CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 2 I 2026
Dorian Simmons | AI Class Action Updates Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy counsel Dorian Simmons discusses the uptick in lawsuits involving AI voice agents and AI-powered call monitoring services, providing insights on what the courts are saying and actions businesses can take to mitigate litigation risk. Overview CLASS ACTION & MDL VIDEO PLAY Kaylan Meaza | Fintech Class Action Trends Kaylan Meaza discusses litigation trends and developments in the fintech industry. Litigation & Trial Practice senior associate Kaylan Meaza offers fintech companies and financial institutions operating in the payments and fintech space an overview of evolving litigation trends. For additional litigation, enforcement, and regulatory updates involving the fintech industry, please subscribe to the Fintech Case Files. The Class Action & MDL Roundup is published by Alston & Bird LLP to provide a summary of significant developments to our clients and friends. It is intended to be informational and does not constitute legal advice regarding any specific situation. This material may also be considered attorney advertising under court rules of certain jurisdictions. Where the (Class) Action Is Welcome back to the Class Action & MDL Roundup! This edition covers notable class actions from the second quarter of 2026. Technology-related claims continued to shape the class action landscape. Courts issued significant decisions involving biometric privacy laws, website tracking technologies, and the use of artificial intelligence in hiring and recruiting. The airline industry likewise generated notable litigation, with courts addressing issues ranging from allegedly defective uniforms to securities fraud claims. We also continue to monitor developments in collective proceedings outside the United States. During the second quarter, UK courts issued several landmark decisions addressing litigation funding, settlement approval, and the distribution of recoveries to class members, reflecting the continued evolution of collective actions abroad. We wrap up the Roundup with a summary of class action settlements finalized in the second quarter. We hope you enjoy this installment and, as always, welcome your feedback on this issue.
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 2 I 2026 Antitrust Solar Panel Class Action Sheds New Light on RICO Personal Jurisdiction Requirements Hall v. Trivest Partners L.P., Nos. 25-1278, 25-1538 (6th Cir.) (June 16, 2026). Vacating district court’s order denying motion to dismiss. The Sixth Circuit held that three Michigan plaintiffs representing a class of solar-panel purchasers could not use RICO’s “ends of justice” provision to bring out-of-state defendants into federal court in Michigan based on mere convenience alone. The court held that while Section 1965(b) ensures that plaintiffs can bring all members of a nationwide RICO conspiracy before the same court, “that hardly means a plaintiff can hale any RICO defendant it likes—no matter how far-flung—into court in any district where a single defendant has minimum contacts.” Instead, Section 1965(b) extends jurisdiction to out-of-state defendants only when “necessary,” not merely when it is “convenient.” Adequacy Requirement Cured by Expulsion of Firms in University Financial-Aid Class Action Henry v. Brown University, No. 1:22-cv-00125 (N.D. Ill.) (June 1, 2026). Judge Kennelly. Granting class certification. The Northern District of Illinois granted class certification in financial-aid antitrust litigation against several universities. The court noted that it had previously found “that plaintiffs have satisfied all of the requirements for class certification, save one: adequacy of counsel.” On the adequacy requirement, the court previously found that three law firms that were previously proposed as class counsel had made, or participated tacitly in, misrepresentations to the court. Over the defendants’ arguments opposing certification, the court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the adequacy requirement by appointing two new law firms as lead class counsel, relegating two of the original law firms to nonlead roles, and removing one altogether. n Banking, Financial Services & Insurance Use of Forfeited Funds Is Not Injury Matula v. Wells Fargo & Company, No. 25-2441 (8th Cir.) (May 12, 2026). Affirming dismissal. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of an ERISA class action, holding that the 401(k) plan participant lacked Article III standing to pursue putative class claims challenging Wells Fargo’s use of forfeited employer matching contributions. The plan allowed Wells Fargo to use the forfeitures to offset employer contributions, pay plan expenses, or make corrective account adjustments, and the plaintiff alleged that the company’s election to offset its contributions constituted fiduciary breach and self-dealing under ERISA. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of Article III jurisdiction, and the Eighth Circuit agreed on appeal. Although the Eighth Circuit held that the district court improperly addressed the merits of the claims at the pleading stage, the circuit court affirmed the jurisdictional dismissal on an alternative ground. It held the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce ERISA duties on the plan’s behalf because he alleged only plan-level harm and identified no loss to his account, expense he personally paid, or other concrete, particularized injury traceable to Wells Fargo’s conduct. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case to enter the dismissal without prejudice. The decision underscores that named ERISA plaintiffs must plead a concrete personal injury and cannot establish standing through alleged fiduciary misconduct or plan-wide injury alone. n Charlotte Bohn Elizabeth Clark Courtney Quirós Leadership matters. 10 Alston & Bird attorneys take on leadership roles in the ABA Antitrust Section. Elizabeth Clark, Courtney Quirós, and Charlotte Bohn gaze into their crystal ball for “Midyear Trends, Takeaways as Securities Class Actions Surge,” for Law360. class-ified information
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 2 I 2026 Mike Shanlever International High Court Rejects Judicial Review of Competition Appeal Tribunal’s Settlement Approval The King (on the application of Innsworth Capital Ltd.) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal [2026] EWHC 1393 (Admin). In a first-of-its-kind judgment, the Administrative Division of the High Court dismissed Innsworth Capital Ltd’s challenge to the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (CAT) approval of a £200 million settlement in long-running proceedings it had funded against Mastercard. The underlying dispute concerned a follow-on claim for damages allegedly suffered when banks were unlawfully charged multilateral interchange fees on credit and debit transactions. The CAT approved the settlement for £200 million in May 2025, ordered that sum to be distributed via three allocated “pots” of funds, and allocated Innsworth, the funder of the proceedings, a rate of return of 50% on its investment in the proceedings. Unable to appeal the decision as a non-party, Innsworth sought judicial review of the CAT’s settlement approval, contending that it had erred in law in its methodology for calculating a “just and reasonable” return for funding the proceedings and that it was consequently due a higher return on its investment. The High Court was unpersuaded, holding that the CAT had “wide unrestricted powers” to determine what is just and reasonable under the circumstances. The CAT had made its determination based on several considerations, including that the outcome of the proceedings was “very poor” for the claimants and that the claim was “highly ambitious.” Ultimately, the High Court expressed its deference to the CAT as “an expert and specialist tribunal” and found it reached reasonable conclusions with the benefit of the full evidence and submissions before it. The First Zero-Compensation Settlement Is Approved by Competition Appeal Tribunal Consumers’ Association v Qualcomm Inc., [2026] CAT 50. The CAT has, for the first time, approved a “drop-hands” settlement agreement in proceedings subject to a collective proceedings order. The settlement involves no financial compensation for the class of claimants and does not award costs to either side. Consumer Protection Chain-of-Custody Liability for TCPA Telemarketing Calls Cut Off Hossfeld v. Allstate Insurance Co., Nos. 25-1518 & 25-1672 (7th Cir.) (June 24, 2026). Affirming denial of class certification; reversing summary judgment for plaintiff. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part cross-appeals arising from a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) suit alleging that Allstate was vicariously liable for 12 telemarketing calls placed to the plaintiff in violation of his do-not-call request by a subcontracted telemarketer. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling on class certification, holding that the plaintiff had not met the numerosity threshold of 40 class members, but reversed its summary judgment decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to show that Allstate was liable for the subcontracted calls under any agency theory. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff did not identify any evidence that would allow a jury to find that Allstate directly spoke, wrote, or acted toward its direct subcontractor in a way that would authorize it to appoint anyone else to make telemarketing calls on Allstate’s behalf. Ninth Circuit Upholds Class Certification in “Natural” False Labeling Suit Drake v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, No. 24-7158 (9th Cir.) (Apr. 21, 2026). Affirming class certification order. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification of California and New York classes in a product mislabeling action against Bayer Healthcare LLC, alleging that its Natural Fruit Bites products were falsely labeled as “natural,” in violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and New York’s General Business Law (GBL). On appeal, the circuit court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) because the plaintiffs alleged that all class members paid an inflated “price premium” for the products due to the “natural” labeling, meaning either all class members were injured or none were. The court determined that the conjoint-analysis damages model proposed by the plaintiffs’ expert to measure the price premium attributable to the natural claim was sufficient at the certification stage even though it was not yet executed. The circuit court further found that the proposed common evidence of deception and materiality was sufficient to trigger an inference of classwide reliance under the CLRA’s and GBL’s objective “reasonable consumer” standards. Because the plaintiffs met the higher Rule 23(b)(3) predominance bar, they necessarily satisfied Rule 23(a)’s lower commonality bar, and they also satisfied the typicality and adequacy requirements because both named plaintiffs testified they purchased Natural Fruit Bites believing them to be natural. n Mind the gap between expectations and real-world outcomes in construction arbitration. Join Mike Shanlever for “Question Time” at GAR Live: Construction Disputes London 2026 on October 22, 2026. At the 2026 Artificial Intelligence and Robotics National Institute in Santa Clara, October 12–13, Cynthia Cole will speak on the panel “Keeping Up With AI: The Latest Regulation and Governance” and Kim Peretti will speak on the panel “Human in the Loop: An AI Crisis Tabletop.” Cynthia Cole Kim Peretti
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 2 I 2026 The Seventh Circuit sided with the employers, holding the amendment is procedural and therefore applies retroactively under well-established Illinois law because it impacts only the statutory damages available to plaintiffs rather than substantive liability standards. While the underlying duty to obtain proper biometric consent remains unchanged, this ruling substantially narrows the significant per-scan classwide damages exposure for employers using biometric timekeeping or security systems and currently facing BIPA class actions Privacy & Data Security FCRA Class Certification Granted for Failure to Comply with Statutory Identity-Theft Blocking Requirements Kaplan v. TransUnion LLC, No. 2:24-cv-002438 (E.D. Pa.) (Apr. 29, 2026). Judge Beetlestone. Granting class certification. A federal judge certified a nationwide class in a case filed against TransUnion after it allegedly denied the plaintiff’s request to block an unauthorized charge on her credit card account in violation of Section 1681c-2 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The certified class includes all consumers nationwide who, like the plaintiff, received TransUnion’s standardized “Letter 775” denying their identity-theft block requests under Section 1681c-2. In certifying the class, the court found the plaintiff was an adequate class representative, even though she had already resolved her dispute with TransUnion, because she sought the same statutory and punitive damages for both herself and the class. Moreover, because private plaintiffs cannot pursue injunctive relief under FCRA, it determined there was no conflict between the plaintiff—who resolved her dispute—and those class members whose disputes were not resolved. The court further found the commonality and predominance requirements were satisfied because TransUnion’s standardized use of internal denial criteria and its issuance of the same form denial letter raised common questions capable of classwide resolution concerning the reasonableness of TransUnion’s uniform procedures for handling identity-theft block requests—namely, whether those procedures unlawfully bypass the FCRA’s mandatory initial-block requirement. n Launched in February 2021, the £480 million claim sought damages on behalf of a potential class of 29 million purchasers of Qualcomm products, alleging the company had abused its dominant position in the market for the sale of smartphone chipsets and its related