PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

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. 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Staffing agency and temporary employees are protected by wage laws even when one company issues the paycheck and another company directs the daily work. If the wrong minimum-wage rate is used, overtime is calculated incorrectly, or not all compensable time is recorded, the worker may be owed additional wages.

Responsibility does not always stop with the staffing agency named on the paystub. Depending on the facts, the staffing agency, the worksite company, or both may be responsible for complying with federal, state, and local wage laws.

Check the Wage Rate Where You Work

Minimum wage can depend on the location where the work is performed, the date, the employer’s size or classification, and whether an exemption applies. Workers should not assume that the rate listed in an offer letter or staffing-agency assignment remains lawful after a state or local increase.

Compare each pay period with the official wage rate for the place where you actually worked. If federal, state, and local wage laws apply, a covered worker generally must receive the highest applicable minimum. Some jurisdictions use different schedules for smaller employers or particular industries, so coverage and effective dates must be checked.

Overtime Must Use the Correct Regular Rate

Under the U.S. Department of Labor’s Fact Sheet #23, covered, nonexempt employees generally must receive at least one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Hours may not be averaged across two or more workweeks.

The regular rate cannot be lower than the applicable minimum wage and may include more than the stated hourly rate. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Fact Sheet #56A on the regular rate explains that certain nondiscretionary bonuses, shift differentials, and other compensation may need to be included.

Staffing Agency or Worksite Company: Who Is Responsible?

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) uses a broad employment concept, and the DOL’s Fact Sheet #13 on the employment relationship explains that labels and technical arrangements do not determine whether a worker is an employee. The economic reality of the relationship controls.

A worker can have more than one employer under the FLSA. Whether a staffing agency and a worksite company are joint employers is a fact-specific legal question. Relevant facts can include who hires or can end the assignment, determines pay, controls schedules, directs the work, supervises performance, and maintains employment records. No single fact automatically decides every case.

The company that signs the timesheet or issues the paycheck is, therefore, not necessarily the only company whose conduct matters. Staffing employees should preserve information showing what each business actually did.

All Compensable Time Must Be Counted

The DOL’s Fact Sheet #22 on hours worked explains that covered employees generally must be paid for time they are required or permitted to work. Depending on the facts, this may include work before clocking in, work after clocking out, required training, or time spent completing assignment-related tasks.

A rule requiring advance authorization for overtime generally does not erase the obligation to pay for compensable overtime that the employer knew or had reason to know was worked, although an employer may separately enforce a workplace rule against unauthorized overtime.

Staffing Agency Wage Case Example: Workbridge Workers at Misfits Market

In Gonzalez v. Imperfect Foods, Inc. d/b/a Misfits Market, et al., No. 1:26-cv-03229-JRR (D. Md.), plaintiff Rodrigo Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) alleges that he sought employment through staffing agency Workbridge LLC and was assigned to work as a stocker at a Misfits Market warehouse in Hanover, Maryland. According to the complaint, Gonzalez and other workers supplied by Workbridge worked at the warehouse under the supervision of both Workbridge and Misfits personnel. Gonzalez allegedly worked there from approximately April 2024 through April 2025 and frequently worked more than 40 hours per week.

The complaint alleges that these staffing-agency workers were not paid the wage rates required after Howard County increased its minimum wage for employers with 15 or more employees to $16 per hour on January 1, 2025. According to the complaint, Workbridge continued paying Gonzalez and other Workbridge-supplied warehouse workers $15 per hour for regular hours and $22.50 per hour for overtime. The allegedly required rates were at least $16 and $24, respectively—an asserted shortfall of $1 for each regular hour and $1.50 for each overtime hour. The complaint also alleges that workers employed directly by Misfits who performed similar work received at least $16 per hour.

The lawsuit alleges that Workbridge hired and paid the staffing-agency workers and typically set their schedules, while both Workbridge and Misfits tracked their time, supervised their work and had authority to terminate them. Based on these allegations, Gonzalez claims that Workbridge and the Misfits defendants jointly employed the Workbridge-supplied workers at the warehouse.

