Core Viewpoint - James Hardie Industries plc is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly misleading investors about inventory destocking in its North America Fiber Cement segment, which led to a significant decline in sales and stock price [1][2][3]. Group 1: Allegations and Misleading Statements - The lawsuit claims that despite early signs of inventory destocking in April and May 2025, the company made false assurances to investors on May 20 and 21, 2025, about the strength of the segment and denied any destocking was occurring [2]. - The complaint highlights that the company engaged in practices resembling fraudulent channel stuffing, misrepresenting sales as driven by sustainable customer demand [2]. Group 2: Impact on Sales and Stock Price - On August 19, 2025, James Hardie disclosed a 12% decline in sales for the North America Fiber Cement segment due to customer destocking, which had been known to the company since April and May [3]. - Following this announcement, the company's stock price plummeted over 34%, dropping from $28.43 per share on August 18, 2025, to $18.64 per share on August 20, 2025 [3]. Group 3: Class Action Participation - Shareholders are informed that they may be eligible to participate in the class action against James Hardie Industries plc, with a deadline to submit papers to serve as lead plaintiff by December 23, 2025 [4]. - It is noted that shareholders do not need to participate in the case to be eligible for recovery, allowing them to remain as absent class members if they choose [4].

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been filed against CarMax, Inc. for allegedly misleading investors about its growth prospects during the fiscal year 2026, following disappointing financial results that led to a significant drop in stock price [1][2][3]. Group 1: Allegations and Financial Impact - CarMax reported disappointing financial results for Q2 of fiscal year 2026 on September 25, 2025, resulting in a stock price decline of $11.5 per share, or 20.07%, closing at $45.60 [2]. - The following day, the stock fell an additional 1.62%, closing at $44.86 [2]. - Plaintiffs allege that CarMax's growth was overstated and that the earlier growth was a temporary effect due to customer speculation regarding tariffs [3]. Group 2: Class Action Participation - Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiffs must submit their papers by January 2, 2026, to represent other class members in the litigation [4]. - Shareholders can remain absent class members and are not required to participate in the case to be eligible for recovery [4]. - All legal representation is on a contingency fee basis, meaning shareholders incur no fees or expenses [4].

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dexcom, Inc. for allegedly misleading investors about the safety and reliability of its continuous glucose monitoring systems, specifically the G6 and G7 models [1][2]. Allegations - The lawsuit claims that Dexcom made unauthorized material design changes to the G6 and G7 systems, which compromised their reliability and posed health risks to users [2]. - It is alleged that Dexcom overstated the enhancements and reliability of the G7 system while downplaying the severity of issues related to adulterated devices [2]. - The complaint suggests that these actions have exposed Dexcom to increased regulatory scrutiny and potential legal repercussions [2]. Impact of Hunterbrook Report - A report published by Hunterbrook on September 18, 2025, highlighted severe health risks associated with the G7 devices, including incidents of hospitalization and death linked to inaccurate glucose readings [3]. - Following the release of this report, Dexcom's stock price dropped by $8.99 per share, or 11.76%, closing at $67.45 on September 19, 2025 [3]. Class Action Participation - Investors who purchased Dexcom securities between July 26, 2024, and September 17, 2025, may be eligible to participate in the class action, with a deadline for lead plaintiff submissions set for December 29, 2025 [4].

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avantor, Inc. for allegedly misleading investors about the company's competitive position and the impact of increased competition on its business performance [1][2]. Summary by Sections Allegations - The lawsuit claims that Avantor's management failed to disclose that the company's competitive positioning was weaker than publicly represented, and that it was negatively affected by increased competition [2]. - It is alleged that the representations made by the defendants regarding the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading [2]. Financial Performance - On October 29, 2025, Avantor reported weak third quarter 2025 financial results, including a -5% organic revenue growth, which was below the guidance provided by the defendants in August [3]. - The company reported a net loss of $712 million, primarily due to a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $785 million, which was attributed to competitive pressures that significantly impacted the company's margins [3]. - Following the announcement of these results, Avantor's stock price fell by $3.50 per share, or over 23%, from $15.08 on October 28, 2025, to $11.58 on October 29, 2025 [3]. Class Action Participation - Shareholders interested in participating as lead plaintiffs in the class action must submit their papers by December 29, 2025 [4]. - Shareholders can remain absent class members and still be eligible for recovery without taking any action [4].

