A securities class action was filed against The Simply Good Foods Company (“Simply Good Foods” or the “Company”) and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all purchasers of Simply Good Foods common stock between October 24, 2024 and April 8, 2026, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

Simply Good Foods common stock trades on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol SMPL.

Simply Good Foods develops and sells consumer packaged health foods and snacking products under brands that include Quest, Atkins, and Only What You Need (“OWYN”). On April 29, 2024, the Company announced an agreement to acquire OWYN for $280 million in an all-cash transaction, which closed on June 13, 2024.

What Does the Simply Good Foods Class Action Allege?

The action, Monroe County Employees’ Retirement System v. The Simply Good Foods Company, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-06971, was filed on August 14, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants allegedly made materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts concerning Simply Good Foods’ business, operations, and financial condition.

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

• Simply Good Foods had lost key managerial personnel needed to successfully integrate OWYN, impairing its ability to achieve the acquisition’s purported strategic, financial, and operational targets;
• The Company had materially increased general and administrative spending to compensate for the personnel losses, creating an inefficient and bloated organizational structure and a lack of clear, cohesive strategic priorities for OWYN;
• The addition of a new pea-protein supplier for OWYN formulations before the acquisition created significant product-quality issues affecting taste, texture, and shelf life, leading to negative reviews, depressed sales, and the loss of important distributor relationships;
• The Company used discounts and other promotional activities above historical practices in an effort to boost short-term OWYN sales, eroding margins without achieving the desired sales turnaround;
• The Company cut OWYN brand support and marketing in an effort to stem margin erosion, further depressing product sales; and
• As a result, the acquisition largely failed to achieve its key strategic goals, the OWYN integration encountered severe operational and execution problems, and OWYN’s business and operating results were materially negatively affected.

The complaint alleges that, on October 23, 2025, Simply Good Foods reported a slowdown in OWYN sales growth and disclosed that end-user consumption had declined because of a previously undisclosed product-quality issue involving a pea-protein sourcing decision. According to the complaint, Simply Good Foods common stock fell from just under $25 per share on October 22, 2025 to $20.63 per share on October 23, 2025, a decline of more than 17% on above-average trading volume.

The complaint further alleges that, on April 9, 2026, Simply Good Foods reported that consumer consumption had declined across all of its brands, OWYN quarterly sales had contracted by nearly 17% year over year, the Company had recorded a $187 million impairment charge against OWYN brand intangible assets, and the Company had reduced its fiscal 2026 net-sales outlook to a range of negative 7% to negative 10%.

According to the complaint, Simply Good Foods’ returning chief executive officer acknowledged that the Company had made strategic choices that weakened brand performance and that the OWYN integration had failed to meet the Company’s expectations. The complaint alleges that Simply Good Foods common stock declined from $14.41 per share on April 8, 2026 to $10.44 per share on April 10, 2026, a decline of more than 27% over two trading days on above-average volume.

The complaint also alleges that, on July 9, 2026, Simply Good Foods disclosed an additional $13 million impairment of its OWYN assets, bringing cumulative OWYN impairments to $200 million, or approximately 70% of the acquisition price.

Review the Simply Good Foods securities class action complaint. 

Simply Good Foods Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

Investors who acquired Simply Good Foods common stock during the Class Period and suffered financial 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.

SMPL investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until October 13, 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]

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.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

A securities class action was filed against Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc. (“Aardvark” or the “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Aardvark common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering conducted on or about February 13, 2025 (the “IPO” or “Offering”); and/or (b) Aardvark securities between February 13, 2025 and May 14, 2026, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

Aardvark common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol AARD.

According to the complaint, Aardvark issued 5,888,000 shares to the public at $16.00 per share in the IPO, generating proceeds of $87,613,440 after underwriting discounts and commissions.

Aardvark is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing small-molecule therapies intended to inhibit hunger and treat metabolic diseases, including Prader-Willi Syndrome. Its lead product candidate is ARD-101.

What Does the Aardvark Therapeutics Securities Class Action Allege?

The action, Wonderly v. Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-04643-BJC-GC, was filed on August 14, 2026, in 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 and alleges that the IPO offering documents were negligently prepared, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted facts necessary to make the statements not misleading, and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. The complaint further alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made materially false or misleading statements concerning Aardvark’s business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the offering documents and the defendants made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

• ARD-101 was less safe than the defendants had led investors to believe;
• ARD-101’s clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects were overstated; and
• As a result, the defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The complaint alleges that, on February 27, 2026, Aardvark announced that it was voluntarily pausing enrollment and dosing in its Phase 3 Hunger Elimination or Reduction Objective (“HERO”) trial, while reviewing reversible cardiac observations found at above-target therapeutic doses during routine safety monitoring in a healthy-volunteer study.

