The Jere Beasley Report July 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Independence Day

  Independence Day marks the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. On that day, delegates from the 13 American colonies came together in Philadelphia to officially declare their separation from Great Britain. We celebrate the 4^th of July each year, but all too often, our individual and group celebrations aren’t really based on the historical significance of the holiday. Let’s first take a look at the origin of Independence Day.

At the time in 1776, the colonies were under British rule and had grown greatly upset by unfair taxes, lack of representation, and limited freedoms. After years of tension and protest, leaders, including men such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, helped draft a document that boldly proclaimed the colonies’ right to govern themselves.

The Declaration wasn’t just a letter to the British crown—it was a revolutionary statement about human rights and democracy. Its famous words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” continue to inspire people around the world. The American people need to take a history lesson. 

What It Means Today

Now let’s take a look at our current situation. More than 250 years later, Independence Day is a time to reflect on the values that define the United States: freedom, equality, and self-determination. It’s also an opportunity to recognize that the work of building a truly free and fair society is ongoing. It’s quite evident that we need a real wake-up call in America.

July 4th is a special date historically and in the present. Let’s reflect on what this day is all about:

• Honoring the past, especially those who fought for independence and those who have defended freedom since.

• Celebrating community in some manner. That includes picnics, concerts, or fireworks.

• Reflecting on progress, acknowledging both the achievements and the challenges in the story of America.

But we can never overestimate what Independence Day is really all about. Independence Day is more than a holiday or a celebration. It’s a reminder of an important promise. That promise – that all people deserve liberty and a voice in their future – must be recognized and made a firm part of our celebration. 

As we celebrate on the 4th, it’s worth taking a moment to consider not just what freedom meant in 1776, but what it means today—and how we can continue to protect and expand it for generations to come. We all have a profound obligation to do our part in making the American dream a reality. That means we must provide liberty and justice for all, and that really means “all.” 

Independence Day puts all of this in the proper perspective. We can do our part by honoring, obeying, respecting, and following the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

God Bless America! 

TALC LITIGATION

Talcum Powder Litigation Update

The past month has been marked with long-anticipated progress in the Talcum Powder Litigation. On June 17, Judge Michael Shipp, who oversees the Multi-District Litigation, held his first status conference since the dismissal of Johnson & Johnson’s third bankruptcy. Judge Shipp, along with Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah Singh and Special Master Judge Joel Schnider, heard oral argument on dozens of motions pending before the court. Judge Shipp is expected to set a trial date towards the end of 2025.

State courts handling talcum powder claims have also made progress in June. A trial date has been set in the California Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP) for November 3, 2025. In New Jersey state court, a trial date has been set for January 12, 2026. In Philadelphia state court, a trial date has been set for January 20, 2026. In a Florida state court, we expect to re-try a talcum powder case in or around August 2026. The previous trial of that case resulted in a hung jury. We look forward to a busy and productive trial calendar.

Another significant event last month was the FDA’s convening of an expert panel on talc. The live, two-hour discussion included talc experts from around the world concerned about talc’s presence in foods and medications consumed by the American public every day. Recognizing the inflammatory and carcinogenic nature of talc, FDA Commissioner Dr. Martin Makary focused the discussion on whether talc should be banned in the United States, following the lead of European countries. 

The positive inertia we have witnessed this past month is a tribute to more than eleven years of hard work and tenacity by Beasley Allen’s Talcum Powder Litigation Team. Beasley Allen will not give up until Johnson & Johnson is held accountable for the illnesses and deaths it has caused for thousands of people.

Resistance & Resilience: Talcum Powder Lawsuits Against J&J 

A recent interview sheds light on some of the various controversies that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has faced over the years. From product safety issues to legal battles, the powerful company has been at the center of numerous battles. 

For decades, Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products—like the company’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower—were household staples. But now the public knows, from numerous studies, that regular use of these products is related to serious health risks, including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. This serious health risk was known to J&J as far back as the 1970s.  Over the past decade, Beasley Allen lawyers have tirelessly tried cases against J&J across the country, seeking justice for affected women and their families. Thousands of women and their families have taken legal action. Sadly, thousands of women died. The story continues to unfold. 

Health Risks Behind the Powder

Scientific studies over the past 40 years have shown a statistically significant correlation between talcum powder use and ovarian cancer. Many of these studies suggest that talcum powder, when used in the genital area, can travel through the reproductive system and become embedded in ovarian tissue, causing inflammation and, in some cases, cancer over time. J&J has known of the serious and deadly health risk for decades. 

Tackling The “Texas Two-Step”

Victims and their lawyers have faced a long and winding legal road. Johnson & Johnson has attempted multiple times to shield itself from liability by using a controversial bankruptcy strategy known as the “Texas Two-Step.” This maneuver involved creating a shell company, LTL Management, to absorb talc-related liabilities and then filing for bankruptcy to halt ongoing litigation. 

However, courts have pushed back. In January 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that LTL was not in financial distress and dismissed the bankruptcy filing, reopening the door for tens of thousands of lawsuits to proceed. A third fraudulent bankruptcy attempt in Texas was also rejected by the bankruptcy judge. J&J didn’t appeal the decision.  

A New Twist: “Ballot Box Stuffing”

In a more recent development, lawyers representing victims have accused Johnson & Johnson of trying to manipulate the legal process by soliciting support for a “pre-packaged” bankruptcy plan. This plan offers minimal payments to claimants with unsupported claims in exchange for votes that would dilute the compensation owed to legitimate victims 

The situation has been characterized as a deceptive legal tactic designed to confuse and mislead people. Andy Birchfield, who heads our firm’s Mass Torts Section, leads the Talc Litigation team at Beasley Allen. He emphasized that our firm is committed to uncovering these unfair actions and will vigorously oppose them at every opportunity. 

What This Means for Consumers

If you or a loved one used talcum powder products and were later diagnosed with ovarian cancer or mesothelioma, you may be entitled to compensation. The legal landscape is shifting, and more trials will resume very soon. The first trial is set for November 3, 2025, in the California Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP). In New Jersey state court, a trial date has been set for January 12, 2026. In Philadelphia state court, a trial date has been set for January 20, 2026. In Florida state court, we expect to re-try a talcum powder case in or around August 2026.

Our relentless pursuit of justice has led to landmark verdicts, holding Johnson & Johnson accountable. With J&J’s third bankruptcy attempt now rejected and dismissed, we are committed to continuing our fight in the courtroom to ensure that every affected woman receives the justice and compensation she rightfully deserves. 

$8 Million Verdict Awarded In Multi-Exposure Talc Case Against J&J

A Massachusetts woman, Janice Paluzzi, was awarded $8 million by a jury last month in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. She said that J&J’s talcum powder caused her mesothelioma. The jury awarded $5 million for past pain and suffering and $3 million for future pain and suffering. 

Ms. Paluzzi used talcum powder daily since childhood. The jury found that the powder contained asbestos and that a design defect contributed to Ms. Paluzzi’s illness. J&J contended that her exposure came from her family’s work around asbestos. Specifically, the jury found J&J to have been negligent in the powder’s design.

However, the jury did not find J&J liable for selling talc powder without adequate warning. Ms. Paluzzi’s testimony, given via a 2022 deposition video, revealed her terminal diagnosis in 2021.

Expert witnesses testified that an exact dose was not required for a valid causation opinion, and documentation showed J&J had made misleading statements about talc since the late 1960s.

Paluzzi is represented by Benjamin Braly and Aaron Chapman of Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP.

The case is Paluzzi v. Johnson & Johnson, case number 2181CV02109, in the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

The ongoing battle with Johnson & Johnson is now moving forward. Beasley Allen has battled J&J on every front. J&J’s fraudulent bankruptcy attempts delayed justice for thousands of victims. Beasley Allen has been a target of J&J because of our opposition to their wrongdoing. We will continue to fight this battle in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. I am confident this litigation is now in a position where justice will ultimately be served for the thousands of J&J victims. Cases against J&J will be set for trial in several locations.  

  

Beasley Allen lawyers Leigh O’Dell and Ted Meadows head our Talc Ovarian Cancer Litigation Team. From the beginning, our litigation team has been directly involved in all phases of the talc litigation. Andy Birchfield, who heads up our Mass Torts Section, has been out front in all aspects of this litigation. Andy actually became J&J’s target. He has been attacked by this huge, powerful company constantly. J&J has tried very hard to intimidate Andy and the firm, but their efforts have not worked and will not work in the future.  

This has been a tough battle, but it is a critically important and necessary one, and our lawyers do not intend to back down. Beasley Allen will continue its battle with J&J, and now it will be back in the courts. 

