Fractyl Health Securities Class Action – GUTS

Aug 23, 2026 | Investigations

A securities class action has been filed against Fractyl Health, Inc. (“Fractyl” or the “Company”) and certain of its officers on behalf of persons and entities, other than Defendants, that purchased or otherwise acquired Fractyl securities between January 13, 2025 and January 29, 2026, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

Fractyl common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Market under the ticker symbol GUTS.

According to the complaint, Fractyl is a metabolic therapeutics company that develops therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity and is developing, among other things, the Revita DMR System (“Revita”).

What Does the Fractyl Health Securities Class Action Allege?

The action, Lorne v. Fractyl Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07167, was filed on August 21, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

  • Revita was less effective than Defendants had led investors to believe, and/or operational issues at one or more of the REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohort clinical sites compromised the integrity of its efficacy results;
  • Accordingly, Revita’s clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects were overstated, as was the REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohort’s ability to assess Revita’s efficacy; and
  • As a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The complaint further alleges that Fractyl touted Revita’s efficacy based on interim data from the REVEAL-1 and REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohorts. In September 2025, Fractyl announced three-month REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohort data and characterized the results as “groundbreaking,” “clinically and statistically significant,” and “striking,” while highlighting purported “clear evidence of Revita activity.”

What Happened to Fractyl’s Stock Price?

The complaint alleges that the truth began to emerge on January 29, 2026, when Fractyl announced six-month data from the REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohort. Fractyl reported that Revita-treated patients experienced 4.5% weight regain versus 7.5% in the sham arm at six months, which the complaint alleges represented a significantly more modest efficacy result than previously disclosed results and fell short of investor expectations. Fractyl also stated that the Midpoint Cohort was not designed to be sufficiently powered for efficacy analysis.

According to the complaint, during an investor and analyst call that day, Fractyl CEO Harith Rajagopalan indicated that issues at one REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohort study site, which had higher-than-expected regain across both arms, were at least partly responsible for the disappointing six-month efficacy results.

Following these disclosures, Fractyl’s stock price fell $1.245 per share, or 68.03%, to close at $0.585 per share on January 29, 2026.

The complaint further alleges that, following the release of Canaccord Genuity and Morgan Stanley reports addressing the site-specific issue and the six-month results, Fractyl’s stock price fell an additional $0.125 per share, or 21.37%, to close at $0.46 per share on January 30, 2026.

Review the Fractyl Health securities class action complaint.

Fractyl Investors Who Suffered Losses

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Fractyl securities during the Class Period and suffered losses may complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq. for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.

GUTS investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until October 20, 2026 to move the Court. An investor’s ability to share in any potential recovery does not depend on serving as lead plaintiff.

Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
(215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

    Track all markets on TradingView

    About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

    There is no cost or obligation to speak with the firm, and there are no upfront fees or litigation costs. We handle class action matters on a contingency-fee basis. Any attorneys’ fees or expenses sought in connection with a recovery are subject to court approval.

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    Contact Us

    ADDRESS

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
    2001 Market Street
    Suite 2500
    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    PHONE

    Tel: 215-792-6676

    EMAIL

    [email protected]

    Aevex Securities Class Action – AVEX

    Aug 21, 2026 | Investigations

    A securities class action was filed against Aevex Corp. (“Aevex” or the “Company”) and other defendants on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Aevex Class A common stock between April 17, 2026 and June 4, 2026, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

    The complaint also asserts claims on behalf of a sub-class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aevex Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Aevex’s April 17, 2026 initial public offering (“IPO”).

    Aevex Class A common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol AVEX.

    According to the complaint, Aevex is a military technology contractor that designs and manufactures unmanned aerial and surface vehicles and provides AI-enabled intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services.

    What Does the Aevex Securities Class Action Allege?

    The action, Rosenberg v. Aevex Corp., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-04779-TWR-SBC, was filed on August 20, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

    According to the complaint, Aevex’s IPO offering documents stated that Aevex’s controlling private equity owner would be subject to a 180-day “lock-up” restricting the sale of Aevex Class A common stock, subject to limited exceptions and potential early release by the underwriters.

    The complaint alleges that the IPO offering documents were materially false and/or misleading because they conveyed a commitment to the 180-day lock-up while allegedly concealing a pre-arranged plan to waive the lock-up early and conduct a secondary public offering (“SPO”) shortly after the IPO.

