The Jere Beasley Report August 2024

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Alabama Named America’s Most Improved State For Business By CNBC

It’s always good for the State of Alabama to be recognized as being good for business. Recently, Alabama was recognized as the most improved state in CNBC’s annual business competitiveness study. The state climbed to 20th place in the overall ranking, a significant jump of 22 spots from the previous year. This improvement is largely attributed to Alabama’s rise from last to 14th place in net migration of college-educated workers in 2022, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Additionally, Alabama advanced 20 places in the workforce ranking, now sharing the 24th spot with New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Key factors in this progress include the growth in the Huntsville area and the state’s site readiness programs, which help companies find ready-to-build locations.

CNBC’s survey evaluates all 50 states using 128 metrics across 10 categories of competitiveness. Virginia topped the list, followed by North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. The survey assesses how states market themselves to potential businesses, with infrastructure being the most heavily weighted category this year, replacing workforce.

For workforce evaluation, the survey considers the concentration of STEM workers, the percentage of workers with various degrees and certificates, talent attraction success, worker training programs, right-to-work laws, and productivity.

Other categories in the survey include quality of life, cost of doing business, technology and innovation, business friendliness, education, access to capital, and cost of living. Alabama scored highest in infrastructure, education, business friendliness, cost of living, and cost of doing business.

However, my state received low marks in access to capital and economy, and an F in quality of life. Only 27% of Alabama adults have a bachelor’s degree or higher, ranking the state seventh lowest in the country. Alabama also ranked poorly for primary care doctors, dentists, and mental health providers. We have work to do in those areas.

Contact The Team

TALC LITIGATION

Fraudulent Transfer Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against J&J

In May of this year, Beasley Allen and a group of leading law firms filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Johnson & Johnson and other defendants due to their repeated attempts to manipulate the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to prevent victims of its cancer-causing products from having their day in court. The case is Love v. LLT Management LLC, No. 24-06320 (5/22/24), U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Class Complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme to transfer J&J’s enormous assets (and talc liabilities) during two bad-faith bankruptcy filings with the intent to limit their liability for talc claims. The suit includes state law claims for fraudulent transfer, malicious use and abuse of process. Through their violations of these laws, the defendants forced a two-year delay of scheduled trials and other types of resolution.

The lawsuit involves the divisive merger under Texas law (the “Texas Two-Step”) that allowed J&J to transfer its talc liabilities to its newly created subsidiary, LTL Management Co. LLC, which then filed for bankruptcy in North Carolina in 2021. Just prior to filing for bankruptcy, LTL entered into a Funding Agreement that gave it access to the full value of Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (Old JJCI) —estimated to be more than $61 billion—and was guaranteed by J&J. In addition, this 2021 Funding Agreement provided that the funding would be available to LTL to pay talc victim claims both in and out of bankruptcy.

Once filed, the LTL bankruptcy case was moved to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey and was ultimately dismissed in January 2023 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In its opinion, the Third Circuit roundly rejected J&J’s attempt to shovel all 38,000 talc cases into a brand-new subsidiary, which then, within hours of creation, declared bankruptcy. In strong language, the federal appeals court found that the J&J/LTL bad faith petition “has no valid bankruptcy purpose” and dismissed the bankruptcy in its entirety, reversing a ruling by the bankruptcy court.

After the Third Circuit issued its opinion ordering the dismissal of the bankruptcy for lack of good faith, but before the bankruptcy court entered the order that actually dismissed the case, J&J allegedly moved forward with the next part of its fraudulent transfer scheme. Specifically, the defendants “gave up” on their 2021 Funding Agreement and cobbled together a new funding agreement (the “2023 Funding Agreement”) which was of lesser value (approximately $30 billion less). What’s more, the 2023 Funding Agreement was only between LTL and New JJCI…which no longer held the valuable consumer health business assets. In other words, J&J did not back the 2023 Funding Agreement – as it did with the earlier 2021 Funding Agreement. As a final twist, the terms of the 2023 Funding Agreement specified that it was only available in bankruptcy.

Once the bankruptcy court entered its order of dismissal – and with the defendants’ new 2023 Funding Agreement in place – J&J (through LTL) filed another bankruptcy in a bad faith attempt to avoid facing justice in courtrooms across the country. Not surprisingly, the Second Bankruptcy Action was also found to be filed in bad faith, this time by the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court, itself. The defendants have appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Most recently, J&J announced that LTL, now reincorporated as LLT Management in Texas, would file a third bankruptcy if 75% of ovarian cancer claimants accepted a $6.5 billion settlement. Plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class filed for a preliminary injunction and a restraining order to prevent this, but the court ruled the claims at this stage were not ripe for adjudication and thus, the plaintiffs lacked the requisite standing to seek this relief since the harm they seek to prevent is based on events that have not yet occurred and may never happen (i.e., a third J&J-orchestrated bankruptcy petition).

Regardless of J&J’s threat of a third bankruptcy petition, the plaintiffs are confident that their class suit will result in the avoidance of the defendants’ three fraudulent corporate transfers, including the 2021 “Texas two-step” maneuver – thus allowing them to hold J&J liable for $61.5 billion. These three transfers have already occurred, and they involve significant harm due to the enormous delays they have caused every putative class member whose claims have been sidelined for years due to J&J’s corporate machinations and fraudulent schemes to manipulate the bankruptcy process.

The plaintiffs are represented by Richard Golomb and Kevin Fay of Anapol Weiss; Christopher Tisi and Mike Papantonio of Levin Papantonio Rafferty Proctor Buchanan O’Brien Barr Mougey PA; Brian A. Glasser, David Selby, Thomas Bennett and Todd Matthews of Bailey Glasser LLP; Michelle Parfitt of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP; Warren Burns, Amanda Klevorn and Natalie Earles of Burns Charest LLP; and Andy Birchfield, Leigh O’Dell, Ted Meadows, and David Byrne of Beasley Allen.

The case is Love et al. v. LLT Management LLC et al., case number 3:24-cv-06320, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

J&J’s ‘Texas Two-Step’ Rejected Again

On July 26, 2024, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New Jersey Bankruptcy Court decision that ended Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J’s) second attempt to resolve tens of thousands of talc lawsuits through a shell company’s bankruptcy. The Court held that J&J’s second bankruptcy, like its first, had to fail because the shell company that it placed into bankruptcy (LTL Mgt. LLC) was not in “financial distress”.

The Third Circuit panel found that the J&J/LTL bankruptcy was properly dismissed by the U.S. bankruptcy judge because LTL had presented only “speculative” evidence that the talc lawsuits created sufficient “financial distress” to warrant the protections of bankruptcy.

J&J, the parent company of LTL used the “Texas two-step” strategy, splitting the business into two entities: one with assets and the other with liabilities. Following this move, the newly created entity (LTL) relocated to North Carolina and immediately filed for bankruptcy. Thereafter, this first bankruptcy case was transferred to New Jersey, where the bankruptcy court initially allowed the bankruptcy to proceed. However, in January 2023 the Third Circuit reversed that decision.

After the first case’s dismissal, LTL immediately filed their second bankruptcy. This case was also dismissed by the bankruptcy court as a bad-faith filing, and the Third Circuit upheld this decision in their latest opinion and order.

Andy Birchfield, one of the many Beasley Allen attorneys who have worked tirelessly on behalf of talc victims, has said that the Third Circuit’s decision should be a “warning to J&J” that its focus on a bankruptcy settlement “is unlawful and also defies common sense.”

The bankruptcy claimants’ committee, who have vigorously fought J&J’s corporate machinations and repeated abuses of the Bankruptcy Code, include ovarian cancer and mesothelioma patients and health insurance providers. They are represented by Bailey & Glasser LLP, Brown Rudnick LLP, Genova Burns LLC, Massey & Gail LLP, MoloLamken LLP, and Otterbourg PC.

The case is In re: LTL Management LLC, case numbers 23-2971 and 23-2972, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Source: Law360

Court Denies Request by J&J To Disqualify Beasley Allen

In a strongly worded ruling, New Jersey Superior Court Judge John Porto rejected Johnson & Johnson’s attempt to disqualify Beasley Allen from representing plaintiffs who developed cancer from the company’s talc products. This decision is a well-deserved setback for J&J, whose disqualification motion was clearly meant to aid its attempt to resolve over 60,000 claims through a $6.48 billion pre-packaged bankruptcy plan. The amount proposed by J&J is grossly inadequate and J&J knows that to be true. J&J’s attack on our firm, and especially on Andy Birchfield, was part of its plan to divert our attention from the ongoing battle.

Judge Porto ruled that J&J did not provide “any credible basis” for its allegations that Andy Birchfield and our firm formed an unethical alliance with a former J&J lawyer.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah Singh, overseeing related cases in New Jersey federal court, subsequently ordered J&J to explain why she should not adopt Judge Porto’s findings in a parallel motion to disqualify our firm from the federal cases.

J&J has consistently denied claims that its talc contains cancer-causing asbestos, asserting the product’s safety. In December, J&J accused Andy Birchfield of unethical conduct by working with former Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath partner James Conlan, who had previously worked on the talc litigation for J&J. The company alleged that Conlan must have disclosed confidential information, but Judge Porto found no evidence to support this claim. That’s because J&J’s claim was false and the company’s officers, directors, and attorneys know that to be the case.

Andy Birchfield has made it abundantly clear that Beasley Allen has no intention of backing down in the ongoing battle with J&J. Our firm’s commitment is to seek justice for all families affected by J&J’s massive wrongdoing.

The case is In re Talc-based powder products litigation, MCL No. 300, Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County.

J&J Subpoenas Seeking Funding Information Are Quashed

In yet another legal setback for Johnson & Johnson (J&J), Special Master Joel Schneider, a retired U.S. District Judge, recently denied J&J’s discovery request for information on talc-related litigation funding for our firm and for our settlement communications with clients. As Judge Schneider’s order made clear, J&J was seeking information that was not discoverable under existing law and the rules of evidence. Specifically, Judge Schneider ruled that while discovery in federal courts is broad, it has its limits.

According to J&J, the subpoenas directed at our firm (and our clients) were supposedly relevant to the multidistrict litigation over its talcum powder products. However, Judge Schneider summarily dismissed this argument by emphasizing that parties cannot freely explore their adversary’s files without limits.

This particular discovery dispute began when a plaintiff, alleging her ovarian cancer was caused by J&J’s talcum powder, emailed J&J and copied a reporter, indicating her lawyers had said J&J was unwilling to settle her case. J&J then issued their subpoenas to Beasley Allen for documents related to litigation funding and settlement communications.

As previously reported, J&J has already sought bankruptcy protection twice through the filings of a shell company (LTL Mgt. Inc.). Both bankruptcy cases were dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which characterized the cases as bad faith filings. Now, J&J has proposed a third bankruptcy filing, with $6.5 billion in funds to settle all current and future talc claims through bankruptcy. As representatives of over 5,000 clients, Beasley Allen did not (and does not) approve of J&J’s third attempt at bankruptcy through one of its shell companies. J&J claimed that third-party financing to a related law firm might be influencing our firm’s opposition to the settlement. That was totally false of course – and Judge Schneider’s order properly quashed J&J’s discovery subpoenas.

In responding to the subpoenas, Beasley Allen, joined by the plaintiff steering committee, accused J&J of using harassing tactics and unethical conduct disguised as “discovery”. Not surprisingly, J&J says that it will appeal Judge Schneider’s decision to quash the subpoenas.

Beasley Allen is represented on the subpoena matter by Jeffrey M. Pollock and Michael W. Sabo of Fox Rothschild LLP, and by Richard Golomb of Golomb Legal PC.

The steering committee is represented by Christopher M. Placitella of Cohen Placitella & Roth PC, Michelle A. Parfitt of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP, and Leigh O’Dell of Beasley Allen.

The federal multidistrict litigation is In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:16-md-02738, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

J&J Settles For $505 Million In Talc Litigation Chapter 11 Case

Imerys and Cyprus Mines have asked a Delaware bankruptcy court to approve a Chapter 11 settlement involving Johnson & Johnson (J&J). Under this settlement, J&J would contribute $505 million in cash and insurance proceeds to a talc injury trust, even if it files for bankruptcy again.

The settlement aims to resolve a long-standing dispute between Imerys, Cyprus Mines, and J&J over insurance claims. J&J must adhere to the settlement terms even if it files for bankruptcy a third time, and talc claimants can still sue J&J directly.

If approved, the settlement will provide finality for Imerys and Cyprus Mines and will increase recoveries for talc claimants. J&J will make an initial payment of $225 million, plus up to $280 million from the first batch of insurance proceeds.

Imerys and Cyprus Mines filed for Chapter 11 in 2019 and 2022, respectively, due to numerous talc exposure lawsuits. Imerys was the sole supplier of talc to J&J, which faced a multibillion-dollar verdict in 2018 over claims that its talc-based baby powder caused cancer. As widely reported, J&J’s newly formed talc unit filed for Chapter 11 in an attempt to avoid broad liability for its wrongdoing.

In 2020, Cyprus Mines sought to determine its right to indemnification from J&J’s insurance policies, leading to over a year of litigation. After two years of mediation, Imerys and Cyprus Mines reached an agreement in January 2024 to create an $862.5 million joint trust fund for talc claims. The filed motion aims to finalize this settlement agreement.

The cases are In re: Imerys Talc America Inc. et al., case number 1:19-bk-10289, and In re: Cyprus Mines Corp., case number 1:21-bk-10398, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Source: Law360

$24 Million Verdict In Illinois Talc Case

Recently, a Cook County Illinois Circuit Court jury awarded over $24 million to the family of Cipriano Ramirez, a former janitor who worked at an Avon Products facility in Illinois during the 1980s. The jury found Avon negligently exposed Ramirez to asbestos-contaminated talc, leading to his mesothelioma diagnosis.

Ramirez and his wife, Maria, claimed Avon required him to handle asbestos without proper warnings or safety measures. The award includes $1 million in punitive damages, $3 million for Maria’s loss of consortium, and various amounts for medical expenses, economic loss, and emotional distress.

Ramirez is represented by Jennifer Alesio, James Kramer, Taylor Kerns, Phil Proud and Cody Favilla of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP.

The case is Cipriano Ramirez et al. v. Avon Products Inc. et al., case number 2023-L-004386, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Law Division.

Source: Law360

New Jersey Judge Dismisses Libel Lawsuit By J&J Regarding Talc Research

A New Jersey federal judge has dismissed the libel suit filed by LTL Management Co., (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) against Dr. Jacqueline Miriam Moline. The suit challenged Dr. Moline’s scientific article linking talcum powder to mesothelioma, claiming it contained false statements. However, U.S. District Judge Georgette Castner ruled that the statements were protected by the First Amendment as scientific conclusions.

Judge Castner found that Moline’s statements about asbestos exposure were inferences based on her review of deposition transcripts and medical records, making them nonactionable as they were not verifiable facts. The judge emphasized that the statements published in a scientific journal with disclaimers and methodology should be seen as tentative scientific conclusions.

LTL argued that Dr. Moline knew her statements were false, particularly in the case of study participant Betty W. Bell, who had other known asbestos exposures. However, the judge ruled that these were scientific opinions, not false statements of fact.

Kevin Marino, Dr. Moline’s lawyer, stated that the proper forum for such disputes is scientific literature, not the courtroom. J&J says it plans to appeal the decision, disagreeing with the court’s finding that the statements were protected as opinions.

Dr. Moline is represented by Kevin Marino and John D. Tortorella of Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC.

The case is LTL Management LLC v. Moline, case number 3:23-cv-02990, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

Because of J&J’s delaying tactics, the Talc litigation continues to move at a slow pace. Both ovarian cancer and mesothelioma trials are scheduled in various state and federal courts throughout the country for the remainder of 2024 and into 2025. But J&J’s repeated bad faith attempts to obtain bankruptcy protection through its shell companies have produced litigation stays that have slowed down – and in several instances halted – the effort to try the claims of talc victims.

