory settlement conference is scheduled for Aug. 17, 2026; and the final pretrial conference is scheduled for Sept. 2, 2026. Additionally, on Dec. 15, 2023, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative action (captioned Kanner et al. v. Biggar et al., Case No. 23-cv-2293) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against certain of the Company's current directors, with the Company named as a nominal defendant. The complaint is based on the same alleged misconduct as the Securities Class Action and asserts state law claims, on behalf of the Company, against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and insider trading. The complaint also asserts federal claims under Sections 10(b), 21D, and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On Dec. 27, 2023, the action was reassigned to District Judge William Q. Hayes and Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg due to its relation to the Securities Class Action. On Jan. 30, 2024, the parties jointly requested a stay of the action, and the Court granted that request, staying the action on Feb. 20, 2024, pending the outcome of the Company's Demand Review Committee's investigation into the underlying claims. The stay was briefly lifted on Sept. 5, 2025, but reinstated on Oct. 17, 2025, and remains in place. On Jan. 15, 2026, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle regarding the derivative claims. The parties filed a stipulation of settlement with the Court on July 14, 2026. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, which is still subject to Court approval, defendants agreed to certain governance reforms and agreed to an award of $1.5 million in attorneys' fees to be paid by the Company's insurance carrier. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative medicines for central nervous system disorders. It develops and markets therapies targeting neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions, including Parkinson's disease psychosis and other dementia-related indications. ACEOLUTION INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sims Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE SIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACEOLUTION INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-09646 (D.N.J., July 30, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Sims was employed by the Defendant as a vehicle operator. Aceolution Inc. provides mapping, data, geographic information, technology, consulting, and related operational services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Achchana Ranasinghe, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 Email: ac@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com ADIDAS AMERICA: Removes Heck Class Suit to M.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of ROBERT HECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Common Pleas Court of the State of Pennsylvania, County of Luzerne (Case No. 202607420) to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on July 30, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02149-JKM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Julia K. Munley. Adidas America Inc designs and markets apparel products. The Company provides shoes, apparel, and accessories for men, women, boys, girls, and infants and toddlers, as well as offers sports collections including basketball, football, and training shoes. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrea M. Kirshenbaum, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 402-3000 Facsimile: (267) 402-3131 Email: akirshenbaum@littler.com - and - Christina A. Angotti, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One PPG Pl., Suite 2400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 201-7623 Facsimile: (412) 456-2377 Email: cangotti@littler.com ADMA BIOLOGICS: Continues to Defend Mazzarino Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ADMA Biologics, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Mazzarino securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. A putative securities class action lawsuit filed on July 10, 2026, styled Mazzarino v. ADMA Biologics, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-06918 (D.N.J.), in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff Lisa Mazzarino brings the action against the Company, Adam Grossman, the Company's director, President, and Chief Executive Officer; Jerrold Grossman, the Company's Vice Chairman of the Board; and Brad Tade, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, as well as against certain of the Company's other directors and officers. The complaint asserts alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The litigation remains at a preliminary stage, and no court has made any findings on the merits of the claims. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the lawsuit are without merit and states that it intends to vigorously defend against the action. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, if any, that may result from the matter. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to this litigation. ADMA Biologics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and markets specialty plasma-derived biologics for the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases and immune deficiencies. It focuses on niche patient populations with unmet medical needs through its plasma collection centers and proprietary biologic products. AESTO LLC: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ---------------------------------------------------------- Emily Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AESTO, LLC d/b/a AESTO HEALTH, Case No. 2:26-cv-01338-ACA (S.D. Ala., July 29, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard highly sensitive protected health information and personally identifiable information (collectively, "Private Information") that Plaintiff and a class of individuals entrusted to it. To provide its data migration and archiving services, Aesto received, stored, and maintained the Private Information of patients of its Covered Entity clients, including Plaintiff and the Class. On December 18, 2025, Aesto experienced a network security incident that impacted a limited portion of its Amazon Web Services ("AWS") infrastructure (the "Data Breach"). Aesto did not confirm the scope of the Data Breach until May 26, 2026 following an extensive forensic investigation and manual document review—and did not begin notifying its Covered Entity clients until June 26, 2026. The public Notice of Data Security Incident is dated June 24, 2026. This delay of approximately six months from the start of the Data Breach deprived victims of the earliest opportunity to protect themselves from identity theft and fraud. Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages, to obtain restitution, and to compel Aesto to adopt reasonable data-security practices to prevent future harm, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's Private Information was provided to a Covered Entity. Aesto is a Birmingham, Alabama healthcare-technology company that provides healthcare data migration and archiving services and acts as a business associate to healthcare providers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com AESTO LLC: Sibthorpe Sues Over Leaked Private Information --------------------------------------------------------- SALLY SIBTHORPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AESTO, LLC d/b/a AESTO HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01367-ACA (N.D. Ala., August 3, 2026) is a class action arising from failure of the Defendant to protect personally identifiable information and protected health information of its clients, including Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant identified an unauthorized third party accessed of its systems between December 2, 2025, and December 18, 2025 which copied files containing PII and PHI of its Covered Entity clients. A public Notice of Data Security Incident was issued on June 24, 2026, approximately six months after the incident which deprived the victims of the earliest opportunity to protect themselves from identity theft and fraud, says the suit. Plaintiff Sibthorpe is a resident of Township, Michigan and a Covered Entity client of Aesto. Aesto, LLC is a healthcare-technology company based in Birmingham, Alabama that provides healthcare data migration and archiving services and acts as a business associate to healthcare providers throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com AFFORDACARE INSURANCE: Owen-Brooks Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affordacare Insurance Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Susan Juanita Owen-Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Affordacare Insurance Agency, LLC., Case No. 3:26-cv-02534-E (N.D. Tex., July 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. AffordaCare Insurance -- https://affordacareinsurance.com/ -- is a nationally recognized brokerage specializing in major medical employee benefits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Eric Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com AIR LINE PILOTS: Hansen Suit Alleges Violation of Railway Labor Act ------------------------------------------------------------------- GREG HANSEN; RUDI KOHLBACHER; RICHARD ZINS; and MICHAEL NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02962 (W.D. Tenn., July 30, 2026) is an action arising out of the Defendant's breach of its duty of fair representation to the Plaintiffs and the Class under the Railway Labor Act. Air Line Pilots Association International acts as a communications network and lobbying group. ALPA offers educational resources, publications, insurance benefits, and political representation. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank L. Watson, III, Esq. WATSON BURNS, PLLC 5865 Ridgeway Center Parkway, Suite 300 Memphis, TN 38120 Telephone: (901) 529-7996 Facsimile: (901) 529-7998 Email: fwatson@watsonburns.com - and - Randall K. Calvert, Esq. John R. (Jack) Bomhoff, Esq. CALVERT LAW FIRM 1041 NW Grand Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 848-5000 Facsimile: (405) 848-5052 Email: rcalvert@calvertlaw.com jbomhoff@calvertlaw.com - and - Jacie Zolna, Esq. Ben Swetland, Esq. ZOLNA SWETLAND, LLC 30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 724-8474 Email: jzolna@zolnaswetland.com bswetland@zolnaswetland.com ALABAMA POWER: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Maryland Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama Power Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 29, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that a purported class action complaint was filed in July 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against two nuclear consulting companies and all U.S. commercial nuclear power operators, or affiliated entities, including company affiliate The Southern Company. The purported class of plaintiffs consists of all persons employed in nuclear power generation by the defendants, including nuclear operators, nuclear engineers, and nuclear technicians, from May 1, 2003, to the present. It alleges that, since at least May 2003, the nuclear power industry conspired to fix and suppress employee compensation for nuclear power generation employees in violation of federal antitrust law. In October 2025, Southern Company moved to dismiss the complaint. In November 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming Southern Nuclear, among others, as a defendant. In December 2025, Southern Company and Southern Nuclear filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Alabama Power Co. is a regulated electric utility subsidiary of Southern Company that generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity to retail and wholesale customers in Alabama. It operates a diverse portfolio of generation facilities, including fossil fuel, nuclear, hydroelectric, and renewable resources. ALIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alight, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A putative private securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 16, 2026, against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors, David D. Guilmette, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy J. Heaton, on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of the Company. The Securities Class Action asserts claims for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants and alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company and/or David D. Guilmette and Jeremy J. Heaton. Plaintiffs allege purported misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's growth potential, ability to execute on business plans, financial stability, and the sustainability of its recently initiated dividend program. The Company intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. The lawsuit is in the early stages, and at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood or amount of any potential loss. Additionally, on April 20, 2026, a derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nominal defendant Alight Inc.; its former Chief Executive Officer, David D. Guilmette; its former Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy J. Heaton; and eleven current and former members of the Alight Board. Along with alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 premised on similar allegations to those in the Securities Class Action, the plaintiff in the derivative action seeks to recover for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The Company intends to defend against this derivative lawsuit vigorously. The lawsuit is in the early stages, and at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood or amount of any potential loss. Alight Inc. is a technology-enabled provider of human capital and business solutions, offering cloud-based platforms and services that help employers manage benefits administration, payroll, and workforce engagement. It serves corporate and institutional clients across a range of industries in the United States and internationally. AMAZON.COM INC: Must Return Unlawfully Charged Tariffs, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TONYSHA EMERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-12614-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 29, 2026) is an action by the Plaintiff and the Class who purchased goods that Amazon sold and shipped throughout all the United States, who bore the economic burden of the President Donald Trump Administration's tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to the complaint, Amazon shifted the economic burden of the IEEPA tariffs to Plaintiff and other consumers throughout the United States by means of price increases on imported goods as well as U.S.-sourced goods not subject to tariffs sold and shipped by Amazon to Plaintiff. Amazon now receives -- or has the unilateral right to receive an inequitable windfall by collecting refunds from the federal government for tariff costs that were shifted to and paid by the Plaintiff and the Class, who purchased goods from and sold by Amazon, and therefore, is the real party in interest to receive the IEEPA tariff refunds. Amazon collected hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariffs from consumers by raising prices on imported goods and U.S.-sourced goods while the tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under IEEPA were in effect. Amazon has not returned any portion of those costs it passed on to consumers, and it has no intention of doing so. It has, in short, generated and retained a windfall from unlawful government action, and consumers -- not Amazon -- are the ones left paying for it, alleges the suit. Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. The Company products include books, music, computers, electronics, and numerous other products. Amazon offers personalized shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and direct shipping to customers. Amazon also operates a cloud platform offering services globally. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Fuller, Jr., Esq. FARRELL & FULLER LAW 270 Munoz Rivera Ave. Ste. 201 San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (939) 293-8244 Facsimile: (939) 293-8245 Email: mike@farrellfuller.com AMERICAN STATES: PFAS Class Settlements Boost GSWC's Cash Flows --------------------------------------------------------------- American States Water Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the PFAS class suit settlements received by Golden State Water Co. (GSWC) boosted its cash flows. GSWC has been a class member and plaintiff in various class action lawsuits concerning PFAS contamination impacting public water systems, including actions against 3M Company, DuPont, Tyco Fire Products LP, BASF Corporation (BASF), and others. A class settlement agreement between Tyco and the class of eligible public water systems was entered into on April 12, 2024, that resolved any claims for PFAS contamination with Tyco. This class settlement agreement between the parties was approved by an order issued by the Federal District Court of South Carolina on Nov. 22, 2024. As a result of the settlement, GSWC received from Tyco $2.2 million, net of legal and other fees, during the second quarter of 2026. In addition, in June 2026, GSWC received a settlement payment of $0.9 million, net of legal and other fees, from BASF pursuant to a class settlement agreement entered into on May 20, 2024, that resolved any claims for PFAS contamination with BASF. The filing further disclosed that settlement proceeds received by GSWC have been and may be used for future capital investments or operations and maintenance expenses related to PFAS water contamination to its water systems or any PFAS-related litigation against its water systems, which benefit GSWC's customers. The CPUC has authorized GSWC to track in a memorandum account the settlement payments it receives from lawsuits related to PFAS contamination in its water systems, including proceeds from participation in class action lawsuits. Amounts in this memorandum account have been recorded as a regulatory liability and have been used, and will continue to be used, to offset incremental investments in replacement and treatment of property, as well as operations and maintenance expenses and other direct expenses related to PFAS contamination. As of June 30, 2026, GSWC reported a $16.9 million regulatory liability related to the PFAS contamination litigation proceeds memorandum account. The Company also reported significant impacts of PFAS-related litigation proceeds and rate changes on its cash flows from operating activities. Net cash provided by operating activities of American States Water Company (AWR) was $116.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2026, compared to $109.6 million for the same period in 2025, with the net increase largely due to the timing of cash receipts and disbursements related to working capital items. In particular, the implementation of new rates and surcharges at its regulated utilities added to cash flows from operations. The increase in operating cash flows also resulted from differences at American States Utility Services, Inc. in the timing of vendor payments and the receipt of cash for construction work at military bases, where billings and cash receipts generally occur at completion of the work or in accordance with contract billing schedules, causing period-to-period fluctuations. In addition, during the first half of 2026, AWR received approximately $4 million in PFAS contamination litigation proceeds as plaintiffs in class action lawsuits. Net cash provided by operating activities at GSWC was $85.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2026, compared to $83.3 million for the same period in 2025. The filing attributed the increase primarily to new water rates implemented effective Jan. 1, 2026, that were approved in the latest general rate case proceeding and to the implementation, in May 2025, of WRAM/MCBA surcharges related to the recovery of all pre-2025 revenue and supply cost activity, with the majority to be recovered over 18 months. Additionally, during the second quarter of 2026, GSWC received approximately $3.1 million in PFAS contamination litigation proceeds as a plaintiff in class action lawsuits. These increases in cash flows from operating activities were partially offset by the timing of accounts payable disbursements and income tax payments, as income tax installment payments were made for the six months ended June 30, 2026, while in 2025 no payments were made due to wildfire tax relief legislation that postponed income tax payment deadlines until Oct. 15, 2025. The timing of other cash receipts and disbursements related to other working capital items also affected the change in net cash provided by operating activities. In addition, the company cautioned that proceeds received from defendants in the PFAS contamination lawsuits will not be sufficient to pay for all PFAS-related liabilities that will ultimately be incurred by GSWC, whether related to capital investments, operation and maintenance expenses, or litigation brought against GSWC. The filing explained that the CPUC has authorized GSWC to track incremental expenses, including laboratory testing and monitoring costs, customer and public notification costs, and chemical and operating treatment costs incurred as a result of PFAS contamination, in a separate memorandum account to be filed with the CPUC for future recovery. The company noted that GSWC continues to monitor contaminant levels for PFAS compounds in accordance with final U.S. EPA regulations and referenced the U.S. EPA's May 18, 2026, announcement of two proposed rules concerning PFAS in drinking water for public comment, which would retain the 4 ppt drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, rescind standards for four other PFAS compounds, and extend compliance deadlines until 2031. American States Water Co. is the parent company of Golden State Water Co. and American States Utility Services Inc., providing regulated water and electric service in California and contracted water and wastewater services at military bases across the United States. It operates as a holding company with utility subsidiaries regulated primarily by the California Public Utilities Commission and the U.S. government. AMGEN INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Amgen 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 Amgen data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Amgen Security Incident: What Happened? Multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical company Amgen has disclosed a data breach in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July 31, 2026. Per the SEC filing, Amgen identified unauthorized activity in July 2026 involving data stored in cloud environments hosted by third-party providers and initiated an investigation with cybersecurity forensic experts. Amgen has since found that some of its data, including proprietary data and patient protected health information, had been exfiltrated from the cloud environments during the incident. On July 29, the company concluded that the Amgen data breach is material due to the volume of files that appear to have been involved and the potential sensitivity of the exfiltrated information, though the investigation remains ongoing. What You Can Do After the Amgen Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Amgen 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 Amgen to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] ANDERSONS INC: $5M Reserve Set for Antitrust Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Andersons, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from antitrust class suit. The Company is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in a United States District Court alleging violations of federal commodities and antitrust laws arising from past trading activity. As previously disclosed, the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter, subject to the negotiation and execution of final settlement documentation and court approval. Accordingly, management determined that a loss was both probable and reasonably estimable and recorded a $5 million reserve for this matter as of June 30, 2026. Based on the proposed settlement terms, the Company does not expect any material additional loss related to this matter. The Company denies the allegations, and the proposed settlement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing. Andersons, Inc. is a diversified company focused on the agriculture, plant nutrient, and merchandising industries, providing grain, ethanol, plant nutrient, and railcar leasing services. It operates across the United States and internationally, serving farmers, agribusinesses, and industrial customers. APERION CARE INC: Miceli Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Rashelle Miceli, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. APERION CARE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-09029 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2026), is brought for their failure to pay employees wages and overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("Illinois Minimum Wage Law" or "IMWL). Specifically, Defendant has a policy and practice whereby they apply a meal break deduction to compensable hours worked even when Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated healthcare employees are unable to take a bona fide meal break. This policy and practice resulted in unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and IMWL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's employment, she worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA") from 2022 until July 2023. The Defendant owns and operates nursing home facilities, assisted living facilities, and provide post-hospital rehabilitation and other long-term nursing care throughout the states of Illinois and Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-308-1522 Fax: 888-604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com APPLE INC: Faces $32.5BB Class Suit Over Biometric Security System ------------------------------------------------------------------ Malcolm Owen of Apple Insider reports that the iPhone Photos app has become the target of a $32.5 billion class-action lawsuit in Illinois, over claims that biometric data is collected from images without informed consent. The iPhone is known for using Face ID as a biometric security system to protect a user's privacy. However, a class action lawsuit claims that Apple is violating user privacy by collecting biometric data in a completely different part of the ecosystem. The lawsuit accuses Apple of collecting biometric data without user consent in the Photos app, reports The Times. It is alleged that Photos uses facial recognition technology to scan individuals who appear in images, creating a "faceprint" for each person in the photo library. After collecting enough samples, an algorithm is allegedly used to identify the iPhone user. That data is then stored on the iPhone within the Photos app. The lawsuit adds that photographs and associated data is synchronized across devices using iCloud. This data is assumed to be biometric data, and a violation of Illinois law. The suit counts the 6.5 million consumers in Illinois as being harmed, making the total potential value of the lawsuit up to $32.5 billion if Apple loses. Apple has attempted to have the lawsuit tossed, questioning whether its processes count as biometric identifiers. It insists that there are privacy safeguards so that the vectors used to organize photo albums cannot recreate a face, and aren't linked to a person's name or identity. Despite the assertion, an Illinois judge ruled in June that the lawsuit met the requirements of a class action. On June 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Apple's appeal against the ruling, allowing the class-action suit to continue. An Illinois privacy act The law at the center of the suit is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, a state law that came into force in 2008. The law is an attempt to regulate how biometric information is used by private companies. This includes biometric identifiers such as retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, and faceprints. Under the law, companies must get consent from individuals to collect or disclose personal biometric identifiers, store them securely, and also destroy them in a timely fashion. The act advises a fine of $1,000 per violation, or up to $5,000 per violation if it is deemed intentional or reckless. The law has been used in a number of cases already, including against Facebook and Google for their respective image-related services. In the case of Facebook, a $650 million settlement was approved in 2021. [GN] ARIZONA PUBLIC: Defends Nuclear Wage Class Suit in Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- Arizona Public Service Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from nuclear wage class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On July 11, 2025, APS, together with all 25 other U.S. nuclear power plant operators, was named in a class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court in Maryland. The lawsuit alleges the country's nuclear operators have violated antitrust laws by agreeing to exchange compensation information and suppress compensation. The class action complaint has been brought on behalf of all persons employed in nuclear power generation in the U.S. from May 1, 2003, until the present and alleges violations of the Sherman Act. The company is unable at this time to predict the outcome of this matter and whether it will have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Arizona Public Service Co., the principal subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp., is a regulated electric utility serving retail and wholesale customers in Arizona. It provides generation, transmission, and distribution services, including nuclear power generation through its interest in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES: Davis Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Mobility Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2684CV02262 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Business Litigation." AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational telecommunications holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilir Kavaja, Esq. Kavaja Law, P.C. 92 State St 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 515-5545 - and - Eric R LeBlanc, Esq. BENNETT AND BELFORT, P.C. 24 Thorndike St Suite 300 Cambridge, MA 02141 Phone: (617) 577-8800 ATLAS ENERGY: Ayers Reorg. Class/Derivative Suit Term Sheet Reached ------------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Energy Solutions Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated Aug. 4, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that on July 24, 2026, the parties executed a term sheet outlining the terms of a settlement in Ayers reorganization class and derivative suit. On July 2, 2024, Patrick Ayers, a purported shareholder, filed a derivative and class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors of the Company and certain of the Company's affiliates. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty related to the corporate reorganization that changed the Company's Up-C structure to a customary C corporation. It seeks unspecified damages from the defendants for the plaintiff individually and on behalf of the Company and other former Class A common stockholders, as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company disputes these allegations. In April 2026, the parties attended a mediation where they discussed a potential settlement of the lawsuit. Negotiations continued following the mediation, and on July 24, 2026, the parties executed a term sheet outlining the terms of a settlement. The settlement contemplated by the term sheet is subject to, among other things, the negotiation and execution of definitive settlement documentation and court approval. There can be no assurances that definitive settlement documentation will be executed or that any settlement reflected in such documentation will be approved by the court. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this lawsuit if the settlement is not ultimately finalized and approved for any reason. Additionally, the lawsuit filed by Patrick Ayers is structured as both a derivative and class action proceeding. It asserts derivative claims on behalf of the Company against certain current and former directors and certain of the Company's affiliates, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the corporate reorganization that converted the Company's Up-C structure into a customary C corporation. In his derivative capacity, the plaintiff seeks recovery for the benefit of the Company arising from the alleged misconduct, along with an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Any settlement reflected in the July 24, 2026, term sheet, as ultimately documented and if approved by the court, would resolve both the derivative and class components of the action, subject to the same conditions of definitive documentation and court approval described above. Atlas Energy Solutions Inc. is a provider of proppant and related logistics services to the oil and gas industry, focusing on sand supply and transportation solutions for hydraulic fracturing operations in key U.S. shale basins. It supports exploration and production companies with integrated infrastructure aimed at improving efficiency and reducing well completion costs. AUTOZONERS LLC: Grunahuer Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Autozoners, LLC. The case is styled as Karime Grunahuer, Jason Peguero, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Autozoners, LLC, Case No. 722881/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., July 31, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Employment Wage and Hour)." AutoZone, Inc., doing business as AutoZone -- https://www.autozone.com/ -- is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive parts and accessories, the largest in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Breach Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Oct. 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Bayhealth Medical Center has agreed to a class action settlement to wrap up a lawsuit that alleged the healthcare system unlawfully deployed tracking pixels on its website and MyChart patient portal that transmitted patients' private information to third parties without their consent. The Bayhealth MyChart class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 5, 2026. The deal covers all Bayhealth patient portal users who used certain Bayhealth web properties between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2025. The Bayhealth web properties covered by the deal include webpages located at the domain www.Bayhealth.org, with a website "button" linking website users to the Bayhealth MyChart patient portal's login webpage, and the Bayhealth MyChart patient portal itself. The court-approved website for the Bayhealth MyChart class action settlement can be found at BayhealthPixelSettlement.com. Bayhealth settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a $25 cash payment, with no proof required. Additionally, all class members can elect on their claim form to receive one year of CyEx Privacy Shield, which includes dark web scanning, online privacy tools, and access to fraud resolution agents. To submit a Bayhealth settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Bayhealth settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by October 5, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Bayhealth settlement following a hearing on October 29, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Bayhealth class action lawsuit alleged that the healthcare provider installed third-party tracking tools on its websites and MyChart patient portal that transmitted patients' private health information to third parties without consent. [GN] BE HURD INC: Justice Sues Over Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Justice, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons similarly situated employees v. BE HURD, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00166-DCLC-CRW (E.D. Tenn., July 31, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to themself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendant at their pizza delivery stores. The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages – unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages), says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver. The Defendant operates several pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com BELL COUNTY: Court Denies Bid to Certify Inmate Video Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Melvin Hale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bell County Fiscal Court, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 6:24-CV-86-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky.), Judge Robert E. Wier of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Southern Division, denied Hale's motion to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hale alleged that on or about April 20, 2022, as a pretrial detainee at Bell County Detention Center, Defendants Gary Ferguson, Joshua Collett, and Chad Money ordered him to remove his clothes and put on an anti-suicide smock. Collett and Money forcibly removed Hale's clothes while Ferguson recorded the incident, and the video was later posted on Defendant Tommy Shackleford's social media accounts without Hale's consent. Hale brought claims under Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Kentucky tort law, and moved to certify a class of BCDC inmates who, since April 1, 2019, were the subjects of videos or images that were posted on the internet without their consent. The court found Hale failed to satisfy all four Rule 23(a) prerequisites. On numerosity, the court noted that while approximately 45 inmates appeared in the videos, Hale did not show how many qualified as subjects rather than background figures, and the court stated it would not, in any event, find that scope, in this case, substantial enough for joinder to be impracticable. On commonality, the court held Hale's Fourth Amendment theory failed because no precedent extends Fourth Amendment protection to nonconsensual publication of jail videos, and the court found no Sixth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent supporting that theory. The Monell, bystander liability, failure to supervise, and conspiracy claims failed for the same reason. The invasion of privacy, gross negligence, and civil conspiracy claims failed because whether a given video was highly offensive to a reasonable person required a video-by-video inquiry, not a common answer. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim likewise failed because outrageousness and distress were highly individualized. On typicality, the court found Hale's own incident, in which he requested the recording during a mental health crisis, did not arise from the same course of conduct as other inmates' varied circumstances. On adequacy, the court found no evidence the proposed class shared Hale's alleged injuries, citing as an example a video of an inmate singing a song with no apparent ill will toward jail staff. Although the Rule 23(a) failure was independently dispositive, the court also addressed Rule 23(b)(3) and found neither predominance nor superiority satisfied, since each subpart of that limited commonality will turn on individual vignettes, not a common trove of proof. The court further found the class definition failed the implied ascertainability requirement because determining which inmates were subjects versus background figures would require a subjective, individualized inquiry. The court was satisfied that class counsel, Stephen New, met Rule 23(g)'s adequacy standard, given his experience in federal civil rights and torts class litigation. Accordingly, the court denied Hale's motion to certify class. The case proceeds as an individual action; no class was certified. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R3wThH from PacerMonitor.com BELL PROPERTIES: Damoulakis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bell Properties, et al. The case is styled as Marc Damoulakis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bell Properties, Does 1 through 10, inclusive Case No. 26STCV24015 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2026). Bell Properties -- https://www.bellprop.com/ -- has been a leader in Property Management since 2012 throughout the state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com BETTER BASEBALL: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton Knowles, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. BETTER BASEBALL, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-06441 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.betterbaseball.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. BETTER BASEBALL, INC., operates the Better Baseball online retail store, as well as the Better Baseball interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal BEVERLY HILLS REHABILITATION: Macias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Centre, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Liana Macias, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Centre, LLC, Does 1 through 50, inclusive Case No. 26STCV24144 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2026). Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Centre -- https://rehabcentre.com/ -- is a skilled nursing facility that provides rehabilitation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Suh, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9989 Fax: (213) 381-9988 Email: michael.suh@wilshirelawfirm.com BLACKROCK INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of investors in BlackRock, Inc. mutual funds, resulting from allegations that BlackRock may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased BlackRock mutual funds you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/blackrock-inc-2026/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BLOCK INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Block, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On Jan. 17, 2025, a putative federal securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's Class A common stock between Feb. 26, 2020, and Aug. 1, 2024. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false or misleading statements regarding its anti-money laundering (AML) and compliance programs and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On June 18, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in the securities class action. On Jan. 6, 2026, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and the litigation remains pending. Additionally, between Feb. 5, 2025, and April 24, 2025, multiple shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers based on allegations substantially similar to the securities class action. The plaintiffs in these derivative matters seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On May 7, 2025, the court ordered that these derivative actions were related and renamed the related cases as In re Block, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On Jan. 6, 2026, the court denied the Company's motions to dismiss in the derivative actions. A separate derivative action making similar claims and requesting similar damages was filed on Oct. 9, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that has not been consolidated with the related actions. In April 2026, the board of directors of the Company formed a special litigation committee and empowered it to investigate the claims raised in the derivative actions. In addition to the securities class action and related derivative matters, the Company is also involved in certain tax-related proceedings with a governmental authority. In June 2024, the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector of the City and County of San Francisco (the "Tax Collector") issued an assessment of San Francisco gross receipts tax, including interest and penalties, for fiscal years 2020 through 2022, asserting the Company owes incremental taxes on a portion of the receipts generated by the Company related to sales of bitcoin. The Company paid the assessed amount of $71.4 million in January 2025, and in September 2025, the Tax Collector issued a further assessment of gross receipts tax, including tax, interest, and penalties, of $42.7 million for fiscal years 2023 and 2024, which the Company paid in October 2025. In both cases, the Company paid the assessments in order to preserve its rights to dispute the assessments and initiate the dispute process, and it strongly disagrees with the Tax Collector's assessments and plans to vigorously pursue all available remedies. Block, Inc. is a global technology company that builds tools to help individuals and businesses participate in the economy, including the Square ecosystem for sellers and the Cash App platform for consumers. It also operates other business units focused on financial services, commerce solutions, and bitcoin-related products. BLOOM ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Bloom Energy Corporation ("Bloom Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE: BE) common stock between February 27, 2025 and July 8, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Bloom Energy investments, you have until September 28, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that Bloom Energy made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (i) Bloom Energy obtained scandium through intermediaries who sourced the metal from China; and (ii) as a result, the Company understated the extent to which it relied on scandium from China. On July 8, 2026, short-seller Hunterbrook Media published a report entitled "Bloom's Big Lie," which alleged that "Bloom is, in fact, reliant on Chinese scandium." The report claimed that "Hunterbrook traced four separate China-linked routes into Bloom's supply chain -- scandium oxide shipped directly to its Delaware plant, plus scandium-bearing ceramics and powders flowing through intermediaries in Thailand, Japan, and South Korea." On this news, Bloom Energy's stock price fell $15.28, or 5.7%, to close at $254.29 per share on July 8, 2026. The Company had previously stated that it did not have significant supply chain disclosure in China and that it was not dependent on China for scandium. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Learn more about the lead plaintiff process and eligibility requirements here. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Bloom Energy securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Kirby McInerney LLP Lauren Molinaro, Esq. (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Suit Over Shared Savings Fees in W.D. Mich. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jakob Emerson, writing for Becker's Payer Issues, reports that a federal judge has ruled that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan must face a proposed class action accusing it of profiting from billing mistakes at the expense of the employers whose health plans it administers. Judge Robert Jonker of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss July 29, rejecting arguments that the claims were filed too late, that the allegations were too speculative, and that the lead plaintiff had already released its claims. The lawsuit was filed in June 2025 by Wesco, a chain of gas station convenience stores that hired BCBSM to administer its employee health plan under a contract that ran from 2003 until December 2022. An amended complaint added two more employers, Frankenmuth Bavarian Inn and Opus Packaging Group, as plaintiffs. Under its "shared savings program," adopted in 2018, BCBSM keeps up to 30% of the money it says it recovers or prevents from being overpaid on medical claims, describing the program as a payment integrity effort meant to keep providers from collecting more than they are owed. According to the complaint, BCBSM controls the entire claims process, deciding which claims to pay and how much, and its systems routinely let inflated or improperly coded bills make it through. The insurer then flags those same payments later, blocks or claws back the money, and then takes a cut of the savings. The more errors it allows on the front end, the more it collects on the back end, the complaint alleged. "In short, BCBSM imposes a fee (paying itself) for correcting mistakes it was obligated to avoid in the first place," the plaintiffs wrote. The complaint lists several fees Wesco says it paid under the program -- the largest being $22,576 -- with each labeled on its statements as payment integrity or administrative compensation. In its motion to dismiss, BCBSM called the allegations speculative, arguing the complaint does not connect a single processing error to any specific shared savings recovery. The insurer also argued that Wesco had released "any and all claims" when it ended the contract and accepted a final settlement payment of $81,853 in May 2025. The complaint alleges the program violates ERISA, the federal law governing employee benefit plans, which bans a plan administrator from using its control over plan money to enrich itself. Wesco pointed to a May 2025 ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar case against BCBSM which found the insurer acted as a fiduciary when it set its own shared savings fees and called that kind of self-dealing "presumptively unlawful." Wesco is seeking to represent every self-funded plan and employer that paid BCBSM a shared savings fee, a group it says could include hundreds or potentially thousands of plans. It is also asking the court to order the insurer to return all the fees it collected and to pay alleged damages. A spokesperson for BCBSM said the insurer does not comment on pending litigation. [GN] BOOKING HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Contractual Parity Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Booking Holdings Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from contractual parity class suit in the Netherlands. The Company is unable to predict how any current or future investigations or litigation may be resolved or the long-term impact of any such resolution on its business. For example, competition and consumer-law-related investigations, legislation, judgments, or issues have in the past resulted in and could in the future result in private litigation. The Company is currently involved in such litigation and/or aware of such potential litigation. For example, German hotels filed parity-related claims against Booking.com, and that litigation is ongoing. Additionally, the Company is aware that hotel associations, consumer associations, and law firms in various jurisdictions, including in Spain, France, and the United Kingdom, may potentially bring class actions on behalf of European hotels and consumers against Booking.com relating to the historical use of contractual parity provisions. In the Netherlands, two Dutch foundations filed such claims on behalf of European hotels and consumers, respectively, with the consumer claim further alleging that Booking.com and Agoda employed misleading practices. The Company has defended against and intends to continue to defend itself against such claims. However, class action and mass claim litigation, whether related to competition, consumer, privacy, or other claims, can be time-consuming, costly, and unpredictable, regardless of merit. There may be evolving jurisprudence and less experience with such matters in certain of the markets where the Company is or may be involved in such litigation, making outcomes less certain and harder to forecast. If the Company were to be found liable, it could result in, among other things, payment of damages, commitments to change certain business practices, or reputational damage, any of which could harm the Company's business, results of operations, brands, or competitive position. Booking Holdings Inc. is a leading provider of online travel and related services, operating global brands including Booking.com, Priceline, Agoda, KAYAK, OpenTable, and Rentalcars.com. It connects consumers with accommodations, flights, rental cars, restaurants, and other travel experiences worldwide through its online platforms and mobile applications. BOOSTER FUELS: Court of Appeals Revives Arbitration Bid in Tafoya ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of ANTHONY TAFOYA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOOSTER FUELS, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. C104234 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Third District, reversed the trial court's order denying Booster Fuels' motion to compel arbitration. Tafoya was employed by Booster Fuels as a service professional. Although Booster Fuels did business in California, Oregon, and Washington, it maintained partnerships with local fuel providers in each of those states for the delivery of fuel to fleet, office, and commercial parking lots. Tafoya's primary job duty was to drive a fuel truck, deliver fuel to commercial fleet vehicles in the Sacramento region, and fill the fuel tanks of those vehicles. He drove from West Sacramento, California, to client sites within California, regularly fueling more than 150 vehicles per shift. A significant number of the vehicles Tafoya fueled were Amazon delivery trucks. Tafoya fueled Amazon delivery trucks at Amazon distribution centers in the greater Sacramento area. All of the fuel Tafoya delivered was purchased and obtained in California. Tafoya filed a complaint against Booster Fuels on July 18, 2024, alleging violations of the Labor Code and unfair business practices, and seeking civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, Section 2698 et seq.) (PAGA). The operative pleading asserted causes of action for violations of the Labor Code, unfair business practices, and for civil penalties under PAGA. Booster Fuels moved under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.) (FAA) to compel arbitration of Tafoya's individual claims. It also moved to strike the class allegations and stay the action pending completion of arbitration. Tafoya opposed the motion, arguing that he was a transportation employee exempt from the FAA and that California Labor Code sections 229 and 432.6 barred arbitration of his claims. The trial court denied Booster Fuels' motion to compel arbitration, concluding that Tafoya was a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce and, therefore, exempt from the FAA. It found that Tafoya delivered fuel to Amazon trucks and that the goods arriving at Amazon distribution centers were part of interstate commerce. It ruled that fueling Amazon trucks was essential to the interstate and foreign transportation of goods by Amazon trucks. It further ruled that Tafoya could not be compelled to arbitrate his claims under Labor Code sections 229 and 432.6. Because it concluded the FAA did not apply and Tafoya's claims were not arbitrable under Labor Code sections 229 and 432.6, the trial court did not consider the other claims raised in Booster Fuels' motion. On appeal, Booster Fuels contended the FAA exemption did not apply in the case because (1) Tafoya did not establish that the class of workers to which he belonged typically fueled Amazon delivery trucks, and (2) in any event, a class of workers that typically fueled Amazon delivery trucks would not be engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. The Court of Appeals concluded Tafoya had not established that the FAA exemption applied in the case. Tafoya's FAA exemption claim was based on the fact that he typically fueled Amazon delivery trucks. But there was insufficient evidence to support an implied finding that the relevant class of workers consisted of Booster Fuels service professionals who typically fueled Amazon delivery trucks. In any event, the evidence indicated that the fuel Tafoya delivered was purchased and obtained in California, and there was insufficient evidence that Tafoya and other Booster Fuels service professionals typically drove outside California for their jobs or typically handled or moved goods traveling to or from other states or countries. In other words, there was insufficient evidence that Tafoya, and the relevant class of workers, were transportation workers exempt from the FAA. