The Jere Beasley Report February 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Bryan Stevenson: A True Champion Of Justice And Equality

Bryan Stevenson, the founder and Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), is a renowned public interest lawyer and social justice activist. Born on November 14, 1959, in Milton, Delaware, Bryan has dedicated his life to advocating for the marginalized and fighting against systemic injustice.

Bryan’s journey began in a small town in southern Delaware. His parents, Howard and Alice Stevenson, instilled in him the importance of education and faith. Bryan attended Eastern University, where he earned a B.A., and later Harvard University, where he obtained both a J.D. and a Masters of Public Policy degree.

In 1989, Bryan founded the EJI in Montgomery, Alabama. Under his leadership, EJI has become a powerful force in the fight against mass incarceration, excessive punishment, and racial injustice. The organization provides legal representation to indigent defendants and prisoners who have been denied fair treatment in the legal system.

Bryan has argued and won multiple cases at the United States Supreme Court, including landmark rulings that prohibit sentencing children under 18 to death or life imprisonment without parole. His work has led to the exoneration of over 140 wrongly condemned prisoners on death row and relief for hundreds of others unfairly sentenced.

It’s important to recognize that Bryan has accomplished much more beyond the courtroom. He has initiated significant projects to educate the public about America’s history of racial injustice. Bryan led the creation of the National Memorial for Peace and Justice and the Legacy Museum in Montgomery. These institutions chronicle the legacy of slavery, lynching, and racial segregation and their connection to contemporary issues of mass incarceration and racial bias.

Bryan’s work has earned him numerous accolades, including the MacArthur Foundation “Genius” Prize, the ABA Medal, and the National Humanities Medal. His memoir, “Just Mercy,” which recounts his work with EJI and the case of Walter McMillian, was adapted into a critically acclaimed film in 2019.

Bryan’s unwavering commitment to justice and equality has made him a beacon of hope for many. Through his leadership at EJI, Bryan continues to challenge systemic injustice and inspire others to join the fight for a more equitable society.

We need more individuals like Bryan Stevenson who are not only talking the talk but are doing the necessary walking. America is blessed to have Bryan in his current role. His message of liberty and justice for all is being heard loud and clear throughout America. 

Praise the Lord!

TALC LITIGATION

In Her Words: One Talc Victim’s Story

Every cancer victim has a unique and painful story. One of our talcum powder clients, Tamara, has agreed to share hers. So here is her story.

My name is Tamara.  I am married and have two children. I am a multispecialty, multi-registered Diagnostic Medical Sonographer with over thirty years of experience in OB/GYN ultrasounds, and I was a clinical instructor for 15 years. 

I began experiencing right pelvic pain in late 2014, early 2015.  I began several medical workups to diagnose the issue.  On March 15, 2015, I woke up in severe pain and asked my husband to take me to the Emergency Department. Upon arrival at the hospital, the doctor began doing multiple tests including a bimanual pelvic examination when the doctor told me he felt a pelvic mass.  I was then sent to the Ultrasound Department for a sonogram.  I told the sonographer that I am also a sonographer.  He began to scan my pelvis with the transvaginal ultrasound and turned the monitor to me to show me the images and asked what I thought it was.  I responded and said that it was a complex pelvic mass that had the sonographic appearance of an ovarian cystadenocarcinoma.  

I went back to the OB/GYN practice where I work and consulted with my doctor to discuss the next steps.  My doctor referred me to a specialist who did my surgery where he removed my uterus, ovaries, tubes, omentum, and lymph nodes. 

Pathological results came back as an ovarian adenocarcinoma which was at stage three. My surgeon suggested that I do six rounds of chemotherapy with the two chemotherapy drugs paclitaxel and carboplatin.  

Four weeks after the surgery, I began chemotherapy.  During my first chemotherapy I went into anaphylactic shock and the “crash team” responded, and I ultimately later found out that I am allergic to paclitaxel.  My oncologist suggested that I try another “taxol” class drug called taxotere along with the carboplatin. Again, I went into anaphylactic shock, and again the “crash team” had to come save my life from the allergic reaction. My oncologist needed to discuss with his colleagues the best way to treat my cancer and decided to just finish with the carboplatin.  Thank God it worked. 

I lost my hair, and I was very sick and ended up neutropenic after my last chemotherapy treatment, where I ended up in the hospital for blood transfusions.  Cancer and chemotherapy are hard for anyone.  I did the genetic testing and was told I tested genetically negative for many cancers including ovarian cancer.   

I prayed and asked God, so now what?  And what about my family? I honestly felt like God was telling me to just get through this, and I got you.  AS HE DID!!   

The very hardest part for me during all of this was watching my family watch me go through the surgery and chemotherapy.  I am a woman of strong faith, and I knew that God would bring us through. 

I began to see ads on TV about the association between Johnson and Johnson’s talcum powder and Shower to Shower powder and ovarian cancer.  I reached out to the attorneys who took on my case.   

I’ve used Johnson and Johnson’s talcum powder in my genital area for years, and my mother used it on me when I was a baby.  This product became a staple in my family for generations.  I used it as part of my daily hygiene routine. 

My attorney’s office has been working on my case diligently for years.  During this time, I learned that J&J had specifically targeted the “black and brown” communities.  I was numb but not stunned.  A few months later, I learned that during the research of my case/tumor, that talc/asbestos was found in my tumor.  I still had some bottles of baby powder in my home, and my attorney’s office had them tested.  They were found to have toxic ingredients in them.  

At this point, I was beginning to feel like J&J was just considering me to be another insignificant black woman “in need of a little more help with hygiene.” Whatever the case, I have to say that there is man’s judgment and then there is God’s, and I know who wins. 

This client’s story is one of thousands who are still living and having to deal with the effects of their using Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) talc products. Thousands more have already died. Most all had no concept of what J&J had known since at least 1978. 

J&J’s Third Bankruptcy

In an effort to escape liability for its dangerous products, J&J has attempted to file bankruptcy three times. The first attempt was dismissed by a New Jersey appeals court in March 2023. Undeterred, the company filed a second bankruptcy attempt in April 2023, which was also dismissed. In September 2024, J&J created a third liability entity, known as Red River Talc, LLC. The Red River Talc bankruptcy is pending in Houston, Texas before Judge Christopher M. Lopez. 

Judge Lopez will hold a motion to dismiss/confirmation hearing on Red River’s bankruptcy plan starting on February 18. The hearing will be structured much like a trial, with all parties presenting evidence and witnesses. We oppose the confirmation of Red River’s current bankruptcy plan and stand ready to represent our clients at the hearing.

“You Have to Put Up a Fight and Just Keep Pushing”

Tamara recalls how she struggled to work and maintain a normal home life for her family during her chemotherapy. She did her best to not to let her cancer interfere with her life, but it was hard. Tamara says, “I kind of pushed myself to go back to work, even though it was hard for me, and you know, some days I had to leave early. Sometimes I [was] really tired, I might lay down on my lunch break. So, I wasn’t working the way I could work. But I pushed myself to do it.”

Tamara pushed herself to do other things as well. She says, “I mean, I didn’t really want to go out, you know, but I pushed myself. Put my wig on, go to church, you know, or whatever.” When asked why she pushed herself like that, Tamara says, “I wanted to show [my children] that no matter what happens, you have to put up a fight and just keep pushing to live your life the best you can.”

Tamara’s words ring true in the talc litigation. We have experienced countless attempts by J&J to delay the litigation, deny justice, and intimidate witnesses and plaintiffs’ counsel. Just like Tamara, we will keep fighting and keep pushing until each victim receives the compensation and recognition they deserve.

We Are Here to Help

Our job at Beasley Allen is to make sure justice is done in the talcum powder litigation. We are here to help our clients and really all Americans.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Melissa Prickett, Director of our Mass Torts Section. She will have one of the lawyers handling the talc litigation respond. 

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

The ongoing battle with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is in its final stages. Beasley Allen remains totally committed to battling J&J on every front. Currently, the third bankruptcy attempt is the focus. Remember, there have been two prior bankruptcy attempts that failed. We will continue to fight in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. I am confident this litigation will wind up in a manner with justice being done for J&J’s victims. 

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. Andy and our firm became J&J’s target. They have tried

This has been a tough battle, but it is a critically important and necessary one, and our lawyers do not intend to back down.

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

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

New EPA Rules Target Cancer-Causing Chemicals Linked to Camp Lejeune

On December 9, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized new rules for two toxic chemicals central to Camp Lejeune’s water contamination: trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE). Between 1953 and 1987, over a million service members, civilian employees, and military family members unknowingly drank, cooked with, and bathed in water contaminated with TCE and PCE, among other toxic chemicals. This contamination is considered one of the worst in U.S. history.

Health Risks of TCE and PCE

TCE is a highly toxic chemical linked to liver cancer, kidney cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. It also causes damage to the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, immune system, reproductive organs, and can lead to fetal heart defects.  TCE was detected in the water at Camp Lejeune at levels nearly 300 times beyond the EPA’s ‘safe’ exposure limit.

PCE is associated with liver, kidney, brain, and testicular cancer.  The cancer-causing chemical is also linked to causing kidney, liver, and immune system damage.  The levels of PCE found in the water at Camp Lejeune were over 40 times the maximum ‘safe’ limit established by the EPA.

EPA’s New Rules

The new rules will phase out all uses of TCE, both consumer and commercial, over time, with most uses being eliminated within one year.  With regards to PCE, the final rule phases out the manufacturing, processing, and distribution of the chemical for all consumer uses and many commercial uses, while ultimately only allowing limited use in ‘highly sophisticated workplaces’ deemed important to national security, aviation, or other critical infrastructure.

The new rules represent a significant and long-overdue advancement in chemical safety that aims to reduce cancer risks and other serious health impacts that have harmed millions, including Camp Lejeune victims. 

While the EPA’s rules on TCE and PCE are grounded in the best-available science on their harmful impacts and have bipartisan support, they may be vulnerable to political reversal. Hopefully, the Trump Administration will support the EPA in its efforts.

Camp Lejeune Litigation Team

Beasley Allen Toxic Torts lawyers are heavily involved in all aspects of this litigation, including bellwether trial work. If you need help with a claim, have questions about the litigation, or would like to co-counsel with us on one of your cases, contact a lawyer on our litigation team. 

The lawyers on the Camp Lejeune Litigation 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.

Rhon Jones, who heads our Toxic Torts Section, is heavily involved in all aspects of the litigation, including the work of the Resolution Committee. Rhon is in leadership as a member of the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee.

The lawyers on our litigation team will be honored to work with you if you need help with a claim or have questions about the litigation. You can contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section. She will have one of the lawyers on the litigation team respond to you.

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Social Media Litigation Update

The social media litigation involves hundreds of actions brought by personal injury plaintiffs, school districts, local government entities, and state attorneys general, alleging that social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat are designed to foster addictive use by minors, causing various harms.

The litigation continues at the federal and state level. In the JCCP, personal injury bellwethers continue through the discovery stage of litigation. Plaintiffs and fact witnesses are currently undergoing depositions, with treatment provider depositions to follow. In the MDL, the most recent case management conference occurred on January 17, 2025. 

Lawyers at Beasley Allen are currently pursuing claims on behalf of individuals arising out of their addiction to the defendants’ Social Media Platforms. The defendants include Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. Injuries include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation, among others.  

Beasley Allen lawyers are also representing school districts for the vast expenses they have incurred due to problems related to their students’ social media addictions. Lawsuits are being filed in the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, and in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (overseen by Judge Karen Kuhl). 

There is a vast amount of activity in this litigation with a great deal of uncertainty and confusion. We will do a more complete update on all aspects of the litigation in the March issue. That will include a report on the involvement of the Trump Administration. 

Members of Beasley Allen’s Social Media Litigation Team are: Joseph VanZandt (who heads the team) Jennifer Emmel, Suzanne Clark, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, and Seth Harding. Andy Birchfield, who heads our Mass Torts Section, also works with the team.

The Beasley Allen Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team

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 Beasley Allen litigation team handling the social media cases is set out below.

Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team

Members of Beasley Allen’s Social Media Litigation Team are:

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

MOTOR VEHICLE & TRUCKING LITIGATION

Lawyers In Mobile Office Litigate Mississippi Trucking Case

Lawyers in Beasley Allen’s Mobile office, led by Wyatt Montgomery, are representing a man who was injured in a catastrophic wreck involving two 18-wheelers.  Our client was an owner/operator of his own tractor-trailer at the time of the wreck.  On the night of the accident, he was operating his tractor-trailer on Highway 45 near State Line, Mississippi when the defendant truck driver crossed into our client’s lane of travel and struck the trailer he was pulling, resulting in a horrific wreck.  Our client sustained severe and permanent injuries in the collision. We filed suit on his behalf against the at-fault truck driver and the trucking company the driver was working for at the time of the incident.  

Trucking cases are typically more complex than standard car accident claims due to the involvement of large trucking companies, federal regulations, and the severe nature of the injuries often sustained in such wrecks.  The litigation also typically involves more parties than the typical car wreck.  For instance, the litigation can include the at-fault driver, the trucking company, the manufacturer of the tractor and/or trailer involved in the wreck, or a freight broker who hired the trucking company.  

A thorough investigation and discovery process must take place in order to determine the underlying cause or causes of the wreck.  The wreck could have been the result of driver fatigue, mechanical failure due to improper maintenance of the tractor or trailer, improper loading, or regulatory non-compliance such as hours-of-service or maintenance violations.  

Trucking litigation is a multifaceted area of law that requires a thorough understanding of federal and state regulations, as well as the specific circumstances of each accident.  If you or someone you know has been injured by an 18-wheeler, Beasley Allen lawyers in the Personal Injury & Products Liability Section have the knowledge and experience to maximize the recovery for their clients.  We would also be honored to have the opportunity to work with other lawyers on these cases. 

The Investigation Of A Trucking Accident Case

On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff Renee Heick was driving a 2014 Ford Fiesta on I-85 in Banks County, Georgia.  As Ms. Heick was slowing for traffic, she was rear-ended by a commercial vehicle owned by Defendant VK Logistics Inc. and driven by defendant Dustin Rousseau.  As a result of the incident, Ms. Heick, who is now our client, suffered permanent physical injuries.  Ben Keen, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, filed suit on our client’s behalf in Barrow County State Court. 

One of the many considerations when investigating or filing a trucking case is the training and supervision of the driver that caused the accident, or lack thereof.  The incident leading to Ms. Heick’s injuries was due to no fault of her own.  Rather, the fault lies in Defendant Rousseau’s failure to control the large commercial vehicle he was operating.  He failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to maintain a safe following distance. These failures were easily preventable.

When such failures lead to an incident like the one mentioned here, the next step is to investigate how the trucking company hires, trains and supervises its employees.  These companies have a duty to equip their employees with the necessary tools to safely operate the vehicles in their fleets.  In this instance, a breakdown in the process occurred.  The task for the lawyer representing the injured party then becomes finding out where, how and why the breakdown occurred. That starts from the hiring process, through initial onboarding and training, and into continued supervision and ongoing employment of the defendant driver. 

The lawsuit against VK Logistics, Inc and Dustin Rousseau is pending in Barrow County State Court. The complaint includes claims of negligent hiring, wantonness and general negligence.

Toyota Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Faulty Engines 

On May 30, 2024, about 100,000 Toyota trucks were recalled due to faulty engines. Affected Toyota owners have now filed a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer. It’s alleged in the lawsuit that Toyota breached implied warranties, engaged in consumer fraud, and violated state consumer protection laws. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that 2022-23 Toyota Tundras and Lexus LX 600s with engines made in Tahara, Japan, or Huntsville, Alabama, were recalled due to potential contamination from manufacturing debris. This defect can cause engine failure, leading to stalling and increased crash risk.

Toyota’s remedy, involving free engine replacements, was not set to begin until December 2024. Frustrated by the delay, Plaintiffs Tom Daley, Marty Holstien, and Terrance Regan filed the lawsuit in a Vermont federal court on December 2, representing all affected Toyota drivers. The lawsuit highlights the unsafe driving conditions caused by the defect and criticizes the recall measures as inadequate.

The plaintiffs seek compensation for damages and an injunction to stop Toyota’s alleged wrongful conduct. The class action covers all 2022-2024 Toyota Tundra and Tundra hybrid owners in the U.S. 

The plaintiff is represented by Joshua Simonds of The Urlington Law Practice PLLC; Benjamin F. Johns of Shub & Johns LLC and Andrew Ferich of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC.  

This case is 2:4-cv 1318 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.

Source: Montgomery Advertiser

Toyota Won’t Be Sanctioned For Not Translating Documents

A North Carolina state appeals court has ruled that Toyota and Subaru won’t be required to create English translations of Japanese documents in a wrongful death lawsuit. The suit, filed by Sheila Martin Sessoms on behalf of her late son Matthew Gibson Sessoms, alleges that a faulty design in the 2013 Toyota Scion FR-S, which the companies collaborated on, led to his death in 2021.

The court vacated some discovery sanctions against the automakers, stating that they cannot be compelled to create new documents for discovery. However, other discovery orders, including additional witness depositions, remain in place. It’s noteworthy that the lower court may still impose sanctions, but the court cannot involve requiring translations of existing documents.

The estate is represented by Noah B. Abrams of Abrams & Abrams PA and J. William Owen of Musselwhite Musselwhite Branch & Grantham PA.

The case is Sessoms v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., case number COA24-265, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Source: Law360

NHTSA Investigates Tesla’s Remote Driving Feature

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is investigating Tesla vehicles equipped with features that allow remote movement via a phone app, following reports of collisions with posts and parked cars. The investigation covers approximately 2.6 million Tesla vehicles with the Full Self-Driving system, focusing on the Actually Smart Summon and Smart Summon features. These features enable users to move their vehicles remotely using a phone app.

The probe includes 2016-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles, 2017-2025 Model 3 vehicles, and 2020-2025 Model Y vehicles. The NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation received a complaint about a crash involving the Actually Smart Summon feature and reviewed media reports of similar incidents. The agency is examining whether users had sufficient reaction time to avoid crashes while using the remote driving feature.

The NHTSA will evaluate the top speed, operating restrictions, and line of sight requirements for the Actually Smart Summon feature. The investigation will also review remote vehicle control through the phone app at various distances and lines of sight, including connectivity delays that may increase stopping distance.

At press time, Tesla representatives had not commented on this matter to Law360. This investigation is one of several recent NHTSA probes into Tesla vehicles, including issues with the Full Self-Driving system in conditions of reduced visibility and concerns about driver misuse following a software update. The NHTSA requires auto manufacturers to report incidents involving advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and higher levels of automated driving systems (ADS). It should be noted that Tesla has not reported any Smart Summon or Actually Smart Summon crashes under this order.

Source: Law360

The MDL Against Chrysler Is Upheld

A Michigan federal judge has largely upheld multidistrict litigation against Chrysler over the risk of spontaneous explosions in certain plug-in hybrid minivans. U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson denied FCA US LLC’s (Stellantis NV’s North American division) request to dismiss most of the plaintiffs’ claims, including fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment, except for claims under Nevada and Tennessee laws, and common law fraud claims under Massachusetts and Texas laws.

FCA argued that the claims lacked specificity regarding when drivers became aware of the defect in Chrysler Pacifica minivans, which could cause explosions. However, Judge Lawson found sufficient evidence that the company knew about the defect before the 2022 safety recall.

The judge also rejected FCA’s argument that the economic loss doctrine barred the fraudulent concealment claims and that the plaintiffs failed to show the defect manifested in their vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged that the defect was present in all class vehicles, leading to recall restrictions.

The litigation involves 11 class actions with 63 named plaintiffs, who claim the 2017-2018 Chrysler Pacifica plug-in hybrid minivans have a defect causing spontaneous fires. Despite a 2022 recall, the problem persisted, with at least four vehicles catching fire post-recall. Judge Lawson dismissed the class’s nationwide fraud claims, but he allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to reframe many common law fraud claims as state subclass claims.

The consumers are represented by E. Powell Miller, Dennis A. Lienhardt Jr. and Dana E. Fraser of The Miller Law Firm PC, Steven W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stephen R. Basser and Samuel M. Ward of Barrack Rodos & Bacine, Niall McCarthy and Karin Swope of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Gayle Blatt and P. Camille Guerra of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP.

The MDL is Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation, case number 2:22-cv-03040, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source: Law360

Hino Motors Will Pay $1.6 Billion In Penalties After Emissions Fraud

Hino Motors Ltd., a Toyota unit, will pay around $1.6 billion in penalties for manipulating emissions and fuel-economy tests for over 100,000 diesel vehicles sold in the U.S. from 2010 to 2019. The company admitted that it had submitted false data to the EPA to get engine certifications.

Hino will plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the U.S., pay a $521.76 million criminal fine, and implement a compliance program. Additionally, it will forfeit $1.087 billion and pay a $525 million civil penalty. The company is also banned from importing diesel engines into the U.S. for five years and must launch environmental mitigation and recall programs.

This settlement resolves claims from various federal and state entities, including the EPA and California’s air pollution regulator. Hino had previously admitted to falsifying data and has since implemented reforms to prevent future issues.

The civil case is United States of America v. Hino Motors Ltd. et al., case number 2:25-cv-10144, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The criminal case is United States of America v. Hino Motors, Ltd. et al., case number 2:25-cr-20016, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source: Law360

Ford Recalls Almost 400,000 Vehicles

Ford Motor Company has announced several recalls affecting nearly 400,000 vehicles due to various safety concerns. The first recall involves 295,449 heavy-duty pickup trucks from the 2020-2022 F-Super Duty series and the 2021-2022 F-650 and F-750 models. These trucks may experience high-pressure fuel pump failure due to biodiesel deposits, potentially leading to a loss of drive power and increased crash risk. Dealers will update the powertrain control module software free of charge, with owner notifications expected by January 13, 2025. 

The second recall affects 30,715 vehicles, including the 2019 Ford Flex, Fiesta, and Lincoln MKT, due to rearview camera issues that may result in a blank or distorted image, reducing the driver’s view and increasing crash risk. Reportedly, a remedy is under development, and owners will be notified by February 3, 2025. 

The third recall involves 47,818 Lincoln Nautilus vehicles from 2024-2025, where the window automatic reversal system may not function correctly, posing an injury risk. Dealers will recalibrate the door modules free of charge, with notifications expected by January 13, 2025. 

Lastly, Ford is recalling 20,484 hybrid SUVs, including the 2020-2024 Ford Escape and 2021-2024 Lincoln Corsair, due to a potential battery defect that could cause a fire or loss of drive power. Dealers will update the battery energy control module software and replace the battery pack as necessary, with owner notifications expected by January 20, 2025. 

Kia Recalls Over 80,000 U.S. Vehicles

Kia America is recalling over 80,000 vehicles due to potential damage to floor wiring beneath the front passenger seat, which could prevent airbags and seat belts from working properly. This issue might also cause unintended side curtain airbag deployment. The recall affects 80,255 Niro EV, Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV), and Hybrid models from 2023-2025. Dealers will inspect, replace, and reroute the wiring for free, and install wiring covers. Owners will be notified by mail in March.

This follows a previous recall in November, where Hyundai and Kia recalled over 208,000 electric vehicles to fix a charging control unit issue that could lead to loss of drive power. Kia says they are working diligently to resolve the issue and will ensure the safety of their customers. Hopefully, Kia will follow through on its statement. In any event, owners of these vehicles must stay alert for any signs of malfunction. They should also follow the instructions in the notification letter.

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Clarifying The Existing Standard For Expert Testimony: Amendments To Rule 702 

Product liability practitioners know the importance of expert opinions. Without reliable expert testimony supporting a given defect, a district court is likely to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim on summary judgment before it ever reaches the jury. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 plays a pivotal role in this process. The rule provides the standard for district courts to apply when determining whether expert testimony is admissible. On December 1, 2023, Rule 702 was amended. These amendments, and the reasons behind them, are outlined below.

Rule 702, as amended (additions in italics, deletions stricken), provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:

1. The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
2. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
3. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
4. the expert has reliably applied expert’s opinion reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Advisory Committee provided two reasons for the amendments to Rule 702. 