According to the complaint, Aardvark’s stock price fell $7.02 per share, or 56.2%, to close at $5.47 per share on March 2, 2026.

The complaint further alleges that, on May 14, 2026, Aardvark announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had placed a full clinical hold on the investigational new drug application for ARD-101. According to the announcement described in the complaint, the hold applied to all ongoing clinical studies under the application, including the Phase 3 HERO trial and the Phase 3 open-label extension trial evaluating ARD-101 for hyperphagia in patients with Prader-Willi Syndrome.

According to the complaint, Aardvark’s stock price fell $2.16 per share, or 32.1%, to close at $4.57 per share on May 15, 2026. The complaint also states that Aardvark common stock remained below the $16.00 IPO price when the complaint was filed.

Review the Aardvark Therapeutics securities class action complaint.

AARD Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

Investors who acquired Aardvark common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering documents and/or purchased or otherwise acquired Aardvark securities during the Class Period and suffered financial 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.

AARD investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until October 13, 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]

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.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

A securities class action was filed against HDFC Bank Limited (“HDFC” or the “Company”) and certain of its officers on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired HDFC securities between July 17, 2023 and May 26, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

HDFC American Depositary Shares (“ADS”) trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol HDB.

What Does the HDFC Bank Complaint Allege?

The action, Soneji v. HDFC Bank Limited, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-06943, was filed on August 13, 2026, in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants allegedly made materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning HDFC’s business, operations, and prospects.

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

• HDFC Bank camouflaged payments as marketing spending to pay higher interest to a state firm in order to induce deposits;
• These activities were approved by senior management;
• These activities likely violated banking regulations and HDFC’s own policies, including policies prohibiting payments that could constitute improper inducement;
• HDFC’s interest income and operating expenses were overstated; and
• As a result, the defendants’ positive statements concerning HDFC’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading or lacked a reasonable basis.

The complaint alleges that, on March 18, 2026, HDFC reported the resignation of Atanu Chakraborty from his roles as part-time Chairman and Independent Director. According to the complaint, his resignation letter stated that certain happenings and practices within the bank were not in congruence with his personal values and ethics.

According to the complaint, HDFC’s ADS price fell $2.09, or 7.28%, to close at $26.62 per ADS on March 18, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint further alleges that, before the market opened on May 27, 2026, The Indian Express reported that HDFC had made covert payments of approximately Rs 45 crore, or approximately $4.7 million, to the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation to induce it to make large deposits with HDFC. The article reportedly stated that the interest-rate differential had been disguised as sponsorship payments for a road-safety-awareness campaign and that an internal investigation had attributed responsibility to more than ten senior officials, including HDFC’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

According to the complaint, HDFC’s ADS price fell $1.02, or 4.1%, to close at $23.78 per ADS on May 27, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Review the HDFC Bank securities class action complaint.

HDFC Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired HDFC securities during the Class Period and suffered financial 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.

HDFC investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until October 13, 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]

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.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

A securities class action has been filed against UWM Holdings Corporation (“UWM” or the “Company”) and certain of its officers on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired UWM securities between March 9, 2026 and August 5, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

UWM common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol UWMC.

What Does the UWM Holdings Class Action Allege?

The action, Bond v. UWM Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-12862-BRM-APP, was filed on August 13, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants allegedly made materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning UWM’s business, operations, and prospects.

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

• UWM had deviated from its traditional strategy of not hedging its mortgage servicing rights by taking a major hedge position;
• UWM had over-hedged itself in anticipation of its proposed transaction with Two Harbors Investment Corp.;
• UWM’s purported efforts to balance its risk had instead created excess hedging risk; and
• As a result, the defendants’ positive statements concerning UWM’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading or lacked a reasonable basis.

The complaint further alleges that, after the market closed on August 5, 2026, UWM reported second-quarter 2026 financial results that included a $603.2 million interest-rate-derivatives loss, which contributed to a $451.9 million quarterly net loss.

According to the complaint, UWM’s CEO stated during an August 6, 2026 earnings call that the Company had been “over-hedged” in connection with the anticipated Two Harbors transaction.

The complaint alleges that UWM shares subsequently declined $0.64, or 34.78%, closing at $1.20 per share on August 6, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Review the UWM Holdings securities class action complaint.

UWM Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired UWM securities during the Class Period and suffered financial 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:

UWM investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until October 13, 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]

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.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]