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order and remanded the matter so the trial court could consider the other claims raised in Booster Fuels' motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/BI1LGBUPr BOUQS COMPANY: Rudolph Files Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bouqs Company, et al. The case is styled as Jared Rudolph, Elizabeth Correia, Eliza Decker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Bouqs Company, Does 1-10, Case No. 3:26-cv-04357-BTM-GC (S.D. Cal., July 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. The Bouqs Company -- https://bouqs.com/ -- is a floral brand connects customers with farm-fresh flowers sourced directly from sustainable growers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 615-3948 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street-Ste 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com The Defendants are represented by: Megan D. Bettles, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 525 Market Street, Floor 32 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 733-6000 Email: mbettles@goodwinlaw.com - and - Rebecca Tarneja, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 426-2516 Email: rtarneja@goodwinlaw.com BRIGHTON-BEST INTERNATIONAL: Knowles Balks at Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHTON-BEST INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06393 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://ironclad.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 19, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Cleanfit(R) 5 Mil Blue Gloves (100 Pack) from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Brighton-Best International, Inc. operates the website that offers work and safety gloves.[BN] 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 E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal BUNN COMMERCIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sonneck Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- TOM SONNEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUNN COMMERCIAL, LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03247-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill., July 30, 2026) is a an 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 employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a 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. Bunn Commercial LP produces and distributes beverage equipment. The Company designs food service machinery, coffee makers, and parts and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com CAPRI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits in Del. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Capri Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 27, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On Dec. 23, 2024, and Jan. 28, 2025, the two purported shareholders filed their respective putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 7, 2025, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff to oversee the consolidated securities litigation. On May 15, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Securities Law Complaint that sought to assert federal securities claims on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased Capri stock or sold Capri put options between Aug. 10, 2023, and Oct. 24, 2024. On March 31, 2026, the Court granted Capri's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Securities Law Complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to replead. On April 30, 2026, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, which Capri moved to dismiss on June 15, 2026. The litigation remains pending, and Capri states that it cannot predict the outcome or timing of this matter. The disclosure explains that defending this litigation, even if the claims are ultimately resolved in Capri's favor, is costly and time-consuming. It further notes that an adverse outcome could result in substantial monetary damages. Such damages may not be fully covered by available insurance, which could materially impact the Company. Capri Holdings Ltd. is a global fashion luxury group comprised of iconic brands that design, market, and retail apparel, footwear, and accessories worldwide. It sells its products through a network of retail stores, e-commerce sites, and wholesale partners across key international markets. CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The National Law Review reports that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. ("Capricor") (NASDAQ: CAPR). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Capricor adopted changes to the pre-specified statistical analysis plan used to analyze clinical data for Deramiocel; (2) the FDA had not agreed to those changes before Capricor resubmitted the Deramiocel Biologics License Application; (3) as a result, there was a significant risk that the FDA could conclude the clinical results did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness of Deramiocel; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, there was a substantial risk to regulatory approval of Deramiocel for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. If you purchased Capricor shares between December 17, 2025 and July 26, 2026, and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm’s website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/capricor/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is September 28, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Holzer & Holzer, LLC (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] CARDIOVASCULAR INSTITUTE: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Cardiovascular Institute of New England 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 Cardiovascular Institute of New England data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Cardiovascular Institute of New England Security Incident: What Happened? The Cardiovascular Institute of New England (CINE), a seven-location healthcare provider in Rhode Island, has disclosed a data breach involving the sensitive information of its patients and employees. A July 31, 2026 media notice posted to Business Wire states that Cardiovascular Institute of New England observed unusual activity in its email environment on or around February 12, 2026. Following an investigation with third-party cybersecurity specialists and a data review, Cardiovascular Institute of New England determined on July 14, 2026 that the incident may have impacted names, dates of birth, phone numbers, financial account numbers, medical information, medical diagnoses and treatment information, treatment locations, clinical information, prescription information and medical insurance provider information. The company began sending notification letters to affected individuals on July 28, 2026. The total number of individuals impacted by the Cardiovascular Institute of New England data breach has not been publicly disclosed. What You Can Do After the Cardiovascular Institute of New England Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Cardiovascular Institute of New England 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 Cardiovascular Institute of New England to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] CASTLE BUILDERS SUPPLY: Quimby Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Dwayne Quimby, on behalf of himself and all others similarly Situated v. CASTLE BUILD*ERS SUPPLY AND TRUCKING LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01624 (W.D. Pa., July 31, 2026), is brought for unpaid overtime wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). The Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the Putative Class for all overtime compensation they are legally entitled to receive through an unlawful scheme designed to underpay them for their earned overtime wages while performing work on shifts requiring the increased shift differential pay. When the Plaintiff and the Putative Class work/worked more than forty hours, they were/are legally entitled to be paid premium overtime compensation of one and one half times their regular hourly rate. Under federal and state law, the regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime compensation is required to include shift differentials. However, Defendant failed and continues to fail to include shift differentials in the regular rate when calculating overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant since May 2017. Castle Builders is a concrete supplier operating primarily in Western Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph S. Pass, Esq. Steven E. Winslow, Esq. J. Skye McCollum, Esq. Calder M. Buisch, Esq. JUBELIRER, PASS & INTRIERI, P.C. 219 Fort Pitt Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-281-3850 Fax: 412-281-1985 Email: jsp@jpilaw.com sw@jpilaw.com jsm@jpilaw.com cmb@jpilaw.com CATERPILLAR INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gross Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ERNEST GROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATERPILLAR INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02490-B (N.D. Tex., July 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former job applicants' and employees' personally identifiable information from hackers. According to the complaint, a cybersecurity researcher discovered a publicly exposed database that contained 80 gigabytes of records belonging to CAT. There has been no assurance offered by CAT that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that Defendant has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future. Therefore, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their private information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the data breach, and the value of their time they will reasonably incur to remedy or mitigate the future effects of the data breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed and/or compromised during the data breach. Caterpillar Inc., based in Irving, Texas, is a manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel engines, and industrial machinery that serves customers across the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (929) 274-2944 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1901 Main Street 18th Floor #3037 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (929) 474-6448 E-mail: nwilliams@sirillp.com CBE GROUP INC: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc. The case is styled as Ebonie Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The CBE Group, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-02210 (M.D. Fla., July 31, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CBE Group, Inc. -- https://cbegroup.com/ -- is a credit information and accounts receivable management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com CBIZ INC: Reaches $7.2M Settlement in MOVEit Cyberattack MDL ------------------------------------------------------------ CBIZ, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from cyberattack class suits in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On Nov. 10, 2023, CBIZ was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an individual claiming to be an employee of a CBIZ client whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was compromised and stolen during a cyberattack CBIZ experienced on or about May 31, 2023. As a result of this incident, hackers were able to access and download certain files from CBIZ's MOVEit Transfer server. The lawsuit alleges that CBIZ and Progress Software Corporation, the owner of MOVEit Transfer, failed to adequately secure and safeguard the individual's, and similarly situated employees of CBIZ's clients, PII from unauthorized access. The lawsuit seeks various remedies, including actual, compensatory, and punitive damages, along with injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. On Dec. 8, 2023, CBIZ was named as a defendant in a second putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an individual making similar claims and seeking similar remedies as in the first lawsuit regarding the cyberattack CBIZ experienced on May 31, 2023. Both cases were transferred into a multidistrict litigation, styled as In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "MDL"). To date, the MDL has over 300 cases against over 100 different defendants, all with claims arising out of the cyber breach by hackers of Progress Software Corporation's MOVEit Transfer software. The MDL has a bellwether structure, under which defendants in the MDL cases have been divided into bellwether and non-bellwether defendants. CBIZ is a non-bellwether defendant. The parties to the two CBIZ MOVEit matters have reached agreement in principle to settle such matters for a combined amount of $7.2 million, which CBIZ recorded as a loss as a component of Other income, net on the condensed consolidated statement of comprehensive income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2026. CBIZ anticipates the full such amount being paid by applicable insurance coverage following approval by the MDL court of such settlement. CBIZ, Inc. is a professional services firm providing accounting, tax, financial advisory, insurance, and human capital consulting services to businesses and individuals across the United States. It operates through a network of offices serving clients in a wide range of industries. CGT GLOBAL LLC: Paredes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CGT Global LLC, et al. The case is styled as Samuel Paredes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CGT Global LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV018370 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." CGT Global -- https://cgt.global/ -- is a biotechnology company founded in 2010 and headquartered in Folsom, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohamed Bholat, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 475 14th St., #700 Oakland, CA 946127 Phone: 213-381-9988 Email: mohamed.bholat@wilshirelawfirm.com CHAD YOUKER: Van Dobbs Bids for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL VAN DOBBS #15, v. CHAD YOUKER, Case No. 3:25-cv-01172 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Holmes entered a judgment recommending that the Plaintiff's motions for class certification be denied. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with particularity the specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. Three (3) additional days are added to this time for service by mail. Failure to file written objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. Any response to the objections must be filed within 14 days after service of objections. The Plaintiff's motions must be denied for one significant reason: he is acting pro se. The established law within this circuit is that a pro se party is not a proper representative of a class and thus cannot meet the requirement of Rule 23(a)(4). Further, because all the prerequisites for class certification must be met for Plaintiff to succeed on his motions, the court's conclusion that he is not an adequate class representative is determinative and requires that the motions be dismissed. It is thus not necessary for the court to address any of the other prerequisites for class certification The Plaintiff alleges that the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office implemented a policy at the Jail on Jan. 18, 2025, by which physical copies of Bible were confiscated from inmates and the inmates were instead provided with access to an electronic copy of the Bible via electronic tablets that inmates were able to access during the day. Chad Youker is a captain at the Williamson County Jail. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F1cS4e at no extra charge.[CC] CHARLES RIVER: Defends Securities Class, Derivative Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 27, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class and derivative suits. A putative securities class action was filed on May 19, 2023, against the Company and a number of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On Aug. 31, 2023, the court appointed the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 14, 2023, that, among other things, included only James Foster, the then current Chief Executive Officer, and David R. Smith, the former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants along with the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company securities from May 5, 2020, through Feb. 21, 2023. It alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures about its practices with respect to the importation of non-human primates made during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. On July 1, 2024, the court dismissed the complaint, denied the plaintiff's informal request for leave to amend, and entered judgment for defendants. On July 30, 2024, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Oral arguments took place on May 5, 2025. On Aug. 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed in part the district court's dismissal on the pleadings of the securities fraud claims. The case then returned to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for further proceedings. On Oct. 16, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiff due to lack of statutory standing and to substitute the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff. While the Company cannot predict the final outcome of this matter, it believes the class action to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend against it. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in association with this matter. Additionally, on Nov. 8, 2023, a stockholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting claims on the Company's behalf against the members of the Company's Board of Directors and certain of the Company's current and former officers. The individual officer defendants include James Foster, the then current Chief Executive Officer; David R. Smith, a former Chief Financial Officer; and Flavia Pease, the then current Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders because certain of the Company's disclosures about its practices with respect to the importation of non-human primates were materially false or misleading. It also alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Company to fail to maintain adequate internal controls over securities disclosure and compliance with applicable law and by failing to comply with the Company's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. Separately, on Aug. 2, 2024, a different stockholder filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting similar derivative claims on the Company's behalf against members of the Company's current and former Board of Directors and the same current and former officers. This later complaint is based on similar allegations of purportedly misleading disclosures and non-compliance with legal rules and ethics standards in respect of the importation of non-human primates, and it also includes insider-trading claims against certain of the defendants. Both of these derivative lawsuits are currently stayed by agreement of the parties pending further developments in the Securities Class Action that is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters, it believes the derivative lawsuits to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend against them. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in association with these matters. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. is a global provider of preclinical and clinical laboratory services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device industries, as well as government agencies and academic institutions. It offers research models, drug discovery and safety assessment services, and related support aimed at accelerating the development and approval of new therapeutics. CHARMING MEDICAL: Response to Amended Class Complaint Due Aug. 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charming Medical Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that multiple securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, its auditor, its IPO underwriter, and other professional parties, alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with purchases of the company's securities in late 2025. In December 2025, a securities class action complaint was filed against the company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, its auditor, and its IPO underwriter, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint was brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Oct. 21, 2025, and Nov. 12, 2025, and alleged that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other things, the company's business, operations, and prospects. It also alleged that the company's stock price was artificially inflated by a purported market manipulation and promotional scheme involving social media-based misinformation and impersonation of financial professionals. Investors allegedly suffered damages after trading in the company's securities was halted by the SEC on Nov. 11, 2025, and the stock price declined. On Dec. 19, 2025, a putative class action styled "In re Charming Medical Securities Litigation," No. 1:25-cv-10535-JPO, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, certain current and former officers and directors, and other professional parties. The lead plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made misstatements and omissions in connection with transactions in the company's securities between Oct. 21, 2025, and Nov. 11, 2025, including disclosures concerning the purported risk of manipulation of the stock of Chinese companies. On June 12, 2026, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking damages against the company and the other defendants. The company's response to the amended complaint is due Aug. 11, 2026. Charming Medical Ltd. is a China-based medical company focused on developing and providing healthcare products and services. It operates through various subsidiaries and platforms to deliver medical solutions to patients and healthcare providers in its core markets. CHICK-FIL-A INC: Dapeer Law Investigates Potential Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Harris, writing for CBC News, reports that a law firm is investigating a potential class action lawsuit following a cyberattack that exposed information tied to some Chick-fil-A One loyalty accounts. On behalf of Chick-fil-A One account holders in Texas and Massachusetts who received data breach notifications after the June incident, Dapeer Law, P.A. announced it is reviewing potential legal claims. According to Chick-fil-A, hackers used usernames and passwords that had been stolen or exposed elsewhere to try to access customer accounts between June 17 and June 19. The company said it determined on July 13 that attackers may have accessed information in affected accounts and began notifying impacted customers on July 20. State filings obtained by the law firm indicate 2,221 people were affected, including 2,182 in Texas and 39 in Massachusetts. The information that may have been accessed varies by state but could include names, email addresses, Chick-fil-A One membership numbers, mobile payment information, QR codes, the last four digits of payment card numbers, gift card balances and, for customers who stored the information, phone numbers, addresses and birth dates. The law firm said it is evaluating whether Chick-fil-A's account security measures met legal standards during the credential-stuffing attack. The investigation does not mean a lawsuit has been filed or that Chick-fil-A has been found liable. In a previous statement to CBS News, Chick-fil-A said it identified a security incident affecting a limited number of loyalty accounts, secured impacted accounts and notified affected customers. "We recently identified a security incident that may have affected a limited number of Chick-fil-A One Loyalty accounts," the company said. "Upon discovering the issue, we took steps to immediately address, secure and restore accounts, and we are communicating directly with all customers who may have been impacted. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or concern this situation may have caused and remain committed to maintaining the trust our guests place in us every day." Chick-fil-A has encouraged affected customers to reset their passwords, use a unique password that is not shared with other websites, and monitor their Chick-fil-A One accounts, bank accounts and credit card statements for suspicious activity. The company also forced affected users to log out of their accounts, removed stored payment methods and restored impacted Chick-fil-A One balances. [GN] CHILDREN'S RESCUE FUND: Robinson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Children's Rescue Fund. The case is styled as Timothy Robinson, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Children's Rescue Fund, Case No. 814825/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., July 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor & Employment)." Children's Rescue Fund -- https://www.childrensrescuefund.org/ -- is a non-profit organization dedicated to rescuing and empowering vulnerable children through education, healthcare, and advocacy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 CINDY VO CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Evans Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- JAIDA EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CINDY VO CORPORATION d/b/a HATCH NAIL BAR; LOGAN VO CORPORATION d/b/a HATCH NAIL BAR; and TRAM TRAN a/k/a MINDY VO, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00807 (E.D. Va., July 30, 2026) 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 Jaida Evans was employed by the Defendants as a receptionist. Cindy Vo Corporation d/b/a Hatch Nail Bar salon for manicures and pedicures that offers gel polish, facial waxing, liquid gel fill-ins, and foot massages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: rtucci@zagfirm.com CLAY-PLATTE FAMILY: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $1MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Clay-Platte Family Medicine Clinic, Summit Family and Sports Medicine, and Barry Pointe Family Care have agreed to a $1,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the practices failed to safeguard confidential information from a June 2024 data breach. The Clay-Platte Family Medicine Clinic class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 16, 2026. The deal covers the approximately 53,916 United States residents who were sent notice by the defendants that their personal information or protected health information was potentially compromised because of the data breach. The court-approved website for the Clay-Platte Family Medicine Clinic class action settlement can be found at CPFMSettlement.com. Clay-Platte settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $15,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred due to the data breach. This benefit covers losses from identity theft or fraud and costs for credit monitoring services purchased after June 26, 2024, professional fees, credit repair services, postage, mileage, phone charges, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or invoices, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can submit a claim form to receive a pro rata cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of this cash payment will be determined based on the total number of valid claims filed, among other factors. Finally, all class members can elect on their claim form to receive three years of CyEx Medical Shield Total, which includes three-bureau credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, identity theft insurance, and more. To submit a Clay-Platte Family Medicine Clinic settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID and confirmation code found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Clay-Platte settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 30, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Clay-Platte Family Medicine Clinic settlement following a hearing on September 29, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Clay-Platte Family Medicine Clinic class action lawsuit alleged that the clinic and other Missouri-based healthcare providers failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect patients’ private health information from a data breach on June 26, 2024. Court documents state that private information that may have been compromised in the breach included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, confidential medical information, genders, and telephone numbers. [GN] CLEAR CHOICE JANITORIAL: Andrade Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clear Choice Janitorial, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Renzo Cardenas Andrade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clear Choice Janitorial, Inc., Does 1 to 50, Case No. 26CV018466 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Clear Choice Janitorial, Inc. -- https://clearchoicejanitorial.com/ -- offer residential and commercial janitorial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 COINBASE GLOBAL: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Underwood" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Christopher Underwood et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Coinbase Global, Inc. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21 Civ. 8353 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment. This decision resolves cross-motions for summary judgment in this putative class action bringing claims under the securities laws against a centralized digital assets exchange. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant lists and sells digital assets qualifying as securities, without registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a securities exchange or broker-dealer. The motions implicate two distinct categories of transactions: those in which the Defendant matched users' buy and sell orders, known as matched transactions, and those in which the Defendant filled orders from a corporate inventory of tokens it owned, known as inventory transactions. Defendant operates trading platforms that allow its customers to buy, sell, and use digital assets. Matched transactions represent the vast majority, approximately 99.97 percent, of the overall trading volume in the tokens at issue. For such trades, Defendant uses an automated matching engine and a proprietary algorithm to find counterparties. Title to digital currency at all times remains with the user and does not transfer to the Defendant. The Defendant acts as the custodian for hosted wallets on its platforms and maintains an internal ledger to track transactions and the counterparties involved. Regarding matched transactions, the Court finds that the Defendant was not a statutory seller. Under the first prong of the applicable legal test, the record establishes that the Defendant did not take title in tokens, or pass such title to buyers, in matched transactions. Every iteration of the user agreement expressly provided that all ownership interests in users' tokens remained with the users and did not transfer to the Defendant at any point. The role of the Defendant was solely to execute the trades customers requested, making it a collateral participant in the trades. Under the second prong of the test, the Court holds that the information the Defendant provided regarding tokens did not induce the Plaintiffs to purchase them. The Plaintiffs overwhelmingly relied on sources of information outside of the Defendant to decide which tokens to buy, such as social media and influencers. Displaying prices based on real-time supply and demand did not extend beyond collateral participation in sales. Therefore, the Court **granted** summary judgment for the Defendant on all federal and state claims to the extent these claims are based on matched transactions. As to the inventory transactions, which represent the remaining 0.03 percent of trades, the Court finds that the Defendant was a statutory seller. For such orders, it is undisputed that the Defendant owned the digital assets before transferring them to the user. Defendant acted as the principal in inventory transactions as there was no other counterparty providing a good or service to the customer. The Defendant argues it is exempt from liability under the Section 4(a)(1) ordinary trading exemption, which covers transactions by any person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer. The Court finds the Defendant qualified as a dealer because it engaged as a principal selling or otherwise trading in securities. Furthermore, the Defendant acted as an underwriter because it purchased tokens from issuers with a view to their distribution to users rather than for investment purposes. Because the Defendant was a dealer and an underwriter, it is ineligible for the ordinary trading exemption. The Court accordingly **granted** the motion for summary judgment for the Plaintiffs as to the statutory seller element for inventory transactions and **denied** the cross-motion by the Defendant. Litigation of all federal and state claims, including control-person claims against the chief executive officer, will move forward to the extent they are based on inventory transactions. Discovery will resume on the remaining elements of these claims, including whether the tokens at issue qualify as securities. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 30, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bYVnxO from PacerMonitor.com COLUMBIA BANKING: Continues to Defend MOVEit Data Breach MDL Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Columbia Banking System, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from MOVEit Data Breach MDL Suits in the federal courts of the United States. In 2023 the Bank was informed by one of its technology service providers (the "Vendor") that a widely reported security incident involving MOVEit, a file-sharing software used globally by government agencies, enterprise corporations, and financial institutions, resulted in the unauthorized acquisition by a third party of the names and social security numbers or tax identification numbers of certain of the Bank's consumer and small business customers (the "Vendor Incident"). On behalf of the Bank, the Vendor notified affected customers (approximately 429,000), and the Bank and Vendor notified applicable federal and state regulators regarding the Vendor Incident. Subsequently, the Bank was named in a number of putative class action lawsuits related to the Vendor Incident. The lawsuits collectively allege claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of certain state statutes. Given the large number of federal cases throughout the United States (including those involving the Bank), on Oct. 4, 2023, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation initiated a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") to consolidate such cases –- In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3083 –- in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (MDL No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL). The Bank has engaged defense counsel and intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and any similar or related lawsuits or claims. The Bank has notified relevant insurance carriers and business counterparties and continues to reserve all of its relevant rights to indemnity, defense, contribution, and other relief in connection with these matters. Columbia Banking System, Inc. is a bank holding company whose primary subsidiary, Umpqua Bank, provides commercial, consumer, and small business banking services. It operates branches and financial centers across the Western United States, offering lending, deposit, and treasury management products. Columbia Banking System, Inc. is a bank holding company whose primary subsidiary, Umpqua Bank, provides commercial, consumer, and small business banking services. It operates branches and financial centers across the Western United States, offering lending, deposit, and treasury management products. COMMUNITY ANIMAL MEDICINE: Medina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Animal Medicine Project, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Hilda Medina, an individual, on behalf of Plaintiff, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Community Animal Medicine Project, Inc., Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 26STCV24007 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlawful Business Practices." Community Animal Medicine Project (CAMP) -- https://www.campla.org/ -- is Southern California's largest nonprofit veterinary organization, providing indispensable veterinary services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 599-8292 Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER: Bowman Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Resource Center for the Developmentally Disabled, Inc. The case is styled as Felicia Yolanda Bowman, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Community Resource Center for the Developmentally Disabled, Inc., Case No. 814668/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor & Employment)." Community Resource Center for the Developmentally Disabled, Inc. (CRCDD) -- https://www.crcdd.org/ -- is a not-for-profit community based organization which exists to establish, maintain and operate Residential and Day Habilitation Programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 CONSUMER SAFETY: Fails to Secure IT Network, Million Says --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MILLION, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER SAFETY TECHNOLOGY, LLC d/b/a INTOXALOCK, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00302-SMR-HCA (S.D. Iowa, July 27, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure its IT Network and failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures such as encryption, multi-factor authentication, or timely software patches which allowed unauthorized third parties to cause service disruptions to Plaintiff and Class Members. Consumer Safety Technology, LLC is a provider of ignition interlock devices or car breathalyzers.[ On March 14, 2026, the Defendant experienced a breach. As a result of the breach, installations, calibrations, account access, and other court-ordered services of Defendant were disrupted. This has resulted in many customers, including Plaintiff and Class Members, from being able to provide a negative alcohol breath sample in order to start their vehicles. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep its IT Network safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from having Plaintiff and Class Members as customers, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: loss of property, use of their vehicles, and lost wages. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CORNICK GARBER & SANDLER: Chandra Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cornick, Garber & Sandler, LLC. The case is styled as Bailey A. Chandra, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cornick, Garber & Sandler, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06493 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Cornick Garber and Sandler LLP -- https://cgscpa.com/ -- is a firm that provides tax accounting and audit accounting to nonprofit clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Credit Acceptance Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from TCPA class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On April 7, 2025, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that it violated the TCPA by allegedly calling the cellular phones of members of the putative class without prior express consent and with the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and requests damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. On May 14, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on May 29, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On Feb. 4, 2026, the court issued an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Credit Acceptance Corp. is a specialty finance company that provides financing programs to automobile dealers by purchasing retail installment contracts for used vehicles. It focuses on serving subprime and nonprime consumers who have limited access to traditional automotive financing. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Klinefelter Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Danielle Klinefelter, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., an unknown business entity; GMRI, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2618224 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08395. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains thirteen causes of action alleging: failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to pay overtime wages; conversion of tips; money had and received; unlawful deductions from wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to timely pay all wages during employment; failure to timely pay all wages due at separation; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; failure to maintain accurate payroll records; failure to reimburse business expenses; unfair business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code; and failure to produce personnel and payroll records all in violation of California Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rachael Lavi, Esq. James A. Becerra, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: rlavi@littler.com jbecerra@littler.com - and - Greg A. Alonge, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: galonge@littler.com DATAVANT LLC: McIntosh Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Toni McIntosh, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. DATAVANT, LLC; CIOX HEALTH, LLC; and DOES 1-5, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-093674 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05861. The Plaintiff asserts thirteen claims for relief: payment of wages less than entitled and failure to pay minimum wages RCW 49.46.090 and RCW 49.46.130; failure to pay overtime wages RCW 49.46.130; failure to pay rest periods RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296- 126-092; failure to provide meal periods RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; willful withholding of and/or refusal to pay wages RCW 49.52.050 and 49.52.070; failure to accrue, allow use of paid sick leave RCW 49.46.210 and WAC 296-128-620; failure to pay wages due at established pay periods RCW 49.46 et seq. and WAC 26-126-023; failure to pay wages owed at termination of employment RCW 49.48.010 and 49.52.070; failure to furnish itemized and complete wage statements WAC 296-126-040; failure to maintain adequate records WAC 296-128-010, WAC 296-126-050, and RCW 49.46.070; illegal noncompetition covenants; (xii) unlawful employment restrictions RCW 49.62.070; violation of Washington's consumer protection act RCW.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1650 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (425) 521-5121 Fax: (818) 265-1021 Email: joanna@calljustice.com The Defendants are represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. Nohl C. Speck, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email adam.pankratz@ogletree.com nohl.speck@ogletree.com DDELA GROUP: Fernandez-Castillo Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DDELA Group Corp. The case is styled as Jan Fernandez-Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DDELA Group Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-02534-E (D. Minn., July 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com DELTA AIR: Bid to Strike Berrin's Sham Declaration Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYANNA BERRIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-04150-MEMF-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's Sham Declaration and Errata, and granting in part defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction: 1. The Defendant's motion to strike is denied. 2. The Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted in part. 3. The Parties shall submit a new proposed scheduling order within 14 days of the date of this Order, which shall also include proposed hearing dates for the pending Motion for class certification and motions to strike. Accordingly, the Court finds there is a genuine issue of material fact as to her alleged injury that is traceable to Delta's conduct concerning her 2021 to 2022 flights, and therefore there is a genuine issue as to whether she has suffered an injury in fact sufficient to establish standing for her CLRA damages claim. Berrin first alleges that Delta has violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") by making carbon-neutral misrepresentations that led customers to falsely believe that Delta operated a carbon-neutral airline since March 2020; and that Delta purchased carbon offsets that meant it did not release any net additional carbon into the atmosphere on an annualized basis since March 2020. Berrin also alleges that beginning on March 6, 2020, and repeatedly again within three years preceding the filing of the Complaint, Delta has violated California's False Advertising Law ("FAL") by making untrue, false, deceptive, and/or misleading statements in connection with the advertising and marketing of Delta flights. Delta Air is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BHbiiA at no extra charge.[CC] DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Gyamerah Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Devereux Foundation. The case is styled as Romeo Gyamerah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Devereux Foundation doing business as: Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health, Case No. 2:26-cv-05427 (E.D. Pa., July 31, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Devereux Foundation -- https://devereux.org/ -- is one of the oldest and largest nonprofit providers of behavioral healthcare in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600 Fax: (212) 545-4653 Email: rifkin@whafh.com DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Kamara Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mariam J. Kamara, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. DEVEREUX FOUNDATION D/B/A DEVEREUX ADVANCED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 2:26-cv-05355 (E.D. Pa., July 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant, upon information and belief, for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") from hackers, resulting in a data breach. According to Defendant, on or about November 9, 2025, Defendant identified suspicious activity within certain systems on its computer network. After an investigation, Defendant discovered that, as a result of the targeted attack, an unauthorized third party accessed Defendant's systems between November 6, 2025, and November 9, 2025 and copied files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). The Defendant failed to properly monitor and properly implement data security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. If Defendant had properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered the Data Breach sooner. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct as the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information has been compromised. The Defendant is a national nonprofit behavioral healthcare organization based in Villanova, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue, Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 DISC MEDICINE: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Business Info ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Disc Medicine, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRON) resulting from allegations that Disc Medicine may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Disc Medicine securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56641 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 13, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") to Disc Medicine regarding its bitopertin program. The FDA stated they could not approve Disc Medicine's new drug application ("NDA") as there were uncertainties in the NDA that would need additional evidence. On this news, Disc Medicine's stock price fell 22% on February 13, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. The Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DLS EVENTS LLC: Tucker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DLS Events, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Brandon Tucker, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DLS Events, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV018342 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." DLS Events -- https://www.dlsevents.com/ -- is a nationwide food and beverage company with a long- standing record and experience in festivals nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William C. Sung, Esq. JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C. 9575 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Phone: 323-922-2000 Fax: 323-922-2000 Email: william@justiceforworkers.com DNOW INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities who held DNOW Inc. (NYSE: DNOW) common stock as of the August 5, 2025 record date and were thus entitled to vote at the September 9, 2025 special meeting. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for DNOW Inc. investors under the federal securities laws. To join the DNOW Inc. class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/dnow-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants negligently understated the challenge of DNOW's merger with MRC Global Inc. as a result of material issues affecting MRC Global's new enterprise resources planning system, which they knew of or should have known of, and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about DNOW's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 2, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/dnow-inc/join or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured billions of dollars for investors. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DOUGLAS BURGUM: Joint Status Report Due Oct. 13 ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY et al., v. DOUGLAS BURGUM et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-02474-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order setting the following initial case scheduling deadlines: Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: Sept. 29, 2026 Initial disclosures pursuant to Oct. 6, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(1): Combined joint status report and Oct. 13, 2026 discovery plan as Required by FRCP 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f): The deadlines above may be extended only by the Court. Any request for an extension should be made by email to Mary Trent, Courtroom Deputy, at mary_trent@wawd.uscourts.gov. If Defendants have appeared, the parties are directed to meet and to confer before contacting the Court to request an extension. If the case constitutes a putative class action, the parties are directed to propose a joint briefing schedule for class certification on or before the deadline for filing of the Joint Status Report. If the parties are unable to agree on a schedule, they are to submit their positions and separate proposals. All counsel and any pro se parties are directed to confer and provide the Court with a combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan (the "Report") by October 13, 2026. As required by LCR 37(a), all discovery matters are to be resolved by agreement if possible. In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court "direct[s] that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court." Douglas Burgum is an American businessman and politician. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m1n4xq at no extra charge.[CC] DRIVETIME CAR SALES: Thompson Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Roland Thompson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DRIVETIME CAR SALES, LLC; DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2613569 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-04284. The Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against Defendant: failure to pay minimum wage pursuant to California Labor Codes; failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to California Labor Codes; failure to provide meal periods pursuant to California Labor Codes; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks pursuant to California Labor Code; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses pursuant to California Labor Code; failure to timely pay final wages pursuant to California Labor Code; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to California Labor Code; unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and Professional Code; and recovery of civil penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Heather D. Hearne, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM A Professional Law Corporation 10233 South Parker Road, Suite 300 Parker, CO 80134 Phone: (720) 447-6628 Fax: (225) 906-4230 Email: hdh@kullmanlaw.com ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER: Escobedo Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH ESCOBEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER, NA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06472 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2026) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant has installed and deployed data broker software on the Website, https://economist.com/ to secretly collect data about visitors, their devices, locations and views of webpages to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track them on an ongoing basis. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining a court order or other authorization violated the CIPA, alleges the suit. The Economist Newspaper, NA offers newspaper publishing services. The Company provides current affairs, insight opinion, politics, business, finance, science and technology, as well as overviews of cultural trends and business reports. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Blvd #1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 490-3927 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Prelim Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edwards Lifesciences Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that parties involved in the securities class suit reached a proposed settlement that secured preliminarily approved of the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 3, 2026. On Oct. 