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]

    Personalized Pricing & Your Data

    Aug 20, 2026 | KLF Blog

    On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) released a proposed enforcement policy statement addressing personalized pricing. The draft says that when consumers reasonably expect a non-personalized price, a business using personal data to set an individualized price should clearly and conspicuously disclose that the price is personalized, the basis for the personalization, and the types of data used.

    The FTC’s proposed enforcement position is that failing to make those disclosures is likely to be unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The draft does not itself ban personalized pricing, is not a final rule, and is not a finding that any identified company violated the law.

    What Is Personalized Pricing?

    Personalized pricing occurs when a business uses data connected to a particular consumer to determine the price offered to that consumer. The FTC’s proposal focuses on markets in which consumers reasonably expect that people shopping at the same place and time will see the same price.

    That is different from ordinary price changes that apply broadly because of supply and demand, regional taxes, market conditions, or characteristics intrinsic to the transaction. The proposal also recognizes that individualized pricing is an established feature of some markets, including credit and insurance, where price can depend on a consumer’s individual risk characteristics.

    What Does the Draft Say Businesses Should Disclose?

    The draft describes the FTC’s proposed approach to enforcing existing law; it does not create a new disclosure rule by itself. Under that approach, an effective disclosure should be clear and conspicuous and explain:

    • That the displayed price is personalized;
    • Why or on what basis the price was personalized; and
    • The types of personal data used to generate the price.

    The FTC indicates that vague language—such as saying only that a consumer received a “specially selected” price—would likely be misleading if it omits important information. The FTC also states that collecting, using, or disclosing personal data for personalized pricing without adequate disclosure or consent may violate Section 5, and that using personal data without sufficiently verifying consent for that pricing purpose may also violate Section 5.

    Examples Identified by the FTC

    The proposed statement gives non-exhaustive, discussion-only examples of undisclosed personalized pricing that could raise Section 5 concerns, including a business charging more because data suggests that a consumer:

    • Cannot easily leave home to buy food or has children in the household;
    • Is traveling for a funeral or another can’t-miss personal obligation;
    • Does not have a rideshare competitor’s app installed;
    • Needs transportation to a medical facility for a serious emergency;
    • Recently experienced a crime and is shopping for home-security equipment; or
    • Is physically inside a retailer’s store or parking lot while browsing the retailer’s website.

    Why the Proposal Matters to Consumers

    A consumer who does not know that a price is personalized may be unable to comparison-shop effectively, correct inaccurate data, change the behavior triggering a higher price, limit future data collection, or decline the transaction. The FTC states that a higher concealed personalized price may constitute substantial injury that consumers cannot reasonably avoid.

    For consumers, the proposal creates a practical investigation screen across online retail, grocery and food delivery, travel and lodging, rideshare services, ticketing, and other platforms using algorithmic pricing. Relevant questions include whether similarly situated consumers saw different prices, whether the difference was tied to personal data, what the business disclosed, and whether the consumer paid more as a result.

    Limitations of the FTC’s Personalized Pricing Proposal

    The FTC’s August 19 document is a proposed enforcement policy statement—not a ban on personalized pricing, a final policy statement, a rule, or an accusation against any particular business. The FTC states that Congress has not authorized it to prohibit personalized pricing outright; instead, the draft explains how undisclosed or misleading practices associated with personalized pricing may violate existing federal law.

    The proposal remains subject to public comment, with a 30-day comment period beginning upon publication in the Federal Register, and the FTC may revise it following that process. Its examples are hypothetical and non-exhaustive, not findings of liability. Likewise, seeing different prices does not by itself establish that unlawful personalized pricing occurred.

    Evaluating a potential matter would require examining whether personal data caused the difference, whether consumers reasonably expected a non-personalized price, what disclosures were made, whether the challenged price was paid, and what federal or state laws apply. The proposed statement expressly provides that it confers no rights, does not bind the FTC or the public, and would not relieve the FTC of proving a violation of an existing statute or regulation in any enforcement action.

    Sources:

    FTC Proposed Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing (PDF)

    Associated Press: “FTC proposal would require retailers to be transparent about personalized pricing”

    FTC press release: “FTC Seeks Comment on Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing”

    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.

    All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, 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]

    Tariff Refund Class Action Investigation

    Aug 19, 2026 | Investigations

    Consumers who paid tariff-related fees or higher prices may have claims against manufacturers, retailers, online marketplaces, shipping companies, customs brokers, and other businesses that received—or became eligible to receive—government refunds of tariff payments but did not provide corresponding refunds or credits to consumers.

    Who May Have a Claim?

    You may be affected if you purchased a product or service for which:

    • A tariff, duty, import charge, or related fee appeared separately at checkout;
    • The seller, manufacturer, marketplace, or shipping company attributed a price increase to tariffs;
    • A tariff-related cost was included in the product’s purchase price, shipping charges, or import fees; and
    • You did not receive a corresponding refund or credit after the company received or became eligible to receive a refund for the tariff.

    The investigation is not limited to any particular company, product, marketplace, or shipping program. Consumers should preserve receipts, invoices, order histories, checkout records, and communications describing tariff-related charges or price increases.

    Recent Lawsuits Illustrating the Issue

    Recently filed proposed class actions involving Logitech and Pitney Bowes provide two examples of how tariff-related costs may have been passed to consumers. The allegations differ: the Logitech case concerns alleged tariff-related increases embedded in product prices, while the Pitney Bowes case concerns alleged tariff charges collected from buyers through eBay’s Global Shipping Program.

    These lawsuits are examples of the broader issue and do not represent every company or transaction that may be affected.

    What Is the Issue?

    Beginning in February 2025, the federal government imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, commonly called IEEPA. On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

    The complaints allege that some companies passed IEEPA tariff costs to consumers through separate checkout charges or higher product prices. They further allege that those companies later received, or became eligible to receive, government refunds without returning the corresponding amounts to the consumers who allegedly bore the cost.

