Core Viewpoint - The Blue Owl Capital Inc. class action lawsuit alleges that the company and its executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with claims centered around undisclosed liquidity issues and significant pressure on its asset base due to BDC redemptions [1][3]. Group 1: Allegations and Financial Performance - The lawsuit claims that Blue Owl failed to disclose meaningful pressure on its asset base from BDC redemptions, leading to undisclosed liquidity issues [3]. - Financial results for Q3 2025 reported fee-related earnings of $376.2 million, missing consensus estimates, and performance revenue fell 33% year over year to $188,000 [4]. - Following the announcement of a merger agreement involving Blue Owl's direct lending businesses, the stock price fell nearly 5% [5]. Group 2: Impact of External Reports - An article published by Financial Times indicated that OBDC II shareholders could face a 20% reduction in investment value due to the merger, which further impacted Blue Owl's stock price, causing a nearly 6% drop [6]. Group 3: Legal Process and Representation - Investors who purchased Blue Owl securities during the class period can seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, representing the interests of all class members [7]. - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a leading law firm in securities fraud litigation, having recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone [8].

Core Viewpoint - Klarna Group plc is facing a class action lawsuit related to its September 10, 2025 IPO, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 due to misleading offering documents and understated risk regarding loan loss reserves [1][3]. Group 1: Class Action Lawsuit Details - The class action lawsuit, titled Nayak v. Klarna Group plc, allows purchasers of Klarna securities from the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff by February 20, 2026 [1][2]. - Klarna's IPO involved the issuance of approximately 34 million shares at an offering price of $40.00 per share [2]. - The lawsuit claims that Klarna's offering documents were materially false and omitted critical information about the company's risk profile related to its buy now, pay later loans [3]. Group 2: Financial Performance and Stock Impact - Following the IPO, Klarna reported a net loss of $95 million on November 18, 2025, and increased provisions for loan losses to $235 million, exceeding analyst estimates of $215.8 million [4]. - Provisions for loan losses represented 0.72% of gross merchandise volume, up from 0.44% the previous year [4]. - By the time the class action lawsuit commenced, Klarna's stock price had fallen to as low as $31.31 per share, significantly below the IPO price of $40 [4]. Group 3: Legal Representation and Process - The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased Klarna securities during the IPO to seek lead plaintiff status in the class action lawsuit [5]. - The lead plaintiff will represent the interests of all class members and can choose a law firm to litigate the case [5]. Group 4: About Robbins Geller - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a leading law firm specializing in securities fraud and shareholder litigation, having secured over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone [6]. - The firm has been ranked 1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years [6].

Core Viewpoint - Smartsheet Inc. shareholders are encouraged to participate in a class action lawsuit against the company due to alleged violations related to the merger with Blackstone Inc. and Vista Equity Partners, with a deadline for lead plaintiff applications set for February 24, 2026 [1]. Group 1: Class Action Details - The class action lawsuit is titled Kara Eftimoglu v. Mader, No. 25-cv-02530 (W.D. Wash.) and pertains to shareholders who held Smartsheet securities as of October 25, 2024 [1]. - The lawsuit alleges that a misleading Schedule 14A Proxy statement was issued, leading shareholders to approve the merger at an unfair price of $56.50 per share [3]. - The complaint claims that the Proxy failed to disclose critical financial metrics, including the Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR), which was touted in press releases and earnings calls as a key indicator of Smartsheet's financial performance [4]. Group 2: Financial Metrics and Forecasts - Smartsheet's ARR metric was emphasized by management as a significant indicator of future performance, yet it was not included in the Proxy statement [4]. - The Proxy also did not disclose January 2024 forecasts prepared in the ordinary course of business, hindering shareholders' ability to assess the company's financial prospects [4]. Group 3: Legal Process and Representation - The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who held Smartsheet securities as of the record date to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action [5]. - A lead plaintiff represents the interests of all class members and can choose a law firm for litigation, with participation in potential recovery not contingent on being the lead plaintiff [5]. Group 4: About Robbins Geller - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a leading law firm specializing in securities fraud and shareholder litigation, having secured over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone [6]. - The firm has a strong track record, being ranked 1 in securities class action recoveries for four out of the last five years [6].

Core Viewpoint - Kuehn Law, PLLC is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of Quantum Corporation, following allegations of financial misrepresentation [1][2]. Group 1: Allegations of Misrepresentation - Quantum Corporation is accused of improperly recognizing revenue during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025 [2]. - The company will need to restate its previously filed financial statements for the fiscal third quarter ending December 31, 2024, due to these misrepresentations [2]. - Statements regarding Quantum's business, operations, and prospects are claimed to be materially false and misleading, lacking a reasonable basis at all relevant times [2]. Group 2: Shareholder Actions - Shareholders who purchased QMCO shares prior to November 15, 2024, are encouraged to contact Kuehn Law for potential legal action [3]. - Kuehn Law covers all case costs and does not charge investor clients, emphasizing the importance of timely action for shareholders [3].

