TIAA Cash Sweep Class Action

Sep 3, 2026 | Investigations

Did TIAA Pay You Unreasonably Low Interest on Your IRA Cash?

Kehoe Law Firm is evaluating potential claims on behalf of TIAA customers with individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”) whose uninvested cash was placed in the Bank Deposit Sweep Program and who may have been credited interest at allegedly unreasonably low rates.

A proposed class action against TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC (doing business through TIAA Brokerage Division) and TIAA Trust, N.A. alleges that TIAA automatically swept uninvested cash in certain IRAs into a bank deposit sweep program that paid unreasonably low interest rates, even though higher-yielding options allegedly were available for eligible accounts.

If you have or had a TIAA IRA and uninvested cash was placed in TIAA’s Bank Deposit Sweep Program, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your account and potential legal rights without cost or obligation.

Details of the TIAA Cash Sweep Class Action

On September 1, 2026, a proposed class action, Powlen v. TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC and TIAA Trust, N.A., Case No. 1:26-cv-07494, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint challenges TIAA’s automatic Bank Deposit Sweep Program for certain IRA customers.

The complaint alleges that eligible uninvested cash was automatically swept into FDIC-insured bank deposit accounts while a higher-yielding money market fund option was available through TIAA’s platform. It further alleges that TIAA’s agreements promised that swept deposits would bear a “reasonable rate of interest,” but the rates credited to customers remained materially below short-term market benchmarks and TIAA’s own higher-yielding alternatives.

What Does the Complaint Allege?

According to the complaint, TIAA’s bank sweep rate changed only modestly while short-term interest rates rose substantially. For example, the complaint alleges that by June 2023 the Federal Funds Rate was 5.08% while the TIAA sweep rate was 1.00%. It also alleges that TIAA displayed materially higher rates for certain managed, overflow and money market options while keeping eligible customers in the lower-yield bank sweep program.

The complaint alleges that TIAA and its affiliates benefited economically from swept customer cash and that TIAA’s compensation structure created incentives to use sweep options that generated greater compensation. Customers allegedly received less interest than they would have received if TIAA had paid a reasonable rate or used available higher-yielding options.

Who Is Included in the Proposed Class?

The complaint seeks to represent all individual retirement account customers of the defendants who had cash deposits or balances in the defendants’ Bank Deposit Sweep Programs within the applicable statute of limitations.

Claims and Relief Sought

The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It seeks, among other relief, certification of the proposed class, damages including alleged lost interest, declaratory and appropriate injunctive or equitable relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs to the extent authorized.

TIAA Customers: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

TIAA customers with individual retirement accounts may have potential claims if their uninvested cash was placed in the Bank Deposit Sweep Program and credited interest at allegedly unreasonably low rates.

If you have or had a TIAA IRA with cash held in the Bank Deposit Sweep Program, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your account and legal rights.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, 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 plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will 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]

    Nikon Tariff Refund Class Action – Consumer Claims

    Sep 3, 2026 | Investigations

    A proposed class action filed against Nikon Americas Inc. and Nikon Inc. alleges that consumers paid higher prices for Nikon products because tariff-related costs were passed through to customers, while Nikon is separately pursuing refunds of duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

    If you purchased Nikon, Hermès, Swatch, or other imported consumer products and paid higher prices tied to IEEPA tariffs, Kehoe Law Firm is evaluating potential consumer claims involving tariff-related price increases and potential refunds of those increased costs. Contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your purchase and legal rights without cost or obligation.

    Details of the Nikon Tariff Class Action

    On September 2, 2026, a proposed class action, Scheflen v. Nikon Americas Inc. and Nikon Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-05455, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Nikon passed IEEPA-related tariff costs to consumers through increased pricing and is pursuing recovery of IEEPA duties through litigation in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

    According to the complaint, Nikon made the decision to increase its U.S. retail prices effective June 23, 2025. The complaint alleges that, as a direct result of Nikon’s pass-through pricing, consumers paid more for tariffed goods than they would have absent the IEEPA tariffs. It further alleges that Nikon filed multiple actions in the U.S. Court of International Trade on March 24, 2026 to recover IEEPA refunds and has made no commitment to return any portion of the anticipated tariff refunds to consumers who ultimately paid such costs.

    Who Is Included in the Proposed Class?

    The complaint seeks to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United States who purchased, through any retail channel, any Nikon product subject to the IEEPA-based tariffs from February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026. It also seeks to represent a New York subclass consisting of members of the nationwide class who purchased any Nikon product in the State of New York during that period.

    What Does the Complaint Allege?

    The complaint alleges that Nikon increased U.S. retail prices effective June 23, 2025 to pass through costs associated with the IEEPA tariffs. As a result, consumers allegedly paid a tariff-related price premium on Nikon products subject to those tariffs.