Gonzalez seeks to represent a proposed FLSA collective of individuals who performed work for Workbridge in Howard County and allegedly were not paid the required overtime rate beginning January 1, 2025. He also seeks to represent a proposed Maryland class of Workbridge workers in Howard County who allegedly were denied the applicable minimum wage or overtime rate during that period. The complaint estimates that at least 70 Workbridge workers in Howard County were affected. 

Signs a Staffing Agency Employee May Be Underpaid

• Your pay rate did not change after a state or local minimum-wage increase.
• Your overtime rate is based on an hourly rate below the applicable minimum.
• Agency workers receive less than direct employees performing similar work at the same site.
• The staffing agency issues your paycheck, but the worksite company controls your schedule, duties, supervision, or continued assignment.
• Your paystub or time records do not allow you to verify regular hours, overtime hours, and rates.

Records Workers Should Preserve

• Paystubs, wage statements, timecards, schedules, and payroll-app records.
• Offer letters, assignment notices, wage-rate notices, and messages about pay.
• Notes showing the dates, locations, hours, and rates worked, including overtime.
• Communications showing who assigned work, set schedules, supervised duties, or handled discipline.

Keep records lawfully and do not take confidential information or materials you are not authorized to possess. The DOL’s Fact Sheet #21 on FLSA recordkeeping describes records covered employers must maintain, including daily and weekly hours, the basis of pay, regular hourly rate, straight-time and overtime earnings, deductions, total wages, and the pay period covered. A worker’s own contemporaneous records may still be useful.

Can an Employer Retaliate?

The FLSA prohibits retaliation against an employee for filing a complaint or cooperating in an investigation. Other protected wage complaints may also be covered. Document any threats, reduced hours, discipline, termination, or other adverse action and seek advice promptly, because filing deadlines apply.

Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is available to evaluate potential claims involving staffing-agency employment, joint-employer responsibility, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime and employee misclassification. A confidential consultation can help you understand how federal, state or local wage laws may apply to your staffing assignment and whether the staffing agency, worksite company or both may be responsible.

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.

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. 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Royal Caribbean and remanded an ERISA class action challenging target-date funds offered in the Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan.

In a decision filed on August 17, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a retirement-plan participant does not always need an identical, “apples-to-apples” investment comparison to show that a challenged investment was objectively imprudent. The decision may be significant for 401(k) participants concerned about target-date fund fees, performance, risk, asset allocation, or fiduciary monitoring.

The decision did not find that Royal Caribbean breached ERISA or that the Russell target-date funds were imprudent. The court expressly made no determination about whether summary judgment is warranted under the correct standard and remanded the case for further proceedings.

What Did the Eleventh Circuit Decide?

Ann Johnson (“Johnson”), representing a certified class of similarly situated participants, alleged that Royal Caribbean breached ERISA’s duty of prudence in connection with Russell target-date funds added to the plan. The plan replaced Vanguard target-date funds with Russell funds in 2015 and replaced the Russell funds with American Funds target-date funds in 2019.

Johnson pointed to several categories of evidence. According to the appellate record, the Russell funds had relatively few clients, and an allegedly similar Russell retail target-date series had received a negative Morningstar rating. Johnson also relied on evidence concerning the funds’ fees, performance, glide path, asset allocation, and internal communications about performance and cost.

Royal Caribbean responded that the Vanguard and American Funds target-date series were not suitable apples-to-apples comparisons, because the funds used different strategies, glide paths, asset allocations, and risk profiles.

The Eleventh Circuit did not decide which side was correct. It held that the district court should consider the full record rather than requiring an identical comparator and excluding the other evidence.

Why the Decision Matters

The district court treated an apples-to-apples comparator as mandatory and declined to consider other evidence of alleged objective imprudence. The Eleventh Circuit rejected that approach.

