CVS Securities Class Action: Court Allows Key Investor Claims to Proceed

Aug 28, 2026 | News

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents lead plaintiff Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) in a securities class action against CVS Health Corporation and certain of its officers pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On August 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett partially granted and partially denied CVS’s motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint, allowing certain investor claims concerning alleged omissions about CVS’s use of artificial intelligence in Medicare Advantage prior-authorization reviews to proceed.

Opinion & Order 

“This is a good result for SEPTA and the investor class. The Court’s decision allows significant claims concerning CVS’s alleged omissions about its use of AI tools and their financial impact to move forward,” said John A. Kehoe of Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. “We look forward to continuing to prosecute the case on behalf of SEPTA and the class.”

What Did the Court Decide?

The court allowed certain investor claims concerning CVS’s alleged omissions about its use of AI tools and their financial impact to proceed. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court concluded that plaintiffs adequately alleged actionable statements concerning CVS’s financial forecasts and statements identifying the primary drivers of CVS’s financial success.

What Do the Investors Allege?

The amended complaint alleges that CVS used AI tools in connection with Medicare Advantage prior-authorization reviews and that those practices generated substantial cost savings. Plaintiffs allege that CVS misled investors by identifying other factors as primary drivers of its financial performance while failing to disclose material information concerning the use and financial impact of those tools.

Case Information

Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund et al. v. CVS Health Corp. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05303, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lead plaintiffs are Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension & Relief Fund, and the City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust.

Investors with questions or concerns about the class action can send us a message or contact:

John Kehoe, Esq.
(215) 792-6676, Ext. 801
[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 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.

    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 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]

    Flotek Industries Securities Class Action – FTK

    Aug 27, 2026 | Investigations

    A securities class action has been filed against Flotek Industries, Inc. (“Flotek” or the “Company”) and certain of its officers on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Flotek securities between August 3, 2026 and August 17, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby.

    Flotek common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol FTK.

    According to the complaint, Flotek is an energy technology and services company.

    What Does the Flotek Securities Class Action Allege?

    The action, Bashir v. Flotek Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07285, was filed on August 26, 2026, in the United States 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.

    According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning Flotek’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose:

      • Concerns about the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) project participants — There were credible reasons to doubt the experience, organization, and financial capacity of the consortium parties for PREPA’s power generation project;
      • Risk to anticipated PREPA revenue — As a result, there was a risk that revenue from the PREPA contract would not be realized; and
      • Allegedly misleading positive statements — As a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about Flotek’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

    What Happened to Flotek’s Stock Price?

    According to the complaint, on August 17, 2026, Wolfpack Research published a report alleging that Flotek’s $400 million PREPA contract, which the report said accounted for approximately 57% of Flotek’s backlog, had been canceled. The complaint alleges that the report also raised issues concerning the consortium involved in the PREPA project and an allegedly unauthorized signature.

    The complaint alleges that Flotek’s stock price fell $7.17, or 20.01%, to close at $28.66 per share on August 17, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

    The complaint further alleges that on August 18, 2026, Flotek disclosed that the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico had voted to revoke its approval of the underlying power generation contract and to direct PREPA to terminate the contract. Flotek also disclosed that PREPA had directed consortium parties to hold work on the project while PREPA evaluated the developments. The complaint alleges that Flotek’s stock price fell another $1.64, or 5.72%, to close at $27.02 per share on August 18, 2026.

    According to the complaint, on August 19, 2026, Flotek confirmed that PREPA had delivered formal notice terminating the power purchase and operating agreement, effective immediately. The complaint alleges that Flotek’s stock price then fell $1.85, or 6.85%, to close at $25.17 per share on August 19, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

    Review the Flotek Securities Class Action Complaint

    Flotek Investors Who Suffered Losses

    Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Flotek securities during the Class Period and suffered financial losses may complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or contact the firm to discuss potential legal claims.

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

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

    Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2026. Investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff must do so by October 26, 2026. Investors do not need to serve as lead plaintiff 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]

      Manager Overtime Pay – Know Your Rights

      Aug 26, 2026 | KLF Blog

      Are You a Salaried Manager Working More Than 40 Hours Without Overtime?

      Being called a “Manager” or “Assistant Manager” – or being paid a salary – does not necessarily mean you are exempt from overtime pay.

      Managers in restaurants, retail stores, hospitality businesses, and other workplaces may spend much of their time performing the same hands-on work as hourly employees while regularly working more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.

      Whether a salaried manager is entitled to overtime can depend on the employee’s actual job duties, authority, and responsibilities – not simply the employee’s title or the fact that the employee receives a salary.

      Shake Shack Lawsuit Highlights Manager Overtime Misclassification

      A collective action complaint filed on August 17, 2026 against Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC illustrates the type of manager misclassification allegations that can arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint alleges that the plaintiff worked as a Shake Shack Manager from approximately September 2019 until February 2026.