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of Edwards filed a putative securities class action (the "Securities Class Action") complaint against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Patel v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, et al., No. 24-cv-02221. The complaint alleges violations of various securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business prospects. The complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, and other fees. On Sept. 17, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Company's Motion to Dismiss, and on Sept. 19, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The parties have reached a proposed settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court on Aug. 3, 2026, for an amount that is not material to the financial statements. The expense was recorded within Certain Litigation Expenses on the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2026. On Dec. 31, 2024, Plaintiff Manh Ho filed a shareholder derivative action in the California District Court, captioned Ho v. Zovighian, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-02822, purportedly on behalf of Edwards against certain of its officers and directors for alleged violations of federal securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. On Jan. 17, 2025, Plaintiff Barbara Sheridan filed a different shareholder derivative action in the California District Court, Sheridan v. Zovighian, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00097, purportedly on behalf of Edwards against certain of its officers and directors for similar alleged violations. Both the Ho Action and the Sheridan Action are based on the same facts as the Securities Class Action. On April 10, 2025, the California District Court consolidated the Ho Action and the Sheridan Action and on June 17, 2025, issued an order staying the consolidated derivative action until the Securities Class Action is resolved. On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff Kenneth Webb filed a shareholder derivative action in Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Webb v. Valeriani, et al., Case No. 2026-0591, purportedly on behalf of Edwards against certain of its officers and directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment based on the same facts as the Securities Class Action. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the litigation or the potential impact on its financial statements. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the lawsuits. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. is a global medical technology company specializing in innovative heart valve therapies and critical care monitoring. It develops and manufactures products used to treat structural heart disease and to manage critically ill patients in surgical and intensive care settings worldwide. ELITE SOURCE: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Carlton Knowles, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ELITE SOURCE PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-06443 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.herbalrootssupplements.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. ELITE SOURCE PRODUCTS, INC., operates the Herbal Roots Supplements online retail store, as well as the Herbal Roots Supplements interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal EMPLOYBRIDGE LLC: Sosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Employbridge, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Moise O. Majuan Sosa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Employbridge, LLC, Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, U.S. Pole Company, Inc., U.S. Outdoor Lighting, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV24176 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2026). Employbridge, LLC -- https://www.employbridge.com/ -- provides industrial staffing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Energizer Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In 2023, three purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and Wal-Mart Inc. in the Northern District of California alleging that the defendants conspired to inflate the prices of certain Energizer battery and lighting products (the "Products") charged by the Company to other retailers and to prevent other retailers from charging consumers prices below Wal-Mart's pricing, in violation of antitrust and consumer protection laws. The matters were filed on behalf of putative classes of entities that purchased the Products directly from Energizer, persons who purchased the Products directly from a Wal-Mart brick-and-mortar store, and persons who indirectly purchased the Products (other than for resale). All three lawsuits have been consolidated. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages, costs and disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as injunctive relief. The Company has not recorded any accruals in its consolidated financial statements, as the likelihood of a loss from these cases is not probable nor estimable at this time. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses against the claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. Energizer Holdings, Inc. is a global manufacturer and distributor of primary batteries, portable lighting products, and automotive care products, sold under brands including Energizer, Eveready, and Armor All. The company markets its products in more than 140 countries through a broad range of retail, e-commerce, and automotive channels. EP WEALTH ADVISORS: Wu Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EP Wealth Advisors, LLC. The case is styled as Cindy Wu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EP Wealth Advisors, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-08480 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Contract. EP Wealth Advisors, LLC -- https://www.epwealth.com/ -- operates as an investment advisory company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com EUROFINS DONOR & PRODUCT: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ronald Martinez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. EUROFINS DONOR & PRODUCT TESTING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EUROFINS VRL, INC., an unknown business entity; EUROFINS DONOR & PRODUCT TESTING, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. C26-01860 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07896. The Class Action purports to allege ten causes of action, including Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wage; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; all in Violation of California Labor Codes and Violation of California Labor Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara I. Antonucci, Esq. Sarah K. Hamilton, Esq. Spencer C. Ladd, Esq. Annan Chen, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 918-3000 Email: bantonucci@constangy.com shamilton@constangy.com sladd@constangy.com achen@constangy.com FAIRLIFE LLC: Montalvo Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------- Christina Montalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAIRLIFE, LLC and THE COCA COLA COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-04278-LMM (N.D. Ga., July 29, 2026), is brought against Defendants for their alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") from hackers, resulting in a data breach. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained. The potential for improper disclosure and theft of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendants, and thus Defendants were on notice that failing to take necessary steps to secure the Private Information left it vulnerable to an attack. The Defendants failed to properly monitor and implement security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. If Defendants had properly monitored their networks, systems, and email accounts, they would have discovered the Breach sooner. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendants' negligent conduct. The Private Information that Defendants collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendants. Fairlife is one of Coca-Cola's dairy brands and produces a range of ultra-filtered milk products, protein shakes, and nutrition drinks sold throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue, Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com FASTLY INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fastly Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 24, 2024, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Ken Kula v. Fastly, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. Motions for lead plaintiff were filed on July 23, 2024. On Aug. 22, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff (Lead Plaintiff) and lead counsel. On Nov. 1, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired Fastly securities between Nov. 15, 2023, and Aug. 7, 2024. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 15, 2025. Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on March 17, 2025, and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on April 30, 2025. On Sept. 24, 2025, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On Oct. 24, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On Dec. 9, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On Jan. 26, 2026, Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion, and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on Feb. 19, 2026. A hearing scheduled for April 30, 2026, on defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was vacated, and the Company is awaiting a ruling on the motion. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, regarding these same or other matters, and also naming as defendants the Company and its officers and directors. The Company anticipates that it may be a target for lawsuits in the future, as it has been in the past, and it notes that any litigation to which it is a party may result in an onerous or unfavorable judgment or settlement and could seriously harm its business. The Company further discloses that the results of lawsuits and claims cannot be predicted with certainty. Regardless of the final outcome, defending these claims and associated indemnification obligations is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees. The Company may receive unfavorable preliminary, interim, or final rulings in the course of litigation, which could seriously harm its business. Additionally, the Company and certain of its officers and directors are involved in multiple stockholder derivative actions in federal and state courts, which are based on substantially similar allegations to those in the putative securities class action and which have largely been stayed pending resolution of the Company's motion or motions to dismiss in the securities class action. On June 12, 2024, certain of the Company's officers and directors were named as defendants in a stockholder derivative action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Roy v. Nightingale, et al. On July 1, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint was also filed against certain of the Company's officers and directors in the same court, captioned Steffens v. Nightingale, et al. The derivative complaints filed in the Northern District of California are based on substantially similar allegations as those in the securities class action. They assert that defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company, and also assert claims of unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, aiding and abetting, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The court consolidated and stayed the derivative actions until after resolution of the Company's motion or motions to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. On June 29, 2026, a substantially similar stockholder derivative complaint was filed against certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Suver v. Nightingale, et al., and the court had previously ordered that the June 12 and July 1, 2024, shareholder derivative actions, including any subsequently filed shareholder derivative actions based on substantially similar allegations, be consolidated and stayed pending resolution of the Company's motion or motions to dismiss in the securities class action. Separately, on Aug. 23, 2024, a substantially similar stockholder derivative complaint was filed against certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Sweitzer v. Nightingale, et al. On Sept. 26, 2024, the court stayed the Sweitzer Action until after resolution of the Company's motion or motions to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. On Dec. 20, 2024, a substantially similar stockholder derivative complaint was filed against certain of the Company's officers and directors in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, captioned Bushansky v. Nightingale, et al. On Jan. 8, 2025, the court stayed the Bushansky Action until after resolution of the Company's motion or motions to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. The Company discloses that stockholder derivative complaints were thus filed on June 12, 2024, July 1, 2024, Aug. 23, 2024, Dec. 20, 2024, and June 29, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, all based on substantially similar allegations as those in the putative securities class action. These shareholder derivative actions have been stayed pending resolution of the Company's motion or motions to dismiss in the above-referenced putative securities class action. Fastly Inc. is a global cloud computing services provider offering an edge cloud platform that helps developers and businesses deliver fast, secure, and scalable digital experiences. It provides content delivery, edge compute, security, and related services to enterprises, media companies, and technology platforms worldwide. FEDERAL EXPRESS: Amended Pretrial Sched Order Entered in Masinas ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY MASINAS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-01938-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered an amended pretrial scheduling order as follows : The Court finds that bifurcation is necessary in order to best determine if the elements of class certification are met. Accordingly, the Court bifurcates the discovery process. All discovery in Phase I shall be limited to facts that are relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class action and shall be completed within two hundred forty (240) days. I All counsel are to designate in writing, file with the Court, and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender for class certification purposes not later than sixty (60) days after the close of discovery. The Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than one hundred eighty (180) days after the close of certification discovery. The Defendant is a major American multinational holding company that specializes in transportation, e-commerce, and business logistics services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WGCBkd at no extra charge.[CC] FN LOGISTICS: Sumbler Sues to Recover Regular and OT Pay -------------------------------------------------------- LOUIS SUMBLER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FN LOGISTICS, LLC; DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24420 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover penalties arising from the Defendant's willful violations pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The complaint alleges the failure to Defendant to pay Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees proper and timely compensation for all hours worked, including minimum wage and overtime wages at the correct regular rate of pay, reimbursement for work-related expenses, provision of accurate itemized wage statements and full payment of all wages owed upon separation from employment. Plaintiff Sumbler was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly restocker from approximately November 2025 to January 2026 in Santa Fe Springs, California. FN Logistics LLC is a supply chain and transportation enterprise based in Santa Fe Springs, California. The company specializes in freight transport, cargo handling, inventory management, and distribution operations designed to streamline commercial supply networks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com - and - Esther L. Bylsma, Esq. Sandra Acosta Tello, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 835-1550 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ebylsma@schneiderwallace.com sacostatello@schneiderwallace.com FORD MOTOR: Bid for Leave to File Supplemental Authority OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK WILLIAM DROESSER et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-12365-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Laurie J. Michelson entered an order granting the unopposed motions to seal and for leave to file supplemental authority. Overall, the Court finds Ford has met its burden of showing that the information should remain under seal. In this multi-state putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege Ford Motor Company's 6.7L Power Stroke diesel engines in the Class Vehicles were equipped with defective CP4 fuel pumps. The Defendant is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r4QpjR at no extra charge.[CC] FRANKLIN-CHRISTOPH LLC: Suit Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRANKLIN-CHRISTOPH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06499 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.franklin-christoph.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. Franklin-Christoph is an American brand, designing and manufacturing fine writing instruments, including fountain pens, ballpoints, and mechanical pencils. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FRESHWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities, Derivative Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Freshworks Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit and stockholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On Nov. 1, 2022, a purported Company stockholder filed a securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, certain of its current officers and directors, and underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO). On Feb. 8, 2023, the court-appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On April 14, 2023, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making material misstatements or omissions in offering documents filed in connection with its IPO. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees, costs, and rescission on behalf of purchasers and/or acquirers of common stock issued in our IPO. On Sept. 28, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. On Jan. 16, 2025, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted and entered judgment in its part and the other defendants' favor on April 10, 2025. Plaintiff has appealed the judgment, and the Company continues to vigorously defend against the claims in this action. On March 20, 2023, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint names as defendants our current directors, as well as Freshworks, as nominal defendant, and asserts state and federal claims based on some of the same alleged misstatements as the securities class action complaint. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On June 21, 2023, the court stayed the case in light of the pending securities class action. On Oct. 16, 2023, the court extended the stay of the case in light of the pending securities class action. The Company and the other defendants continue to vigorously defend against the claims in this action. Freshworks Inc. provides cloud-based customer engagement software, including customer support, sales, marketing, and IT service management solutions for businesses of all sizes. It serves customers worldwide across a variety of industries through its SaaS-based product suite. FURNITURELAND SOUTH: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FURNITURELAND SOUTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06397 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.furniturelandsouth.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on June 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Rosedale Six Drawer Tall Dresser from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. FurnitureLand South, Inc. operates the website that sells furniture and home decor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal G.S.E. CONSTRUCTION: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jacob Garcia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. G.S.E. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV30753 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-04281. The Complaint contains eight causes of action for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements all in violation of the Cal. Lab. Codes; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jyoti Mittal, Esq. Satoru Nagano, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: jmittal@littler.com snagano@littler.com GATE GOURMET INC: Link Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Darren Link, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GATE GOURMET, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-20485-3 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02698. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: failure to compensate for noncompliant meal and rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; and failure to pay overtime wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie K. Serb, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Molly A. Terwilliger, Esq. Hannah R. Talmage, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: molly.terwilliger@morganlewis.com hannah.talmage@morganlewis.com GAVIN NEWSOM: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Feb. 4, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY G. ET AL., v. GAVIN NEWSOM ET AL., Case No. 5:23-cv-00947-MEMF-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs may file a motion for class certification and appointment of class Counsel not to exceed 14,000 words; 2. The Defendants may file a response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel not to exceed 14,000 words, due on or before Nov. 20, 2026; 3. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel shall be due on or before Jan. 11, 2027; 4. The hearing on the motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel will be held on Feb. 4, 2027, or at the Court's earliest convenience; and 5. All other dates and deadlines in this matter shall remain unchanged. Gavin Newsom is an American politician and businessman serving as the governor of California since 2019. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X5jpTl at no extra charge.[CC] GENEDX HOLDINGS: Faces Kanungo Securities Class Action in Conn. --------------------------------------------------------------- MANAS KANUNGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENEDX HOLDINGS CORP., KATHERINE STUELAND, and KEVIN FEELEY, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01203 (D. Conn., July 28, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of GeneDx common stock between April 16, 2025 and May 4, 2026, inclusive, asserting claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. On April 16, 2025, GeneDx announced an agreement to acquire Fabric Genomics, an Oakland, California-based firm focused on AI-driven genomic interpretation in a deal worth up to $51 million. Under the terms of that deal, GeneDx would pay up to $33 million in cash up front, with a total consideration of up to $51 million, including payments linked to milestones. The acquisition was completed on May 5, 2025. The claims against Defendants arise from their misrepresentations and omissions regarding GeneDx's statements regarding the impact of Fabric on the overall business of GeneDx. Throughout the Class period, GeneDx repeatedly made statements that would have caused the average investor to believe that the Fabric acquisition would improve GeneDx's financials and create efficiencies between it and GeneDx's core business. These statements include such statements such as: "There is room to run in terms of reducing COGS in the future by combining the best of capability between GeneDx and Fabric as we lean into the best possible algorithms to optimize dry lab processes." These and similar statements made throughout the Class Period were false, the complaint asserts. In truth, the Defendants knew of, or recklessly disregarded, significant problems in Fabric's viability that would negatively impact GeneDx's overall business and operations. As a result, GeneDx's statements concerning its business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable factual basis, and shares of GeneDx common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, says the suit. GeneDx Holdings Corp. is a genomics company that provides genetic testing services for diagnosing pediatric and rare diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: mltuccillo@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com GEORGIA POWER: Move to Dismiss Amended Antitrust Class Suit Lodged ------------------------------------------------------------------ Georgia Power Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 29, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that a purported class action complaint was filed in July 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against two nuclear consulting companies and all U.S. commercial nuclear power operators, or affiliated entities, including company affiliate The Southern Company. The purported class of plaintiffs consists of all persons employed in nuclear power generation by the defendants, including nuclear operators, nuclear engineers, and nuclear technicians, from May 1, 2003, to the present. It alleges that, since at least May 2003, the nuclear power industry conspired to fix and suppress employee compensation for nuclear power generation employees in violation of federal antitrust law. In October 2025, Southern Company moved to dismiss the complaint. In November 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming Southern Nuclear, among others, as a defendant. In December 2025, Southern Company and Southern Nuclear filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Georgia Power Co is a regulated electric utility serving retail and wholesale customers in Georgia and is a principal subsidiary of Southern Company, one of the largest energy providers in the United States. It generates, transmits, and distributes electricity from a diverse portfolio of resources, including natural gas, coal, nuclear, and renewable energy. GKN AEROSPACE: Guadarrama Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Diana Guadarrama, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GKN Aerospace Transparency Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 26-01572329-CU-PO-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01786-FWS-JDE to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants over alleged torts to land. The case is assigned to Judge Fred W. Slaughter and is referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early. GKN Aerospace Transparency Systems Inc. is a manufacturer of cockpit windows, military canopies, and passenger cabin windows located in Garden Grove, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caleb L. Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: Caleb.Marker@zimmreed.com The Defendants are represented by: Mary Rose Alexander, Esq. LATHAM AND WATKINS 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 Facsimile: (312) 993-9767 E-mail: mary.rose.alexander@lw.com - and - Alexander Wyman, Esq. LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Ste 400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 Facsimile: (213) 891-8763 E-mail: alex.wyman@lw.com GLOBE LIFE: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Globe Life Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from City of Miami securities class suit and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On April 30, 2024, a putative securities class action was filed against Globe Life Inc. and six of its current or former executives and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (City of Miami Gen. Emp. & Sanitation Emp. Ret. Trust, et al. v. Globe Life Inc., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00376). On July 24, 2024, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel for the putative class of shareholders. The Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 4, 2024, that asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rules 10b-5(a), 10b-5(b), and 10b-5(c) promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from May 8, 2019, through April 10, 2024. The Consolidated Complaint added four additional executives as defendants and alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures about financial performance and certain other public statements during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. Pursuant to the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation and indemnification agreements with the individual defendants, the Company has agreed to indemnify the individual director and executive officer defendants for all expenses and losses related to the litigation, subject to the terms of those indemnification agreements. On May 15, 2026, the Lead Plaintiffs moved for class certification, and the motion is scheduled to be fully briefed by Oct. 30, 2026. The Company plans to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The outcome of litigation of this type is inherently uncertain, and there is always the possibility that a court rules in a manner that is adverse to the interests of the Company and the individual defendants. However, the amount of any such loss in that outcome cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Additionally, a consolidated shareholder derivative suit closely related to the putative securities class action described above is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the City of Miami Matter). On Nov. 7, 2024, Company shareholder Jui Cheng Hsiao (Hsiao) filed a shareholder derivative complaint against the Company as a nominal defendant, as well as certain current and former Company executives and members of its Board of Directors. On Nov. 14, 2024, Company shareholder Gautam Jadhav (Jadhav) filed a shareholder derivative complaint against the same set of defendants. Each shareholder derivative complaint asserts one claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants and alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by causing or permitting it to make misleading statements about its performance and financial results. The allegations are substantially similar to those made in the City of Miami Matter and derive from certain short seller reports. Pursuant to the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation and indemnification agreements with the individual defendants, the Company has agreed to indemnify the individual director and executive officer defendants for all expenses and losses related to the litigation, subject to the terms of those indemnification agreements. Globe Life Inc. is a financial services holding company specializing in life and supplemental health insurance, with operations primarily in the United States. It provides individual life and health insurance products, as well as annuities, marketed through multiple distribution channels. GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Continues to Defend Securities, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Graphic Packaging Holding Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class and derivative suits. On May 7, 2026, a class action lawsuit was filed against GPHC and two of its former officers (the "Securities Class Action"). The Securities Class Action was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of GPHC stock between Feb. 4, 2025, and Feb. 2, 2026. It asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Securities Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements. It further alleges that GPHC's previously issued full-year 2025 financial guidance was unrealistic. In addition, on July 24, 2026, a purported stockholder of GPHC filed a derivative lawsuit against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors as individual defendants. The Derivative Action asserts claims for violations of federal securities laws and for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Action. Graphic Packaging Holding Co. is a leading provider of paper-based packaging solutions for consumer products, serving global food, beverage, and other consumer goods companies. It designs and manufactures folding cartons and paperboard products with a focus on sustainability and innovative packaging solutions. GREEN TRIPS: Washington Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Washington v. Green Trips Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03585 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 16, 2024), the Hon. Judge Diane Gujarati entered an order referring the motions to certify class and the motion for pre motion conference to Chief Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Green Trips is a non-emergency transportation provider specializing in services for elderly and disabled clients.[CC] GULFPORT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Underpaid Royalties Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gulfport Energy Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from an underpaid royalties class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. In January 2025, Grace E. Moore Great Grandchildren Trust of 2006, Joseph Gorsha, Damon Faldowski, Damon Faldowski II, and Mark Faldowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action against Gulfport and another natural gas producer in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that defendants underpaid royalties to the plaintiffs in connection with the production and sale of natural gas and NGL involving a variety of lease forms. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief regarding royalty payment practices, restitution, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. In April 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that another operator in Ohio could not deduct certain processing and fractionation charges under one lease form that included a version of a market enhancement clause. Given the preliminary nature of this action, the company is currently unable to estimate what liability may result from this matter. Gulfport Energy Corp. is an independent natural gas and oil exploration and production company focused on the development of unconventional resources in the United States. It primarily operates in the Appalachian Basin, targeting the Utica and Marcellus formations. GUTIERREZ FAMILY: Gutierrez Family Sues Over Shell Egg Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------------- GUTIERREZ FAMILY LLC D/B/A EL CHARRO CAFE; LL CALK ENTERPRISES LLC D/B/A ETTORE'S BAKERY AND RESTAURANT ELAS CREPES; DRAGO'S KITCHEN LLC, HOUSE OF OMELETS INC.; TOM DEMO INC. D/B/A STACKED; THE WOODEN SPOON AT CV LLC D/B/A THE WOODEN SPOON; 317 MOONPIE MOUNTAIN LLC D/B/A BARBED WIRE CAFE; LAUER HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC D/B/A AVON CABIN CAFE; SJLK HOSPITALITY LLC D/B/A DALE'S; MCCARTHY FUTURE LLC D/B/A VARSITY INN; J & A RESTAURANTS LLC D/B/A STINGERS PIZZA PUB; LKN CHEESECAKERY LLC; WORD OF MOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD BISTRO LLC D/B/A WORD OF MOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD BISTRO; CREATIVE RESTAURANTS, INC. D/B/A RUM BOOGIE; and STARTSWITHONE LLC D/B/A THE DINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC.; ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC.; VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC; HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA., INC.; HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC; HILLANDALE FARMS EAST, INC.; HILLANDALE FARMS, INC.; DAYBREAK FOODS, INC.; OPAL FOODS, LLC; URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC.; and EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00703 (W.D. Wis., July 30, 2026) alleges violation of the Clayton Act, and Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants exploited unique structural aspects of the United States egg industry -- including a privately-set benchmark used to price nearly every wholesale egg transaction in the U.S.; outsized control over supply by a small handful vertically-integrated producers; and commercial interconnections between and among producers and trading platforms -- to manipulate and inflate the price of conventional and cage free shell eggs (hereinafter, "Commodity Shell Eggs" or "Shell Eggs") across the country. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and the members of the Nationwide Class were harmed by being forced to pay inflated, supra-competitive prices for Commodity Shell Eggs, says the suit. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. offers poultry products. The Company produces, cleans, grades, packs, and sells fresh shell eggs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Ian F. McFarland, Esq. Zachary J. Freese, Esq. Giselle M. Webber, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com zachary.freese@zimmreed.com giselle.webber@zimmreed.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP Two City Place Drive Second Floor St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Evelyn Riley, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Cody McCracken, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M St. NW Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 Email: evelyn@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com cmccracken@cuneolaw.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. Matthew B. Bolt, Esq. LARSON · KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East 7th St. Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 Email: sraiter@larsonking.com mbolt@larsonking.com - and - Laura K. Mummert, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 314-7980 Email: lmummert@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com - and - John "Don" Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. Sterling Aldridge, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com - and - Timothy M. Hansen, Esq. Michael C. Lueder, Esq. HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC 301 N. Broadway, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 455-7676 Email: thansen@hansenreynolds.com mlueder@hansenreynolds.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. Abou B. Amara, Jr., Esq. Melanie Miller Kapanke, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 So. Sixth St., Ste. 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com GUY RENTS INC: Yugovich Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DLS Events, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Zachary Yugovich, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Guy Rents, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV018404 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Guy Rents, Inc. doing business as Rental Guys -- https://rentalguys.com/ -- is a rental service located in Chico, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camron Dowlatshahi, Esq. MILLS SADAT DOWLAT LLP 333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-279-2612 Email: camron@msdlawyers.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action Over $35MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClassAction.org reports that investors who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Hain Celestial Group Inc. common stock, or exchange-traded call or put options on that stock, between Nov. 5, 2013, and Feb. 10, 2017, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Hain Celestial and certain executives agreed to pay $35 million to settle a securities class action lawsuit alleging they made false and misleading statements about the company's financial results. The lawsuit claimed Hain gave its largest U.S. distributors concessions to buy product ahead of their normal purchasing patterns, did not disclose those concessions and prematurely recognized revenue on them. Who can file a claim? The settlement class includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain publicly traded common stock, or exchange-traded call or put options on that stock, between Nov. 5, 2013, and Feb. 10, 2017, inclusive, and experienced damages as a result. Additional details -- Both individuals and entities can be class members. -- The settlement includes investors who held securities in their own name and those who held through a brokerage firm or other nominee. -- The actual beneficial owner or the legal representative of that owner must file the claim. -- Joint owners must each sign the claim form. -- Executors, administrators, guardians, conservators, legal representatives and trustees may submit claims on behalf of others and must provide proof of authority. -- Claimants filing for multiple accounts must submit a separate claim form for each account. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $35,000,000. The amount each class member receives depends on several factors: -- The number of valid claims submitted -- The number of shares or option contracts purchased or acquired during the class period -- The timing of each purchase and sale relative to the alleged corrective disclosures -- The total recognized claims of all claimants The settlement administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis according to the court-approved plan of allocation: -- The estimated average recovery is about $0.28 per allegedly damaged share of Hain common stock before deductions. After estimated deductions of about $0.10 per share for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, the estimated average recovery is about $0.18 per share. -- Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on individual claims and the total number of valid claims. -- To have a compensable loss, class members must have held eligible shares or call options through at least one of the alleged corrective disclosure dates of Jan. 22, 2016, Aug. 16, 2016, or Feb. 13, 2017, or held put option positions open through at least one of those dates. -- The settlement administrator will match purchases and sales of each security on a first-in, first-out basis: -- For shares sold before Jan. 22, 2016, the recognized loss is zero. -- For shares sold from Jan. 22, 2016, through Feb. 10, 2017, the recognized loss is the lesser of the artificial inflation at purchase minus the artificial inflation at sale or the out-of-pocket loss. -- For shares sold from Feb. 11, 2017, through May 12, 2017, the recognized loss is the least of the artificial inflation at purchase, the purchase price minus the average closing price from Feb. 13, 2017, through the sale date or the out-of-pocket loss. -- For shares held as of the close of trading May 12, 2017, the recognized loss is the lesser of the artificial inflation at purchase or the purchase price minus $36.41, the mean closing price during the 90-day lookback period. -- For purchases from Nov. 5, 2013, through Jan. 21, 2016, the artificial inflation is $18.87 per share. -- For purchases from Jan. 22, 2016, through Aug. 15, 2016, the artificial inflation is $17.20 per share. -- For purchases from Aug. 16, 2016, through Feb. 10, 2017, the artificial inflation is $3.57 per share. -- For call options purchased and put options sold during the class period, the settlement administrator will apply parallel formulas using the inflation and deflation amounts set for each option series (pages 18-28 of the settlement notice). -- The settlement administrator will set any recognized loss that calculates to a negative number to zero. -- If total recognized claims exceed the net settlement fund, the settlement administrator will reduce payments on a pro rata basis. -- Class members whose payment would be less than $10 will not receive a payout. How to claim a Hain Celestial securities class action settlement payment Class members can file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Oct. 13, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Hain Celestial Securities Settlement, c/o Verita Global LLC, P.O. Box 301171, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171 Proof or documentation required to submit a claim All class members must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or full taxpayer identification number. They must also provide holdings and transaction information, including: -- Number of shares held at the opening of trading Nov. 5, 2013, and at the close of trading May 12, 2017 -- Trade dates for purchases and sales from Nov. 5, 2013, through May 12, 2017 -- Number of shares purchased, acquired or sold -- Price per share and total price, excluding taxes, commissions and fees -- Option type, expiration date, strike price, number of contracts and price per contract for call and put option transactions Class members must also provide documentation to support their transactions in Hain securities. Acceptable proof includes: -- Broker confirmation slips -- Broker account statements -- Authorized statements from a broker containing the transactional information found in a confirmation slip Payout options -- Physical check $35 million settlement fund The $35,000,000 settlement fund includes: -- Notice and administration expenses: Up to $500,000 before the effective date -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $11,655,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $950,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Oct. 7, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 13, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Oct. 28, 2026 When is the Hain Celestial securities class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after it processes all claims and the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Hain Celestial and certain executives concealed that the company gave its largest U.S. distributors concessions to buy product ahead of their normal purchasing patterns and improperly recognized revenue on those sales. The plaintiffs claimed these practices inflated Hain's reported results and securities prices and caused investor losses when the company released corrective information. Hain and the individual defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs, risks and delays of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $0.18 per share (estimated) Deadline: October 13, 2026 [GN] HANESBRANDS INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due March 15, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA L. JACKSON, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HANESBRANDS INC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00440-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Bastian entered an order as follows: 1. The Scheduling Conference set for July 30, 2026, is stricken. 2. The Plaintiff shall file her Motion for Class Certification on or before March 15, 2027. 3. The Defendant shall file its response memorandum on or before April 14, 2027. 4. The Plaintiff shall file a reply memorandum, if any, on or before April 29, 2027. 5. The Motion for Class Certification will be heard on May 20, 2027, without oral argument. 6. Prior to briefing on the Motion for Class Certification, discovery shall be limited to the named Plaintiff’s individual claims and issues relevant to class certification. The Defendant is an American clothing company based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lLt3RA at no extra charge.[CC] HAQ CONVENIENCE: Chema Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ajaz Chema, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. HAQ CONVENIENCE CORP. d/b/a 7-ELEVEN and EHITSHAM HAQ, Case No. 2:26-cv-04690 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations ("NYLL"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of one and one half times his regular hourly rate for any of the hours he worked in excess of forty. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff often worked more than ten hours in a single day. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff spread-of-hours pay for each day in which his spread of hours exceeded 10 hours. The Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record-keeping requirements of the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by Plaintiff and the Collective Action Plaintiffs daily and weekly. The Defendants failed to post notices explaining wage and hour requirements in conspicuous places as required by the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate statement with every payment of wages listing the correct number of regular hours worked and the correct number of overtime hours worked in violation of NYLL. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff upon his hire with an accurate written notice of his regular and overtime rates of pay, and other information required by the NYLL, in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a store manager in name only from December 2016 through December 2024. Convenience is and was a domestic business corporation doing business located in Islip, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com HARBOR GROUP: Shapovalov Files Wage-and-Hour Suit in Wash. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDR SHAPOVALOV, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARBOR GROUP MANAGEMENT CO., LLC; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-21894-3 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., July 8, 2026) is a class action over Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Revised Code of Washington. The complaint is brought over Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; willful withholding of and/or refusal to pay wages; failure to accrue, allow use of, and properly compensate paid sick leave; failure to pay wages due at established pay periods; failure to pay wages owed at termination of employment; failure to furnish itemized and complete wage statements; and failure to maintain adequate records. The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt employee from approximately August 2024 through April 2026. Harbor Group Management Co., LLC is engaged in the property management industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. Albert H. Kirby, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1650 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (425) 521-5121 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 HCF MANAGEMENT: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that HCF Management has agreed to a class action settlement to wrap up a lawsuit that alleged the rehabilitative healthcare provider failed to protect employees' and customers' private information from a September 2024 data breach. The HCF Management class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 1, 2026. The deal covers all individuals whose personally identifiable information was compromised in the data breach experienced by HCF in September 2024. Court documents state that approximately 70,000 people are covered by the settlement. The court-approved website for the HCF Management class action settlement can be found at HCFDataSettlement.com. HCF Management settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $400 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred between September 17, 2024 and September 29, 2026 due to the data breach. This benefit covers costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, bank fees, long-distance phone charges, notary fees, postage, gasoline, and more. Class members can also receive up to $4,000 for documented "extraordinary" losses incurred between September 17, 2024 and September 29, 2026 due to the data breach. This benefit covers data breach-related bank fees, overdraft fees, interest on payday loans, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as bank statements or receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. Additionally, class members can file a claim form for reimbursement of up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach, at a rate of $20 per hour. Activities covered by this benefit include monitoring accounts, replacing credit/debit cards, filling out police reports, checking credit reports, communicating with financial institutions, and more. In lieu of a documented-loss and/or lost-time payment, class members can submit a claim to receive a $35 cash payment, with no proof required. Finally, all class members can elect on their claim form to receive three years of one-bureau credit monitoring, which includes fraud insurance. To submit an HCF Management settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All HCF Management claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 29, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the HCF Management settlement final approval following a hearing on November 30, 2026. Benefits will begin to be made available to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The HCF Management class action lawsuit alleged that the long-term rehabilitative services provider failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect private employee and customer information from a data breach on or around September 17, 2024. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised in the breach included Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account numbers, medical information, and insurance information. [GN] HERBALIFE LTD: Continues to Defend DeSimone Class Suit in L.A. -------------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife Ltd. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the DeSimone class suit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Company was named as a defendant, along with certain of its executive officers, in a purported class action lawsuit filed on Oct. 31, 2024, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, titled Sarah DeSimone v. Herbalife Ltd. et al. The complaint alleges violations of the California Labor Code, including the alleged misclassification of distributors as independent contractors. The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount, and the action is styled as a putative class proceeding under California law. On Feb. 21, 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to assert additional claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act. The Company has stated that it will vigorously defend itself and the executive officers against the claims asserted in the lawsuit. It is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result from an unfavorable outcome and does not believe that a loss is probable at this time. Herbalife Ltd. is a global nutrition company that develops and markets nutrition, weight management, energy, sports, and personal care products through a network of independent distributors. It operates in more than 90 markets worldwide, focusing on direct-selling strategies and person-to-person nutrition coaching. HERTZ GLOBAL: Schweitzer Files Suit Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- CAMERON SCHWEITZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., WAYNE GILBERT WEST, and SCOTT M. HARALSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02242 (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2026) is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. between May 7, 2026 and June 23, 2026, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements because they failed to disclose these adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them as follows: (a) Hertz's liquidity was deteriorating far more rapidly than represented, and the Company's available liquidity was not sufficient to fund its operations and obligations for the next twelve months without resorting to a distressed, dilutive financing; (b) the softness in the used-car market that Defendants had characterized as "isolated to the quarter" and "transitory" had in fact recurred and was materially depressing the Company's net depreciation per unit and Adjusted Corporate EBITDA; (c) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely to undertake a dilutive, distressed capital raise that would materially harm existing shareholders; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and liquidity position were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Specifically, on June 24, 2026, before the market opened, and just weeks after assuring investors that the Company's liquidity would be "sufficient to fund our operating activities and obligations for the next twelve months and for the foreseeable future thereafter" and projected year-end liquidity "north of $1.5 billion," Hertz announced a massive dilutive capital raise. Through its wholly owned indirect subsidiary, Hertz intended to offer $300 million of Exchangeable Senior First-Lien Secured PIK Notes due 2030, together with a concurrent share lending offering of more than 37 million shares of common stock from which the Company would receive no proceeds, and simultaneously disclosed that "unexpected softness in the used car market" had caused losses on the sale of vehicles in May 2026 and would drive second-quarter Adjusted Corporate EBITDA down to a range of just $50 million to $80 million. On this news, the price of Hertz's common stock declined more than 40% to close at $3.00 per share on June 24, 2026. The very next day, the offering priced on still more dilutive terms, upsized to $350 million (up to $400 million) at a 6.75% coupon with an exchange price of approximately $3.58 per share, and with the borrowed common stock sold to the public at just $2.70 per share. As a result of the revelations, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered significant financial losses and economic damages under the federal securities laws, says the suit. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is a global vehicle rental and mobility solutions provider headquartered in Estero, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 849-8060 E-mail: edwoskin@dwowas.com - and - Andrew J. Brown, Esq. Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. SCHALL, BROWN & SCHWARTZ, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 E-mail: andrew@schallfirm.com omara@schallfirm.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. Adam Rosen, Esq. SCHALL, BROWN & SCHWARTZ, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com adam@schallfirm.com HIGHT ENTERPRISES: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton Knowles, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. HIGHT ENTERPRISES, LTD., Case No. 1:26-cv-06442 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.mcguckin.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. HIGHT ENTERPRISES, LTD., operates the McGuckin online retail store, as well as the McGuckin interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal HILLCREST VINEYARD: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HILLCREST VINEYARD AND WINERY LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00080-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., July 30, 2026), is brought for unpaid minimum wages and tip wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") unpaid tip wages in violation of the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"), and unpaid minimum wages in violation of the Virginia Minimum Wage Act ("VMWA"). The Plaintiff further contends Defendant has violated the FLSA and the VMWA by having a policy or practice of paying a sub-minimum direct cash wage to employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, i.e. cooks and other back of house staff, for whom Defendant is not permitted to take a tip credit. As a result of this sub-minimum wage pay practice of Defendant, Defendant has violated the minimum wage requirements of the FLSA and VMWA. Accordingly, Defendant owes these employees the full federal minimum cash wage of $7.25 per hour (less the direct cash wage paid) and the full Virginia minimum wage (less the direct cash wage paid). In short, Defendant's impermissible tip-pooling and sub-minimum direct cash wage pay practice invalidates the attempted tip credit entirely. Consequently, Defendant is required to pay the full federal statutory minimum wage of $7.25 per hour to both front of house and back of house staff. The Defendant's policies and/or practices comprising the alleged violations were ongoing during Plaintiff's employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Taylor was employed by Defendant in Virginia as a cook (initially), and then as a bartender / tasting room associate from June 2024 to April 2026. The Defendant operates vineyards and a restaurant in Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 123 East Main Street, Suite 100 #8 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (434) 218-3133 Fax: (434) 321-1636 Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com HOMELIGHT INC: Class Cert Filing in Hopkins Due Feb. 12, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. HOMELIGHT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-05017-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification due: Feb. 12, 2027 -- The Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification due: March 3, 2027 -- The Plaintiff's reply due: March 10, 2027 -- Hearing on motion for class certification: TBD -- Class notice and opt-out period, expert disclosures, fact discovery, dispositive motions, pre-trial and trial deadlines: TBD after ruling on class certification HomeLight is a real estate technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KmgGxM at no extra charge.[CC] HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Sivitos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honeywell International Inc. The case is styled as Yolanda Sivitos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 26STCV23879 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Honeywell International Inc. -- https://www.honeywell.com/us/en -- is an American publicly traded, multinational conglomerate corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com HUT 8: Securities Class Suit Final Settlement Hearing Set for Nov 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hut 8 Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York scheduled the final settlement hearing for the securities class suit on Nov. 6, 2026. In February and March 2024, two purported securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The two class actions were consolidated into In re Hut 8 Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-00904 (VM), and a lead plaintiff was appointed on April 19, 2024. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on June 14, 2024. The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On De. 2, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January 16, 2025, the lead plaintiff opposed the motion. On Feb. 18, 2025, the defendants filed a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss. On Sept. 12, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision, dismissing all fraud-based Exchange Act claims and most Securities Act claims, leaving two Section 11 and Section 15 claims tied to King Mountain disclosures. On Oct. 24, 2025, the defendants answered the surviving allegations in the amended complaint and amended their answer on Nov. 14, 2025. On February 4, 2026, at the parties' request, the court stayed all proceedings through April 15, 2026. On April 15, 2026, at the parties' request, the court extended the stay of all proceedings through May 22, 2026. On June 18, 2026, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement"), agreeing to resolve the litigation for $2.4 million. On July 8, 2026, the court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, triggering certain procedural deadlines before a final settlement hearing. The final settlement hearing is scheduled for Nov. 6, 2026. Since the filing of the securities class actions, shareholder derivative suits have been filed against the Company, its directors, and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of Delaware, the Southern District of Florida, and the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the Exchange Act, including Section 10(b). All derivative actions in the Southern District of New York were voluntarily dismissed or transferred to the District of Delaware. All derivative actions in the District of Delaware were voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the court without prejudice. The Southern District of Florida consolidated and stayed three of the proceedings before it under the caption Aliko v. Tai, Case No. 1:24-cv-20890-DSL, pending the resolution of a motion for summary judgment in In re Hut 8 Corp. Securities Litigation. There were five other derivative actions filed in the Southern District of Florida and the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 28, 2026, the parties in the Aliko matter informed the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle that resolves the claims asserted in the Aliko action and related actions pending in the Southern District of Florida. The settlement in principle will require court approval. Defendants have not responded (or been obligated to respond) to the complaints in the two Delaware Court of Chancery actions, which were consolidated under the caption In re Hut 8 Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2026-0265-JTL. On Dec. 1, 2025, a purported former shareholder filed a putative class action against Hut 8 and certain of its current and former officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada. The statement of claim alleges that Hut 8 made misrepresentations in connection with the November 2023 business combination of Hut 8 Mining Corp. and USBTC and asserts causes of action under the common law and the Ontario Securities Act. Hut 8 Corp. is a North American digital asset mining and high-performance computing company focused on bitcoin mining and related infrastructure services. It operates mining facilities and data centers that support blockchain networks and other compute-intensive applications. HYLIION HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Hyliion Holdings Corp. (NYSE American: HYLN) resulting from allegations that Hyliion may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Hyliion securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/hyliion-holdings-corp/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On June 23, 2026, Investing.com published an article entitled "Hyliion stock tumbles on short seller report questioning VFG deal". The article stated that Hyliion shares fell "following the release of a short report by Pelican Way Research questioning the legitimacy of a key customer agreement that had previously sent the stock surging approximately 150%." On this news, Hyliion stock fell 17.2% on June 23, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] IBOTTA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Colorado ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ibotta, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On April 17, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Fortune v. Ibotta, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-01213-NYW, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. On May 21, 2025, a second putative securities class action complaint, captioned Valentine v. Ibotta, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-01615-NYW, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the same defendants. On July 31, 2025, the court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff, purported Ibotta shareholder Mark Tcherkezian, in the consolidated action. On Oct. 15, 2025, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same defendants alleging claims under Securities Act Sections 11, 12(a), and 15, Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On Aug. 3, 2026, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in full, without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a motion by Aug. 31, 2026, requesting leave to file a second amended complaint. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final outcome in this action. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur, it is possible that the impact could be material to its results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. Ibotta, Inc. operates a digital marketing and rewards platform that offers consumers cash back on purchases made both in store and online. It works with brands and retailers to deliver performance-based promotions and personalized offers through its mobile app and partner channels. IMMUNITYBIO INC: Continues to Defend Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ ImmunityBio, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Douglas securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and the derivative suit is stayed pending in the same court. On March 26, 2026, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Douglas v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-03261, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company and our Executive Chairman, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act stemming from the company's receipt of a warning letter from the FDA's OPDP regarding a television advertisement (which never aired) and a podcast interview. The complaint alleges that the statements made in the television advertisement and podcast were knowingly and materially false and misleading. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 15, 2026, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. The company intends to defend the case vigorously. The company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision in this action. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur, it is possible that the impact could be material to the company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. On April 17, 2026, a shareholder derivative complaint, captioned Davies v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-04130, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On April 21, 2026, a second derivative complaint, captioned Mody v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-04245, was filed in the same court. Both lawsuits name the company, its Executive Chairman, and every member of its Board of Directors as defendants. The plaintiffs, suing derivatively on behalf of ImmunityBio, allege that the company's directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by making, permitting, or failing to prevent the same alleged misstatements identified in the securities complaint, and that, as a result, the company has suffered financial losses, potential financial exposure in the related securities lawsuit, reputational damage, and legal and regulatory costs. The complaints seek unspecified damages from the individual defendants to the company for damages sustained by the company, enhancements to the company's corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys' fees and costs. On June 29, 2026, the court entered a stipulated order that consolidated the Davies and Mody actions and stayed the consolidated derivative action through the motion to dismiss phase of the related securities lawsuit. ImmunityBio, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing next-generation immunotherapies and cell therapies to treat cancer and infectious diseases. It pursues a pipeline of clinical-stage product candidates designed to harness the immune system to improve patient outcomes. INDEPENDENCE REALTY: Discovery Ongoing in Sherman Act Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Independence Realty Trust, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for Sherman Act class suit. Starting around November 2022, putative class action representatives began filing complaints in various United States District Courts across the country naming as defendants RealPage, Inc., a seller of revenue management products, and approximately 50 defendants who own and/or manage multifamily residential rental housing, alleging that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rent prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Some of the complaints, including one filed on Nov. 14, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois named the Company as one of the defendants, and others did not. The actions were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Middle District of Tennessee. Discovery is ongoing. It is not possible for the Company to estimate the amount of loss, if any, which may be associated with an adverse decision in this matter. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend against these claims vigorously. Independence Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that owns and operates multifamily apartment communities across the United States, with a focus on non-gateway markets. It seeks to provide stockholders with attractive risk-adjusted returns through disciplined acquisitions, value-add opportunities, and proactive asset management. INDEPENDENT BANK: Reaches $1.85M Deal in Overdraft Fee Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Independent Bank Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from overdraft charging class suits. Three putative class action complaints were filed against the Bank that challenge its practice of charging overdraft and other fees as allegedly inconsistent with the disclosures provided to consumers. The complaints assert that customers were not adequately informed about how such fees would be assessed and seek class-wide relief based on those purported deficiencies in the Bank's disclosures. These lawsuits are described as similar to actions recently brought against other financial institutions concerning overdraft fee disclosures, indicating that they form part of a broader wave of consumer class litigation in the banking sector. The actions are currently in the putative class stage, and no court has certified a class in any of the three proceedings to date. The Bank states that it believes it has valid defenses to each of the claims asserted in these matters and intends to defend against them. The three actions are being coordinated for pre-trial and other purposes, which may affect case management, discovery, and scheduling but do not alter the fact that each remains a putative class action without class certification at this time. In addition, during the quarter ended June 30, 2026, the Bank reached an agreement in principle to resolve these coordinated actions for $1.85 million, subject to the negotiation, execution, and delivery of definitive settlement documentation and preliminary and final approval by the court. There can be no assurance that definitive settlement documentation will be executed, that the court will approve the proposed settlement on its current or any other terms, or that the proposed settlement will become final and non-appealable. The proposed settlement does not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or the Bank, and the Company and the Bank continue to deny the allegations. If the proposed settlement is not finalized or approved, the Company intends to continue to defend the actions vigorously. Independent Bank Corp. is a bank holding company based in Michigan that operates Independent Bank, providing community banking services, including deposits, lending, and other financial services to individuals and businesses. It serves customers through a network of branches and digital banking channels across its regional footprint. INSTRUCTURE INC: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Raymond Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 26CU039185C was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on July 31, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04419-DMS-MSB. The Plaintiff alleges that the personally identifiable information was disclosed in the Cyberattack, and that Instructure "also failed to maintain proper measures to detect hacking and intrusion." The Plaintiff asserts two causes of action against Instructure: violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act; and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bethany C. Lobo, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: +1 415 439 1957 Facsimile: +1 415 439 1500 Email: bethany.lobo@kirkland.com INSULET CORP: Continues to Defend Hu Securities Class Suit in Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Insulet Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Hu securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A putative securities class action titled Hu v. Insulet Corporation, et al. (No. 1:26-cv-13062-LTS), was filed on July 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain current and former executives and directors. The complaint alleges that they violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making allegedly false and misleading public statements concerning the quality and safety of the Company's Omnipod products. It is brought as a putative class action on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Insulet securities between Feb. 21, 2025, and May 26, 2026, and it seeks relief, including damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The Company intends to defend the case vigorously and has reviewed the matter in light of the information currently available. It has concluded that it does not believe a loss is probable at this time. As a result, no accrual related to this litigation has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements. In addition, there are no related shareholder derivative actions or government investigations disclosed in proximity to this securities class action, and the Company does not report any consolidated or parallel proceedings arising from the same underlying allegations. Insulet Corp. is a medical device company that develops and manufactures tubeless insulin pump systems under the Omnipod brand for people with insulin-dependent diabetes. It focuses on improving the quality of life for patients through wearable insulin delivery technologies and related digital health tools. INTEGER HOLDINGS: West Palm Securities Suit Dismissed, Appeal Filed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Integer Holdings Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending July 3, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the West Palm Beach class suit amended Complaint on June 18, 2026, and the plaintiff filed notice of appeal on July 22, 2026. On Dec. 10, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Integer and certain of its executives, captioned West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Integer Holdings Corporation, et al. In March 2026, the court appointed Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers as lead plaintiff and recaptioned the case as Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers v. Integer Holdings Corporation. An amended complaint was subsequently filed on April 10, 2026, and alleged violations of the securities laws in the company's public disclosures. On June 18, 2026, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 22, 2026, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Integer Holdings Corp. is a medical device outsource manufacturer specializing in cardiac, neuromodulation, vascular, and portable medical technologies. It provides integrated design, development, and manufacturing services to original equipment manufacturers worldwide. INTEGRATED SECURITY: Ward Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integrated Security Partners Inc., et al. The case is styled as Maurice Ward, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Integrated Security Partners Inc., Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV24152 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 31, 2026). Integrated Security Services -- https://intesecurity.com/ -- is a full service investigative & security firm, building global solutions and partnerships from the ground up.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Continues to Defend Artuso Pastry Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Artuso Pastry class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On July 29, 2025, 12 containerboard producers, including International Paper, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleges a civil violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Artuso Pastry Foods Corp. v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in Nov. 1, 2020, through the time of filing, conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of containerboard products and finished packaging products made from containerboard. The alleged class is formed from persons who purchased containerboard products directly from one or more defendants for use or delivery in the United States during the period Nov. 1, 2020, to the present. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and actual damages on behalf of the purported class. Given the early stage of the claim and our intention to defend robustly against such a claim, it is too early to predict or reasonably estimate the overall outcome or ultimate potential liability (if any) that might be incurred. There can be no guarantee that the aggregate of possible damages could not have a material impact on our financial condition. International Paper Co. is a global producer of renewable fiber-based packaging, pulp, and paper products, serving customers worldwide in the industrial, consumer, and printing markets. The company operates manufacturing facilities across North America, Latin America, Europe, North Africa, and India. INTREPID POTASH: Continues to Defend NMMWA Class Suit in New Mexico ------------------------------------------------------------------- Intrepid Potash, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA) class suit in the federal district court of New Mexico. Intrepid Potash, Inc. disclosed that on Nov. 6, 2024, it was served with a class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in New Mexico. The suit alleged that Intrepid and its subsidiary, Intrepid Potash New Mexico, LLC, violated the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to properly compensate certain New Mexico underground mine and surface mine workers overtime for specific activities. The challenged activities included putting on and removing personal protective equipment from 2009 to the present. The complaint sought all unpaid wages for these activities for all class members, which was alleged to exceed $5 million. The Company reported that it has estimated total contingent liabilities recorded in "Other current liabilities" on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of $12.3 million as of June 30, 2026. In addition to the amounts accrued for the class action claim, the Pecos water rights matter, the unpermitted discharge penalty, and the estimated related environmental remediation expenses discussed above, it also accrued a contingent liability of $1 million for various other items. As of Dec. 31, 2025, it had $7.3 million in contingent liabilities, mainly related to the class action claim, the unpermitted discharge penalty, and the estimated related environmental remediation expenses. In addition, the company noted that no shareholder derivative actions or related governmental investigations have been filed in connection with the wage-and-hour class action or the other contingent liability matters described, and the filing instead transitioned to disclosures on fair value measurements and investment securities. Intrepid Potash, Inc. is a U.S.-based producer of potash, Trio polyhalite, and related products, serving agricultural, industrial, and oil and gas markets. It operates mining and production facilities primarily in New Mexico and Utah and supplies key nutrients used in fertilizer and other applications. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to $45MM Securities Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that investors who purchased or otherwise acquired iRhythm Technologies Inc. common stock between July 25, 2022, and Aug. 9, 2024, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. iRhythm Technologies Inc. and its chief executive officer agreed to pay $45 million to settle a securities class action lawsuit alleging they made materially false and misleading statements about the company's Zio AT heart monitoring device. The lawsuit claimed the statements misrepresented the device's near real-time data transmission capabilities, its appropriateness for high-risk patients and the accuracy of the data it reported. Who can file a claim? The settlement class includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired iRhythm Technologies Inc. common stock between July 25, 2022, and Aug. 9, 2024, inclusive, and suffered damages as a result. Additional details -- Both individuals and entities can be class members. -- The settlement includes investors who held stock in their own name and those who held through a broker or other nominee. -- The beneficial owner, not the record owner, must sign the claim form. -- Joint owners must each sign the claim form. -- Agents, executors, administrators, guardians and trustees may submit claims on behalf of others and must provide proof of authority. -- Each separate legal entity or separately managed account must submit a separate claim. -- Participants in and beneficiaries of an iRhythm employee benefit plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 should not include shares held through the plan on an individual claim form. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $45,000,000. The amount each class member will receive depends on several factors: -- The number of valid claims submitted -- The number of shares purchased or acquired during the class period -- The timing and price of each purchase and sale -- The total recognized claims of all claimants The settlement administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis according to the court-approved plan of allocation: -- The estimated average recovery is about $1.83 per eligible share before deductions for attorneys' fees and expenses, taxes and administration costs. After estimated deductions of about $0.49 per share, the estimated average recovery is about $1.34 per share. -- Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on individual claims and the total number of valid claims. -- The settlement administrator will calculate each class member's payment based on the recognized loss amount assigned to each purchase. -- Recognized loss amounts depend mainly on the artificial inflation in the stock price on the purchase date and sale date. -- For shares sold before the close of trading on Nov. 1, 2022, the recognized loss is $0. -- For shares sold between Nov. 2, 2022, and the close of trading on Aug. 9, 2024, the recognized loss is the lesser of the artificial inflation on the purchase date minus the artificial inflation on the sale date or the purchase price minus the sale price. -- For shares sold between Aug. 12, 2024, and the close of trading on Nov. 8, 2024, the recognized loss is the least of the artificial inflation on the purchase date, the purchase price minus the average closing price from Aug. 12, 2024, through the sale date, or the purchase price minus the sale price. -- For shares held as of the close of trading on Nov. 8, 2024, the recognized loss is the lesser of the artificial inflation on the purchase date or the purchase price minus $70.38, the average closing price during the 90-day look-back period. -- The settlement administrator will match purchases and sales on a first-in, first-out basis. -- Claimants who gained money overall on their class period transactions will have a recognized claim of $0. -- Claimants who lost less money overall than their calculated recognized claim will have that claim limited to the amount they lost. -- The settlement administrator will set any recognized loss that calculates to zero or a negative number to $0. -- Each claimant's payment equals their recognized claim divided by the total recognized claims of all claimants multiplied by the net settlement fund. -- Class members whose payment would be less than $10 will not receive a payout. How to claim an iRhythm securities class action settlement payment Class members may file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Oct. 1, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: iRhythm Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 Proof or documentation required to submit a claim All class members must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or taxpayer identification number. They must also provide holdings and transaction information, including: -- Number of shares held as of the opening of trading on July 25, 2022 -- Trade dates for purchases and sales through Nov. 8, 2024 -- Number of shares purchased, acquired or sold -- Price per share and total purchase or sale price -- Number of shares held as of the close of trading on Nov. 8, 2024 Class members must also provide documentation to support their holdings and transactions in iRhythm common stock. Acceptable proof includes: -- Trade confirmations -- Account statements -- Authorized statements from a broker or other financial institution containing the transactional and holding information found in a trade confirmation or account statement Payout options -- Physical check $45 million settlement fund The $45,000,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $11,250,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $800,000 -- Service award to plaintiff: Up to $10,000 total -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 1, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: Oct. 1, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Nov. 5, 2026 When is the iRhythm securities class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after the court grants final approval of the settlement, any appeals are resolved and it completes processing of all claims. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged iRhythm and its chief executive officer made false and misleading statements about the Zio AT heart monitoring device, including its data transmission capabilities, its appropriateness for high-risk patients and the accuracy of the data it reported. The plaintiff claimed these statements inflated iRhythm's stock price and caused investor losses. The defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs, risks and delays of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $1.34 per share (estimated) Deadline: October 1, 2026 [GN] JASON LUO: Bid to File Class Cert Materials Under Seal Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Levy v. Jason Luo, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00653 (D. Del., Filed June 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Gregory B. Williams entered an order denying without prejudice to renew the Lead Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to File Certain Class Certification Materials Under Seal. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.[CC] JR CAPITAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 14, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES E. SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JR CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02878-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Juan R. Sánchez entered a scheduling order as follows: Phase I Discovery will address whether Plaintiff has standing to bring his individual claims, and will be completed by September 18, 2026; The parties shall file any dispositive motions by October 9, 2026; The parties shall file responses to any dispositive motions by October 23, 2026; The parties shall file replies in support of any dispositive motions by October 30, 2026; Oral argument regarding any dispositive motions will be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 14B at the Courthouse at 601 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19106; Phase II Discovery, if necessary, will involve class-wide discovery, and will begin by the earlier of (a) 7 days after the denial of any dispositive motion or (b) December 30, 2026; Phase II Discovery will be completed by April 30, 2027; Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is due by May 14, 2027; Defendant's Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is due by May 28, 2027; Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Motion for Class Certification is due by June 4, 2027; Counsel are referred to Judge Sánchez’s operating procedures for further information: https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/sanpol.pdf. The Court shall issue a further Scheduling Order addressing class notice, pre-trial and trial issues, if appropriate, following the Court's ruling on the above matters. JR Capital provides strategic working capital, business loans, equipment financing, and startup loans to grow businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X5kdFd K TOWN 32 CORP: Tobas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Alberto Rivas Tobas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. K TOWN 32 CORP. d/b/a K-TOWN POCHA, and OK GIL CHO, Case No. 1:26-cv-06558 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that he and similarly situated individuals are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; damages for late payments of wages; liquidated damages; statutory penalties due to violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"); and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members their proper wages for all hours they worked, due to Defendants' policy of time shaving, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. The Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to weekly compensation. However, Defendants frequently failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members on time, instead issuing compensation approximately one to two weeks after the designated pay date. This delayed payment caused Plaintiff and Class Members to struggle to timely pay bills. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to provide timely compensation to Plaintiff and Class Members, in violation of the NYLL. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to provide Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members with proper wage notices and accurate wage statements, in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a Cook and Dishwasher at Defendants' K-Town Pocha. K TOWN 32 CORP. d/b/a/ K-TOWN POCHA is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 KIDS AT HEART: Vennick Sues Over Facial Masks' Deceptive Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------ KELLYAYN VENNICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. KIDS AT HEART, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24366 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2026) is a class action seeking damages and equitable relief arising from the Defendant's unlawful misbranding and deceptive advertising regarding the safety of its Rini after-sun hydrogel facial mask, everyday facial sheet mask, and hydrating hydrogel facial mask. According to the complaint, Rini's labeling and advertising allegedly contain deceptive and misleading statements about the products' composition, origin, quality, effectiveness, and benefits. The complaint specifically alleges that the products are marketed as "dermatologist tested" containing hypoallergenic ingredients contrary to the Plaintiff's experience that the Products are neither safe for sensitive skin, hypoallergenic nor free of fragrances, says the suit. Plaintiff Vennick is a resident of California who purchased the products in November 2025. Kids at Heart, Inc., doing business as Rini manufactures, mass markets, and distributes the Products throughout California, and the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shalini Dogra, Esq. DOGRA LAW GROUP PC 2219 Main St., Unit 239 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (747) 234-6673 Facsimile: (310) 868-0170 KIND PATCHES LIMITED: Maggi Files Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kind Patches Limited. The case is styled as Kristen Maggi, Arielle Wilbur, Laura Yeates, Miranda Ackerman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kind Patches Limited, Case No. 1:26-cv-01466-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.., July 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Kind Patches -- https://kindpatches.com/ -- specializes in creating a diverse range of patches designed to address various health, beauty, and lifestyle needs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 615-3948 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street-Ste 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com KMB GROWTH LLC: Voorhees Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KMB Growth, LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Voorhees, Carrie Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KMB Growth, LLC d/b/a KMB Landscaping, Shea Delola, Case No. E2026019450 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Monroe Cty., July 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Commercial - Contract." KMB Growth, LLC doing business as KMB Landscaping -- https://kmbpropertysolutions.com/ -- provide professional, reliable landscaping services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jayla Rose Lombardo, Esq. LACY KATZEN, LLP 600 Bausc & Lom Rochester, NY Phone: 585-888-9662 Email: jlombardo@lacykatzen.com KUVA LABS: Faces Lisata Sues Over Breach of Merger Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------ LISATA THERAPEUTICS, INC., Plaintiff v. KUVA LABS INC. and KUVA ACQUISITION CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2026-1003 (Del. Ch., July 31, 2026) seeks equitable relief and damages arising from the Defendants' willful breach of their merger agreement with Plaintiff. On November 30, 2024, Lisata entered into an agreement with Kuva Labs pursuant to which Lisata granted Kuva Labs a license to develop certepetide as a potential targeting and delivery agent for Kuva Labs' NanoMark imaging technology. On January 20, 2026, the companies entered a binding term sheet with rights to certepetide in Greater China reverted to Lisata and their merger was publicly announced on March 6, 2026. According to the complaint, Kuya Labs failed to pay the interim operating payment due on June 26, 2026, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, failed to accept and pay for all common shares pursuant to the Offer promptly after the expiration date and thereafter complete the merger as required by section 1.1(a)(ii) and other provisions of the Merger Agreement and Amendments thereto and failing to pay the Termination Fee, as required by Section 8.5(c) of the Merger Agreement. Plaintiff Lisata Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company dedicated to the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative therapies for the treatment of advanced solid tumors and other major diseases. Kuva Labs is a bioscience company that has been investigating the use of certepetide as a potential targeting and delivery agent for an imaging technology that Kuva Labs has been developing to detect solid tumors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron M. Nelson, Esq. Emily A. Letcher, Esq. Charmi A. Patel, Esq. HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone:(302) 472-7300 Email: anelson@hegh.law eletcher@hegh.law cpatel@hegh.law LASERSHIP INC: Casillias Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lasership, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Ortiz Casillias, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lasership, Inc. doing business as: Ontrac, Case No. 1:26-cv-02353-MSN-WEF (E.D. Va., July 31, 2026). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. LaserShip, Inc. -- https://www.lassershipinc.com/ -- is a major American last-mile e-commerce package delivery and logistics company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Ave, Ste 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 934-6377 Fax: (703) 934-6379 Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro LATCH INC: Faces Securities Class Actions in NY, Delaware --------------------------------------------------------- Latch, Inc. delivered a Form 8-K to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, disclosing that it had previously delivered a Form 8-K to the SEC on April 17, 2023, regarding class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the District of Delaware, captioned "Brennan v. Latch, Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-07473 (S.D.N.Y.), and "Schwartz v. Latch, Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-00027-WCB (D. Del.). The actions assert putative class claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities, alleging violations of federal securities laws. Latch, Inc. is a technology company that provides smart-lock and building-access systems designed to enable keyless entry and integrated building management. It offers hardware, software, and services primarily to residential and commercial real estate owners and operators. LATOYA HUGHES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ADAMS, v. Latoya Hughes, Case No. 3:25-cv-03098-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The undersigned had a technical issue with her outlook calendar and was not notified of the deadline to file the motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Additionally, the undersigned will be leaving Attorney General's Office and has been working on transitioning her cases. The Defendant requests 60 days, up to and including Sept. 26, 2026, to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. This would allow time for the next Assistant Attorney General to take the relevant deposition, produce the grievances and other discovery, and draft the response. On July 10, 2026, the Plaintiff filed his first motion to certify class. Latoya Hughes is acting director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YepWio at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Patricia Brito Salazar, Esq. GENERAL LAW BUREAU OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 115 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (224) 271-0017 E-mail: p.britosalazar@ilag.gov LEGAL RIGHTS DEFENDERS: Othman Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legal Rights Defenders LLC. The case is styled as Ahmad Othman, individually, and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Legal Rights Defenders LLC doing business as: 1-800-THE-LAW2, Case No. 8:26-cv-02082 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Legal Rights Defenders LLC doing business as 1-800-THE-LAW2 is a legal marketing service and attorney referral network.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq. RD LAW GROUP, LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 53rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (424) 600-8016 Fax: (424) 535-1500 Email: ataylor@rdlawgroup.com LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Hunnicutt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legends Hospitality, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Roxanne Hunnicutt, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Legends Hospitality, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV018332 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Legends Hospitality, LLC -- https://legendsglobal.com/ -- is an American premium live entertainment and venue management company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William C. Sung, Esq. JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C. 9575 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Phone: 323-922-2000 Fax: 323-922-2000 Email: william@justiceforworkers.com LHK LLC: Sapede Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages -------------------------------------------------- Emerald Sapede, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LHK, LLC dba FIREHOUSE SUBS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-00582 (D. Nev., July 31, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") due to the Defendants' failure to properly pay all wages. The Defendant maintained and enforced a tip-pooling policy whereby customer tips would be distributed to all employees, including supervisors and/or managers (as those terms are defined in the FLSA) of non-exempt hourly paid employees. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are entitled to the amount of tips that were willfully and unlawfully retained by Defendant and distributed to its managers/supervisors. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are also entitled to the recovery of liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs of this suit, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from August 4, 2023 to April 2, 2026. LHK, LLC dba FIREHOUSE SUBS owns and operates numerous Firehouse Subs locations within the state of Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK 325 W. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Phone: (775) 284-1500 Fax: (775) 703-5027 Email: josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Securities Class Settlement Awaits Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the securities class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On July 29, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court of Minnesota against the Company and certain of its named executive officers. The complaint generally alleges that statements made to the Company's stockholders between Oct. 7, 2020 and March 19, 2024 regarding the Company's financial results, internal controls, remediation efforts, periodic reporting, and financial prospects were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). It further alleges that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs, and attorneys' fees. On Nov. 15, 2024, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and their respective counsel. The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Jan. 24, 2025, which contained substantially similar allegations and claims as those set forth in the original complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 25, 2025, and the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 23, 2025. In November 2025, the Company and the individual defendants entered into an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle this matter, without any admission of wrongdoing, which was subject to court approval. On March 13, 2026, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, and the final approval hearing was held on July 28, 2026. If final approval of the proposed settlement is granted by the Court in its current form, this settlement is expected to be covered by the Company's insurance policies with no material loss incurred by the Company. The Company continues to believe that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them if the settlement is not so approved. Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on the development, manufacture, and commercialization of pharmaceutical-grade hyaluronic acid and other biomaterials for use in drug delivery, ophthalmic, orthopedic, and other medical applications. It partners with pharmaceutical and medical device companies to provide contract development and manufacturing services for sterile injectable products. LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Hicks Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- PERRY LADELL HICKS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2620376 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino Cty., July 7, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of: failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum, straight time, and overtime wages; failing to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods; failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods; willfully failing to pay employees all expenditures, minimum wages, straight time wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period; failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information; and failing to indemnify employees for expenditures incurred in direct discharge of duties of employment. Plaintiff Hicks is a resident of California who worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from approximately June 2018 to approximately March 2026. Lineage Logistics Services, LLC provides temperature-controlled supply chain and logistics solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Haber, Esq. Talar DerOhannessian, Esq. Samantha J. Costa, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: benjamin.haber@wilshirelawfirm.com talar.derohannessian@wilshirelawfirm.com samantha.costa@wilshirelawfirm.com LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Meraz Files Class Suit in C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against Lineage Logistics Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Daniel Meraz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lineage Logistics Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-07375-BFM (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2026). The Plaintiff filed this suit asserting torts to land claims against the Defendants. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff. Lineage Logistics Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides temperature-controlled industrial REIT and logistics solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele Marie Vercoski, Esq. Joshua Aaron Genzuk, Esq. Richard D. McCune, Esq. Yasmin Younessi, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: mmv@mccunelawgroup.com jag@mccunelawgroup.com rdm@mccunelawgroup.com ynv@mccunelawgroup.com LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Riganian Class Suit Discovery Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for the Riganian class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On Jan. 24, 2025, a purported class action styled Riganian et al. v. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. and LiveRamp, Inc. (Case No. 4:25-cv-824-JST) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and LiveRamp, Inc. The complaint alleges claims under the California Constitution, common law protections against intrusion upon seclusion, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Federal Wiretap Act, and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit seeks certification of classes of California and national consumers and requests unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief and other remedies. Discovery in this matter has begun, and it is anticipated that class certification issues will be determined in early 2027. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Because the litigation is still in its preliminary stages, the Company has not yet determined what effect, if any, it will have on its financial position or results of operations. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. is a data connectivity platform company that enables businesses to leverage data for marketing, measurement, and customer engagement. It provides identity resolution and privacy-focused data solutions to enterprises, agencies, and technology partners across multiple industries. LUCID GROUP: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lucid Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and derivative suits in the Superior Court of California. On April 1, 2022, and May 31, 2022, two alleged shareholders filed putative class actions under the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain officers of the Company relating to alleged statements, updated projections, and guidance provided from late 2021 to early 2022. The two matters were consolidated as In re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint alleges that the Company and its former CEO made false or misleading statements about the Company's 2022 production targets in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants deny these allegations and are vigorously defending the case. At this point in the matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or potential exposure. Nine purported shareholders have filed derivative cases in various courts putatively on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former directors based on allegations similar to those in In re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation action. These cases raise claims such as a breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. On July 11, 2022, a derivative case raising such claims was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, and is currently stayed. Between September 2024 and December 2024, three other derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery raising similar claims. Two were consolidated into a single action. On Jan. 29, 2025, Feb. 7, 2025, and Aug. 6, 2025, three other derivative lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of California, also raising similar claims. The court has granted the parties' stipulation to consolidate and stay the cases. Between Feb. 28, 2025, and March 7, 2025, two other derivative lawsuits raising similar claims were also filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. They were consolidated into a single action and are currently stayed. On May 29, 2026, a shareholder filed a putative class action alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company, the Company’s then Interim Chief Executive Officer Marc Winterhoff, and Chief Financial Officer Taoufiq Boussaid (Eke v. Lucid Group Inc. et al., U.S. District Court N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:26-cv-05128). The complaint alleges that Defendants made false or misleading statements about and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that a supplier quality issue had significantly disrupted deliveries of the Lucid Gravity. Defendants deny these allegations and plan to vigorously defend the case. At this point in the matter, we are unable to predict the outcome or potential exposure. On June 16, 2026, a shareholder filed a derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain current and former directors and officers alleging claims substantially similar to those in Eke v. Lucid Group, Inc. et al. The case alleges claims such as a breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. Defendants deny these allegations and plan to vigorously defend the case. At this point in the matter, we are unable to predict the outcome or potential exposure. Lucid Group, Inc. is an electric vehicle manufacturer focused on designing, engineering, and producing luxury EVs and advanced powertrain technology. The company is headquartered in Newark, California, and markets its vehicles primarily under the Lucid brand. LUSHA SYSTEMS: Collects Data Without Consent, Stavros Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER STAVROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUSHA SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-07923 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2026) alleges violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant use the Plaintiff's and Class members' names and identities to advertise, promote, and sell the Defendant's contact-data products, paid subscriptions, and paid upgrades. The Defendant uses identified persons' names and profiles to demonstrate the value of its services, induce Free-plan users to become paying subscribers, and induce existing subscribers to purchase higher-tier plans, additional credits, expanded access, and other paid features. The Plaintiff and the Class did not consent to the Defendant's use of their names or identities to advertise or solicit purchases of the Defendant subscriptions. The Defendant attracts prospective customers with a Free plan that permits searches for real people and displays contact profiles containing masked telephone and email fields, says the suit. Lusha Systems, Inc. operates as technology company. The Company provides sales intelligence platform that provides businesses with contact and company information. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Lauren M. Lendzion, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. Brian Ellsworth, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com LaurenLendzionsTeam@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com brian.ellsworth@wilshirelawfirm.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Vacates Remand Order in Jackson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of MELISSA VELASQUEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 25-1258 (9th Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting Plaintiff-Appellee Melissa Velasquez's motion to remand. Luxottica of America Inc. appealed the district court's order. Velasquez filed a class action in state court alleging unfair competition and false advertising by Luxottica. She sought public injunctive relief and restitution. Luxottica removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Velasquez moved to remand the case to state court. The district court agreed that she lacked standing because she failed to allege an actual or imminent threat of future injury. It also found it lacked equitable jurisdiction to award restitution because she did not allege an inadequate legal remedy. The court therefore granted her motion to remand. At the time of its ruling, the district court did not have the benefit of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Ruiz v. Bradford Exchange, Ltd., 153 F.4th 907 (9th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 224 L.Ed.2d 528 (Apr. 27, 2026). The Ninth Circuit held that district courts may remand a removed case for lack of equitable jurisdiction only after giving the defendant an opportunity to waive the adequate-remedy-at-law objection. It therefore vacated and remanded the case for the district court to give Luxottica that opportunity. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://lnk.ua/1CIr8roY2 M&S SKIN: Russo Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN RUSSO, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M&S SKIN CARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06606 (S.D.N.Y., August 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, website, www.mymsskincare.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Russo, a visually-impaired and legally blind person, was denied access of the Defendant's numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website on March 3, March 10, and March 17, 2026. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to the blind and visually-impaired consumers. M&S Skin Care LLC owns and operates www.mymsskincare.com, a nationwide e-commerce platform offering handmade, all-natural, and cruelty-free skin care goods, including body butters, face serums, soaps, and bod creams, to consumers across the United States, including New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com MANHATTAN ASSOC: Derivative Action Stayed Pending Class Suit Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------- Manhattan Associates Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2026, that it is facing a consolidated action, which remains in the early stages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 22, 2025, and the parties presented oral arguments on the motion on April 9, 2026. Derivative actions have also been filed since. On Feb. 25, 2025, an alleged company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, "Prime v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., et al.," (No. 1:25-cv-00992-TRJ), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint in this action alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, based on purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the defendants between Oct. 22, 2024, and Jan. 28, 2025. The complaint sought class certification, unspecified monetary damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. On April 15, 2025, another alleged company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, "City of Orlando Police Officers Pension Fund v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., et al.," (No. 1:25-cv-02089-TRJ), in the same court against the company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint in the City of Orlando action alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, based on purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the defendants between July 24, 2024, and Feb. 7, 2025. The factual allegations underlying the claims in the City of Orlando action were similar to the factual allegations made in the Prime action, and the complaint likewise sought class certification, unspecified monetary damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. On May 2, 2025, the court consolidated the Prime action and the City of Orlando action into a single proceeding. On May 23, 2025, the court appointed the plaintiffs in the City of Orlando action as the lead plaintiffs in said action. On July 22, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, in which the alleged securities law violations are the same as those alleged in the original actions and the proposed class period is the same as in the City of Orlando action. In addition, on Sept. 22, 2025, a purported Company shareholder, Patrick Ayers, filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit, "Ayers v. Capel, et al.," No. 1:25-cv-05416-TRJ, in the Northern District of Georgia. The Ayers Action names certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The allegations in the Ayers Action overlap substantially with the allegations in the above-referenced Consolidated Action. This asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment. On Oct. 14, 2025, the court entered an order staying the Ayers Action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Consolidated Action. Manhattan Associates Inc. is a supply chain and omnichannel commerce technology company that provides software and services to help retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers manage distribution, inventory, and fulfillment operations. It develops and implements solutions that optimize supply chain performance for customers worldwide. MARIO'S PIZZA: Faces Galvez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- DAVID DE LOS SANTOS GALVEZ and JACOBO DE LOS SANTOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARIO'S PIZZA HOME MADE CUISINE INC. (D/B/A MARIO'S PIZZA & ITALIAN HOMEMADE CUISINE), FLORIM KRASNIQI, and ARBER KRASNIQI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06409 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026) is a wage and hour class suit brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs at the applicable minimum hourly rate; failure to pay overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week; failure to provide an additional hour's pay for each day Plaintiffs' spread of hours exceeded 10 hours; and failure to furnish with a written notice and an accurate statement listing. Plaintiff David was employed by Defendants at Mario's Pizza & Italian Homemade Cuisine as delivery driver from December 15, 2025 until June 15, 2026. The Defendants own, operate, and control an Italian restaurant, located in Bronx, New York under the name "Mario's Pizza & Italian Homemade Cuisine." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MARQETA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Marqeta, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that Marqeta, Inc. delivered a Form 8-K to the SEC on May 15, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On Dec. 9, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned Wai v. Marqeta, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-08874 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California ("Court") against the Company and certain of its current and former officers ("Defendants") alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuit asserts that during the putative class period of between Aug. 7, 2024, and Nov. 4, 2024, Defendants made false or misleading statements relating to the Company's performance or revenue and gross profit expectations in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On Dec. 10, 2024, a second putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned Ford v. Marqeta, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-08892 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in the same Court against the same Defendants, alleging violations of the same federal securities laws. The second lawsuit asserts similar theories of liability as the first lawsuit but alleges a broader putative class period of between May 7, 2024, and Nov. 4, 2024, and some additional and/or different allegations on which the claims are based. Both lawsuits (collectively, the "Securities Actions") seek to recover damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock during their respective putative class periods. The Securities Actions have been consolidated into one consolidated securities litigation captioned In re Marqeta, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 24-08874-YGR (N.D. Cal), and the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the matter. On April 10, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which alleges a putative class period of between Feb. 28, 2024, and Nov. 4, 2024. The Company and the other Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on May 15, 2025. On Nov. 3, 2025, a settlement was reached, in principle, with the lead plaintiff's counsel to resolve the Securities Actions for payments totaling $13 million, subject to judicial approvals. The Company's Directors and Officers insurance policy includes a $5 million self-insured retention that applies to covered losses related to the Securities Actions, including legal defense fees and settlement payments. If finalized, the settlement will be funded by insurance less the self-insured retention. On Feb. 4, 2025, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned Smith v. Khalaf, et al., Case No. 25-cv-01174 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in the same Court against certain of the Company's current and former officers and its Board of Directors (as then constituted) and named the Company as a nominal defendant. This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties and violations of federal securities laws, among other claims, between the time period of May 7, 2024, and Nov. 4, 2024, under similar theories as the Securities Actions. Two other substantially similar putative shareholder derivative lawsuits, captioned Ojserkis v. Khalaf, et al., Case No. 25-cv-01883 (N.D. Cal.) and Preciado v. Khalaf, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02100 (N.D. Cal.), were filed on Feb. 21, 2025, and Feb. 27, 2025, respectively. All three putative shareholder derivative suits have been consolidated into one lawsuit captioned In re Marqeta, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 4:25-cv-01174-YGR (N.D. Cal). The consolidated derivative action is currently stayed pending developments in the consolidated Securities Actions. Given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any potential loss. Marqeta, Inc. is a modern card-issuing platform provider that enables businesses to create and manage customizable payment cards and embedded finance solutions. It serves financial technology companies, digital banks, and enterprises across various industries worldwide. MCCARTER & ENGLISH: Karnas Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Dominik Karnas, Edwin Garrison, Rahil Sayed, William Ayer, Anthony Dorn, Todd Webb, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. McCarter & English LLP, National Basketball Association, Inc., Ketchum Inc., Matthew Barkley, MARSHALL FAULK, Scott Melker, Tracy McGrady, Stephen Piscotty, Case No. 1:24-cv-20480 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-09519 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. McCarter & English, LLP -- https://www.mccarter.com/ -- is an American full-service law firm headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Stephen Patrick Warren, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 374-8500 Email: stephen.warren@hklaw.com MCLANE/SUNEAST INC: Flores Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Victor Flores, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCLANE/SUNEAST, INC., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV-02402 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Merced, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-at-02987. The Plaintiff's Consolidated Complaint alleges 6 purported causes of action for: Failure to Authorize and Permit All Rest Periods; Failure to Pay All Wages Owed Upon Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; Unfair Competition (the "UCL"); and Civil Penalties Under the Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Phone: 415.659.2600 Facsimile: 415.659.2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com MEDLINK GEORGIA: Shelnut Class Suit Filed in M.D. Ga. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against MedLink Georgia Inc. The case is captioned as BOBBY SHELNUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MEDLINK GEORGIA INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00082-TES (M.D. Ga., July 8, 2026). The action is brought over an alleged contract dispute. The case is assigned to Judge Tilman E. Self, III. MedLink Georgia Inc. is a non-profit community health center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Harris, Esq. 900 W Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@brysonpllc.com MERCHANT MARKETPLACE: Vargas Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Merchant MarketPlace Holdings Corp., et al. The case is styled as Alex Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Merchant MarketPlace Holdings Corp., Adam Schwartz, Paul Boxer, Case No. 615684/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., July 31, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Torts (Wage and Hour). Merchant Marketplace -- https://merchantmarketplace.com/ -- offers financial solutions like startup loans and SBA loans to support small and midsize business growth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW P.C. One Old Country Road, Ste. 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com MERCK SHARP: Bid for Leave to Amend Pleadings Due Sept. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MURPHY v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01145 (M.D.N.C., Filed Dec. 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge Lindsey A. Freeman entered an order as follows : (1) the deadline for motions for leave to amend pleadings or to add parties is Sept. 28, 2026 and any such motions filed after that date must satisfy not only Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) but also Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4); (2) no hard distinction exists between discovery relevant and proportional to the issue of collective/class certification (which the parties have agreed should occur and which the Court has authorized to occur during Phase I of the discovery period) and "merits" discovery; and (3) relevant and proportional discovery in Phase I shall include discovery of some contact information for some subset of Named Plaintiff's co-workers but Plaintiff shall use that contact information only in a manner consistent with proper investigation of issues pertinent to collective/class certification (and not in a manner reasonably calculated to recruit additional plaintiffs) with any disputes about such matters subject to resolution through the normal The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Merck Sharp operates as a biopharmaceutical company.[CC] MIANOR RESTAURANT: Shahriar Wins Conditional Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALIM SHAHRIAR and JUAN CORONADO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. MIANOR RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a LATITUDE 39, and NOUREDDINE ACHBANI, Case No. 1:26-cv-01589-JAV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vargas entered an order granting the motion for conditional collective certification. The collective action is conditionally certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) as to all individuals who were employed at the Latitude 39 restaurant as service employees (servers, runners, waiters, or bartenders) on or after Feb. 25, 2023. The Court further approves the distribution of the proposed notice of the FLSA collective action to all such employees via mail and email. Additionally, the Defendants are ordered to produce to the Plaintiffs the names, last known addresses, last known phone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, dates of employment, and position(s) held for all covered employees in Excel format. The Plaintiffs have made the modest factual showing that they and others together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. The allegations regarding Defendants' tipping policy and practice are corroborated by Shahriar's attestations that approximately three nights a week the restaurant’s general manager Mehdi participated in the mandatory tip-pool, the Court contends. On Feb. 25, 2026, Salim Shahriar and Juan Coronado filed this putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") against the Defendants. Mianor is a New York company that owns and operates Latitude 39, a restaurant located in New York, New York. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FvkNvE at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAEL HERNANDEZ: Murry Seeks to Conduct Class Cert Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MURRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MICHAEL HERNANDEZ and JOHN DOE, Case No. 3:25-cv-10819-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages related discovery against the Defendant for his violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=61QFIU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (754) 778-9660 Facsimile: (954) 281-8426 E-mail: seth@lehrmanlaw.com - and - John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 Facsimile: (404) 301-2300 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Microvast Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MVST) between April 1, 2025 and March 16, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September 21, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Microvast securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Microvast class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/microvast-holdings-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 21, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to, inter alia, inventory management issues and delays in commercial vehicle rollouts by Microvast's customers, defendants had overstated Microvast's ability to reach its margin targets; (2) defendants overstated Microvast's ability to complete the Huzhou Phase 3.2 expansion by the end of 2025; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Microvast class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/microvast-holdings-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at (866) 767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MID AMERICA: Antitrust Deal Gets Prelim Nod; Derivative Suits Filed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mid America Apartment Communities Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that on Jan. 26, 2026, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the named plaintiffs and was subsequently amended on April 28, 2026. The settlement agreement, along with settlement agreements entered into by other defendants, received preliminary approval from the Court on May 22, 2026, but it remains subject to final approval. Certain Attorneys General, including the D.C. Attorney General and the Kentucky Attorney General, have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit the court's order denying their motion to intervene and to clarify or modify the preliminary approval order related to the proposed settlements. They have also appealed the court's order enjoining class members from pursuing certain claims that would be released by the settlements that it preliminarily approved. That appeal remains pending, and the outcome could affect the timing or terms of any final settlement. Putative class action lawsuits were filed in late 2022 and early 2023 against RealPage, Inc., and approximately 50 large owners and operators of apartment communities, including the company, alleging that RealPage and these owners and operators conspired to artificially inflate multifamily residential rental prices through the use of RealPage's revenue management software. Those cases were centralized in April 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in a proceeding captioned "In Re: RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II)." Lawsuits assert antitrust claims arising from alleged coordinated use of revenue management tools to increase rents in multifamily residential properties. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the company was required to pay an aggregate of $53.0 million into a settlement fund to resolve all claims asserted, or that could have been asserted, against it relating to the alleged conduct at issue in the class action litigation. The settlement payment was made in two equal installments of $26.5 million, with the first payment made in March 2026 and the second payment made in May 2026. The settlement amount is inclusive of the recovery for class members, fees for plaintiffs' counsel, and the costs of administering the settlement. In addition to monetary relief, the settlement agreement includes certain prospective commitments regarding the company's business practices, including provisions relating to the disclosure and use of nonpublic data and the Company's use of revenue management software. The settlement agreement also provides that if the number of eligible class members opting out of the settlement exceeds a specified level, the company may request that the settlement terms be revised. If the parties cannot agree on revised settlement terms within 60 days, as may be extended by agreement of the parties, the settlement agreement will terminate. The disclosure emphasizes that there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the Class Action Litigation with respect to the company, including no assurance that the settlement agreement will be approved by the court or that any revised settlement terms, if needed, will be finalized and approved. In addition, two shareholder derivative actions have been filed that are based on substantially the same alleged conduct underlying the class action litigation and the related governmental enforcement actions. The first derivative action was filed in early 2024 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported stockholders of the company, purporting to assert claims on the company's behalf against certain current and former directors and officers. The complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched by permitting, causing, or failing to prevent the company's alleged participation in anticompetitive conduct in connection with the use of RealPages revenue management software, and it seeks, among other things, damages, corporate governance reforms, restitution, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The company has moved to dismiss this action on various grounds, including failure to adequately plead demand futility and failure to state a claim, and that motion remains pending. A related shareholder derivative action was subsequently filed in mid-2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, asserting similar derivative claims under state law and alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the company's proxy statements and other public filings concerning its use of revenue management tools and compliance with antitrust laws. The federal derivative case has been stayed by agreement of the parties and order of the court, pending resolution of the company's motion to dismiss the Delaware Chancery Court action or further order of the court. The company believes that the derivative claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them, but it cannot predict the timing or outcome of these proceedings, any potential financial exposure, or any corporate governance changes that may be required as part of a resolution. Mid America Apartment Communities Inc. is a real estate investment trust focused on the acquisition, development, redevelopment and management of multifamily apartment communities, primarily located in the Sunbelt region of the United States. It owns, operates and invests in a diversified portfolio of residential properties targeting a broad range of renters. MIDWEST PETROL: Pardo Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. MIDWEST PETROL GROUP INC. D/B/A HAMMOCKS CHEVRON, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-25043 (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2026) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate and has limitations involving his arms and hands. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the Defendant's commercial gas station. These barriers to access have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial gas station, and has endangered his safety. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, says the suit. Midwest Petrol Group Inc. d/b/a Hammocks Chevron, owns and operates a commercial gas station located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-Mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com MISSISSIPPI POWER: Move to Dismiss Amended Antitrust Suit Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Mississippi Power Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 29, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that a purported class action complaint was filed in July 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against two nuclear consulting companies and all U.S. commercial nuclear power operators, or affiliated entities, including company affiliate The Southern Company. The purported class of plaintiffs consists of all persons employed in nuclear power generation by the defendants, including nuclear operators, nuclear engineers, and nuclear technicians, from May 1, 2003, to the present. It alleges that, since at least May 2003, the nuclear power industry conspired to fix and suppress employee compensation for nuclear power generation employees in violation of federal antitrust law. In October 2025, Southern Company moved to dismiss the complaint. In November 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming Southern Nuclear, among others, as a defendant. In December 2025, Southern Company and Southern Nuclear filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Mississippi Power Co. is a regulated electric utility serving retail and wholesale customers in southeastern Mississippi. It is an affiliate of Southern Company and generates, purchases, transmits, and distributes electricity to residential, commercial, and industrial customers in its service territory. MOCHITHINGS LLC: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton Knowles, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. MOCHITHINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06498 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://shop.mochithings.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. MOCHITHINGS, LLC, operates the Mochithings online retail store, as well as the Mochithings interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal MONAHAN PRODUCTS: Court Dismisses UPPAbaby Car Seat Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Biddle, J.D., writing for VitalLaw, reports that the plaintiff's allegations were too conclusory to survive Rule 12 scrutiny and insufficient to support standing for products she never purchased. A federal district court in New Jersey dismissed all claims in a putative class action against UPPAbaby, an infant products manufacturer, holding that the plaintiff's complaint relied on conclusory labels and assumptions rather than the factual allegations required to plausibly state a claim under the Iqbal/Twombly standard. The plaintiff's claims arose from the alleged propensity of three UPPAbaby infant car seat models to allow babies to slip into a dangerous "C-shaped" slouched position that can obstruct breathing (Jacobs v. Monahan Products, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-14538-RMB-EAH (D.N.J. July 27, 2026)). Background. The plaintiff purchased an UPPAbaby Aria infant car seat in December 2024 as a gift for her soon-to-be-born grandson, selected from her daughter-in-law's Babylist registry after extensive online research. After her grandson was born, the grandmother was unable to position him properly in the Aria; she alleged that when she tried, he assumed a chin-to-chest, "C-shaped" position causing visible discomfort. She filed suit in August 2025, asserting claims on behalf of herself and a putative nationwide class of purchasers of not only the Aria but also two other UPPAbaby car seat models she never purchased: the Mesa V2 and the Mesa Max. The six-count complaint alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, common law fraudulent concealment, breach of UPPAbaby's express "Product Lifetime Warranty," breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of an implied warranty for a particular purpose, and unjust enrichment. The complaint also asserted warranty claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. UPPAbaby moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Standing. The court's threshold inquiry focused on whether the grandmother had standing to bring claims relating to car seats she never purchased. The court acknowledged that while standing ordinarily requires a plaintiff to trace her injuries to her own purchases, some courts in the Third Circuit permit class representatives to pursue claims over closely related unpurchased products under the so-called Haas exception, derived from the Third Circuit's decision in Haas v. Pittsburgh National Bank, 526 F.2d 1083 (3d Cir. 1975). The Haas exception applies where a plaintiff demonstrates that an objectively identifiable defect pervades multiple closely related products, allowing the purchasing plaintiff to potentially represent a broader class. The court surveyed the cases in which courts in this district have applied the exception, finding they fell into two categories: mislabeled food products, where an objectively observable characteristic, such as the presence of fat in a fat-free product, is uniform across the product line; and automobiles, where a defective component, such as a windshield or battery, is shared across multiple models. The grandmother's claims fit neither category. The court found she had not alleged any common design feature, shared component, shell, mold, seating geometry, buckle, or recline mechanism across the three car seats. Instead, she relied on the common subjective label "C-shaped" to establish both a common manifestation and a common defect. The court rejected that reasoning, noting that just as different people draw the letter C with materially different curvatures, the term "C-shaped" does not establish that infants across three differently designed car seats experienced materially identical postures, let alone a common causative defect. The court also noted that the grandmother's own complaint undermined her position by acknowledging that the Aria included a two-piece infant insert the Mesa V2 lacked, and that UPPAbaby had represented the Aria as having a distinct design from the Mesa models. The court dismissed all claims relating to the Mesa V2 and Mesa Max, and the court limited its analysis to the Aria. UPPAbaby's statements. The court next addressed whether eight specific statements UPPAbaby made about the Aria could support the fraud-based claims and the grandmother's theory that UPPAbaby's advertising created an independent express warranty. Applying the rule that actionable statements must be both specific and measurable by comparative research, the court categorized the statements. Statements that the Aria was "designed to define new standards of safety and convenience," that it "provides a safe and comfortable ride for baby," and that it offers "optimal body positioning" were found to constitute non-actionable puffery. These broad, vague, and commendatory phrases lacked the specificity and comparative measurability needed to support fraud claims or an express warranty. Other statements describing the Aria's observable physical characteristics, such as its smaller and lighter build relative to the Mesa models or the existence of a cushion insert, were found uncontested, as the grandmother did not allege those physical characteristics were false. Two statements the court found sufficiently definite to be potentially actionable, those representing that the Aria provides an "optimized fit suitable for preemies" and that the two-piece insert "ensures proper body positioning," were nonetheless dismissed because the grandmother failed to plausibly allege they were false or that UPPAbaby had pre-sale knowledge of their falsity. The court emphasized that the grandmother's own complaint acknowledged she had found no negative reviews of the Aria before purchasing it, and that the post-sale complaints she cited, just two in total, did not specify whether the children involved were premature, whether the inserts were properly installed, or whether the positioning issue arose despite correct use of the harness and insert. Without more specific factual allegations, the court could not infer that UPPAbaby knew before the sale that these representations were false. Fraudulent concealment, implied warranties, express warranty, and unjust enrichment. On fraudulent concealment, the court rejected the grandmother's three remaining theories. First, her assertion that UPPAbaby failed to disclose a defect failed because she had not plausibly alleged there was a defect in the Aria to begin with. Second, her contention that UPPAbaby's marketing videos showing properly positioned infants constituted fraudulent concealment was dismissed as speculative; the court found it could not infer from video evidence of a comfortable infant that UPPAbaby had staged the baby's comfort. Third, her allegations regarding UPPAbaby's discontinuation of the Mesa Max were inapplicable to the Aria, and the plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims about that product. The court dismissed the grandmother's implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim, finding she had not articulated any purpose for the Aria distinct from its ordinary purpose. She alleged the Aria's particular purpose was "safety and comfort" while its ordinary purpose was "to safely transport infants," a distinction the court found illusory. As to the express Product Lifetime Warranty, the court found it covered only manufacturing defects, not design defects, and the grandmother herself alleged only a design defect, not a manufacturing one. The court noted that "warranties against defects in manufacturing and workmanship are distinct from warranties against design defects and do not warrant against design defects unless specifically provided." The unjust enrichment claim failed because the grandmother purchased the Aria through Amazon, not directly from UPPAbaby, and New Jersey law requires a direct relationship between purchaser and manufacturer. Finally, the MMWA class action claim was dismissed for failure to meet the statute's requirement of at least 100 named plaintiffs, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the lone MMWA claim once all other claims had been dismissed. The case is No. 1:25-cv-14538-RMB-EAH. Judge: Bumb, R. Attorneys: Gary S. Graifman (Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, PC) for Theresa Jacobs. Sharon O'Reilly (Arentfox Schiff LLP) for Monahan Products, LLC. [GN] MONOLITHIC POWER: Continues to Defend Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Waterford securities class and derivative suits. A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 4, 2025, against the Company and certain of its executives. The lawsuit is captioned Waterford Twp. Gen. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-220 (W.D. Wash.), and is referred to as the Securities Action. The complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or omissions relating to its business. The disclosure states that the Company believes the Securities Action is meritless and currently intends to defend against it vigorously. The Securities Action seeks unspecified amounts of damages and attorneys' fees, as well as other relief, and remains pending. Additionally, the filing describes shareholder derivative litigation that is related to the Securities Action and is brought against certain current and former directors and executives of the Company. These shareholder derivative suits allege breaches of fiduciary duty and other related misconduct. One shareholder derivative suit was filed on June 16, 2026, under the caption Moore v. Hsing, et al., No. 26-cv-80720 (S.D. Fla.). Two other shareholder derivative suits have been consolidated under the caption Miller v. Hsing, et al., No. 25-cv-527 (W.D. Wash.), filed on March 26, 2025, and together with Moore v. Hsing are collectively referred to as the Derivative Litigation. The Derivative Litigation seeks unspecified amounts of damages and attorneys' fees, as well as other relief, and is currently stayed pending developments in the Securities Action. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. is a semiconductor company that designs, develops, and markets high-performance, integrated power solutions for a wide range of industrial, automotive, consumer, and communications applications. It serves global original equipment manufacturers and other customers seeking efficient power management and analog solutions. MONSANTO COMPANY: Berti Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Louis Berti, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Bayer CropScience LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01432 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07869-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian A. Goldstein, Esq. GOLDSTEIN GRECO, P.C. 2354 Wehrle Drive Buffalo, NY 14221 Phone: (844) 716-4653 Email: bg@goldsteingreco.com MONUMENT CAPITAL: McGraw Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCraw v. Monument Capital Management, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-25550 (S.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Kathleen M Williams entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. The Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Class Certification on or before September 11, 2026. The Defendant shall file a response on or before September 25, 2026. The Plaintiff may file a reply in support of the Motion for Class Certification on or before October 2, 2026. All other dates and deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order remain unchanged. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Monument Capital is a fully integrated real estate investment firm.[CC] MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Nov. 6, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN GABRIELLI, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-09533-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order extending the case schedule as follows: Event Extended Date Class certification motion and the Nov. 6, 2026 Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and the Feb. 4, 2027 Defendant's class certification expert disclosures due: Fact discovery cut-off: April 8, 2027 The Plaintiff's reply in support of April 8, 2027 class certification due: Class certification expert discovery June 7, 2027 cut-off: The Parties have been engaged in discovery but require additional time to resolve discovery disputes, follow up on pending discovery, take depositions, and prepare for class certification motion practice. There have been no previous extensions or continuances of these deadlines and there are no other deadlines in this case. Motorola is an American consumer electronics manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LykeeC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Stephen M. Raab, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com stephen@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Rachel Straus, Esq. John J. Rosenthal, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 285-8330 Facsimile: (424) 204-9093 E-mail: rstraus@shb.com jrosenthal@shb.com - and - Zachary T. Timm, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5000 Facsimile: (310) 552-5001 E-mail: zach.timm@klgates.com MRS BPO: Brooks Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against MRS BPO, L.L.C. The case styled Phillip Brooks, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 2:26-cv-07382-ODW-DMK (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2026). The complaint alleges Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II. MRS BPO, L.L.C. is a financial services collections company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com MULLIGAN SECURITY: "Mossiah" Class Settlement Wins Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Leneisje Mossiah, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mulligan Security LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-CV-04561 (JAV) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated who suffered an employment loss in connection with a site closure in New York known as the Bird Dorms. The Settlement Agreement proposed that the Defendant will provide 230,000 dollars to a common fund used to make payments to class members, a service award to the Plaintiff, and class counsel's fees and costs. The Court conducted an initial evaluation of the fairness of the proposed settlement and concluded that the putative class satisfied all requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Regarding numerosity, the Court found there were 86 individuals in the proposed class, which was sufficient. The Court found the proposed class members' claims turned on common questions, such as whether the closure triggered the notice requirements and whether any statutory exception applied. The Plaintiff's claim was typical of the class as it arose from the same closure and the same alleged failure to give notice. Upon careful examination, the Court found the relief provided under the Settlement Agreement was adequate. The Plaintiff represented that the settlement amount represented 47 percent of the total potential recovery were they to succeed on all issues. Had the Plaintiff elected to litigate further, she faced substantial hurdles to recovery as the Defendant was currently non-operational and without assets. To recover, the Plaintiff would have had to prevail on a successor liability theory against Universal, which was disputed. The Court noted that given the length of time resolution of these issues would require and the attendant litigation risks, the proposed settlement fell within the range of reasonableness. The Court further determined that class-wide issues predominated over individual issues and a class action was a superior mechanism to adjudicate the controversy. Concentrating the claims in one proceeding avoided duplicative litigation and inconsistent results. Therefore, the Court granted certification of the matter as a class action for purposes of settlement. The Court appointed the Plaintiff as Class Representative and Rissmiller PLLC as Class Counsel. Accordingly, the motion for preliminary approval was granted. The Court directed that notice be provided to class members and scheduled a final fairness hearing for October 27, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=acAl7z from PacerMonitor.com NATIONAL TENANT: $1.625MM Settlement Suit Final OK Hearing Set Dec 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that National Tenant Network (NTN) and LCIJ, Inc. have agreed to pay at least $1,625,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the tenant screening companies unlawfully sent landlords consumer reports in the form of postcards that contained information about prior eviction filings. The $1,625,000 National Tenant Network class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 23, 2026. The deal covers all individuals who were the subject of a postcard sent by NTN and LCIJ, substantially similar to the postcard concerning the plaintiff, from June 30, 2018 to December 3, 2023. The court-approved website for the National Tenant Network class action settlement can be found at NTNPostcardSettlement.com. National Tenant Network settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of each class member's cash payout will depend on the total number of valid claims filed, among other factors. To submit a National Tenant Network settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can select the PDF claim form that applies to them to download, print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All NTN settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than September 22, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the National Tenant Network settlement final approval following a hearing on December 8, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The National Tenant Network class action lawsuit alleged that NTN and LCIJ sent consumer reports to landlords in the form of postcards that contained information about a resident's prior eviction filing, with a statement that the individual "had a previous eviction filing" and "NTN would have warned you about trouble tenants like this BEFORE they became YOUR residents," in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [GN] NBA PROPERTIES INC: Yee Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Yee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NBA PROPERTIES, INC., a New York Corporation; NBA TV, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; NBA MEDIA VENTURES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; TURNER DIGITAL BASKETBALL SERVICES, INC., a Georgia Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. C26-01860 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-07909. The Plaintiff asserts claims for: statutory damages of "$5,000 for each of Defendant's violations of CIPA"; "compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and other equitable relief" for alleged violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; and "restitution, disgorgement of profits earned by Defendant nominal damages, and any and all other equitable relief that will compensate Plaintiff and Class members properly" for alleged invasion of privacy.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Virginia Milstead, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 200N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 687-5000 Facsimile: (213) 687-5600 Email: virginia.milstead@skadden.com - and - James Y. Pak, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 525 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 470-4500 Facsimile: (650) 470-4570 Email: James.Pak@skadden.com - and - Michael W. McTigue, Jr., Esq. Meredith C. Slawe SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 Email: michael.mctigue@skadden.com meredith.slawe@skadden.com NCR ATLEOS: Hoak Retirement Plan Class Suit Settlement Finalized ---------------------------------------------------------------- NCR Atleos Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that settlement is finalized in the Hoak retirement plan class suit. In November 2015, in Hoak, et al. v. Plan Administrator of the Plans of NCR Corporation, participants and beneficiaries of certain deferred compensation retirement plans sponsored by NCR Corporation (collectively, the "Plan") filed a putative class action lawsuit against NCR Corporation, now Voyix, and other defendants, alleging the defendants breached the plan agreements by, among other things, paying lump sum payments based on mortality tables and actuarial calculations upon termination of the Plan. The court certified a class in 2017. On June 10, 2024, the trial court entered a final judgment and ordered Voyix to calculate the "benefits due" to the Plan participants, including pre-judgment interest, based on the sum that would have been sufficient to allow each participant to purchase a replacement annuity using discount rates prescribed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in effect as of the Feb. 25, 2013, termination date. Voyix filed a notice of appeal on July 2, 2024. After hearing oral arguments on Aug. 12, 2025, the appellate court affirmed the trial court judgment on Aug. 26, 2025. On Oct. 7, 2025, Voyix filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the court denied on Dec. 3, 2025. In February 2026, the matter was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings to finalize the amount owed to plaintiffs. Prior to resolution by the court, in April 2026, the parties reached a settlement to resolve all issues associated with damages owed to plan participants, interest, and attorney's fees. During the three months ended June 30, 2026, the court approved the settlement reached by the parties, resolving all remaining issues in the litigation. Voyix continues to pursue reimbursement from its insurance carriers to the extent coverage is available under applicable fiduciary liability insurance policies. Following court approval of the settlement and after consulting with Voyix, the Company concluded that its previously recorded accrual of $24 million, representing its obligation to indemnify Voyix for 50% of the final settlement amount, remained adequate as of June 30, 2026, and no adjustment to the accrual was necessary. The Company paid its related obligation to Voyix on July 17, 2026. NCR Atleos Corp. is a technology company focused on providing self-service banking, ATM, and related financial transaction solutions to banks, retailers, and payments providers worldwide. It operates as a successor to legacy NCR businesses, delivering hardware, software, and services that support secure and reliable cash and digital transactions. NCR VOYIX: November Final Hearing on Retirement Plans Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- NCR Voyix Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the court set the final approval hearing for the compensation retirement plans class suit settlement agreement in November 2026. In November 2015, several participants and beneficiaries in five "nonqualified" deferred compensation retirement plans sponsored by the Company (collectively, the "Plans") filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and other named defendants. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Company breached the terms of the Plan agreements when, upon termination of the Plans, the Company paid lump sum payments based on mortality tables and actuarial calculations. In September 2017, the court certified a class. On Feb. 6, 2024, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Company breached the terms of the Plans when it paid the lump sums in lieu of actuarially equivalent replacement life annuities and ordered that the Company provide class members the amount reflecting the difference between the lump sums they received and the cost of the replacement life annuities. The court further ordered the parties to brief as to what the appropriate relief should have been based on the benefits due to each Plan participant (the "Requested Relief Order"). On April 16, 2024, the Company filed its position on the Requested Relief Order. On June 10, 2024, the Court ruled against the Company's position to the Requested Relief Order, entered a final judgment against the Company, and ordered the Company to calculate the "benefits due" to the Plan participants, including pre-judgment interest, based on the sum that would have been sufficient to allow each participant to purchase a replacement annuity using discount rates prescribed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in effect as of the Feb. 25, 2013, termination date. On July 2, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal and a $45 million supersedeas bond to stay execution pending appeal. The appellate court heard oral arguments on Aug. 12, 2025, and on Aug. 26, 2025, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the district court. The Company's petition for rehearing en banc was denied. In February 2026, the matter was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings to finalize the amount owed to plaintiffs. Prior to resolution by the court, in April 2026, the parties reached a settlement to resolve all issues associated with damages owed to plan participants, interest, and attorney's fees for a payment of $48 million. In exchange, the Company will receive a class-wide release of claims following final approval by the court. On July 2, 2026, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on July 16, 2026, the Company funded an escrow account for payment of settlement amounts to plan participants. Following a brief period for objections by plan participants, final approval of this settlement is expected after a final fairness hearing currently scheduled for November 2026. NCR Atleos contributed 50% of the settlement amount pursuant to its indemnity obligation. The Company also intends to seek reimbursement of the settlement amount from its insurance carriers to the extent of its coverage under applicable fiduciary liability insurance policies; however, there can be no guarantee as to the extent of any insurance recovery. As of June 30, 2026, the Company has recorded an accrual of $48 million, as well as a receivable from NCR Atleos for $24 million, in connection with this matter. NCR Voyix Corp. is a global provider of software, hardware, and services that enable transactions in retail, hospitality, and banking, including point-of-sale, self-checkout, and ATM solutions. It serves customers worldwide by delivering technology platforms that connect digital and physical operations across stores, restaurants, and financial institutions. NEW JERSEY: High Court Rules Council Overstepped on DWI Surcharge ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of Rebecca J. Reed and Amanda M. Curry, on behalf of themselves and all other class members similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Elizabeth M. Muoio, Treasurer of the State of New Jersey, Caroline Benson, Acting Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer of the Borough of Middlesex, Colleen Lapp, Director/Chief Financial Officer of Middletown Township, on behalf of themselves, and all other defendant class members similarly situated, Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., Administrative Director of the Courts, N.J., Administrative Office of the Courts, B. Sue Fulton, Chief Administrator, New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, a body corporate and politic and an instrumentality of the State of New Jersey, Merari Gaud, Court Administrator, Borough of Middlesex and Kate Chieffo, Court Administrator, Middletown Township, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Defendants-Respondents, Case Nos. A-66, September Term 2024, 090060 (N.J.), the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing the complaints and held that the Council on Local Mandates is subject to judicial review and that it exceeded its constitutional authority in this instance. In 1995, New Jersey amended its Constitution to prohibit laws, rules, or regulations that impose unfunded mandates. The amendment created the Council on Local Mandates to resolve disputes over whether a law, rule, or regulation constitutes an unfunded mandate. Under the Local Mandates Act, enacted in 1996, an unfunded mandate ceases to be mandatory and expires until funding is authorized. The appeal focused on the scope of the Council's authority. While the Council determined that the statute at issue imposed an unfunded mandate, it also declared a funding provision in a separate but related statute to be invalid and without legal effect. The New Jersey Supreme Court therefore considered whether the Council had exceeded its constitutional authority by making that additional determination. In 2014, the New Jersey Legislature required police vehicles acquired after March 1, 2015, and primarily used for traffic stops to have mobile video recording systems (MVRS). The Legislature also increased the driving while intoxicated (DWI) surcharge from $100 to $125, directing the additional $25 to help cover the cost of equipping police vehicles with MVRS. In 2015, Deptford Township challenged the MVRS requirement before the Council, arguing that it was an unconstitutional unfunded mandate. In 2016, the Council agreed, finding that the funding available from the DWI surcharges was insufficient to cover the projected costs. It declared the MVRS statute an unfunded mandate and further ruled that the $25 DWI surcharge was "nugatory," or without legal effect. In 2021, Rebecca J. Reed filed a class action challenging the continued collection of the $25 DWI surcharge. She alleged that the surcharge was unconstitutional and that municipalities continued collecting it despite the Council's determination that it was without legal effect. Reed sought the return of all surcharge payments collected from class members. That same year, Amanda M. Curry filed a similar class action after being charged the $25 surcharge following a DWI conviction. The two cases were filed against state and local officials and were later consolidated by the trial court. Muoio moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the $25 DWI surcharge remained valid even after the MVRS mandate was declared unconstitutional. She argued that the surcharge was separate from the MVRS requirement and, as a funding source, could not itself be considered an unfunded mandate subject to review by the Council. Benson joined the motion and adopted Muoio's arguments. The Plaintiffs opposed the dismissal and asked to amend their complaints. They argued that the Council's finding that the MVRS requirement was an unfunded mandate also invalidated the $25 surcharge because the two statutes were linked. They also argued that the Council's decisions were political determinations that courts could not review. The trial court initially dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaints without prejudice, finding that the Council's decision to invalidate the MVRS mandate did not also make the $25 DWI surcharge unconstitutional. The court, however, allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaints. The amended complaint repeated the original claims and added an allegation that the surcharge was being collected without clear direction on how the funds should be used. The Defendants then moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the law of the case doctrine barred the Plaintiffs from raising arguments that had already been rejected. The court granted the Defendants' motion and denied the Plaintiffs' request for reconsideration, finding that the amended complaints did not materially change the Plaintiffs' arguments and that those arguments had already been rejected. The Appellate Division rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that the Council decisions are immune from judicial review. It held that judicial review is available when the Council acts beyond its constitutional authority. The protections given to Council decisions apply only to its core role of determining whether a law constitutes an unfunded mandate. The court found that the Council exceeded its authority by invalidating the $25 DWI surcharge. The surcharge was a funding mechanism, not a mandate, and was severable from the MVRS requirement. It also noted that the surcharge served independent purposes, including punishing DWI offenders and raising revenue. Because the surcharge remained valid, the Plaintiffs were not entitled to refunds, and the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of their complaints. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs' petition for certification to review two issues: whether the Council's decisions are subject to judicial review and whether the Council exceeded its authority by invalidating the $25 DWI surcharge. The Court also allowed the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) to participate as amicus curiae. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the Council exceeded its authority by declaring the $25 DWI surcharge invalid after finding the MVRS requirement to be an unfunded mandate. The Council's authority ended once it determined that the MVRS statute was an unfunded mandate. Under N.J.S.A. 52:13H-12(a), the Council must limit its ruling to the specific provision that constitutes the unfunded mandate and leave the rest of the law intact when possible. Because the $25 surcharge was a separate funding mechanism, not an unfunded mandate and not the subject of the complaint, the Council had no authority to invalidate it. The Court said any decision to revise, repurpose, or eliminate the surcharge belongs to the New Jersey Legislature. The Supreme Court therefore agreed with the Appellate Division that the Council exceeded its authority and affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/U2lX5veg1. Joseph M. Pinto -- jfpolino@prodigy.net -- argued the cause for appellants (Polino and Pinto, and LoMurro, Munson, attorneys; Joseph M. Pinto, and Richard Galex -- rgalex@lomurrolaw.com -- on the briefs). Bassam F. Gergi -- Bassam.Gergi@njoag.gov -- Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents Elizabeth M. Muoio, Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., and B. Sue Fulton (Matthew J. Platkin -- matthew.platkin@state.nj.us -- Attorney General, attorney; Jeremy M. Feigenbaum -- jeremy.feigenbaum@njoag.gov -- Solicitor General, Stephen Ehrlich -- stephen.ehrlich@njoag.gov -- Deputy Solicitor General, of counsel and on the briefs, Sookie Bae-Park -- sookie.bae@njoag.gov -- Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, and Bassam F. Gergi -- Bassam.Gergi@njoag.gov -- and Phoenix N. Meyers -- phoenix.meyers@law.njoag.gov -- Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs). Matthew R. Flynn -- flynn@centraljerseylaw.com -- argued the cause for respondents Caroline Benson, Merari Gaud, and the Borough of Middlesex (Savo, Schalk, Corsini, Warner, Gillespie, O'Grodnick & Fisher, attorneys; Matthew R. Flynn, on the brief). Alexander Shalom -- ashalom@lowenstein.com -- argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (Lowenstein Sandler, and American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Alexander Shalom, Noemi S. Schor -- nschor@lowenstein.com -- Jeanne LoCicero -- jlocicero@aclu-nj.org -- and Ezra D. Rosenberg -- erosenberg@aclu-nj.org -- on the brief). Spiro Harrison & Nelson attorneys for respondents Colleen Lapp and Kate Chieffo, join in the brief of respondents Elizabeth M. Muoio, Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., and B. Sue Fulton. NEW YORK, NY: Has Until Aug. 31 to Oppose Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jefferson v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07212-ALC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time from July 30, 2026 until Aug. 31, 2026 to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and its cross motion to dismiss the complaint (the "MTD"). If the Court is inclined to grant this request, the Defendants also requested that the additional deadlines set forth below be similarly adjusted. The Plaintiffs' counsel consents to these requests. On June 11, 2026, following a telephone conference with Your Honor, Your Honor set the following schedule for briefing on the plaintiffs' MCC and the MTD: -- By June 25, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file her MCC; -- By July 30, 2026, the Defendants shall file their opposition to the MCC and MTD; -- By Aug. 6, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file her reply in further support of the MCC and her opposition to the MTD; and -- By Aug. 13, 2026, Defendants shall file their reply in further support of the MTD. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vrct9L at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Rachel Seligman Weiss, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street new york, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2422 E-mail: rseligma@law.nyc.gov NEXTDOOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend KVSB Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Nextdoor Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from KVSB class suit. On Oct. 28, 2024, and Oct. 29, 2024, against the Company, certain of its former officers and directors of Khosla Ventures Acquisition Co. II (KVSB), the sponsor of the Company's special purpose acquisition merger, Khosla Ventures SPAC Sponsor II LLC, and certain entities allegedly related to that sponsor. The two complaints were consolidated on Dec. 6, 2024, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Dec. 26, 2024. That pleading is brought on behalf of a class of KVSB stockholders who could have, but did not, choose to redeem their KVSB shares in connection with the Nov. 5, 2021, merger between KVSB and the Company. It alleges that defendants breached various duties to KVSB stockholders by making false or misleading statements and/or aided and abetted such breaches, and it also asserts claims for unjust enrichment. The consolidated complaint seeks damages, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and other costs. Defendants answered the consolidated complaint on Feb. 10, 2025, after which discovery commenced. The Company filed an amended answer on Dec. 12, 2025. On Feb. 17, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that brings the same claims and seeks the same relief as the consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 6, 2026. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete, and a hearing is scheduled for Sept. 28, 2026. As a result, the Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims in these actions. Given the procedural posture and the nature of such litigation matters, the Company is currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. Any litigation is inherently uncertain, and any judgment or injunctive relief entered against the Company or any adverse settlement could materially and adversely impact its business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects. Nextdoor Holdings, Inc. operates a neighborhood-focused social networking platform that connects neighbors, businesses, and public services to facilitate local information sharing and community engagement. It generates revenue primarily through advertising and partnerships aimed at reaching users based on their local communities. NIAGEN BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Niagen Bioscience, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from consumer protection class suit. On May 28, 2026, and June 16, 2026, respectively, two putative class action complaints were filed against the Company and ChromaDex, Inc. in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California and the Southern District of California, alleging, among other things, that certain advertising and marketing claims relating to Tru Niagen were false or misleading. The complaints seek monetary and equitable relief on behalf of proposed nationwide and state classes under various consumer protection and related laws. On July 17, 2026, the Court ordered the two cases to be consolidated and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 14, 2026. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these actions. At this early stage of both the proceedings, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these matters. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements. The Company will continue to monitor these matters and assess the need for any accrual or additional disclosure as the litigation progresses. Niagen Bioscience, Inc. is a life sciences company focused on the development, marketing, and commercialization of nutritional ingredients and consumer products, including Tru Niagen, which is based on nicotinamide riboside and positioned to support cellular health. It operates through partnerships and distribution channels in the dietary supplement and wellness markets. OPPENHEIMER & CO: Agrees to Settle ABDP Cash Sweep Suit for $70MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Oppenheimer & Co. has agreed to a $70 million class action settlement to resolve claims it violated New York law by failing to pay its Advantage Bank Deposit Program (ABDP) participants the interest they were owed. The Oppenheimer settlement benefits Oppenheimer customers or Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc. customers who participated in the Advantage Bank Deposit Program from March 17, 2022, through May 22, 2026. The Advantage Bank Deposit Program is a cash sweep program that allows eligible Oppenheimer clients to earn interest on their cash balances. According to the class action lawsuit, Oppenheimer failed to pay its ABDP participants the interest they were owed under the program's terms. Oppenheimer is a wealth management and investment firm that offers services to individuals, families, businesses and institutions. Oppenheimer has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $70 million to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Oppenheimer settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount of interest they were owed but did not receive from Oppenheimer. Class members who have a higher claim amount will receive a larger share of the settlement fund. According to the sweep account settlement website, each class member's share of the net settlement fund will depend on the number of claims filed, the amount of the net settlement fund and the amount of time each class member participated in the ABDP and their level of deposits. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 27, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Oppenheimer class action settlement is scheduled for Sept. 17, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 17, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits Oppenheimer and Oppenheimer Asset Management customers who participated in the Advantage Bank Deposit Program from March 17, 2022, through May 22, 2026. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Investment records or broker contact information 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 09/17/2026 Case Name Liberty Capital Group v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04822-JSR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 09/17/2026 Settlement Website OppenheimerCashSweepLitigation.com Claims Administrator Oppenheimer Cash Sweep Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301170 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170 info@OppenheimerCashSweepLitigation.com (888) 808-7104 Class Counsel Stephen R. Astley ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Defense Counsel Bernard J. Garbutt III Grant R. MacQueen MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN] OTTER TAIL: $103.5M Settlement Reached in PVC Pipe Antitrust MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Otter Tail Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company has entered into settlement agreements to resolve an ongoing U.S. PVC pipe antitrust MDL. Beginning in August 2024, a series of putative federal class action lawsuits, now consolidated under the caption In re: PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation (Case No. 1:24-cv-07639), were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Northern Pipe Products, Vinyltech Corporation, Otter Tail Corporation, and more than twenty other PVC pipe manufacturers, as well as Oil Price Information Systems, LLC (OPIS). The Court permitted plaintiffs to proceed through three putative class complaints consisting of a Direct Purchaser Class, a Non-Converter Seller Purchaser Class, and an End-User Class. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and other defendants and alleged co-conspirators conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of PVC municipal water, PVC plumbing pipe, PVC pipe fixtures, and PVC conduit pipe in violation of United States federal and state antitrust laws, Canadian competition laws, and consumer protection and competition laws. During the second quarter of 2026, the Company entered into settlement agreements with each of the three putative classes in the ongoing U.S. PVC pipe antitrust class action lawsuit. Subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions and final court approval, it agreed to pay an aggregate of $103.5 million to resolve all claims asserted against it in the litigation. Under the terms of these agreements, the Company deposited $73.5 million into settlement fund escrow accounts in June 2026 and the remaining $30.0 million in July 2026. The deposited funds remain restricted in escrow pending final court approval and completion of the settlement process and were included in total cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash of $351,883 and $386,193, respectively, with $73,500 identified as restricted as of the reporting date. In connection with the U.S. class action lawsuits, the Company recognized an estimated loss in the amount of $103.5 million, which was included in other current liabilities on its consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2026. Legal Settlement Expenses reflect this $103.5 million estimated loss contingency recognized in the Plastics segment related to the ongoing U.S. PVC pipe antitrust class action lawsuit and settlement agreements entered into during the period. Income tax benefit for the three and six months ended June 30, 2026, included discrete income tax benefits of $26.3 million related to losses recognized from the settlement agreements executed during the period in connection with this litigation. The Company recorded these amounts as a pre-tax loss during the period and provided cross-references to Note 10, Commitments and Contingencies, to the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the lawsuit and related settlements. The execution of the settlement agreements does not constitute an admission by the Company of any wrongdoing, fault, or liability, and the Company does not admit any wrongdoing, fault, or liability. Although it believes it has factual and legal defenses and was prepared to continue litigating, it determined that resolving these claims was in its best interests. The settlements are described as meaningfully reducing the uncertainty, distraction, and potential costs and exposure associated with protracted and complex class action antitrust litigation and allowing the Company to maintain its focus on executing its business strategy. The amounts held in the escrow accounts as part of the pending legal settlements of certain class-action lawsuits will remain restricted until such time as the related settlement agreements receive final court approval and the funds are disbursed to the class members or the settlement agreements are terminated. If the settlement agreements are terminated, the funds would be returned to the Company. The Company refers readers to Note 10, Commitments and Contingencies, to the consolidated financial statements, which are incorporated by reference, for further discussion of the U.S. PVC pipe antitrust class action lawsuit and the related settlements. Additionally, on Sept. 26, 2025, a putative nationwide 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, as well as OPIS. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of PVC pipe through an information exchange, OPIS, in breach of Canada's Competition Act. The plaintiffs in this Canadian proceeding seek general damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative class. The Company believes there are factual and legal defenses to the allegations in the Canadian complaint and is defending itself accordingly. This Canadian action is separate from, but related in subject matter to, the U.S. PVC pipe antitrust class action litigation, and it similarly focuses on alleged anticompetitive conduct and price-fixing in the PVC pipe industry. No settlement agreements or loss contingencies specific to the Canadian matter are disclosed in the provided text, and there is no indication of any government enforcement action or shareholder derivative lawsuit related to these allegations in the disclosed information. Otter Tail Corp. is a diversified company engaged in electric utility operations, manufacturing, and plastics, serving customers primarily in the Upper Midwest. It operates through regulated utility and various nonregulated businesses, including its PVC pipe manufacturing segment. PACS GROUP: Manchin Suit Dismissal Pending, Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ PACS Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the putative Manchin securities class suit dismissal motion is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York while the consolidated derivative suit is stayed. On Nov. 13, 2024, a putative securities class action captioned Manchin v. PACS Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08636-LJL (S.D.N.Y.) ("Manchin Action") was filed against the company, individual defendants Jason Murray, Derick Apt, Mark Hancock, Jacqueline Millard, and Taylor Leavitt, and underwriter defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Truist Securities, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Stephens Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., and Regions Securities LLC. The complaint brings claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and alleges the company and its leadership engaged in a multi-year scheme to inflate revenue and profitability by (i) exploiting a COVID-era Medicare waiver to "flip" long-term Medicaid patients to higher-paying Medicare coverage, (ii) billing unnecessary Medicare Part B respiratory and sensory integration therapies, and (iii) falsifying licensure and staffing documentation. On Jan. 7, 2025, the court consolidated the Manchin action with a similar action brought by plaintiff New Orleans Employees' Retirement System, and on Feb. 11, 2025, the court appointed 1199SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and its counsel, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, as lead counsel. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation and as ordered by the court on May 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Dec. 19, 2025, which added Joshua Jergensen and P.J. Sanford as named defendants, and also brought additional claims pursuant to Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Feb. 17, 2026, which Plaintiffs opposed on April 20, 2026, which is fully briefed as of June 4, 2026. On Feb. 14, 2025, a derivative action originally filed by plaintiff Theresa Howard-Hines ("Howard-Hines Action") captioned IN RE PACS GROUP, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Lead Case No. 1:25-cv-01343-LJL (S.D.N.Y.) was filed against defendants Jason Murray, Derick Apt, Mark Hancock, Michelle Lewis, Jacqueline Millard, Taylor Leavitt, and Evelyn Dilsaver, with the Company named as nominal defendant. The complaint brings claims of breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution, based on substantially similar allegations as in the Manchin Action. On April 8, 2025, the court consolidated the Howard-Hines action with a similar derivative action filed by plaintiff Adam Beckman, under the name In re PACS Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation. On June 9, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action until the earlier of the dismissal of the Manchin Action, the denial of any motion to dismiss in the Manchin Action, or the termination of the stay. A further derivative action, captioned Boers v. Murray, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00119-DAK-DBP (D. Utah), was filed on Aug. 19, 2025, against the same defendants and alleging substantially the same claims and theories as In re PACS Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on Dec. 8, 2025, without prejudice to her ability to refile, and refiled on April 17, 2026, against the same defendants, making the same basic claims. PACS Group, Inc. is a post-acute health care company that operates skilled nursing and senior care facilities across the United States. It provides a range of clinical, rehabilitative, and long-term care services to elderly and medically complex patients. PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Oral Arguments Held in Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Palantir Technologies Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated Aug. 3, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held oral arguments for Cupat securities class suit on March 16, 2026. On Sept. 15, 2022, Oct. 25, 2022, and Nov. 4, 2022, putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02384, Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System v. Palantir Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02805, and Shijun Liu, Individually and as Trustee of the Liu Family Trust 2019 v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02893, respectively, naming the Company and certain current and former officers and directors as defendants. The suits allege false and misleading statements about our business and prospects and purport to allege claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek unspecified damages and remedies under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. These three actions subsequently were consolidated as Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al., Lead Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-02834-CNS-SKC, consolidated with civil actions 1:22-cv-02805-CNS-SKC and 1:22-cv-02893-CNS-SKC. On March 31, 2024, the Court dismissed the Cupat matter without prejudice. On May 24, 2024, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On April 4, 2025, the Court dismissed the Cupat matter with prejudice and entered judgment for the defendants on the same day. On May 2, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the final judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On March 16, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held oral arguments for the case. As of June 30, 2026, the Company was not aware of any currently pending legal matters or claims, individually or in the aggregate, that were expected to have a material adverse impact on its condensed consolidated financial statements. Palantir Technologies Inc. is a software company that builds and deploys data integration and analytics platforms used by government agencies and commercial enterprises worldwide. It focuses on enabling customers to manage, analyze, and secure large volumes of data for intelligence, defense, and enterprise decision-making. PARK HA BIOLOGICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sep 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP informs investors that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Park Ha Biological Technology Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: BYAH) securities between December 27, 2024 and July 8, 2025 (the "Class Period"). The Company traded under ticker symbol "PPH" until October 28, 2025. The lawsuit alleges that Park Ha was the subject of a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme involving social-media misinformation and individuals impersonating financial professionals, and that the Company failed to adequately disclose risks associated with the alleged scheme. Park Ha develops and sells skincare and cosmetics products under the "Park Ha" brand and operates franchise beauty stores in China through an online-to-offline ("O2O") business model. Investors who suffered losses during the Class Period may have legal rights and should contact Robbins LLP for information about seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. Why Was Park Ha Sued? According to the complaint, Park Ha was allegedly subjected to a pump-and-dump and market manipulation scheme involving social-media-based misinformation and individuals allegedly impersonating financial professionals. The lawsuit alleges that Park Ha and certain defendants failed to adequately disclose material risks associated with the alleged market manipulation and fraudulent promotion activity. According to plaintiff, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Park Ha was the subject of a fraudulent stock promotion scheme involving social media-based misinformation and impersonated financial professionals; (2) Park Ha's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the false rumors and artificial trading activity driving the stock price; (3) Park Ha's IPO was intentionally structured with an extremely low public float to enable the manipulation scheme; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about PHH's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Why Did BYAY Stock Collapse? This complaint alleges that the collapse of Park Ha's stock followed an artificial price surge created through fraudulent stock promotions conducted immediately after the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"). Park Ha's stock price increased from its IPO price of $4.00 to an all-time high of $41.49 on July 7, 2025, despite the absence of any material corporate developments or legitimate business prospects to justify such an enormous spike. Investigations and public reports have revealed Park Ha's stock was utilized in a market manipulation and "pump-and-dump" promotional scheme, with impersonators claiming to be legitimate financial advisors touting Park Ha's in online forums, chat groups, and social media posts with baseless claims to create a buying frenzy among retail investors. According to the complaint, Park Ha's stock experienced a dramatic collapse on July 8, 2025. The Company's market value allegedly declined 93% in a single trading day, with the stock closing at $2.99 per share, wiping out more than $1 billion in market capitalization in a single trading session. Who May Be Eligible? The lawsuit seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Park Ha Biological Technology Co., Ltd. (BYAH) securities during the applicable Class Period. If you purchased Park Ha stock during this period and suffered investment losses, you may have rights under the federal securities laws. What Is a Lead Plaintiff? The lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the interests of the proposed class throughout the litigation. Investors do not have to serve as lead plaintiff to potentially share in any recovery if the lawsuit is successful. The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff is September 28, 2026. Frequently Asked Questions What is the Park Ha class action about? The lawsuit alleges that Park Ha was the subject of a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme and that the Company failed to adequately disclose material risks associated with that activity. Why did BYAH stock crash? According to the complaint, Park Ha experienced a dramatic collapse on July 8, 2025, after the alleged market manipulation and fraudulent promotion risks became apparent. The stock fell approximately 93% in a single day. What is the alleged Park Ha pump-and-dump scheme? According to the complaint, Park Ha was allegedly targeted by a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme involving social-media misinformation and individuals allegedly impersonating financial professionals. Who can participate in the lawsuit? Investors who purchased Park Ha securities during the applicable Class Period may be eligible to participate in the proposed securities class action. Do I have to become lead plaintiff? No. Investors do not have to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to potentially share in any future recovery if the litigation is successful. If you want to become the lead plaintiff, the deadline for submitting your papers to the court is September 28, 2026. Does it cost anything to participate? Robbins LLP represents investors on a contingency fee basis. Investors never pay attorneys' fees or litigation expenses. If there is a recovery, defendants pay fees and expenses. Contact Robbins LLP Investors seeking additional information about the Park Ha securities class action may submit an inquiry through Robbins LLP's website, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. About Robbins LLP A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, Robbins LLP has helped restore more than $1 billion in value to shareholders, secured some of the largest recoveries in shareholder derivative litigation history, and achieved governance reforms at over 400 Fortune 1000 companies. "Behind everything we do is the belief that companies should be governed responsibly, fiduciaries should be held accountable, and shareholders deserve transparency and fairness," said Brian J. Robbins, Founding Partner of Robbins LLP. To be notified if a class action against Park Ha Biological Technology Co., Ltd. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] PASTA DE PASTA: Ramirez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR MANUEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PASTA DE PASTA USA LLC (D/B/A PASTA DE PASTA), EDA KABEL, and TUGAY ESE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06413 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026) is a wage and hour class suit brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs at the applicable minimum hourly rate; failure to pay overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week; failure to provide an additional hour's pay for each day Plaintiffs' spread of hours exceeded 10 hours; and failure to furnish with a written notice and an accurate statement listing. Plaintiff Maldonado was employed as a dishwasher, food preparer and a porter at the Defendants' restaurant from May 7, 2025 until July 14, 2026. The Defendants own, operate, and control an Italian restaurant, located in New York under the name "Pasta de Pasta."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend Verthelyi Class Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Verthelyi class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A putative securities class action filed by a purported shareholder on June 14, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The action is captioned Roberto Verthelyi v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust and PNMAC Capital Management, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-05028, and is referred to as the Verthelyi Action. It was brought as a putative class action on behalf of holders of the Company's Series A Preferred Shares and Series B Preferred Shares. In the Verthelyi Action, the plaintiff alleges that the Company and its external investment advisor, PNMAC Capital Management, LLC, committed unlawful and unfair acts in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The allegations arise from the replacement of the floating three-month London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) dividend rate applicable to the Series A and Series B Preferred Shares with a fixed rate. The plaintiff asserts that this change violated the LIBOR Act, 12 U.S.C. 5801 et seq., and the LIBOR Rule, 12 C.F.R. 253 et seq., and seeks relief on behalf of the putative class. In addition, no shareholder derivative actions or related government investigations have been reported in connection with the Verthelyi Action as of the date of this disclosure. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust is a specialty finance company that primarily invests in residential mortgage loans and mortgage-related assets. It is externally managed by PNMAC Capital Management LLC and focuses on generating risk-adjusted returns for its shareholders over the long term. PENTAIR PLC: Walters Sues Over Misleading Business Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- AARON WALTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENTAIR PLC, JOHN L. STAUCH, and NICHOLAS J. BRAZIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06632 (S.D.N.Y., August 3, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Pentair securities between April 28, 2026 and July 14, 2026, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendant made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company' business, operations, and prospects including the significant destocking of inventory in the Pool channel which negatively affected the sales and operating income throughout the class period. The company's stock price fell $11.35, or 15%, closing at $64.33 per share on unusually heavy trading volume on July 15, 2026. Plaintiff Walters and Class Members purchased Pentair securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions alleged herein. The Plaintiff seeks remedies and equitable relief arising from the materially false and/or misleading statements about the company. Pentair PLC is a provider of various water solutions, such as filtration, water supply pumps, and fluid treatment products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 745 5th Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com rdawson@glancylaw.com PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Zantac MDL Suits ------------------------------------------------ Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Zantac MDL suits. In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the Federal MDL Court). Plaintiffs in the MDL filed against Pfizer and many other defendants a master personal injury complaint, a consolidated consumer class action complaint alleging, among other things, claims under consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a medical monitoring complaint seeking to certify medical monitoring classes under the laws of 13 states. In December 2022, the Federal MDL Court granted defendants' Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs' expert testimony and motion for summary judgment on general causation, which has resulted in the dismissal of all complaints in the litigation. Plaintiffs have appealed the Federal MDL Court's rulings. In addition, Pfizer has received service of Canadian class action complaints naming Pfizer and other defendants and seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury and economic loss, allegedly arising from the defendants' sale of Zantac in Canada. In April 2021, a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding was created in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County to coordinate personal injury actions against Pfizer and other defendants filed in California state court. Coordinated proceedings have also been created in other state courts. The large majority of the state court cases have been filed in the Superior Court of Delaware in New Castle County. Many of these Zantac-related cases have been outstanding for a number of years. From time to time, Pfizer has explored and will continue to explore opportunistic settlements of these matters. As of May 2026, Pfizer had settled, or entered into definitive agreements or agreements-in-principle to settle, subject to certain conditions, a substantial majority of the cases filed in state courts in which the plaintiff alleges use of a Pfizer product. The remaining unresolved state court cases continue in various state courts. Beginning in August 2021, a number of putative class actions have been filed against Pfizer in various U.S. federal courts following Pfizer’s voluntary recall of Chantix due to the presence of a nitrosamine, N-nitroso-varenicline. Plaintiffs assert that they suffered economic harm purportedly as a result of purchasing Chantix or generic varenicline medicines sold by Pfizer. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and state-specific classes and seek various remedies, including damages and medical monitoring. In December 2022, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2026, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the litigation on terms not material to Pfizer. The agreement is subject to final court approval. Pfizer Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture, and commercialization of medicines and vaccines across a broad range of therapeutic areas. It markets its products worldwide to wholesalers, hospitals, clinics, government agencies, and pharmacies. PINNACLE WEST: Defends Sherman Act Class Suit in Maryland --------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle West Capital Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Sherman act class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On July 11, 2025, APS, together with all 25 other U.S. nuclear power plant operators, was named in a class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court in Maryland. The lawsuit alleges the country's nuclear operators have violated antitrust laws by agreeing to exchange compensation information and suppress compensation. The class action complaint has been brought on behalf of all persons employed in nuclear power generation in the U.S. from May 1, 2003, until the present and alleges violations of the Sherman Act. The company is unable at this time to predict the outcome of this matter and whether it will have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Pinnacle West Capital Corp., based in Phoenix, is a holding company whose primary subsidiary, Arizona Public Service Co., is the largest electric utility in Arizona. It provides electricity generation, transmission, and distribution services to retail and wholesale customers across the state. PNC FINANCIAL: November Final Hearing on Payment Card Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York set the final approval hearing for the Payment Card class suit settlement agreement in November 2026. In June 2026, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement to resolve the class action seeking equitable relief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant-Discount Litigation (Master File No. 1:05-md-1720-MKB-JAM). A final approval hearing for the settlement agreement is scheduled for November 2026. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is a diversified financial services institution offering retail and corporate banking, asset management, and related financial services to individuals, businesses, and government entities across the United States. It operates through a nationwide branch network and digital platforms, providing a broad range of lending, deposit, treasury management, and investment solutions. PREMIO INC: Faces Romero Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------- SUCELY SOLIS ROMERO, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIO, INC.; TIRE STAFFING dba IT'S CALIBER; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV23415 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 24, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated and continue to violate state wage and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages (including minimum, straight time, and overtime wages); imposing unlawful quotas; failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failing to authorize or permit rest periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of herself and the putative class to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and penalties pursuant to the state laws. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendants, on behalf of herself individually and a putative class of all current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in California four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification. Premio, Inc. is an industrial computer company with focus in the manufacturing of technology and computing hardware with a warehouse in City of Industry, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Hyun, Esq. Shelly Song, Esq. ARIS LLP 1 Park Plaza, Ste. 600 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 807-4467 Facsimile: (949) 807-4469 E-mail: dhyun@arisllp.com ssong@arisllp.com PRIMORIS SERVICES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Primoris Services Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated Aug. 4, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Two purported Company stockholders filed a putative securities class action on July 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and certain current and former officers, alleging they made false and misleading statements in the Company's disclosures. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, as well as recovery of costs and expenses associated with the litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims and to contest the allegations in court. However, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, it is unable to predict the final outcome of this proceeding with any reasonable degree of certainty. It also does not currently have sufficient information to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss associated with this matter. Primoris Services Corp. is a specialty contractor providing a wide range of construction, fabrication, maintenance, replacement, and engineering services to the utility, energy, and infrastructure markets across the United States and Canada. It serves public and private sector customers through diversified segments focused on energy, utilities, and transportation-related projects. PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- PROCEPT BioRobotics Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Operating Engineers securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 24, 2026, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers, captioned Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund v. PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation, et al., No. 5:26-cv-07691. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between Feb. 28, 2024, and Feb. 25, 2026. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding, among other things, handpiece sales, procedure volumes, discounting practices, and related financial guidance. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees and other relief. The litigation is at an early stage, and the Company is unable to predict its outcome or reasonably estimate the amount or range of any potential loss. It believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the case vigorously. Failure to obtain a favorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, or financial condition. PROCEPT BioRobotics Corp. is a surgical robotics company that develops and commercializes minimally invasive, image-guided treatment solutions for urologic conditions. It focuses on technologies designed to improve clinical outcomes and reduce the overall cost of care for patients and providers. PROG HOLDINGS: $5.3M IP Settlement Reached, Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- PROG Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated Wednesday, July 29, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that, in June 2026, its Progressive Leasing segment entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a commercial dispute involving certain intellectual property issues. As of June 30, 2026, the settlement obligation of $5.3 million remained unpaid. A putative class action was filed in October 2025, captioned "Sterling Kelly v. Prog. Services, Inc. d/b/a MoneyApp," and brought in the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, Utah, alleging that its MoneyApp business violated the federal Military Lending Act and Truth in Lending Act. The complaint challenges MoneyApp's cash advance offering based on its practice of giving customers the option to expedite the receipt of their cash advances by paying a voluntary expediting fee. In November 2025, MoneyApp successfully removed the lawsuit to the federal District Court of Utah, Central Division. PROG Holdings, Inc. is a financial technology and services company that operates brands including Progressive Leasing and MoneyApp, providing lease-to-own and related payment solutions to consumers. It serves customers across the United States through retail partners and digital channels. PUBLIC SERVICE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Md. --------------------------------------------------------------- Public Service Electric & Gas Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In July 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed against 26 nuclear generation power companies, including the Company, and two consulting companies. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to fix compensation for nuclear generation workers and by exchanging information regarding such compensation. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons employed in nuclear power generation by the defendants and their subsidiaries from 2003 through the present. The relief sought in the action includes an award of treble damages under the federal antitrust laws. The case remains in its early stages, and no final judgment or settlement has been reached. PSEG states that it cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time. Public Service Electric & Gas Co. is a regulated gas and electric utility based in New Jersey and a principal subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. It provides electric and natural gas transmission and distribution services to residential, commercial, and industrial customers. QUEST HOSPITALITY: Must File Class Cert Response by August 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY ANICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and KRYSTLE ANICH, v. QUEST HOSPITALITY CONCEPTS, LLC D/B/A THE CITIZEN, Case No. 3:25-cv-01994-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time. The Defendant has until Aug. 20, 2026, to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Quest is a hospitality and restaurant management company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rfxKAl at no extra charge.