The appellate court explained that a participant may use appropriate comparisons, but an identical comparator is not required in every case. Qualitative evidence—such as industry ratings or whether comparable plans widely use a fund—may also be relevant. When a participant relies on quantitative comparisons of fees or performance, however, the analysis must account for differences in risk, strategy, asset allocation, and investment objectives.

What Should 401(k) Participants Review?

Target-date funds with the same retirement year can have materially different fees, risks, holdings, and glide paths.

Participants with concerns may want to review:

• Annual fee disclosures, quarterly account statements, and the plan’s investment comparison chart;
• The target-date fund’s expense ratio, underlying-fund fees, glide path, and asset allocation;
• Performance against an appropriate benchmark over a meaningful period; and
• Notices showing when the plan added, removed, or replaced investment options or managers.

Questions About Your Retirement Plan?

Investment losses or underperformance alone do not establish an ERISA violation. Questions may arise, however, when substantial retirement savings were allegedly affected by excessive fees, imprudent investments, inadequate monitoring, conflicts of interest, missing contributions, incorrect benefit calculations, or denied benefits.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. reviews potential claims involving 401(k), 403(b), pension, and other employee benefit plans. Participants and beneficiaries may submit a confidential inquiry at no cost or obligation.

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 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. 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Receiving a Form 1099 or being labeled an independent contractor does not necessarily determine your employment status. If the reality of your working relationship shows that you depend on a company for work—rather than operating an independent business of your own—you may qualify as an employee entitled to wage-and-hour protections.

Employee misclassification can deprive workers of overtime pay, minimum wages, payroll-tax contributions, and other workplace protections.

Your Job Status Depends on the Work, Not the Label

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) protects covered employees, but not workers who are genuinely independent contractors.

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) explains in Fact Sheet #13: Employment Relationship Under the FLSA that no single label or paperwork choice controls. The real working relationship matters.

NOTE: Signing an independent-contractor agreement or receiving Form 1099-NEC does not automatically make a worker an independent contractor under the FLSA. Likewise, a worker who is an employee under the FLSA cannot waive federal minimum-wage or overtime rights.

Signs of Employee Misclassification

No single fact automatically decides status. Consider the full economic reality of the relationship.

Warning signs can include:

• The company sets your schedule, workload, assignments, or work location.
• A supervisor directs how you perform the work, inspects it, disciplines you, or can remove you from the job.
• The company sets your hourly rate or price and you cannot meaningfully negotiate it.
• You earn more mainly by working more hours – not through business decisions that create a genuine opportunity for profit or risk of loss.
• The company supplies the facilities, materials, heavy equipment, or other significant investment needed for the work.
• You work continuously or indefinitely for the company rather than marketing services to multiple customers as an independent business.
• Your work is part of the company’s production process or central service.
• You are paid by the hour, tracked on company time records, and do not submit bids or invoices as a separate business.

Current DOL Guidance and the Proposed Independent-Contractor Rule

The DOL’s 2024 independent-contractor rule applies a totality-of-the-circumstances “economic realities” test to determine whether, under the FLSA, a worker is economically dependent on a potential employer for work or is instead in business for themself.

The rule identifies six factors:

1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill;
2. Investments by the worker and the employer;
3. Permanence of the work relationship;
4. Nature and degree of control;
5. Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business; and
6. Skill and initiative.

No single factor or combination of factors automatically determines a worker’s status, and additional factors may be considered if they bear on whether the worker is in business for themself or economically dependent on the potential employer for work.

The DOL explains the six factors in greater detail in Fact Sheet No. 13: Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the FLSA.

NOTE: The 2024 rule remains in effect for purposes of private litigation, although its legality is the subject of ongoing litigation. In May 2025, the DOL issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2025-1, instructing DOL’s Wage and Hour Division field staff not to apply the 2024 rule’s analysis when determining employee or independent-contractor status in FLSA investigations. Instead, WHD currently applies the analysis contained in the July 2008 version of Fact Sheet No. 13, as further informed by Opinion Letter FLSA2025-2, in its enforcement matters. The bulletin does not change the rights of employees or the responsibilities of employers under the FLSA.