The following Beasley Allen lawyers are members of the Talc Litigation Team:

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

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Fighting Twice: Protecting Camp Lejeune Clients From Government Offsets And Lien Grab

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA), as previously reported, was passed to finally provide justice for those poisoned by the water at Camp Lejeune. But as lawyers representing these claimants know all too well, securing a settlement is only the first wave of the battle. There’s a growing threat that could adversely affect these hard-won recoveries—government offsets and health insurance reimbursement claims.

Offsets: An Unfair Credit Against Justice

The CLJA allows the government to reduce a claimant’s award by the amount of VA, Medicare, or other certain federal benefits already paid for the same harm. This isn’t a choice—it’s automatic. The federal government credits itself for care it was already obligated to provide and applies it against a victim’s recovery for the harm the government caused.

These offsets don’t mean clients lose their benefits or have to repay money. But they can—and certainly will— in some cases wipe out entire settlements. A claimant who has received substantial VA care may walk away with nothing. That’s not real justice – it is bureaucratic “ledger justice.” 

To make matters worse, the government has taken the position that attorney fees should be calculated only on what’s left after offset, not on the total value recovered. And although VA and Medicare offsets are currently waived under the Elective Option, that policy could change at any time.

Health Insurance Liens: The Silent Threat

Beyond offsets, a separate and more aggressive threat looms: reimbursement claims from health insurers. These entities—state Medicaid programs, ERISA plans, private insurers, and even the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program—are actively pursuing repayment from CLJA settlements for care they provided. 

These are not offsets. They are third-party reimbursement demands. Some carry enough muscle that it’s not clear even the federal government can stand in their way. Insurers are asserting rights to a victim’s recovery and, in some cases, threatening lawyers directly. Failure to address them properly can delay payments, shrink net recoveries, or even potentially expose lawyers to personal liability.

What You Must Do to Protect Your Client

A victim didn’t choose to be poisoned. Victims and their families have been forced to fight for justice.  And they shouldn’t have to see their recovery slashed by bureaucratic accounting or insurer overreach. That’s why a victim’s lawyer, as their advocate, is so critical. Lawyers can protect these claimants by:

1. Identifying all possible offsets and liens early in the case.

1. Educating clients about the risks—don’t let surprises define their outcome.

1. Documenting potential reductions and planning for them strategically.

1. Pushing back and/or engaging with a lien administrator to fight reimbursement demands that overreach or lack legal basis.

1. Staying engaged in the broader effort for global resolution and fair treatment for all victims.

Offsets and reimbursement claims were never supposed to become obstacles to justice. But they are—unless plaintiffs’ lawyers fight back. Be vigilant. Be vocal. And above all – be an advocate. Beasley Allen lawyers are committed to this battle – join us!

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Team

If you need help with a claim, have questions about any aspect of the litigation, or want to co-counsel with us on one of your cases, reach out to a lawyer on our Camp Lejeune Litigation Team. Lawyers from our Toxic Torts Section make up this team. They are heavily involved in all aspects of this litigation. 

The lawyers on the Camp Lejeune Litigation Team include Saima Khan, Wesley Merillat, Ryan Kral, Tucker Osborne, Travis Chin, Miland Simpler, Khadiga Carr, Connor Chase, Jeff Price, Elizabeth Walden and Elliot Bienenfeld. 

Rhon Jones, who heads our Toxic Torts Section, is heavily involved in all aspects of the litigation, including 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

Judge Selects Bellwether Trial Pool In Social Media Addiction MDL 

The social media litigation is progressing very well in both the Social Media Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP 5255) based in Los Angeles Superior Court and the federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL No. 3047) based in Oakland, CA. 

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California has narrowed the pool for personal injury bellwether trials down to five cases. Two of the five personal injury bellwether cases are Beasley Allen clients. Judge Gonzalez Rogers also selected six bellwether school district cases for trial, two of which are Beasley Allen clients. 

At a recent hearing, Judge Gonzalez Rogers stated she wanted bellwether trials that represent different demographic areas across the country and communities with varied socioeconomic backgrounds. 

Meanwhile, in the JCCP, Judge Carolyn Kuhl has selected nine plaintiffs for the first round of trials, including three Beasley Allen clients. The first trial is scheduled to begin in November 2025. 

The litigation, consolidated in 2022, involves claims from hundreds of personal injury plaintiffs, schools, and attorneys general against social media giants like YouTube LLC and Meta Platforms Inc. These platforms are designed to be addictive, harming minors’ health and livelihoods.

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team, is Co-Lead counsel for the JCCP and serves as State/Federal Liaison in the federal MDL. Beasley Allen lawyers Jennifer Emmel, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Seth Harding, Slade Methvin, and Suzanne Clark are conducting extensive work for the JCCP and MDL, representing a broad range of personal injury, school district, and government entity plaintiffs in the litigation. 

 Gaming Companies Sponsor “Games For Change” Festival In New York 

Despite California’s Judicial Council approving the consolidation of multiple lawsuits alleging video game addiction into Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) No.  5363, the 2025 Games for Change Festival took place in New York City at the end of June. The theme of the festival was “Designing for Tomorrow.” This event’s purpose was to unite game developers, extended reality (XR) creators, educators, and other vendors to explore games and immersive media. The Festival sought to “break down barriers between generations, perspectives, and sectors” and tackle challenges in education, health, sustainability, and more. 

Topics for the Festival included gaming across generations, pathways to STEM futures, and addressing global challenges (such as hunger). Interestingly, topics also included “Leveraging game culture insights to engage with your audience,” and a summary found on the Festival’s website discusses how they have connected the gaming community to important causes like the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. 

Another topic of discussion included a talk by Benn Weibe titled “Infiltration: how do we nurture healthy environments for games when propaganda and mistrust sets in?” 

The summary from the Festival’s website states that gaming environments can become toxic and stressful when well-being is not prioritized. 

The lawsuits in JCCP No. 5363 allege that video game companies have deliberately designed their games to encourage compulsive use, which can contribute to addiction-like symptoms and cognitive deficits. There is growing concern over the potential harm caused by video game mechanics designed to give them addictive qualities.  It appears the video game manufacturers have already figured out how to engage with their audience, but not in a healthy manner. 

Judge Rules Social Media Platforms Can’t Escape “Subway Surfing” Challenge Lawsuit

Justice Paul A. Goetz, a Manhattan judge, has ruled that TikTok and Meta Platforms must face a lawsuit involving the death of a teenager who participated in a dangerous “subway surfing” challenge. 

The lawsuit was filed by Norma Nazario after her 15-year-old son, Zackery, fell to his death while climbing on a subway train. The court found that the allegations sufficiently suggest that the social media companies’ algorithms exposed Zackery to hazardous content, which he did not actively seek. It was alleged that he was “goaded” into “subway surfing,” which cost him his life. 

Judge Goetz stated that the claims of product liability and negligence against TikTok and Meta are plausible as they go beyond merely displaying user-generated content. Ms. Nazario contends that her son was purposely targeted with this content to keep younger users engaged on these platforms. The judge’s decision also noted previous subway surfing deaths and the failure of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to implement safety measures.

While the judge dismissed certain claims against the companies, including those for violating New York business law and personal injury, the core negligence claims will proceed. The MTA, however, had its claims completely dismissed based on a lack of control over subway operations.

Ms. Nazario is represented by Harris Marks of Belluck Law LLP and Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center PLLC.

The case is Norma Nazario v. ByteDance Ltd. et al., case number 151540/2024, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Social Media 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. Lawyers on the Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Team are set out below.

Social Media Litigation Team

Joseph VanZandt (who heads the team) Jennifer Emmel, Suzanne Clark, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, Seth Harding and Slade Methvin. Andy Birchfield, who heads our Mass Torts Section, also works with the team. He can be reached at 800-898-2034 or by email at [email protected].

MOTOR VEHICLE LITIGATION

Maximize Your Client’s Auto Products Claim 

Most motor vehicle cases don’t involve a defective product as the cause of a collision.  But there are many cases that do include such a claim. These cases can be complex and much more difficult than the normal car wreck cases. Do you have an auto products case that involves severe injury or death? If so, Beasley Allen lawyers would be honored to work with you. 

Recently, we secured the ​largest personal injury settlement in Alabama history– $110 million. The following are some other recent examples of ​auto products cases​ that had less than $5 million available as coverage in auto liability insurance. The damages in many of the cases greatly exceeded the insurance coverage. Lawyers in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section secured ​$447 million​ in settlements for these cases. 

​ 

Settlements & Verdicts Secured:​

$162 Million Settlement – Secured for our clients after a van rollover crash, marking what is believed to be Georgia’s largest single-automobile accident settlement. 