[CC] RAYMOND JAMES: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Raymond James Financial Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a cash sweep class suit. In August and December 2024, a total of three putative class action lawsuits were filed in federal district court alleging, among other things, that the firm breached its fiduciary duties or agreements with regard to rates paid to clients in its cash sweep programs. All three cases were subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding. On July 24, 2025, the claims asserted by the plaintiff in one of the three lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, resulting in that plaintiff's claims no longer being part of the consolidated action. On March 27, 2026, the federal district court entered an order dismissing some of the claims asserted in the consolidated case. On May 21, 2026, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for class certification. On July 16, 2026, the federal district court granted a motion filed by two named plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss their claims without prejudice. As a result of these developments, the case remains pending with two named plaintiffs, and the firm intends to continue vigorously defending against the remaining claims in the case. Raymond James Financial Inc. is a diversified financial services company providing private client groups, capital markets, asset management, and banking services to individuals, corporations, and municipalities. It operates through a network of independent financial advisors and company-owned branches primarily in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. RESOURCING EDGE: Villarta Sues to Recover Regular and OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA VILLARTA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESOURCING EDGE I, LLC; RESOURCING EDGE 4 LLC; RESOURCING EDGE 5 LLC; RESOURCING EDGE SERVICES LLC; ACE MEDICAL BILLING LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24388 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2026) is a class action seeking damages and equitable relief arising from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission. The complaint cites seven causes of action against the Defendants including failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest periods, failure to indemnify necessary expenditures, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due during employment and upon separation and unfair and unlawful business practices. The Defendants failed to correctly calculate the regular rate of pay of Plaintiff and Class Members which resulted to non-payment of all wages due for all hours, and that Plaintiff and Class Members received less than the applicable minimum wage rate for healthcare employees, says the suit. Plaintiff Villarta is a resident of California and has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt licensed vocational nurse since approximately May 2025. Resourcing Edge LLC is a human capital management and professional employer organization firm founded in 2003, providing payroll, HR outsourcing, and benefits administration.{BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd Burbank, CA 91506 Telephone: (213) 493-6300 Facsimile: (213) 336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com RIGHT AT SCHOOL: McGinnis-Aquilina Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Sheri McGinnis-Aquilina, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. RIGHT AT SCHOOL, LLC., a limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26CV496346 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07939. The Complaint asserts nine causes of action for: Unpaid Overtime; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Failure to Pay Proper Sick Pay Wages; in Violation of California Labor Code and Violation of California Business & Professions Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Pamela Vartabedian, Esq. Petersen D. Walrod, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: pvartabedian@seyfarth.com pwalrod@seyfarth.com RIVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- River Financial Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from cybersecurity incident class suits in Alabama. In July 2026, four class action complaints were filed against the Company and River Bank in Alabama state courts in connection with a cybersecurity incident. The complaints allege, among other things, negligence and failure to safeguard customer information arising from that incident. The actions name the Company and River Bank as defendants and assert that they did not adequately protect customer data. The plaintiffs in these class actions seek unspecified monetary damages, as well as punitive damages intended to punish the alleged misconduct. They also request an award of attorneys' fees in connection with prosecuting the actions. The precise amount of damages sought has not been specified in the complaints. In addition, due to the preliminary nature of the forensic investigation and the early stages of these legal proceedings, management has stated that it is currently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the cybersecurity-related class actions or reasonably estimate the amount or range of any potential financial loss that may result. As a result, the Company has not recorded any liability or loss accrual in its consolidated financial statements for this contingency as of June 30, 2026. Management has indicated that it will continue to monitor developments in the litigation and the investigation as further information becomes available. River Financial Corp. is a bank holding company headquartered in Alabama and the parent of River Bank, which provides a range of commercial and consumer banking products and services. It serves individuals, small businesses, and commercial clients in its regional market through branch offices and digital banking platforms. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Securities Class Action Settlement Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- Rivian Automotive, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that a settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in May 2026. In March and April 2022, three separate stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against it, its directors, certain officers, and its IPO underwriters, alleging violations of United States securities laws, including the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. These stockholder class actions were later consolidated, and in October 2025 the parties reached a preliminary settlement of the consolidated matters. Rivian Automotive, Inc. is an electric vehicle manufacturer focused on designing, developing, and producing all-electric pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and commercial delivery vans. It also builds and operates related vehicle technology platforms and charging and service networks to support its consumer and commercial customers. ROLEX WATCH: Wiretaps Users' Private Info, Says Del Salto --------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER DEL SALTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROLEX WATCH U.S.A., INC., New York Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-08022-PHK (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2026) is a class over Rolex Watch's use of trackers and cookies to collect Website visitors' identifying information which violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when people visit the Rolex website, Rolex allegedly causes tracking technologies such as cookies and similar trackers from third-party companies including Meta, Google, ContentSquare, Hotjar Ltd., Shape Security, LinkedIn Ads, Rubicon Project, and PubMatic to be placed on users' web browsers without obtaining their consent. The complaint further alleges that these trackers collect information about users' browsing activity and enable advertisers to repeatedly display advertisements for the same or similar products to those users across the Internet. Plaintiff Del Salto is a resident of San Francisco, California who visited the Website in and around May 2026 to research the Rolex Daytona watch, including reviewing product information and related specifications. Rolex Watch owns and operates the website https://www.rolex.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. Mark Potter, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Naomi Butler, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 Email: classactions@potterhandy.com RXLINK INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Newell Due Jan. 13, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOUREY NEWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RXLINK INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04270-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Perez entered an order as follows: 1. The parties shall exchange the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) by July 30, 2026. 2. By Aug. 11, 2026, the parties shall meet and confer concerning the preservation, collection, and production of electronically stored information, including the format of production. 3. Any motion to amend the pleadings or add parties shall be filed by Aug. 21, 2026. 4. Phase One discovery shall close on Oct. 23, 2026. Phase One shall focus on the Plaintiff's individual claim, the Defendant's defenses to that claim, and threshold issues concerning the Plaintiff's ability to represent the proposed class. 5. The Defendant may file a dispositive motion directed to the Plaintiff's individual claim by Nov. 24, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file a response by Dec. 8, 2026. 6. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification by Jan. 13, 2027. The Defendant shall file a response by Feb. 3, 2027. 7. The Court will hold a hearing and oral argument on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on Feb. 22, 2027, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10B. The Defendant provides platform that uses AI to automate the process of finding the lowest possible prescription therapies for patients. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NKAtaq at no extra charge.[CC] RXSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- RxSight, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 22, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Makaveev v. RxSight, Inc., et al., No. 8:25-cv-01596. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. It alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding demand for the Company’s products and its financial guidance. On Sept. 16, 2025, a related putative securities class action complaint was filed in the same court against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned G mesi v. RxSight, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02093. On Oct. 6, 2025, the court entered an order consolidating the Makaveev and G mesi actions, appointing a lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel, and re-captioning the case as In re RxSight Securities Litigation, No. 8:25-cv-01596-FWS-KES. A consolidated, amended complaint was filed on Dec. 12, 2025. Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on Feb. 13, 2026. On May 21, 2026, the court issued an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 9, 2026, defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. However, as also disclosed, a related shareholder derivative action has been filed arising out of the same alleged misconduct. The derivative complaint, brought on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and alleged violations of federal securities laws premised on the same statements and omissions at issue in the securities class actions. The derivative plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the benefit of the Company, as well as corporate governance reforms, attorneys' fees, and costs. In addition, government authorities have initiated inquiries relating to the underlying allegations. The Company has received an investigative subpoena from the SEC requesting documents and information concerning its public disclosures, financial guidance, and disclosures regarding demand for its products during the relevant period. The Company is cooperating with the SEC's investigation, which is at an early stage, and no enforcement action has been commenced to date. RxSight, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on developing and commercializing adjustable intraocular lenses for patients undergoing cataract surgery. It offers a proprietary light-adjustable lens system designed to improve visual outcomes and reduce dependence on glasses after surgery. SEABOARD CORP: Pork Antitrust Settlements Reached, DPP Suits Remain ------------------------------------------------------------------- Seaboard Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending July 4, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the parties in the pork antitrust class suit entered into a settlement agreement that is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On June 28, 2018, 12 indirect purchasers of pork products filed a class action complaint in the Minnesota District Court against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods. The complaint named Agri Stats, Inc., as a data-sharing service that allegedly played a role in the information exchange among defendants. After this initial filing, additional class action complaints asserting similar claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the same court. Additional actions by standalone plaintiffs, including an action brought by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, were also filed in or transferred to the Minnesota District Court and were consolidated into In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers additionally assert claims under various state laws. These state law claims include alleged violations of state antitrust statutes, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs request that the court award treble damages under applicable antitrust laws, as well as injunctive relief aimed at preventing continuation or recurrence of the alleged conduct. They further seek pre- and post-judgment interest, along with costs of suit and attorneys' fees as permitted by law. On Oct. 16, 2020, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaints, allowing the litigation to proceed. This ruling kept intact the federal antitrust claims and the various state law causes of action asserted on behalf of indirect purchaser classes. Following further proceedings and motion practice, plaintiffs moved for class certification with respect to the proposed classes of purchasers. On March 3, 2023, the Minnesota District Court granted the plaintiffs' motions to certify the classes for all three classes in the litigation, significantly advancing the case toward further pretrial and potential trial proceedings. In addition to the consolidated class actions, additional standalone "direct action" plaintiffs filed similar actions in federal courts throughout the country, several of which named Seaboard Corporation as a defendant. Those actions filed in courts other than the District of Minnesota have been conditionally transferred to Minnesota for pretrial proceedings pursuant to an order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The states of New Mexico and Alaska filed civil cases in state court against substantially the same defendants, including Seaboard Foods and Seaboard Corporation, based on substantially similar allegations. On June 12, 2023, Seaboard Foods entered into a settlement agreement with the putative direct purchaser plaintiff class (the "DPP Class"). The settlement with the DPP Class did not cover the claims of (a) "direct action" plaintiffs ("DPPs") that opted out of Seaboard's settlement with the DPP Class and are continuing direct actions; (b) other direct purchasers that opted out of the settlement ("Other Opt-Outs") and may in the future file actions against Seaboard; (c) the Commercial and Industrial Indirect Purchaser Class (the "CIIP Class"); or (d) the End User Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (the "EUCP Class"). Subsequent to the settlement with the DPP Class, Seaboard settled with some of the DPPs and Other Opt-Outs. On June 18, 2024, and June 20, 2024, Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the CIIP Class and the EUCP Class, respectively. The settlement with the EUCP Class remains subject to court approval. Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements in the state of Alaska on Aug. 7, 2024; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on Jan. 2, 2025; and the State of New Mexico on Sept. 26, 2025. Seaboard believes that these settlements were in. the best interests of Seaboard and its stakeholders in order to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense, and distraction of protracted litigation. Seaboard continues to litigate against the DPPs it has not settled with, but Seaboard will consider additional reasonable settlements where they are available. On March 31, 2025, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Absent reconsideration or another change in circumstance, cases pending in the Minnesota District Court will proceed to trial, and cases pending in other jurisdictions will be remanded to the courts in which the actions were brought. Seaboard has settled all actions originally brought in the Minnesota District Court. It is uncertain when the Minnesota District Court will remand the cases, including Seaboard's, pending in other jurisdictions or when trials for those cases will be scheduled. Seaboard Corp. is a diversified international agribusiness and transportation company with operations in pork production and processing, commodity trading, and marine shipping. It conducts business through subsidiaries, including Seaboard Foods LLC, and serves customers in the United States and global markets. SEAGATE TECH: Nov. 17 Final Hearing on $70M Securities Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seagate Technology Holdings plc disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending July 3, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California scheduled the securities class suit settlement final approval hearing on Nov. 17, 2026. In re Seagate Technology Holdings plc Securities Litigation. On July 10, 2023, and July 26, 2023, two securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Seagate Technology Holdings plc, Dr. William D. Mosley, and Gianluca Romano. The cases were consolidated on Sept. 25, 2023. On Sept. 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed the currently operative complaint, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and a class period between Sept. 14, 2020, and April 19, 2023, inclusive. On April 3, 2026, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the matter for a total amount of $175 million, approximately $70 million of which will be paid by the Company's insurers. The parties have since executed a stipulation of settlement. The Company recorded a charge of $105 million, which was included in the legal settlement in its Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. On July 7, 2026, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and a final approval hearing will be held on Nov. 17, 2026. Seagate Technology Holdings plc, through its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and sells data storage products and solutions, including hard disk drives and storage systems, serving enterprise, cloud, and consumer customers worldwide. It is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, with significant operational presence in the United States and Asia. SEPHORA USA: Wiretaps Users' Private Info, Smith Says ----------------------------------------------------- DEZANEE SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEPHORA USA, INC., a Michigan Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV202622 (Cal., Super., Alameda Cty., August 3, 2026) is a class action class over Sephora USA Inc.'s use of trackers and cookies to collect Website visitors' identifying information which violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when people visit the Sephora website, Sephora allegedly causes tracking technologies such as cookies and similar trackers from third-party companies including Meta, Google, Contentsquare, Microsoft Advertising, TikTok Ads to be placed on users' web browsers without obtaining their consent. The complaint further alleges that these trackers collect information about users' browsing activity and enable advertisers to repeatedly display advertisements for the same or similar products to those users across the Internet. Plaintiff Smith is a resident of Oakland, California who visited the Website in and around January 2026 to look up product information before her visit to one of Defendant's retail store locations. Sephora USA, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation and owns and operates the website https://www.sephora.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. Mark Potter, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Naomi Butler, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 Email: classactions@potterhandy.com SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suits in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. On March 21, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative securities class action against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the wire insulation shrinkback matter. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, recovery of fees and costs, and other relief that the court may find appropriate. On May 8, 2024, and May 15, 2024, respectively, similar class action complaints were filed in the same court against the Company and certain current and former officers. These later complaints also named as defendants the Company's Board of Directors, as well as the selling stockholders and underwriters of the Company's securities offerings. The complaints collectively allege that defendants made false or misleading statements or omitted material facts relating to the wire insulation shrinkback issue in violation of the federal securities laws. They request unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper, and the Company has begun to incur defense costs associated with these class actions. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. is a provider of electrical balance-of-system solutions for solar energy projects, offering a range of components, systems, and services that optimize solar power installations. It serves utility-scale, commercial, and industrial solar developers and engineering, procurement, and construction firms across the United States and internationally. SINCLAIR INC.: Trial in TV Ad Antitrust MDL Set for Nov. 1, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sinclair, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois scheduled a trial for the TV Ad Antitrust MDL on Nov. 1, 2027. The Company is aware of 22 putative class action lawsuits that were filed against the Company following published reports of the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the broadcast television industry. The actions were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") in October 2018. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices for broadcast television advertising and engaged in unlawful information sharing in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest, as well as injunctive relief. The Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in November 2020. In December 2023, the Court approved settlements between the plaintiffs and four former defendants totaling $48 million; however, the plaintiffs continue to pursue their claims against the Company and the remaining non-settling defendants. During 2025 and 2026, the Court issued various rulings concerning discovery, sanctions, and privilege disputes. In November 2025, the Court imposed monetary sanctions on the Company for certain costs incurred by the plaintiffs in investigating the loss of certain cell phone data, while declining as premature the plaintiffs' request for additional sanctions. In May 2026, the plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement with Griffin Communications, LLC, which remains subject to Court approval. Fact discovery closed on June 1, 2026, and a trial is scheduled for Nov. 1, 2027. The Company continues to believe the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims. Sinclair, Inc. is a diversified media company that owns, operates, and provides services to television stations and digital platforms across the United States. It engages in local news production, sports and entertainment programming, and related advertising and distribution services. SKI-PRO INC: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKI-PRO INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06293 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.skipro.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 8, 2026, in an attempt to purchase an Obermeyer Cirque Insulated Jacket 2026 from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ski-Pro Inc. operates the website that offers outdoor gear and accessories.[BN] 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 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SMART & FINAL: Watson Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY WATSON, individually, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. SMART & FINAL STORES LLC; SMART & FINAL LLC; SMART & FINAL LOGISTICS LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24404 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2026) is a class action seeking damages and equitable relief arising from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. The complaint cites several causes of actions against the Defendants including failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide employment records, failure to provide rest and meal periods and failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements. The Defendants also failed to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failed to reimburse business-related expenses and failed to pay split shift wages, says the suit. Plaintiff Watson is a resident of California and worked as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee for Defendants from on or about June 1, 2005 until on or about January 30, 2026. Smart & Final LLC operate as a chain of warehouse-style grocery stores in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Catny Gonzalez, Esq. Joseph C. Rocha, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1015 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend stockholder class and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Nov. 3, 2023, Daphne Shen, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a proposed class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws, individually and putatively on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company's former CEO, and the Company's former CFO. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. It seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief. On Dec. 13, 2023, Javier Cascallar filed a similar proposed class action. On Jan. 2, 2024, six purported lead plaintiffs filed motions in the Shen litigation seeking to consolidate the Cascallar and Shen litigations. They also moved to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In addition, on March 15, 2024, Abdul Hirani filed a purported derivative complaint (the "Hirani Complaint") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain current and former SolarEdge executive officers and board members, including Zvi Lando, Ronen Faier, Nadav Zafrir, Betsy Atkins, Marcel Gani, Dana Gross, Dirk Hoke, Avery More, and Tal Payne. The Hirani Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. It asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of federal securities laws. SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. is a global provider of smart energy technology, offering inverters, power optimizers, battery storage, and related solutions that manage and optimize solar energy generation and consumption in residential, commercial, and industrial applications. The company serves customers worldwide through its solar, storage, and energy management products and services. SONITOR TECHNOLOGIES: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of reports of a possible Sonitor data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who believe their information may have been put at risk, including current and former patients and staff of medical facilities using Sonitor products and other individuals affiliated with the company. Reports Emerge of Possible Sonitor Technologies Security Incident Sonitor Technologies, a healthcare support company, may have suffered a data breach. According to a July 31, 2026 post on cybersecurity blog BreachSense, ransomware group PEAR claimed to be responsible for the alleged attack and reportedly accessed 560 gigabytes of data from the company. Ransomware.live, another dark web monitoring platform, similarly credited PEAR for the alleged attack on Sonitor, which is estimated to have occurred on July 7, 2026. At the time this post was made, no additional information about the scope or nature of the unconfirmed Sonitor Technologies data breach was available. Sonitor Technologies, a company specializing in real-time location and efficiency technology for patients, staff and equipment, operates in over 300 hospitals and medical clinics worldwide. What You Can Do If you're affiliated with Sonitor and suspect your information may have been exposed, 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 Sonitor to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] SOUTHERN COMPANY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Antitrust Class Suit Filed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Company disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 29, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that a purported class action complaint was filed in July 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against two nuclear consulting companies and all U.S. commercial nuclear power operators, or affiliated entities. The purported class of plaintiffs consists of all persons employed in nuclear power generation by the defendants, including nuclear operators, nuclear engineers, and nuclear technicians, from May 1, 2003, to the present. It alleges that, since at least May 2003, the nuclear power industry conspired to fix and suppress employee compensation for nuclear power generation employees in violation of federal antitrust law. In October 2025, Southern Company moved to dismiss the complaint. In November 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming Southern Nuclear, among others, as a defendant. In December 2025, Southern Company and Southern Nuclear filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Southern Co., based in Atlanta, is a leading U.S. energy company that owns electric and gas utilities and related energy businesses across the Southeast. It provides electric service to millions of customers through its regulated operating companies and invests in generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure. STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep, ERISA Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stifel Financial Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from cash sweep products and ERISA class suits. Beginning in March 2025 in multiple putative class actions filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of customers with cash deposits or balances in the Stifel Insured Bank Deposit Program or the Stifel Insured Bank Deposit Program for Retirement Accounts. The actions were consolidated by the court, and on May 5, 2026, lead counsel appointed by the court filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint asserts various contractual, fiduciary, and statutory claims based on allegations that the Company failed to pay a reasonable rate of interest on its cash sweep products. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages, equitable relief, and treble damages. On July 9, 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. While there can be no assurance that it will be successful, it states that it intends to vigorously defend against the claims. In addition, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors face separate litigation related to the administration of the Company's 401(k) Plan (the Plan). On July 4, 2025 (Dell Complaint) and Feb. 20, 2026 (Striplin Complaint), the Company, the Board, and its investment committee and respective members (together, the Company Defendants) were sued in two separate putative class actions pending in federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The complaints are brought on behalf of the Plan and current and former employees that are members of the Plan, alleging fiduciary violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Amended complaints were filed on Sept. 22, 2025 (Dell), and May 18, 2026 (Striplin). The Dell Complaint alleges the Company Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping and administrative service fees and by failing to prudently monitor and remove one of the Plan's investment options. The Striplin Complaint alleges the Company Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prudently monitor and remove two of the Plan's investment options. The Company Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaints in both Dell and Striplin. Prior to the filing of the Dell Complaint, the Company identified a change in the market pricing of certain record-keeping and administrative fees and a potential underperformance with certain Plan investments. The Company calculated restorative payments, funded the Plan on March 31, 2025, notified the Department of Labor through its Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program, and on Aug. 4, 2025, received a no-action letter from the Department of Labor. The Company Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Dell Complaint. Together, the Dell and Striplin Complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, equitable relief, and plan reformation. The cases are at an early stage, and while there can be no assurance that the Company Defendants will be successful, they state that they intend to vigorously defend these cases. Stifel Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services holding company that provides wealth management, institutional brokerage, investment banking, trading, and related financial services to individual and institutional clients. It operates through a network of financial advisors and institutional professionals across the United States and in select international markets. SUNRISE MFG: Romero Sues for Employment Law Violation ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against SUNRISE MFG, INC., A CORPORATION, et al. The case is captioned as Margo Romero, on behalf of those similarly situated, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. SUNRISE MFG, INC., A CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 26CV016574 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 8, 2026). The suit is brought over Defendants' employment law violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Julie G. Yap. An initial case management conference is scheduled for May 11, 2027. Sunrise Mfg, Inc. is an American manufacturer of dunnage materials, load securement solutions, and transit protection products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aidin D. Ghavimi, Esq. STARPOINT, LC 15233 Ventura Blvd, PH16 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-2291 SUZUKI MOTOR: 9th Cir. Affirms Jackson Brake Class Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of DVAUGHN JACKSON; ABRAHAM VAZQUEZ; MORONI RODRIGUEZ; FABIO DE MELLO; ALLEN CLARK; LORI MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and DEANDRE RASHAD COOK, GUADALUPE JAVIER HERNANDEZ, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-723 (9th Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' putative class action against Suzuki. The Plaintiffs appeal the district court's dismissal. They alleged that they purchased Suzuki motorcycles and experienced problems with the brakes, specifically in the front brake master cylinder ("FBMC"). The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, accepting well-pleaded allegations as true and drawing inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor. It reviewed denials of leave to amend and motions for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. First, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for failing to plausibly allege a cause of action. The plaintiffs alleged that a common design defect in Suzuki motorcycles' FBMCs caused corrosion and brake failures. However, their complaint did not identify the specific defect or explain how it caused the alleged failures. The Court also found that the Plaintiffs' theory of ongoing corrosion did not plausibly show wrongdoing by Suzuki, which had taken steps to address corrosion through two FBMC recalls. The Ninth Circuit therefore held that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was appropriate. Second, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. It found that the district court did not apply an improper pleading standard, and the Plaintiffs failed to identify any intervening change in controlling law or previously unavailable evidence. The Court also found that the Plaintiffs had waived their argument regarding privileged investigations by failing to raise it before the district court. Third, the Ninth Circuit held that the Plaintiffs had waived their challenge to the denial of leave to amend. The Plaintiffs made only a "bare assertion" that the district court erred, without developing the argument in their briefs. Even if the issue had not been waived, the Court found no abuse of discretion in denying them a fifth opportunity to amend because they offered no new information about expert reports or how those reports would cure the deficiencies in the Third Amended Complaint. Finally, the Ninth Circuit declined to address the parties' remaining arguments because its resolution of the issues was dispositive. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://lnk.ua/GalLHDBiL SWEAT EQUITY: Dar Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Cert Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAITLIN DARR, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. SWEAT EQUITY GROUP LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01390-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct class discovery. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is also authorized to serve Rule 45 subpoenas relevant third parties, including telecommunications carriers, text messaging platforms, and marketing vendors, for discovery of evidence sufficient to: (a) identify putative class members; (b) establish the numerosity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1); (c) determine the scope and nature of the Defendant's TCPA violations; and (d) calculate classwide statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. section 227. The Plaintiff shall complete all class discovery and file either a motion for class certification or a status report regarding the discovery obtained on or before Nov. 3, 2026. The Defendant offers a range of wellness services focused on recovery and relaxation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NWBPGt at no extra charge.[CC] TENNESSEE: Seeks Leave to File Docs and Exhibits Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, ET AL., v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ET AL., Case No. 3:24-cv-00777 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order permitting them leave to file portions of DCS Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel and corresponding Exhibits under seal. DCS Defendants' present request is narrowly tailored to protect the same types of information and to comply with Local Rule 5.03. Defendant DCS's public, redacted versions of its response, where feasible, omits only the specific text that discloses confidential youth-identifying information, medical or educational details, placement histories, case-specific identifiers, and other materials designated "Confidential" or "Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the Discovery Protective Orders. Unredacted versions will be submitted provisionally under seal contemporaneously with this motion, and DCS will file supporting materials identifying with particularity the portions proposed for sealing. Tennessee is a landlocked state in the U.S. South. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9fU9se at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kasi Wautlet, Esq. Jonathan Tepe, Esq. David McNamee, Esq. David Tracey, Esq. Shannon Henris, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7000 E-mail: kwautlet@sanfordheisler.com jtepe@sanfordheisler.com dmcnamee@sanfordheisler.com dtracey@sanfordheisler.com shenris@sanfordheisler.com - and - Jack Derryberry, Jr., Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS TENNESSEE 2 International Plaza, Suite 825 Nashville, TN 37217 Telephone: (615) 298-1080 E-mail: jackd@disabilityrightstn.org - and - Jasmine Miller, Esq. Stuart Seaborn, Esq. Diane Smith Howard, Esq. Christopher Middleton, Esq. YOUTH LAW CENTER 832 Folsom Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 413-0174 E-mail: jmiller@ylc.org sseaborn@ylc.org dsmith@ylc.org cmiddleton@ylc.org The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan P. Lakey, Esq. Reagan Taylor Fondren, Esq. Sarah E. Stuart, Esq. Cherylann M. Pasha, Esq. BURCH, PORTER & JOHNSON, PLLC 130 North Court Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 524-5000 Facsimile: (901) 524-5024 E-mail: jlakey@bpjlaw.com rfondren@bpjlaw.com sstuart@bpjlaw.com cpasha@bpjlaw.com - and - Jay C. Ballard, Esq. OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL Nashville, TN 37202 E-mail: Jay.Ballard@ag.tn.gov TEXAS ROTISSERIE: Romero Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Olivos Romero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. B&M #1 US CORP d/b/a TEXAS ROTISSERIE & GRILL, BROADWAY CHICKEN & GRILL, INC. d/b/a TEXAS ROTISSERIE, RAJ PAUL, and MEDHAT SHEHATA, Case No. 1:26-cv-06539 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an invalid tip credit; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; illegally retained tips; unpaid overtime premiums, due to compensation at a straight time rate; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff with the proper overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not compensating Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members for all earned overtime wages in accordance with the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of paying Plaintiff and Class Members below the applicable minimum wage rates in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a delivery man. B&M #1 US CORP d/b/a TEXAS ROTISSERIE & GRILL is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-118 TIDALHEALTH INC: Purnell Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Shorica Purnell, individually and for others similarly situated v. TIDALHEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02973-ABA (D. Md., July 30, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"). the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked. Instead, the Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for so called "meal breaks" (the Defendant's "auto-deduction policy"). Thus, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for that time. But the Defendant regularly fails to provide or make available bona fide 30-minute meal breaks to the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees. Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and its other Hourly Employees to remain on duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts and/or subjects them to work interruptions during unpaid "meal breaks." Additionally, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration—for hours worked after 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including sign-on bonuses and shift bonuses, that it excludes from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (the Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). the Defendant's auto-deduction policy and bonus pay scheme violate the FLSA and MWHL, by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at the required rates for all hours worked, including overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a registered nurse (RN) since August 2023. TidalHealth touts itself as "a unified network of care across Delmarva encompassing the former Peninsula Regional Health System."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 5847 San Felipe St, Ste 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St, Ste 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com TRAJECTOR HOLDINGS: Bankruptcy Filing Halts Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Mordowanec, writing for Military.com, reports that a federal class-action lawsuit accusing a medical company of deceptive practices and upcharging disabled veterans up to $20,000 for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits is halted due to the company filing for bankruptcy. Trajector Holdings, LLC and 21 affiliated entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 23, in the midst of a pending nationwide class-action lawsuit filed by the law firm Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz. Trajector is accused of excessively charging disabled veterans for VA disability claims assistance that federal law requires be provided free of charge. Court records show the company's estimated liabilities significantly exceed its assets, according to the suit. Military.com previously reported how the Pensacola, Fla.-headquartered firm filed the class-action case on April 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Florida-based companies Trajector, Inc. and Trajector Medical, LLC, performed services on veterans’ behalf, such as assistance with the preparation of VA disability claims, without proper VA accreditation and in violation of federal law. The 58-page complaint accuses Trajector of charging exorbitant fees that go beyond what can be charged by VA accredited representatives who assist with claim preparation, ranging between $4,500 to more than $20,000. But the bankruptcy filing triggers an automatic stay that halts the class action in the Northern District of Florida. That is, unless a bankruptcy judge permits it to proceed and pulls veterans who claim they were unlawfully charged for VA claims assistance out of a jury trial and into bankruptcy proceedings. "Bankruptcy doesn't erase what Trajector did. It also doesn't mean that our claims just go away," Jennifer Byrd, head of AWKO’s VA disability practice, told Military.com. "Everything for the class action is stayed, pending what happens in the bankruptcy. A lot of the questions that all of us have will be answered by the bankruptcy judge or the trustee. "What we want veterans to know is that all those veterans who pay Trajector to prepare their disability claims now should have current claims as unsecured creditors in bankruptcy, and we can ask questions, provide guidance to anyone who wants to kind of get in that arena as a creditor veteran. We want to make sure that their rights are protected." If the bankruptcy gets thrown out as illegitimate, Byrd said that disaffected veterans move right back into being protected through class actions. But if not, they need to be there within the bankruptcy and have a voice with the bankruptcy judge. "[If] you look at the gross revenue versus what they say their actual debts are, there should be money for these veterans that Trajector has used and basically stolen money," Byrd added. "Unfortunately, Trajector is not going to provide us [with] a list of all the affected veterans, so we need to get the word out there to let these veterans know that there is this possibility as unsecured creditors in the bankruptcy. "At the end of the day, this is all about protecting veterans and protecting the integrity of the VA system -- and making sure that anyone that Trajector's harmed gets their day in court. If that's within the bankruptcy court, so be it. We obviously would prefer not to have it go that route, but either way, we need these veterans to know that there's a possibility for them to be unsecured creditors." Trajector's Defense When Military.com originally reported the filing of the class-action lawsuit in April, Trajector spokesperson Steve Zenofsky told Military.com that the company doesn't file VA claims; rather, it allegedly charges fees only for independent medical evidence that veterans ask them to prepare. He touted the company's Google ratings and reviews, adding that veterans only pay the company if their VA disability benefits increase based on the evidence Trajector helps them develop. "The complaint is without merit, and the company intends to defend itself vigorously," Zenofsky said at the time. Military.com asked Zenofsky about whether the timing of the bankruptcy filing is intentional given the ongoing class-action lawsuit, which Byrd said has no finite number of veterans but estimates it's "in the hundreds, if not thousands." Zenofsky referred Military.com to a company statement issued July 23. Trajector said it voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, as a mode of financial restructuring that allows the company "to address liquidity and debt pressures, while continuing to operate throughout the process, and support its long-term stability." "This restructuring is a strategic step to strengthen our financial position so we can continue carrying out our mission: helping Americans with disabilities pursue the benefits for which they qualify for," CEO James S. Hill, II said in prepared remarks. "Our team remains focused on taking care of our clients, and we believe this process will help us build a stronger financial base for the future." Mark C. Healy, Trajector's chief restructuring officer, said that following a review of all options, it was "determined that Chapter 11 restructuring was the best path to continue operating and preserve value for stakeholders." Trajector's 'Texas Two-Step' From the perspective of Byrd and the plaintiffs, Trajector's timing and explanation doesn't carry much legal weight. "I won't say that it's unusual," Byrd said. "It is a little bit of a surprise in this particular instance because Trajector Holdings, I think they grossed like $279 million last year. And in their bankruptcy filing, they specifically were talking about this secured loan that they have that's like $62, almost $63 million. The vast difference in how much they made versus what they're claiming is their biggest secured debt." VA Role and Legal Limbo Unfortunately, Byrd said, the veterans seeking some type of financial reprieve in this case must wait for the legal chips to fall. There is no timetable for when the bankruptcy case will be heard. Asked about the VA's role in all of this, as it's their claims being allegedly exploited by Trajector, Byrd said the VA is not explicity linked to either the class-action suit or the new bankruptcy matter. However, the VA in the past has sent cease-and-desist letters and has talked about so-called "claim sharks" using veterans for their own financial gain. "I'm an accredited agent with the VA," Byrd said. "You can go to the OGC's (Office of General Counsel) website, look my name up. You can do that for accredited CSOs, and the VA has been really vocal about that and pretty good at sending the mailings. "But that's as far as they've been able to go because they've had no teeth, because there's no law. To be able to do anything about it as far as the class actions and the bankruptcy go, they wouldn't have anything to do with it. But from what I can understand, the people at the VA that I have talked to -- they're very interested in seeing what happens because they know the harm that these companies have caused to veterans." [GN] TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ TransMedics Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On Feb. 14, 2025, a class action captioned Jewik v. TransMedics Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10385, was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint purported to assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's shares between Feb. 28, 2023, and Jan. 10, 2025 (the "Class Period"). On April 2, 2025, another purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, also in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Collins v. TransMedics Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10778). The Collins complaint alleged claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Jewik action and also sought unspecified damages. On May 22, 2025, the court consolidated the Jewik and Collins actions and appointed the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia and Oguzhan Altun as lead plaintiffs (the "Lead Plaintiffs"). On Aug. 8, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. Like the earlier-filed complaints, the consolidated amended complaint purports to assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's shares during the Class Period. Lead Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages allegedly caused by purported misstatements and omissions contained in the Company's 2022 Annual Report, certain earnings calls, and other public statements. The consolidated amended complaint claims these alleged statements and omissions operated to artificially inflate the price paid for the Company's common stock during the Class Period. On Oct. 7, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Lead Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion on Nov. 21, 2025, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion on Dec. 22, 2025. The court heard oral argument on defendants' motion on July 9, 2026, and on July 21, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The case is proceeding to discovery, and defendants' answer to the consolidated amended complaint is due on Aug. 18, 2026. At each reporting date, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the class action litigation or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses. The Company expenses as incurred the costs related to such legal proceedings. TransMedics Group, Inc. is a medical technology company that develops and commercializes organ care systems designed to improve the viability and availability of donor organs for transplantation. It focuses on systems for heart, lung, and liver transplantation to enhance clinical outcomes and expand patient access to life-saving procedures. TRIVEST PARTNERS: Class Settlement in Hall Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON HALL, et al., v. TRIVEST PARTNERS, L.P., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-12743-FKB-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge F. Kay Behm entered an order granting motion to prelimarily approve class action settlement with Defendant Waller. The Agreement, including all its terms and conditions, is preliminarily approved as fair, just, reasonable and adequate, subject to further consideration at a Fairness Hearing. 