Core Viewpoint - A group of banks led by Deutsche Bank AG is facing challenges in selling approximately $1.2 billion of loans related to the acquisition of a software provider, reflecting investor concerns about potential disruptions from artificial intelligence [1] Group 1: Loan Details and Acquisition - Deutsche Bank plans to fund Conga Corp.'s acquisition of PROS Holdings' B2B unit with a $625 million term loan, while a $540 million loan maturing in 2028 will remain outstanding [2] - The debt offering for Conga included a $1.17 billion loan with an interest rate of 4 percentage points above the benchmark rate and a discount between 97.5 cents to 98 cents on the dollar [5] Group 2: Market Sentiment and AI Disruption - There is a lack of interest in the debt due to increasing anxiety over exposure to sectors affected by AI, particularly among software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies like Conga, which provide document automation software [3] - The risk of AI disruption is impacting credit markets globally, leading to declines in shares of business development companies that are heavily invested in software [7] Group 3: Implications of Hung Debt - If banks cannot sell the committed debt before the acquisition closes, they will retain these borrowings on their balance sheets, which could limit their capacity to underwrite future loans [6]

Core Insights - PayPal announced a CEO change, appointing Enrique Lores as the new president and CEO effective March 1, replacing Alex Chriss to accelerate execution in a competitive payments market [2][5] - The board appointed David W. Dorman as the independent board chair, indicating a need for improved pace of change and execution within the company [3] Leadership Transition - Enrique Lores has been on PayPal's board for nearly five years and previously served as president and CEO of HP, where he focused on diversifying services and enhancing operational efficiency [2][4] - Jamie Miller, the Chief Financial and Operating Officer, will act as interim CEO until Lores takes over [2] Strategic Initiatives - PayPal is focusing on new growth engines, including the launch of a Transaction Graph Insights & Measurement program to help brands measure campaign effectiveness using verified purchase data [5] - The company plans to acquire Cymbio to enhance agentic commerce tools, making merchant catalogs more discoverable on AI platforms [6] - PayPal expanded its partnership with Deutsche Bank to improve merchant settlement and related services across regions [6] - In September, PayPal sold approximately $7 billion in buy now, pay later loans to Blue Owl Capital to maintain a light balance sheet [6]

On this news, Blue Owl's stock price fell $0.85, or 5.8%, to close at $13.77 per share on November 17, 2025, thereby injuring investors. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do noth ...

Core Viewpoint - The Blue Owl Capital Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit due to alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with claims of undisclosed liquidity issues and significant pressure on its asset base from BDC redemptions during the specified class period [1][3]. Group 1: Class Action Lawsuit Details - The class action lawsuit is titled Goldman v. Blue Owl Capital Inc., and it allows purchasers of Blue Owl securities between February 6, 2025, and November 16, 2025, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff by February 2, 2026 [1]. - Allegations include that Blue Owl did not disclose meaningful pressure on its asset base from BDC redemptions, leading to undisclosed liquidity issues and potential limitations on redemptions of certain BDCs [3]. Group 2: Financial Performance and Market Reaction - On October 30, 2025, Blue Owl reported third-quarter financial results with fee-related earnings of $376.2 million, missing consensus estimates, and performance revenue falling 33% year over year to $188,000, which led to a decline in stock price [4]. - Following the announcement of a merger agreement on November 5, 2025, between Blue Owl's direct lending businesses, the stock price fell nearly 5% due to concerns over liquidity and redemption limitations [5]. - An article published on November 16, 2025, indicated that OBDC II shareholders could face a 20% reduction in investment value due to the merger, resulting in a nearly 6% drop in Blue Owl's stock price [6].

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm is reminding investors who purchased Blue Owl Capital Inc. securities between February 6, 2025, and November 16, 2025, of the lead plaintiff deadline on February 2, 2026, for a class action lawsuit [1]. Group 1: Class Action Details - Investors who bought Blue Owl securities during the specified Class Period may be entitled to compensation without any out-of-pocket fees through a contingency fee arrangement [1]. - A class action lawsuit has already been filed, and those wishing to serve as lead plaintiff must act by February 2, 2026 [2]. - Investors can join the class action by submitting a form or contacting the law firm for more information [5]. Group 2: Law Firm Credentials - Rosen Law Firm specializes in securities class actions and has a strong track record, including the largest securities class action settlement against a Chinese company [3]. - The firm has been ranked highly for its number of securities class action settlements and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors, including over $438 million in 2019 [3]. - Founding partner Laurence Rosen has received recognition as a leading figure in the plaintiffs' bar [3]. Group 3: Case Allegations - The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, Blue Owl made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose significant issues, including pressure on its asset base from BDC redemptions and undisclosed liquidity issues [4]. - It is claimed that Blue Owl was likely to limit or halt redemptions of certain BDCs, and the defendants downplayed the severity of these issues, leading to materially misleading statements about the company's business and prospects [4]. - Investors reportedly suffered damages when the true details became known [4].