It has also diverted some of Beasley Allen’s attention from talc victim trials to battles over J&J’s bad-faith bankruptcy filings. However, let’s be clear– Beasley Allen is totally committed to battling J&J on every front, and we will continue to fight the good fight in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. In fact, our trial team is busy preparing to start the next talc ovarian cancer trial on August 19, 2024, in Philadelphia state court.

Beasley Allen lawyers Leigh O’Dell and Ted Meadows head our Talc Ovarian Cancer Litigation Team. From the beginning, they have been directly involved in all phases of the talc litigation. Andy Birchfield, who heads up our Mass Torts Section, has been actively involved with the team in all aspects of this litigation. This has been a tough battle, but a critically important and necessary one and our lawyers do not intend to backdown in the battle.

The team handles claims of ovarian cancer linked to talcum powder cases. Beasley Allen will also continue its fight against J&J’s blatant abuse of the bankruptcy system. As stated above, that battle is not over. The following Beasley Allen lawyers are members of the Talc Litigation Team:

Leigh O’Dell, Ted Meadows, Kelli Alfreds, Ryan Beattie, Beau Darley, David Dearing, Liz Achtemeier, Jennifer Emmel, Lauren James, James Lampkin, Caty O’Quinn, Cristina Rodriguez, Brittany Scott, Charlie Stern, Will Sutto and Matt Teague.

Contact The Team

Abuse of the Bankruptcy Laws by Corporate America Cannot be Tolerated

Lawmakers Unite To Curb ‘Texas Two-Step’ Bankruptcy Strategy

Members of Congress are taking aim at the corporate bankruptcy tactic known as the “Texas Two-Step” with a new bipartisan bill designed to curb this controversial legal strategy. The Ending Corporate Bankruptcy Abuse Act (ECBA) is a bipartisan effort to curb the misuse of bankruptcy laws by large corporations.

This legislation, introduced by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), along with Representatives Emilia Sykes (D-OH) and Lance Gooden (R-TX), specifically targets the “Texas Two-Step” maneuver. As we have reported, this tactic allows corporations to split into two entities: one burdened with liabilities and few assets, and the other holding most of the assets and no liabilities. The liability-laden entity then files for bankruptcy, effectively delaying justice for victims and allowing the asset-rich entity to continue operations unscathed.

The Key Provisions of the ECBA include:

Presumption of Bad Faith: The bill instructs courts to presume that a bankruptcy filed under the Texas Two-Step maneuver is in bad faith. This presumption would standardize the dismissal of such bankruptcies across federal circuit courts.’
Prohibition of Litigation Stays: The legislation would prohibit stays of litigation against non-bankrupt affiliates of a debtor that engaged in a Texas Two-Step maneuver within the previous four years. This means that even if one entity files for bankruptcy, its non-bankrupt counterpart cannot avoid litigation.

The Ending Corporate Bankruptcy Abuse Act seeks to deter the use of the Two-Step, a maneuver employed by a number of major companies, including Johnson & Johnson, to place an affiliate into bankruptcy to handle mass liabilities. The bipartisan group of senators and representatives contend that this tactic allows corporations to avoid responsibility for injuries they have caused and delays justice for consumers. Sen. Whitehouse stated:

Our bipartisan bill would end abuse of the bankruptcy process to ensure that victims get the day in court that our constitution entitles them to.

The legislation specifically targets the Two-Step. You may recall that a number of senators expressed outrage at a hearing last year over J&J’s attempts to use this strategy to address the litigation involving its talc-based products which cause cancer.

The ECBA aims to put an end to this practice, ensuring that victims have their day in court and that corporations are held accountable for their actions. The bill has garnered bipartisan support. The legislation is seen as a crucial step in protecting consumers and ensuring fairness in the bankruptcy system.

By addressing the Texas Two-Step, the ECBA seeks to restore integrity to the bankruptcy process and provide justice for those harmed by corporate misconduct. It should be noted that the new bill aims to deter the maneuver by instructing courts to presume a bankruptcy has been filed in bad faith if it shows clear signs of being a Texas Two-Step.

According to the bill summary, courts should consider factors such as whether a debtor has artificially created a connection to the venue where the bankruptcy is filed, if the filing is intended to gain a litigation advantage, or if there is a prearranged deal that limits the funds available to cover liabilities.

Other indicators include whether the bankrupt entity was recently formed through a divisional merger, involved in a fraudulent transfer, or lacks a valid reorganization purpose. The summary noted that the bad faith provision is intended to standardize federal rules for dismissing bankruptcies across circuit courts.

Additionally, the bill targets a key benefit of the Two-Step by prohibiting litigation pauses for nonbankrupt affiliates involved in a Texas Two-Step maneuver within the previous four years. This provision would prevent companies like J&J, which is attempting to use the Two-Step for a third time, from being shielded from litigation simply by placing an affiliate into bankruptcy.

Encourage the members of the Senate and House to support this legislation. The public has become aware of how a number of huge corporations have abused the system. I believe the overwhelming majority of the American people support this legislation.

Sources: Bloomberg and Sen. Whitehead

Contact The Team

The Opioid Litigation

A Look At The U.S. Supreme Court’s Rejection Of Purdue Pharma’s Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP is being seen as a landmark ruling in bankruptcy law. The high court held that the U.S. Bankruptcy Code does not permit nonconsensual releases of claims against nondebtors. This means the Sackler family cannot use Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy to settle opioid lawsuits without the consent of all plaintiffs. This was a highly significant and far-reaching decision by the High Court.

We believe it will be helpful to discuss the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy and related matters leading up to the bankruptcy court’s involvement in Mass Torts Litigation, as well as subsequent events. The following are key points in the litigation and bankruptcy proceedings:

Background

Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, faced thousands of lawsuits due to the opioid crisis. The Sacklers withdrew $11 billion from Purdue and sought Chapter 11 protection in 2019.

Bankruptcy Plan

The Sacklers proposed contributing $4.325 billion to the bankruptcy estate in exchange for release from opioid-related claims. Most claimants agreed, but some did not.

Court Decisions

The bankruptcy court approved the plan, but the district court vacated it. The Second Circuit reversed the district court, but the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Second Circuit.

Supreme Court Ruling

The majority, led by Justice Gorsuch, held that nonconsensual releases are not authorized by the Bankruptcy Code. The decision emphasized that the Sacklers sought more favorable terms than the code allows.

The Dissent

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by three others, argued that the decision would harm opioid victims and disrupt established bankruptcy practices.

Impact of Ruling

The ruling significantly impacts mass tort bankruptcies, giving claimants more leverage.

Ruling Challenges

The ruling challenges practices like the “Texas two-step,” where companies spin off liabilities into new entities that declare bankruptcy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a Texas two-step reorganization before the Purdue Pharma case. Emerging trends in bankruptcy, such as gatekeeper provisions that allow courts to prescreen lawsuits, could be affected. The decision in Purdue Pharma will affect injunctions preventing litigation against nondebtors. It potentially will also challenge gatekeeper injunctions and other releases in bankruptcy.

Temporary restraints on litigation against nondebtors may also be vulnerable. While Section 362 provides an automatic stay for debtors, extending this stay to non-debtors lacks clear statutory authority. Courts have allowed such extensions to protect the estate, but Purdue Pharma’s restrictions may jeopardize this valuable tool. Law360 made this observation:

The decision’s plain-text approach could limit the flexibility bankruptcy courts have traditionally exercised. Even if appellate courts adopt stricter readings of the code, practical limits on appellate review may slow changes. Practitioners will closely monitor and navigate the potential tension between bankruptcy and appellate courts.

It was reported by Law360 that Purdue Pharma is in a critical phase of its bankruptcy proceedings because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision. We will take a closer look at the effect of the decision.

The official committee of unsecured creditors in Purdue Pharma’s Chapter 11 case has asked a New York bankruptcy judge for permission to sue the Sackler family, which owns the company. The committee, supported by Purdue and an ad hoc committee of state and local governments, aims to pursue legal claims against the Sacklers.

The Bankruptcy Code does not allow releases that would let the Sacklers avoid liability without actually filing for bankruptcy. The Supreme Court’s decision makes that abundantly clear.

The case is In re: Purdue Pharma LP, case number 7:19-bk-23649, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Lawyers at Beasley Allen are following the Purdue Pharma litigation and the bankruptcy involvement closely. This will affect all Mass Torts Litigation where the Texas two-step concept is employed by a company to cheat the system, including the J&J Talc Litigation. Stay tuned!

Source: Law360

Alabama Opioid Settlements: $728 Million & Climbing

All Americans know that the opioid epidemic swept across the United States, leaving a trail of addiction, overdose, and death in its wake. Alabamians were affected, as were people across our country. Fortunately, thanks to Attorney General Steve Marshall, Alabama was committed to making the companies involved own up to their role in the opioid crisis. Steve Marshall had the courage to reject the national global settlement and protect Alabama’s interests. Clearly, the Attorney General made the right decision.

Thus far, Alabama has secured over $728 million in settlements from healthcare and drug companies in the state’s Opioid litigation. This is a huge win in the battle against opioids, but it’s not over yet.

The following is the breakdown of settlements thus far for Alabama by the companies sued by the state:

McKinsey: $9,229,422

Allergan: $34,040,657

Walmart: $38,700,000

Teva: $57,138,934

Johnson & Johnson: $70,329,014

CVS: $75,581,592

Walgreens: $82,187,066

McKesson: $141,000,000

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation & Cardinal Health: $220,000,000

The opioid crisis impacts all areas of Alabama’s economy, such as healthcare, education, business, and local government. It’s a problem that doesn’t discriminate, affecting people from all walks of life, regardless of where they live, their race, or their social status.

Alabama:

From 2006–2014, there were 5,128 overdose-related deaths in Alabama;

In 2012, Alabama had the highest per-capita opioid prescription rate in the nation; and

In 2016, there were 741 overdose deaths, with opioids (including prescription and heroin) accounting for most deaths.

National Facts & Figures:

More than 760,000 people have died from a drug overdose in the U.S. since 1999;

Nearly 75% of drug overdose deaths in 2020 involved an opioid; and

The number of overdose deaths involving opioids in 2021 was 10 times the number in 19992.

The Fight Continues:

The fight is ongoing, but these payments give Alabama better resources to deal with future challenges. This includes more programs to stop opioid misuse, more places for treatment, and more help for the people and families affected. Beasley Allen lawyer Rhon Jones, who led the Alabama litigation team, says:

These payments are about more than the money; it’s a promise to future generations that we will do all we can to stop this tragedy from happening again.

As with previous opioid settlements, the state will share the settlement funds with local governments and public hospitals. The state’s portion of the settlement funds will go directly into the state’s General Fund. Thanks to Attorney General Marshall, Alabama came out a clear winner and the effort is not over.

The State of Alabama was represented in this matter by these lawyers: from Beasley Allen: Matt Griffith, Jeff Price, Elliot Bienenfeld, Rick Stratton, Gavin King, Elizabeth Weyerman. In addition to our firm, the state was represented by Josh Hayes and Bob Prince of Prince Glover Hayes. Clay Crenshaw and Michael Dean from the Attorney General’s Office worked on this litigation and were extremely important in the successes achieved thus far. Rhon Jones, who heads our Toxic Torts Section, was totally involved in the litigation. Rhon has done a tremendous job. While this was a joint effort, the real credit goes to Steve Marshall.

Rite Aid And The Department Of Justice Reach $410 Million Settlement Over Opioid Sale Claims

Rite Aid has agreed to a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to resolve allegations of illegally dispensing opioids. The settlement, valued at nearly $410 million, includes a $7.5 million payment and an unsecured claim of nearly $402 million in the company’s Chapter 11 case. The DOJ claimed that from May 2014 to June 2019, Rite Aid filled hundreds of thousands of unlawful prescriptions for controlled substances and sought government reimbursement.

Rite Aid filed for Chapter 11 in October to address over $3 billion in debt, close some of its 2,100 locations, sell its subsidiary Elixir, and resolve its opioid-related liabilities. The restructuring plan, approved in late June, includes paying $2.6 billion in loans, exchanging $1.2 billion in senior notes for equity, and addressing over 1,600 opioid claims valued at $2.3 billion.

Additionally, Rite Aid settled another civil case for $121 million, addressing allegations of misreporting rebates to Medicare. This settlement includes $101 million in restitution and unsecured claims of $10 million each from two subsidiaries.

The settlements were approved as part of Rite Aid’s reorganization plan, with 17% of the proceeds from the FCA claims going to whistle-blowers who initiated the suit.

The debtors are represented in the bankruptcy case by Edward O. Sassower, Joshua A. Sussberg, Aparna Yenamandra, Ross J. Fiedler and Zachary R. Manning of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Michael D. Sirota, Warren A. Usatine, Felice R. Yudkin and Seth Van Aalten of Cole Schotz PC.

The Department of Justice is represented in the bankruptcy case by Mary Schmergel, Gregory Werkheiser and Ryan W. Lamb and in the civil cases by Jackson Froliklong, Dan Schiffer, Christopher G. Wilson, Elizabeth L. Berry, Patricia M. Fitzgerald and Kathryn G. Andrachik.

The relators in the civil case that resulted in the roughly $410 million settlement are represented by W. Scott Simmer, William G. Powers and Zachary C. Schaengold of Baron & Budd and Donald P. Screen and Subodh Chandra of Chandra Law.

The cases are In re: Rite Aid Corp., et al., case number 3:23-bk-18993, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, and U.S. et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation et al., case number 5:21-cv-00574, and Andrew White et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation et al., case number 1:21-cv-01239, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Source: Law360

5 States Settle Opioid Claims with Indivior for $86 Million

Indivior has agreed to pay $86 million to settle claims by state attorneys general from New York, Illinois, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia. The settlement addresses allegations that Indivior targeted sales of its buprenorphine-based products, like Suboxone, to pill mills and failed to monitor suspicious orders. Buprenorphine can treat opioid use disorders but also has the potential for abuse.

New York Attorney General Letitia James emphasized that the settlement will end Indivior’s harmful practices and fund opioid addiction treatment, prevention, and education programs. The funds will be distributed over five years among the five states involved.

This settlement follows a 2020 agreement where Indivior paid $600 million to resolve claims related to misleading marketing of Suboxone Film. Former CEO Shaun Thaxter and former medical director Timothy Baxter faced legal consequences for their roles in the misconduct. Indivior is also involved in ongoing multidistrict litigation over the opioid epidemic in Ohio federal court.

New York is represented by Jennifer Levy, Monica Hanna, Matthew Conrad and Eve Woodin of the New York Attorney General’s Office.

Source: Law360

Contact The Team

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Camp Lejeune: Government Continues to Fail to Make Progress Resolving Claims; Court Appoints ‘Settlement Masters’

In the status report to the Court on July 9, the federal government reported that it had received approximately 285,484 claims. The government further reported that of those filed claims, a total of 204 claims met its criteria for settlement and that it had extended offers to those claimants ranging from $150,000 to $450,000. Ninety-five – less than 50% – had accepted the offer. All of the cases involved a “Tier” injury, such as bladder cancer, kidney cancer, kidney disease, NHL, Multiple Myeloma, Parkinson’s, or Leukemia.

Under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, claimants are required to give the Navy 180 days to review and make a decision on their claim before they are able to file suit. Many claims have been filed much longer than that with no communication at all from the Navy. Many claims that have been submitted have not been properly substantiated and are likely to continue to sit.

The lack of effort and slow progress by the government in working toward reviewing and resolving claims has led to frustration among the judges – who have acknowledged the importance of expediting cases – as have many victims who are waiting for justice while battling terminal illnesses. While the Court continues to work toward an efficient litigation structure, it has also pushed the government to work toward settling these claims, acknowledging that trying every single case in these claimants’ lifetimes is simply not possible.

On July 9, 2024, the Court took a step towards that settlement effort and designated attorneys Thomas Perrelli and Christopher Oprison as special masters to help facilitate a resolution of this historic litigation. The court tasked them with the primary objective of working with the parties to establish a unified approach for global settlement of Camp Lejeune claims. The court further appointed Magistrate Judge James E. Gates to work alongside Perrelli and Oprison as a “settlement liaison.”