2. For purposes of settlement only, the court conditionally certifies the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The court further finds that all the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (e)(1) are satisfied. Aaron Hall, Katherine Glod, and Jeffrey Binder are appointed as representatives of the Settlement Class, and Nicholas A. Coulson and Julia Prescott are appointed as Class Counsel. 3. The court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC as Settlement Administrator. The Administrator shall perform all duties set out in the Agreement as established therein 4. The court approves the form of the Class Notice and directs that the Administrator shall serve same upon the Settlement Class in compliance with the Agreement. 5. The Final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for Dec. 2, 2026 at 2:00PM. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a Settlement Class consisting of: "All persons in the United States who purchased a home solar system from Power Home Solar, LLC (including d/b/a Pink Energy) at any time since Aug. 1, 2018." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendant, any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, and the Defendant's insurer(s); (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Litigation and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly excludes themselves from the Settlement. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated RICO through their management and operation of PHS/PE through a pattern of racketeering activity. The Complaint alleges a fraudulent scheme designed to lure unsuspecting consumers into purchasing home solar systems to be designed, installed, and sold by PHS/PE, carried out by the defendants through multiple uses of the mail and wires. Trivest Partners is a private equity firm. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KEbHOH at no extra charge.[CC] UL SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Martucci Class Suit in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- UL Solutions Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Martucci class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On Feb. 11, 2026, a putative class action complaint was filed against UL LLC, UL Solutions Inc., UL Standards and Engagement, and UL Research Institutes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is captioned "John Martucci, on behalf of himself and the Putative Class v. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01561." The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain combination-listed single-database burglar and fire alarm system control units tested by the defendants have defects that were concealed from and/or not disclosed to consumers. It further alleges that these alarm systems were listed as compliant with UL and National Fire Protection Association 72 standards when they were not compliant with such standards. The complaint seeks an order certifying a nationwide class and a New Jersey subclass. It also seeks compensatory, actual, treble, statutory, punitive, and/or other damages, along with equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement of profits. In addition, the complaint requests injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and pre- and post-judgment interest. It further seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company currently believes that the claims asserted in this putative class action are without merit. It has not reported any settlement, judgment, or other resolution of the matter as of the disclosed date. The Company continues to evaluate the complaint and its potential exposure in connection with these proceedings. UL Solutions Inc. is a global safety science company that provides testing, inspection, certification, and related services to help customers demonstrate safety, security, and sustainability. It serves a broad range of industries worldwide, including consumer products, industrial systems, and built environments. ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICAL: Keeps Defending Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated Aug. 4, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Bailey class, stockholder derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In February 2026, Steven Bailey filed a putative class action on behalf of certain of its stockholders against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Medical Officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleging that the Company made false and misleading statements regarding the design and prospects of the UX143 Orbit and Cosmic clinical trials. It alleges that investors were misled about the clinical trials' characteristics and future potential under the federal securities laws. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of the putative class of stockholders. It remains a putative class action, and no class has yet been certified by the court. The Company and the individual defendants intend to defend the action, and the outcome of the matter, including the amount of any potential loss or range of loss, cannot be predicted at this stage. In March 2026, a putative stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint named the members of the Company's Board of Directors, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Medical Officer as defendants, with the Company named as a nominal defendant. The complaint includes allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and gross mismanagement in connection with the UX143 Orbit and Cosmic clinical trials. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of the Company. Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing novel therapies for rare and ultra-rare genetic diseases. It concentrates on serious conditions with high unmet medical need, leveraging biologics and small-molecule approaches. UNIFI AVIATION: Honroth Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Philip Honroth, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. UNIFI AVIATION, LLC; AIRCO AVIATION SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 26-00002-19115-8 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02694. The Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of hourly non-exempt employees in Washington. Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against Plaintiff and Class Members," and repeatedly alleges that Defendants engaged in a "common course" of conduct.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1650 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (425) 521-5121 Fax: (818) 265-1021 Email: joanna@calljustice.com The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Matthew Coughlan, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.696 Email: bsmartell@littler.com mcoughlan@littler.com UNITED NATURAL FOODS: Martinez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED NATURAL FOODS WEST, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 26-2-20643-1 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02679. The Plaintiff alleges that he personally served UNFI with his "request for a copy of his personnel file and signed written statement regarding his discharge and notice of intent to sue." The Plaintiff further alleges that UNFI "did not provide Plaintiff or Plaintiff's designee with a copy of Plaintiff's complete personnel file within 21 calendar days of [his] request" and "did not provide Plaintiff with a signed written statement stating the effective date of discharge, whether the employer had a reason for the discharge, and if so, the reasons within 21 calendar days of Plaintiff's request" in violation of RCW.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Damon C. Elder, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: damon.elder@morganlewis.com UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Reedy Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as GAITHAN REEDY, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS HOLDINGS, INC. and TEAM COMPANY d/b/a STAFFQUICK, Defendants, Case No. 2026-LA-0000130, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Peoria County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois on July 27, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01319-JEH-RLH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's putative class action complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of asking employees and/or prospective employees to provide their family medical histories as a condition of employment, as part of Defendants' hiring process for certain positions. Universal Logistics Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded holding company providing transportation and logistics solutions.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason A. Selvey, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 150 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 787-4949 E-mail: Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Owens Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID OWENS, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00736-DRC (S.D. Ohio, July 27, 2026) arises out of Defendant Unlimited's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. On October 19, 2025, the Defendant discovered unauthorized activity within their commercial datacenter. Upon discovering the unauthorized activity, Unlimited hired a cybersecurity forensic firm to conduct an investigation, notified law enforcement, and conducted a review of the data involved. Through this investigation, they determined that an unauthorized actor may have obtained a copy of some of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information between October 5 and October 10, 2025. The complaint asserts that the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information with which it was entrusted for treatment. In addition, the Defendant failed to properly monitor the computer network and systems that housed the private information. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring funded by Defendant. Unlimited Technology Systems LLC is a health technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Saunders Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ----------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00732-DRC (S.D. Ohio., July 26, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. As part of its business, and in order to gain profits, the Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect the personal information of Plaintiff and the Class. The complaint alleges that Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. Due to Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come, says the suit. Unlimited Technology Systems, LLC is a software company that provides practice management software to various healthcare organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com UPBOUND GROUP: McBurnie Class Action Settled, Paid in Full ---------------------------------------------------------- Upbound Group, Inc. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that a class action filed by a certain plaintiff McBurnie was settled in 2025 and that the settlement was fully paid in April 2026. Upbound Group, Inc. is a provider of lease-to-own and flexible retail solutions through brands including Rent-A-Center and Acima. It offers consumers alternative options to acquire household durable goods, technology products, and other merchandise through both in-store and virtual channels across the United States and select international markets. UPSTART HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class and derivative suits. On July 26, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Crain lawsuit claims unspecified damages and legal fees. On Aug. 16, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel in the Crain action. On Dec. 5, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which names the same defendants as the previous complaint, along with two Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC and its managing partner (also a former Upstart board member). The consolidated amended complaint brings the same claims as the previous complaint but adds a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. On Feb. 24, 2023, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On Sept. 29, 2023, the Court issued an order, granting in part and denying in part the Upstart defendants' motion and granting the motion filed by Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC. On Nov. 7, 2023, the Upstart defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on Aug. 5, 2024. On Feb. 2, 2024, Lead Plaintiff, Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, and plaintiffs, Kathy Brooks and Kevin Crain, filed a motion for an order to certify this matter, now captioned In re Upstart Holdings Securities Litigation, as a class action, appoint themselves as class representatives, and approve their selection of Motley Rice LLC and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-class counsel, which motion the Court granted on March 27, 2025. On Dec. 6, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, which the Court granted on Sept. 29, 2025. The first amended complaint adds back as defendants Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC. On Nov. 14, 2025, Third Point LLC, its CEO, Third Point Ventures LLC, and its managing partner moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them in the first amended complaint, which motion plaintiffs opposed on Jan. 8, 2026. On Jan. 29, 2026, Third Point LLC, its CEO, Third Point Ventures LLC, and its managing partner filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. No hearing has been set on the motion to dismiss. The Company believes the remaining claims in the action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. On July 28, 2022, a derivative lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned OConnor v. Huber et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02961-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). The OConnor action includes allegations similar to those in the Crain complaint and names as defendants each of the Company's current board members and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The OConnor action includes claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. It seeks unspecified monetary damages and an accounting from the individual defendants. The OConnor action also seeks unspecified corporate governance and internal procedure modifications, punitive damages, and legal fees. On Oct. 7, 2022, a second derivative lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Chung v. Huber et al., No. 2:22-cv-03620-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio). The Chung action includes allegations similar to those in the OConnor complaint, and names as defendants each of the Company's current board members, a former board member, and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Chung action includes claims for violation of Section 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The Chung action seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney's fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On Dec. 12, 2022, in response to a joint motion by the parties, the Court consolidated the OConnor and Chung matters, appointed co-lead counsel, and stayed the consolidated case until resolution of the related securities class action. On April 24, 2024, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint includes allegations similar to those in the initial complaint in the OConnor action, and names the same defendants as the initial complaint, along with an additional Company executive and another former board member. The amended complaint brings the same claims as the initial complaint in the OConnor action but adds claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, and for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. The amended complaint seeks similar relief to that sought in the initial complaint in the OConnor action. The matter remains stayed until resolution of the class action. On Feb. 3, 2023, a third derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Hsu v. Girouard, et al., 1:23-cv-00132-UNA (D. Del.). The Hsu action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio and names as defendants each of the Company's current board members, a former board member, and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Hsu action includes claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as breach of fiduciary duties and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney's fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On Feb. 16, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Hsu action until resolution of the related securities class action. On March 8, 2023, a fourth derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, captioned Sornchai et al. v. Girouard, et al., 1:23-cv-00253-MN (D. Del). The Sornchai action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio and names as defendants each of the Company's current board members, a former board member, its Chief Financial Officer, and a Company executive. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Sornchai action includes claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act; breach of fiduciary duties; breach of fiduciary duty through misappropriation of material non-public information; and unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On March 24, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Sornchai action until resolution of the related securities class action. On April 5, 2023, a fifth derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Okhai v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0401-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Okhai action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio and names as defendants the Company’s current board members, two former board members, its Chief Financial Officer, and two current or former Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Okhai action includes claims for breach of fiduciary, aiding and abetting such alleged breaches, and unjust enrichment, and seeks equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. On Aug. 3, 2023, in response to a motion to stay by the defendants in the Okhai action, the Court stayed the Okhai action until resolution of the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action. Following the issuance of the Sept. 29, 2023, order on the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action, on Nov. 16, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Okhai action until resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the Sept. 29, 2023, order on the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action. Following denial of the motion for reconsideration in the related securities class action, the parties in the Okhai action finished briefing and argued the defendants' motion to continue the stay. On Oct. 24, 2024, the Court continued the stay until Feb. 1, 2025. On Jan. 31, 2025, the parties submitted to the Court a proposed schedule for briefing Defendants' motion to continue the stay. On April 11, 2025, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court ordered that the case remain stayed pending plaintiffs filing a consolidated amended complaint on May 7, 2025, after which Defendants filed a renewed motion to stay. On Oct. 13, 2023, a sixth derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Romanyshyn v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1029-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Romanyshyn action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio and names as defendants current and former directors and Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO, and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Romanyshyn action includes claims for breach of fiduciary, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On Nov. 3, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Romanyshyn action pending the outcome of the motion to stay in the related Okhai derivative action. Subsequent developments are discussed below. On Oct. 24, 2023, a seventh derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Agarwal v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1075-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Agarwal action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants current and former directors and Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO, and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Agarwal action includes claims for breach of fiduciary, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney's fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On Nov. 3, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Agarwal action pending the outcome of the motion to stay in the related Okhai derivative action. Subsequent developments are discussed below. On Nov. 22, 2024, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court consolidated the Okhai, Romanyshyn, and Agarwal matters under the consolidated caption In re Upstart Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2023-0401-BWD, and appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On May 7, 2025, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint names as plaintiffs Evan Levitan and Charlie Romanyshyn and removes plaintiffs Okhai and Agarwal. The consolidated amended complaint includes allegations similar to those in the initial Okhai complaint and names the same defendants as the initial Okhai complaint, along with the CEO of Third Point LLC. The consolidated amended complaint brings the same claims as the initial Okhai complaint and seeks similar relief. On June 4, 2025, Defendants filed a renewed motion to stay, which the Court granted on Aug. 25, 2025. Given the uncertainty of litigation described above, the preliminary stage of the cases, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. Upstart Holdings, Inc. is a financial technology company that operates a cloud-based artificial intelligence lending platform connecting consumers, banks, and credit unions. It uses machine learning models to underwrite and price credit, aiming to expand access to affordable credit while reducing risk and costs for its lending partners. USFREIGHTMASTER LLC: Faces Le Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- TERRY LE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USFREIGHTMASTER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-08285 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2026) is a putative class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant allegedly engages in telemarketing calls without transmitting caller identification information. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. USFreightMaster LLC is a Washington limited liability company with its headquarters located in Yelm, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com VALASSIS DIRECT MAIL: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lilia Garcia, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALASSIS DIRECT MAIL, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV15780 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08394. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts 7 causes of action against Defendant: Minimum Wages; Overtime; Meal Periods; Rest Break Violations; Itemized Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties: all in Violation of Cal. Labor Codes and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lilah Wylde, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: lwylde@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com VALLEY HUNT CLUB: Alberto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Valley Hunt Club, et al. The case is styled as Lorena Alberto, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Valley Hunt Club, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV24027 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case General Jurisdiction)." The Valley Hunt Club -- https://www.valleyhuntclub.com/ -- is a members-only country club with a pool, fitness center, snack bar, and opportunities for tennis.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N. Madison Ave., 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law VANCOUVER COLLEGE: $30M School Abuse Class Settlement Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- City News Everywhere reports that the B.C. Supreme Court has approved a $30-million settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed over historical claims of physical, psychological and sexual abuse at two schools in Metro Vancouver run by the Catholic Church. The court approved the settlement against Vancouver College and St. Thomas More Collegiate and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver. The lawsuit alleged members of the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada were transferred to the schools from the Mount Cashel orphanage in St. John's, N.L., which became "notorious" for abuse suffered by children there in the 1950s to the 1970s. The court ruling approving the settlement says four of the people transferred to Vancouver were eventually criminally convicted when the crimes at Mount Cashel were exposed in the 1990s, including defendants Edward English and Kevin Short. The ruling says more than 200 people came forward to join the class, and Justice Simon Coval's ruling says he had "no hesitation" approving the $30-million settlement, which includes a "trauma-informed" and confidential claims process that spares the difficulties of a trial. The ruling says the claims of abuse at Vancouver College spanned from 1976 to 2013 and from 1976 to 1989 at St. Thomas More. The case was originally filed in 2021, with the class certified in 2023, and though it was set to got to trial in 2024, it was adjourned for a potential settlement, which was reached in February 2026 subject to the court's approval. Former students, the ruling said, "described suffering and witnessing sexual, physical and mental abuse at the schools, resulting in mental health challenges, relationship and employment difficulties, substance abuse and loss of faith." It said most didn't object to the settlement, but "many expressed disappointment in the settling defendants' apparent lack of accountability and moral responsibility for the terrible events allowed to occur at the two schools." The schools, however, said they made public statements expressing "profound concern and sympathy for victims of this abuse." The Archbishop of Vancouver also put statements into evidence expressing "outrage and discouragement from the failure of church leaders to prevent this abuse, covering it up by moving abusers around, lack of care and concern for the victims, and a commitment to supporting victims on the path to healing." Several class members also elected to opt out of the settlement in order to pursue their own individual lawsuits against the defendants. [GN] VASSAR COLLEGE: Agrees to Settle Pay Equity Class Action for $5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Whitford, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that Vassar College agreed to a $5 million settlement in a class action lawsuit brought by women full professors who alleged they were paid less than their equally qualified male colleagues, Equal Rights Advocates, a nonprofit legal and advocacy organization that represented the women, announced in a news release, July 31. The settlement fund will compensate 84 professors; Vassar also agreed to implement several pay equity reforms as part of the deal. Going forward, the former women's college will make criteria and methods for compensation decisions more transparent, according to the news release. "This step reflects years of efforts by women faculty members at Vassar, first privately and then in court, to get Vassar to eliminate a gender-based pay gap of which the college has long been aware," Catherine Bendor, director of litigation at Equal Rights Advocates and co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in the release. "Our clients worked hard to achieve justice not only for themselves and their colleagues, but for all future women professors. We hope the terms of the proposed settlement, and the experience of this lawsuit, will result in Vassar appropriately recognizing the contributions of all of its women faculty." Vassar will also commission a third party to conduct annual pay equity audits of full professor compensation -- something the college is already doing, according to a public message from Board of Trustees chair Sharon Davidson Chang. "I want to reaffirm the Board of Trustees' and the College's unwavering commitment to pay equity," she wrote. "Our rigorous, ongoing review of faculty evaluation and compensation practices has reinforced that commitment, strengthened our processes, and will continue to advance fairness, transparency, and institutional excellence at Vassar in the years ahead." [GN] VERDUGO RESTAURANT: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verdugo Restaurant Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Daniela Gomez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Verdugo Restaurant Corporation, Specialty Restaurants Corporation, Does 1- 100, inclusive Case No. 26STCV23967 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 29, 2026). Verdugo Restaurant Corporation is a premier dining establishment located in the heart of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Margaret-Crystal Zeytounian, Esq. AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1720 Encino, California 91436 Phone: (855) 463-4733 Email: Maggie@baalaw.com VERSANT MEDIA: Court Compels Arbitration in "Rada" -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Alla Rada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Versant Media, LLC and E! Entertainment Television, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-10679 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. This was a putative class action in which the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleged violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff visited the eonline website, owned by Versant Media, LLC, at least once in November 2024 to browse news and entertainment articles. Starting on October 29, 2025, when users first accessed any page on the website, they were immediately met with a cookie banner with hyperlinks to terms and privacy policies. The banner stated that by continuing, the user agreed to the terms. Within the hyperlinked terms on the cookie banner, the terms of service included an arbitration provision. The first paragraph stated that certain disputes must be resolved through mandatory binding arbitration and precluded users from leading or participating in a class action. The agreement to arbitrate provided that either party may initiate binding arbitration as the sole means to resolve disputes and further agreed that arbitrable disputes included issues arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, formation, or performance of the arbitration agreement. Moreover, the agreement included a class action waiver that prohibited class or collective actions. The Court found that the Plaintiff unambiguously manifested assent through conduct that a reasonable person would understand to constitute assent. According to the Court, the website banner signaling that by continuing, a user agreed to the terms meant that the Plaintiff's continued use of the website qualified as assent under the reasonable person standard. The Court held that the Plaintiff's actions of continuing to browse the website and conduct normal use created an unambiguous manifestation of assent. Additionally, the Court determined that there was sufficient notice of the contractual terms presented to the Plaintiff. Indeed, the Plaintiff did not challenge whether she had reasonably conspicuous notice of the hyperlinked terms of service. Upon careful examination, the Court noted that neither party contested the scope of the arbitration agreement. Because the Court determined that the Plaintiff unambiguously assented to the terms, it referred the claims to arbitration. Regarding the procedural outcome, the Court concluded that a stay would allow the Court, at a later stage, to address any claim or lingering issue not resolved in arbitration. Therefore, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the case pending arbitration. The parties were ordered to file a joint status report every 90 days regarding the status of arbitration, starting A copy of the Court's decision dated July 31, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=05UUXn from PacerMonitor.com VERSAR DATA SOLUTIONS: Hudson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hunter Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VERSAR DATA SOLUTIONS INC, Case No. 26-2-20653-8 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02678. The Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action against Versar in the Complaint for putative violations of Colo. Rev. Stat. (the "PTFA"). The Plaintiff purports to represent a putative class asserting claims under the PTFA and defines this putative class as: "all Colorado residents whose cell phone numbers were listed by Versium without their affirmative consent during the applicable statute of limitations period."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, WSBA no. 59991 EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, New York Phone: 646.837.7127 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10106 Phone: (914) 874-0708 Email: mgirardi@bursor.com - and – Donna M. Chamberlin, Esq. Tanish Sudarsham, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: Donna.Chamberlin@lewisbrisbois.com Tanish.Sudarshan@lewisbrisbois.com The Defendants are represented by: Kate M. Geyer, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 100 SW Main Street, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503.290.2322 Email: Kate.Geyer@troutman.com VICOR CORP: Moore Sues Over Unjust Removal from Board of Directors ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH MOORE, Plaintiff v. VICOR CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2026-1011- (Del. Ch., August 3, 2026) is a class action seeking declaratory relief arising from Plaintiff Moore's removal as director which violates section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, Delaware common law and Delaware public policy. According to the complaint, the Defendant adopted and maintained certain provision of its bylaws that authorizes the Company's directors to remove other directors with or without cause of the majority stockholders. Contrary to Delaware law and DGCL, stockholders are given the exclusive authority to remove directors, says the suit. Plaintiff Moore is a stockholder of Vicor Corporation. Victor Corp. designs, develops, and produces prepackaged computer software. The Company serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. BRIAN MURRAY LAW PLLC 750 E. Main Street, Suite 620 Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (203) 883-2170 Email: bmurray@brianmurraylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: (44) 20 3174 0365 Email: werner@kranenburgesq.com VICTORIA'S SECRET: Gallardo Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hugo Gallardo and Brittany Amacker, individuals on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV15013 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08338. The Plaintiffs assert claims under the California Labor code for: an alleged failure to pay minimum wages; an alleged failure to pay overtime wages; an alleged failure to provide meal periods; an alleged failure to provide rest periods; an alleged failure to reimburse business expenses; an alleged failure to pay wages when due; and an alleged failure to pay sick pay wages. The Plaintiffs also assert a claim for unfair competition pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Phillip J. Eskenazi, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. Michelle S. Solarczyk, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: peskenazi@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com msolarczyk@bakerlaw.com VIGILANT ASSET PROTECTION: Rojas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vigilant Asset Protection LLC, et al. The case is styled as Carlos Rojas, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Vigilant Asset Protection LLC, Vigilant AP Inc., Case No. 26STCV23969 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Vigilant Asset Protection -- https://vigilantap.com/ -- is a private security firm specializing in professional loss prevention services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq. BLACKSTONE PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-361-0599 Email: bdc@blackstonepc.com VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION: Barbery Files Suit in D. Rhode Island -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virginia Transportation Company. The case is styled as Sean Barbery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Virginia Transportation Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00522 (D.R.I., July 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Virginia Transportation Corp. -- https://www.virginiatransportation.com/ -- provides trucking transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kensley R. Barrett, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENSLEY R. BARRETT 572 Washington Street, Unit 21 Wellesley, MA 02482 Phone: (401) 601-8646 Fax: (617) 904-1839 Email: ken@krbarrettlaw.com VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION: Randall Sues Over Recent Cyberattack ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Randall, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-00514 (D.R.I., July 29, 2026), is brought as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") suffered by Defendant, which Defendant detected on September 16, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all persons whose Private Information was exposed as a result of the Data Breach., says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a nationwide entity, specializing in the transportation of automobiles and providing comprehensive network logistics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kensley R. Barrett, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENSLEY R. BARRETT 1000 Chapel View Blvd, Suite 260 Cranston, RI 02920 Phone: 857.229.2442 Cell: 401.601.8646 Email: ken@krbarrettlaw.com - and - Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com VISION PATH: African Can File Certain Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESLEY AFRICA, an individual, v. VISION PATH, INC., d/b/a HUBBLE, a Delaware Corporation; and, DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-04570-GW-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order on Plaintiff's application to file under seal. The Plaintiff may file under seal the following documents in accordance with the Protective Order in this case and the Local Rules, when filing his forthcoming Motion for Class Certification: VisionPath001859 – VisionPath002392 VisionPath002397 VisionPath002837 VisionPath002838 – VisionPath004026 VisionPath004543 – VisionPath004615 VisionPath004820 VisionPath004959 – VisionPath010286 On July 27, 2026, the Plaintiff filed an Application for Leave to File Under Seal certain documents that Plaintiff intends to file as exhibits in support of his Motion for Class Certification. Upon full consideration of the Application and the declaration of Defendant, as the Designating Party, showing good cause. Vision Path provides optical instruments. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dxpIgI at no extra charge.[CC] VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Agrees to Settle Defective Water Pumps Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Volkswagen Group of America has agreed to a class action settlement to end a lawsuit that alleged 2018-2022 VW Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport models with a 3.6-liter engine were equipped with defective water pumps that could fail prematurely and cause coolant leaks. The Volkswagen Atlas water pump class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 23, 2026. The deal covers individuals and entities who bought or leased certain 2018-2022 model year Volkswagen Atlas or Atlas Cross Sport vehicles equipped with a 3.6-liter engine that were imported and distributed by Volkswagen Group of America in the United States and Puerto Rico. The court-approved website for the VW Atlas settlement can be found at MainEngineWaterPumpSettlement.com. Class members can head to this page and enter their vehicle identification number (VIN) to check whether their VW Atlas or Atlas Cross Sport is covered by the class action settlement. As part of the settlement, VW will extend its new vehicle limited warranty for eligible Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport vehicles to cover 80 percent of repair/replacement costs of a failed water pump, done by an authorized Volkswagen dealer, for up to eight and a half years or 85,000 miles, whichever occurs first, from the car's in-service date. The warranty extension covers the main engine water pump and all parts and labor necessary to repair the component. Additionally, class members who paid and were not reimbursed for repair/replacement of their vehicle's water pump prior to July 6, 2026 and within eight and a half years or 85,000 miles (whichever occurred first) from the car's in-service date can submit a timely, valid claim form to receive reimbursement for up to 80 percent of the paid invoice amount for the water pump repair or replacement. Class members can also receive reimbursement of 80 percent of the costs for up to two repairs or replacements of a covered vehicle's head gasket if the work was performed because the car had a coolant leak or low coolant level and the repairs were performed and paid for before July 6 of this year and within eight and a half years or 85,000 miles from the car's in-service date. If a covered repair or replacement was not performed by an authorized Volkswagen dealer, a class member can receive reimbursement of 80 percent of the paid invoice amount, limited to a maximum invoice amount of $820 for a water pump repair or replacement and $3,325 for a head gasket repair or replacement. To qualify for reimbursement, a class member must mail to the claim administrator, via first-class mail by October 5, 2026, a signed and dated claim form and documentation, such as repair invoices or records for covered repairs/replacements. The Volkswagen Atlas water pump settlement claim form can be downloaded from this page. Class members whose repairs/replacements were performed during the car's new vehicle limited warranty period by an entity or facility that was not an authorized Volkswagen dealer must also submit documentation, or a signed declaration, confirming that they first attempted to have the work done by an authorized VW dealer, but the dealer declined or was unable to do the repair free of charge. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Volkswagen Atlas water pump settlement following a hearing on September 10, 2026. Reimbursement payments will begin to be distributed after the deal has received final approval and any appeals are resolved. The class action lawsuit against Volkswagen alleged that 2018-2022 Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport models with 3.6-liter engines were equipped with defective water pumps that could necessitate costly head gasket repairs. Per the complaint, the water pump problem could cause "sudden and unexpected catastrophic engine failure," including while driving, posing a risk to vehicle occupants and other drivers on the road. The filing accused the automaker of actively concealing the water pump defect and refusing to take action to correct the problem when it manifested outside of a vehicle's warranty period. [GN] VONS COMPANIES: Lloyd Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ROBERT LLOYD III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., a Michigan corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV17136, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08058-RGK-AS to the proceeding. The suit arises from Defendants' alleged use of certain e-commerce and analytics technologies on its public website, https://www.vons.com in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The Vons Companies, Inc. operates supermarkets, food, and drug combination retail stores.[BN] Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc. is represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. James W. Ettinger, Esq. Jacobo Enrique Rueda Fernandez, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS CADWALADER US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 E-mail: vassi.iliadis@hlc.com jay.ettinger@hlc.com jacobo.rueda@hlc.com WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Smith Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waypoint Resource Group, LLC. The case is styled as Traci Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waypoint Resource Group, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-03109-JD (D.S.C., July 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Waypoint Resource Group, LLC -- https://waypoint.com/ -- is a third-party debt collection agency that handles commercial collections, telecommunications, utilities, and government receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com WELLS FARGO: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Elgin Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIAN ELGIN, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 4:25-cv-03937-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Westmore entered an order denying Wells Fargo's motion to strike class allegations. The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that this motion is not the appropriate vehicle to address the propriety of the class allegations, because they are not purely legal in nature. Thus, the motion to strike is denied. On Sept. 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the first amended class action complaint, in which she defines two proposed classes: "All persons within the United States who applied to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for mortgage forbearance under the CARES Act, were improperly denied forbearance and charged improper costs, fees, interest, monthly payments, principal balance or any combination of these." "All persons within the United States who applied to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for mortgage forbearance under the CARES Act, received mortgage forbearance, and were assessed improper costs, fees, interest, monthly payments, principal balance or any combination of these during the forbearance period." The Plaintiff Marian Elgin alleges Wells Fargo improperly denied her forbearance and charged improper fees and interest in violation of the CARES Act, resulting in a forced short sale. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v70aL1 at no extra charge.[CC] WESTMONT LIVING: Lopez Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Westmont Living Inc., et al. The case is captioned as In Matter of Erika Lopez, Case No. 26CU01889 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., July 14, 2026). The Plaintiff brought this suit alleging employment violations by Defendant Westmont Living Inc. A case management conference is set for November 4, 2026. Westmont Living Inc. provides senior independent living, assisted living and memory care services in California.[BN] Plaintiff Erika Lopez, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel J. Brown, Esq. STANSBURY BROWN LAW, PC 2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd. Venice, CA 90291-5590 Telephone: (323) 204-3124 WHOOP INC: Sanderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whoop, Inc. The case is styled as Eduardo Donrick Sanderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whoop, Inc., Case No. 26CU040807N (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "False Advertising Law." Whoop, Inc. -- https://www.whoop.com/ -- is an American wearable technology company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, California 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Fax: (310) 656-7069 Email: martin@dovel.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING: Egan Sues Over Data Security Incident -------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Egan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Case No. 1:26-cv-02663 (D.D.C., July 29, 2026), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former clients of Defendant, the putative class members ("Class Members"). The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted in the course of their client relationships with Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been disclosed to an unauthorized third party and precisely what type of information was disclosed. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, Defendant's procedures for verifying the identity of individuals requesting Private Information were vulnerable to exploitation by imposters and other bad actors. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach. The Defendant is an international law firm providing legal representation to corporate, governmental, and individual clients across a broad range of practice areas, with more than 1,100 lawyers located throughout offices in the United States and Europe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ECOA Class Suit in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 25, 2022, a Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative class action and asserted individual claims against Wintrust Mortgage and Wintrust Financial Corporation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against black/African American borrowers and brought class claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter 42 of the United States Code, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The plaintiff also asserted individual claims under theories of promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. On Sept. 23, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the entire suit, and the court granted that motion to dismiss on Sept. 27, 2023. The court gave the plaintiff until Oct. 20, 2023, to file an amended complaint, and the plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. Wintrust then moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Nov. 21, 2023. On Feb. 5, 2026, the court granted Wintrust's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff filed an appeal of the second dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Briefing of the appeal is expected to conclude by the end of the third quarter of 2026. In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries, from time to time, are subject to pending and threatened legal actions and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Based on information currently available and upon consultation with counsel, management believes that the eventual outcome of any pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings described above, including its ordinary course litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on the operations or financial condition of the Company. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of operations or financial condition for a particular period. Wintrust Financial Corp. is a financial holding company based in the Chicago area, providing community banking, mortgage, wealth management, and specialty finance services through its subsidiaries. It operates a network of community banks and related financial businesses serving individuals, businesses, and institutions primarily in the Midwest. WISE GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Business Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Wise Group plc (NASDAQ: WSE) between May 11, 2026 and July 23, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wise Group plc investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Wise Group plc class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/wise-group-plc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in order to have a successful debut on the NASDAQ, defendants materially understated Wise's regulatory risks as a result of its materially deficient anti-money laundering efforts, as well as insufficient efforts to prevent the financing of terrorism; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Wise's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 29, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/wise-group-plc/join or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured billions of dollars for investors. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] YAD&PRE LLC: Kadakia Sues Over Failure to Compensate Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Kadakia, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Yad&Pre LLC; Dasuleen LLC; Dasia LLC; NK Jeans LLC; Cherry&Kerry LLC; Minnie A LLC; Preet Ahluwalia; Bhupinder Ahluwalia; Yadwinder Ahluwalia; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10; Case No. 1:26-cv-00749-DRC (S.D. Ohio, July 30, 2026), is brought seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Kentucky Minimum Wage Law ("KMWL"), the Kentucky Wage Payment Law ("KWPL"); the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"); the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 34a ("Section 34a"); (Ohio's "Prompt Pay Act"); and unjust enrichment. The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA, KMWL, KWPL, OMFWSA, Section 34a, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. All delivery drivers at the Defendants' Papa John's stores, including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or similar employment policies and practices with respect to wages and reimbursement of expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff are current and former delivery drivers at the Defendants' Papa John's stores. The Defendants have operated the Defendants' Papa John's stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Laura E. Farmwald, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Phone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com lfarmwald@billerkimble.com YARDI SYSTEMS: Larancuent Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOHN LARANCUENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. YARDI SYSTEMS, LLC d/b/a PROPERTYSHARK.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26CV03172, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Barbara to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08290 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff has alleged and seeks to serve as a class representative on behalf of all Colorado residents whose cell phone numbers were listed on propertyshark.com without their affirmative consent during the applicable statute of limitations period. Yardi Systems, LLC d/b/a PROPERTYSHARK.COM, is a real property data corporation, known for operating the PropertyShark real estate database.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Pearson, Esq. Peter A. Devlin, Esq. Megan Mallonee, Esq. FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN + SELZ PC 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2500N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 579-9600 Facsimile: (310) 579-9650 E-mail: mpearson@fkks.com pdevlin@fkks.com mmallonee@fkks.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***