Fractyl Health Securities Class Action – GUTS

Aug 23, 2026 | Investigations

A securities class action has been filed against Fractyl Health, Inc. (“Fractyl” or the “Company”) and certain of its officers on behalf of persons and entities, other than Defendants, that purchased or otherwise acquired Fractyl securities between January 13, 2025 and January 29, 2026, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

Fractyl common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Market under the ticker symbol GUTS.

According to the complaint, Fractyl is a metabolic therapeutics company that develops therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity and is developing, among other things, the Revita DMR System (“Revita”).

What Does the Fractyl Health Securities Class Action Allege?

The action, Lorne v. Fractyl Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07167, was filed on August 21, 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 promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

  • Revita was less effective than Defendants had led investors to believe, and/or operational issues at one or more of the REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohort clinical sites compromised the integrity of its efficacy results;
  • Accordingly, Revita’s clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects were overstated, as was the REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohort’s ability to assess Revita’s efficacy; and
  • As a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The complaint further alleges that Fractyl touted Revita’s efficacy based on interim data from the REVEAL-1 and REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohorts. In September 2025, Fractyl announced three-month REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohort data and characterized the results as “groundbreaking,” “clinically and statistically significant,” and “striking,” while highlighting purported “clear evidence of Revita activity.”

What Happened to Fractyl’s Stock Price?

The complaint alleges that the truth began to emerge on January 29, 2026, when Fractyl announced six-month data from the REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohort. Fractyl reported that Revita-treated patients experienced 4.5% weight regain versus 7.5% in the sham arm at six months, which the complaint alleges represented a significantly more modest efficacy result than previously disclosed results and fell short of investor expectations. Fractyl also stated that the Midpoint Cohort was not designed to be sufficiently powered for efficacy analysis.

According to the complaint, during an investor and analyst call that day, Fractyl CEO Harith Rajagopalan indicated that issues at one REMAIN-1 Midpoint Cohort study site, which had higher-than-expected regain across both arms, were at least partly responsible for the disappointing six-month efficacy results.

Following these disclosures, Fractyl’s stock price fell $1.245 per share, or 68.03%, to close at $0.585 per share on January 29, 2026.

The complaint further alleges that, following the release of Canaccord Genuity and Morgan Stanley reports addressing the site-specific issue and the six-month results, Fractyl’s stock price fell an additional $0.125 per share, or 21.37%, to close at $0.46 per share on January 30, 2026.

Review the Fractyl Health securities class action complaint.

Fractyl Investors Who Suffered Losses

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Fractyl securities during the Class Period and suffered losses may complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq. for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.

GUTS investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until October 20, 2026 to move the Court. An investor’s ability to share in any potential recovery does not depend on serving as lead plaintiff.

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

    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]

    Aevex Securities Class Action – AVEX

    Aug 21, 2026 | Investigations

    A securities class action was filed against Aevex Corp. (“Aevex” or the “Company”) and other defendants on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Aevex Class A common stock between April 17, 2026 and June 4, 2026, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

    The complaint also asserts claims on behalf of a sub-class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aevex Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Aevex’s April 17, 2026 initial public offering (“IPO”).

    Aevex Class A common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol AVEX.

    According to the complaint, Aevex is a military technology contractor that designs and manufactures unmanned aerial and surface vehicles and provides AI-enabled intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services.

    What Does the Aevex Securities Class Action Allege?

    The action, Rosenberg v. Aevex Corp., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-04779-TWR-SBC, was filed on August 20, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

    According to the complaint, Aevex’s IPO offering documents stated that Aevex’s controlling private equity owner would be subject to a 180-day “lock-up” restricting the sale of Aevex Class A common stock, subject to limited exceptions and potential early release by the underwriters.

    The complaint alleges that the IPO offering documents were materially false and/or misleading because they conveyed a commitment to the 180-day lock-up while allegedly concealing a pre-arranged plan to waive the lock-up early and conduct a secondary public offering (“SPO”) shortly after the IPO.

    The complaint alleges that, after the market closed on June 1, 2026, Aevex filed a registration statement announcing an SPO of eight million shares of Class A common stock. According to the complaint, the SPO documents disclosed that the lock-up restrictions had been waived to permit the sale of the controlling owner’s Aevex holdings. The complaint alleges that the SPO generated $207.9 million in net proceeds for Aevex’s controlling private equity owner, while the Company received no net proceeds from the SPO.