$160 Million Verdict – Achieved for a client left an incomplete quadriplegic after a heavy truck rollover caused by a design defect and an automobile collision. 

$45 Million Settlement – Obtained for a 9-year-old boy left paralyzed due to an illegal lift kit in a Jeep Wrangler involved in a crash. 

$37 Million Settlement – Reached for a critically injured client in a heavy truck accident caused by tire tread/belt separation. 

$19.5 Million Settlement – Secured for a wrongful death resulting from an auto defect that turned a minor collision fatal. 

$2.7 Million Settlement – Obtained for a family after a young man was killed by shrapnel from a defective Takata airbag inflator. 

Old Tires Produce Catastrophic Results 

As summer is upon us and many people will be traveling long distances in their vehicles, one safety component that should be checked is the tires of the vehicle. Many people do not think of tires as a safety device; however, they are one of the most important safety devices on a vehicle. Tire failures, such as blowouts and tread separations, can lead to loss of vehicle control, which can result in serious and fatal injuries.  

The condition and age of a tire can be contributing factors leading to tire failures. Often, tires are kept on a vehicle well past their service life. Many consumers are aware of the importance of looking at the tread depth of a tire, but many are unaware that the age of the tire is a factor that should be considered when inspecting the condition of tires.  

It is recommended within the industry that tires be replaced at six years of age and no later than age ten. This is because the rubber components begin to break down over time, allowing oxygen to permeate the rubber, resulting in internal damage to the tire.  

While many people are familiar with dry rot on the outer appearance of a tire, the internal components are what hold the tire together. These internal components really suffer from age and exposure to oxygen over time. This increases the likelihood of a tread belt separation leading to the loss of control of a vehicle and serious injury or death to vehicle occupants.  

While tires are an important safety device on a vehicle, they can also be very expensive to replace. Thus, leading to the growing number of used tire dealers and the purchase of used tires by consumers. If the tread depth appears sufficient and the outer appearance of the tire seems to look satisfactory, neither the used tire dealer nor the consumer pays attention to the age of the tire. Thus, a consumer could potentially purchase a fourteen-year-old tire, one that should never have been sold. Instead, these should have been taken out of service.  

Compounding the problem are automobile service centers that will place these used tires on vehicles without checking the age of the tire when they should be doing this and warning the purchasers that the tires on the vehicle are past their service life. In addition to service centers that place the tires on vehicles, many service centers will service vehicles, including their tires, yet fail to provide customers with information on the age of the tire. 

Beasley Allen has successfully litigated cases, not only against the tire manufacturer for defects, both design and manufacturing, but also against service centers that have put tires on vehicles well past their service life. There have also been cases against service centers that have serviced vehicles and failed to inform the customer that their tires need to be replaced.  

For instance, our lawyers were able to resolve a case for a client whose son suffered an amputated leg when the vehicle his mother was driving suffered a tread belt separation and overturned.  One week before the crash, the vehicle’s brakes had been serviced. The tires were removed for servicing. The client inquired if the tires needed to be replaced. She was told the tires were in good condition and were not in need of replacement. In reality, the tires were over ten years old and should have been taken out of service.  

Such tragedies could be avoided if the service centers provided warnings to consumers about the age of their tires. Moreover, many consumers do not know how to read the DOT number of a tire. The last four digits of a DOT number on a tire sidewall provide the week and year of manufacture. For instance, DOT Y2XX PQRT 3109 means that the tire was manufactured in the 31^st week of 2009.  

Therefore, in tire defect cases, not only does liability rest with the tire manufacturer, but in many cases, the used tire dealer and service center are liable for selling, servicing and/or failing to warn the consumer of the age of a tire. 

Before you hit the roads this summer, check your tires! 

Tesla Faces Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Crash

Tesla is facing a wrongful death lawsuit involving a crash of a 2024 Model S with Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features. Three people were killed in the crash, which occurred in New Jersey last September. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Camden, New Jersey, claims the car’s “defective and unreasonably dangerous design” led to the deaths of David Dryerman, his wife Michele, and their daughter Brooke. Another child, Max Dryerman, was not in the car, is also a plaintiff seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Tesla has faced scrutiny over the safety of its self-driving technology, which it says is meant for “fully attentive” drivers with their hands on the steering wheel and does not make vehicles autonomous. You may recall that in December 2023, Tesla agreed to recall over 2 million vehicles in the U.S. to add safeguards to its Autopilot system.

The Dryermans were returning from a music festival when their Model S ran off the road in Woodbridge Township, New Jersey, hitting a sign, guardrail, and concrete bridge support. The complaint alleges the car’s defective design caused it to stray from its lane and fail to apply emergency braking, resulting in the crash. It also claims Tesla failed to warn David Dryerman about the car’s safety issues, citing Musk’s 2016 statement that Autopilot was “probably better” than human drivers. The Dryermans were wearing seat belts at the time of the crash.

The case is Dryerman et al v Tesla Inc, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, No. 25-11997.

Source: Reuters

TRUCKING LITIGATION

Chameleon Carriers: Why Deceptive Trucking Companies Are Making Our Highways More Dangerous  

Chameleon carriers, often referred to as “reincarnated carriers,” are trucking companies that shut down due to violations, poor safety records, or legal issues, only to reopen under a new name or identity. This deceptive practice enables them to sidestep regulatory scrutiny, fines, or restrictions while continuing to operate in a manner that poses significant threats to public safety. Chameleon carriers are a danger to the public and the transportation industry as a whole. 

Chameleon carriers manipulate the system by creating new identities—often with altered names, addresses, and tax identification numbers—while retaining their previous unsafe practices. This allows them to evade enforcement actions from authorities such as the Department of Transportation (DOT) or Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The creation of a new identity often happens rapidly, exploiting inefficiencies and loopholes in regulatory systems. By the time authorities catch up, the carrier may have already caused significant harm or altered its identity again.

Hypothetical Illustration: Trucking Company A has received so many persistent and critical safety violations in its DOT inspections that the DOT performs a safety audit. The safety audit reveals that Trucking Company A has allowed and encouraged its drivers to falsify logs, drive fatigued, and drive trucks that have not been properly maintained. The DOT is threatening to give Trucking Company A an unsatisfactory rating, which will impact its ability to haul for shippers and brokers. Instead of working to change its unsafe practices. Trucking Company A shuts down and voluntarily relinquishes its motor carrier authority.  

However, just one month later, Trucking Company A reopens as Trucking Company B using the name of the previous owner on official paperwork (even though the same person is still running B) and using a P.O. Box instead of the physical address, which hasn’t changed.  Trucking Company B continues to use the same equipment, drivers, and unsafe practices.  Trucking Company B is operating as a chameleon carrier.

Trucking Company B continues to use the same trucks and drivers under a new DOT number. The motoring public would have no way of knowing that Trucking Company B was just on the verge of being shut down due to safety violations. Brokers and shippers continue to use Trucking Company B because its chameleon carrier scam makes its record appear like a clean slate, even though these folks should know they are still dealing with the same people under a new name. 

Trucking Company B’s unsafe business practices cause a fatal crash when the brakes on its poorly maintained truck fail. A post-crash investigation reveals the driver had been sleeping for only 4 hours each night in the five days before the crash and had falsified his logs to cover it up. Not only can Trucking Company B be held liable, but the broker and the shipper can also be held liable for allowing an unsafe chameleon carrier to haul their property. 

As demonstrated by the hypothetical, the most immediate danger posed by chameleon carriers is their disregard for road safety. The United States Governmental Accountability Office found, in a report to Congress, that chameleon carriers are three times more likely to be involved in a severe crash, one in which there was a fatality or injury.  Chameleon carriers not only endanger lives but also distort the economic landscape of the transportation industry. By avoiding fines and regulatory compliance costs, they gain an unfair advantage over law-abiding competitors. 

How can we stop these deceptive and unsafe trucking companies?  

• First, the FMCSA must impose harsher penalties on carriers found to be reincarnating under new identities is crucial. By increasing fines and legal consequences, authorities aim to deter this fraudulent practice. 

• Second, brokers and shippers must stop giving chameleon carriers business. Brokers and shippers should already know how to verify carrier credentials and cross reference its previous carriers to identify when a new carrier is really masquerading as an old unsafe carrier. 

When brokers and shippers encounter these chameleon carriers, they should report them to the FMCSA and industry watchdog lists. Brokers and shippers who put these unsafe carriers on our highways should be held accountable for not properly vetting them. 