First, “to clarify and emphasize that expert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the rule.” Id., advisory committee’s notes to 2023 amendment. Put differently, the sufficiency of the basis for an expert’s opinion and the methodology used for reaching the opinion must satisfy the well-known preponderance of the evidence standard. According to the Committee, “many courts have” incorrectly “held that the critical questions of the sufficiency of an expert’s basis, and the application of the expert’s methodology, are questions of weight and not admissibility.” Id.

Second, the Committee explained that the change to subsection (d) was “to emphasize that each expert opinion must stay within the bounds of what can be concluded from a reliable application of the expert’s basis and methodology.” Id. The Committee stressed that “[j]udicial gatekeeping is essential” in this respect because juries might “lack the specialized knowledge to determine whether the conclusions of an expert go beyond what the expert’s basis and methodology may reliably support.” Id.

Although these amendments simply clarified—not altered—the existing Daubert standard, lawyers should be aware of the amendments and prepare their experts accordingly. As always, a well-prepared expert ensures that juries get to consider helpful testimony about harmful defects. 

Chinese Power Tool Manufacturer Faces Class Action Over Fire Hazards 

Chervon North America, Inc., a Chinese power tool manufacturer, is facing a federal product liability class action. Anthony Desparrois, a Chicago resident, filed the lawsuit on Jan. 3, 2025, alleging that the company’s “SKIL PWRCore” 40-volt lithium-ion batteries are a fire hazard. Plaintiff Desparrois states that the batteries overheated and melted, posing a danger to consumers.

Chervon North America, a branch of Chervon Holdings based in Nanjing, China, produces various electric tools and batteries under brands like EGO, SKIL, and FLEX. The lawsuit cites a recall of these batteries issued on December 19, affecting both the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported 100 thermal incidents, including overheating, melting, and fires, with minor burns and property damage.

The plaintiff seeks certification for a nationwide class and Illinois subclass of consumers who bought the recalled batteries, claiming damages exceeding $5 million. He brings multiple counts against Chervon, including unjust enrichment, breach of warranties, fraud, negligence, and product liability. He also seeks injunctive relief to prevent further sales of the batteries until they are proven safe.

Chervon North America reported net profits of $61.6 million and revenue of $815.7 million for the first half of 2024. 

The plaintiff is represented by Roy T. Wiley, IV of Wiley Roy. The case is 1:2025cv00052 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  

Source: Courthouse News Service

$16.9 Million Mattel Sleeper Settlement

Mattel Inc. has agreed to a $16.9 million settlement to resolve a nearly five-year-old stockholder derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The suit alleged that the company’s directors and top officers failed to oversee safety concerns related to the “Rock ‘n’ Play Sleeper,” which was linked to hundreds of infant deaths and injuries.

The settlement, pending court approval, includes corporate governance reforms. These reforms require the Governance and Social Responsibility Committee to oversee product safety and compliance, and formalize the role of the head of product quality and safety.

The suit named Mattel’s three top officers and nine current or former board members. A proposed $3.55 million fee for class attorneys is included in the settlement.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly warned about the risks of inclined sleepers, and some countries banned their sale as sleepers. Despite these warnings, Mattel continued to market the Rock ‘n’ Play Sleeper as safe.

A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for April 1. Mattel and Fisher-Price had previously agreed to a $19 million settlement in July 2024 for a related consumer class action in New York.

Stockholder Vivek Kumar is represented by Blake A. Bennett of Cooch and Taylor PA and Timothy J. Peter of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

Stockholder Richard Armon is represented by Seth D. Rigrodsky and Gina M. Serra of Rigrodsky Law PA and Joshua H. Grabar of Grabar Law Office.

The case is Vivek Kumar et al., v. R. Todd Bradley et al., case number 2020-0552, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Source: Law360

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

Revival Of Antitrust Actions Under The Robinson-Patman Act

The Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1936 that prohibits companies from engaging in price discrimination, meaning they cannot charge different prices to competing buyers for the same product, essentially aiming to protect smaller businesses from being undercut by larger competitors who can negotiate lower prices. It is designed to ensure fair competition in the market by preventing unfair price advantages for certain buyers based on their size or purchasing power. 

In December 2024, the FTC brought an enforcement action against Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC (Southern) for violating the Robinson-Patman Act. The allegations revolve around Southern charging small businesses higher prices for wine and spirits than it charges large retail chains, per the filed complaint. The FTC found that “discriminatory pricing is deeply engrained in Southern’s business strategy,” and that Southern’s actions have stymied small businesses’ ability to compete.  

The complaint represents a notable revival of the RPA, which prohibits sellers from engaging in price discrimination. The RPA has fallen out of vogue in recent years, so this filing has caught the attention of antitrust practitioners.  Examples of conduct that may violate the RPA include price differences in the sale of identical goods and promotions that are not equally available to all customers. FTC Chair Lina Khan explained that the Commission brought this action to “protect fair competition, lower prices, and restore the rule of law.” 

Beasley Allen lawyers have been developing an antitrust law practice for years and they have been fortunate to have enjoyed success in this area of the law with cases such as the recent Blue Cross Blue Shield $2.8 billion antitrust settlement and the pharmaceutical Average Wholesale Price litigation for some eight State Attorneys General resulting in a combined $1.5 billion result in settlement and verdicts. Beasley Allen lawyers are watching this RPA litigation with great interest and this developing arena of antitrust law. 

American Airlines Settles Race Discrimination Lawsuit

American Airlines has settled a race discrimination lawsuit filed by three Black men who were temporarily removed from a flight at the request of white flight attendants. The settlement terms were not disclosed, but the airline committed to preventing future discrimination. 

The plaintiffs claimed they and five other Black men were removed from a Phoenix to New York flight in January after complaints about a passenger’s body odor, though none of them had an odor. They described the incident as traumatic and degrading, accusing the airline of violating a Civil War-era anti-discrimination law. American Airlines, which fired the involved flight attendants, stated its commitment to providing a positive customer experience. 

It should be noted that the NAACP had previously advised Black travelers against flying with American Airlines due to racial incidents but lifted the advisory after the airline updated its policies and employee training.

Source: Reuters

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

Lawyers on our firm’s Employment Litigation Team handle employment-related litigation for the firm. They also handle the firm’s Qui Tam Litigation (Whistleblower cases). Many whistleblowers will also have a retaliation claim related to their False Claims Act (FCA) claim. Quite often, an employee as a whistleblower will be the “original source” of an FCA claim.

Our Employment Litigation Team has had some tremendous success in both employment cases and qui tam cases. Currently, the team is pursuing some high-profile cases in courts around the country.

Workplace Litigation

Litigating Workplace Injuries When a Client’s Employer is Uncooperative

Preston Moore, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, works in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. A substantial part of Preston’s practice involves partnering with workers’ compensation lawyers to help clients who were severely injured on the job. Where the workers’ compensation lawyer helps the client obtain important benefits through the employer’s insurance carrier, Beasley Allen lawyers can help the client evaluate potential third-party claims that may exist against the product manufacturer, servicer, installer, and like entities.

Unfortunately, the employer of a seriously injured employee can be hesitant to provide premises access to us, despite the employer having no tort exposure. In Georgia, an employer whose employee is injured on the job is entitled to tort immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act’s “Exclusive Remedy Provision” in nearly all cases. Still, fearful employers sometimes block our lawyers’ access to the premises as third-party lawyers, either due to rigid company policies or a misguided belief that providing that access may subject the company to tort liability.

When that happens, Georgia law allows for what Preston labels a “John Doe suit” that can serve as the basis for a valid subpoena. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-10(a) allows us to file suit against a fictitious product manufacturer and/or designer (i.e., “John Doe Machine Company”). Once that lawsuit is filed, our lawyers can then obtain a court subpoena for the inspection of the nonparty premises which is the employer premises. Also, the necessary document requests can be made and depositions can proceed. See O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c).

Whistleblower Litigation

FCA Litigation Results In Over $2.9 Billion In 2024

In the most recent fiscal year, litigation under the False Claims Act (FCA) resulted in over $2.9 billion in settlements and judgments, a 5% increase from 2023 and the highest in three years, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). However, this amount is still significantly lower than the peaks of $6.2 billion in 2014 and $5.7 billion in 2021.

Federal officials highlighted the 2024 recoveries as evidence of their commitment to combating fraud in healthcare and other sectors. Brian M. Boynton, head of the DOJ’s Civil Division, emphasized the department’s priority on fighting fraud and holding those who misuse taxpayer funds accountable.

The report also noted a record-breaking number of new FCA claims, with whistleblowers filing 979 qui tam lawsuits, a 37% increase from the previous year. Whistleblowers, or relators, received about $404 million in 2024 for their efforts.

The qui tam provisions of the FCA are currently under constitutional scrutiny. A Florida federal judge ruled that allowing whistleblowers to have civil enforcement authority violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the federal government has appealed this decision.

Benjamin C. Mizer, principal deputy associate attorney general, stated that the FCA and its whistleblower provisions are crucial tools for ensuring taxpayer funds are used appropriately. Approximately $2.4 billion of the 2024 recoveries came from qui tam lawsuits.

Healthcare claims made up about 57% of the total recoveries, amounting to roughly $1.7 billion. Significant settlements included Endo Health Solutions Inc. paying up to $465 million for opioid-related claims, Community Health Network paying $345 million for illegal referrals, and CVS Health subsidiary Oak Street paying $60 million for kickback allegations.

The DOJ also pursued fraud in military procurement and the energy sector, with notable settlements including $70 million from Sikorsky Support Services Inc. and Derco Aerospace Inc. for overcharging the U.S. Navy, and $34.6 million from Hilcorp San Juan LP for underpaying royalties on federal lands.

The report covers the federal fiscal year ending in September 2024. Despite the lower recovery amounts compared to peak years, the DOJ continues to emphasize the importance of FCA recoveries and the role of data analysis and sophisticated whistleblower counsel in identifying fraud.

Source: Law360

Booz Allen To Pay $15.9 Million To Settle DOD False Claims Act Allegations

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Company (Booz Allen Holding) has agreed to pay the U.S. government $15,875,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) including Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering Services LLC (Booz Allen Engineering), a wholly owned subsidiary of Booz Allen. 

The FCA lawsuit alleged that Booz Allen Engineering knowingly submitted fraudulent claims to the United States in connection with a General Services Administration (GSA) task order to supply computer military training simulators and systems to Department of Defense (DoD) agencies, including the Air Force. 

According to the FCA complaint, Booz Allen Engineering engaged in a decade-long bribery and fraud scheme set up by Booz Allen Engineering subcontractor QuantaDyn. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that executives at QuantaDyn paid bribes to a civilian Air Force employee for inside information and to influence government contract award decisions.  

In addition to the Air Force employee and the QuantaDyn executives, the scheme also involved two Booz Allen Engineering employees.  Together, the group operated a scheme between 2007 and 2018 that involved sharing contract and budget information, a competitor’s bid and proposal information, and source selection information.

The goal of the scheme was to funnel awards to Booz Allen Engineering, which would then award work to QuantaDyn involving a contract for training simulators for the Air Force. In addition to the $15.9 million FCA settlement, the individuals involved in the fraud-bribery scheme were also convicted criminally and received sentences ranging from home confinement to 15 years in prison.  Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, stated: 

Government contractors that improperly receive confidential government information during the procurement process corrupt the integrity of that process. This settlement demonstrates our continuing commitment to protecting the integrity of the government’s procurement process.

Beasley Allen has been successful in many False Claims Act cases. If you are aware of fraud, abuse or waste being committed against the federal government or a state government and are interested in pursuing a whistleblower lawsuit, contact a Beasley Allen lawyer on our Employment Litigation Team.  You can visit our website at www.beasleyallen.com to read more about the successful results our lawyers have achieved on behalf of whistleblowers as well as federal and state governments. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Washington Technology

$38.5 Million Settlement In Case Against Academy Mortgage 

A $38.5 million settlement has been approved in the case against Academy Mortgage, which was accused of submitting false claims. The whistleblower’s lawyers will receive $8.7 million in fees and expenses for work in the case and for securing the settlement. The fee amount is $5.1 million less than the $13.7 million initially requested by the lawyers.