standard-essential intellectual property. In a statement released in March 2026, however, the Consumers’Association (known as Which?) conceded that Qualcomm did not coerce Apple, Samsung, or other related parties to sign patent licences or chipset agreements or to agree to any licencing terms, and that its licencing and chipset practices did not infringe competition laws, result in inflated royalites, or lead to an increase in mobile phone prices. Accordingly, the parties sought settlement approval from the CAT, as Rule 94 of the CAT’s Rules 2015 requires, even if no compensation is made to the claimant class members. The CAT found it was “just and reasonable” to approve the settlement after concluding that Which? had only a 10–15% chance of success, based on its assessment of the evidence presented during the parties’ five-week trial. n Labor & Employment Seventh Circuit Applies BIPA Damages Cap Retroactively to Pending Class Actions Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 25-2185 (7th Cir.) (Apr. 1, 2026). Holding that legislation applies to pending cases. In a trio of consolidated class action appeals, the Seventh Circuit held that a 2024 Illinois legislative amendment capping biometric-privacy damages at a single recovery per person, rather than per scan, applies retroactively to class claims that were already pending when the amendment took effect. Each plaintiff had brought proposed class actions on behalf of classes of current and former employees, alleging that the defendant companies violated Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting workers’ fingerprints or other biometric identifiers without the required consent and disclosures. The employer-defendants argued this damages-limiting amendment should apply retroactively to bar the older per-scan damages theories that would have dramatically increased classwide exposure, while the plaintiffs argued the amendment could only apply prospectively. A leader in litigation,” Jeff Rosenfeld is recognized among the 2026 Leaders of Influence in Litigation by the Los Angeles Business Journal. “A trusted advisor and formidable advocate,” Ian Wright is recognized among the 2026 Leaders of Influence in Labor & Employment by the Los Angeles Business Journal. class-ified information Rachel Lowe Lance Taubin Do you play a critical role in the wake of a data security incident? Then roll like a celebrity with Rachel Lowe on the panel “Privacy and IR: Navigating the Latest State, Federal, and International Challenges” and Lance Taubin on the panel “Responding to Third-Party and Supply Chain Cyber Incidents” at Incident Response Forum West 2026 in Beverly Hills on October 13
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 2 I 2026 Sam Jockel Angela Spivey On appeal, the Seventh Circuit first considered whether it had Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdiction. The plaintiffs’ third amended complaint indicated they would not pursue class certification, but they reasserted their class allegations in the fourth amended complaint. The court held that CAFA jurisdiction can be lost if class allegations are removed from the complaint. The court held, however, that CAFA jurisdiction was reinstated by the fourth amended complaint and proceeded to the merits of the appeal. Given the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ experts, there was no direct evidence of defect. The plaintiffs instead argued that res ipsa loquitur could save their strict liability claims under Tweedy v. Wright Ford Sales Inc. and under traditional res ipsa loquitur for their negligent manufacturing claim. The Seventh Circuit concluded neither theory applied. Tweedy was inapplicable because the “uniforms did not ‘fail’ in the way Illinois courts normally understand the term,” and “[a]lternative explanations could account for the injuries of these plaintiffs; a defect is not the most obvious answer.” The evidence also did not support the conclusion that there was an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence, nor could the plaintiffs establish that the uniforms were exclusively within the defendants’ control. n Settlements Making Waves, Missing Receipts: Swimmers’ Class Counsel Finalize Settlement but Get Discounted Cost Award Shields v. World Aquatics, No. 3:18-cv-07393 (N.D. Cal.) (Apr. 1, 2026). Judge Corley. Approving $9.7 million settlement. The Northern District of California granted final approval of a settlement resolving professional swimmers’federal antitrust claims over World Aquatics’ (formerly FINA) control over international swimming competitions. The settlement creates injunctive and damages classes. It provides $4.6 million in damages and $4.1 million in attorneys’fees and costs for carrying out the injunctive