Dun & Bradstreet Securities Class Action – DNB Investors

Did You Sell, Exchange, or Hold Dun & Bradstreet (DNB) Stock in Connection with the Clearlake Merger?

A securities class action has been filed on behalf of former stockholders of Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. (“D&B” or the “Company”), whose common stock traded on the NYSE under ticker symbol DNB until the merger closed, concerning its $9.15-per-share acquisition by affiliates of Clearlake Capital Group, L.P.

The proposed class includes D&B stockholders who:

  • Sold D&B common stock in the open market from May 13, 2025 through August 26, 2025, inclusive;
  • Exchanged D&B common stock into the merger; and/or
  • Held D&B common stock as of the May 9, 2025 record date for the special meeting of stockholders and whose shares were voted on, or entitled to vote on, the merger.

The action is captioned FNY Partners Fund LP, et al. v. Ammerman, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-26258-CMA, and was filed on September 10, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

What Does the Complaint Allege?

The complaint alleges that D&B’s May 13, 2025 proxy statement was materially false and misleading. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the proxy statement:

  • Concealed the true genesis of the sale, including Carronade Capital Management’s activist campaign against Cannae Holdings, Inc., the pending proxy contest at Cannae, and William P. Foley II’s alleged plan to sell D&B to return capital to Cannae and its stockholders;
  • Omitted Bank of America valuations of alternatives to a whole-company sale that the complaint alleges were superior to the $9.15 merger price;
  • Falsely stated that D&B’s Board reviewed and approved the downward revisions to the Company’s financial projections; and
  • Failed to disclose alleged conflicts involving D&B’s financial and legal advisors, including longstanding ties between William P. Foley II and Bank of America’s lead banker and attorney, as well as D&B’s outside legal counsel at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

The $9.15 Merger Price

According to the complaint, the $9.15 merger price was 24% below the $12.00-per-share price Clearlake had offered in November 2024 and 33% below the $12.13-per-share analyst consensus price target that prevailed until news of the deal leaked.

The complaint also alleges that Bank of America valued certain alternatives above the $9.15 merger price, including $11.35 per share for a Reverse Morris Trust, an $11.26-per-share midpoint for a tax-free separation, and a $10.28-per-share midpoint for a “RemainCo” following a segment sale.

November 10, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff is November 10, 2026. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to remain a member of the proposed class.

D&B Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

If you sold D&B common stock in the open market from May 13, 2025 through August 26, 2025, inclusive; exchanged D&B common stock into the merger; and/or held D&B common stock as of the May 9, 2025 record date for the special meeting of stockholders and your shares were voted on, or entitled to vote on, the merger, you are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form  or send us a message to discuss your potential legal 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]

    Lincoln Educational Securities Class Action | LINC Investors

    Did You Invest in Lincoln Educational (LINC) Between May 11 and August 9, 2026?

    A Lincoln Educational securities class action has been filed against Lincoln Educational Services Corporation (“Lincoln Educational,” “Lincoln,” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: LINC) and certain of its officers on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Lincoln securities between May 11, 2026 and August 9, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby.

    The action is captioned Bacha v. Lincoln Educational Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-11842-MCA-CF, filed on September 11, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. 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.

    Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Lincoln Educational securities between May 11, 2026 and August 9, 2026 may have legal rights and are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss their legal rights without cost or obligation.

    What Does the Lincoln Educational Securities Class Action Allege?

    The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning Lincoln Educational’s business, operations, and prospects.

    Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that: Lincoln Educational’s admissions process was not effectively converting students from enrollment to start; the Company was experiencing a significant drop in student starts relative to enrollment; and, as a result, the defendants’ positive statements about Lincoln’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

    Lincoln’s August 10, 2026 Disclosures

    On August 10, 2026, before the market opened, Lincoln reported earnings for the second quarter of 2026. The Company reported that student starts increased only approximately 1% year over year, despite enrollment growing approximately 9%, “as fewer enrolled students than expected attended the first day of class.”Lincoln further disclosed that “during the quarter, [it] observed changes in the student decision-making process that affected conversion from enrollment to start.”