Chameleon carriers represent a hidden but pervasive threat to public safety and the integrity of the transportation industry. Combating this issue requires a concerted effort from regulators, industry professionals, and the public. By closing loopholes, enforcing stricter penalties, and increasing awareness, we can ensure a safer, more transparent transportation system for all.

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS 

Motor Vehicle Recalls In June

Ford Motor Co. has issued recalls for over 550,000 vehicles due to airbag and structural issues that could increase the risk of crashes and injuries. The recalls, reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on May 27, affect 556,043 cars from model years 2016, 2017, and 2025. 

The first recall involves 63,898 2025 Ford Maverick vehicles. These cars may have an airbag indicator light that can become loose or dislodged, preventing occupants from knowing whether the passenger airbag is on or off, thus increasing the risk of injury. 

The second recall affects 492,145 2016-2017 Ford Explorers. The driver and front passenger B-pillar door trim, which covers the frame separating the front and backseat windows, may detach while driving. This can result in debris flying into the roadway, posing a hazard for drivers of these and other vehicles. 

Owners of recalled Maverick models can take their vehicles to a Ford dealer to get new airbag indicator light retaining clips installed for free. A remedy for the Explorer models was still under development at press time for this issue. 

Owner notification letters for both recalls were to be mailed on June 9, 2025. Second letters will be sent when remedies are available. Owners can also contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332 with recall numbers 25C17 and 25S53. 

Other recent recalls involving motor vehicles include:

• Volvo -Several plug-in hybrid and electric models were recalled due to potential brake function loss, including the EC40, EX40, S90PHEV, and XC90PHEV 

• Honda & Acura – Brake pedal misalignment prompted recalls for Acura MDX (2023–2025), TLX (2021–2025), and Honda Pilot (2023–2025) 

• Chrysler Pacifica & Toyota Sienna Hybrid: Improperly tightened restraint tie-down fasteners 

• GEM Electric Vehicles: Wheel separation risk due to ball joint issues.

• Mercedes-Benz: Inadequate impact protection in the C-pillar.

There are other recalls in June not mentioned above. To check if your vehicle is recalled, enter your information into the NHTSA recall database (NHTSA.gov/recalls). This is the primary resource available to the public. 

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Mattel Settles Rock ‘N Play Lawsuits 

Mattel Inc. and its Fisher-Price unit have settled lawsuits alleging that their recalled Rock ‘n Play baby sleeper was defectively designed, leading to infant deaths. The settlement, disclosed in a Delaware court filing, resolves lawsuits over six death cases and four allegations of babies suffering flattened heads due to the product’s design. At press time, financial terms had not been disclosed. Among the settled cases was a suit filed by Ameena Brown over the death of her son, identified as “AB.” Jury selection for her case was set to begin in Delaware. There are at least four other similar cases pending in Delaware Superior Court. 

Mattel acquired Fisher-Price in 1993 for $1 billion. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, called the settlement a positive step, but he criticized the company for not ensuring the product’s safety before its market release. 

The Rock ‘n Play Sleeper, sold from October 2009, was linked to around 100 deaths over 14 years. Mattel and Fisher-Price recalled the product in 2019 and reiterated the recall in 2023, offering refunds for 4.7 million sleepers. Earlier this year, Mattel settled investors’ claims that it hid the sleeper’s risks for $17 million and agreed to improve safety issue handling. The company also paid $19 million to Rock ‘n Play purchasers as part of a class-action settlement. 

In the Brown case, it was alleged that the sleeper’s inclined design increased the risk of neck and head injuries, asphyxiation, suffocation, and death. The mother found her son dead in the sleeper in 2018 after he rolled over and pressed his face against the padded side. He was born prematurely the year before. 

Fisher-Price employees had warned the company in 2008 and 2009 that safety research was needed before the product’s release, but no such checks were done. In response to a U.S. House of Representatives committee investigation, Fisher-Price officials said they formed a medical council to focus on product safety. 

Mattel argued that Ms. Brown failed to use the sleeper’s restraints and that medical examiners attributed her son’s death to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, not the sleeper. The company also suggested that the child’s health issues may have contributed to his death. 

The Delaware case is Brown v Fisher-Price, No. N-20C-01-067, Delaware Superior Court (Wilmington). 

Source: Claims Journal 

AVIATION LITIGATION

Air India Crash Investigation

On June 12, 2025, tragedy struck just moments after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India, when an Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner bound for London Gatwick crashed into a residential area, killing more than 270 people. The aircraft, carrying 242 passengers and crew, failed to gain altitude and erupted into a fireball, leaving behind a trail of devastation and grief.

‘Extremely Rare’ Dual Engine Failure

Preliminary investigations suggest a rare and catastrophic dual-engine failure may have caused the crash. Both General Electric GEnx engines reportedly lost thrust shortly after takeoff, causing the aircraft to climb only 450 feet before plummeting into nearby buildings. India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation has since ordered urgent inspections of all Boeing 787 aircraft operated by Indian carriers.

Our Response

Led by nationally recognized aviation lawyer Mike Andrews, Beasley Allen’s aviation litigation team is actively working to uncover the truth behind this devastating crash. Mike, who has been recognized as one of the top 10 aviation lawyers in the U.S., is representing families of victims, ensuring their voices are heard and their rights protected as the investigation unfolds. 

He says that being on the ground in India is crucial to understanding the local pressures families are facing. This tragedy didn’t just affect passengers—it devastated an entire community. Deaths and injuries at the Medical College crash site underscore that aviation safety is a global concern.

A Legacy of Aviation Litigation

Beasley Allen has a long history of representing victims of aviation disasters. Mike Andrews heads up a team that has handled cases involving both fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, including the high-profile litigation against Boeing following the 2019 crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. In that case, Mike traveled to the crash site in Ethiopia and worked closely with families to secure meaningful compensation and accountability.

Mike’s experience navigating international aviation law, coordinating with foreign ministries, and building trust with grieving families has made him a trusted advocate in some of the world’s most complex aviation cases.

As the investigation into the Air India crash unfolds, Mike adds that our primary focus at this stage is to assist families in finding answers. Beasley Allen is committed to ensuring accountability and transparency throughout this investigation.

The firm’s aviation team is monitoring developments closely and is prepared to take legal action as more information becomes available.

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

Lawyers on our firm’s Employment Litigation Team continue to handle employment-related litigation around the country. 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 tremendous success in both employment cases and qui tam cases. Currently, the team is pursuing some high-profile cases in courts around the country. We will write more on the whistleblower litigation below in the Whistleblower Section. We will also write on other cases in the August Issue. In the meantime, if you have questions or need help with an employment case, contact a lawyer on our Employment Litigation Team.

Whistleblower Litigation

Raytheon To Pay $8.4 Million To Resolve False Claims Act Claims 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced recently that Raytheon Company, RTX Corporation, and Nightwing Group LLC, have agreed to pay $8.4 million to resolve allegations that Raytheon violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by failing to comply with cybersecurity requirements in contracts or subcontracts involving the Department of Defense (DoD). In 2024, RTX Corporation sold its Cybersecurity business, which has since become part of Nightwing. The settlement resolves conduct that occurred between 2015 and 2021, prior to Nightwing’s acquisition of the business. 

It was contended that an important oversight was made by Raytheon and its former subsidiary Raytheon Cyber Solutions, Inc. (RCSI), concerning the implementation of required cybersecurity measures for systems involved in unclassified work on certain DoD contracts. The DOJ alleged that Raytheon and RCSI failed to develop and implement a system security plan for the system, as required by DoD cybersecurity regulations, and failed to ensure that the system complied with other cybersecurity requirements contained in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and Federal Acquisition Regulation, which requires federal to apply basic safeguarding requirements to information systems that process or store federal contract information.

The settlement highlights the vital importance of cybersecurity in defense contracts. Special Agent in Charge Greg Gross, NCIS Economic Crimes Field Office, observed: 

Strict compliance with contractual cybersecurity requirements is of dire importance to adequately safeguard sensitive information from sophisticated adversaries, assure the safety of our warfighters, and maintain our military’s competitive edge. 

The settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the FCA by Branson Fowler, Sr., a former Raytheon Director of Engineering.  The qui tam provisions of the FCA allow a private party to file an action on behalf of the Government for false claims.  Under the FCA, whistleblowers receive 15% to 25% of the proceeds in cases that the Government joins.  Fowler will receive approximately $1.5 million of the proceeds from the settlement. 

If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, your reporting is confidential and protected by the FCA. Under that same statute, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud you have witnessed. If you have any questions about whether you qualify as a whistleblower, contact a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section for a free and confidential evaluation of your claim.  There is a contact form on our website, or you may email one of our lawyers on our whistleblower litigation team. 