Core Viewpoint - The Blue Owl Capital Inc. class action lawsuit alleges that the company and its executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with claims centered around undisclosed liquidity issues and significant pressure on its asset base due to BDC redemptions [1][3]. Group 1: Allegations and Financial Performance - The lawsuit claims that Blue Owl failed to disclose meaningful pressure on its asset base from BDC redemptions, leading to undisclosed liquidity issues [3]. - Financial results for Q3 2025 reported fee-related earnings of $376.2 million, missing consensus estimates, and performance revenue fell 33% year over year to $188,000 [4]. - Following the announcement of a merger agreement involving Blue Owl's direct lending businesses, the stock price fell nearly 5% [5]. Group 2: Impact of External Reports - An article published by Financial Times indicated that OBDC II shareholders could face a 20% reduction in investment value due to the merger, which further impacted Blue Owl's stock price, causing a nearly 6% drop [6]. Group 3: Legal Process and Representation - Investors who purchased Blue Owl securities during the class period can seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, representing the interests of all class members [7]. - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a leading law firm in securities fraud litigation, having recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone [8].

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm is reminding investors who purchased securities of Blue Owl Capital Inc. during the specified Class Period of the upcoming lead plaintiff deadline on February 2, 2026 [1] Group 1: Class Action Details - Investors who purchased Blue Owl securities between February 6, 2025, and November 16, 2025, may be entitled to compensation without any out-of-pocket fees through a contingency fee arrangement [2] - A class action lawsuit has already been filed, and interested parties must move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff by February 2, 2026 [3] - Investors can join the class action by visiting the provided link or contacting the law firm directly for more information [6] Group 2: Law Firm Credentials - Rosen Law Firm emphasizes the importance of selecting qualified counsel with a successful track record in securities class actions, highlighting its own achievements in this area [4] - The firm has secured significant settlements for investors, including over $438 million in 2019 and has been ranked highly for its performance in securities class action settlements [4] Group 3: Case Allegations - The lawsuit alleges that Blue Owl made false or misleading statements regarding its asset base and liquidity issues, which were not disclosed to investors [5] - It is claimed that these misrepresentations led to damages for investors when the true situation was revealed [5]

Core Viewpoint - A class action lawsuit has been initiated on behalf of investors who purchased securities of Blue Owl Capital Inc. between February 6, 2025, and November 16, 2025, highlighting potential legal issues surrounding the company [1]. Company Overview - Blue Owl Capital Inc. is identified as an asset management firm that specializes in alternative investment solutions, primarily focusing on private credit [1].

Core Viewpoint - The Blue Owl Capital Inc. class action lawsuit alleges that the company and its executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with significant implications for investors who acquired securities during the specified class period [1][3]. Company Overview - Blue Owl Capital Inc. is identified as an alternative asset manager [2]. Allegations of the Lawsuit - The lawsuit claims that Blue Owl failed to disclose significant pressures on its asset base due to business development company (BDC) redemptions, leading to undisclosed liquidity issues and potential limitations on redemptions [3]. - Financial results reported on October 30, 2025, showed fee-related earnings of $376.2 million, missing consensus estimates, and performance revenue fell 33% year over year to $188,000, which contributed to a decline in stock price [4]. - Following a merger announcement on November 5, 2025, the stock price fell nearly 5%, with concerns raised about liquidity and redemption limitations for shareholders [5]. - An article published on November 16, 2025, indicated that OBDC II shareholders could face a 20% reduction in investment value due to the merger, leading to a further stock price decline of nearly 6% [6]. Legal Process - Investors who purchased Blue Owl securities during the class period can seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, representing the interests of all class members [7]. Law Firm Background - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a leading law firm in securities fraud and shareholder litigation, having secured over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone, and is recognized for its significant recoveries in securities class action cases [8].

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm is reminding investors who purchased Blue Owl Capital Inc. securities between February 6, 2025, and November 16, 2025, of the February 2, 2026, lead plaintiff deadline for a class action lawsuit [1] Group 1: Class Action Details - Investors who bought Blue Owl securities during the specified Class Period may be entitled to compensation without any out-of-pocket fees through a contingency fee arrangement [1] - A class action lawsuit has already been filed, and interested parties must move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff by February 2, 2026 [2] - The Rosen Law Firm emphasizes the importance of selecting qualified counsel with a successful track record in securities class actions [3] Group 2: Case Allegations - The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, Blue Owl made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose significant issues, including pressure on its asset base from BDC redemptions and undisclosed liquidity issues [4] - It is claimed that Blue Owl was likely to limit or halt redemptions of certain BDCs, and that the defendants downplayed the severity of these issues, leading to materially misleading statements about the company's business and prospects [4]