U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen’s approval order detailed that Gwen Thrower’s lawyers from Thomas & Solomon LLP and Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP will receive approximately $8.6 million in fees and $89,000 in expenses. Plaintiff Thrower alleged that Academy Mortgage’s underwriting process improperly certified borrowers for Federal Housing Administration insurance, leading to government payouts on defaulted loans.

Plaintiff Thrower’s counsel, according to Judge Chen, had to act quickly to file claims and analyze complex regulations. Despite federal prosecutors declining to intervene and the DOJ’s attempt to dismiss the case, the Ninth Circuit allowed the case to proceed. In December 2022, a settlement was reached, with Academy agreeing to pay $38.5 million, including $11.5 million to Plaintiff Thrower. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, there was no finding of liability against Academy Mortgage in the court’s order.

Academy Mortgage contended that the requested attorney fees were excessive, but Judge Chen found the proposed cuts to be too drastic. Hover, the judge adjusted the rates to account for inflation and market increases.

Plaintiff Thrower is represented by Sanford Jay Rosen, Van Swearingen and Adrienne Pon Harrold of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Pete Marketos, Joshua Russ, Andrew Wirmani, Leslie Chaggaris, Tyler Bexley, Brett Rosenthal and Jamison Joiner of Reese Marketos LLP, Alex Reese of Farella Braun & Martel LLP, and J. Nelson Thomas of Thomas & Solomon LLP.

The case is U.S. ex rel. Gwen Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp., case number 3:16-cv-02120, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

11^th Circuit Urged To Uphold Constitutionality Of FCA Provisions

A case on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit is getting lots of attention. The federal government is requesting the court to uphold the constitutionality of the False Claims Act’s (FCA) whistleblower provisions, arguing that a Florida district court’s ruling against them is an “outlier” and contradicts U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle ruled on September 30 that the FCA’s qui tam provision is unconstitutional. However, the federal government pointed out that all other courts have upheld these provisions. The government asked the Eleventh Circuit to reverse this “outlier” decision. That should happen based on current law and all precedent. 

Relator Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the FCA in 2019, accusing several healthcare companies of misrepresenting medical conditions to Medicare. The government initially declined to intervene but later defended the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions when the defendants challenged them.

Judge Mizelle concluded that whistleblowers are officers of the U.S. and must be appointed according to the appointments clause. She did not address other constitutional arguments raised by the defendants. The judge also dismissed Zafirov’s suit since the government did not take over the action.

The federal government countered that the Supreme Court’s decision in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens clarifies that relators do not exercise executive power and are pursuing private interests. Therefore, they do not need to be appointed under the appointments clause. The government emphasized that qui tam actions cannot proceed without government oversight, further arguing that whistleblowers are not officers of the U.S. and do not set enforcement priorities.

The federal government is represented by Brian M. Boynton, Roger B. Handberg, Catherine M.A. Carroll, Michael S. Raab, Charles W. Scarborough and Daniel Wink of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division.

Zafirov is represented by Jennifer M. Verkamp, Jillian L. Estes, Anne Hayes Hartman, Jonathan M. Lischak and Chandra Napora of Morgan Verkamp LLC, Kenneth J. Nolan and Marcella Auerbach of Nolan Auerbach & White LLP and Havan M. Clark and Adam Rabin of Rabin Kammerer Johnson PA.

The case is Clarissa Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC et al., case numbers 24-13581 and 24-13583, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team 

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers across the country in claims against multiple bad corporate actors. The widespread Whistleblower litigation continues to increase 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, or you need help with a case, a Beasley Allen lawyer will be glad to make a free and confidential evaluation of your claim.

Lawyers on our Whistleblower Litigation Team are listed below. You can contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Members of the team include: Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Lauren Miles, Leon Hampton, Jessi Haynes and Tyner Helms.

SECURITIES AND SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

Three Areas Where SEC Enforcement May Now Change 

The leadership of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) changed hands when Donald Trump was inaugurated last month. Many lawyers believe that a Republican-led SEC is likely to bring with it a downturn in crypto- and climate-related cases as well as a potential end to recordkeeping sweeps.

President Trump named Paul Atkins, a former SEC commissioner, to replace outgoing Chair Gary Gensler, who led a Democratic majority during his nearly four-year tenure.

Securities lawyers are expecting some major breaks under the Republican-led commission that will take over this year. At press time, it was unclear as to just how drastic those changes will be.

Any change that does come is likely to come slowly, according to Jennifer Lee, a Jenner & Block LLP partner and former SEC enforcement lawyer. She says that’s because Atkins needs to lead the agency before deciding on a path forward.

The process of setting an agenda for the next iteration of the SEC could take six months or longer, Lee said, adding that the most immediate impact of the transition could be a work slowdown as staff wait to find out exactly what the new chair wants. Jennifer Lee observed further: 

I think the incoming chair is going to want to take an inventory of just what are the investigations and litigations that are out there. And it takes time to implement that vision, for people to get their bearings, for new leadership to come in and understand what the current landscape is.

We will set out below some predictions for what that agenda might look like once it materializes.

A Post-ESG Era

One area where there could be a day-one pause in investigations is the environmental, social and governance space. The SEC launched an ESG Task Force in 2021 in an effort to identify disclosure and compliance issues in investment funds’ marketing strategies. Such funds often focus on investing in companies that are environmentally sustainable or promise to promote certain social or governance goals like workplace well-being or board diversity. 

When the SEC shuttered the task force in October, an SEC spokesperson told Bloomberg:

[t]he strategy has been effective, and the expertise developed by the [ESG] task force is now present throughout the SEC’s enforcement division.  

Before it was disbanded in 2024, the SEC’s ESG Task Force settled enforcement actions against a Goldman Sachs subsidiary for allegedly failing to properly monitor investments in three ESG portfolios and against a Bank of New York Mellon unit accused of disclosure failures tied to its ESG funds.  

Chair Atkins has spoken out against a Gensler-backed rule that will require publicly traded companies to disclose the impact of climate change on their businesses. Jenifer Lee says he is unlikely to support an “aggressive” ESG agenda. But that doesn’t mean ESG cases are entirely off the table if, for example, a so-called clean energy company turns out not to be so clean after all there should be consequences. Jennifer Lee observed:

I think the SEC is going to be focused on bread-and-butter disclosure cases when it comes to ESG, which means the ESG disclosure itself has to be obviously fraudulent and material to investors. That could include cases where providing clean energy “is your selling point to consumers and to investors.  

In an interview an SEC spokesperson told the Responsible Investor basicallythe same thing, stating: 

If we see another uptick in misleading or false claims around ESG by issuers and ESG investing by advisers … we will use the same tools we’ve used in the past to hold those violators accountable.

Backing Off Crypto

Crypto markets are likely to see a massive shift in attitude from the SEC.  Atkins’ nomination was celebrated by some of the biggest names in crypto as he has worked alongside the industry during his time in the private sector, including as a member of the board of advisors for a crypto lobbying firm, the Digital Chamber.

The former chair Gensler was not viewed favorably by the industry. He had said this industry is “rife with fraud and abuse and hucksters.” Gensler called out the crypto industry on multiple occasions for allegedly failing to comply with the securities laws, including by not registering with the SEC.

The Gensler-led SEC filed high-profile litigation against some of the largest players in the digital asset space, including crypto trading platforms Binance, Coinbase and FTX, as well as the agency’s first-ever enforcement action against a company selling nonfungible tokens (NFTs). The company, Impact Theory LLC, agreed to pay $6 million to settle claims that its NFT sales violated securities laws. 

Matt Solomon of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, observed relating to the changes at the commission:

The commission may well continue to devote some resources to crypto cases should Atkins become its leader but I would expect it would be in situations where there is fraud and people have been harmed or deceived.

The commission will likely move away from cases alleging that a platform or coin issuer failed to register with the agency, which could free up resources that the enforcement division can use toward “bread-and-butter” cases in areas like accounting fraud, disclosure violations and insider trading. Solomon said: 

These are evergreen SEC priorities, and I don’t expect the SEC under Chair Atkins to abandon these. In fact, given the resources that will likely free up from fewer crypto and cyber investigations, it is entirely possible that we’ll see greater activity in these evergreen spaces than we did over the last few years. 

Solomon believes that the cyber disclosure cases brought under the Gensler SEC will also likely disappear under the Trump administration.

As for currently active crypto cases, it remains an open question as to how those might get resolved once Republicans take hold of the commission, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP lawyer Christian Schultz added: 

I think people who are involved in them at the commission right now have some concern that those cases may get a hard look and ultimately be dismissed or settled in a way that is different than they’re being brought presently. That could happen, but an Atkins-led SEC could also write a regulatory framework that allows some of the sued firms to register more easily with the commission. That would lead to resolution of those cases.

A Retreat From Recordkeeping Sweeps

The SEC announced record-breaking penalty hauls twice under Gensler’s leadership, first in fiscal year 2022 when it said it brought in $6.4 billion through enforcement actions and again this year when it said it secured orders for $8.2 billion in financial remedies.

That penalty bonanza could come to an end under Atkins, according to lawyers at Arnold & Porter who had predicted a focus on smaller penalties under a Republican-led SEC.

One area where the SEC could see fewer penalties issued under Chair Atkins would be in the off-channel communications sweeps that have become a central component of Gensler’s SEC.

Ever since JPMorgan in 2021 agreed to not retain its employees’ texts and emails because those employees were discussing business on their private devices, the agency had netted over $1 billion from Wall Street firms settling similar allegations. SEC recordkeeping rules require broker-dealers to preserve electronic communications, including text messages, for three years.  

There may have been some off-channel investigations still underway when President Trump took office, but they may not be looked on too favorably by a Republican-led commission, according to Arnold & Porter’s Dan Hawke.

While Republican Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda, both of whom worked under Atkins when he was at the commission, initially supported the recordkeeping fines, they have more recently turned against them.

In a September statement opposing a nonmonetary penalty entered into with Qatalyst Partners LP, Commissioners Peirce and Uyeda outlined the reason for their growing opposition to the recordkeeping cases. They said, “It does not appear that firms have an achievable path to compliance.” 

Hawke made this prediction: “I don’t think that we’re going to see the kind of broad-based sweeps that resulted in the off-channel communications actions.” 

Arnold & Porter’s Schultz said:

While the off-channel communications sweep may come to an end under Atkins, it doesn’t mean that firms won’t get in trouble if it’s discovered that their failure to keep records has hindered an SEC investigation. I think off-channel communications is something that, in an examination, broker-dealers and registered investment advisers are still going to have to be mindful about.

Securities Litigation Team At Beasley Allen

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

You can contact a member of our Securities Litigation Team concerning any securities cases or issues relating to securities. 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. 

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. She will have a lawyer on the Litigation Team respond. 

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

Beasley Allen lawyers remain heavily involved in premises liability litigation around the country. There is a definite need for the law in this area of concern to be enforced and also protected from attack. Premises liability law covers many personal injury cases where the property owner’s wrongdoing was the cause of unsafe conditions.  We will give an update on Beasley Allen’s involvement in this litigation in the March issue. 

Class Action Litigation

Blue Cross Providers Antitrust Settlement Valued At $17.3 Billion

Our law firm is in the leadership of this important class action case against Blue Cross Blue Shield companies (The Blues) for the benefit of hospitals, physicians and other healthcare providers. The $2.8 billion class action settlement has been preliminarily approved by U.S. District Judge David Proctor. Notice to all class members has been sent informing class members of the benefits under the class settlement. 

While the cash portion of the settlement being paid out by The Blues is $2.8 billion, there is an equally important injunctive relief side of the class settlement that is not actual cash. But this aspect is extremely valuable to the healthcare industry when they are having their claims processed by the Blues. 

What is that class relief benefit worth?

Healthcare economist experts working on the Blue Cross Blue Shield antitrust case for the past decade have calculated a value for the settlement’s injunctive relief to be in excess of $17.3 billionover the first ten years of its implementation. 

In addition to a $2.8 billion monetary payment, the significant benefits of the settlement’s injunctive relief include specific commitments relating to transparency, efficiency, and Blue Plan accountability that will directly benefit providers and the patients they serve.

The valuation comes at a critical time, as some lawyers are encouraging hospitals, health systems, and individual providers to opt out of the settlement and reject its benefits. Providers that choose to opt out will not be entitled to any benefits from the settlement, including the significant changes Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans will implement for Class members. 