    According to the complaint: “[i]n reaction to the after-market filing of the June 1, 2026 registration statement, on June 2, 2026, Aevex’s Class A common stock fell approximately 16% against the prior day’s closing price, wiping out over $700 million in market capitalization. And in response to the pre-market filing of the final prospectus on June 5, 2026, Aevex’s common stock fell a further 7% that day, erasing about $200 million more in market capitalization.” (Emphasis added.)

    Review the Aevex securities class action complaint. 

    Aevex Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

    Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aevex Class A common stock during the Class Period or pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Aevex’s April 17, 2026 initial public offering (“IPO”) may complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq. for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.

    AVEX investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until October 19, 2026 to move the Court. An investor’s ability to share in any potential recovery does not depend on serving as lead plaintiff.

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

      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]

      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]

        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]

        Intuit Securities Class Action – INTU

        Aug 18, 2026 | Investigations

        A securities class action was filed against Intuit Inc. (“Intuit” or the “Company”) and certain of its senior officers on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Intuit common stock between February 25, 2025 and June 1, 2026, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

        Intuit common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol INTU.

        Intuit is a global financial technology company that provides software and services to consumers, small and mid-market businesses, and accounting professionals. Its products include TurboTax, QuickBooks, Credit Karma, and Mailchimp. Intuit acquired Mailchimp for approximately $12 billion in 2021.

        What Does the Intuit Securities Class Action Allege?

        The action, Bruce v. Intuit Inc., et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-08518, was filed on August 17, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

        The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants portrayed Intuit as uniquely positioned to benefit from the rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) and represented that the Company’s AI-driven platform, AI-enabled human experts, and integrated product ecosystem provided a durable competitive advantage that GenAI could not replicate. The complaint further alleges that the defendants represented that Mailchimp was successfully executing a turnaround and remained on track to return to double-digit growth.

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

        • GenAI was already placing significant competitive pressure on Intuit’s core businesses, particularly TurboTax, undermining the Company’s ability to sustain the growth rates, pricing, and profit margins investors had come to expect; and
        • Mailchimp was failing to deliver the growth and strategic benefits the defendants repeatedly touted, including through its integration with QuickBooks, and would not return to double-digit growth as represented, ultimately forcing Intuit to reduce its investment in the business.

        The complaint alleges that, on May 20, 2026, Intuit reported disappointing third quarter fiscal 2026 results and disclosed that it had experienced a significantly weaker-than-expected tax season because price-sensitive do-it-yourself tax filers increasingly chose not to use TurboTax. Intuit also announced a restructuring that included an approximately 17% reduction in its full-time workforce, or approximately 3,000 positions, and approximately $300 million to $340 million in expected restructuring charges. The Company further disclosed that it was reducing its investment in Mailchimp.

        According to the complaint, Intuit’s common stock price declined 20%, from $383.93 per share on May 20, 2026 to $307.07 per share on May 21, 2026, erasing more than $20 billion in market capitalization in a single trading day.

        The complaint further alleges that Intuit’s stock price declined approximately 9% on June 2, 2026, after Goldman Sachs downgraded the stock from Neutral to Sell, reduced its 12-month price target from $519 to $276 per share, and cited growing competitive threats from lower-priced GenAI-powered tax services and concerns regarding Mailchimp’s growth trajectory. According to the complaint, Intuit’s stock price fell $31.62 per share, from $353.76 per share on June 1, 2026 to $322.14 per share on June 2, 2026.

        Review the Intuit securities class action complaint.

        NOTE: The Bruce action is related to Baldwin v. Intuit Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-07086, previously filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Baldwin action concerns investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intuit securities between August 22, 2025 and May 20, 2026. The Bruce action expands the proposed Class Period to include purchasers of Intuit common stock between February 25, 2025 and June 1, 2026.

        Intuit Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

        Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intuit common stock during the Class Period and suffered financial losses may complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq. for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.

        INTU investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until September 8, 2026 to move the Court. An investor’s ability to share in any potential recovery does not depend on serving as lead plaintiff.

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

          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]