    The complaint alleges that, after the market closed on June 1, 2026, Aevex filed a registration statement announcing an SPO of eight million shares of Class A common stock. According to the complaint, the SPO documents disclosed that the lock-up restrictions had been waived to permit the sale of the controlling owner’s Aevex holdings. The complaint alleges that the SPO generated $207.9 million in net proceeds for Aevex’s controlling private equity owner, while the Company received no net proceeds from the SPO.

    According to the complaint: “[i]n reaction to the after-market filing of the June 1, 2026 registration statement, on June 2, 2026, Aevex’s Class A common stock fell approximately 16% against the prior day’s closing price, wiping out over $700 million in market capitalization. And in response to the pre-market filing of the final prospectus on June 5, 2026, Aevex’s common stock fell a further 7% that day, erasing about $200 million more in market capitalization.” (Emphasis added.)

    Review the Aevex securities class action complaint. 

    Aevex Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

    Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aevex Class A common stock during the Class Period or pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Aevex’s April 17, 2026 initial public offering (“IPO”) may complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq. for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.

    AVEX investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until October 19, 2026 to move the Court. An investor’s ability to share in any potential recovery does not depend on serving as lead plaintiff.

    Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
    (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

      Track all markets on TradingView

      About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

      There is no cost or obligation to speak with the firm, and there are no upfront fees or litigation costs. We handle class action matters on a contingency-fee basis. Any attorneys’ fees or expenses sought in connection with a recovery are subject to court approval.

      SEND US A MESSAGE

      Contact Us

      ADDRESS

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
      2001 Market Street
      Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103

      PHONE

      Tel: 215-792-6676

      EMAIL

      [email protected]

      Security Guard Unpaid Wages & Break Rights

      Aug 21, 2026 | KLF Blog

      Security guard unpaid wages may arise when hourly guards perform required work before clocking in, after clocking out, during unpaid meal periods, or outside scheduled hours. Employers generally must record and pay for compensable work they require or permit, even when the work takes only a few minutes at a time.

      When Security Guards May Be Working Off the Clock

      Security work often includes responsibilities beyond the scheduled post. Depending on the facts and applicable law, compensable time may include:

      • Arriving early for required briefings, shift handoffs, equipment checks, or assignments.
      • Waiting to use an employer’s timekeeping system after required work has begun.
      • Answering work calls or text messages before a shift, after a shift, or on a day off.
      • Monitoring a radio or remaining available to respond during an unpaid meal period.
      • Working through paid rest periods or staying after a scheduled shift to complete reports or other duties.

      All Compensable Time Can Affect Overtime

      The U.S. Department of Labor’s off-the-clock guidance explains that covered, non-exempt employees generally must be paid for all time they are required or permitted to work. Under federal law, those employees generally must receive at least one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The DOL also provides guidance specifically for the security guard and maintenance-service industry.

      Small amounts of unpaid time can add up. If omitted pre-shift, post-shift, call, or break time pushes total weekly hours above 40, the missing time may also affect overtime pay. Colorado law can provide additional overtime protection, including overtime after more than 12 hours in a workday or 12 consecutive hours, subject to applicable exemptions and rules.

      Colorado Meal and Rest Period Rights

      The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment states that most Colorado employees must receive meal periods and paid rest periods. Under the Colorado COMPS rules cited in the complaint discussed below, covered employees working more than five consecutive hours generally are entitled to an uninterrupted, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes. Covered employees also generally are entitled to a paid 10-minute rest period for each four-hour work segment or major fraction of four hours.

      A meal period may be unpaid only if the employee is relieved of all duties. If a guard must carry and monitor a radio, answer calls, respond to incidents, or otherwise remain on duty, the period may be compensable depending on the facts. Workers should also be paid for required work performed during a rest period.

      PalAmerican Security Guard Wages Class Action

      On August 19, 2026, Agustin Lopez Herrera filed a proposed class action against PalAmerican Security, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The case is Herrera v. PalAmerican Security, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-03811.

      The complaint asserts claims under Colorado law only; it does not plead a nationwide FLSA collective action. The plaintiff alleges having worked as a non-exempt, hourly security guard in Aurora, Colorado since approximately October 2025. 