Deciding whether to remain in the settlement is especially important because a providers’ patients will also gain from these benefits unless the provider opts out. 

Brian Tabor, former President of the Indiana Hospital Association and Principal, Cotinga Consulting, LLC, had this to say:

Providers should be focused on the long-term value of the Settlement. Staying in the settlement means your organization will see a tremendous return when Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans make claims submission and payment quicker and more efficient for class members. The initial payout is great, but the injunctive relief is invaluable. It’s really important that providers understand what they are giving up if they don’t stay in the settlement.

It’s important to consider all aspects and changes resulting from the settlement. Notable changes include:

• Enhanced accountability and communication to ensure settlement class members receive up-to-date, accurate information about BlueCard claims. Using information about the administrative costs associated with the BlueCard program, expert economists have estimated that the value of this relief to providers alone for the first ten years will be more than $16.3 billion.

o This value comes from saving millions of hours of time that would be spent trying to resolve issues with BlueCard claims that will now be handled far more easily.

• A five-year commitment by the Blues to pay interest on fully insured BlueCard claims that are submitted correctly and not paid within a certain period, typically 30 days for electronic claims. Experts have estimated the value of this relief at more than $1 billion.

• Other aspects, including expanded opportunities for contiguous-area contracts and value-based care, provide significant value to providers but were not valued as part of this project.

Only providers who remain in the settlement class will be entitled to benefit from the transformational improvements. Co-Lead Counsels Edith Kallas and Joe Whatley made this statement:

The $17.3 billion value of the Blues’ agreement to transform the BlueCard program and pay interest on BlueCard claims, which is only a part of the injunctive relief in the settlement, demonstrates the true value to providers who remain in the settlement. When red tape is cut and providers are paid promptly, providers—and importantly, their patients—benefit from timely care. Any provider who is considering opting out of the settlement and giving up all the injunctive relief should consider not only the effect on its own finances, but also the effect on its patients of rejecting relief that transforms the way care is provided to Blue Cross members.

As previously reported, Beasley Allen’s Dee Miles is on the settlement committee. Dee, along with Edith Kallas and Joe Whatley, labored over these important issues in the mediation of the case over the last several years.  Beasley Allen absolutely endorses the comments of the healthcare economist, hospital executives and the co-leads (Kallas & Whatley) about the value of not only the cash component of the class case settlement but also the critically important injunctive relief afforded to the class members, now valued at over $17.3 billion. Dee Miles says: 

We are delighted with this entire settlement for our healthcare providers across the nation and we believe the cash relief is rich and the injunctive relief robust. We look forward to implementing this settlement as soon as it is given final approval by the Court.

Honda Idle Stop Class Action To Proceed

Beasley Allen lawyers represent plaintiffs and Class members in a certified class action lawsuit against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), filed in the Central District of California. The case involves Honda and Acura SUVs. 

Plaintiffs in the case allege that Honda’s model year 2015-2021 Pilot, Ridgeline, and Passport vehicles, and Acura TLX and MDX vehicles, equipped with a 3.5L NP0 engine, nine-speed automatic transmission, and an A52 starter motor assembly (the Class Vehicles), contain a defect in their Automatic Idle Stop (AIS) systems that places them at an unreasonable risk of shutting down and not restarting as designed. Honda referred to the defect internally as “no-restart”.

Plaintiffs contend that Honda still refuses to provide Class Members with an effective uniform repair – an upgraded starter motor that Honda created to correct the weakness. Instead, plaintiffs allege that Honda put class members through a software update campaign that masked the defect but did not cure it. After that, class members who seek repairs for no-restart post-software updates are not given the upgraded replacement starter unless their Class Vehicle demonstrates no-restart behavior for the Honda technicians. 

On October 3, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Mark C. Scarsi, finding the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 satisfied, granted class certification to current and former drivers of Class Vehicles in 13 states, including Alabama, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. On October 17, 2024, Honda subsequently entered a Notice of Appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Judge Sarsi’s order certifying the case, as is their right under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23.

On September 9, 2024, Honda filed its motion for summary judgment, claiming as a matter of law, the plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 30, 2024, and Honda filed its reply on October 18, 2024. Clay Barnett and Mitch Williams vigorously presented plaintiffs’ opposition to Honda’s motion before Judge Scarsi on November 18th at the First Street Courthouse in Los Angeles, California. 

On December 26, 2024, Judge Scarsi entered his ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, granting in part and denying in part, and reserving a partial ruling on individual claims. In finding that factual disputes exist regarding the sufficiency of Honda’s remedy, Judge Scarsi found the evidence illustrated the “hoops that customers had to jump through to secure the repair.” 

Moreover, the court found that “Honda’s own concessions,” as well as plaintiffs’ own experiences, were “sufficient to create a material dispute about whether AIS No-Restart posed an unreasonable safety risk.” 

In essence, the court rejected Honda’s position that there was no defect but ruled that a jury should have the opportunity to decide that issue and award damages if it decided to do so.

Pending a ruling on the appeal, the final pre-trial conference is scheduled for May 5, 2025, and the jury trial on May 19, 2025. The Honda Idle Stop case is In re Honda Idle Stop Litigation, and is filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

The plaintiffs are represented by Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Demet Basar, Rebecca Gilliland, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin, and Trent Mann of Beasley Allen, along with Andrew T. Trailor, P.A. and lawyers with Dicello Levitt, LLP.  We will keep our readers informed on this important litigation. 

Settlement In Tesla Case Valued At $734 Million

Delaware’s Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick has approved a $176.16 million attorney fee award for three law firms in a Tesla stockholder class action lawsuit. This settlement, involving excessive director compensation, is expected to return $734 million to Tesla through stock, options, and cash givebacks. The awarded fees to McCarter & English LLP, Fields Kupka & Shukurov LLP, and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, are among the largest in Court of Chancery history but fell short of the requested $230 million.

Chancellor McCormick also awarded a $50,000 incentive fee to the lead plaintiff, a Detroit public pension fund. The original request would have made this the second-largest settlement by the court, following Dell Inc.’s $1 billion settlement in 2022. The reduction was due to a dispute over the value of future options, with Tesla valuing them at zero. The class attorneys had valued them at $180 million.

Despite the reduction, Chancellor McCormick acknowledged the attorneys’ efforts, noting they worked on a fully contingent basis for years. The settlement applies to current and former board members, including Elon Musk’s brother Kimbal Musk and media mogul James Murdoch. Tesla argued unsuccessfully that the suing pension fund benefited from the company’s success, with revenues increasing significantly over the years.

The plaintiff is represented by Sarah Delia of McCarter & English LLP, William Fields, Christopher Kupka and Samir Shukurov of Fields Kupka & Shukurov LLP and Joseph Fonti, Nancy Kulesa, George Bauer and Thayne Stoddard of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP.

The case is Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Elon Musk et al., case number 2020-0477, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Source: Law360

Supreme Court Declines Binance Petition 

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a petition from Binance Holdings Ltd. and its former CEO, Changpeng Zhao, regarding whether transactions on its platform fall under U.S. securities laws. This decision upholds a Second Circuit ruling that allows U.S. investors to pursue a securities class action against Binance, as their transactions were executed in the U.S. and matched on stateside servers.

Binance argued that the Second Circuit misapplied the precedent set by Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., which limits the reach of U.S. securities laws to domestic transactions. However, the Second Circuit found sufficient ties to the U.S. based on where the plaintiffs accessed the exchange and the location of the servers.

The investors, led by Eric Lee, initially filed their suit in 2020, claiming Binance sold unregistered securities. Although a New York federal judge dismissed the case in 2022, the Second Circuit revived it in March 2024. The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case means the class action can proceed.

Binance and Zhao are also facing ongoing claims from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, despite a $4.3 billion settlement with federal prosecutors and other regulators in November 2023. This settlement included Zhao stepping down and serving a brief prison sentence for alleged money laundering, bank fraud, and sanctions violations.

The investors are represented by Jordan Goldstein and David Coon of Selendy Gay PLLC.

The case is Binance et al., Petitioners v. JD Anderson et al., case number 24-336, before the U.S. Supreme Court. The originating case is Lee et al. v. Binance et al., case number 22-972, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Source: Law360

$362.5 Million General Electric Investors’ Settlement Gets Approval

Investors in General Electric Co. have received preliminary approval for a $362.5 million settlement to resolve claims that the company hid cash flow issues, leading to a drop in share prices when the problems were revealed. U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman granted initial approval, indicating he would likely give final approval at an April hearing.

The settlement, described as an “outstanding result” for the class, comes seven years after the lawsuit was filed. The investors estimate the settlement recovers 8% to 36% of the potential damages, which range from $1 billion to $4.5 billion.

The lawsuit, initiated in 2017, accused GE of omitting crucial information about its financial practices, specifically the early logging of earnings from service agreements to hide the gap between recorded earnings and actual cash collected. The settlement follows Judge Furman’s 2021 dismissal of many claims and the investors’ class certification win in 2022.

The class is represented by Sharan Nirmul, Gregory M. Castaldo, Richard A. Russo Jr., Jamie M. McCall, Joshua A. Materese and Austin W. Manning of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, and Daniel L. Berger, Karin E. Fisch, Vincent J. Pontrello, Cecilia E. Stein and Alexandra E. Forgione of Grant & Eisenhofer PA.

The case is Sjunde AP-Fonden et al. v. General Electric Co. et al., case number 1:17-cv-08457, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Infant Formula Litigation Update

Beasley Allen lawyers are investigating and prosecuting infant formula cases for infants who have suffered from necrotizing enterocolitis as a result of being fed infant formula derived from cow’s milk.  Giving cow’s milk formula to premature, underweight newborns dramatically increases their risk of getting this often permanent, life-threatening intestinal condition.  

Virtually every pediatric health organization in the world encourages mothers to breastfeed their premature newborns if possible or use human donor milk when breastfeeding is not feasible. Non-cow’s milk formulas are the third best option.  

A recent National Institutes of Health-funded study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that extremely preterm infants fed donated human milk had half the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) compared to those fed cow’s milk-based formula (4.2% vs. 9%).  

Despite the well-established risk of necrotizing enterocolitis from bovine formulas to premature, underweight infants, the manufacturers have no warning on their products whatsoever.  In fact, they aggressively market these products to unsuspecting parents, clearly putting profits over child safety.

The litigation focuses primarily on two infant formula manufacturers: Mead Johnson (maker of Enfamil products) and Abbott Laboratories (maker of Similac products).  The federal lawsuits are centralized in an MDL established in the Northern District of Illinois, the Honorable Rebecca Pallmeyer presiding.  In those cases, discovery is ongoing, and the first bellwether trial is presently scheduled to start on May 5, 2025. 

Our state court cases are pending in Madison County, IL.  However, those cases remain temporarily stalled as we await a ruling from the 5^th District Court of Appeals on the defendants’ jurisdiction challenges.   While we wait, we continue to work with our experts and prepare for trial.  We expect a ruling from the appellate court soon.

Hair Relaxer Litigation Update

The Hair Relaxer Litigation continues to progress throughout the country with the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court still pushing the timeline for the overall litigation.  The defendants in these cases filed an omnibus motion to dismiss that included the cases consolidated in this court.  Case management trial setting orders were entered after hearings in late 2024.  The court will hear personal jurisdiction motions this month on February 11. Oral arguments on the defendants’ omnibus motion to dismiss are set for February 26. 

The first four trial cohorts, consisting of twenty cases, are broken down into sets of five and have been submitted to the court.  These will be finalized by March 13, 2025.  The Judge set trials for these cohorts to begin next year, with Cohort 1 on November 3, 2025, Cohort 2 set for January 20, 2026, Cohort 3 set for March 23, 2026, and Cohort 4 set for May 18, 2026.  These will likely be the first trials to take place in the hair relaxer litigation. 

There were several hearings in January in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) as well, including a case management conference and a discovery conference.  Discovery is expected to end in the MDL at the end of February. Plaintiffs counsel anticipates a significant number of documents to be produced over the next 2 months.  Expert and plaintiff depositions will then begin taking place over summer 2025 and into the early fall with all depositions currently slated to be complete by September 2025. 