    Nikon later filed multiple actions in the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking refunds of IEEPA duties. The complaint alleges that allowing Nikon to retain the tariff-related price premium paid by consumers while also recovering the same tariff costs from the federal government would result in a double recovery.

    Claims and Relief Sought

    The complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, declaratory judgment, and, on behalf of the proposed New York subclass, violation of New York General Business Law § 349. It seeks, among other relief, certification of the proposed nationwide class and New York subclass, declaratory and equitable relief, actual, compensatory, and statutory damages, treble damages as allowed under New York law, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

    No class has been certified, and the allegations in the complaint have not been proven.

    Consumers Who Paid Tariff-Related Price Increases: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

    Kehoe Law Firm is evaluating potential consumer claims involving price increases tied to IEEPA tariffs and whether consumers may be entitled to recover amounts they paid as a result of those increases.

    If you purchased Nikon, Hermès, Swatch, or other imported consumer products and paid higher prices tied to IEEPA tariffs, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your purchase and legal rights.

    For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, 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 plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will 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]

    FuelCell Energy Securities Class Action – FCEL Investors

    Sep 2, 2026 | Investigations

    FuelCell Energy Securities Class Action Filed

    A securities class action has been filed against FuelCell Energy, Inc. (“FuelCell” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: FCEL) and certain of its officers on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired FuelCell securities between June 24, 2026 and September 1, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby.

    The action is captioned Nguyen v. FuelCell Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07953, filed September 11, 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 promulgated thereunder.

    Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired FuelCell securities between June 24, 2026 and September 1, 2026 may have legal rights and are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss their legal rights without cost or obligation.

    What Does the Complaint Allege?

    The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning FuelCell’s business, operations, and prospects.

    Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that FuelCell’s manufacturing capacity was inadequate to generate the production rate required under its capital equipment purchase agreement (“CEPA”) with Fit Energy USA LP; that the annualized production rate for deliveries under the CEPA was slower than expected; and that FuelCell was incurring higher product costs and manufacturing overhead expenses as a result.

    The complaint further alleges that the slower production rate made it reasonably likely that FuelCell would incur charges in connection with the CEPA, that these circumstances constituted a known trend affecting the Company’s profitability, and that the defendants’ positive statements about FuelCell’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

    FuelCell’s September 2, 2026 Disclosures

    According to the complaint, on September 2, 2026, before the market opened, FuelCell reported its fiscal third-quarter 2026 financial results, including a net loss of $45.3 million.

    FuelCell disclosed that the gross loss from product revenues reflected product costs and manufacturing overhead that exceeded the contractual pricing established under the CEPA with Fit Energy. The Company reported an annualized production rate of approximately 37.1 MW during the quarter, which remained below the production volume at which FuelCell expected its cost structure to align with market-based pricing for orders of that scale.

    FuelCell also recorded $17.0 million in charges associated with specific inventory and firm purchase commitments arising from Phase 0 of the CEPA with Fit Energy.

    The complaint alleges that, following these disclosures, FuelCell shares fell $2.68, or 15.69%, to close at $14.40 per share on September 2, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

    November 10, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

    Investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff must do so by November 10, 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. 

    FuelCell Energy Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

    Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired FuelCell Energy securities between June 24, 2026 and September 1, 2026 and suffered financial losses are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or send us a message to discuss their legal rights without cost or obligation.

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

    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, 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 plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will 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]

      Hims & Hers Health Securities Class Action – HIMS

      Sep 2, 2026 | Investigations

      A securities class action has been filed against Hims & Hers Health, Inc. (“Hims & Hers” or the “Company”) (NYSE: HIMS) and certain executive officers on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Hims & Hers securities between August 4, 2025 and July 29, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

      The action, Velanki v. Hims & Hers Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-09313-EKL, was filed on September 1, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

      If you acquired Hims & Hers securities during the Class Period and suffered a financial loss, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your legal rights without cost or obligation.

      What Does the Hims & Hers Health Securities Class Action Allege?

      The complaint alleges that Hims & Hers made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.

      Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hims & Hers shared consumers’ health information with third-party advertising platforms and charged consumers for prescriptions almost immediately after they submitted an intake form, despite telling consumers that they would be able to consult with a medical provider to find a treatment that was “right for them.”

      The complaint further alleges that this conduct subjected the Company to regulatory scrutiny and made Hims & Hers reasonably likely to incur fees and penalties. As a result, the complaint alleges that defendants’ positive statements about Him & Hers’ business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

      The July 29, 2026 FTC Lawsuit and HIMS Stock Decline

      According to the complaint, on July 29, 2026, during market hours, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had filed a lawsuit against Hims & Hers alleging that the telehealth provider shared consumers’ sensitive health information with third-party advertising platforms, despite claiming that its services maintained consumers’ privacy, and deceived users about its billing and cancellation practices.