      According to the complaint, Shake Shack allegedly classified salaried Managers and Assistant Managers as exempt from overtime, even though their primary duties consisted of non-exempt work. The complaint alleges that these employees typically worked approximately 45 to 55 hours per week while receiving a salary, but no overtime compensation for hours worked over 40.

      The complaint further alleges that Managers and Assistant Managers spent the substantial majority of their working time – approximately 90% or more – performing non-exempt work because of staffing shortages and the need to provide breaks to hourly employees. That work allegedly included running food and drink stations, preparing and serving food, taking orders, assisting guests, and covering staffing shortages.

      The lawsuit also alleges that routine tasks were performed under Shake Shack’s predetermined templates, policies, procedures, and operational plans, and that Managers and Assistant Managers did not exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

      What Does the Shake Shack Complaint Seek?

      The complaint seeks to pursue FLSA claims on behalf of a proposed collective of current and former salaried Managers and Assistant Managers employed by Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC anywhere in the United States from August 17, 2023 through the final disposition of the matter. It seeks, among other things, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

      Do You Have a Manager Title But Spend Most of Your Time Doing Hourly Work?

      Salaried employees with management titles may warrant an overtime review when their actual day-to-day work is primarily non-managerial.

      Your circumstances may warrant legal review if, for example:

      • You regularly work more than 40 hours per week but do not receive overtime pay;
      • You are paid a salary and classified as exempt from overtime;
      • You spend much of your workday performing the same hands-on tasks as hourly employees;
      • Staffing shortages require you to regularly fill hourly positions or perform frontline work;
      • Your hiring, firing, scheduling, disciplinary, or other personnel authority is limited or controlled by corporate policies or senior management; or
      • You have a management title but limited discretion or authority to make significant independent decisions.

      A Salary or Manager Title Does Not Automatically Determine Overtime Eligibility

      Under the FLSA, whether an overtime exemption applies generally depends on the requirements of the particular exemption and the employee’s actual duties and compensation. A job title alone does not establish that an employee is exempt from overtime.

      Kehoe Law Firm is investigating potential overtime misclassification of managers and assistant managers. Learn more about manager overtime misclassification and whether your job duties and hours worked may warrant legal review.

      Managers and Assistant Managers: Questions About Unpaid Overtime?

      If you are or were a salaried Manager or Assistant Manager and regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay – particularly if much of your time was spent performing the same work as hourly employees – Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is available to discuss your circumstances and potential rights.

      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 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.

      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 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]

      Tobacco Health Insurance Surcharges & Employee Rights

      Aug 26, 2026 | Investigations

      Paying More for Health Insurance Because You Use Tobacco or Nicotine?

      Employees across the country may be paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars more each year for employer-sponsored health insurance because they or a covered family member use tobacco or nicotine products.

      These charges may appear on a paycheck or benefits statement as a tobacco surcharge, nicotine surcharge, wellness charge, tobacco-user rate, higher health insurance premium, or the loss of a non-tobacco discount. Depending on how an employer’s wellness program is structured and administered, these additional charges may warrant legal review.

      Recent 7-Eleven Settlement Highlights Tobacco-Surcharge Issues

      A recent proposed class action involving 7-Eleven highlights the potential significance of tobacco-related health insurance surcharges for employees. According to an August 25, 2026 Law360 article, former 7-Eleven employee Barbara A. Baker (“Baker”) filed a lawsuit challenging the company’s tobacco surcharge under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The case was filed in Pennsylvania federal court in September 2024 and later transferred to federal court in Texas.

      According to Law360, Baker alleged that 7-Eleven employees who used tobacco were charged $14 per paycheck, or $720 per year, to remain insured under the company’s health plan. She further alleged that employees who completed the company’s tobacco-cessation program after a specified point in the plan year were not reimbursed for surcharge amounts they had already paid.

      According to Law360, in February 2026, U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr denied 7-Eleven’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Baker had alleged sufficient facts showing that the program may not comply with ERISA.

      On August 24, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Status Report stating that, following an August 18 mediation, they had reached a settlement in principle to resolve the litigation. The filing states that the parties will draft a class action settlement agreement and that Baker intends to seek preliminary court approval no later than October 5, 2026.

      The 7-Eleven case is one example of a broader issue that may affect employees who pay additional health insurance charges because they or a covered family member use tobacco or nicotine products.

      Are You Paying a Tobacco or Nicotine Surcharge?

      Your health-plan surcharge may warrant legal review if, for example:

      • You were charged more for health insurance because you or a covered family member uses tobacco or nicotine;
      • You were not clearly told how to avoid the surcharge;
      • You participated in or completed a tobacco-cessation or alternative program, but continued paying the surcharge;
      • You were required to actually stop using tobacco or nicotine to receive the lower premium; or
      • You completed an alternative program, but did not receive the full benefit or reimbursement.