Ozempic MDL Expected To Reach 10,000 Cases

At a status conference in December, lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Ozempic/GLP-1 MDL represented that they expect thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of cases to be added to the MDL.  The estimate was based on a poll conducted amongst various lawyers representing plaintiffs in potential cases.  

Later in January, the MDL Judge set an evidentiary hearing that will evaluate the expert testimony of both sides’ experts.  This hearing will be a critical step in determining whether certain experts will be allowed to opine on the case and the injuries alleged.  

The Ozempic/GLP-1 MDL is currently pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in front of Judge Karen Marston.  The MDL was formed in February 2024 due to an increase in filings alleging various gastrointestinal issues from GLP-1 medications, including Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, and Mounjaro.  

Although originally approved to treat Type 2 diabetes, GLP-1 medications have been a hot topic in the media for being prescribed off-label for weight loss.  A few GLP-1 medications such as Wegovy and Zepbound were later approved for weight loss.  

Sadly, many individuals prescribed these medications are suffering from severe and often permanent gastrointestinal issues, nutritional deficiencies, blindness, and even death.  

Beasley Allen’s Ryan Duplechin, a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, serves as a leader in this litigation.  Ryan, along with Beasley Allen lawyers Mary Cam Raybon and Leighton Johnson continue to investigate cases involving GLP-1 usage that resulted in severe gastrointestinal issues such as gastroparesis, ileus, bowel obstruction or blockage, and blindness.  

Kratom Litigation Update

Deserving of its nickname “gas station heroin,” overdose fatalities linked to kratom have significantly increased nationwide over the last few years.  Kratom is a plant-derived substance that is sold in liquid, capsule and powder forms in gas stations, smoke shops and online.  The active ingredients act on mu-opioid receptors in a similar way to opioid drugs.  Individuals use kratom to wean off opioids and other drugs for self-medication of pain, fatigue, depression, and other mental health problems.  However, kratom’s interaction with other drugs is relatively unknown, and the majority of kratom deaths involve the presence of other drugs.  Other adverse effects of kratom include seizures, confusion, liver toxicity, respiratory distress and addiction.  

In 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was poised to classify kratom as a Schedule I drug, but reversed course after lobbying efforts. It is currently classified as a “Drug and Chemical of Concern.”  As a result of mounting harms due to kratom in the last year, class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and the Southern District of New York, in addition to dozens of individual cases filed in state courts across the United States.  

Hearing Set For Proposed Depo-Provera MDL

Depo-Provera is an injectable birth control medication linked to an increased risk of meningiomas, or benign tumors. Although benign, meningiomas grow in the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord which can create a myriad of neurological issues, such as seizures, strokes, and migraines. 

Litigation surrounding Pfizer’s Depo-Provera injection has picked up since the beginning of 2025, making the litigation an excellent candidate for consolidation into a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). Toward the end of November, plaintiffs filed a motion for the formation of an MDL, which was set to be heard by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on January 30, 2025, in Miami, Florida. 

Both plaintiffs and defendants agree that an MDL is necessary to handle the litigation, making the appropriate forum the main point of contention. Plaintiffs advocate for consolidation in the Northern District of California, while defendants are pushing for the Southern District of New York. 

Plaintiffs hope to leverage California’s adoption of innovator liability, which will allow Pfizer to be held accountable not only for harms caused by the inadequacy of Depo-Provera’s labeling, but also for harms caused by the inadequacy of the labels for generic versions of the drug (medroxyprogesterone acetate). It’s noteworthy that most cases are currently filed in California federal courts.  

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

$7.4 Billion Settlement Reached with Sackler Family, Purdue Pharma

A bipartisan coalition of states has announced a $7.4 Billion settlement with the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma Inc. This is marking the largest settlement to date with the family accused of significantly contributing to the opioid epidemic. This settlement also ends the Sackler’s control of Purdue and their ability to sell opioids in the U.S.

The states involved have been mediating since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a prior $6 billion settlement. The new agreement requires the Sacklers to pay $6.5 billion and Purdue nearly $900 million, with $1.5 billion to be paid immediately.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong emphasized the persistence of the states in holding the Sacklers accountable, while New York Attorney General Letitia James highlighted the significant financial contributions to combat the opioid crisis. Purdue Pharma expressed satisfaction with the agreement, which aims to compensate victims and provide resources to address the crisis.

The Supreme Court had previously invalidated a settlement that included liability waivers for some Sackler family members, prompting the new negotiations.

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.

Source: Law360

Nine PFAS Substances Added To EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory List

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has added nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). This means facilities that manufacture these chemicals above certain quantities must report their environmental releases.

These nine PFAS were added under the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which mandates their inclusion in the TRI once the EPA finalizes a toxicity value for them. The TRI data, which includes the amount of each listed chemical released or managed as waste, is reported annually by relevant facilities.

Michal Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, emphasized the importance of public awareness regarding the release of toxic chemicals. The addition of these PFAS to the TRI aims to provide communities with crucial information about local chemical releases.

The newly added PFAS include ammonium perfluorodecanoate, sodium perfluorodecanoate, perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid, and several 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate compounds. With these additions, the total number of PFAS in the TRI is now 205.

Source: Law360

The $6 Billion 3M Settlement

A Florida federal court has allowed the release of specific information related to 3M’s $6 billion settlement over allegedly faulty combat earplugs to a London arbitral tribunal. This tribunal is investigating whether insurer AIG Europe Ltd. is refusing to pay its share of the settlement.

U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers issued an order permitting the settlement administrator to share details such as claimant payment amounts and settlement allocation methods with 3M and its subsidiary, Aearo Technologies, for the London proceeding against AIG Europe. The order also allows the release of protected material to various parties, provided they maintain confidentiality.

In August 2023, 3M agreed to a $6 billion settlement to resolve over 260,000 claims that its combat earplugs failed to protect military personnel’s hearing. This is the largest multidistrict litigation in U.S. history. 3M and Aearo claimed that AIG and other insurers failed to cover the liabilities and litigation costs.

Judge Rodgers’ order includes the release of a summary chart of gross compensation for each claimant and other related data. However, the judge denied some of 3M’s requests for additional information, stating that it was not relevant or necessary for the arbitration. If AIG believes the information is relevant, it must present its case in court.

The plaintiffs are represented by lead counsel Bryan F. Aylstock of Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz PLLC, and co-lead counsel Shelley Hutson of Clark Love & Hutson GP and Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP.

The case is In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products, case number 3:19-md-02885, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Source: Law360

The Future Of The Paraquat Litigation

Following his inauguration, President Trump began to implement his agenda. While there will be a tremendous amount of change, it’s unclear at this juncture how things will change relating to toxic torts laws and litigation.  As the new administration takes shape, questions arise about its approach to chemical policies both domestically and internationally. A significant area of concern is the growing public advocacy for stronger regulations on toxic substances. Paraquat, a highly toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease, is one such substance that will be watched closely. 

Recent calls for action have seen over 53,000 individuals petitioning to ban the widespread use of Paraquat. This highlights the urgent need for regulatory reform. The mounting pressure for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose a nationwide ban underscores the risks associated with long-ignored toxic chemicals. Those in power in Washington need a stark reminder of the potential harm to agricultural workers, ecosystems, and public health.

The message is clear. The EPA must take decisive action to protect vulnerable populations from the dangers of toxic exposure. As the Trump administration moves forward with its agenda, the spotlight remains on the need for comprehensive reforms that prioritize health and safety over unchecked chemical use.

Sources: Environmental Working Group, The Washington Post 

CONSUMER CORNER

PBMs And Their Role In Unrestricted Opioids

The New York Times has recently shed light on the role that Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) have played in the opioid epidemic plaguing our country.  Part of their investigation highlighted evidence that prescription drug manufacturers have been paying PBMs not to restrict prescription painkillers in order to allow for the free flow of opioids.  

The New York Times’ investigation included the review of documents spanning more than two decades, starting in 1999 when OxyContin hit the market.  The Times dug into contracts, invoices, financial data, internal emails, and memos that were all obtained through existing litigation and investigations – including hundreds of previously confidential documents that were obtained by plaintiffs in litigation against pharmaceutical manufacturers, PBMs and other healthcare giants.  

The Times began its investigation to uncover the role PBMs have played in the opioid epidemic over the last twenty years.  The Times’ interest peaked as a result of PBM Express Scripts’ 2017 announcement that it was working to limit the widespread abuse of prescription painkillers that were contributing to our country’s overdose crisis.   Express Scripts, along with other PBMs, said it was taking steps to make it harder to obtain potentially dangerous amounts of opioids – but the New York Times wanted to know why PBMs had not done this sooner, before the opioid addiction problems were allowed to get as bad as they are today.  

The Times’ deep dive into healthcare documents revealed the most predictable answer: prescription drug manufacturers have been paying PBMs to refrain from addressing a crisis that has been building for decades.  

The New York Times investigation into the volumes of documents has revealed disturbing truths about the relationship between drug makers and PBMs, and their concerted efforts to keep limits off opioid prescriptions.  

The documents reviewed by The Times exposed the fact that as tens of thousands of Americans overdosed and lost their lives from opioids, PBMs were paid billions of dollars by drug manufacturers to refrain from restricting the flow of painkillers.  

As we have previously reported, PBMs are corporate middlemen in the pharmacy supply chain that play a big role with respect to how much patients and health plans pay for prescription drugs. PBMs are hired by insurers and employers to control their drug costs by negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, but the raw truth is that some of the PBMs’ conduct can have a detrimental impact on patients by driving up drug costs. 

The vertical integration and concentration of PBMs has given considerable power and control to the country’s six largest PBMs, allowing them to control almost 95% of all prescription drugs filled in the United States with very little transparency. 

Just the top 3 PBMs, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and Optum Rx, account for almost 80% of the market, which is 200 million people.  The largest PBMs also integrate with the largest insurers and retail pharmacies, causing even more control issues within our healthcare system.  

The PBMs’ real power is with formularies and rebates.  PBMs control the lists, or formularies, of prescription drugs that plans will pay for; therefore, drug makers fight for preferred placement on those formularies by offering rebates to PBMs. Usually, restrictions can be placed on formularies to control costs, but they can also be placed on formularies to control access, such as minimizing the number of painkiller pills that can be available to patients.  However, The Times review of industry insider documents revealed that instead of implementing such restrictions that would help minimize the risk of overdose and addiction, PBMs bargained away these protections in exchange for rebates from the drug makers. 

One example of this highlighted by The New York Times was Purdue and their painkiller OxyContin.  As reported by The Times, an internal presentation by Purdue stated its strategy very clearly, “Offer rebates to remove payer restriction.”  According to The Times, from 2003 to 2012, the amount Purdue was paying PBMs in rebates roughly doubled to about $400 million a year, almost all of it for OxyContin.  Why? Because prescribers and patients faced few or no restrictions on access to the addictive drug and more prescriptions were written.  

The New York Times also highlighted evidence that PBMs would work with drug makers to convince insurers not to restrict access to opioids. The Times reported on a 2003 email from a Purdue executive regarding convincing insurers to lift restrictions on OxyContin: “Our work behind the scenes is paying off!” Purdue was not the only drug maker with emails like this. 

The Times reported that opioid manufacturer, Mallinckrodt, worked with PBMs to prevent major insurance carriers from implementing restrictions.  The 2015 Mallinckrodt executive email reported by The Times stated, “This is a best practice of how to reverse a negative decision.”

Rebates formed the cornerstone of these industry relationships. According to the investigation, in 2001, Purdue paid rebates of more than $31 million to PBM Merck-Medco and $25 million to PBM Express Scripts. By 2003, Purdue’s total rebates to PBMs were almost as high as $200 million. 

The internal emails from drug makers are astounding.  One Purdue executive named various insurance carriers who ended restrictions on OxyContin, stating “proof of our success in working behind the scenes.” In another email exchange, the same executive prides Purdue on eliminating many attempts to restrict access to the painkiller – and credits the power of rebates.  In the wake of one insurance carrier limiting the number of OxyContin pills that can be prescribed, it changed its decision and established a limit more than double what it had previously planned, all based upon a PBM presentation detailing the effect the restrictions would have on the insurance carrier’s rebates.  

