Ryde Group Securities Class Action – RYDE

Sep 10, 2026 | Investigations

A securities class action has been filed against Ryde Group Ltd. (“Ryde Group” or the “Company”) (NYSE: RYDE) and other defendants on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired RYDE securities between March 6, 2024 and September 11, 2024, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

The action, Weiss v. Ryde Group Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07854, was filed on September 10, 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.

If you acquired RYDE 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 Ryde Group Securities Class Action Allege?

The complaint alleges that the case arises from the September 2024 collapse of RYDE’s stock following a dramatic yet illusory run-up orchestrated by an allegedly fraudulent stock-promotion scheme propagated over social media.

Allegedly, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose, among other things, that:

  • RYDE was allegedly the subject of a fraudulent stock-promotion scheme involving social-media misinformation and impersonated financial professionals;
  • Insiders and/or affiliates allegedly used offshore or nominee accounts to facilitate the coordinated dumping of shares during the alleged price-inflation campaign;
  • RYDE’s public statements and risk disclosures allegedly omitted false rumors and artificial trading activity that the complaint contends were driving the stock price; and
  • As a result, the complaint alleges that positive statements concerning Ryde Group’s business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The Alleged RYDE Stock Promotion and Stock Decline

The complaint alleges that impersonators posing as legitimate financial advisors promoted RYDE through online forums, private chat groups and social-media posts, including WhatsApp-based communications, using allegedly baseless claims to encourage retail investors to purchase and hold RYDE shares.

According to the complaint, RYDE reached $22.49 per share on September 11, 2024 and then abruptly declined by approximately 75% during aftermarket trading. The complaint alleges that investors who acquired RYDE securities at artificially inflated prices suffered losses when the alleged truth concerning the stock-promotion activity was revealed.

RYDE Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired RYDE securities between March 6, 2024 and September 11, 2024, 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]

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 9, 2026. Investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff must do so by November 9, 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, 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]

    401(k) Fees: What Retirement Plan Participants Should Know

    Sep 10, 2026 | KLF Blog

    Do You Have Concerns About Your 401(k) Plan Fees or How Your Plan Is Being Managed?

    Your 401(k) is supposed to help you build retirement savings. But concerns about plan fees, the selection and monitoring of plan investments, service-provider relationships, or potential conflicts of interest may raise questions about how your retirement plan is being managed.

    Federal law requires 401(k) plan fiduciaries to act prudently and in the interests of plan participants, including when selecting and monitoring investments, service providers, and plan expenses.

    What 401(k) Participants Should Watch For

    Investment performance or the amount of a particular fee, standing alone, does not establish that a 401(k) plan fiduciary violated the law. Participants may nevertheless have questions about whether their plan’s investments and service providers are being prudently selected and monitored and whether plan fees and expenses are reasonable.

    Issues 401(k) participants may want to consider include:

    • Recordkeeping or administrative fees and whether those costs are being appropriately monitored;
    • Investment options with persistent performance or cost concerns and whether those investments are being prudently monitored;
    • Plan investments or service-provider arrangements that may involve potential conflicts of interest;
    • Financial products or services being marketed to participants through the plan’s recordkeeper; or
    • Whether the plan’s investment and service-provider arrangements are being periodically evaluated.

    The U.S. Department of Labor explains that 401(k) fiduciaries must use a prudent process to select investments and service providers, ensure plan expenses are reasonable in light of the services provided, and continue monitoring those choices.

    A Recent 401(k) Case Shows Why These Issues Matter

    A recent settlement involving the Liberty Mutual 401(k) Plan illustrates several of these concerns. On September 9, 2026, a federal court in Massachusetts granted final approval of a settlement resolving an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) class action concerning the management, operation, and administration of the plan. The settlement does not mean the court found that Liberty Mutual violated ERISA.

    According to Law360, the plan participants alleged that Liberty Mutual failed to monitor the plan’s recordkeeping costs, resulting in fees that were at least double what comparable plans were being charged. Law360 also reported that the participants alleged Liberty Mutual retained several funds in the plan to improve its business relationships with other financial institutions and drive revenue for the company, even though other investment options would have provided better returns.

    Law360 also reported that, in addition to the $13.4 million monetary settlement, Liberty Mutual agreed for three years to direct its plan recordkeeper to avoid soliciting 401(k) participants for cross-selling proprietary products and to conduct a request for proposal for investment and administrative consulting services.

    For 401(k) participants generally, the case highlights an important point: fiduciary oversight is not limited to investment returns. It can also involve fees, service-provider relationships, potential conflicts, and whether plan arrangements are being periodically evaluated.

    What You Can Check in Your Own 401(k)

    You do not need to know every detail of ERISA to start looking at your plan. Review your account statements and annual fee disclosures and consider:

    • What administrative or recordkeeping fees are being deducted from your account?
    • What expense ratios or other fees apply to the investments you hold?
    • What information does your plan provide about the performance, fees, and expenses of its investment options?
    • Has your recordkeeper or another plan provider marketed additional investment, insurance, rollover, or advisory products to you?
    • Have the plan’s fees, investments, or service providers changed over time?

