Contacts Ademi & Fruchter LLP Guri Ademi Toll Free: (866) 264-3995 Fax: (414) 482-8001 SOURCE Ademi LLP The transaction agreement unreasonably limits competing transactions for PotlatchDeltic by imposing a significant penalty if PotlatchDeltic accepts a competing bid. We are investigating the conduct of the PotlatchDeltic board of directors, and whether they are fulfilling their fiduciary duties to all shareholders. We specialize in shareholder litigation involving buyouts, mergers, and individual sharehold ...

Group 1 - The Ademi Firm is investigating Electronic Arts (EA) for potential breaches of fiduciary duty and other legal violations related to its transaction with a consortium including PIF, Silver Lake, and Affinity Partners [1][2] - EA shareholders are set to receive $210 per share in an all-cash transaction, which values the deal at approximately $55 billion [2] - The transaction agreement imposes significant penalties on EA for accepting competing bids, raising concerns about the board's fulfillment of fiduciary duties to all shareholders [2]

Core Viewpoint - Kuehn Law, PLLC is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of Fastly, Inc. due to allegations of misrepresentation regarding the company's growth and market position [1][2]. Summary by Relevant Sections Allegations of Misrepresentation - Insiders at Fastly allegedly caused the company to misrepresent its growth, indicating a significant deceleration among its largest customers and a loss of market share gained from the 2023 CDN consolidation trend [2]. - The issues mentioned are likely to have a material negative impact on Fastly's revenue growth [2]. - Fastly is unlikely to meet its previously issued revenue guidance for FY 2024 due to these challenges [2]. - Consequently, the company's financial position and prospects were overstated, leading to materially false and misleading public statements [2]. Legal Action - Shareholders who purchased Fastly stock prior to February 15, 2024, are encouraged to contact Kuehn Law for potential legal action, as there may be limited time to enforce their rights [3].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a class action lawsuit against Dow Inc. for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with claims of misleading statements regarding the company's financial health and ability to manage macroeconomic challenges [1][3]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The class action lawsuit is titled Sarti v. Dow Inc., and it involves purchasers of Dow securities from January 30, 2025, to July 23, 2025, with a deadline of October 28, 2025, for lead plaintiff applications [1]. - Allegations include that Dow overstated its ability to handle macroeconomic and tariff-related challenges, and understated the negative impacts on its business, particularly regarding competitive pressures and declining global sales [3]. Group 2: Financial Performance - On June 23, 2025, BMO Capital downgraded Dow's stock from "Market Perform" to "Underperform," reducing the price target from $29.00 to $22.00 due to ongoing weakness in key markets [4]. - Dow reported a non-GAAP loss per share of $0.42 for Q2 2025, significantly worse than the expected loss of approximately $0.17 to $0.18, with net sales of $10.1 billion, a 7.3% year-over-year decline [5]. - Following the disappointing earnings report, Dow announced a dividend cut from $0.70 to $0.35 per share, citing the need for financial flexibility in a challenging macroeconomic environment, which led to a stock price drop of over 17% [5]. Group 3: Legal Process - The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased Dow securities during the class period to seek lead plaintiff status, representing the interests of the class [6]. Group 4: Law Firm Background - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a leading law firm in securities fraud and shareholder litigation, having recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone [7]. - The firm has been recognized for securing significant monetary relief for investors, including the largest recovery in history of $7.2 billion in the Enron case [8].

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charter Communications, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to misleading statements regarding the impact of the Federal Communications Commission's Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) on the company's performance [1][4]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit, titled Sandoval v. Charter Communications, Inc., seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Charter Communications securities, including call options and put options [1]. - Allegations include that Charter Communications failed to disclose the material impact of the ACP's end, which led to a decline in Internet customers and revenue [4]. - The lawsuit claims that the company did not manage the consequences of the ACP ending effectively, resulting in greater risks to business plans and earnings growth than reported [4]. Group 2: Financial Impact - On July 25, 2025, Charter Communications reported second quarter 2025 financial results, showing EBITDA of $5.7 billion, reflecting a growth of 0.5% [5]. - The company experienced a decline of 117,000 Internet customers, with approximately 50,000 disconnects attributed to the end of the ACP [5]. - Following the financial results announcement, Charter Communications' stock price fell by more than 18% [5]. Group 3: Legal Process - Investors who suffered substantial losses can seek to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, with motions due by October 14, 2025 [2][6]. - The lead plaintiff will represent the interests of all class members and can choose a law firm to litigate the case [6]. Group 4: Firm Background - 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 [7]. - The firm has a strong track record in obtaining significant recoveries in securities class action cases, including the largest recovery in history of $7.2 billion in the Enron case [7].