      Whether a particular surcharge is improper depends on the health plan’s documents, disclosures, alternative standards, and administration.

      You May Be Able to Recover Tobacco-Surcharge Payments

      Employees have filed class actions challenging employer tobacco and nicotine surcharges under federal employee-benefit law. Paying a surcharge does not automatically establish a claim, but employees who were charged additional amounts may have legal rights depending on how their employer’s program was designed, disclosed, and administered.

      Learn more about Kehoe Law Firm’s investigation: Paying a Tobacco Surcharge for Health Insurance?

      Employees: Questions About a Tobacco or Nicotine Surcharge?

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating employer tobacco and nicotine-related health insurance surcharges. If you paid a tobacco or nicotine surcharge — or paid more because a family member covered by your workplace health plan used a covered product — Kehoe Law Firm is available to discuss your circumstances.

      Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

      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 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.

      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]

      Block Stockholder Derivative Lawsuit

      Aug 25, 2026 | Investigations

      A verified stockholder derivative complaint filed August 21, 2026 alleges that certain current and former Block, Inc. (“Block” or the “Company”) (NYSE: XYZ) directors and officers failed to adequately oversee compliance risks involving Cash App and harmed the Company.

      The action, Iron Workers Local Union No. 401 v. Dorsey, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-08765, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California derivatively on behalf of Block against certain current and former directors and executive officers. Block is named as the nominal defendant.

      What Claims and Relief Are Asserted?

      The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste, as well as alleged violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

      On behalf of Block, the plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and disgorgement, and corporate-governance and internal-procedure reforms. The requested reforms include measures intended to prevent and remedy practices that violate federal and state consumer-protection and securities laws and additional audit, compliance, and internal-control procedures.

      What Does the Complaint Allege?

      The complaint alleges that, from at least 2019 through 2024, Block fiduciaries prioritized Cash App growth over compliance and either failed to adequately oversee compliance or caused Block to engage in allegedly unlawful conduct. Specifically, the complaint alleges that:

      • Cash App was designed to make signup and use easy, including through minimal identity-verification requirements, and Block fiduciaries allegedly chose to reduce user “friction” rather than implement compliance measures that could slow user acquisition.
      • Block became subject to regulatory actions, fines, civil litigation, and other consequences that the complaint attributes to alleged Cash App compliance failures.
      • Certain directors and officers allegedly made or allowed false or misleading statements concerning Block’s compliance practices, risk oversight, and Cash App user metrics.
      • Certain insiders allegedly sold more than $1.2 billion of Block stock while possessing material nonpublic information concerning the Company’s compliance regime and changing growth metrics.
      • The complaint alleges that false or misleading public statements caused Block to repurchase its own stock at inflated prices, further harming the Company.

      Regulatory Actions Cited in the Complaint

      The complaint cites several 2025 regulatory matters as part of its allegations concerning harm to Block, including:

      • A January 2025 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau order requiring Block to pay at least $75 million and up to $120 million in consumer redress, plus a $55 million civil penalty, and to implement specified changes to its practices;
      • A January 2025 multistate settlement with state money-transmission regulators requiring an $80 million penalty and compliance measures, including an independent review of Block’s anti-money-laundering program; and
      • An April 2025 New York State Department of Financial Services consent order imposing a $40 million civil monetary penalty and requiring an independent monitor to assess Block’s remediation and compliance program.

      Review a copy of the Block Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint.

      What Is a Stockholder Derivative Action — and Why Does It Matter?

      A stockholder derivative action is brought by a stockholder on behalf of the corporation to pursue claims that allegedly belong to the company. Unlike a securities class action seeking direct damages for investors, a derivative action can seek relief for the corporation itself, which can be significant to stockholders. In this case, the complaint seeks monetary recovery for Block as well as reforms to the Company’s governance, compliance, audit, and internal-control procedures designed to protect Block and its stockholders from a recurrence of the alleged misconduct.

      Why Should Stockholders Come Forward?

      Stockholders can play an important role in derivative litigation by seeking accountability for alleged misconduct and pursuing relief intended to benefit the company. A stockholder serving as a derivative plaintiff acts on behalf of the corporation rather than simply seeking an individual damages payment.

      Here, the complaint asks the court to award damages to Block, require restitution and disgorgement from the individual defendants, and direct Block to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, including additional audit, compliance, and internal-control measures. These forms of relief are intended to benefit the Company and its stockholders by seeking to restore corporate value and strengthen protections against future misconduct.

      Block Stockholders: Questions About the Derivative Action?

      If you are a current Block stockholder and have questions about the derivative action, your rights as a stockholder, or the role a stockholder may play in derivative litigation, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is available to discuss the case and evaluate your circumstances.

      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]

        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]