relief, composed of $3 million that World Aquatics previously agreed to pay, plus 25% of the damages amount. The court, however, reduced by half the amount of costs sought by class counsel because the documentation they submitted did not establish for the court “what class counsel flew” and “what hotels they stayed at.” Products Liability Shooting for the Stars … Again Gelis v. BMW of North America LLC, No. 24-2721 (3rd Cir.) (June 11, 2026). Vacating award of attorneys’ fees based on a lodestar multiplier. The district court originally awarded $3.7 million in attorneys’ fees to counsel for a settling class action defendant—a lodestar multiplier of 1.94. On remand after that award was vacated, the district court again awarded $3.7 million in fees—a 1.75 multiplier this time, given the additional time spent. The defendant appealed again, and the circuit court again vacated the fee award. In its ruling, the Third Circuit joined with the Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedent governing the use of lodestar multipliers in statutory fee-shifting cases “applies with equal force to contractual fee-shifting cases”—meaning a lodestar multiplier may be used in contractual fee-shifting cases only in “rare” and “exceptional” circumstances that were not present in this case. The circuit court emphasized the limits of its decision, however, noting that it expressed no opinion on settlements calling for application of state law or those involving constructive or equitable common-fund awards. The court further held that the district court abused its discretion in calculating the baseline lodestar, noting that the claimed hours appeared excessive and focusing heavily on the fact that 80% of the work was performed by partners who billed at higher rates but did not materially increase efficiencies compared to more junior attorneys with lower billing rates. Res Ipsa Loquitur Does Not Fit Defective Uniforms Suit Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill Acquisition Inc., No. 25-1963 (7th Cir.) (June 16, 2026). Affirming order granting summary judgment. Airline employees sued American Airlines and uniform manufacturer Twin Hill, alleging that their uniforms contained harmful chemicals that caused health problems. The district court excluded the plaintiffs’ experts and granted summary judgment for the defendants. class-ified information More than 400 Alston & Bird attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America and Ones to Watch in the 2027 editions, including 12 Lawyers of the Year. Sit at the roundtable with Sam Jockel and Angela Spivey for “Bet-the-Company Issues in the Age of MAHA: Enforcement, Investigations & Strategic Responses” and gain practical insights into managing high-stakes matters at the 14th Annual Food and Beverage Exchange in Chicago, October 6–7.
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 2 I 2026 Court Approves Settlement in Emissions-Related Securities Lawsuit Baker v. Cummins Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00430 (S.D. Ind.) (May 21, 2026). Judge Pratt. Approving $1.6 million settlement and awarding attorneys’ fees. Judge Pratt approved a class action settlement in a securities class action brought by investors against engine manufacturer Cummins that arose out of allegedly false and misleading statements made by Cummins about the scope of emissions investigations into certain pickup-truck engines. The parties settled for $1.6 million, which Judge Pratt found was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judge Pratt also awarded 30% of the settlement fund ($480,000) in attorneys’ fees and $5,000 to the named plaintiff as an incentive award. Court Approves $515,000 Settlement over Alleged Time-Rounding Underpayments Thomas v. Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00422 (S.D. Ohio) (May 26, 2026). Judge Cole. Granting final approval of class action settlement and awarding attorneys’ fees. The Southern District of Ohio granted final approval of a settlement between a class of employees and Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America Inc. The plaintiffs brought class claims alleging that Mitsubishi employed an electronic timekeeping policy that rounded employees’ clock-in and clock-out times to their scheduled shift times, resulting in systematic underpayment of wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as Ohio and Kentucky state laws. The settlement class comprised over a thousand non-exempt employees. Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement of $515,000, which the parties represented to be approximately 85% of the class’s estimated total unpaid wages. Following notice to all class members, the court noted that because the non-reversionary fund was being distributed to only 26% of eligible employees, participating class members would receive payments likely exceeding their individual share of harm, but concluded that this did not render the distribution inequitable (particularly because non-participating employees retained their federal claims under the FLSA). The court ultimately found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. Court Approves Record $100 Million Shareholder Derivative Settlement In re Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 1:24‑cv‑00164 (D. Haw.) (May 28, 2026). Judge Smith. Approving $100 million settlement. Judge Smith approved a $100 million settlement resolving derivative shareholder claims that current and former officers and directors of Hawaiian Electric Industries failed to adequately address known wildfire risks and exposed the company to substantial liability arising from the August 2023 Maui wildfires. The settlement provides for a $100 million cash payment Court Approves $7 Million Settlement over Unauthorized Restaurant Listings Lynn Scott LLC v. Grubhub Inc., No. 1:20-cv-06334 (N.D. Ill.) (Apr. 16, 2026). Judge Hunt. Granting final approval of $7 million settlement. The Northern District of Illinois granted final approval of a settlement resolving claims alleging that Grubhub added thousands of restaurants to its online ordering and delivery platform without contracts, using their names and logos in a manner that falsely implied a partnership in violation of the Lanham Act for false affiliation, false advertising, and trademark infringement. The settlement class includes all businesses whose names or logos were used on Grubhub or any part of the Grubhub platform from January 1, 2019, through April 30, 2024, without a contract. Under the settlement, Grubhub agreed to pay over $7.1 million into a non-reversionary cash fund. The court found this amount (roughly 14–24% of the class’s potential recovery) was adequate, given that disgorgement of profits under the Lanham Act is discretionary. Under the plan of allocation, each class member that submitted a valid claim form received an initial $50 payment plus a pro rata amount based on the duration of its listing on the Grubhub platform, so that businesses listed longer receive greater compensation. The settlement also includes an attorneys’ fee award of $2.4 million (one-third of the fund), plus expenses; $20,000 service awards for the named plaintiffs; and Grubhub acknowledged its obligations under a permanent injunction prohibiting it from listing restaurants on its platform without a contract. Investors Secure $85 Million Securities Settlement SEB Investment Management AB v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 3:22‑cv‑03811 (N.D. Cal.) (May 21, 2026). Judge Thompson. Approving $85 million settlement with attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and administrative costs exceeding $25 million. Judge Thompson granted final approval of an $85 million securities class action settlement resolving claims that Wells Fargo and certain executives made misleading statements about the company’s implementation of a hiring policy intended to require diverse candidate slates for certain positions. Investors alleged that the company’s public statements about the policy overstated compliance and artificially inflated Wells Fargo’s stock price during the class period. Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23, the court emphasized the litigation risks associated with proving falsity, scienter, loss causation, and damages at trial, as well as the substantial discovery and motion practice completed before settlement. The court approved attorneys’ fees of $21.25 million, litigation expenses of $3.08 million, service awards of $18,000 and $4,975 to the lead plaintiffs, and administration costs of up to $1.2 million, leaving approximately $59 million for distribution to class members.
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 2 I 2026 Court Approves Emissions Warranty Settlement Hazdovac v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, No. 3:20-cv-00377 (N.D. Cal.) (June 25, 2026). Judge Seeborg. Approving $48 million settlement and awarding attorneys’ fees. Judge Seeborg granted final approval of a class settlement on claims alleging that Mercedes-Benz failed to identify 14“highcost” or “high-priced” emission warranty parts in its vehicles, which must be covered for seven years or 70,000 miles under the requirements of the California Emissions Warranty. Judge Seeborg certified the class and approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The settlement was valued at more than $48 million in consumer benefits covering the costs of all parts and labor to replace a subject part for the earlier of seven years or 70,000 miles and reimbursement to class members for repairs and diagnoses for failed subject parts. Judge Seeborg separately awarded $2.7 million in attorneys’ fees, approximately $79,000 in litigation costs and expenses, and $10,000 to the class representative, all paid in addition to the settlement benefits provided to class members n to the company, funded by the defendants’insurers, and was described by the parties as the largest shareholder derivative recovery in Hawaii history and among the largest nationwide. Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, the court emphasized the significant risks and uncertainty of continued derivative litigation, the extensive arm’s-length mediation process conducted with a neutral mediator, the support of the company’s independent directors, and the absence of any shareholder objections. The court approved $25 million in attorneys’ fees, $168,625 in litigation expenses, and $5,000 service awards to each named plaintiff. Chinese Ride-Hailing Company Settles Securities Class Action for $740 Million In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-05807 (S.D.N.Y.) (June 16, 2026). Judge Kaplan. Approving $740 million settlement. Judge Kaplan approved a settlement in a class action brought against Chinese ride-hailing and transportation company DiDi and other defendants for allegedly violating federal securities law by making purportedly false and misleading statements or omissions in a registration statement and in connection with DiDi’s initial public offering. Under the settlement agreement, $740 million will be paid into an escrow account, with an estimated average recovery of approximately $1.84 per affected American depositary share. Judge Kaplan found the proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. Court Approves $19.25 Million Settlement over Alleged Unpaid Paver Work Diaz v. New York Paving Inc., No. 1:18-cv-04910 (S.D.N.Y.) (June 17, 2026). Judge Gorenstein. Granting final approval of $19.25 million settlement. The Southern District of New York certified and approved settlement of a Rule 23 class and an FLSA collective in a wageand-hour dispute against New York Paving Inc. Originally filed in June 2018, the case resolved after nearly eight years of litigation. The court certified a Rule 23 class of all persons employed by New York Paving as pavers at any time from June 3, 2012 through June 5, 2025 (approximately 640 individuals) and an FLSA collective of all persons employed by the company as pavers from June 3, 2015 through June 5, 2025. The agreement created a gross settlement fund of $19.25 million. There were no objections and no requests to opt out, and the court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate following a fairness hearing. The court approved attorneys’ fees of one-third of the gross settlement fund plus reimbursement of $158,000 in litigation expenses, and it granted service awards totaling $105,000 across seven representative class members.
Authors CLASS ACTION & MDL Cari K. Dawson +1 404 881 7766 cari.dawson@alston.com David Venderbush +1 212 210 9532 david.venderbush@alston.com Ryan P. Ethridge +1 919 862 2283 ryan.ethridge@alston.com Emma Braden +1 415 243 1013 emma.braden@alston.com James Brehaut-Elms +44 20 8161 4413 james.brehaut-elms@alston.com Nick Brocklesby +44 20 8161 4362 nick.brocklesby@alston.com Samantha Burdick +1 213 576 1190 sam.burdick@alston.com Gillian H. Clow +1 213 576 1054 gillian.clow@alston.com Lauren Funk +1 404 881 7648 lauren.funk@alston.com Bradley Harder +1 404 881 7829 bradley.harder@alston.com Michelle Jackson +1 404 881 7870 michelle.jackson@alston.com Hope Kagan +1 404 881 7370 hope.kagan@alston.com Kara F. Kennedy +1 404 881 4944 kara.kennedy@alston.com Kate Kostel +1 404 881 7765 kate.kostel@alston.com Jyoti Kottamasu +1 404 881 7835 jyoti.kottamasu@alston.com Matthew D. Lawson +1 404 881 4650 matt.lawson@alston.com Emily Leiter +1 404 881 7356 emily.leiter@alston.com Alvaro Montenegro +1 415 243 1065 alvaro.montenegro@alston.com Sarah O’Donohue +1 404 881 4734 sarah.odonohue@alston.com Chandler McCrary Ray +1 404 881 7787 chandler.mccrary.ray@alston.com Gavin Reinke +1 404 881 4828 gavin.reinke@alston.com Andrew A. Roberts +1 404 881 7268 andrew.roberts@alston.com Alex Shattock +44 20 8161 4379 alex.shattock@alston.com Conor Shevlin +44 20 8161 4383 conor.shevlin@alston.com Andrew T. Sumner +1 404 881 7414 andy.sumner@alston.com Nick A. Young +1 919 862 2291 nick.young@alston.com
www.alston.com © ALSTON & BIRD LLP 2026 Atlanta | Brussels | Century City | Charlotte | Chicago | Dallas | London | Los Angeles | New York | Raleigh | San Francisco | Silicon Valley | Washington, D.C.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTc0OTA5