$9.2 Million Settlement By Georgia Hospice Provider 

A Georgia hospice care provider and its CEO have agreed to pay $9.2 million to settle allegations of violating federal fraud laws by engaging in a kickback scheme with medical directors who referred patients to their facilities. The settlement involves Creative Hospice Care Inc., Homestead Hospice Management LLC, and CEO Mahlega Abdsharafat, also known as Mallie Sharafat. The federal government accused them of violating the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute. 

U.S. Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg emphasized that healthcare decisions should be based on patient needs, not financial interests. The case was brought to light by three whistleblowers who filed lawsuits under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. The government intervened after a marketing employee alleged that Creative Hospice was paying kickbacks to medical directors to secure patient referrals. 

The medical directors received monthly stipends and signing bonuses, with payments increasing or decreasing based on the number of referrals. FBI Atlanta special agent in charge Paul Brown stated that the integrity of the healthcare system must be protected from such unlawful inducements. 

The whistleblowers received over $1.5 million from the settlement. In 2024, more than $2.4 billion of the $2.9 billion in False Claims Act settlements came from qui tam lawsuits, with relators receiving over $400 million. Kelly Blackmon, special agent in charge at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, reiterated the commitment to holding accountable those who prioritize profits over patient care. 

The government was represented by Neeli Ben-David of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia and Sara Vann of the Georgia Attorney General’s Office.  

The cases are United States of America, ex rel. John Doe et al. v. Homestead Hospice et al., United States of America and State of Georgia, ex rel. Cletus William Cole v. Homestead Hospice Management LLC et al., United States of America, ex rel. Renee Luchtman et al. v. Homestead Hospice Management, LLC, et al., case numbers 1:15-cv-00840, 1:22-cv-04242, 1:21-cv-04952, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

Source: Law360 

Supreme Court Ruling On FBI Raid And Federal Tort Claims Act

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause does not protect the federal government from Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suits, reviving a Georgia woman’s claim over an FBI raid mistakenly carried out at her home. The justices unanimously reversed an Eleventh Circuit decision from 2024, stating that law enforcement officers cannot be shielded from liability for tortious acts committed while carrying out their duties, even if those actions further federal policy. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that federal statute specifies the defenses available to the government, including judicial or legislative immunity, but these do not include the Eleventh Circuit’s novel Supremacy Clause defense. The ruling revived Plaintiff Curtrina Martin’s lawsuit. She and her family were victims of the FBI raid that went wrong. The high court agreed that the circuit court’s ruling conflicted with a 1970s revision to the FTCA that allowed claims against officers who intentionally violated plaintiffs’ rights. 

The Supreme Court had agreed to hear Ms. Martin’s case. She, her child, and her partner Hillard Cliatt continued that FBI agents violated their Fourth Amendment rights during a 2017 raid. The raid targeted Joseph Riley, a suspected gang member living near Ms. Martin. But the agents mistakenly entered Ms. Martin’s house. The SWAT team tossed a flash-bang grenade, swarmed the house with guns drawn, and handcuffed Cliatt before realizing they were at the wrong address. 

Ms. Martin sued for negligence, emotional distress, trespass, false arrest, and assault, among other counts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, stating that the raid had “some nexus with furthering federal policy,” which shielded the officers’ actions. The appeals court added that the officers’ mistake was protected by the discretionary function exception, limiting FTCA claims stemming from government agents’ discretion. 

While the Supreme Court affirmed that the government cannot rely on the Supremacy Clause to dismiss suits like the Martin case, the court rejected the plaintiff’s request for a broader reading of the law enforcement provision in FTCA claims. Justice Gorsuch clarified that the provision could only override statutorily defined intentional torts, not an officer’s discretion. 

Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in a concurrence, doubted whether the discretion defense could protect the government from Ms. Martin’s claims. She warned against an overbroad reading of the discretionary-function exception. 

Ms. Martin is represented by Lisa C. Lambert of the Law Office of Lisa C. Lambert and Patrick Jaicomo, Anya Bidwell, Dylan Moore and Jared McClain of the Institute for Justice. Beasley Allen lawyers will monitor this case as it goes back into the system.

The case is Martin et al. v. U.S. et al., case number 24-362, in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Source: Law360 

CVS’s Attempt To Evade Responsibility In FCA Case Rejected 

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon has rejected CVS Health Corp.’s attempt to escape responsibility in a False Claims Act case. The New York case involves CVS Health’s subsidiary, Omnicare, which was found to have defrauded the federal government out of over $135 million in fraudulent drug claims. 

Judge McMahon denied CVS Health’s motion for a directed verdict of dismissal after a jury found the company liable for its role in submitting Omnicare’s false claims. The judge concluded that CVS actively participated in dispensing drugs without valid prescriptions. She stated that CVS Health was complicit in telling the government that Omnicare’s dispensing system complied with federal laws, despite being aware of flaws in the system. This allowed Omnicare to delay making necessary corrections for two years. 

The judge’s order came a little over a month after the jury returned a $135.6 million verdict against Omnicare. During the four-week trial, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York alleged that Omnicare billed Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE for false claims totaling more than 3 million. The government claimed that Omnicare used a “rollover/cycle fill” method to automatically dispense drugs to elderly and disabled individuals in assisted living and long-term care facilities without active prescriptions. 

The government contended CVS Health was responsible for ensuring that Omnicare’s prescription drug practices were in line with federal regulations, as CVS had entered into a corporate integrity agreement with Omnicare in 2016 following its acquisition of the company. CVS Health countered that Omnicare was responsible for its own drug dispensing operations after the acquisition and acted as a holding company. 

Judge McMahon’s order marks the second time she has rejected efforts by CVS Health to dismiss the case. She first rejected a 2021 dismissal attempt from Omnicare and CVS Health, where they argued that they didn’t participate in illegal behavior until the Medicare regulation prohibiting companies from filling invalid prescriptions took effect in 2013. Judge McMahon found the allegations against CVS Health and Omnicare were specific enough to proceed. She also denied a motion for summary judgment in February. 

The government is represented by Monica P. Folch, Jennifer Jude, Samuel Dolinger, Lucas Issacharoff, Jeremy Liss, Jean-David Barnea and Jeffrey K. Powell of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. 

The case is United States of America ex rel. Uri Bassan et al. v. Omnicare Inc., case number 1:15-cv-4179, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

Source: Law360 

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team 

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers in litigation across the country. Claims continue to be made against multiple bad actors in the corporate world. The widespread Whistleblower litigation is increasing nationwide at a rapid pace. However, there is also strong opposition to the litigation instigated and carried out by some powerful forces in Corporate America.  

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.

Workplace Litigation

Workplace Injuries And Deaths  

When a person leaves home each day for his or her job, that person almost never expects that there will be a real risk of serious injury or death.  Despite this feeling of security, countless people are injured on the job in the United States each year.   

In Georgia, recently, two people lost their lives in separate workplace events.  At the HL-GA Battery facility, an affiliated company of Hyundai Motor Group, Metaplant America, was fatally wounded.  According to early reports, an unsecured load from a forklift fell on the worker during a loading operation.  Sadly, this is the second death at this facility resulting from a forklift incident in the last few months.  Earlier this year, another worker was struck and dragged by a forklift injury.  In 2023, a contractor at this worksite also fell and died after his safety line failed.  The contractors were cited for safety violations by OSHA for the latter event.   

In May of this year, another worker was killed at the Hanwha Qcells solar panel plant in Cartersville, Georgia.  The employee died while on top of a tank.  Reports indicate that his death was the result of low oxygen levels on top of the tank.  It is believed that the low oxygen levels were caused by a nitrogen leak.   

In February of 2024, OSHA cited another Georgia auto industry, Aludyne Columbus, LLC, for significant workplace hazards, including permitting employees to work near energized power lines and failing to minimize exposure to high levels of silica.  OSHA found that the company failed to provide proper tools and respiratory equipment, which exposed its employees to the risks of electrocution and respiratory issues at the facility in Columbus, Georgia.   

Workplace hazards are not limited to Georgia.  In Alabama, a Montgomery County jury recently returned a verdict of $2.6 million.  In that case, a concrete maintenance worker was killed at the Shelby Concrete location in Montgomery.  The employee’s death was caused while he was working on an auger.  A conveyor belt started unexpectedly, which knocked the employee down, causing him to hit his head and die from his injuries.   

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 2,569,000 workplace injuries and accidents reported in 2023.  Of that number, almost 5,300 people lost their lives.  In Georgia, for 2023, there were 192 fatal injuries on the job.  In Alabama, for that same year, there were 75 reported workplace fatalities.   