Given the complexities and intricacies involved in this litigation, a global settlement could be well down the road. As such, claimants should not expect to simply file their claims and sit back and wait. Proactive measures will need to be taken to push claims forward.

Beasley Allen lawyers have been actively involved in all aspects of obtaining justice for Camp Lejeune victims, from advocating for the enactment of this legislation to serving on the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee for the litigation. Our team of Toxic Tort lawyers have investigated, substantiated, and filed thousands of claims.

Our firm has experience with presenting claims for Elective Option evaluation, substantiating claims to prepare them for administrative review, and settlement of claims. We welcome the opportunity to share our team’s knowledge and experience with other lawyers.

Camp Lejeune Litigation Team

Beasley Allen lawyers on our Camp Lejeune Litigation Team are hard at work. They are still taking on new cases. Currently, the firm is handling thousands of cases with more clients coming in weekly. There are numerous Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune webinars addressing the various issues in this litigation that are available at BeasleyAllen.com.

Toxic Torts Section Head Rhon Jones is heavily involved in all aspects of the litigation. You can contact any of the lawyers on our litigation team if you need help with a claim or have questions about the litigation. The lawyers on the team include Ryan Kral, Matt Griffith, Jeff Price, Elliot Bienenfeld, David Diab, Gavin King, Tucker Osborne, Elizabeth Weyerman, Saima Khan, Travis Chin, Wesley Merillat, and Miland Simpler.

Contact The Team

Update On Social Media Litigation

Beasley Allen remains heavily involved in social media litigation. Our lawyers are pursuing claims against Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube for injuries resulting from addiction to these defendants’ social media platforms. Our lawyers have filed lawsuits on behalf of hundreds of injured individuals, adults and minors, for injuries and damages arising out of their addiction to these social media platforms.

In addition, Beasley Allen lawyers are representing a number of school districts for the damages they have sustained. They have incurred large expenses due to problems related to their students’ social media addictions.

These lawsuits have been filed in two different courts in California – the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California and the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.

Both courts have recently selected a number of cases to begin discovery to prepare the cases for trials beginning in 2025. The federal district court selected 12 personal injury cases and 12 school board cases. Of those cases, Beasley Allen represents 3 of the personal injury cases and co-represents 4 of the school board cases. The Los Angeles Superior Court randomly selected 24 personal injury cases. Beasley Allen represents 11 of the personal injury cases that remain in the bellwether pool for this court.

Over the next few months, Beasley Allen lawyers will be working on discovery, including depositions, to prepare these cases for trial. Unfortunately, the Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed claims asserted by some of the school boards based on California, Florida, Rhode Island and Washington law. The school board cases have been stayed pending resolution of an appeal to be filed concerning the dismissal of those claims.

Federal Judge Questions Zuckerberg’s Attempt To Avoid Liability In MDL Case

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has expressed skepticism about Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s attempt to dismiss liability claims in a multidistrict litigation case. This came about during a hearing in the case. This case involves allegations that social media platforms, including those owned by Meta, are designed to be addictive and harmful to minors’ mental health.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers questioned whether Zuckerberg, unlike many hands-off CEOs, was aware of the issues and failed to act. Plaintiffs argue that Zuckerberg knew about the risks from internal reports but misled the public. Zuckerberg’s lawyer contended that the allegations lack specificity.

The judge did not make an immediate ruling, but she allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaints as the case progressed. The hearing also addressed other motions, including TikTok’s request for forensic images of plaintiffs’ devices, which was denied by the court due to privacy concerns.

The personal injury plaintiffs were represented during the hearing by Joseph VanZandt of Beasley Allen; Kelly Kristine McNabb and Gabriel August Panek of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; and Previn Warren and Mathew P. Jasinski of Motley Rice LLC.

The case is In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, case number 4:22-md-03047, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team, is co-lead counsel for the Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) for the plaintiffs in California State Court. Joseph is also a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in the MDL, helping lead the federal social media multidistrict litigation. The two Beasley Allen litigation teams handling the social media personal injury cases are set out below.

Social Media Personal Injury Team

If you need more information on the personal injury segment of our social media litigation, or need help on a case, contact a lawyer on the firm’s Social Medial Personal Injury Litigation Team.

Joseph (who heads the team) Jennifer Emmel, Suzanne Clark, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Davis and Seth Harding. Andy Birchfield, who heads our Mass Torts Section, also works with the team.

Social Media Non-Personal Injury Litigation Team

The representation of the clients in non-personal injury cases involving Social Media Litigation is handled at Beasley Allen by lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Litigation representing State Attorneys General is also handled by those lawyers. Ali Hawthorne, Rebecca Gilliland and Zina Nour make up that team at this juncture. Members from the personal injury team will also assist the class action lawyers handling social media cases as needed.

If you need more information or need help on a class action case involving social media, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Section. She will have one of the lawyers listed above respond to you.

Contact The Team

MOTOR VEHICLE & TRUCKING LITIGATION

Self-Insured, Until Trial: Auto Manufacturers, Trucking Companies, And Hidden Insurance Policies

When faced with a potential lawsuit, small businesses and individuals are usually prompt in providing all applicable liability insurance policies. Legal fees for a company can be high, and in the context of catastrophic injury, liability is orders of magnitude higher than that. These “smaller cap” insured classes rightly view insurance as the means of driving their case to a quick resolution while protecting their own financial interests or, as some say, “pockets.”

However, quite often that practice is not always the case for “larger cap” insurance users such as automobile manufacturers and large trucking companies. Because of the sophisticated and talented legal counsel these companies retain, insurance companies are willing to let these companies provide their own defense in some cases. Moreover, for these companies, disclosure of a “non-meritorious claim” can raise their premiums more than their simply dealing with the claim themselves. These facts create an incentive to keep their insurance coverage (or at least their excess insurance coverage) hidden from plaintiff’s lawyers until trial.

Unfortunately, Beasley Allen lawyers have seen this situation up close on numerous occasions. For example, a trucking defendant will disclose a $2 Million policy within days of a fatal car accident, only for our lawyers to “find” a $10 Million excess policy in place on the doorstep of a trial. Another example is when an automobile manufacturer is “self-insured for all reasonable verdicts that may be recovered,” until the Pretrial Order is entered – at which point, the automobile manufacturer “discovers” a complete tower of applicable insurance.

Mistakes happen, and not all late insurance disclosures are intentional. But some are. Plaintiffs’ counsel must carefully read discovery responses and file Motions to Compel sooner rather than later.

Ben Keen Files Lawsuit In Georgia Involving Serious Interstate Injury Collision

Ben Keen, a personal injury lawyer in our Atlanta Office, is investigating a violent collision that resulted in an Interstate 85 shutdown. The incident occurred on March 22, 2024, when a tractor-trailer driven by the defendant attempted to change lanes in a reckless manner. In doing so, the rear of his trailer contacted and connected to the front of the plaintiff’s vehicle, also a tractor-trailer.

As a result of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff was forced off the roadway into the guardrail. He ultimately came to a violent stop in the interstate retaining wall. After the plaintiff’s vehicle had come to a stop, the tractor cab caught fire. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was trapped in the vehicle and unable to free himself. Thankfully, numerous witnesses stopped to aid the trapped driver.

A Good Samaritan was able to cut the driver out of the cab of the burning vehicle, saving the plaintiff’s life. At the moment the driver and the Good Samaritan escaped from the vehicle, the cab exploded. Not only was the plaintiff blessed by heroic bystanders, but other commercial motor vehicle drivers stopped to aid and assist police officers with the investigation of the accident.

Evidence shows that this incident could have been avoided long before the negligent lane change maneuver. Third-party dash footage provides evidence showing the defendant recklessly driving miles before the wreck that involved the plaintiff. The defendant sped through an active construction zone and recklessly passed other roadway users at an unsafe following distance.

The defendant driver had ample time to correct his negligent conduct in the face of numerous hazards but failed to do so. As a result, the plaintiff incurred life-altering injuries. Ben Keen is committed to the task of receiving justice for his client in the case.

GM’s $50 Million Faulty Fuel Pump Settlement Gets Early Approval

U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg has indicated preliminary approval for a $50 million settlement to resolve class claims against General Motors (GM) for selling trucks with faulty fuel pumps. This settlement, with final approval, will end GM’s appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

The settlement, reached after six months of negotiations, compensates drivers who overpaid for their vehicles or paid out of pocket for repairs. GM will pay $50 million, with individual payments ranging from $6,300 to $12,700, depending on the number of claimants. In addition to the cash payments, GM will provide a 12-month limited warranty covering 50% of repair costs for future fuel pump failures.

The settlement covers customers in seven states who bought certain GMC and Chevrolet diesel trucks with specific engines. Named plaintiffs will receive a $5,000 service award, and attorney fees are yet to be determined. The case, which has been pending for about five years, highlights GM’s alleged sale of trucks with defective fuel pumps causing sudden power loss.

The class is represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; The Miller Law Firm PC; and Hilliard Law.

The case is Chapman et al. v. General Motors LLC, case number 2:19-cv-12333, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source: Law360

Family Says Fatal Crash Was Caused By Tesla’s Autopilot

The family of Jason Royce Bolton, a California resident who died in a car crash last year, has filed a wrongful death suit against Tesla Inc. They are blaming the company’s Autopilot system. Bolton, 49, was driving his 2023 Tesla Model 3 to a business meeting when the Autopilot malfunctioned, causing the car to veer off the road, become airborne, and crash, resulting in his death.

The lawsuit, filed by Bolton’s wife and children, contends that Tesla’s Autopilot system failed to protect him. The company is accused of prioritizing profit over safety. It’s alleged that Tesla released the Autopilot technology prematurely, leading to defective vehicles and misleading marketing that gave drivers a false sense of security.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, alleging manufacturing and design defects, negligence, and breach of warranty. It should be noted that Tesla has faced multiple lawsuits over its Autopilot technology.

The Boltons are represented by Jonathan A. Michaels, John Whelan and Iman Sorat of MLG Attorneys at Law APLC and Dan C. Schaar of Trial Lawyers for Justice.

The case is Laura Diane Bolton et al. v. Tesla Inc. et al., case number 24CV443206, in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara.

Source: Law360

Over 390,000 BMW Vehicles Recalled Over Airbag Inflator Issue

BMW of North America is recalling over 390,000 vehicles in the U.S. due to potentially dangerous airbag inflators that can explode, causing serious injury or death. The recall affects certain 2006-2011 3 Series Sedans, 2006-2012 3 Series Sportswagons, and 2009-2011 3 Series Sedans. These vehicles may have had their original steering wheels replaced with sport or M-sport steering wheels containing Takata inflators, which can explode and send sharp metal fragments into the vehicle.

Although no related accidents or injuries have been reported thus far in the U.S., BMW says it will inspect and replace the driver’s airbag module for free. Owners will be notified by mail starting August 23. For more information, you can contact BMW customer service or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Source: ABC News

Contact The Team

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Beasley Allen lawyers are heavily involved in Product Liability litigation across the country. Lawyers from the Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, Mass Torts Section and Toxic Torts Section of our firm work in this practice area.

The handling of Product Liability cases at Beasley Allen is very important and a major part of our firm’s work. Over the past 45 years, we have been privileged to represent thousands of individuals in this litigation, including personal injury and wrongful death cases. Product liability litigation covers a number of product areas. We sincerely believe that we have tremendously helped our clients. We have also helped bring about significant changes in the safety of products in our country.

We are blessed to have tremendously talented and dedicated lawyers, support staff, and investigators in all our offices. Operating in four separate sections has allowed our firm to be highly successful.

We will give a more complete report of our firm’s activity in Products Liability Litigation in the September issue. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need help with a case, contact Sloan Downes, Director of our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. She will have a lawyer respond to you!

Contact The Team

AVIATION LITIGATION

A Look At DOJ’s Pending Plea Deal With Boeing’s 737 Max

Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud U.S. regulators over the 737 Max 8’s development. This plea deal with the U.S. Department of Justice allows Boeing to avoid a high-profile criminal trial by paying additional penalties and being monitored by an independent compliance officer for three years.

This agreement stems from a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) where Boeing admitted to misleading the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about the 737 Max 8’s features to expedite its market entry. Subsequently, the DOJ found Boeing had breached the DPA by failing to enforce a compliance and ethics program.

The 2021 DPA required Boeing to pay a $243.6 million penalty, $1.77 billion in compensation to airlines, and $500 million to a crash victims’ fund. The 737 Max 8 jets were grounded globally from March 2019 to late 2020 due to crashes caused by a faulty automated system.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor will decide whether to approve the deal. It should be noted that families of the 737 Max crash victims are asking for harsher penalties and a public trial. Boeing faces significant challenges ahead, including a felony conviction and the need to overhaul its operations following the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes.

The plea agreement includes a three-year probation with a compliance monitor to ensure Boeing improves its safety and ethics programs. This is a significant and disruptive measure, indicating the DOJ’s lack of confidence in Boeing’s ability to self-regulate.

Boeing has made leadership changes and is preparing for a new CEO, while the FAA limits its 737 Max production. The company must navigate this period of intense scrutiny and compliance monitoring, which could hinder innovation and competitiveness.

The Justice Department has stated that Boeing will not face additional criminal charges related to the deferred prosecution agreement, but the company remains vulnerable to future investigations. Families of the crash victims oppose the plea deal, arguing it is too lenient and fails to hold Boeing fully accountable. They continue to seek justice and harsher penalties for the company.

The next round of cases over the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash is set for trial in November.

The families and victims’ representatives are represented by Paul G. Cassell of the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law’s Utah Appellate Project, Warren T. Burns, Darren P. Nicholson and Kyle Kilpatrick Oxford of Burns Charest LLP, Tracy A. Brammeier of Clifford Law Offices PC, Erin R. Applebaum of Kreindler & Kreindler LLP and Pablo Rojas of Podhurst Orseck PA.

The federal government is represented by Lorinda Laryea of the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Chad E. Meacham of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas.

The case is United States v. The Boeing Co., case number 4:21-cr-00005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Source: Law360

Contact The Team

WORKPLACE LITIGATION

Avenues of Relief for On-The-Job Injuries

For many individuals, waking up and going to work is a day-in-day-out reality. We rarely give it a second thought because “punching in and punching out” provides security not only for ourselves but also for our loved ones. However, rarely do workers think about the potential of getting seriously injured or losing their lives while on the job. Unfortunately, these tragic incidents do occur and are on the rise in many states, including Georgia. We will take a look at activity in the Peach State.

In February, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics published its most recent data for fatal occupational injuries in Georgia – https://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news-release/fatalworkinjuries_georgia.htm. The data showed that 209 fatal occupational injuries occurred in Georgia during the calendar year 2022.

This represented an increase in workplace fatalities from 2021 and was the highest number of fatalities seen in Georgia dating back to 2012. Transportation incidents accounted for 88 workplace fatalities – the most of any category documented – and represented 42% of all workplace deaths in Georgia.

The 88 transportation workplace deaths represented nearly a 16% increase from the previous year. Other categories that the Bureau documented included violence and other injuries by persons or animals; falls, slips, and trips; and contact with objects and equipment.

Against the backdrop of this data, prudent practitioners should investigate all possible avenues of relief when an individual loses their life at work or is seriously injured due to the negligence of others. These avenues include not only workers’ compensation benefits but also third-party claims against manufacturers of defective equipment, maintenance providers, or any other third-party tortfeasor.

The Control Of Hazardous Energy On-Site

Lockout tagout is a common practice used in industrial settings and is intended to reduce the risk of injury due to the unintentional release of hazardous energy. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets specific requirements for the Control of Hazardous Energy, which can be found in Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1910.147.

The lockout/tagout requirements establish the employer’s responsibility to protect workers from hazardous energy. Specifically, OSHA requires three things that an employer must do as part of an energy-control plan.