Core Viewpoint - Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is investigating potential claims against Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. due to a class action complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by the company's board of directors during the specified class period [2]. Group 1: Legal Investigation - The investigation is focused on long-term stockholders of Unicycive between March 29, 2024, and June 27, 2025, following a class action complaint filed on August 15, 2025 [2][4]. - Investors are encouraged to contact the law firm for discussions regarding their legal rights and options [1][4]. Group 2: Company Performance and Regulatory Issues - The complaint alleges that Unicycive misrepresented its readiness to meet FDA manufacturing compliance requirements for its New Drug Application (NDA) for oxylanthanum carbonate (OLC) [8]. - On June 10, 2025, Unicycive disclosed that the FDA identified deficiencies in current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) compliance at a third-party vendor, leading to a significant stock price drop of over 40% [8]. - Following the issuance of a Complete Response Letter from the FDA on June 30, 2025, citing the same deficiencies, Unicycive's stock fell nearly 30%, closing at $4.77 per share [8].

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortinet, Inc. for allegedly misrepresenting the impact of unit upgrades for FortiGate Firewalls, leading to significant stock price decline after the truth was revealed [1][2][3]. Allegations - The complaint states that Fortinet failed to disclose the difficulty in predicting the total number of FortiGates needing upgrades [2] - It was noted that customers had excess firewall capacity from previous purchases, reducing the necessity for upgrades [2] - The refresh of the FortiGate products was said to have minimal business impact, as it represented only a small percentage of the company's business due to the age of the products [2] Stock Price Impact - Following the revelation of the alleged misrepresentations, Fortinet's stock price dropped over 22%, from $96.58 per share on August 6, 2025, to $75.30 per share on August 7, 2025 [3]. Class Action Participation - Shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against Fortinet, with options to serve as lead plaintiff or remain an absent class member [4]. Legal Representation - Robbins LLP operates on a contingency fee basis, meaning shareholders incur no fees or expenses unless a recovery is achieved [5].

Core Viewpoint - Marex Group PLC is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly misleading investors about its revenue projections and inflating its financial metrics through improper transactions [2][3]. Group 1: Company Overview - Marex Group PLC is a U.K.-based diversified global financial services platform listed on NASDAQ under the ticker MRX [1]. Group 2: Legal Allegations - The lawsuit claims that Marex Group failed to disclose that it improperly inflated its cash flow, revenues, assets, and profits in its Market Making segment through off-book intercompany transactions [3]. - As a result of these alleged actions, investors who sold short Marex Group securities during the class period have reportedly suffered significant losses [3]. Group 3: Class Action Participation - Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiffs in the class action must submit their papers to the court by December 8, 2025 [4]. - Participation in the class action is not mandatory for recovery; shareholders can remain absent class members if they choose not to take action [4]. Group 4: Legal Representation - Robbins LLP, a firm specializing in shareholder rights litigation, is representing the class action on a contingency fee basis, meaning shareholders pay no fees or expenses unless there is a recovery [5].