      What the PalAmerican Complaint Alleges

      According to the complaint, PalAmerican allegedly paid plaintiff and putative Class Members based only on their scheduled work hours and did not record or pay all time worked. The complaint alleges that:

      • Guards had to arrive approximately 20 to 30 minutes early, park in a designated lot, take a shuttle to the job site, and complete a handoff with outgoing security personnel.
      • Workers allegedly could not clock in until the scheduled start time and sometimes had to wait to use PalAmerican’s telephone timekeeping system.
      • PalAmerican allegedly called or texted workers about job matters while they were off the clock, several times a week, for approximately 10 minutes to one hour or more per occasion.
      • Workers allegedly had to carry and monitor employer-provided radios and respond during unpaid meal periods and attempted rest periods.
      • The complaint asserts that the alleged unrecorded time resulted in unpaid regular wages, minimum wages, and overtime under Colorado law.

      Who the Complaint Seeks to Represent

      The proposed class is defined as all current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of PalAmerican Security who worked in Colorado during the three years preceding the complaint’s filing through the conclusion of the litigation.

      Review the PalAmerican Security Guard Wages Class Action Complaint.

      Records Workers Should Preserve

      Workers should consider preserving paystubs, timecards, schedules, timekeeping records, required-arrival instructions, shuttle information, post orders, shift-handoff requirements, call and text logs, and personal notes showing dates and estimated time spent on unpaid work. Keep records lawfully and do not take confidential or customer information you are not authorized to possess.

      Security Guards: Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is available to evaluate potential wage claims involving off-the-clock work, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and interrupted meal or rest periods.

      For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, send us a message or contact:

      Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
      [email protected]
      [email protected]

      About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

      Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses may be subject to court approval.

       

       

      SEND US A MESSAGE

      Contact Us

      ADDRESS

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
      2001 Market Street
      Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103

      PHONE

      Tel: 215-792-6676

      EMAIL

      [email protected]

      Innventure Securities Class Action – INV

      Aug 20, 2026 | Investigations

      A securities class action has been filed against Innventure, Inc. (“Innventure” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: INV) and certain of its officers on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Innventure securities between November 17, 2025 and August 13, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

      The action, Labed v. Innventure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07377, was filed on August 28, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

      If you purchased or otherwise acquired Innventure securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact the firm to discuss your rights without cost or obligation.

      What Does the Innventure Securities Class Action Allege?

      The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning Innventure’s business, operations, and prospects, including statements relating to Accelsius Holdings LLC (“Accelsius”), Innventure’s subsidiary focused on two-phase, direct-to-chip liquid cooling solutions.

      Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that:

      • Accelsius’s alleged transformative deal with DarkNX was unlikely to come to fruition, because there was allegedly no evidence of DarkNX constructing or facilitating a large-scale AI data center;
      • As a result, Innventure’s stated 2026 revenue and cash-flow targets for Accelsius were overstated; and
      • As a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about Innventure’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

      The DarkNX Agreement and May 2026 Report

      According to the complaint, Innventure announced on November 17, 2025 that Accelsius had entered into an agreement under which DarkNX would deploy Accelsius’s NeuCool technology across a new 300MW AI data center campus in Ontario, Canada. The complaint alleges that Innventure subsequently cited the DarkNX agreement in connection with Accelsius’s expected growth, bookings, revenue generation, and anticipated cash-flow positivity.

      The complaint alleges that on May 28, 2026, Morpheus Research published a report questioning the DarkNX project and alleging there was “zero evidence this project exists or that DarkNX has the team or funding to even contemplate such a project.”

      According to the complaint, Innventure’s stock price fell $0.54 per share, or 8.42%, to close at $5.87 per share on May 28, 2026.

      August 2026 Disclosures and 55% Stock Price Decline

      On August 13, 2026, Innventure reported second-quarter 2026 results and suspended its previously communicated expectations regarding Accelsius’s 2026 revenue and cash-flow targets.

      Innventure’s August 13, 2026 Form 10-Q disclosed that “the deployment site identified in the DarkNX purchase order is no longer available. Accelsius has removed the DarkNX project from its internal bookings.”

      According to the complaint, Innventure’s stock price then fell $1.98 per share, or 55%, to close at $1.62 per share on August 14, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

      Review the Innventure Securities Class Action Complaint.

      Innventure Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

      Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Innventure securities during the Class Period and suffered financial losses are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm’s Stockholder Information Request Form or send us a message to discuss their legal rights.

      For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact: 

      Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
      (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
      [email protected]
      [email protected]

      Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 27, 2026. Investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff must do so by October 27, 2026. Investors do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to remain potential members of the proposed class or to be eligible to share in any potential recovery.