First, the employer must establish energy control procedures for removing the energy supply from machines and for putting appropriate lockout/tagout devices on the energy isolating devices to prevent unexpected re-energization. This requires that the machinery or equipment is disconnected from the energy source by isolating the energy to prevent the release of hazardous energy. Lockout devices hold energy-isolation devices in a safe or off position. The devices are positive restraints that can only be removed with a key or unlocking mechanism.

Second, the employer must train employees on the energy-control program, including the safe application, use, and removal of energy controls.

Third, the employer must inspect these procedures at least once per year to ensure that they are being followed and that they remain effective in preventing the exposure of employees to hazardous energy.

All employers requiring employees to work around energized equipment should follow OSHA guidelines for lockout/tagout to ensure the safety of their employees. Often, outside or third parties are called on to service or maintain a given piece of equipment. In those scenarios, the standards require the employer and the third party to discuss the lockout/tagout procedure and come to an agreement on whose procedure is to be used.

Unfortunately, accidents caused by hazardous energy release are often the result of multiple parties working alongside one another with no clear lockout/tagout plan in place. Recently, just such an accident occurred.

Beasley Allen lawyers in the Mobile office are currently representing a young man who was severely injured when a third-party contractor entered an industrial plant to perform preventative maintenance on a high-voltage breaker system. There was no clear lockout/tagout plan implemented by either the plant employees or the maintenance employees. As a result, hazard energy was not accounted for, and a young man’s life will never be the same.

$68.5 Million Awarded To Family In Construction Site Death Case

A Philadelphia jury has awarded $68.5 million to the widow and son of Siarhei Marhunou, a 38-year-old construction worker who died in 2021 after falling from a fifth-floor balcony at a luxury townhouse site. The worker’s widow, Hanna, and their three-year-old son sued the developer and contractors for negligence, wrongful death, and survival action.

Marhunou was working for subcontractor DPSY, Inc., installing siding when he fell 50 feet through a temporary wooden railing. Lawyers for the family said there were numerous OSHA violations and inadequate safety measures, which led to the worker’s death.

The jury’s award included $13.5 million under the survival statute and $55 million under the wrongful death statute, with damages allocated among various defendants, including OCF Construction, the general contractor. This case highlighted the need for better safety measures on construction sites.

The plaintiffs were represented by Jeffrey P. Goodman and Aidan B. Carickhoff from Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky.

Source: Insurance Journal

Dollar General Pays $12 Million For OSHA Safety Violations

Dollar General Corp. has agreed to pay $12 million and implement extensive safety improvements across its 20,000 stores to address numerous violations cited by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) since 2022. This settlement highlights the importance of compliance for companies with recurring safety issues. Key points of the agreement include:

Fines and Enforcement: Dollar General faces fines up to $100,000 per day for each uncorrected hazard within 48 hours, along with OSHA inspections and enforcement actions.
Safety Assessments: The company will cover over $15 million in OSHA safety assessments for past violations, including blocked exits, unsafe inventory stacking, and electrical hazards.
Commitment to Safety: Dollar General will enhance safety training, improve inventory management, and monitor storage areas via CCTV from a new safety operations center.
Quarterly Reports: The company must provide quarterly safety reports to OSHA.
Third-Party Oversight: A third-party consultant and auditor will help identify hazards and ensure compliance through unannounced audits.

Dollar General’s profits fell 31% to $1.7 billion in fiscal 2023, while net sales rose 2% to $38.7 billion. The company has faced criticism for repeated safety violations, including incidents where employees were exposed to toxic vapors due to inadequate protective equipment.

Companies must maintain robust safety protocols and provide adequate training to avoid similar issues. It’s also important that whistleblowers must be protected. Having a workplace safe for employees is critically important.

Source: Corporate Counsel

Contact The Team

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

Worker’s Compensation Retaliatory Discharge

Worker’s Compensation laws are intended to protect employees who suffer from work-related injuries and illnesses. Sometimes, employers take adverse actions against workers who are injured on the job and utilize, or attempt to utilize, worker’s compensation benefits. Although Alabama is an at-will employment state, meaning that an employer can terminate for any reason at all or with no reason, one of only two exceptions is when the termination is done solely because of an on-the-job injury and a subsequent claim for worker’s compensation benefits.

The four elements of a worker’s compensation retaliation case are:

an employment relationship;

an on-the-job injury;

the employer’s knowledge of the on-the-job injury; and

termination based solely on the on-the-job injury and the filing of a worker’s compensation claim.

Termination “solely” based on the on-the-job injury and the filing of a worker’s compensation claim is the most difficult element to prove in these cases. That’s because courts will lean heavily on the “solely” language in determining whether cases will be allowed to move forward. Fortunately, the Alabama Supreme Court recognizes that direct evidence is very difficult to provide in cases like these and allows the use of circumstantial evidence to provide a prima facie showing that the termination was done in retaliation for the plaintiff’s on-the-job injury and subsequent filing for worker’s compensation benefits.

These cases use a burden-shifting process, similar to that of an employment discrimination claim, to determine whether the termination was impermissible. The plaintiff will first have the burden to make a prima facie showing that the termination was done solely because of the plaintiff’s on-the-job injury and worker’s compensation claim. The court will review the following seven factors to determine whether a prima facie showing has been met:

Knowledge by those terminating employment;

Negative attitude toward the injured condition;

Failure to adhere to company policy;

Discriminatory treatment compared to similar employees;

Sudden change in performance evaluations;

Evidence that stated discharge reason was false; and

Proximity in time between the claim and discharge.

Once a plaintiff meets this burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a valid reason for termination. Typically, the court will accept the employer’s stated reason for termination as true, and the burden will shift back to the plaintiff to prove that the reason was pretextual. There are three ways to overcome the presumption that the employer’s stated reason for termination was legitimate. Those are:

Termination was applied in a discriminatory manner;

Termination conflicts with company policy; and

Employer disavows termination reason

Retaliatory discharge cases are difficult, but it’s not impossible for plaintiffs to be successful workers who have not only been injured on the job but also face the uncertainties that come with sudden unemployment.

Beasley Allen lawyers monitor these cases and changes in the laws related to employment retaliation and discrimination.

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

Lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section handle employment litigation for the firm. These lawyers also handle the firm’s Qui Tam Litigation (Whistleblower) cases. Many of the whistleblowers also have a retaliation claim related to their False Claims Act (FCA) claim. Quite often, an employee as a whistleblower is the “original source” of an FCA claim.

Members are Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Leon Hampton, Lauren Miles, Tyner Helms, Jessi Haynes.

Dee Miles, who heads our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, also works with the litigation team.

Contact The Team

Whistleblower Litigation

Pennsylvania Telecom Agrees To $6.5 Million Settlement In False Claims Act Case

Armstrong Group, a telecommunications company in Western Pennsylvania, has agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle allegations of inflating costs to receive higher federal subsidies under the FCC’s High-Cost Program. This settlement resolves the government’s lawsuit, which claimed Armstrong violated the False Claims Act by submitting exaggerated funding requests from the FCC’s Universal Service Fund, aimed at supporting high-speed communications infrastructure.

The High-Cost Program provides federal funds to eligible carriers to expand connectivity in rural or high-cost areas. U.S. Attorney Eric G. Olshan emphasized that such violations jeopardize critical government programs and consumers’ access to reliable telecommunications services.

From 2008 to 2023, Armstrong allegedly overstated costs to receive more money. Whistleblower James Ranko, a former controller at Armstrong, brought the case to the government’s attention and will receive $1.26 million from the settlement. Ranko criticized Armstrong’s misuse of federal funds, including misallocating $180,000 annually on company airplane costs.

Ranko worked at Armstrong from 2008 to 2016 and suggested creating a cost allocation manual to ensure compliance with federal law, but the idea was rejected by executives. His attorney praised him for reporting his concerns to the DOJ and FCC.

The government is represented by Benjamin C. Wei and Paul E. Skirtich of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania and Elliot Lowenstein and Peter Feinberg of the FCC Office of Inspector General.

The case is U.S. v. Armstrong Group of Companies et al., case number 2:17-cv-01052, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers across the country in claims against multiple bad or corporate actors. Whistleblower litigation is widespread and increasing at a rapid pace.

If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud. If you have questions about whether you qualify as a whistleblower, contact a Beasley Allen lawyer for a free and confidential evaluation of your claim. Lawyers on our Whistleblower Litigation Team are listed below:

Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Lauren Miles,, Leon Hampton Jessi Haynes and Tyner Helms.

Contact The Team

Securities Litigation

Dozens of Lawsuits Filed Related to Alleged WaterStation Ponzi Scheme

On July 3, 2024, the latest in a plethora of lawsuits was filed against Creative Technologies, LLC (doing business as WaterStation Technology) and a slew of related companies controlled by WaterStation’s founder and CEO, Ryan Wear. Wear is accused of operating WaterStation as a massive Ponzi scheme.

The latest suit, filed by the hedge fund 3ǀ5ǀ2Capital GP, LLC , accuses Wear and WaterStation of bilking over $100 million from the 352 Fund through the sale of corporate bonds issued by Water Station Management, another defendant company controlled by Wear. WaterStation took in untold millions more from other private investors across the country, as evidenced by dozens of other suits filed seeking payment of monies owed by WaterStation. Another complaint, filed in April of this year in Snohomish County Superior Court in Washington State, includes over 140 plaintiffs and accuses WaterStation and Wear of bringing in over $130 million from investors.

Wear founded WaterStation in Everett, Washington in 2013. WaterStation claimed to manufacture, sell, operate, and service water vending machines in stores and offices across the country. According to the complaints, investors were told that their investment would be used to purchase vending machines, which Water Station Management would then operate and service on the investors’ behalf pursuant to a management agreement. The agreement also included a “guaranteed buyback,” pursuant to which investors could sell their machines back to WaterStation and exit the investment.

According to the Washington complaint, most of the vending machines did not exist. Instead, the plaintiffs allege that Wear diverted millions of dollars towards real estate investments and acquisitions, leaving insufficient funds to manufacture all the vending machines that investors were promised. According to the complaint, the list of vending machine serial numbers provided to each investor included a “significant” number of duplicates, sometimes over one-third of the total machines purchased.

In June 2024, the Washington plaintiffs amended their complaint to add several bank defendants who provided funding for WaterStation investments. The amended complaint alleges that, as part of the lending process, these banks collected and retained documentation on the investment, including the lists of serial numbers, replete with duplicates.

Beyond the investment and banking industries, the fraud also has direct effects on the Federal government. Many of the loans provided for WaterStation investments were backed by the government through the Small Business Administration’s 7(a) lending program. According to FOIA data from the SBA, from December 2017 through October 2022, 138 SBA 7(a) loans were issued related to WaterStation, for a total of nearly $115 million. One bank alone, UniBank out of Lynnwood, Washington, provided 77 SBA 7(a) loans totaling over $49 million.

According to the Washington complaint, WaterStation would tout to investors that it was an “SBA approved” franchise and had close relationships with banks, making the offer more lucrative because investors could defer some of the initial cost through the loans.

While the 352 Fund was not in individual investor, the scheme operated in much the same way. The 352 complaint alleges that, pursuant to the bond agreement, the bond proceeds could only be used by Water Station Management to purchase vending machines, which would then operate as collateral for the loan, which, just as the “guaranteed buyback” did with individual investors, gave the 352 Fund a false belief that their investment was backed by a physical asset in the event of default.

According to the 352 complaint, WaterStation defaulted on its bond deal in June 2024. By this time, however, most payments had already stopped for individual investors. According to the Washington complaint, payments to those investors stopped in late 2022 and early 2023, after which WaterStation continued to lull investors by promising to buy the machines back in time. The promised buyback never happened.

These two suits, and the dozens of others related to WaterStation, are the beginning of what will likely be years of litigation to unravel a sprawling, nationwide Ponzi scheme that has affected hundreds of investors. In these two suits, alone, losses of over $200 million are alleged, but that number is sure to increase as the cases develop.

Beasley Allen lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are actively investigating claims and have pending cases related to Ponzi schemes in state and Federal courts across the country.

James, who worked for years as a securities regulator with the Alabama Securities Commission, is leading the Beasley Allen team on securities fraud investigations.

The cases are: 3ǀ5ǀ2 Capital GP LLC v. Ryan Wear, et. al., case number 1:24-cv-05102, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; and Pacific Water Technology, et. al. vs Ryan R. Wear, et. al., case number 24-2-02887-31, in the Superior Court of Washington for Snohomish County.

Bond-Rigging Suit Revived Over A Stock Conflict Involving A Judge’s Wife

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States has revived a proposed class action accusing big banks of rigging corporate bonds, ruling that the New York federal judge who previously dismissed the suit should have recused himself due to his wife’s ownership of Bank of America stock.

In a per curiam opinion, a three-judge panel vacated U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman’s 2021 dismissal of the investor suit and remanded it to the district court.

The case began when investors filed the action in 2020 alleging a group of big banks, including Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., conspired to fix the prices of corporate bonds to the detriment of others trading those instruments.

The banks lodged a joint motion to dismiss in December 2020, arguing the investors’ argument was “impossibly broad” and “legally insufficient.” Judge Liman agreed and dismissed the case in October 2021.

After the investors filed their notice of appeal, the court clerk informed them that Judge Liman’s wife owned stock in Bank of America while he was presiding over the case.

Although the clerk reported that Judge Liman’s wife’s stock ownership had “neither affected nor impacted his decisions” in the case, he eventually recused himself, and the case was reassigned.

In early July, the Second Circuit judges said they agree with the investors that vacatur of Judge Liman’s ruling is required under U.S. Code Section 455(a), which states that judges must recuse themselves from a proceeding in which their impartiality “might be reasonably questioned.”

According to the opinion, Section 455(a) has been described as a “catchall recusal provision” that “governs circumstances that constitute an appearance of partiality, even though actual partiality has not been shown.”

In the current case, the panel said it is probable that Judge Liman did not know of his wife’s conflict until the issue was reported by The Wall Street Journal, months after he issued his ruling. However, because he presided over the litigation while his wife held ownership interest in a party to the suit, recusal was necessary. The panel said:

This conflict-creating ownership and financial interest existed until some time after the briefing on the instant motion to dismiss was fully submitted. Looking at these facts ‘fully from the perspective of an “objective, disinterested observer,” … we conclude that it is reasonable to question the partiality of a judge presiding over a case in which his spouse holds an ownership interest in a party. We therefore hold that the district court violated [Section] 455(a).

The panel clarified that it does not question Judge Liman’s “reasoned judgment,” and it is not suggesting that he treated any of the parties in the case unfairly. But that the judges on the panel said the point of Section 455(a) is to avoid even the appearance of partiality, “even absent an explicit showing of it.”

The panel further stated that vacatur is necessary because the “type” of conflict of interest present in the action risks injustices in future cases. The panel added:

That injustice, as highlighted by the press coverage of this and other cases regarding disqualification, is that federal judges will fail to recuse themselves in future cases, which — as plaintiffs correctly argue — may ‘increas[e] the likelihood that conflicts [] go unnoticed and unremedied.’

Additionally, the panel found that if the dismissal is not vacated, it risks undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process.

U.S. Circuit Judges Eunice C. Lee and Alison J. Nathan and U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff sat on the panel for the Second Circuit, and the case is Litovich v. Bank of America Corp., case number 21-2905, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Recusal of judges and justices that may have an “appearance of impropriety” has been at the forefront of public debate as of late, and with good reason. A fair and impartial judiciary is one of the pillars of our democracy. Citizens in this great country must have confidence in our court system in order for us to maintain a fair system of justice and that standard must be maintained at the highest levels of justice.

This case is a good example of how that standard is supposed to work in our justice system. While 99.9% of our judiciary consists of high-quality jurists with impeccable integrity, all judges and justices should take notice and operate within this important standard of fair and impartial justice.

Former CEO Found Guilty In COVID Test Kit Fraud Case

Marc Schessel, a former healthcare software executive, was found guilty of securities fraud by a New Jersey federal jury last month. This verdict came in the second trial of the case. There had been a hung jury in December in the first trial.