    Keep copies of account statements, fee disclosures, investment materials, and communications from the plan or its service providers. Those records may help show how fees, investments, and provider relationships have changed over time.

    Questions About Your 401(k) Plan?

    If you have concerns about your 401(k) plan’s fees, the selection or monitoring of plan investments, recordkeeping costs, service providers, or potential conflicts of interest, contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to learn more about your potential rights under ERISA.

    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]

    Ford Edge Coolant Intrusion: NHTSA Evaluates Defect Petition

    Sep 10, 2026 | KLF Blog

    Is Your Ford Edge Experiencing Coolant Intrusion or Engine Power Loss?

    Federal auto-safety regulators are evaluating a defect petition involving approximately 499,603 model-year 2015-2018 Ford Edge vehicles equipped with 2.0-liter EcoBoost engines. The petition alleges that coolant intrusion into the engine may result in a significant loss of engine power.

    On September 3, 2026, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Defect Petition DP26008 to evaluate the issue and determine whether to grant or deny the petition. The opening of the defect petition is not a finding that a safety defect exists and is not a recall.

    What NHTSA Is Evaluating

    According to NHTSA’s ODI resume, the petition was received on August 5, 2026, and concerns 2015-2018 Ford Edge vehicles equipped with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine.

    The petition alleges that coolant intrusion into the engine may result in:

    • A significant loss of engine power;
    • An “Engine Coolant Over Temperature” warning message;
    • Rough engine operation after the vehicle has been allowed to sit and cool down; and
    • A check-engine light associated with a cylinder misfire.

    The ODI resume identifies an estimated population of 499,603 vehicles and lists 1,563 incidents. It reports no crashes or fires, injury incidents, injuries, fatality incidents, or fatalities in its failure-report summary.

    Ford Previously Addressed Coolant Intrusion in a Technical Service Bulletin

    Ford previously issued Technical Service Bulletin 19-2346 concerning certain vehicles equipped with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine, including 2015-2018 Ford Edge vehicles. The bulletin states that some affected vehicles may exhibit low coolant, white exhaust smoke, rough running, or an illuminated malfunction indicator lamp, and that the condition may be due to coolant intrusion into a cylinder. For vehicles meeting the bulletin’s criteria, Ford’s service procedure called for replacement of the long-block engine assembly.

    What Ford Edge Owners Should Know

    At this stage, NHTSA is evaluating whether to grant or deny the defect petition. The agency has not, through DP26008, determined that the covered Ford Edge vehicles contain a safety defect or ordered a recall.

    Owners of 2015-2018 Ford Edge vehicles with a 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine may want to preserve repair orders, diagnostic records, invoices, warranty communications, and other records concerning coolant loss, overheating warnings, misfires, rough running, engine-power loss, or engine replacement.

    Questions About This Information?

    Consumers who have questions about the information discussed on this page may contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.:

    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]

    Amazon Pregnancy Accommodation Class Action

    Sep 9, 2026 | Investigations

    Did Amazon Deny You Pregnancy-Related Breaks or Other Workplace Accommodations?

    A class action complaint has been filed against Amazon.com Services, LLC (“Amazon”) alleging Amazon denied or delayed basic accommodations for pregnant workers and penalized workers who took pregnancy-related breaks or absences.

    The case, Barclay et al. v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05531, was filed on September 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”).

    What the Amazon Pregnancy Lawsuit Alleges

    The complaint alleges Amazon has company-wide policies that fail to accommodate pregnant workers and penalize workers who seek or use pregnancy-related accommodations. The named plaintiffs are former Amazon warehouse employees who became pregnant and asked Amazon for accommodations so they could continue working.

    • Required doctor’s notes: The complaint alleges Amazon required medical documentation before providing basic pregnancy-related accommodations, including additional bathroom or water breaks and opportunities to sit.
    • Delayed or denied accommodations: The complaint alleges Amazon delayed or denied certain pregnancy-related accommodations while workers attempted to obtain or provide medical documentation.
    • Unpaid time off (UPT) deductions: The complaint alleges Amazon deducted UPT for pregnancy-related breaks and absences, including certain breaks that had already been approved as accommodations.
    • Time off task (TOT): The complaint alleges Amazon counted certain pregnancy-related breaks as TOT, which could lead to discipline or termination. One plaintiff alleges Amazon treated time she spent pumping breast milk in an Amazon lactation room as “inactive” time and flagged her for excessive TOT.
    • Discipline or termination: The complaint alleges UPT deductions and time counted as TOT were used as a basis for termination warnings and, in some instances, termination.

    Which Amazon Workers May Be Affected?

