Core Viewpoint - The Fluor Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit due to alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with claims that the company and its executives made misleading statements regarding project costs and financial guidance during a specified class period [1][4]. Group 1: Class Action Details - The class action lawsuit is titled Maglione v. Fluor Corporation, and it includes purchasers of Fluor securities from February 18, 2025, to July 31, 2025 [1]. - Investors have until November 14, 2025, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit [1][6]. - The lawsuit alleges that Fluor's executives failed to disclose rising costs associated with key infrastructure projects, which negatively impacted the company's financial outlook [4]. Group 2: Allegations and Financial Impact - Allegations include that costs for the Gordie Howe International Bridge and other projects were increasing due to subcontractor errors, price hikes, and scheduling delays [4]. - Fluor reported a second quarter 2025 non-GAAP earnings per share of $0.43, missing estimates by $0.13, and revenue of $3.98 billion, a 5.9% year-over-year decline, missing estimates by $570 million [5]. - Following the disappointing financial results, Fluor's stock price dropped by over 27% [5]. Group 3: Legal Process and Firm Background - The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased Fluor securities during the class period to seek lead plaintiff status [6]. - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the law firm representing investors in this case, known for securing significant monetary relief for investors in securities fraud cases [7].

Core Viewpoint - The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz is investigating PetMed Express, Inc. for potential violations of federal securities laws, indicating concerns over the company's compliance and financial practices [1]. Investigation Details - The investigation is focused on the company's recent disclosure made on June 10, 2025, regarding a delay in operations, which may have implications for investors [1]. - Investors who have incurred losses related to PetMed Express are encouraged to inquire about pursuing claims to recover their losses [1].

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm is reminding investors who purchased V.F. Corporation securities during the specified class period of the upcoming lead plaintiff deadline on November 12, 2025 [1] Group 1: Class Action Details - Investors who purchased V.F. Corporation securities between October 30, 2023, and May 20, 2025, may be entitled to compensation without any out-of-pocket fees through a contingency fee arrangement [2] - A class action lawsuit has already been filed, and interested parties can join by submitting a form or contacting the law firm [3][6] - The lawsuit alleges that V.F. Corporation's management provided misleading information regarding the company's turnaround plans, particularly concerning the Vans brand [5] Group 2: Legal Representation - Investors are encouraged to select qualified legal counsel with a proven track record in securities class actions, as many firms may lack the necessary experience [4] - The Rosen Law Firm has a history of successful settlements, including the largest securities class action settlement against a Chinese company at the time, and has recovered hundreds of millions for investors [4] Group 3: Case Specifics - The lawsuit claims that V.F. Corporation's management concealed the need for significant reset actions to return the Vans brand to growth, which negatively impacted revenue growth [5]

Core Viewpoint - Investors in Molina Healthcare, Inc. have the opportunity to lead a securities fraud class action lawsuit due to undisclosed adverse facts affecting the company's financial guidance and operations [1][2]. Summary by Relevant Sections Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit alleges that from February 5, 2025, to July 23, 2025, Molina failed to disclose critical information regarding its medical cost trend assumptions and the dislocation between premium rates and medical costs [2]. - It is claimed that Molina's growth was reliant on limited utilization of various health services, which could lead to a significant reduction in the company's financial guidance for fiscal year 2025 [2]. Investor Participation - Investors who suffered losses related to Molina Healthcare are encouraged to participate in the ongoing lawsuit, with a lead plaintiff deadline set for December 2, 2025 [2]. - Interested parties can contact the Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz for more information or to participate [3][4].

Core Viewpoint - Robbins LLP has initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who sold short Marex Group PLC securities, alleging that the company misled investors regarding its financial performance and revenue projections [1][2]. Group 1: Allegations Against Marex Group PLC - The lawsuit claims that Marex Group PLC improperly inflated its cash flow, revenues, assets, and profits in its Market Making segment through off-book intercompany transactions [2]. - As a result of these alleged misrepresentations, class members have reportedly suffered significant losses and damages [2]. Group 2: Class Action Participation - Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiffs must submit their papers to the court by December 8, 2025, to represent the class in the litigation [3]. - Investors do not need to participate actively in the case to be eligible for any potential recovery, and they can remain absent class members if they choose [3]. Group 3: Robbins LLP Overview - Robbins LLP is recognized for its leadership in shareholder rights litigation, focusing on helping shareholders recover losses and improve corporate governance since 2002 [4].