Schessel, the former leader of SCWorx Corp., was accused of misleading investors with press releases and public statements in April 2020 about a $670 million test kit agreement, a deal that ultimately fell through.

The mistrial in the first trial came about in this manner. The first trial ended dramatically when a juror disagreed with the guilty verdict during a polling of the jury by U.S. District Judge Esther Salas.

After delivering the guilty verdict in the second trial on two counts, Judge Salas again polled the jurors who all concurred with the verdict. Sentencing is scheduled for December 17.

Philip R. Sellinger, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, stated that Schessel exploited the COVID-19 pandemic by falsely inflating SCWorx’s stock value by over 400% with fraudulent claims of a binding contract for COVID-19 test kits. These kits were never FDA-approved, and no binding contract existed. When the truth emerged, SCWorx’s stock value plummeted, causing significant investor losses.

Schessel was charged in May 2022 with two counts of securities fraud. He was accused of a stock manipulation scheme that led to investor losses of at least $116 million. The indictment claimed he falsely announced a multimillion-dollar deal to buy and resell 48 million COVID-19 test kits despite knowing the deal was uncertain.

SCWorx’s stock price surged from $2.25 to $14.88 after the announcement but crashed once the deal’s collapse became public. This resulted in substantial investor losses. The retrial began on June 11. The first trial ended in a mistrial on December 1.

The government is represented by Philip R. Sellinger, George Brandley and Angelica Sinopole of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey and by Glenn S. Leon, Robert Spencer Ryan and Lucy B. Jennings of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The case is USA v. Schessel, case number 2:22-cr-00374, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Securities Litigation Team

Lawyers in our Consumer Fraud and Commercial Litigation Section are currently working on a number of cases involving corporate security issues. James Eubank, who leads the Securities Litigation Team, worked for years as a securities regulator with the Alabama Securities Commission. He was involved in a number of securities fraud investigations while with the state.

You can contact a member of our Securities Litigation Team concerning any securities cases or issues. The team includes the following lawyers: James Eubank, who heads the team, Demet Basar, Rebecca Gilliland and Paul Evans. Dee Miles, who heads the section, also works with the team.

Premises Liability Litigation

Shopping Malls: Magnet for Teens & Violence

Shopping malls are “the place” for groups of young teenagers to congregate. Not only inside the malls but outside in the parking lots, too. Often, teens are dropped off at a mall by their parents and left unsupervised on the premises for hours.

Recently, there has been an upward trend of unruly behavior and violent conduct by teenagers at malls around the country. Why? It’s because shopping malls are highly vulnerable. Malls include large crowds of people on premises with multiple entrances and exits, making it easy for unruly teens to go undetected.

Parker Miller and Key Lamberth, lawyers in our Atlanta office, are currently investigating a shooting incident that took place in a parking lot outside of a South Carolina mall, leaving a 15-year-old dead. Leading up to the shooting incident, surveillance video revealed that the victim was at the mall earlier that day with a group of friends when they encountered another group of young teens. Interactions between the two groups escalated to the parking lot, where the suspect’s group drove over to the victim’s vehicle, attempted to rob him, and then opened gunfire. This is yet another tragic example of why adequate security is necessary to prevent this type of violent conduct from escalating to this extreme degree.

Beasley Allen lawyers are privileged to handle cases on behalf of families whose minor children are victimized by their own community.

Negligent Security: What a Preservation Letter Can Do for Your Cases

In negligent security cases, early investigation and the acquisition of relevant information is critically important. It is best for a trial lawyer to get in the practice of sending a preservation letter out immediately after a negligent security case comes into his or her office. Why? Often, especially with apartment complexes, the entire premises is subject to quick changes. Many times, Beasley Allen lawyers have experienced apartment complexes that, as a result of a shooting incident, suddenly implement security measures or hire on-site security personnel who were not in place prior to the shooting incident.

In your letter, you want to include the specific types of evidence the owner or manager has that you want preserved. Be as specific in your requests as possible. For example, the following are some key pieces of evidence that must be preserved:

Employee files for any person who performed any work concerning the subject property;
Any reports, emails, communications, and other documents or records relating to the incident;
Surveillance video at the time of the subject incident and the 24 hours before; and
All documents and information concerning similar incidents on the subject property.

Arguably, the most important aspect of the preservation letter is including a request for insurance pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 33-3-28. Negligent security cases are expensive to properly investigate, and they definitely require immediate action.

To properly work up a negligent security case, as mentioned above, you need an investigator’s feet on the ground of the premises immediately. The work begins by doing a full assessment of the property, including a security assessment.

Now more than ever, our lawyers are seeing policies that provide little to no coverage or include complete exclusions, such as those for shootings, assault and battery incidents, intentional harm, and the like. You need to be aware of certain exclusions in the policy immediately, so you can posture your case accordingly.

Contact The Team

Class Action Litigation

Court Grants Preliminary Approval To Subaru/Denso Fuel Pump Class Action Settlement

On July 11, 2024, Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted preliminary approval to a nationwide settlement of a consolidated class action alleging that Denso manufactured defective low-pressure fuel pumps that were installed in certain Subaru vehicles built between 2017 and 2021. The settlement, which provides free repair and replacement of the fuel pumps and related relief to owners of nearly 1.4 million Subaru vehicles, is expected to be valued well over $250 million.

The settlement is the second of four class actions pending against auto manufacturers whose vehicles were fitted with defective Denso-made fuel pumps. The first class action against Toyota and Denso, which covered a larger number of Toyota and Lexus vehicles built over a longer period of time (2013-2019), resulted in a settlement providing $287 million in economic relief to the settlement class. Plaintiffs have also settled the third class action against Mazda and Denso, which was submitted for preliminary approval in the Central District of California on May 3, 2024. Plaintiffs continue to prosecute the fourth class action against Honda pending in the Northern District of Alabama.

A fuel pump supplies fuel to a vehicle’s fuel injection system while the engine is in operation. The fuel pumps manufactured by Denso contained a defective impeller – which acts as a rotating “motor” and plays a vital role in maintaining pressure in the fuel pump – made from material that is too porous to withstand its environment. As a result, the impeller can deform due to excessive fuel absorption and interfere with the body of the fuel pump, which in turn can result in rough engine running, difficulty starting the vehicle, and stalling. Indeed, there are many reports by drivers of near misses and other dangerous conditions caused by the faulty fuel pumps.

In April 2020, Subaru recalled nearly 190,000 of its vehicles manufactured between June 2018 and February 2019 and admitted the vehicles were equipped with Denso’s fuel pumps, which could increase the risk of accidents. Between April and June 2020, Denso itself recalled its dangerously defective fuel pumps, disclosing they were installed in over 2 million vehicles, including Subarus, Hondas, Mazdas and Toyotas.

The first class action against Subaru and Denso was filed in the Northern District of Alabama in April 2020. Among other things, plaintiffs alleged Subaru’s recall was deficient because it did not include all affected Subaru vehicles equipped with the defective fuel pumps. Confirming plaintiffs’ allegations, Subaru issued a second recall in July 2021 adding another 165,026 Subarus, and twice amended its recall, bringing the total population of recalled vehicles to 340,994.

After several similar class actions were filed, the cases were consolidated in the District of New Jersey in February 2021. Dee Miles, from our firm, was named as one of the lead counsels to manage the litigation. In the consolidated action, plaintiffs asserted nationwide and state claims against Subaru and Denso, and a negligent recall claim against Subaru, again alleging there were still more Subaru vehicles fitted with faulty fuel pumps that had not been recalled.

The settlement provides the very relief plaintiffs have been seeking since April 2020. In the settlement, Subaru will provide a 15-year warranty on the fuel pumps in more than 1 million Subaru vehicles that were not previously recalled but also contain the defective Denso fuel pumps. The settlement also provides for a 15-year or 150,000-mile warranty on the fuel pumps of the 360,000 Subaru vehicles that were recalled and had their fuel pumps replaced. Thus, the owners and lessees of all affected vehicles, whether or not their vehicles were previously recalled, or their fuel pumps replaced, are entitled to have their fuel pumps replaced at no cost. In addition, class members are entitled to free rental cars during the repairs and towing, if necessary.

The settlement also includes a consumer-friendly out-of-pocket expense reimbursement program with no cap on the amount of reimbursements for fuel-pump related repairs, and settlement oversight with the participation of class counsel.

Plaintiffs anticipate that the Subaru settlement, like the earlier Toyota settlement, will be finally approved and its valuable benefits will be available to settlement class members as soon as possible.

Plaintiffs are represented by class counsel Dee Miles, Demet Basar, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams and Dylan Martin of Beasley Allen (our firm filed the first case); James E. Cecchi, Caroline T. Bartlett and Zachary Jacobs of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.; and Christopher A. Seeger, Christopher Ayers and Scott George of Seeger Weiss LLP. Additional plaintiffs’ counsel are Steven W. Berman and Jerrod C. Patterson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Timothy G. Blood of Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP and Adam J. Levitt, John E. Tangren and Daniel R. Ferri of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC.

The case is Cohen v. Subaru of America, Inc. et al.., Case No. 1:20-cv-08442-JHR-AMD, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Live Nation Continues To Fight Antitrust Litigation On Multiple Fronts

As we reported last month, there is a Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust enforcement case involving a litigation proceeding in New York, alongside a related class action. While the class case has a Final Pretrial Conference scheduled for February 13, 2026, the defendants argued in the DOJ action that D.C. federal court is the proper venue for that action because of a previous consent decree with the DOJ.

More than two dozen states and D.C., through their attorneys general, have joined the case which claims Live Nation is a monopolist when it comes to live music in the United States. As part of the relief in the case, the DOJ and the attorneys general are asking Ticketmaster to be sold off. But according to the DOJ’s attorney, Bonny Sweeney, the current case is “vastly different and vastly broader” than the earlier consent decree.

The current case, unlike the consent decree, involves five causes of action under the Sherman Act where the consent decree was a Clayton Act case. Many practitioners conflate the two federal antitrust Acts, but they each address different types of anticompetitive behavior, so the distinction does matter. Judge Subramanian, who is overseeing the DOJ’s case, did not seem inclined to transfer the matter, but left the option open for defendants to file a formal motion.

In addition to the DOJ and class antitrust cases, a derivative suit was recently filed against Live Nation and survived a motion to dismiss. That case relies upon misrepresentations regarding the scope of antitrust investigations and potential liabilities to investors. Judge Kato in the Central District of California found the suit included “cogent and compelling” allegations that certain executives at Live Nation chose “not to disclose the full picture” of revenue success and antitrust concerns because the executives “understood their likely effect on” investigations. The court denied the motion to dismiss, and the case is proceeding.

Beasley Allen lawyers are closely monitoring these cases and reviewing these and other avenues of correcting the market on behalf of consumers harmed through the actions of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. If you or a client have purchased through the primary or secondary markets and you have questions about your rights, contact Beasley Allen lawyers Rebecca Gilliland or Lauren Miles.

Sources: Law360 and Hollywood Reporter

Fisher-Price and Mattel Settle For $19 Million Over Recalled Baby Sleeper 

Fisher-Price and its parent company, Mattel, have requested preliminary approval from a Buffalo federal judge for a $19 million settlement to resolve class action claims regarding a recalled baby sleeper. Consumers allege the product was falsely advertised as being safe.

The proposed settlement would release Mattel from all claims in the multidistrict litigation. If approved, the $19 million would be placed in a non-reversionary fund to compensate class members based on their involvement with the Rock ‘n Play Sleeper recall, current ownership, or past purchase. The compensation details of the settlement include:

Full price with proof of purchase.
$60, $50, or $40 without proof of purchase, depending on the purchase date.
$25 to $35 with proof of purchase but not current ownership.
$10 without proof of purchase and not current ownership.

Fisher-Price recalled 4.7 million Rock ‘n Play Sleepers in April 2019 after 10 infant deaths since 2015. Plaintiffs Samathan Drover-Mundy and Zachary Mundy claimed their daughter died in one of the sleepers in 2018, alleging Mattel knew the risks but continued sales.

Amazon was initially a defendant, but it was released from claims after agreeing to cooperate with discovery. Demet Basar from Beasley Allen, a lawyer for the class, said in a statement to Law360:

After five years of litigation, we’re happy to be able to present to the court a settlement that not only compensates past purchasers for their economic losses, but is designed to incentivize current owners of Rock ‘n Play Sleepers to disable them and participate in the settlement. Getting these products out of consumers’ hands has been one of the primary goals of this litigation.

The class plaintiffs are represented by Demet Basar, James Eubank, Paul Evans, and Dylan Martin of Beasley Allen and Terry Connors and Andrew Debbins of Connors LLP. Dee Miles, who heads up our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, worked with these lawyers on the settlement of the case.

The case is In re: Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:19-md-2903, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

Source: Law360

Data Breach Class Actions On The Rise

Following almost a decade of decline, the number of federal consumer protection lawsuits are climbing, driven by a surge in claims related to widespread data breaches. According to the latest Consumer Protection Litigation Report by Lex Machina, the number of consumer protection cases brought in federal court reached a low of 13,485 in 2022. However, those numbers are gradually climbing back up, with 14,515 of these disputes being lodged in 2023, marking a 7.6% increase compared to the prior year.

The report noted that class actions saw a significant increase, with 5,455 new cases in 2023, a 31% rise from the 4,161 disputes filed in 2022, ranking as the third-highest number of consumer class action filings in the past decade. The increase seems to be primarily caused by a substantial rise in new claims of harm from the accidental or unauthorized disclosure of consumer personal data. According to the Lex Machina report, data breach disputes surged to 2,040 cases in 2023, nearly tripling the number of cases from 2022.

Lex Machina further found that the vast majority of cases that were dismissed in the past three years were settled or resolved on procedural grounds, with a total of $13 billion in total damages being awarded from approved class action settlements across 691 cases from 2021 to 2023. However, another recent report by BakerHostetler analyzing cybersecurity incidents from 2023 indicated that these attacks will persist, with hackers continuously creating new tactics to get around the cybersecurity protections that businesses have established. Accordingly, the filing of these claims will undoubtedly continue.

Our firm has a number of these data breach class actions filed and pending throughout the country, including the most recent data breach involving AT&T, currently pending in a Texas federal court as an MDL (Multi-District Litigation) case. Larry Golston, a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, is heading up this litigation for the firm. It’s critically important for people to act swiftly to protect their personal information.

Source: Law360

NCAA Sends Proposed $2.8 Billion NIL Settlement To Court

A $2.78 billion settlement has been proposed to resolve a class action lawsuit against the NCAA’s name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation rules. This settlement, awaiting approval from a California federal judge, aims to share revenue with athletes across all sports.

The settlement, led by former swimmer Grant House, represents over 184,000 former student-athletes. If approved, it will distribute $2.78 billion in damages over the next decade. Starting in the 2025-26 academic year, athletes will receive a share of athletic revenues, primarily from schools in the five major conferences. It’s estimated that this could amount between $1.5 billion to $2 billion in new benefits annually.

Key points of the settlement include:

Average awards: ~$135,000 for football and men’s basketball players, and $35,000 for women’s basketball players;

Highest damages: Over $1 million for athletes who participated before 2021;

Revenue sharing from media rights and other streams for the first time; and

NIL money can come from schools and third parties, with strict guidelines against performance-based agreements.

The settlement also changes scholarship distribution, replacing limits with roster limits, providing more flexibility and opportunities for athletes. However, it doesn’t resolve conflicts with state laws or the status of athletes as employees.

The agreement, which includes two other consolidated lawsuits, was reached on May 23. Approval is expected to take several months, with class members given the opportunity to opt-out or object to future provisions.

The athletes are represented by Steve W. Berman, Emilee Sisco, Stephanie Verdoia and Benjamin Jacob Siegel of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian, David L. Greenspan, Adam I. Dale, David G. Feher and Sarah L. Viebrock of Winston & Strawn LLP and Jeffrey L. Kodroff of Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC.