Core Viewpoint - MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, a Swiss clinical-stage biotechnology company, is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly misleading investors about the efficacy of its drug candidate SLK, which is aimed at treating inflammatory diseases driven by interleukin-17 (IL-17) [1][3]. Company Overview - MoonLake is focused on developing treatments for inflammatory diseases, particularly in dermatology and rheumatology, utilizing a unique Nanobody structure [1]. Legal Allegations - The lawsuit claims that during the class period, MoonLake failed to disclose critical information regarding the efficacy of SLK compared to BIMZELX, an FDA-approved drug. Key points include: - Both SLK and BIMZELX target the same inflammatory cytokines IL-17A and IL-17F [3]. - The distinct Nanobody structure of SLK does not provide a clinical benefit over the traditional monoclonal antibody structure of BIMZELX [3]. - Claims of increased tissue penetration by SLK do not translate to improved clinical efficacy [3]. - The company lacked a reasonable basis for its positive statements regarding SLK's superiority [3]. Stock Performance Impact - Following the announcement of disappointing week-16 results from the Phase 3 VELA program on September 28, 2025, MoonLake's stock price plummeted by $55.75 per share, or 89.9%, closing at $6.24 on September 29, 2025 [4]. Class Action Participation - Shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against MoonLake. Those wishing to serve as lead plaintiffs must submit their papers by December 15, 2025 [5]. Legal Representation - Robbins LLP is leading the class action, specializing in shareholder rights litigation and has been active in helping shareholders recover losses and improve corporate governance since 2002 [6].

Core Viewpoint - Quanex Building Products Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit due to alleged operational issues related to the Tyman Acquisition, which were not disclosed to shareholders [1][3]. Summary by Sections Company Overview - Quanex is an international supplier of engineered home components and access solutions for the construction industry, including products like windows, doors, cabinetry, and vinyl [1]. Class Action Details - The class period for the lawsuit is from December 12, 2024, to September 5, 2025 [1]. - The lawsuit was filed on behalf of individuals and entities that purchased or acquired shares of Quanex [1]. Allegations - The complaint alleges that: - The Company's tooling and equipment maintenance procedures at the Tyman Mexico facility were significantly underinvested [3]. - The conditions of tooling and equipment had degraded to near catastrophic levels [3]. - Significant costs were likely to be incurred, delaying the expected benefits from the Tyman integration [3]. - Quanex had previously identified these issues [3]. - Positive statements made by the Company regarding its business and operations were materially misleading [3]. Stock Price Impact - Following the revelation of these issues, Quanex's stock price fell by $2.73, or 13.1%, closing at $18.18 per share on September 5, 2025 [4]. - The stock continued to decline, falling by $1.98, or 10.9%, to close at $16.20 per share on September 8, 2025 [4]. Next Steps for Shareholders - Shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action and must file their papers by November 18, 2025, if they wish to serve as lead plaintiff [5]. - Shareholders can remain absent class members if they choose not to participate [5].

Core Viewpoint - KBR, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit due to allegations of misleading investors regarding the ability of its joint venture, HomeSafe Alliance, to fulfill a significant contract with the U.S. Department of Defense's TRANSCOM [1][2][3]. Allegations and Contract Issues - HomeSafe Alliance, in which KBR holds a 72% economic interest, was awarded the Global Household Goods Contract by TRANSCOM to assist U.S. military personnel and their families with relocations [2]. - During the class period, it is alleged that KBR was aware of TRANSCOM's concerns regarding HomeSafe's capability to meet contract obligations but continued to assert that the partnership was functioning well and would improve in the future [3]. Impact of Contract Termination - On June 19, 2025, HomeSafe announced TRANSCOM's notice to terminate the Global Household Goods Contract, revealing ongoing issues that had been present for months [4]. - Following this announcement, KBR's stock price dropped by $3.85 per share (7.29%) to close at $48.93 on June 20, 2025, and further declined by $1.30 (2.65%) to close at $47.63 on June 23, 2025 [4]. Class Action Participation - Shareholders interested in participating as lead plaintiffs in the class action must submit their papers by November 18, 2025, although participation is not required to be eligible for recovery [5]. Legal Representation - Robbins LLP, a firm specializing in shareholder rights litigation, is representing the class action on a contingency fee basis, meaning shareholders incur no fees or expenses unless a recovery is achieved [6].