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marex Group plc for alleged securities fraud, with claims of significant accounting irregularities and misleading disclosures impacting investors [1][5]. Group 1: Allegations and Findings - A report by NINGI Research on August 5, 2025, accused Marex of engaging in a multi-year accounting scheme involving off-balance-sheet entities and fictitious transactions to conceal losses and inflate profits [3]. - The report highlighted discrepancies, including a $17 million receivable created without basis, a subsidiary's profit inflated by 150%, and an asset sold for $2.5 million that was previously valued at $14.9 million [3]. - It was alleged that Marex concealed nearly $1 billion in off-balance-sheet derivatives exposure through a Luxembourg fund, misclassifying structured note issuance as income to inflate cash flow [3]. Group 2: Market Reaction - Following the publication of the report, Marex's stock price dropped by $2.33, or 6.2%, closing at $35.31 per share on August 5, 2025, with unusually high trading volume [4]. Group 3: Lawsuit Details - The class action complaint claims that Marex's management made materially false statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about the company's financial health, including inconsistencies in financial statements and reliance on misleading positive statements [5]. - Specific allegations include the sale of over-the-counter financial instruments to itself and the unreliability of Marex's financial statements due to discrepancies in intercompany transactions [5].

Core Viewpoint - Charter Communications, Inc. is facing a securities fraud class action lawsuit due to significant declines in internet and video customers, which were not adequately disclosed to investors, leading to a substantial drop in stock price [1][4][3]. Financial Performance - In Q2 2025, Charter reported a decline of 117,000 internet customers, compared to a decline of about 100,000 in Q2 2024, after adjusting for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) impact [2]. - The company also experienced a decrease of 80,000 total video customers during the same period [2]. Stock Market Reaction - Following the release of the disappointing financial results, Charter's stock price fell by $70.25, or 18.5%, closing at $309.75 per share on July 25, 2025, which negatively impacted investors [3]. Lawsuit Details - The class action lawsuit alleges that Charter's management made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business operations and prospects, failing to disclose the adverse effects of the ACP ending on customer retention and revenue [4]. - Specific allegations include the inability to manage the impact of the ACP end, failure to execute broader operational strategies to mitigate customer declines, and misleading statements about the company's operational success and growth trajectory [4].

Core Viewpoint - The WPP class action lawsuit alleges that WPP plc and its executives misled investors regarding the company's revenue outlook and growth potential during the Class Period, ultimately leading to significant stock price declines following disappointing performance updates [3][4]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of WPP plc common stock from February 27, 2025, to July 8, 2025, inclusive [1]. - The lawsuit is titled Marty v. WPP plc and is filed in the Southern District of New York [1]. - Allegations include creating a false impression of reliable revenue projections while downplaying risks associated with seasonality and macroeconomic factors [3]. Group 2: Performance Issues - On July 9, 2025, WPP reported a deterioration in performance for Q2 2025, attributing it to macroeconomic uncertainties and weaker new business than expected [4]. - The company also announced the retirement of CEO Mark Read effective December 31, 2025, which contributed to an over 18% drop in WPP's stock price on the same day [4]. Group 3: Legal Process - Investors who purchased WPP common stock during the Class Period can seek to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit [5]. - The lead plaintiff represents the interests of all class members and can choose a law firm to litigate the case [5]. Group 4: Law Firm Background - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a leading law firm specializing in securities fraud and shareholder litigation, having recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone [6]. - The firm has a strong track record, being ranked 1 in monetary relief for investors in securities class actions for four out of the last five years [6].

(Reuters) -The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said Indian authorities have not yet acted on its requests to serve summons and complaints to Adani Group executives over alleged securities fraud and a $265 million bribery scheme, a court filing showed on Friday. The case is one of the most high-profile attempts by a U.S. regulator to secure cross-border cooperation from Indian authorities in a matter involving one of that country’s largest conglomerates. The SEC told a New York district cour ...

Core Viewpoint - Class action lawsuits have been filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Fortinet, and Molina Healthcare, alleging that these companies made materially false and misleading statements regarding their business operations and prospects, leading to investor losses [2][3][4]. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RICK) - Class period spans from December 15, 2021, to September 16, 2025, with a lead plaintiff deadline of November 20, 2025 [2]. - Allegations include engagement in tax fraud, bribery to cover up tax fraud, and understatement of legal risks, resulting in misleading positive statements about the company's business [2]. Fortinet, Inc. (NASDAQ: FTNT) - Class period spans from November 8, 2024, to August 6, 2025, with a lead plaintiff deadline of November 21, 2025 [3]. - Allegations include misrepresentation of the refresh cycle's profitability, lack of clarity on upgradeable FortiGate firewalls, and misleading statements about the momentum of the refresh, leading to materially misleading information about the company's prospects [3]. Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE: MOH) - Class period spans from February 5, 2025, to July 23, 2025, with a lead plaintiff deadline of December 2, 2025 [4]. - Allegations include failure to disclose adverse facts regarding medical cost trend assumptions, dependency on low utilization of services for growth, and likelihood of cutting financial guidance for fiscal year 2025, resulting in misleading positive statements about the company's operations [4].