The case is In re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, case number 4:20-cv-03919, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Class Action Lawyers At Beasley Allen

Beasley Allen lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, led by Dee Miles, remain heavily involved in class action litigation in all parts of the country. Lawyers in the Section who handle class action cases make up our Class Action Litigation Team. They are:

Demet Basar, Lance Gould, Clay Barnett, James Eubank, Mitch Williams, Rebecca Gilliland, Paul Evans, Dylan Martin and Trent Mann.

If you need help on a case that would qualify as a class action, you can contact Michelle Fulmer, Section Director, and she will have one of the lawyers on the team respond to you. Dee Miles is actively involved in many of the class action lawsuits in addition to his supervising role in the Section.

Contact The Team

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Beasley Allen Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Kratom Manufacturers

Beasley Allen lawyers have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against kratom manufacturers in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. The complaint was filed against the manufacturers and distributors of Remarkable Herbs kratom, which is most often sold in powder form.

The deceased plaintiff purchased Remarkable Herbs kratom at a local grocery store and consumed kratom until her tragic and untimely death in May of 2023. The cause of death was determined to be a kratom overdose.

The complaint alleges that the kratom enterprise is a serious threat to public health and safety because the products are not safe for human consumption, and the victim in this case would not have consumed kratom had she known its risks of abuse, dependence, and overdose limits.

The active kratom compounds, mitragynine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine, activate the same receptors in the brain that are activated by other addictive drugs like opioids. Kratom is often used in self-treatment as a substitute to wean off those drugs or to manage pain, anxiety, or depression. However, along with the other dangerous side effects, kratom use has its own risk of addiction and withdrawal. Despite these risks, manufacturers and sellers do not communicate these dangers and instead market the product as safe and a natural botanical.

Personal injury and death cases are currently being filed in state courts nationwide under consumer protection statutes, negligence, breach of implied warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment and failure to warn of liability. Beasley Allen lawyers are pursuing individual claims and welcome the opportunity to investigate cases and hold these companies accountable for their deceptive practices.

Georgia Appellate Courts Confirm Hair Relaxer Cases As Litigation Expands To Dekalb County

In late June 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that claims of cancer and other related injuries caused by the use of chemical hair relaxer products manufactured by corporations such as L’Oréal, SoftSheen-Carson, and Strength of Nature will move forward despite those defendants’ attempts to dismiss the case.

This is the second win for plaintiffs, as the Appellate Court decision largely confirmed an earlier ruling by the Circuit Court of Chatham County, Georgia, that a plaintiff’s suit for injuries allegedly arising from the use of hair relaxer products could proceed.

The Georgia state court litigation began after a 2022 medical study found a link between chemical hair straighteners and uterine, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. Defendants in those cases immediately moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims on several grounds, but the trial court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Following the decision by the Appellate Court, these matters will now proceed in the Circuit Courts of Chatham, Georgia.

In related news, Beasley Allen lawyers filed the first hair relaxer lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Dekalb County, Georgia. This builds upon our firm’s core mission, which is to fight against corporations that manufacture unsafe products to be used by consumers or products that have inadequate warnings of related dangers. Beasley Allen is also leading the fight against hair relaxer manufacturers in Cook County, Illinois and in the consolidated Federal Court proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Infant Formula Litigation Update

Beasley Allen continues to investigate and file infant formula cases on behalf of children who have suffered from necrotizing enterocolitis as a result of being fed bovine-derived infant formula immediately after birth. Giving “cow’s milk” formula to premature, underweight newborns dramatically increases their risk of getting this life-threatening condition. Virtually every pediatric health organization in the world agrees with this fact and strongly encourages mothers to breastfeed their newborn if possible, or use human donor milk when breastfeeding is not feasible. Non-cow’s milk formulas are the third recommended option.

Federal court lawsuits against Mead Johnson (maker of Enfamil products) and Abbott Laboratories (maker of Similac products) are pending in an MDL established in the Northern District of Illinois, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer presiding. In those cases, discovery continues and corporate depositions of defendants are ongoing. Fact discovery is scheduled to conclude by August 9. Plaintiffs are to submit expert reports by September 25, and defendants by October 28. The first bellwether trial is scheduled to start May 5, 2025. The next status conference is August 29.

Our state court cases remain stalled as we await a ruling from the 5^th District Court of Appeals on defendants’ jurisdiction challenges. While we wait, our lawyers continue to work with our experts and prepare for trial.

Ozempic And Other GLP-1 Drugs Linked To Dangerous Eye Disease

On July 3, the Journal of American Medicine’s (JAMA) Ophthalmology division published a study concluding that patients with type 2 diabetes who are prescribed a GLP-1 medication appear to be at a greater risk of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) compared to those prescribed a non-GLP-1 drug. Researchers determined that the increased risk of NAION is a staggering 8 times greater than those not prescribed a GLP-1. NAION is a dangerous eye condition that causes sudden blindness due to a lack of blood flow to the optic nerve. There is currently no known treatment for NAION.

Lawsuits against the manufacturers of GLP-1 medications such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro developed after additional studies consistently showed an increased risk for gastrointestinal issues such as severe gastroparesis, ileus, and bowel obstruction requiring surgery or other medical intervention. Sadly, some individuals have died from complications related to these injuries. NAION is now added to the list of severe risks involved with taking these medications. Despite these known risks, GLP-1 manufacturers continue to promote these drugs to physicians and their patients as safe.

Lawsuits against GLP-1 medications were consolidated to a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in February 2024. Beasley Allen’s Ryan Duplechin currently serves as a leader in this MDL. He serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. Ryan and other Beasley Allen lawyers, including Mary Cam Raybon, continue to investigate GLP-1 cases involving brand-name Ozempic, Wegovy, Trulicity, Saxenda, Rybelsus, Mounjaro, and Zepbound users who were subsequently diagnosed and treated for NAION, gastrointestinal issues, or suicide.

Source: Healthline

$495 Million Jury Verdict Against Abbot In Baby Formula Bellwether Case

A Missouri jury has awarded $95 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages to the family of a premature baby who developed a disabling condition after consuming Abbott Laboratories’ baby formula. The jury found that Similac Special Care 24, used in neonatal intensive care units, caused baby Robynn Davis to develop necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).

The defendant Abbott Laboratories says it plans to appeal the verdict. Abbott claims there is no scientific evidence linking their products to NEC. The case is part of broader litigation involving thousands of claims against Abbott and Mead Johnson, the maker of Enfamil.

Robynn Davis, born at 26 weeks, developed NEC within 72 hours of starting the formula. This led to severe health issues, including the removal of 75% of her intestine, brain damage, and the need for lifelong care. Plaintiffs contended that while Abbott knew about the risks, it failed to warn the public.

Abbott maintains that their products are safe and part of the standard care for premature infants. The jury heard evidence suggesting that infants under 1,500 grams should not be given formula due to increased NEC risk. Internal Abbott communications showed Abbott’s influence on hospital feeding protocols.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jake Plattenberger of TorHoerman Law LLC.

The case is Gill v. Abbott, case number 2322-CC01251, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri.

Source: Law360

Contact The Team

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

PFAS/ AFFF Litigation Update

The Aqueous Film – Forming Foam (AFFF) litigation is pending before the U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina. Per standing orders, the current “presumptive injuries” in the litigation are kidney cancer, testicular cancer, hypothyroidism/thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer.

On July 19, 2024, Judge Gergel selected the following bellwether plaintiffs: three kidney cancer plaintiffs and three testicular plaintiffs from a water contamination site in Pennsylvania, as well as two thyroid disease plaintiffs and one ulcerative colitis plaintiff from a water contamination site in Colorado. Case Management Order No. 26D provides the scheduling order governing the initial personal injury bellwether trial pool cases.

There are many contaminated water sites across the country. The United States Geological Survey estimates that at least 45% of the nation’s tap water is contaminated with PFAS chemicals that were used in firefighting foam and other consumer products like stain resistant carpet and water repellant clothing. It is further estimated that nearly 35 million Americans are drinking water with PFAS that measures above the newly established limits finalized by the EPA earlier this year.

Due to the widespread presence of PFAS, those with diagnosed injuries of kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease/cancer, hypothyroidism and/ or ulcerative colitis may be entitled to compensation.

Sources: USA Today, U.S. Geological Survey

DOD Says More Time Needed To Stop PFAS Firefighting Foam Use

The Department of Defense (DOD) says it may need a two-year extension to fully stop using firefighting foam containing PFAS (forever chemicals). This is according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 required the DOD to discontinue using aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) by October 2024 due to PFAS’s adverse health effects.

The GAO report highlights that the DOD currently uses AFFF in about 1,500 facilities and 6,800 mobile assets worldwide. As we have reported previously, the release of AFFF has led to PFAS contamination in drinking water. The DOD is facing multiple lawsuits over its use of AFFF. Foam manufacturers like BASF Corp. and the 3M Co. are also involved in the litigation. Beasley Allen lawyers in our Toxic Torts Section are heavily involved in this litigation.

The DOD has developed plans and cost estimates for replacing AFFF with PFAS-free alternatives, but challenges remain. These alternatives are not compatible with direct replacements and have limitations, such as notwithstanding extreme temperatures and requiring immediate mixing with water before use. The transition is estimated to cost $290.9 million in fiscal year 2024 and $1.87 billion in fiscal year 2025, totaling over $2.1 billion. DOD firefighters will also need retraining to use the new foam.

Due to these challenges, the DOD informed Congress that it might need two one-year waivers, extending the use of AFFF to October 1, 2026, to avoid compromising missions or safety. At press time, the GAO had not made any recommendations for improvements.

Source: Law360

Paraquat Litigation Update

There are several important updates in the Paraquat litigation as it continues to move forward. After months of slow growth, the Paraquat docket has shown steady activity. The MDL has increased by 90 lawsuits this past month, bringing the total number of filings to 5,700 cases pending before the United States District of Illinois.

This is good news as the recent April 2024 Daubert ruling seemed to have “spooked” many plaintiff lawyers. While the ruling was a setback for many, it gave everyone a clear direction on where plaintiffs stand at this point in the litigation with the upcoming Bellwether trials looming.

On July 15, 2024, MDL leadership and Defense counsel selected 16 additional trial selection cases, and a scheduling order is expected to follow in the weeks to come as the parties continue to meet and confer. The parties will now have another chance to satisfy what we now know will be a difficult hill to overcome – expert opinion on causation.

Both sides are eager to push this litigation forward and things are even heating up several state courts. A state court in Philadelphia is scheduled to have the first paraquat trial in April 2025. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas experienced a 50% increase over the last six months and is expected to see a steady rise in the months to come.

As this litigation gets back on track, Beasley Allen lawyers remain committed to fighting for those who have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease due to toxic exposure from the herbicide Paraquat.

Zantac Cancer Lawsuit Settled by GSK

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has settled a lawsuit with Ronald Kimbrow, an Illinois man who alleged that taking Zantac and its generic counterpart for over 20 years caused his prostate cancer. The settlement details had not been disclosed at press time.

The Kimbrow lawsuit, filed in May 2023, alleged he used Zantac from 1995 to 2019 and ranitidine from 2012 to 2018. His case is among many against GSK and other manufacturers following the FDA’s 2019 warning about NDMA in ranitidine, which led to its market removal in 2020.

GSK, which did not admit liability, stated that scientific studies have not consistently shown that ranitidine increases cancer risk. Kimbrow’s lawsuit also named other defendants, including Walgreens and Pfizer.

GSK faces similar claims in an ongoing Chicago trial and has previously defended against other Zantac-related cancer claims. Litigation continues in various courts, with some cases consolidated in Florida. In December 2022, a judge dismissed all federal claims against several drugmakers, citing insufficient evidence that ranitidine causes cancer. Despite some settlements, GSK and others still face a number of lawsuits.

Kimbrow is represented by Ashley C. Keller, Nicole Berg and Jason Zweig of Keller Postman LLC.

The case is Kimbrow v. GlaxoSmithKline et al., case number 2023L005405, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Source: Law360

Monsanto’s $160 Million PCB Settlement

Bayer AG’s Monsanto Co. has agreed to pay $160 million to settle allegations of contaminating Seattle’s stormwater and the Lower Duwamish Waterway with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This settlement, announced by Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison, is the largest single-city settlement from Monsanto and resolves a case dating back to January 2016.

The funds will be used to clean up the Lower Duwamish and prevent further PCB pollution. Plans include expanding Seattle Public Utilities’ source control program and dredging the waterway to remove contaminated sediments. Despite stopping PCB production in 1977, Monsanto’s chemicals remain in materials like exterior paint and caulking, which continue to pollute the waterway.

Monsanto had previously argued that a 2020 settlement with the state released them from further claims, but a judge partially denied this, allowing Seattle’s case to proceed. After mediation in June, the $160 million settlement was reached, marking a significant step in protecting the environment.

Seattle is represented by Ann Davison and Laura B. Wishik of the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Michael Woerner, Daniel Mensher, Alison Gaffney, Adele Daniel, Kathryn McCallum, Gary A. Gotto, Yoona Park, Keil Mueller and Jennifer Wagner of Keller Rohrback LLP and Steve Larson, Keith Ketterling, Elizabeth Bailey, Emily Johnson and Madeleine C. Holmes of Stoll Berne.

The case is City of Seattle v. Monsanto Co. et al., case number 2:16-cv-00107, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Source: Law360

Contact The Team

Antitrust Litigation

Chicken Farmers Settle Antitrust Case Against Pilgrim’s Pride

A certified class of more than 24,000 chicken farmers reached a class-wide settlement with Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. over allegations that the company, a chicken producer, entered a no-poach deal with other producers in a conspiracy to suppress the farmer’s compensation. The terms and amount of the settlement have not yet been made public.

This proposed settlement is the latest in a string of lawsuits dating back to 2016 against poultry producers, including Sanderson Farms LLC, Tyson Foods Inc., Perdue Foods, Koch Foods, and others brought by chicken farmers. These farmers hatch and grow broiler chickens, which are ultimately consumed across the United States. The farmers rely on the poultry producers through various phases of the chicken production process, including processing the chickens for consumption.

In a competitive marketplace, poultry producers usually compete to contract with farmers to grow chickens. However, the chicken farmers alleged in the lawsuit that the poultry producers conspired, since at least 2008, to enter an agreement not to poach each other’s farmers and to share information about pay to result in less payment to farmers. The farmers claimed the no-poach and information-sharing agreements violated antitrust laws, namely the Sherman Act, as well as the Packers and Stockyards Act.

In May 2024, the District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma certified the class of chicken farmers, which consisted of more than 24,000 members. The court reasoned that the antitrust violations could be proved class-wide rather than through individualized proof. Pilgrim’s Pride sought a permissive appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing it could not afford the approximately $3 billion in damages sought by the class. Less than a month after the court’s class certification order, the court stayed the lawsuit after the farmers and Pilgrim’s Pride reached a class-wide settlement but left the trial set for February 2025.

The case is In re: Boiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation, No.6:20-md-02977 (E.D. Okla.). While Beasley Allen was not involved in the case, we have a team of lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section who handle antitrust litigation. Those lawyers include Ali Hawthorne, Rebecca Gilliland, James Eubank, Paul Evans, Lauren Miles, and Jessi Haynes. Dee Miles, who heads the Section, is also involved with the team. If you need help with a case, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section.

Source: Law360

Contact The Team

CONSUMER CORNER

Amazon Can Now Be Held Accountable For Dangerous Products Sold On Platform

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has decided to hold Amazon accountable for unsafe products sold by third-party sellers on its platform. The CPSC found over 400,000 defective items, including faulty carbon monoxide detectors, flammable children’s pajamas, and potentially dangerous hair dryers. Amazon must now recall these products or face legal consequences.

The ruling came after an administrative law judge determined that Amazon acted as a distributor for these third-party goods. The CPSC criticized Amazon’s previous efforts to notify customers about potential safety issues as insufficient. Amazon plans to appeal the decision, but it must submit a plan to inform consumers and remove the hazardous products from its site.