The New York Times noted that long before 2017 and 2018, when the PBMs started implementing safety programs, they had the power and ability to reduce the opioid crisis. 

Instead, they continued to use their power and leverage to squeeze larger rebates out of opioid manufacturers.  According to The Times, the amount of utilization of these addictive painkillers and the rebates collected prevented the largest PBMs and drug makers from doing the right thing. 

The opioid epidemic swept across the United States, leaving a trail of addiction, overdose, and death in its wake. Beasley Allen has been on the front lines of our country’s largest opioid litigation, having played a huge role in uncovering these truths.  Our firm remains committed to making the companies involved own up to their role in the crisis. For a review of our firm’s success for the clients we represent in opioid litigation, you can visit our website at BeasleyAllen.com.  

Source: The New York Times     

Studies Link Video Game Usage To Learning Deficits In Children 

A 2020 study conducted by Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health researched the association between video game addiction and cognitive or developmental deficits in children.  The study examined over 500 children between the ages of 9 and 13 years.  The study ultimately concluded that prominent video game usage among children within this age range was significantly associated with a myriad of cognitive or neurological issues, including memory issues, attention deficits, neurological processing issues, visual problems, and decreased writing skills. The study was conducted after a growing number of children’s video game usage increased significantly between 2011 and 2013.  

Video game usage among children continues to rise at an alarming rate.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) recently named video game addiction as a mental health disorder in need of additional studies.  This has led to growing concern over the potential adverse effects of video game usage on children and their developing brains.  These games are defective in that they create algorithms and challenges that are designed to get children addicted and fail to warn parents and children against their addictive qualities.

Source: Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

CFPB Sues Capital One And Accuses Them Of Misleading Consumers

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is suing Capital One, accusing the bank of misleading consumers about its high-interest savings accounts and causing over $2 billion in lost interest payments. The CFPB claims that Capital One promoted its “360 Savings” accounts as offering high interest rates but kept the rates low for years, even as national rates increased. Meanwhile, the bank introduced “360 Performance Savings” with much higher rates but did not inform 360 Savings account holders about this new option.

The CFPB alleges that Capital One intentionally kept customers in the dark and forbade employees from informing them about the better rates, thus avoiding paying billions in interest. The agency seeks civil penalties and financial relief for affected consumers.

Capital One denies the allegations and plans to defend itself in court, stating that all of its 360 banking products offer great rates and are easily accessible to all customers. The bank expressed disappointment with the CFPB’s timing of the lawsuit, just before a change in administration.

Currently, 360 Savings accounts have an interest rate of just under 0.50%, while 360 Performance Savings accounts offer about 3.74%. The CFPB notes that the rate difference has been even more significant in the past, with 360 Performance Savings rates being up to 14 times higher than 360 Savings rates.

Source: Associated Press

Amex Owes $230 Million For Misleading Sales Practices

American Express Co. will pay approximately $230 million to settle a long-standing investigation into misleading sales practices targeting small-business owners. The settlement involves agreements with federal prosecutors and the Federal Reserve.

The investigation revealed that Amex employees promoted products, including the Premium Wire service, as tax-saving and credit-card point-earning schemes. These practices were discontinued in 2021, and the involved employees were terminated.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton emphasized the importance of holding financial companies accountable for deceptive practices. Amex stated it cooperated with regulators, took voluntary actions, and enhanced its policies and training programs.

The $230 million penalty includes $138 million for the Eastern District of New York and the Justice Department, with additional payments to the Fed. These costs were previously reserved and do not affect Amex’s 2024 financial guidance.

Amex has faced multiple regulatory probes since 2020, including investigations by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Justice Department, and the New York Department of Financial Services. In 2023, Amex paid $15 million in civil penalties to the OCC, while the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau closed its inquiry without imposing a financial penalty.

Source: Claims Journal

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

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 has also allowed our lawyers to bring about national changes in product and workplace safety. 

Over the past 45 years, 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 proficiency within each 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, Video Game Addiction, Depo-Provera 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. The section currently handles cases involving 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, Beasley Allen’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 volume of cases in their section. They quickly recognize when additional resources are needed. Lawyers in each Section have been able to focus on cases within their specialty. This has allowed them to achieve favorable 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
• Civil & Human Rights
• 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 (BeasleyAllen.com/Recent-Cases/).

• Acetaminophen
• Auto Accidents
• Auto Products
• Aviation Accidents
• Camp Lejeune 
• Defective Tires
• Depo-Provera
• Hair Relaxers
• Kratom
• NEC Baby Formula
• Negligent Security 
• On-the-Job-Injuries
• Ozempic
• Paraquat
• Social Media 
• Talcum Powder
• Truck Accidents 
• Video Game Addiction

We will give a brief explanation below for each of the listed categories:

• 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. 
• Auto Products
  Our team will meticulously investigate your accident, examine vehicles for defects or product liability issues, identify responsible parties, file lawsuits, manage legal documents, and strive to maximize your compensation.
• 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. 
• Depo-Provera
  We are investigating cases for individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least 1 year and developed cerebral or spinal meningiomas.
• 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.
• Video Game Addiction 
  We are investigating cases of video game addiction caused by companies intentionally designing games to be highly addictive, especially for minors, using psychological tactics.

Resources to Help Your Practice

Beasley Allen is a civil litigation law firm solely handling cases for plaintiffs.  From the firm’s beginning in 1979, Beasley Allen has only represented victims of wrongdoing, and that will never change. 

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.

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.

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter 

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.

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

Practice Tips: MDL Discovery Basics

Beasley Allen lawyers Suzanne Clark and Ryan Duplechin are providing some trial tips this month. Discovery in Mass Torts Litigation is complicated and can be very difficult. These lawyers are writing on MDL Discovery Basics. The field of Mass Torts covers a broad range of claims. Discovery in this litigation is critically important. 

For those who are interested in learning more about discovery practice in Multidistrict Litigation, here are some quick tips and discovery basics in the MDL Context:

1. Obtaining Initial Discovery Orders Start with a comprehensive Case Management Order (CMO) to set clear expectations. This initial order should cover voluntary disclosures, production requests, third-party discovery, and fact sheets. Use examples from past MDLs to guide discussions, especially if the judge is new to MDLs. This establishes credibility and helps in setting a solid foundation for the discovery process.

2. Discovery Agreements Among the Parties Invest time in crafting detailed discovery agreements, including protective orders, ESI protocols, and deposition protocols. Avoid using outdated templates as starting points; instead, tailor agreements to the specific needs of the current MDL. For instance, ensure ESI protocols address modern data sources like cloud storage and messaging apps. Protective orders should clearly define confidential information and outline procedures for handling such data.

3. Communication and Workflow Within Committees Effective communication within the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC) is crucial. Establish a structured workflow with defined roles for each subcommittee, such as document review, depositions, and expert development. Regular communication, through weekly calls or collaboration platforms, ensures all members are aligned and working efficiently towards common goals.

4. Efficient Discovery Dispute Resolution Despite best efforts, disputes are inevitable. Use the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) as a tool for resolving conflicts. For example, FRCP 26(f) encourages early discussions on discovery plans, while FRCP 30(b)(6) requires conferral to minimize deposition disputes. Consider alternative dispute resolution methods, such as appointing special discovery masters, to handle complex issues efficiently.

With the above framework in mind, you can enter the MDL scene with a good idea of how Discovery will unfold and a plan for streamlining it, ensuring a more efficient and effective litigation journey.

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

Dee Miles Named To Lawdragon Hall of Fame

As part of its 10^th Anniversary Celebration in 2015, a Hall of Fame was added by Lawdragon. The Lawdragon Hall of Fame recognizes lawyers who “have dedicated their lives to the law.” To be inducted into the Hall of Fame, a lawyer must have a long and impactful career of service to the legal profession. Most of the lawyers selected have been practicing law for 40 years, and in many cases 50 or more. They are revered by clients, colleagues and opponents. Those selected are frequently leaders in relevant bar associations. Their contributions have shaped the law and or the legal profession in significant ways. It’s stated by Lawdragon: 

These remarkable lawyers have created bodies of law, entire legal practices, protections and rights that did not exist. They have won civil rights for millions of people and changed the face of the legal profession itself.

Beasley Allen’s Dee Miles has been added to the Hall of Fame membership. This prestigious recognition is a testament to Dee’s exceptional contributions to the legal profession, particularly in the field of plaintiff’s litigation. Dee’s dedication, experience, and unwavering commitment to justice have not only shaped significant legal practices, but also positively impacted countless lives. All of us at Beasley Allen celebrate this well-deserved honor and look forward to witnessing Dee’s continued success and influence in the legal community.

Dee Miles has been a pivotal figure at Beasley Allen since 1991, leading the charge in consumer fraud and commercial litigation nationwide. His exceptional leadership has resulted in numerous record-setting verdicts and settlements for clients across various legal domains. As the head of the firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, Dee is involved to some extent in almost every case in the Section. 

Dee is a Martindale Hubbell AV-rated attorney, recognized in the “Who’s Who” of lawyers by the Heritage Registry, and named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers. He is consistently selected for the “Best Lawyers in America” list and has been featured in Super Lawyers magazine. Dee was honored as Beasley Allen’s “Litigator of the Year” in 2008 and named a “Top Rated Lawyer in Commercial Litigation” in 2013. Dee has been acknowledged for securing some of Alabama’s largest jury awards and settlements. A prime example is the AWP/Medicaid Fraud litigation, which recovered over $1.3 billion for state Medicaid programs.

Dee’s notable achievements include helping secure a $2.8 billion settlement in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust case, a $287 million class settlement with Toyota, and a $28 million settlement with US Financial Life Insurance Company. He has led significant cases against major corporations like Banner Life Insurance, VW, Chrysler, and Toyota. Dee’s expertise extends to representing state Attorneys General in Medicaid fraud and insurance litigation, recovering nearly $1 billion for state Medicaid agencies. 

Beyond the courtroom, Dee is deeply involved in his community, actively participating in The Holy Spirit Catholic Church and various charitable organizations. He and his wife Sandra have been honored by the Roman Catholic Church and are dedicated to volunteering and fundraising for causes such as the Boy Scouts of America and local Catholic schools.

BEN BAKER SERVES AS PRESIDENT OF ALAJ

A Champion For Justice And Leader In The Legal Community

Ben Baker, a lawyer in the Personal Injury & Products Liability Section at Beasley Allen, has long been a formidable force in the legal community. Known for his skill in product liability and crashworthiness cases, Ben has dedicated his career to advocating for those who have been wronged. His commitment to justice and his impressive track record have earned him numerous accolades, including consistent listings in Super Lawyers since 2010 and Best Lawyers since 2013.

Ben’s journey in law began with a passion for helping others. Over the years, he has built a reputation for his meticulous approach to litigation and his unwavering dedication to his clients. His work has not only brought justice to many but has also set new standards in the field of product liability.

In addition to his professional achievements, Ben is deeply involved in the legal community. He is a Sustaining and Executive Committee member of the Alabama Association for Justice (ALAJ), a member of the American Association for Justice, and the Montgomery County Bar. 

Leadership at ALAJ

In 2024, Ben was elected President of the Alabama Association for Justice (ALAJ). As President, he aims to continue ALAJ’s mission of preserving and protecting the constitutional right to a trial by jury. Ben stated:

I am deeply honored to be chosen by my colleagues to lead this prestigious organization. As the only organization in the state dedicated to ensuring every citizen can seek justice when wronged, we are committed to preserving access to justice through the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial.

Under Ben’s leadership, ALAJ is poised to strengthen its efforts in providing excellent educational opportunities for its members and advocating for a robust civil justice system. His vision includes eliminating civil justice hurdles that protect wrong doers and supporting adequate court funding, ensuring that the legal system remains fair and accessible to all. With his extensive experience and dedication, Ben is well-equipped to lead ALAJ toward a future of continued advocacy and success. I am confident Ben will be an outstanding leader.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Graham Esdale

Graham Esdale is a lawyer in the firm’s Personal Injury and Products Liability Section. Graham, now a principal in the firm, joined Beasley Allen in 1996.  He is a distinguished lawyer who has dedicated his career to advocating for justice. With a primary focus on products liability and workplace injury litigation, Graham has earned a reputation as a formidable litigator committed to holding companies accountable and ensuring consumer safety. His commitment to his profession and community exemplifies Graham’s genuine passion for helping others. 