    During the accompanying earnings call, Lincoln’s Chief Financial Officer, Brian Meyers, stated that “a lower percentage have converted to starts” and that “the lower start volume contributed to a higher cost per start.”

    LINC Stock Drop After the Q2 2026 Results

    Following these disclosures, Lincoln’s stock price fell $10.22, or 24.93%, to close at $30.77 per share on August 10, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

    November 10, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

    Investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff must do so by November 10, 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.

    Lincoln Educational Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

    If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lincoln Educational securities between May 11, 2026 and August 9, 2026, you are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form  or send us a message to discuss your potential legal 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]

      Avis Stock Manipulation Class Acton – CAR Investors

      Avis Stock Manipulation Class Action 

      Investors who suffered losses from trading Avis Budget Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAR) securities between February 20, 2026 and April 21, 2026 may have legal rights.

      Pentwater Accused of Manipulating Avis Securities

      A securities class action alleges that Pentwater Capital Management LP, MCH PWCM Holdings, Inc., and Matthew C. Halbower manipulated the market for Avis Budget Group, Inc. (“Avis”) securities through an alleged short-squeeze scheme. Avis is not named as a defendant in the September 10, 2026 complaint.

      The action is captioned Arjang v. Pentwater Capital Management LP, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07884, filed September 10, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

      The complaint seeks to represent persons and entities, other than the defendants, that between February 20, 2026 and April 21, 2026, inclusive, (1) purchased or otherwise acquired Avis securities, including purchasers or acquirers of swaps and those who bought Avis common stock to cover a short position, or (2) sold Avis securities short, including sellers of calls who then purchased similar contracts to cover.

      What Does the Complaint Allege?

      According to the complaint, Pentwater was Avis’s second-largest shareholder, holding approximately 8.4% of Avis’s outstanding stock as of June 30, 2025. The complaint alleges that the defendants devised a plan to manipulate the market by buying a significant number of Avis shares while the stock was heavily shorted, generating a short squeeze.

      The complaint alleges that the resulting rapid price increase forced short sellers to close their positions by purchasing additional Avis shares, creating a feedback loop that placed further upward pressure on the stock price. It further alleges that Pentwater rapidly increased its Avis holdings during this period, despite no significant change in Avis’s fundamentals that would justify the increase.

      On February 24, 2026, Pentwater disclosed that it had increased its Avis stake to more than 10%, with 3,562,100 shares as of February 20, 2026. By April 7, 2026, Pentwater reported holding more than 7.8 million Avis shares, representing approximately 22.2% of the Company’s outstanding shares.

      Avis Shares Rise Sharply Before Pentwater’s Alleged Selloff

      The complaint alleges that Avis shares closed at $92.90 on February 25, 2026 and then rose to $713.97 on April 21, 2026, an increase of approximately 668.5% in less than two months.

      According to the complaint, Pentwater then sold approximately 4.3 million Avis shares on April 22 and April 23, 2026, realizing gains of approximately $1.75 billion. Avis shares closed at $229.14 on April 23, a decline of approximately $484.83, or nearly 68%, from the April 21 closing price.

      The complaint alleges that the defendants’ conduct caused losses to investors and other market participants who engaged in transactions covered by the proposed Class, including purchasers of Avis securities and certain investors with short positions.

      September 29, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

      Investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff must do so by September 29, 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.

      Traded Avis Securities During the Class Period? Contact Kehoe Law Firm

      If you purchased or otherwise acquired Avis securities, bought Avis common stock to cover a short position, or engaged in other transactions described in the complaint between February 20, 2026 and April 21, 2026 and suffered financial losses, you are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form  or send us a message to discuss your potential legal 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]

        Ryde Group Securities Class Action – RYDE

        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.

         

          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

          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

          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]