This decision, which is very important for consumers, highlights the CPSC’s ongoing efforts to ensure product safety and protect consumers. It is especially important in litigation against foreign manufacturers. Beasley Allen lawyers describe the CPSC’s action as highly significant and far-reaching.

Source: CNN

The NFL Gets A “Win” In A Complete Turnaround

We reported in the July Issue on the $4.7 Billion verdict against the NFL involving the “Sunday Ticket Package.” But that success didn’t last long. The California federal judge in the case has overturned the verdict.

The judge found the plaintiffs’ damages experts used flawed methodologies and that the jury disregarded his instructions. He granted the NFL’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, stating there was no support for the plaintiffs’ claims. The judge also noted that even without excluding the expert testimonies, he would have ordered a new trial due to the jury’s irrational verdict. Based on his order, the jury awarded damages based on improperly considered evidence. That led to the judge’s decision.

We will see where the plaintiffs go from here. Stay tuned!

Source: Law360

IMPORTANT CONGRESSIONAL ACTIVITY

Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Codify Chevron Deference

Senator Elizabeth Warren, joined by other Democratic senators, has introduced a bill to codify the Chevron deference doctrine, which was recently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Chevron deference required judges to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn this precedent has raised concerns around the country about the federal government’s ability to protect various public interests.

The proposed bill, supported by over 70 groups, aims to restore Chevron deference and reform the regulatory process by enhancing public participation, transparency, and independence. It also includes penalties for public companies that submit false information during rulemaking.

This legislation is needed to correct what is considered by most observers to be a very bad decision by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the bill will have enough Republican support to pass both the Senate and House of Representatives. Stay tuned!

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Is Designed To Work For Clients

Beasley Allen operates in five separate sections: four litigation sections and one administrative section. The separate litigation sections concept has worked very well. It has definitely benefited Beasley Allen clients and allowed our lawyers to bring about national changes in product and workplace safety.

Beasley Allen lawyers have handled all sorts of civil litigation for plaintiffs. The Administrative Section supports the four litigation sections that could be described as “mini-firms” within Beasley Allen. Those four litigation sections are the Mass Torts Section, the Toxic Torts Section, the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and the Personal Injury & Products Liability Section.

Each section has a team of lawyers and support staff working closely together, creating efficiency and case expertise within each section. The lawyers and staff develop expertise in the area of law handled by the section. Successful section performance leads to better firm performance overall, allowing us to expand our resources and enabling firm growth. Year after year, we believe our approach has allowed us to help more of those who need it most.

The Mass Torts Section

Andy Birchfield heads our Mass Torts Section. Melissa Prickett serves as the Section’s Director. With over 50 years of combined legal experience, Andy and Melissa lead the firm’s largest section in medical devices, medication and other practice areas. The section currently handles cases involving acetaminophen, hair relaxers, kratom, NEC baby formula, Ozempic, social media and talcum powder.

The Toxic Torts Section

Rhon Jones leads our firm’s Toxic Torts Section with Section Director Tracie Harrison’s assistance. The section focuses on toxic exposure cases. Recent cases involve Camp Lejeune water contamination, paraquat and firefighting foam.

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section

Dee Miles is the Section Head of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Michelle Fulmer is the Director of the Section. She also assists with Business Litigation, Class Action, Consumer Protection, Securities cases, Employment Law and Whistleblower cases.

The Personal Injury & Products Liability Section

Cole Portis heads our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section with Sloan Downes serving as the Director of the Section. The section handles auto accidents, aviation accidents, defective tires, negligent security, on-the-job injuries and truck accident cases.

The Administrative Section

Finally, the Administrative Section includes Accounting, Operations, Human Resources (HR), Information Technology (IT) and Marketing. Michelle Parks is the Director of Accounting, Michelle Fulmer is the Director of Operations, and Kimberly Youngblood serves as the Director of HR, IT and Marketing.

Since we reorganized the firm’s structure, in 1998, the firm’s record speaks for itself. The structure has contributed greatly to our firm’s success. Section Heads and Directors have been able to concentrate on the cases in their section, and they quickly recognize when additional resources are needed. Lawyers in each Section have been able to focus on clients within their specialty and on achieving favorable client results. The efficiency and teamwork generated by the sections concept has resulted in our firm being recognized as one of the best litigation firms in the country. This has been for the benefit of the folks we represented.

The Latest Look At Case Activity At Beasley Allen

Our BeasleyAllen.com website provides the latest information on the current case activity at Beasley Allen. The list can be found on our homepage, the top navigation, or the practices page of our website (BeasleyAllen.com/Practices/). The following are the current case activity listings for the Beasley Allen Sections.

Practices

Business Litigation
Class Actions
Consumer Protection
Employment Law
Medical Devices
Medication
Personal Injury
Product Liability
Toxic Exposure
Whistleblower Litigation

Cases

The cases in the categories listed below are handled by lawyers in the appropriate Litigation Section at Beasley Allen. The list can be found on our homepage, on the top navigation, or on the Cases page of our website.

Acetaminophen
Auto Accidents
Aviation Accidents
Camp Lejeune
CPAP Devices
Defective Tires
Firefighting Foam
Hair Relaxers
Kratom
Mesothelioma
NEC Baby Formula
Negligent Security
On-the-Job-Injuries
Ozempic
Paraquat
Social Media
Talcum Powder
Truck Accidents

We will give a brief explanation for each category below:

Acetaminophen
Beasley Allen lawyers handle cases of mothers who took acetaminophen while pregnant and gave birth to a child later diagnosed with autism or ADHD. Cases also include children treated with the drug during the first 18 months of life who developed autism or ADHD.
Auto Accidents
Our lawyers handle life-altering and deadly automobile accident cases caused by defective products and driver negligence. Crashes may involve single vehicles, multiple vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, transit vehicles or trucks.
Aviation Accidents
Lawyers investigate aviation accidents resulting from mechanical failures, human error and other causes. Crashes injure hundreds, sometimes thousands, of victims onboard aircraft and on the ground every year.
Camp Lejeune
Our firm handles cases of victims exposed to contaminated water supplies at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987. Exposure to toxic water caused serious injuries, including cancer, adult leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, major cardiac birth defects and others.
Defective Tires
Defective tires can lead to automobile accidents resulting in injury or even death. Beasley Allen lawyers investigate these accidents caused by blowouts, tread separation and other tire failures.
Firefighting Foam
Beasley Allen investigates cases of Aqueous Film Forming Foam exposure. This firefighting foam contains highly toxic PFAS chemicals that can lead to cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility and other health risks.
Hair Relaxers
Our lawyers handle cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers. Women who frequently use hair relaxers may develop uterine cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids or breast cancer.
Kratom
Beasley Allen is investigating cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
NEC Baby Formula
Our firm investigates cases of premature babies who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming infant formulas manufactured by brands like Enfamil and Similac. Necrotizing enterocolitis is an intestinal disease that can lead to long-term complications and even death.
Negligent Security
Establishment owners and managers are responsible for maintaining safe premises. When someone is injured or killed as a result of negligent security, Beasley Allen lawyers hold owners and managers accountable.
On-the-Job-Injuries
We investigate workers’ compensation cases, often finding that defective industrial products are to blame for workers’ injuries or deaths. Quite often, the incident results in a product liability case. Industrial products include manufacturing, farming, construction or other types of equipment.
Ozempic
We investigate cases of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism related to the use of diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro.
Paraquat
Our firm handles cases for victims injured by paraquat, a popular herbicide linked to Parkinson’s Disease that has been banned or partially banned in at least 92 countries. Paraquat remains legal in the U.S., risking the health and safety of workers on over 2 million U.S. farms.
Social Media
Our youth are facing a mental health crisis caused by social media addiction. Beasley Allen advocates for these youth who have suffered harms, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, ADD/ADHD, self-harm and suicide.
Talcum Powder
Beasley Allen handles cases for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer after regular use of talcum powder. For decades, companies like Johnson & Johnson knew that talcum powder might cause cancer but failed to warn consumers.
Truck Accidents
Our firm handles accident cases involving tractor-trailers, commercial vehicles and other large trucks. These cases often involve multiple, well-funded defendants and complex insurance issues.

Resources to Help Your Law Practice

From the firm’s beginning in 1979, Beasley Allen has been a civil litigation firm representing only plaintiffs. The firm, by choice, only represents individuals, companies and governmental entities that have been wronged and have suffered damages due to the wrongdoing of another. Our lawyers do not handle any defense work, neither civil nor criminal. There are no exceptions. The only time we represent companies in Corporate America is when they are victims of wrongdoing and are plaintiffs in civil litigation. This has been our policy since the firm’s establishment in 1979, and it will never change.

We are honored and humbled that our firm has been consistently recognized as one of the leading law firms in the country representing only claimants involved in civil litigation, much of it being complex and complicated. Being trial lawyers representing only victims of wrongdoing is a privilege for us. Our firm has been truly blessed.

We understand the importance of sharing resources and collaborating with our peers in the legal profession. We are committed to investing in resources that can help our fellow trial lawyers in their work. We have compiled a list of our most popular resources for those seeking to work with us or seeking information to help their law firm with a case.

Beasley Allen sends out a Co-Counsel E-Newsletter specifically tailored with lawyers in mind. It features case updates, highlights key victories achieved for our clients, and informs readers about the firm’s latest resources. You can get it online by visiting our website, BeasleyAllen.com and clicking the Articles link.

Webinars

Beasley Allen hosts a variety of webinars. These webinars feature lawyers in the firm and cover topics related to Beasley Allen cases. Continuing legal education (CLE) credits for Alabama or Georgia are often available for presentations. To register for upcoming events or access past webinars on-demand, visit the website and click on the Events and Webinar page.

Recalls Update

We try our best to stay current on the latest significant consumer recalls. Contact our JLB Report Team at [email protected] if you have any questions or believe we may need to include a recall.

The Jere Beasley Report

We also consider The Jere Beasley Report a service to lawyers and the general public. We provide the Report at no cost monthly, both in print and digitally. Visit our website, BeasleyAllen.com and click the Articles link.

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Strategic Trial Preparation: Witness Testimony

Kendall Dunson, a lawyer in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, is supplying some trial tips this month. Kendall has a tremendous record of accomplishments representing plaintiffs in complicated litigation involving products liability, workplace and motor vehicle cases. He is an excellent trial lawyer. Let’s see what the Georgia native has for us on trial preparation.

One of our primary roles as plaintiff attorneys is to identify potential claims on behalf of injured parties and then work to prove those claims. Witness testimony is crucial in proving any case.

Witness testimony comes in various forms. Individuals may be called as live witnesses at trial and be permitted to testify directly to the jury. Some attorneys often utilize sworn affidavits to obtain testimony from witnesses who are not available to be questioned live but have important information to share. Another common form of trial testimony comes in the form of videotaped depositions.

Videotaped depositions can prove very helpful in securing witness testimony from physicians who, due to demands in their field, cannot be available as a live witness at trial. Witnesses can be deposed on video in the same way that they would have been in person at trial. Questions for videotaped trial depositions should be presented with a jury in mind. Attorneys should consider developing and utilizing meaningful demonstrative exhibits (enlargements of X-rays or CT scans, photographs, 3D printed models of scans, etc.) that can be used during a videotaped deposition and later at trial.

These preparatory actions will help the physician explain complex treatments, will help establish continuity of the evidence, and will help explain exhibits that the jury sees. This is particularly important to help focus both the physician and the jury on the severity and permanence of injuries. There will be words, phrases, abbreviations and more in the medical records that are unfamiliar to you – google and learn what they mean BEFORE the deposition so that you are prepared to follow up on the significance of each one as it comes up in testimony.

Defense witnesses may also be deposed via video to be played at trial. It is important to remember that, like treating physician depositions, for example, these depositions will also be played for a jury. Effective attorneys should pick their battles wisely with defense experts. Consider this: Is it worth it to lose credibility and bore a jury by attacking the qualifications of a qualified engineering expert, OR should an attorney on cross-examination skip straight to an obvious mistruth and the reason for it (“tell us again how much you have been paid by the defendant to testify in this case”)?

Consideration of how a jury will receive the details of a case is vitally important. Ensuring adequate witness testimony to prove allegations made by plaintiffs requires attention to detail and the ability to think several steps ahead. Attorneys should always develop their cases with an eye towards trial so that witness testimony is gathered in a consistent and concise manner.

I believe these tips will be helpful to any trial lawyer!

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Charles Duffee

Charles Duffee’s tenure at Beasley Allen spans an impressive 25 years. His role as an investigator is crucial to the success of our firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. Charles’s work covers a broad range of activities. It involves photographing the scenes of accidents and vehicles, extracting data from airbag control modules, conducting interviews with law enforcement officers and witnesses, and participating in inspections with defense and plaintiff experts. There are other responsibilities when requested by the Sections lawyers and legal assistants.

Charles does excellent work and is well-respected by all of us at Beasley Allen as well as people he works with in his role as an investigator.

Charles and his wife Linda have been married for over four decades, celebrating 41 years. Linda has almost 35 years of experience in pediatric nursing. Charles says their two children, Brian and Morgan, have carved out successful career paths, with Brian working for Edwards Plumbing and Morgan serving as the Assistant Principal at Eclectic Middle School. Charles and Linda are also proud grandparents to Haleigh (15) and Hunter (10) and eagerly anticipate the arrival of a new grandchild, Tatum. When he’s not immersed in his investigative work or spending time with his family, Charles enjoys hobbies such as hunting with his son and grandson. He also finds pleasure in yard work and has a real fondness for dogs.

Charles says his favorite aspect of working at Beasley Allen is the family-like culture. He says the dynamic nature of his investigative work ensures that no two cases are exactly alike, and the variety keeps his job challenging, engaging, and rewarding, whether in the field or in his office work. We are blessed to have Charles in a very important role at Beasley Allen.

Jenae Knox

Jenae Knox has dedicated over a year and a half to Beasley Allen, specifically as a Staff Assistant within the Mass Torts Section. Her primary responsibilities include examining legal paperwork to ensure its correctness and thoroughness and crafting case evaluation summaries under the guidance of the lawyers in the section. Jenae’s work is very important to the success of our Mass Torts Section, and we are thankful to have her with us!

Jenae credits her broad outlook and commitment to her work to her family’s rich mix of professions and talents, encompassing everything from military service and artistic pursuits to careers in healthcare. This blend of backgrounds, she believes, has made her not only well-rounded but also profoundly empathetic in her approach to work.

Beyond her professional life, Jenae engages in various activities that feed her curiosity and creativity. She explores new regions, uses her graphic design skills to benefit nonprofit organizations, immerses herself in studying ancient myths, experiments with global recipes, and indulges in photography.

Jenae says she particularly values the supportive, family-like environment at Beasley Allen, reflecting her upbringing in a family characterized by diversity and breadth of experience.

Jenae is a very good employee who works hard and is dedicated to the clients served by the Section. We are fortunate to have Jenae at Beasley Allen.

Wyatt Montgomery

Wyatt Montgomery is a dedicated lawyer in the firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. He is based in our Mobile office. Wyatt handles various personal injury and wrongful death cases, primarily those involved in product liability actions and commercial vehicle wrecks. Before joining Beasley Allen, Wyatt worked with other plaintiff law firms in Alabama, enriching his skills and deepening his commitment to justice for the injured and wronged.

Wyatt shares that his journey into law was heavily influenced by his early realization of the value of helping others, a trait closely observed and admired by his father, who is also an attorney. He says this inspiration propelled him to pursue a career where he could provide significant, impactful assistance to individuals navigating challenging times. Wyatt says his favorite aspect of practicing law is meticulously preparing his client’s cases, ensuring that each person he represents receives the utmost care and the best possible legal representation.

Married to Julianne, Wyatt is a family man with a daughter, Perry, and a pet golden retriever named Ray. Wyatt grew up in Chatom, Alabama, which he says filled him with strong community values and a love for the outdoors. Wyatt cherishes his time spent hunting, fishing, and following Alabama Football, activities that connect him to his roots and offer him what he describes as a balanced life.