    The lawsuit seeks to represent certain current and future Amazon workers nationwide who have sought or may seek accommodations for pregnancy-related limitations. It also seeks damages for certain current and former Amazon workers who sought pregnancy-related accommodations and were subjected to the policies challenged in the complaint. The lawsuit includes corresponding proposed classes of Amazon workers in New York.

    You may be covered by the lawsuit if, while working for Amazon, you:

    • Requested a pregnancy-related workplace accommodation, such as additional breaks or an opportunity to sit;
    • Had a pregnancy-related accommodation delayed or denied;
    • Were required to provide a doctor’s note before receiving a pregnancy-related accommodation;
    • Had unpaid time off (UPT) deducted for pregnancy-related breaks or absences;
    • Had pregnancy-related breaks or time spent pumping counted against you as time off task (TOT); or
    • Were disciplined, threatened with termination, or terminated after requesting an accommodation or taking pregnancy-related time away from work.

    What Does the Lawsuit Seek?

    The complaint asserts claims under the PWFA concerning alleged failures to accommodate, retaliation, and intimidation or interference with workers’ pregnancy-related accommodation rights. It also asserts a claim under the NYLL alleging Amazon penalized certain New York workers for pregnancy-related absences.

    The plaintiffs seek changes to the challenged Amazon policies and practices, as well as damages, reinstatement, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief.

    Amazon Workers: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

    If you worked for Amazon while pregnant and were denied or delayed a workplace accommodation, had unpaid time off (UPT) deducted for pregnancy-related breaks or absences, had pregnancy-related breaks or time spent pumping counted against you as time off task (TOT), or faced discipline or termination after requesting or using an accommodation, contact Kehoe Law Firm to learn more about the allegations and your potential 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]

    Campbell’s Overtime Lawsuit for Contingent Workers

    Sep 9, 2026 | Investigations

    Did You Work More Than 40 Hours But Only Get Paid for 40?

    A class and collective action complaint has been filed against The Campbell’s Company and CorTech, LLC (“CorTech”) on behalf of certain hourly contingent workers who allegedly worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving all overtime compensation owed.

    The case, Onyango v. The Campbell’s Company and CorTech, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-09799, was filed on August 3, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (“NJWHL”), the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (“NJWPL”), and for breach of contract.

    If you worked as an hourly contingent worker for Campbell’s in a non-manual role and worked more than 40 hours in a week without receiving all overtime compensation owed, contact Kehoe Law Firm to learn more about the allegations and your potential rights.

    Campbell’s Contingent Worker Overtime Allegations

    The complaint alleges Campbell’s business model includes using staffing agencies such as CorTech to obtain “contingent workers” and that Campbell’s and CorTech jointly employed the plaintiff and similarly situated workers. It alleges certain hourly, non-exempt contingent workers performed work beyond 40 hours per week but were not paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.

    • Work beyond 40 hours: The complaint alleges workers were required, permitted, or allowed to perform work beyond 40 hours, including nights and weekends.
    • Time limited to 40 hours: The plaintiff alleges Campbell’s marketing leadership instructed her to submit only 40 hours per week and eight hours per day on her timesheets.
    • Timekeeping restrictions: The complaint alleges Fieldglass, CorTech’s timekeeping system, blocked, restricted, or did not allow the plaintiff to enter certain weekend and overtime hours.
    • Unpaid overtime: The plaintiff alleges she generally worked approximately 50 to 55 hours per week, but was paid for only 40 hours, despite being classified as non-exempt and eligible for overtime payments at 1.5 times her standard pay rate.

    Which Campbell’s Contingent Workers May Be Covered?

    The lawsuit seeks to cover certain current and former hourly contingent workers who worked more than 40 hours in a week without receiving overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, including:

    • Campbell’s workers nationwide: Hourly contingent workers in the United States who were employed by Campbell’s as non-manual workers, onsite or remotely, during the three years before the lawsuit was filed through the present.
    • Workers in New Jersey: Hourly contingent workers employed by Campbell’s and CorTech as non-manual workers, onsite or remotely, or in substantially similar roles in New Jersey, during the six years before the lawsuit was filed through the present.
    • Workers placed by CorTech at Campbell’s: Hourly contingent workers who received offer letters from CorTech and/or entered into employment contracts with CorTech, were placed by CorTech at Campbell’s within the applicable limitations period, worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, and were not paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.

    Claims and Relief Sought

    The complaint asserts claims for failure to pay overtime under the FLSA and NJWHL, failure to pay wages under the NJWPL, and breach of contract. The plaintiff seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and other relief. For the New Jersey statutory claims, the complaint seeks liquidated damages equal to 200% of unpaid wages, including overtime wages.

    Campbell’s Contingent Workers: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

    If you worked as an hourly contingent worker for Campbell’s in a non-manual role and believe you worked more than 40 hours in a week without receiving all overtime compensation owed, contact Kehoe Law Firm to learn more about the allegations and your potential 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]