    At the center of these cases is a disputed question: when a consumer allegedly paid the economic cost of a tariff, may the company retain both the consumer-paid amount and the government refund?

    Logitech Tariff Refund Lawsuit

    On August 18, 2026, SJK Development, Inc. and Ala Awadalla filed a proposed class action against Logitech Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint is captioned SJK Development, Inc. and Ala Awadalla v. Logitech Inc., No. 5:26-cv-08570.

    The complaint alleges that Logitech raised U.S. retail prices across approximately half of its product catalog in or about April 2025, by an average of approximately 14% and by as much as 25% for some products. It alleges that Logitech attributed the increases to tariff costs and that the price increases more than offset the company’s tariff costs.

    The plaintiffs further allege that Logitech had received $61 million in refunds for the challenged tariffs as of June 30, 2026, including $15 million during the first quarter of fiscal year 2027 and $46 million after the quarter ended. According to the complaint, Logitech had not refunded or credited customers for the alleged tariff component of the prices they paid.

    The proposed nationwide class is defined in the complaint as all persons in the United States who, between February 4, 2025 and February 24, 2026, purchased for personal, family or household use a Logitech-branded product whose U.S. retail price was increased on or after February 4, 2025. The proposed class excludes, among others, people who purchased for resale.

    Read the complaint: SJK Development, Inc. and Ala Awadalla v. Logitech Inc. – Class Action Complaint (Filed August 18, 2026)

    Pitney Bowes and eBay Global Shipping Program Tariff Refund Lawsuit

    On August 14, 2026, Jerome Luby, Christopher Vila, and Nicholas Hughes filed a proposed class action against Pitney Bowes Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint is captioned Luby et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc., No. 3:26-cv-01311. eBay is not named as a defendant.

    The complaint alleges that Pitney Bowes managed shipping and import logistics for purchases made through eBay’s Global Shipping Program and collected IEEPA tariff charges from buyers as a separate line item. It further alleges that Pitney Bowes received $5 million in IEEPA tariff refunds during the second quarter of 2026, but had not returned corresponding tariff amounts to the buyers who allegedly paid them.

    The proposed nationwide class is defined in the complaint as all persons in the United States who purchased goods through the Global Shipping Program from February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026 and were charged prices that included IEEPA tariff costs.

    Read the complaint: Jerome Luby, Christopher Vila, and Nicholas Hughes v. Pitney Bowes Inc. – Class Action Complaint (Filed August 14, 2026)

    What Records Should Consumers Save?

    Consumers should consider preserving records that show what they purchased, what they paid, and how any tariff-related amount was described, including:

    • Receipts, invoices, order confirmations, and online order histories;
    • Credit-card or bank statements showing the purchase;
    • Checkout screens or invoices listing tariffs, duties, import charges, or related fees;
    • Product pages, emails, or notices connecting a price increase to tariffs;
    • Refund notices, credits, or customer-service communications; and
    • The product name, model number, purchase date, seller, and amount paid.

    Contact Kehoe Law Firm

    If you believe you paid a tariff-related fee or price increase and did not receive a corresponding refund or credit, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your purchase and learn more about the investigation.

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

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

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Do I need to have paid a separate tariff line item?

    Not necessarily. The Pitney Bowes complaint concerns tariff charges allegedly collected from buyers as a separate line item. The Logitech complaint concerns alleged tariff-related increases embedded in retail prices.

    Has a court decided that consumers are entitled to refunds?

    No. The cases described on this page are recently filed proposed class actions. The allegations have not been proven, and the courts have not determined that the defendants owe refunds to consumers.

    Has a class been certified?

    The complaints seek to represent proposed classes. Filing a proposed class action does not mean that a class has been certified. The class definitions may be amended, and any certification decision will be made by the court.

    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.

    All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, 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]

    SEC Charges Former Tricolor Executives With Fraud

    Aug 18, 2026 | KLF Blog

    On August 18, 2026, the SEC announced it charged Daniel Chu (“Chu”), Jerome Kollar (“Kollar”), and Ameryn Seibold (“Seibold”), the former CEO, CFO, and Senior Director of Finance, respectively, at Texas-based Tricolor Holdings, LLC (“Tricolor”), for their roles in an alleged multi-year scheme to defraud investors by double pledging hundreds of millions of dollars of subprime auto loans to multiple asset-backed securities (“ABS”) offerings and lenders.

    According to the SEC’s complaint, from at least 2020 through Tricolor’s bankruptcy in September 2025, Tricolor raised more than $1.9 billion through ABS offerings while Tricolor, Chu, and Kollar made numerous false and misleading representations to investors about the lender’s overall financial health, portraying the company as financially sound despite knowing that Tricolor was facing significant liquidity constraints and struggling to fund its operations.

    In offering materials and meetings, Tricolor allegedly represented that the loans included in the ABS collateral pools were free and clear of any other liens when the defendants knew that many had been or would soon be double pledged. The complaint further alleges that the defendants deceived underwriters and investors, including by manipulating various loan metrics to make non-paying or defaulted loans appear current and therefore eligible for inclusion in the securitization pools. According to the complaint, more than $945 million of principal associated with the ABS offerings remained outstanding and payable to investors at the time of Tricolor’s bankruptcy.

    The SEC’s complaint charges Chu, Kollar and Seibold with violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint also charges Chu with control person liability and all of the defendants with aiding and abetting liability. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against all the defendants as well as officer and director bars against Chu and Kollar. 

    The SEC stated that in a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Chu, Kollar, and Seibold in December 2025. 

    Source: SEC Press Release No. 2026-75 (August 14, 2026)

    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.

    All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, 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]