Core Viewpoint - Kuehn Law, PLLC is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by officers and directors of Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. related to misrepresentation of the company's business conditions and prospects [1][2]. Group 1: Allegations of Misrepresentation - Insiders at Dick's Sporting Goods allegedly caused the company to misrepresent or fail to disclose that demand for products in the Outdoor segment was slowing faster than represented, leading to excess inventory [2]. - The "structural changes" promoted by the company, such as differentiated products and improved pricing technology, did not effectively manage excess inventory without negatively impacting profitability [2]. - The need to liquidate excess inventory, particularly in the Outdoor segment, is expected to have a materially negative effect on the company's profitability [2]. - As a result of these issues, statements regarding Dick's Sporting Goods' business condition and future prospects were materially false and misleading [2]. Group 2: Shareholder Action - Shareholders who purchased DKS stock prior to May 25, 2022, are encouraged to contact Kuehn Law, as there may be limited time to enforce their rights [2]. - Kuehn Law offers to cover all case costs and does not charge its investor clients [2].

Core Points - A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against 3D Systems Corporation, alleging that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and operations [1] - The lawsuit claims that 3D Systems understated the impact of weakened customer spending and overstated its resilience in challenging industry conditions [1] - Additionally, the updated milestone criteria in the United Partnership are said to negatively impact the revenue of the Company's Regenerative Medicine Program [1] Legal Information - Shareholders who purchased shares of 3D Systems between August 13, 2024, and May 12, 2025, and experienced significant losses are encouraged to discuss their legal rights [2] - The deadline to request to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is August 12, 2025 [3] - Holzer & Holzer, LLC is a law firm specializing in securities litigation and has a history of recovering significant amounts for shareholders affected by corporate misconduct [3]

Core Viewpoint - Kuehn Law, PLLC is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of Open Lending Corporation, following allegations of misrepresentation and failure to disclose critical financial information [1][2]. Group 1: Allegations of Misrepresentation - Insiders at Open Lending allegedly caused the company to misrepresent or fail to disclose key aspects of its financial health, including risk-based pricing models and profit share revenue [2]. - The company reportedly failed to disclose that its 2021 and 2022 vintage loans had significantly decreased in value compared to their outstanding loan balances [2]. - There are claims regarding the underperformance of the company's 2023 and 2024 vintage loans, which contributed to misleading positive statements about the company's business and prospects [2]. Group 2: Legal Action and Shareholder Rights - Kuehn Law is reaching out to shareholders who purchased LPRO shares prior to February 24, 2022, to inform them of their potential rights and the limited time available to enforce those rights [3]. - The firm emphasizes the importance of shareholder participation in maintaining the integrity of financial markets [4].

Core Viewpoint - Kuehn Law is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by officers and directors of Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. related to misrepresentation of the company's competitive pricing pressures and revenue growth [1][2]. Group 1: Company Misrepresentation - Integral Ad Science (IAS) allegedly misrepresented its financial health by failing to disclose increased competitive pricing pressures, leading to price cuts due to weakening demand and slowing revenue growth [2]. - The company's pricing function was reported to be no longer 'favorable', indicating an inability to sustain pricing or implement price increases [2]. - Pricing has become a critical differentiator for IAS in securing major renewals and new deals, highlighting the competitive landscape [2]. - The risk of increased pricing pressure from competition has materialized, contradicting IAS's public statements which were deemed materially false and misleading [2].

Core Viewpoint - Kuehn Law, PLLC is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by officers and directors of Solaris Energy Infrastructure, Inc. (NYSE: SEI) towards shareholders [1] Group 1: Allegations Against Solaris Energy - A federal securities lawsuit claims that insiders at Solaris misrepresented or failed to disclose critical information regarding Mobile Energy Rentals LLC (MER), including its lack of corporate history in mobile turbine leasing [2] - The lawsuit alleges that MER did not have a diversified earnings stream and that its co-owner was a convicted felon with a history of turbine-related fraud allegations [2] - As a result of these issues, Solaris is accused of overstating the commercial prospects of acquiring MER and inflating profitability metrics by not properly depreciating its turbines [2] - Positive statements made by Solaris about its business, operations, and prospects are claimed to be materially misleading and lacking a reasonable basis [2]