        Track all markets on TradingView

        About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

        Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

        There is no cost or obligation to speak with the firm, and there are no upfront fees or litigation costs. We handle class action matters on a contingency-fee basis. Any attorneys’ fees or expenses sought in connection with a recovery are subject to court approval.

        SEND US A MESSAGE

        Contact Us

        ADDRESS

        Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
        2001 Market Street
        Suite 2500
        Philadelphia, PA 19103

        PHONE

        Tel: 215-792-6676

        EMAIL

        [email protected]

        Burlington Class Action: Unpaid Meal Break Claims

        Aug 20, 2026 | Investigations

        Are You a Burlington Employee Who Worked Through Unpaid Meal Breaks?

        A newly filed complaint alleges that Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation (“Burlington”) required hourly retail employees to clock out for 30-minute meal periods while remaining on duty and performing work without pay.

        Burlington Unpaid Meal Break Lawsuit

        On August 17, 2026, plaintiffs Brian Terrell, Kenyana Williams, and John Marbee filed a proposed collective and class action against Burlington in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Terrell et al. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-10483.

        What Burlington Workers Allege

        The complaint alleges that non-exempt, hourly retail store employees performed off-the-clock work during unpaid meal periods. It seeks unpaid overtime under the FLSA for the proposed nationwide collective and unpaid wages and other relief under California and New York law for the proposed state classes. No collective or class has been certified, and the court has not decided whether Burlington violated the law.

        According to the complaint, Burlington’s timekeeping application, identified as “ESS 45 Zebra,” directed employees when to clock out and deducted a 30-minute meal period from compensable time each shift. The plaintiffs allege that workers nevertheless remained subject to work demands.

        • Employees allegedly could not leave the premises and had to carry two-way radios and respond to managers.
        • Meal periods allegedly were interrupted, typically by two or three radio calls, and workers often returned to the sales floor before 30 minutes elapsed.
        • Managers allegedly told workers they could not clock back in early, even after work resumed.
        • The complaint alleges that Burlington knew of the work, because managers contacted and directed employees during the unpaid periods.

        Who the Lawsuit Seeks to Cover

        • A proposed nationwide FLSA collective of current and former hourly retail store employees employed by Burlington anywhere in the United States from August 17, 2023, through the final disposition of the case, who allegedly were subject to the challenged pay system.
        • A proposed California class of current and former hourly retail store employees employed by Burlington in California from August 17, 2022, through the final disposition of the case, who allegedly were subject to the challenged pay system.
        • A proposed New York class of current and former hourly retail store employees employed by Burlington in New York from August 17, 2020, through the final disposition of the case, who allegedly were subject to the challenged pay system.

        Review a copy of the Burlington collective/class action complaint.

        Your Right to Be Paid for Work During a Meal Period

        Hourly employees generally must be paid for all compensable time they are required or permitted to work. A meal period may be unpaid under federal law only when the employee is completely relieved from duty for the purpose of eating a regular meal. If a worker must answer calls, assist customers, respond to managers, or return to the sales floor while clocked out, that time may be compensable depending on the facts.

        Covered, non-exempt employees generally must receive at least one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. See the U.S. Department of Labor’s Fact Sheet #22 on hours worked and 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 on meal periods. State law may provide additional protections.

        The complaint asserts California claims for unpaid wages, overtime and double time, noncompliant meal periods and premium pay, waiting-time penalties, and restitution under California’s Unfair Competition Law. It asserts New York claims for unpaid wages and overtime.

        Records Burlington Employees Should Preserve

        Preserve paystubs, timecards, schedules, timekeeping records, meal-period instructions, and a lawful personal log of interrupted breaks and work performed.

        Keep records lawfully. Do not take confidential information, customer information, or materials you are not authorized to possess.

        Burlington Employees: Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

        If you worked for Burlington and believe you performed unpaid work during meal periods or other off-the-clock work, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is available to evaluate your circumstances. A confidential consultation can help you understand your rights and potential legal claims.

        For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, send us a message or contact:

        Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
        [email protected]
        [email protected]

        About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

        Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

        Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses may be subject to court approval.

         

        SEND US A MESSAGE

        Contact Us

        ADDRESS

        Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
        2001 Market Street
        Suite 2500
        Philadelphia, PA 19103

        PHONE

        Tel: 215-792-6676

        EMAIL

        [email protected]