SAN DIEGO, Jan. 27, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that Smartsheet Inc. (NYSE: SMAR) shareholders who held Smartsheet securities as of the record date, October 25, 2024, and were harmed by defendants' alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the acquisition of Smartsheet by Blackstone Inc., Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC, and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority ("Merger"), have until February 24, 2026 to s ...

MILWAUKEE, Jan. 26, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Ademi LLP is investigating Skywater (NASDAQ: SKYT) for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law in its recently announced transaction with IonQ. Click here to learn how to join our investigation and obtain additional information or contact us at [email protected] or toll-free: 866-264-3995. There is no cost or obligation to you. In the transaction, Skywater stockholders will receive $15.00 in cash and $20.00 in IonQ stock for each share held, ...

Core Viewpoint - The Fermi Inc. class action lawsuit alleges that the company and its executives made misleading statements regarding its Project Matador, leading to significant financial losses for investors following the termination of a key funding agreement [3][4][5]. Group 1: Class Action Lawsuit Details - Purchasers of Fermi Inc. common stock during the IPO and the specified Class Period have until March 6, 2026, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit [1]. - The lawsuit, titled Lupia v. Fermi Inc., is pending in the Southern District of New York and accuses Fermi and its executives of violating the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1][2]. Group 2: Allegations Against Fermi - The lawsuit claims that Fermi overstated tenant demand for its Project Matador campus and failed to disclose reliance on a single tenant's funding commitment [3]. - It is alleged that there was a significant risk of the tenant terminating its funding commitment, which ultimately occurred, leading to a substantial drop in stock price [3][4]. Group 3: Financial Impact - Following the announcement that the first tenant for Project Matador had terminated a $150 million funding agreement, Fermi's stock price fell nearly 34% [4]. - The stock price has reportedly traded as low as $8.59 per share, representing a 59% decline from the IPO price of $21.00 per share [5].

Core Viewpoint - Kuehn Law, PLLC is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of Dow Inc. related to misrepresentation of the company's financial health and operational challenges [1][2]. Group 1: Allegations of Misrepresentation - A federal securities lawsuit claims that insiders at Dow overstated the company's ability to handle macroeconomic and tariff-related challenges, as well as its financial flexibility to support dividends [2]. - The lawsuit alleges that the negative impacts of competitive pressures, declining global sales, and product oversupply on Dow's business were understated, leading to materially false and misleading public statements [2]. Group 2: Shareholder Actions - Shareholders who purchased Dow stock prior to January 30, 2025, are encouraged to contact Kuehn Law for potential legal action, as there may be limited time to enforce their rights [3]. - Kuehn Law offers to cover all case costs and does not charge investor clients, emphasizing the importance of shareholder participation in maintaining market integrity [4].

MILWAUKEE, Jan. 21, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Ademi LLP is investigating Nathan's Famous (NASDAQ: NATH) for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law in its recently announced transaction with Smithfield. Click here to learn how to join our investigation and obtain additional information or contact us at [email protected] or toll-free: 866-264-3995. There is no cost or obligation to you. In the transaction, Nathan's Famous stockholders will receive $102 per share in cash, valuing the trans ...

Core Viewpoint - The F5 class action lawsuit alleges that F5, Inc. and its executives misled investors regarding the company's revenue outlook and growth potential while downplaying risks associated with a significant security incident [1][4]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit, titled Smith v. F5, Inc., seeks to represent purchasers of F5 securities and claims violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1]. - The class action lawsuit alleges that F5 created a false impression of its financial health and growth prospects during the Class Period [4]. - The lawsuit highlights a significant security breach that compromised F5's systems, which was not disclosed to investors until later [5]. Group 2: Financial Impact - Following the disclosure of the security breach on October 15, 2025, F5's stock price fell nearly 14% over two trading days [5]. - On October 27, 2025, F5 reported fourth-quarter fiscal year 2025 results that fell significantly below market expectations for fiscal 2026, attributing this to the security breach [6]. - The company announced expected reductions in sales and renewals, elongated sales cycles, and increased expenses due to ongoing remediation efforts, leading to an 11% drop in stock price over two trading days [6]. Group 3: Company Background - F5 is described as a global multi-cloud application security and delivery company, enabling customers to deploy, secure, and operate applications on-premises or via public cloud [3].