It is imperative that businesses do more to protect their employees.  Earning an income is not an option for most American families.  Employers and contractors owe it to their employees to take added measures to reduce the injuries and deaths caused at workplaces.    

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

Premises Liability Action

Atlanta Beasley Allen lawyer, Ben Keen, is currently investigating personal injury claims against an apartment complex. Liability in this action is predicated upon  O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1:

Where an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1.

The entrance to the apartment in this case allows for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress through a single gated area.  There are three gates in the gated area. The middle and right gate allow vehicles to enter the premises, with the middle gate intended for residents. 

As residents closely approach the middle gate, the gate sensor will detect the resident’s vehicle, and open.  The right gate provides an avenue for guests to enter via call box. Once access is granted, the gate opens, and the gate arm raises. Guests then must drive from the call box through the gate before the gate closes. 

To the right of the gated area is a gated pedestrian entrance/exit. There is no alternative way for a pedestrian to enter or exit the premises. In Ben’s case, at this location, a guest driver’s view of the plaintiff was obstructed by bushes, a hill, and a curve as the driver drove through the gate. This resulted in an abrupt vehicular/pedestrian accident as the guest drove through the gate before it closed. 

At this location, there is no sidewalk or other safe haven for the expected pedestrian traffic. The apartment complex had ample opportunity to correct these known hazards, and they failed to do so. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

Rio Tinto’s $139 Million Securities Class Action Settlement

Rio Tinto has agreed to pay $139 million to settle a securities class action lawsuit. The lawsuit accused the company of hiding delays and cost overruns in a $7 billion copper-gold mine project in Mongolia. Private investment funds, in their motion for preliminary approval, called the settlement an “excellent result” for investors, considering the significant litigation risks they faced. They noted that the settlement amount represents a recovery of 34% to 43% of the estimated maximum damages of $322 million to $407 million, which is significantly higher than typical recoveries in such cases.

The funds, advised by Pentwater Capital Management LP, claimed that Rio Tinto concealed massive cost overruns and delays in the Oyu Tolgoi underground mine project, which was expected to be one of the largest copper mines in the world. The mine, jointly owned by Turquoise Hill Resources and the Mongolian government, was operated almost exclusively by Rio Tinto. The funds alleged that Rio Tinto executives repeatedly assured investors that the project was on schedule and budget, while it was actually significantly over budget and behind schedule.

The settlement class includes those who purchased or acquired Turquoise Hill common stock, call options, or swaps during the relevant period and were damaged. The settlement also resolves claims against former Rio Tinto CEO Jean-Sébastien Jacques and former COO Arnaud Soirat. The funds stated that the settlement comes after 4½ years of litigation, three amended complaints, and several motions to dismiss. Lead counsel plans to seek a fee of 13% of the settlement funds and up to $2.6 million for litigation expenses.

The Pentwater and the settlement class are represented by Salvatore J. Graziano, James A. Harrod, Michael D. Blatchley and Alexander M. Noble of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The case is In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation, case number 1:20-cv-08585, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Source: Law360

Securities Litigation 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. 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.   

We had intended to provide an update on pending securities litigation in this issue, however, we have elected to have the update in the August issue. In the meantime, 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 from our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section: 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. 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Antitrust Litigation In The Housing Market

On June 13, 2025 Rocket Companies (Rocket), the corporate umbrella for several businesses including title company Rocket Close (formerly known as Amrock), home search platform Rocket Homes, and Rocket Mortgage, currently the second-largest mortgage loan originator in the United States, finalized a merger and acquisition deal with the nation’s largest mortgage company Mr. Cooper Group (Mr. Cooper), and the third-most-visited real estate brokerage website and online real estate brokerage platform, Redfin Corporation (Redfin) valued at over $11 billion. Rocket’s vertical integration of Mr. Cooper and Redfin intends to create an “originations-servicing recapture flywheel” that will “creat[e] a 360° view of the client” using AI to refine the conglomerate’s collective available data on homebuying & consumers. 

The Rocket deal is expected to generate substantial revenue synergies because of combining the Rocket, Mr. Cooper, and Redfin companies by reaching nearly 10 million servicing clients, 450,000 annual origination clients, and over one billion annual client interactions.  The combination will result in the handling of one out of every six mortgages in the United States by servicing more than $2.1 trillion in loans. In effect, Rocket is now capable of controlling each step of the homebuying process using a single network mechanized by monetizing consumer data. Rocket’s colossal consolidation will likely cause profound harm to the consumer and competitors for its ability to manipulate the homebuying industry. Some examples of potential abuses: directing the employment of their preferred real estate agents; coercing gratuitous rates and fee increases for mortgages and ancillary services, and exploiting homebuying consumers’ collective data to manipulate market prices and inventory by leveraging browsing metrics, just to name a few. 

Even though the merger’s anticompetitive objectives portend federal antitrust law violations and despite the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) lawsuit filed against Rocket in December 2024 (dismissed in February 2025 by new CFPB leader 3 weeks post-appointment) accusing the company of illegally operating a kickback and steering scheme not unlike this deal’s synergistic ambitions, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) declined to challenge the merger under the new and current administration. 

Private antitrust actions to challenge Rocket’s monopolistic pecuniary interests are in line with the recent slew of antitrust lawsuits within the home rental industry filed on behalf of consumers against property management platforms like RealPage and Yardi that allegedly conspired with other landlords and property management companies to fix rentals prices for rental units across the nation using proprietary consumer data. 

The rental price fixing antitrust litigation is ongoing, and numerous cases pursuing this theory have begun to resolve, proving that challenging anticompetitive practices through the courts can affect real change. Most recently, the D.C. Attorney General’s office announced their settlement with cefendants RealPage and landlord William C. Smith & Co. In that case, the defendants agreed to both reform their business practices by banning the use of software that “relies on any nonpublic or confidential data from other companies” and refrain from encouraging anyone else to use software like RealPage to set rent prices. The defendants agreed to pay over $1 million in civil penalties to the government, affected residents and some legal fees. 

Corporate misconduct against American consumers in pursuit of a place to live is a growing issue. Technology in this area rapidly innovates without regard for the laws and regulations in place to protect consumers. If not for the court system to confront these bad actors through litigation, bad corporate behavior would remain unchallenged, causing financial harm to millions.  Corporate bad actors will continue to manipulate consumers in their never-ending goal of maximizing profits with relative impunity.Monopolistic market control through vertical integration that aggregates Consumer data is quietly progressing throughout the real estate and real property industries and deserves greater antitrust scrutiny.

Insurance Litigation

 Senators Grill Allstate And State Farm Over Property Claim Denials 

This past month, the U.S. Senate subcommittee for Disaster Management interrogated officials from insurance companies Allstate and State Farm. The subcommittee claimed both companies were deliberately withholding funds from policyholders who had been adversely affected by natural disasters. Both Republican and Democratic Senators accused the insurance officials of undercutting estimates and replacing insurance adjusters who did not comply with their attempts to mislead or outright lie to policyholders. 

The testimony revealed that adjusters from both companies would accurately assess household damage from natural disasters, but then would be forced to reduce their estimates. 

Whistleblower testimony indicated that both companies would go as far as to threaten the jobs of adjusters to save money on accurately assessed estimates. This would require homeowners, some of whose houses had been destroyed, to wait months for relief, only to receive a low payout or nothing at all. 

One adjuster who testified said that, when he agreed to testify for the subcommittee, Allstate removed him from Georgia storm claims. Another adjuster testified that Allstate’s priority for natural disaster relief was to “minimize payouts.” 

Also, due to the actions of Allstate and State Farm, policyholders have been forced to pay out of their pocket expenses for separate living accommodations. One homeowner testified that, after their house was ravaged by a tornado, their home went without repairs for eight months. Another homeowner affected by Hurricane Helene stated, “[W]hen we needed Allstate the most, they failed us.”

Beasley Allen lawyers have been facing similar fact scenarios over the years in representing victims of very similar corporate insurance misconduct in dealing with bad faith insurance property claims. We continue to monitor laws, case law and legislation affecting insurers and policyholders, as well as litigate insurance class actions and individual bad faith conduct cases for both individuals and businesses.  In fact, Beasley Allen currently represents three commercial businesses and two churches for the same or similar misconduct by their insurance carrier. 

Dee Miles, head of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, as well as Paul Evans and Rebecca Gilliland, handle the Bad Faith litigation involving insurance claims for the firm.  