Educated at Auburn University and the University of Alabama School of Law, Graham began his career as a prosecutor, honing his trial skills with over 150 cases. He continues to be inspired by his impact on his client’s lives, relishing the moments when he can share successful outcomes with them. Outside of his legal work, Graham cherishes time with his family. Married to Leigh Ann Hibbett, he is a father of two—Whitney, a physician assistant, and Robert, who works in Montgomery—and a proud grandfather to his grandson, Gray. Graham enjoys quality time at their family lake house and annual golf trips with lifelong friends when he’s not working. 

Graham’s dedication to his clients, community, and family embodies the core values of Beasley Allen, establishing him as a respected figure in the legal profession and an inspirational example for other lawyers. He asserts: 

I have no doubt that Beasley Allen stands out as a firm due to the exceptional individuals it recruits. The firm has consistently chosen the right people who align with Jere Beasley’s high standards and expectations at its founding. You won’t find better people anywhere.

We are blessed to have Graham at Beasley Allen. He is an outstanding lawyer and a “good person.” Graham has been a definite asset to the firm. 

Shannon Hodum

Shannon Hodum has been a valued member of the Beasley Allen team for an impressive 19 years. She serves as a Paralegal for Mike Andrews, a lawyer in the firm’s Personal Injury and Products Liability Section. Shannon is vital behind the scenes in her role, ensuring that documents are meticulously prepared, and files are well organized, contributing significantly to the firm’s operations. 

Outside of work, Shannon is a proud mother of three sons: Sean, 22, who is serving in the United States Air Force in San Antonio; Cade, 20, who is pursuing a welding career in Indianapolis; and Anthony, 14, currently navigating the exciting world of 8th grade. Shannon shares that her family keeps her life vibrant and full of activity. 

In her spare time, Shannon embraces a variety of interests, including owning 12 chickens that she and her family enjoy taking care of. Shannon also shares a passion for community theatre with Anthony, where they both get to express their creativity. Additionally, she actively helps on her father’s farm in Deatsville, embracing the rewarding lifestyle of rural life. 

Shannon expresses that her love for her colleagues is what truly stands out during her time at Beasley Allen. “The people are what I love most about working here,” she notes, highlighting the supportive and collaborative atmosphere that the firm promotes.

Shannon is a hard-working, dedicated employee. She truly cares about the clients she serves. We are fortunate to have Shannon at Beasley Allen.

Ted Meadows 

Ted Meadows, a lawyer in the firm’s Mass Torts Section, is a principal at the firm.  Ted joined Beasley Allen in 2001. He plays a vital role in leading talc litigation efforts and has spearheaded notable legal victories that have driven industry changes nationally. His journey into law began with the nurturing encouragement of his father, who motivated him to pursue his growing interest while working at a local law firm in Prattville, Alabama. 

With over three decades of experience, Ted has dedicated himself to making a significant impact on the lives of countless individuals. Throughout his career, Ted has encountered many legal experiences, but he particularly values the moments spent connecting directly with clients. “I love guiding clients to a satisfactory resolution in their cases,” he says, fully aware of the difficulties in fostering personal relationships within mass tort practice.

 Ted earned his Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Cumberland School of Law in 1991. Before that, he completed his Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Corporate Finance at the University of Alabama in 1988. In addition to his professional achievements, Ted cherishes time spent with family. He and his wife, Carla, have two grown children, Nathan and Amanda, and a grandson, Jaxton. Ted and Carla are active members of the River Region United Way Tocqueville Society, which works to improve lives and create opportunities for everyone. They also support various charitable efforts through their church and other organizations locally and worldwide.

Ted highlights that what distinguishes Beasley Allen as a firm is its steadfast dedication to justice and equality. He states:

Having spent over 33 years in plaintiffs’ work, I’ve worked with numerous law firms nationwide, but none possess the same profound commitment to the sanctity of the Seventh Amendment and its crucial role in guaranteeing a fair trial for those in need. At Beasley Allen, we prioritize our clients and work tirelessly to achieve justice, whether in the courtroom or through fair and adequate settlements.

Ted is a definite asset to our firm. He too is an outstanding lawyer and a “good person.” We are blessed to have him with us. 

Lindsay Moore

Lindsay Moore has played a crucial role in the firm’s Mass Torts Section for over eight years. As the Administrative Assistant to Andy Birchfield, who heads the Section, and Leigh O’Dell, another lawyer in the Section, she handles a variety of essential responsibilities. Her tasks include organizing travel, coordinating meetings, and overseeing accounting matters concerning the talcum powder litigation against Johnson and Johnson. Lindsay works closely with experts, providing support during depositions, hearings, and trial preparations, among other duties and projects as needed.

 Lindsay is married to Sam Moore, and together they are raising their one-year-old daughter, Mollie Sloane, in Hope Hull, Alabama. Sam manages a national power equipment distribution area and works on his family’s cattle farm. The family enjoys making memories on the farm and relishes their time together. In her spare time, Lindsay says she loves relaxing on their porch, working on their 100-year-old home, and spending time with Sam on the tractor. She and Sam share a passion for snow skiing, adding winter adventures to their family traditions. 

Lindsay shares that what she loves most about Beasley Allen is the supportive culture fostered by Andy and Leigh. “They truly care about our team and pride themselves on teamwork,” she shares, emphasizing how their leadership feels like a blessing.

We are fortunate to have Lindsay, a hard-working, dedicated employee at Beasley Allen. She is an asset to our firm.

Leah Robbins

Leah Robbins has been a valued member of Beasley Allen’s Toxic Torts Section since she joined the firm in September 2013. As a paralegal, supporting lawyers Matt Griffith and Jeff Price, Leah is pivotal in assisting on PFAS water cases and settlement distributions related to Roundup. Her expertise and dedication significantly impact the firm’s efforts to secure justice for our clients. 

Leah is married to her husband, Joey, a CX Manager at Rheem Manufacturing. They have three wonderful children whom she and Joey adore and are incredibly proud of.  Austin, 24, is gearing up to assist a friend in launching a roofing company while completing his college education. Andie, 17, is finishing her senior year of high school and plans to study Radiology Technology at Southern Union. Nathan, 15, will soon celebrate his 16th birthday and is a proud member of the FFA. Leah says she enjoys various creative activities in her spare time, including painting furniture, writing in its many forms, thrift shopping, and diving into a good book. 

 Leah says what she loves most about working at Beasley Allen is the people—both her colleagues and the clients. She says, “The heartfelt appreciation expressed by clients for our team and what we do truly motivates me and brings immense satisfaction to the work.”

Leah is a definite asset to the firm. She is a hard worker and is dedicated to the firm and its clients. We are most fortunate to have her with us. 

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Lindsay Moore, Leah Robbins and Ted Meadows, who are being featured in this issue, share some of their favorite Bible verses with us.

Lindsay Moore

Lindsay shares two of her favorite verses with us. She says the first scripture is a comforting reminder of who she belongs to.  The Creator of the entire universe and heaven also elected to make Lindsay too. This verse is also a powerful reminder of WHO God is.  He is almighty, all-merciful, and all-loving.  Nothing in this world is more powerful than He.  With Him, Lindsay reminds us that we will overcome the world.  

My children, you are a part of God’s family. You have stood against these false preachers and had power over them. You had power over them because the One Who lives in you is stronger than the one who is in the world. 1 John 4:4

Lindsay says the second verse reminds her that serving God means letting Him take control. She says this is not a quality that comes naturally to her and comes only with prayer and spiritual obedience. 

Be quiet and know that I am God. I will be honored among the nations. I will be honored in the earth. Psalm 46:10

Ted Meadows

Ted offers one of his favorite verses for this issue.

He loves what is right and good and what is fair. The earth is full of the loving-kindness of the Lord. Psalm 33:5

Leah Robbins

Leah shares her favorite verses, saying that it reminds her that God is with her during all things, regardless of how hard times can be. He will always be there.

For I know the plans I have for you,’ says the Lord, ‘plans for well-being and not for trouble, to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

2024 Sees Over $40 Billion In Settlements In Class Action Litigation

In a landmark year for class-action litigation, settlements in 2024 have once again surpassed the $40 billion mark, reaching an impressive total of approximately $42 billion. This marks the third consecutive year that settlements have eclipsed this significant threshold, underscoring the enduring power of class actions as a tool for wealth redistribution.

PFAS: The “Forever Chemicals” Driving Record Settlements

A substantial portion of these settlements can be attributed to cases involving per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment and human body. In 2024, PFAS-related settlements included two of the highest payouts of the year, totaling over $11 billion. These record-setting settlements are expected to inspire a continued wave of PFAS class actions. That’s because many companies whose products or packaging contain these chemicals.

Reverse Discrimination Claims on the Rise

Another significant trend in 2024 was the emergence of reverse discrimination claims, particularly in response to companies’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Following a pivotal Supreme Court ruling regarding Harvard’s admission policies, there has been a surge in claims from employees and job applicants alleging that companies prioritize diversity over merit. This has led to a series of high-profile settlements and has put DEI programs under increased scrutiny.

The Future of Class-Action Litigation

Looking ahead, experts predict that the landscape of class-action litigation will continue to evolve. With a decreased role for government enforcement and an increasingly active Supreme Court, there will be new areas identified for litigation. As companies navigate these challenges, the importance of robust legal strategies and compliance measures cannot be overstated.

In conclusion, the year 2024 has been a testament to the dynamic nature of class-action litigation, with settlements surpassing $40 billion for the third year in a row. The significant impact of PFAS-related cases and the rise of reverse discrimination claims highlight the diverse and evolving challenges faced by companies today. As the legal landscape continues to shift, trial lawyers must stay informed and be prepared. That is crucial for navigating the complexities of class-action litigation.

Source: Claims Journal

MONTHLY REMINDERS

These reminders are for all of us at Beasley Allen. They are put in the Report for a purpose. The reminders are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. While they are for all at Beasley Allen, we send them to all who get the Report. All persons in a leadership role, including those persons in government at every level, 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

At Beasley Allen For 46 Years And Looking Forward

Beasley Allen came into being on Jan. 7, 1979. We have just celebrated our 46^th anniversary. At this juncture, I will look back to the beginning. We moved forward from that start up and now we are a firm made up of 100 trial lawyers who enforce and protect the Rule of Law. From its beginning, Beasley Allen has represented thousands of clients in our pursuit of justice. The firm’s work has also brought a huge number of important changes in corporate safety. That includes the protection of the general public, including individuals in the workplace. It also includes making the workplace and products safer.

Beasley Allen has come a long way since I started a law office as a sole practitioner 46 years ago. I was deeply in debt from an unsuccessful political race and unable to get a job with any established law firm even though I sent out dozens of resumes. Fortunately, I followed Judge Frank M. Johnson’s wise counsel and went out on my own as a trial lawyer. 

My strongest and best supporter has always been my beautiful wife, Sara. She went to work as an instructor at the Troy University Nursing School to help us out financially. Sara encouraged me to trust God in January of 1979 and I did. The rest is history. 

Beasley Allen is now made up of outstanding lawyers and great support staff personnel. We have helped thousands of clients receive justice. We have also supported and helped preserve the Rule of Law in our country. 

God has truly blessed us.  He has especially blessed me and kept me going when times were tough. I will now take a look at Beasley Allen in 2025 and make a few closing observations. 

Beasley Allen is known by all as a firm that does things the right way and for the right reason. We have earned that high honor and our clients have been the beneficiaries. We have also been a staunch defender of the Rule of Law and the court system, including the right to trial by jury. 

It’s well known and acknowledged that the public has benefited greatly because of all of the safety changes that our firm helped bring about. A classic example is Johnson & Johnson having to take their dangerous and deadly talc products off the market in 2022. The litigation led by our firm made that a reality. You could add thousands of other examples, including how rollbars are now required on all tractors, including farm tractors. That’s because of the Durwood Spivey case. Prior to that case, no tractor was required to have what is now known as ROPs protection. I could go on with other examples, but won’t. 

I am a lawyer and am proud and honored to be a “trial lawyer.” I am still at Beasley Allen and looking forward to hanging around at the firm for as long as God allows me to do so.