Wyatt is a compassionate, skilled trial lawyer whose life and work are governed by a desire to make meaningful differences in the lives of others. His career at Beasley Allen and his personal injury law contributions illustrate Wyatt’s commitment to excellence and justice. He says, “Beasley Allen’s commitment to creating and maintaining relationships within the legal community makes it unique as a firm.”

We are blessed to have Wyatt at Beasley Allen. He is a talented, hardworking lawyer who is committed to seeing that his clients receive justice.

Ashley Peden

Ashley Peden joined Beasley Allen in August 2022 as a Staff Assistant in our Toxic Torts Section. She works on the Camp Lejeune litigation team, meticulously reviewing client files to ensure completeness and fostering strong client relationships. Ashley’s dedication is pivotal to the triumphs of the Toxic Torts Section, making her a valued asset to our firm and to the Section.

Ashley also celebrates a significant personal milestone, having recently become a mother to her son, Bryson, an experience she says has filled her life with unparalleled joy and a new perspective. She treasures the support of her parents and the close relationship with her sister, Chelsea, who is also part of the Beasley Allen team. The family bond is further enriched by the addition of a niece and nephew, while the memory of her late brother Kyle remains dear to her heart. Outside of work, Ashley enjoys quality time with her son, niece, and nephews, engaging in hobbies such as puzzles, Lego building, and the serene activity of kayaking. Ashley says these moments of leisure are precious to her.

Ashley says what stands out at Beasley Allen is not just the job itself but the nurturing, faith-oriented culture, comprehensive benefits, and the unwavering support she received during some of her life’s most challenging times.

Ashley is a dedicated employee who works hard for clients especially those in the Camp Lejeune Litigation. We are fortunate to have Ashley at Beasley Allen.

Miland F. Simpler III

Miland F. Simpler III is described by his peers as a passionate lawyer with a big heart for defending the rights of individuals and a keen focus on making sure that our environment is protected and preserved. His work is fueled by his belief in justice and making a positive impact on both people’s lives and the world around us. Miland recently joined our firm’s Toxic Torts Section where he will work on Camp Lejeune cases.

Miland says his approach to law is deeply personal. He leans on his strong values of faith and family, which he believes are the backbone of a fulfilling life. These values are a perfect match with Beasley Allen. Our firm prides itself on its dedication to helping others and upholding strong moral principles. For Miland, being a lawyer is more than a job—it’s his way of contributing to a better society and aiding the planet.

When he’s not in court, Miland is a loving husband and a proud dad to two kids. He’s also a huge fan of the University of Alabama, especially their athletic teams, and he enjoys hitting the golf course whenever he gets the chance. Music is another one of Miland’s passions, reflecting his well-rounded and vibrant personality.

Many consider that Miland’s wide array of interests and commitments make him a unique figure in the legal world. He is committed to making a difference in and out of the courtroom. We are fortunate to have Miland in the firm. He is a welcome addition and has a bright future with the firm.

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Several of our lawyers and staff employees who are being featured in this issue share their favorite Bible verses with us.

Charles Duffee

Charles offers one of his favorite verses. He says it’s a solution to many problems.

My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. James 1:19

Wyatt Montgomery

Wyatt provides one of his favorite bible verses:

The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Matthew 25

Ashley Peden

Ashley offers several of her favorite verses. She says that the first verse speaks for itself and reminds her that during any and all seasons of life, a true friend stays and rides the wave with you.

A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for a time of adversity. Proverbs 17:17

Ashley says her second verse reminds her that even on her weakest days, she is capable and strong enough to do all things through Christ.

I can do all this through him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:13

The final verse from Ashley illustrates how love should be, reminding her that she doesn’t have to settle, and that once love is found, it’s important to keep it close and treasure it.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

Unity In America – Our Greatest Need

Our nation is as badly divided today as I have ever seen it. There is far too much hate and ill-will in our country and that has become a motivating factor for lots of bad conduct. Our leaders from all political parties should work together and in harmony for the common good. While men and women in leadership roles can differ on matters, they must be willing to differ in a civil manner so that their difference doesn’t hurt our country.

Our leaders must also work together when issues like national security, our economy, border crossing, health-related matters, and many others are involved. A basic obligation of all leaders is for them to work together in a bipartisan manner on issues that are good for the country. That is a desired goal at this time.

Let’s go back to our country’s beginning and take a look at some observations made by President George Washington. Those observations were important then and are very much on target for us today.

Our first President emphasized the importance of unity for America. He asserted that the “Unity of government…is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize.”

Our nation’s first President also reminded his fellow citizens that despite the vastness of the country, the different geographical regions are more alike than different, and no area should consider another its enemy.

In his day, Washington firmly believed that all parts of the country benefited the whole and that unity made the nation stronger. He felt that preserving liberty in America depended on remaining united.

Washington also warned against the rise of party factions and the danger they pose to America. In that regard, he stated:

The alternate domination of one faction (party) over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension…is itself a frightful despotism. Furthermore, It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another.

While the time span between President Washington’s concerns, beliefs, and observations of our present state is great in years, his advice and counsel were on target then and now. Our current crop of leaders must understand fully the urgent need for unity and harmony in America today.

I will close by reminding all of us what another great American had to say about hate as a motivating factor in America.

“Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” Martin Luther King Jr., 1957

MONTHLY REMINDERS

The following are reminders this month for all of us at Beasley Allen. As I have said previously, these reminders are put in the Report for a purpose. They are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. While the reminders are for all at Beasley Allen, we send them to all who get the Report. Any person in a leadership role, including those persons in government, will benefit by reading the quotes and applying the lessons learned from them in their daily lives.

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right.

The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America.

Rep. John Lewis speaking on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on March 1, 2020

Ours is not the struggle of one day, one week, or one year. Ours is not the struggle of one judicial appointment or presidential term. Ours is the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe even many lifetimes, and each one of us in every generation must do our part.

Rep. John Lewis on movement-building in Across That Bridge: A Vision for Change and the Future of America

The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice.

Bryan Stevenson, 2019

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country….corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

PARTING WORDS

There is one central question relating to the future of America and specifically as to whether our Republic – a true democracy – can continue to exist? Perhaps, best said: “Is there any hope for America?”

There have been many times when the flames of hope became very dim. But we survived each time. That included such things as two world wars, a civil war, the great economic depression, corrupt and immoral leaders in our government, the COVID battle, major national health scares, the events of January 6, and other events on a lesser scale.

Yet America has survived and in fact has prospered. Currently, our nation is without a doubt the strongest world leader with the world’s strongest economy.

Is there hope for America? I firmly believe that our hope lies in our trust in God. Perhaps the answer lies in 2 Chronicles 7:14 which tells us:

if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and heal their land.

So, in closing, America, under God, will survive and prosper. That’s why I have hope for my country.

About the Report

On January 7, 1979, Jere L. Beasley established a one-lawyer firm in Montgomery, Alabama, which has grown into the firm now known as Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.

Jere has been an advocate for victims of wrongdoing since 1962, when he began his law practice in Tuscaloosa and then his hometown of Clayton, Alabama. He took a brief hiatus from the practice of law to enter the political arena, serving as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alabama from 1970 through 1978. He was the youngest Lieutenant Governor in the United States at that time. His short-lived political career ended in 1978 when he ran, unsuccessfully, for Governor.

Since returning to his law career, Jere has tried hundreds of cases. His numerous courtroom victories include landmark cases that have made a positive impact on our society. His areas of practice include litigation of products liability, insurance fraud, business litigation and personal injury.

It has been more than 40 years since he began the firm with the intent of "helping those who need it most." Today, Beasley Allen's primary offices are based in Atlanta, Georgia; Dallas, Texas; Mobile, Alabama and Montgomery, Alabama. Beasley Allen is one of the country's leading firms involved in civil litigation on behalf of claimants. The firm has been privileged to represent hundreds of thousands of individuals who have been wronged by no act of their own.

No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Cookie	Duration	Description
beasley-allen-cookie-consent	1 year	This cookie is used to record the user consent for the site's cookies. It does not store any personal data.
cli_user_preference	1 year	This cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin to record whether the user has given consent to the use of cookies.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement	1 year	Set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin, this cookie is used to record the user consent for the cookies in the "Advertisement" category .
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
CookieLawInfoConsent	1 year	Records the default button state of the corresponding category & the status of CCPA. It works only in coordination with the primary cookie.
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Cookie	Duration	Description
apexchat_dompopup_chatwindow	session	Possible states or events for a chat window. It does not store any personal data.
apexchat_dropdown_invitation	session	Possible states or events for a chat invitation. It does not store any personal data.
apexchat_prechat_invitation	session	Possible states or events for a “pre-chat” invitation. It does not store any personal data.
apexchat_tab_invitation	session	Possible states or events for a tab invitation.
cdn_apex_profile_id	session	ID of the ApexChat widget profile. It does not store any personal data.
livechat_agent_alias_id	1 Hour	ID of an agent alias. It does not store any personal data.
livechat_invitation_traffic_sources	6 months	Available traffic sources (source/medium/campaign, etc.) associated with the chat. It does not store any personal data.
livechat_is_page_refreshed	session	If page was refreshed once the prechat loaded (true/false). It does not store any personal data.
livechat_operator_id	10 minutes	ID of the operator who was handling the chat (if applicable). It does not store any personal data.
livechat_original_referrer	session	Original referrer URL (page URL where the visitor came from before initiating the chat). It does not store any personal data.
livechat_prechat_lastmessage	session	Stores the last message sent from the chat agent. It does not store any personal data.
livechat_prechat_message_ids	session	Stores IDs of questions that comes from the agent side (Chat feature) for internal use. It does not store any personal data.
msd365mkttr	2 years	Register an ID to uniquely identify the data filled in by the user through the specific form on Microsoft Dynamics 365.
msd365mkttrs	session	For correct operation of website forms provided by Microsoft Dynamics 365 and setting of user privacy preferences.

Cookie	Duration	Description
_ga	2 years	The _ga cookie, installed by Google Analytics, calculates visitor, session and campaign data and also keeps track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognize unique visitors.
_gat_UA-173605-1	1 minute	A variation of the _gat cookie set by Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager to allow website owners to track visitor behaviour and measure site performance. The pattern element in the name contains the unique identity number of the account or website it relates to.
_gid	1 day	Installed by Google Analytics, _gid cookie stores information on how visitors use a website, while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the data that are collected include the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.
319af4c0-e197-4de9-8a9b-fe98c8a2ca04	session	This cookie is also set and/or read on any webpage where you have placed a Dynamics 365 Marketing website behavioral-analysis script. Dynamics 365 Marketing uses it to group all page loads by a given visitor that are recorded by the same behavioral-analysis script and that occur within the configured timeframe; it will consider all of these as part of a single “visit” to the website.
79f08280-5c63-4331-b04d-fb6f39afda51	2 years	The cookie contains no personal information. Allows scoring leads based on level of interaction with the website. Used by Dynamics 365 Marketing.
CONSENT	2 years	YouTube sets this cookie via embedded youtube-videos and registers anonymous statistical data.

Cookie	Duration	Description
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE	5 months 27 days	A cookie set by YouTube to measure bandwidth that determines whether the user gets the new or old player interface.
YSC	session	YSC cookie is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos on Youtube pages.
yt-remote-connected-devices	never	YouTube sets this cookie to store the video preferences of the user using embedded YouTube video.
yt-remote-device-id	never	YouTube sets this cookie to store the video preferences of the user using embedded YouTube video.
yt.innertube::nextId	never	This cookie, set by YouTube, registers a unique ID to store data on what videos from YouTube the user has seen.
yt.innertube::requests	never	This cookie, set by YouTube, registers a unique ID to store data on what videos from YouTube the user has seen.

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Alabama Named America’s Most Improved State For Business By CNBC

TALC LITIGATION

Fraudulent Transfer Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against J&J

J&J’s ‘Texas Two-Step’ Rejected Again

More Evidence Of Talc-Ovarian Cancer Link Announced By International Agency

Court Denies Request by J&J To Disqualify Beasley Allen

J&J Subpoenas Seeking Funding Information Are Quashed

J&J Settles For $505 Million In Talc Litigation Chapter 11 Case

$24 Million Verdict In Illinois Talc Case

New Jersey Judge Dismisses Libel Lawsuit By J&J Regarding Talc Research

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

Abuse of the Bankruptcy Laws by Corporate America Cannot be Tolerated

Lawmakers Unite To Curb ‘Texas Two-Step’ Bankruptcy Strategy

The Opioid Litigation

A Look At The U.S. Supreme Court’s Rejection Of Purdue Pharma’s Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan

Alabama Opioid Settlements: $728 Million & Climbing

Rite Aid And The Department Of Justice Reach $410 Million Settlement Over Opioid Sale Claims

5 States Settle Opioid Claims with Indivior for $86 Million

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Camp Lejeune: Government Continues to Fail to Make Progress Resolving Claims; Court Appoints ‘Settlement Masters’

Camp Lejeune Litigation Team

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Update On Social Media Litigation

Federal Judge Questions Zuckerberg’s Attempt To Avoid Liability In MDL Case

The Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Teams

MOTOR VEHICLE & TRUCKING LITIGATION

Self-Insured, Until Trial: Auto Manufacturers, Trucking Companies, And Hidden Insurance Policies

Ben Keen Files Lawsuit In Georgia Involving Serious Interstate Injury Collision

GM’s $50 Million Faulty Fuel Pump Settlement Gets Early Approval

Family Says Fatal Crash Was Caused By Tesla’s Autopilot

Over 390,000 BMW Vehicles Recalled Over Airbag Inflator Issue

PRODUCT LIABILITY

AVIATION LITIGATION

A Look At DOJ’s Pending Plea Deal With Boeing’s 737 Max

WORKPLACE LITIGATION

Avenues of Relief for On-The-Job Injuries

The Control Of Hazardous Energy On-Site

$68.5 Million Awarded To Family In Construction Site Death Case

Dollar General Pays $12 Million For OSHA Safety Violations

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

Worker’s Compensation Retaliatory Discharge

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

Whistleblower Litigation

Pennsylvania Telecom Agrees To $6.5 Million Settlement In False Claims Act Case

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team

Securities Litigation

Dozens of Lawsuits Filed Related to Alleged WaterStation Ponzi Scheme

Bond-Rigging Suit Revived Over A Stock Conflict Involving A Judge’s Wife

The Beasley Allen Securities Litigation Team

Premises Liability Litigation

Shopping Malls: Magnet for Teens & Violence

Negligent Security: What a Preservation Letter Can Do for Your Cases

Class Action Litigation

Court Grants Preliminary Approval To Subaru/Denso Fuel Pump Class Action Settlement

Live Nation Continues To Fight Antitrust Litigation On Multiple Fronts

Fisher-Price and Mattel Settle For $19 Million Over Recalled Baby Sleeper

Data Breach Class Actions On The Rise

NCAA Sends Proposed $2.8 Billion NIL Settlement To Court

Class Action Lawyers At Beasley Allen

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Beasley Allen Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Kratom Manufacturers

Georgia Appellate Courts Confirm Hair Relaxer Cases As Litigation Expands To Dekalb County

Infant Formula Litigation Update

Ozempic And Other GLP-1 Drugs Linked To Dangerous Eye Disease

$495 Million Jury Verdict Against Abbot In Baby Formula Bellwether Case

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

PFAS/ AFFF Litigation Update

DOD Says More Time Needed To Stop PFAS Firefighting Foam Use

Paraquat Litigation Update

Zantac Cancer Lawsuit Settled by GSK

Monsanto’s $160 Million PCB Settlement

Antitrust Litigation

Chicken Farmers Settle Antitrust Case Against Pilgrim’s Pride

CONSUMER CORNER

Amazon Can Now Be Held Accountable For Dangerous Products Sold On Platform

The NFL Gets A “Win” In A Complete Turnaround

IMPORTANT CONGRESSIONAL ACTIVITY

Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Codify Chevron Deference

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED

Fisher-Price and Mattel Settle For $19 Million Over Recalled Baby Sleeper 