Source: Law360

Judge Expected To Certify 200,000 Class Against State Farm

U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick, a California federal judge, has indicated that he is likely to certify a class of nearly 200,000 homeowners in a lawsuit against State Farm. The homeowners allege that State Farm underpays property insurance claims by depreciating sales tax when calculating replacement costs. Judge Orrick noted that a common issue predominates in this case and referenced a similar 2017 case where he sided with the plaintiffs.

During a recent hearing, Judge Orrick highlighted the central issue of whether State Farm’s practice of depreciating sales tax, which reduces the “actual cash value” benefits for class members, is legal. The judge mentioned that he had previously ruled on a similar issue and acknowledged a recent ruling by California state court Judge William F. Highberger, who had a different opinion on the matter.

Homeowners Melissa Pitkin and Dan Grout, in their March 2023 complaint, cited Judge Orrick’s 2017 decision against Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., which found that deductions apart from “physical depreciation” are prohibited in calculating the actual cash value. State Farm, in its opposition to the class certification motion, pointed out that it had prevailed on the same issue before Judge Highberger in 2023.

During the hearing, Jennifer Hoffman of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP argued against class certification, stating that individualized reviews would be necessary for class membership, liability, and damages. Judge Orrick, however, pressed that State Farm has a uniform practice regarding sales tax depreciation.

Pitkin and Grout, who lost their home in a 2020 wildfire, claim that State Farm depreciated sales tax in calculating the value of their goods, which they argue violates California’s insurance code. They seek to represent California homeowners with a State Farm property insurance policy who suffered a covered loss and received reduced actual cash value benefits due to sales tax depreciation.

State Farm disputes all liability and damages, asserting that it properly calculated the actual cash value for the plaintiffs’ personal property according to the California Insurance Code. The company also argues that individualized inquiries are necessary for putative class member claims.

The plaintiffs and the proposed class are represented by Frank M. Pitre, Thomas E. Loeser, Nabilah A. Hossain, Tyson C. Redenbarger and Andrew W. Britton of Cotchett Pitre & Mccarthy LLP, by Jack W. Weaver and Rachael M. Mache of Welty Weaver & Currie PC, and by Stephen B. Murray Jr., Arthur M. Murray, Jessica W. Hayes and Thomas M. Beh of the Murray Law Firm.

The case is Melissa Pitkin et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Co. et al., case number 3:23-cv-00924, in the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District (San Francisco).

Source: Law360

$66 Million Awarded In Arbitration In Florida Boat Crash Case 

Aaron Hirschhorn, a successful Miami entrepreneur, gained recognition on “Shark Tank” in 2019 for his stem-cell therapy for dogs. Tragically, he died in 2021 when a boat collided with his hoverboard in Biscayne Bay. His widow, Karen Nissim, was awarded $66 million in arbitration from the boat owner and operator. Four years later, the case continues to impact the federal court system in two states. 

Ms. Nissim filed a lawsuit in Florida against Clear Blue Specialty Insurance and Yachtinsure Services, demanding at least the $500,000 policy limit on the boat involved in the accident. Aspen Insurance, which wrote a similar policy on one of the boat owners, was also named as a defendant. Recently, Clear Blue won a judgment requiring Yachtinsure to comply with their contract and finish adjusting other high-dollar claims. Yachtinsure had refused to handle more big claims for Clear Blue after the Hirschhorn fatality. Yachtinsure Ltd is a specialist insurer of yachts worldwide.  

U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn emphasized the public’s interest in the insurance industry functioning effectively and reliably, requiring prompt adjustment of claims. Yachtinsure disputed Clear Blue’s assertions, stating the firm has only one claim remaining. 

The litigation highlights Florida’s law against denying claims based on technicalities. Coverage for the Hirschhorn accident was denied due to an “unapproved operator” at the helm of the boat. But the insurance declaration page lists the boat owner as an operator. This argument is similar to a 2023 Florida case where Travelers was required to pay $2 million to the owner of a yacht sunk by Hurricane Irma. 

The Hirschhorn litigation provides insight into high-end boat insurance and Yachtinsure’s role as both a managing general agent and third-party adjusting firm. Clear Blue Insurance Group operates in all 50 U.S. states and is governed by Texas laws. Clear Blue contracted Yachtinsure to handle underwriting and claims, authorizing them to settle claims up to $150,000 and requiring full adjustment of all claims. The agreement mandates that Yachtinsure defend Clear Blue in litigation related to the contract or if Yachtinsure fails to comply with Florida laws. 

After the Hirschhorn crash, Clear Blue demanded Yachtinsure defend and indemnify the insurance company. Yachtinsure officials rejected the demands and refused to complete adjustments of claims. Mediation did not resolve the impasse. Clear Blue lawyers contended Yachtinsure’s refusal to fully adjust claims is harming Clear Blue and its policyholders, jeopardizing proper adjustment, administration, and timely payment of insurance claims. 

Unlike some property insurance companies, Clear Blue relies completely on third-party adjusters. Yachtinsure’s lawyer, Robert Killeen Jr., clarified Yachtinsure has only one remaining claim and has never breached its contractual obligations. He stated a preliminary injunction compelling Yachtinsure to continue adjusting claims was unnecessary. Yachtinsure plans to file a post-trial brief on the issue. 

Source: Claims Journal 

Class Action Litigation

Class Filed By Beasley Allen Against Aflac For Data Breach

Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Larry Golston and Leon Hampton have filed a nationwide class action against Aflac, Inc., an American Insurance Company, and one of the largest providers of supplemental insurance in the United States, based on a recent cyberattack that allegedly exposed sensitive policyholder data. While the full scope of the breach is still developing, our initial investigation reveals that hackers gained unauthorized access to internal systems, potentially compromising large amounts of personal information about Aflac customers.

The class action lawsuit is filed in Federal Court in Columbus, GA, where Aflac is headquartered and where the alleged breach occurred. The thrust of the class action complaint seeks recovery for all Aflac policyholders for the company’s failure to properly safeguard highly confidential information. The class complaint alleges legal claims for negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment. We look forward to moving this case along as swiftly as possible. 

What Information May Be at Risk?

According to news outlets and other sources, the cyberattack targeted Aflac’s digital infrastructure, disrupting some operations and raising concerns about data security. The company has not yet confirmed the exact nature of the breach or how many customers may be affected.

Although Aflac has not released a detailed list of compromised data, cyberattacks of this nature often involve:

• Names and contact information;
• Policy numbers;
• Claims history;
• Possibly Social Security numbers or banking details.

Customers are advised to monitor their accounts for suspicious activity and consider placing fraud alerts or credit freezes if they suspect their information has been misused.

What You Can Do

Aflac has issued a statement acknowledging the incident and assuring customers that it is taking all necessary steps to secure its systems. The company has also pledged to notify affected individuals and offer support services, such as credit monitoring, if needed.

If you are an Aflac policyholder, we will set out a few steps you should take  without delay:

• First, stay informed and watch for official communications from Aflac regarding the breach.
• Also, check your accounts and review your insurance statements and bank accounts for unusual activity.
• Make sure to update passwords and change your login credentials for Aflac and any other accounts that use similar passwords.
• Report suspicious activity and contact Aflac or your financial institution immediately if you notice anything unusual.

Beasley Allen’s Experience in Data Breach Litigation

Beasley Allen has a strong track record of representing consumers in high-profile data breach and cybersecurity cases. For example, Larry Golston helped lead the litigation against the recent AT&T massive breach that exposed the personal data of approximately 73 million customers. In the past, Dee Miles has led similar data breach litigation against the likes of Home Depot and Target to successful class action settlements.

Beasley Allen lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are well-versed in the complexities of data privacy law and are committed to holding companies accountable when they fail to protect consumer information. If you believe your data may have been compromised in the Aflac breach or another cyberattack, you can contact a Beasley Allen lawyer to explore your legal options. Having filed a lawsuit early against Aflac gives our firm a head start in this area of concern.

The U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Weigh In On LabCorp Class Certification Question  

On April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (LabCorp), in which the Ninth Circuit upheld the certification of a class action whose members didn’t all directly experience harm from the complained-of conduct. This case was being closely monitored by all players in the class action arena, including our Beasley Allen class action practice group in the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, managed by Dee Miles.

The case concerns legally blind plaintiffs who sued LabCorp, which runs blood testing centers, because it used mandatory self-service check-in kiosks for consumers that were not accessible to blind consumers, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The District Court certified the class ruling that the case raised common issues that predominated individual ones as required by Rule 23(b)(3).