In February 2026, the DOL published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would rescind the 2024 rule and replace it with a different analysis for determining employee or independent-contractor status under the FLSA, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. As of August 17, 2026, the proposed rule has not been finalized.

Rights Misclassified Workers May Be Denied

Overtime Pay

Unless an exemption applies, covered employees generally must receive at least one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Overtime ordinarily cannot be waived by agreement. Read the DOL’s Fact Sheet #23: Overtime Pay Requirements.

Minimum Wage and Payment for All Compensable Time

Covered employees must receive at least the applicable minimum wage for all compensable hours. Depending on the facts, required pre-shift or post-shift activities, job meetings, training, or other time the employer permits or requires may count as hours worked. See the DOL’s FLSA hours-worked guidance.

Accurate time and pay records

Covered employers must keep accurate records for nonexempt employees, including daily and weekly hours, pay rates, overtime earnings, deductions, total wages, pay dates, and pay periods. Review Fact Sheet #21: FLSA Recordkeeping Requirements.

Protection from retaliation

The FLSA prohibits discharging or otherwise discriminating against a worker because the worker filed a complaint or participated in a proceeding under the law. Learn more from the DOL’s FLSA anti-retaliation guidance.

FLSA Coverage Caution: Whether the FLSA applies, whether a worker is an employee, whether an exemption applies, and how damages are calculated are fact-specific questions. State and local wage laws may provide additional or greater protections.

• Preserve your records. Save paychecks, 1099 forms, contracts, schedules, texts, emails, time sheets, app records, job instructions, and photographs of workplace notices or equipment.
• Track your time. Write down each day’s start time, end time, meal periods, job locations, and unpaid work.
• Document control and business reality. Note who sets your schedule and rate, assigns work, supervises you, supplies major tools or materials, and decides whether you can hire helpers or work for others.
• Do not delay. Wage claims are subject to time limits that vary by claim and jurisdiction.
• Seek legal guidance. An employment attorney can evaluate which federal, state, and local standards apply to your work and whether time limits may affect your claims.

Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. 

Our firm is available to evaluate potential claims involving employee misclassification, unpaid wages, and unpaid overtime. A confidential consultation can help you understand which laws may apply to your work and whether you may have a legal claim. 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.

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. 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

In an August 14, 2026 press release, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced charges against Andrew Spaventa (“Spaventa”) and three entities he owned and controlled for alleged fraud and other violations involving unregistered private-fund securities offerings. The entities are The Spaventa Group LLC, TSG Capital Advisors LLC, and TSG Alpha Partners LLC.

According to the SEC, the funds purportedly offered retail investors an opportunity to invest in shares of private companies before an initial public offering while charging hidden fees. Between approximately December 2020 and June 2025, Spaventa and the three entities allegedly raised more than $74 million from more than 800 mostly retail investors across the United States for eleven private funds.

How Did the Alleged Scheme Operate?

The SEC alleges that Spaventa used entities he owned to purchase pre-IPO shares, either directly or through another investment fund, and then sold the shares to his funds in principal transactions at marked-up prices. The alleged markups were passed on to investors as hidden fees charged on the sale of membership interests in the funds.

As alleged, more than 100 “sales agents” cold-called and pitched the funds to thousands of prospective investors, many of them retirees, using high-pressure sales tactics. The defendants allegedly told investors that they would pay no upfront fees or fees of no more than 12.5%, although the prices investors paid were, on average, approximately 46% higher than the prices Spaventa paid for the investments.

The SEC alleges that the defendants collected approximately $23 million in upfront fees. According to the agency, more than $12 million was paid to sales agents as commissions and approximately $4 million went to Spaventa personally.

What Does the SEC Seek?

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges the defendants with violating antifraud, securities-registration, and broker-dealer-registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC also charges Spaventa with control-person liability and aiding and abetting violations.

The agency seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties from all defendants, as well as conduct-based injunctions against Spaventa.

Sources

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. 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]