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]

      York Space Systems Securities Class Action – YSS

      Sep 1, 2026 | Investigations

      YSS Securities Class Action on Behalf of IPO and Class Period Investors //

      Securities class action complaints have been filed against York Space Systems Inc. (“York Space Systems,” “YSS” or the “Company”) (NYSE: YSS) and certain officers and other defendants.

      The initial action, Ianelli v. York Space Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-04074, was filed on August 31, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. On October 19, 2026, another securities class action complaint was filed against the Company in the same court, Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund v. York Space Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-05344.

      The October 19, 2026 complaint expands the initially alleged Class Period and asserts claims on behalf of: 1) all purchasers of YSS common stock in or traceable to the Company’s January 2026 initial public offering (the “IPO”); and 2) all purchasers of YSS common stock between January 29, 2026 and August 13, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

      Both complaints assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

      If you acquired YSS common stock in or traceable to the January 2026 IPO and/or between January 29, 2026 and August 13, 2026, inclusive, and suffered financial losses, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your legal rights without cost or obligation.

      What Does the York Space Systems Securities Class Action Allege?

      The August 31, 2026 complaint alleges that the Company’s registration statement and certain public statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to disclose material adverse information concerning the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that 1) York Space Systems’ onboard mission and payload software was not fully functional before satellites were launched; 2) this alleged ongoing trend presented a risk to YSS’s contracts with the U.S. Space Development Agency (“SDA”); and 3) as a result, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

      The October 19, 2026 complaint further alleges that York Space Systems failed to disclose material information concerning its performance under U.S. government satellite contracts, technical and software deficiencies, and the impact of government funding decisions on its business prospects. The complaint also alleges that defendants made materially misleading statements concerning the Company’s operational performance and 2026 revenue guidance.

      The May 11, 2026 Report and YSS Stock Decline

      According to the August 31, 2026 securities class action complaint, on May 11, 2026, Wolfpack Research published a report citing former employees who claimed, among other things, that York Space Systems launched satellites before mission-critical software was fully developed. Wolfpack Research also suspected that the Pentagon’s decision to halt Tranche 3 funding may have been related to YSS’s alleged software and performance issues.

      Further, the complaint states that, on this news, YSS stock fell approximately $7 during intraday trading on May 11, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of the action, York Space Systems’ stock was trading as low as $9.33 per share, more than 70% below the $34.00 per-share IPO price.

      Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 30, 2026. Investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff must do so by October 30, 2026. Investors do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to remain members of the proposed class.

      York Space Systems Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

      Investors who acquired YSS common stock in or traceable to the Company’s January 2026 IPO and/or between January 29, 2026 and August 13, 2026, inclusive, 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, ERISA  and retirement plan litigation. 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]

        Levi Strauss Tariff Refund Class Action

        Sep 1, 2026 | Investigations

        Did You Purchase Levi’s Products at Prices Allegedly Increased Because of Tariffs?

        A proposed class action has been filed against Levi Strauss & Co. (“Levi Strauss”) alleging that consumers paid higher prices for Levi’s-branded products because IEEPA tariff costs were passed through in retail prices and that consumers have not been refunded the alleged tariff-related price premiums.

        The lawsuit, Wilson v. Levi Strauss & Co., Case No. 2:26-cv-01904-JTM-MBN, was filed on August 28, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

        What Does the Levi Strauss Class Action Allege?

        According to the complaint, Levi Strauss imports products through a global supply chain and incorporated IEEPA tariff-related costs into prices charged to U.S. consumers. The plaintiff alleges that she purchased Levi’s apparel online in February 2026 and would have paid less, or would not have paid the allegedly tariff-inflated price, if those costs had not been passed on.

        The complaint further alleges that, after the U.S. Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the challenged tariffs, Levi Strauss became eligible to seek or receive tariff refunds while retaining the alleged tariff-related price premiums paid by consumers.

        This lawsuit is part of a broader developing issue involving tariff-related consumer prices and potential refunds. Learn more about Kehoe Law Firm’s Tariff Refund Class Action Investigation.

        Who May Be Affected?

        The complaint seeks to represent a proposed nationwide class of persons who purchased goods from Levi Strauss or through its authorized distribution channels, allegedly paid higher prices because of IEEPA tariffs, and have not been refunded the alleged tariff-related price premium. It also seeks a proposed Louisiana subclass.

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

        What Claims and Relief Are Sought?

        The complaint asserts unjust enrichment, enrichment without cause under Louisiana law, and Louisiana consumer-protection claims. It seeks, among other relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and interest.

        Consumers concerned about tariff-related price increases involving other brands can also read about Kehoe Law Firm’s investigation of Hermès, Swatch and Nikon customers.

        Did You Pay Higher Prices Because of Tariffs?

        Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential claims on behalf of consumers who paid higher prices for products after companies passed tariff-related costs on to their customers.

        If you purchased Levi’s products or other consumer goods that increased in price because of tariffs, you may have legal rights. Contact Kehoe Law Firm to learn more about the investigation and potential legal claims.

        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]