      The complaint further alleges that, on this news, Hims & Hers shares declined $4.32, or 14.73%, to close at $25.00 on July 29, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

      NOTE: This action is distinct from the earlier Hims & Hers securities litigation, which involves allegations concerning the Company’s relationship with Novo Nordisk and was consolidated as In re Hims & Hers Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 25-cv-05315.

      November 2, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff must do so by November 2, 2026. Investors do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to remain potential members of the proposed class.

      Hims & Hers Health Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

      Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Hims & Hers securities during the Class Period and suffered financial losses are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential 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]

        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, 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 plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will 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]

        California Wage Theft & Worker Rights

        Sep 1, 2026 | KLF Blog

        Are You a Victim of Wage Theft in California?

        Wage theft occurs when employers do not pay workers according to the law. The California Labor Commissioner identifies examples including paying less than minimum wage, failing to pay overtime, denying required meal or rest breaks, requiring off-the-clock work, or taking workers’ tips.

        California also restricts deductions from wages and generally requires employers to reimburse employees for necessary expenditures or losses incurred in direct consequence of performing their job duties.

        If you believe you have not been paid all wages you earned, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your legal rights without cost or obligation.

        What Are Common Examples of Wage Theft?

        Workers may have wage-and-hour claims when an employer:

        • Pays less than the applicable minimum wage;
        • Fails to pay required overtime;
        • Requires employees to perform work before clocking in, after clocking out, or during unpaid time;
        • Fails to provide legally required meal or rest periods;
        • Improperly keeps or takes workers’ tips;
        • Makes unlawful deductions from wages;
        • Fails to reimburse required business expenses; or
        • Fails to pay promised or earned wages.

        California Minimum Wage in 2026

        Effective January 1, 2026, California’s statewide minimum wage is $16.90 per hour for all employers. Most California employees must be paid at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked, subject to limited exceptions. Tips are separate and cannot be counted toward the minimum wage.

        Some California cities and counties, as well as covered fast food restaurant employees and certain health care workers, are subject to higher minimum wage requirements. When a higher applicable minimum wage applies, workers may be entitled to that higher rate. Learn more about California minimum-wage requirements.

        Off-the-Clock Work Can Result in Unpaid Wages

        Employers generally must pay covered employees for compensable work they require or permit. Depending on the facts and applicable law, unpaid work may include required pre-shift or post-shift activities, meetings, training, equipment preparation, responding to work communications outside scheduled hours, or performing job duties during an unpaid meal period.

        Workers who regularly perform tasks outside recorded work hours should consider whether all of that time appears on their time records and pay statements. Kehoe Law Firm discusses similar issues in its Security Guard Unpaid Wages & Break Rights resource.

        California Overtime Pay

        Most California workers who are covered by the general overtime rules must receive 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over eight in a workday or over 40 in a workweek, and double their regular rate for hours worked over 12 in a workday. Seventh-day overtime rules also may apply. Overtime laws do not apply the same way to every worker, and different rules or exemptions may apply.

        Learn more about California overtime pay and employee rights. Federal law also generally requires covered, nonexempt employees to receive overtime at not less than one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. See Kehoe Law Firm’s FLSA overtime-pay overview.

        Meal and Rest Break Rights

        Most California workers covered by the applicable meal- and rest-period requirements must receive a 30-minute meal period when working more than five hours in a day and a second 30-minute meal period when working more than 10 hours in a day. California also generally requires a paid 10-minute rest period for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof. Meal-period waivers and different rules or exceptions may apply depending on the circumstances, worker, and industry.

        Required work during an unpaid meal period can raise both break and unpaid-wage issues. When an employer fails to provide a required meal or rest period, additional pay may be available under California law.

        Promised Wages, Deductions, and Final Pay

        The California Labor Commissioner states that employers must pay promised wages whether the promise was oral or written. California law also restricts certain deductions from employees’ wages.

        Final-pay rules also matter. According to the California Labor Commissioner, a worker who is fired generally must receive final wages on the last day of work. A worker who quits with at least 72 hours’ notice generally must be paid on the last day; without that notice, final wages generally are due within 72 hours. Waiting-time penalties may be available when final wages are willfully unpaid, subject to applicable law and defenses.

        Can an Employer Retaliate Against a Worker for Asserting Wage Rights?

        Workers may have legal protections against retaliation for asserting wage-and-hour rights. The California Labor Commissioner identifies adverse actions such as discharge, demotion, suspension, reduction in pay or hours, and certain other employment actions as potential retaliation when taken because a worker engaged in protected activity. Federal law also prohibits retaliation against employees for certain protected activity under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

        Are You Owed Unpaid Wages?

        If you believe you were not paid for all hours worked, denied overtime pay, required to work off the clock, denied required meal or rest periods, improperly classified, or otherwise denied wages you earned, you may have legal rights. Contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your circumstances.

        For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, 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 plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will 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]