On June 5, 2025, in an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to address whether federal courts can certify classes that include uninjured members. The court dismissed LabCorp’s appeal as “improvidently granted,” meaning the matter should not have been granted review in the first place. This move allows the class action to proceed and potentially seek damages. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the lone dissenter, arguing that the court missed an opportunity to clarify that damages classes should not include uninjured members. He warned that such overbroad certifications could inflate damages, pressure businesses into settlements, and ultimately raise costs for consumers, retirees, and workers.

During oral arguments, lawyers for the class pointed out that the class definition had changed after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and LabCorp had not appealed the updated version. This raised concerns among the justices about issuing a potentially advisory opinion. Justice Kavanaugh dismissed these concerns as insubstantial and maintained that the court should have addressed both the procedural and substantive questions.

The Ninth Circuit had previously upheld the class certification based on its 2022 decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery v. Bumble Bee Foods, which permits certification if common questions predominate, even if some class members are uninjured. LabCorp, supported by the U.S. Solicitor General, argued that this approach violates standing principles and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They contended that allowing uninjured members in a class is inconsistent with judicial precedent and could lead to unjust outcomes.

Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court’s dismissal leaves the Ninth Circuit’s ruling intact. Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler LLP, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, hailed the decision as a victory for access to justice, emphasizing that class actions remain a vital tool for holding corporations accountable. LabCorp was represented by attorneys from Jones Day, while the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office also participated in the case.

The case will now proceed in the lower courts, with the broader legal question of class certification standards still unresolved at the national level. 

Our Class Action Litigation Team is closely monitoring this case and other circuits dealing with this very important “standing” issue to ensure our class action clients are protected. We will keep our readers informed on this important case as it continues to develop.  

NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Athlete Settlement Gets Approval 

The NCAA’s $2.78 billion class action settlement, which introduces revenue sharing with college athletes, received final approval from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. Announced in May 2024, the settlement will reimburse previously withheld name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation to around 184,000 former athletes. The lawsuit is led by former Arizona State University swimmer Grant House. The settlement also establishes a system for NCAA Division I institutions to share billions of dollars in revenue with athletes over the next decade. 

Judge Wilken requested revisions to the settlement after an April 7 hearing, addressing objections related to roster limits and provisions for future athletes to opt out or contest the settlement. The final version, submitted on May 7, 2025, allowed athletes who lost roster spots to continue playing at their current or new schools. However, some objectors felt this did not fully resolve the issue. 

The settlement marks a significant shift in college sports, allowing unprecedented levels of student-athlete compensation and addressing past harms. Judge Wilken noted the favorable reaction from settlement class members, with few opting out or objecting. The settlement came two months after the original hearing.  

NCAA President Charlie Baker described the approval as a new beginning for Division I student-athletes and the NCAA, emphasizing the importance of stabilizing college sports and providing direct financial benefits to athletes. Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the athlete plaintiffs, praised the court’s careful consideration and the settlement’s potential to modernize college sports. 

The settlement, effective in the 2025-26 academic year, ends the NCAA’s long-standing ban on athletes receiving payments from sports revenue or their own NIL rights. The House class action, filed in 2020, named the NCAA and major college athletic conferences as defendants. The settlement follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston, which overturned the NCAA’s ban on educational compensation for college athletes. 

Judge Wilken certified the class in September 2023, consolidating additional classes into the House class in November 2023. The settlement received preliminary approval in October, with revisions addressing objections related to compensation limits and gender disparities. The final settlement terms were overwhelmingly supported by class members. 

The athletes are represented by Steve W. Berman, Emilee N. Sisco, Stephanie Verdoia, Meredith Simons and Benjamin J. Siegel of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Jeffrey L. Kessler, David G. Feher, David L. Greenspan, Adam I. Dale, Neha Vyas and Jeanifer E. Parsigian of Winston & Strawn LLP; and Jeffrey L. Kodroff and Eugene A. Spector of Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC. 

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

Source: Law360 

GM Faces Another Proposed Engine-Defect Class Action

A proposed class action lawsuit against General Motors LLC has been filed in Michigan federal court. It’s alleged in the complaint that the company knowingly sold hundreds of thousands of SUVs and trucks with defective engines that could suddenly fail. The plaintiff, Missouri resident Brian Markus, claims that GM concealed the fact that the bearings in the 6.2-liter V-8 L87 engine were prone to failure, which could cause the engines to seize and make the vehicles unsafe.

Plaintiff Markus, who purchased a 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 last year, contends that he did not receive the benefit of his bargain, as he was unaware of the defect that could lead to catastrophic engine failure. The plaintiff asserts that had he known about the defect, he would not have bought the vehicle or would have paid less for it. The complaint states that the defect has significantly diminished the value of his vehicle.

In April, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced a recall of nearly 600,000 GM trucks and SUVs in the U.S. due to engine failures caused by crankshaft, connecting rod, or engine bearing issues. Plaintiff Markus states that he experienced engine failure in December, which left him stranded on the highway for two hours.

The lawsuit claims that affected vehicles include various models from Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac between 2019 and 2024. GM is accused of heavily marketing the vehicles’ safety and performance while failing to disclose the engine defect. The complaint includes claims of warranty breach, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and strict product liability.

GM is also dealing with other lawsuits related to the alleged engine defect, including a class action initially filed in Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff Markus and the proposed class are represented by E. Powell Miller, Dennis A. Lienhardt and Dana E. Fraser of The Miller Law Firm PC, Elizabeth A. Fegan and Jonathan D. Lindenfeld of Fegan Scott LLC.

The case is Markus v. General Motors LLC, case number 2:25-cv-11821, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source: Law360

$38 Million Bayer Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval

A California federal judge has preliminarily approved Bayer AG’s $38 million settlement with investors accused of downplaying litigation risks associated with the weedkiller Roundup after acquiring Monsanto in 2018. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg described the settlement as “fair, reasonable, and adequate” during a Zoom hearing. 

The plaintiffs initially calculated potential damages around $417 million, but Bayer disputed this, claiming total damages could be as low as $24.5 million. Gilden, a lawyer for the investors, emphasized the complexity of the case and the strong defenses presented by Bayer.

The settlement includes a proposed 27% allocation of the fund for attorney fees, slightly above the Ninth Circuit’s benchmark of 25%. Judge Seeborg requested further justification for this figure at the final approval hearing scheduled for October 30. The lawsuit stemmed from allegations that Bayer executives made false statements about the acquisition and failed to disclose significant litigation information, leading to artificially inflated stock prices that later plummeted following adverse court verdicts related to Roundup.

The certified class of investors includes those who purchased Bayer’s publicly traded American Depositary Receipts from May 2016 to July 2020. Bayer stated that the settlement is meant to resolve the litigation without admitting wrongdoing. Gilden expressed confidence that the settlement would ensure accountability under U.S. securities laws and provide closure for affected investors.

The investors are represented by Carol V. Gilden, Steven J. Toll, Christopher Lometti and Benjamin F. Jackson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Nicole Lavallee and Alexander S. Vahdat of Berman Tabacco.

The case is Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund et al. v. Bayer AG et al., case number 3:20-cv-04737, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Initial $177 Million Settlement In AT&T Data Breach Gets Preliminary Approval

A Texas federal judge has granted preliminary approval for a $177 million settlement in a case against AT&T. The company had faced numerous claims alleging it failed to adequately protect sensitive customer information during two significant data breaches. U.S. District Judge Ada E. Brown provided her initial approval in a 19-page order, deeming the proposed settlement “fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest” of the involved parties.

The settlement divides the funds into two classes: $149 million is designated for the AT&T 1 settlement class, which includes customers whose information was leaked onto the dark web, while $28 million will go to the AT&T 2 settlement class, consisting of customers whose call log data was accessed without authorization. The judge has stayed further proceedings and scheduled a final approval hearing for December.

The legal issues arose after AT&T revealed in March 2024 that sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers, of over 70 million customers had emerged on the dark web. Subsequently, in July, AT&T disclosed a broader breach, indicating that hackers had accessed phone call and text message logs of almost all its wireless customers during various periods from May 2022 to early 2023. However, the company clarified that the contents of these communications were not part of the breach and were not made publicly available.

The litigation alleged that AT&T’s cybersecurity measures were insufficient and did not conform to industry standards or federal guidelines, making the company vulnerable to such extensive cyberattacks. A multidistrict litigation process was established in the Northern District of Texas, also encompassing lawsuits against Snowflake Inc., a cloud provider that stored data compromised in the attacks.

The settlement will allocate funds not only for customer compensation but also for attorney fees and related expenses. Members of the AT&T 1 class may seek up to $5,000 for losses incurred since 2019, while those in the AT&T 2 class can claim up to $2,500 for losses from April 14, 2024, onward. Additionally, AT&T has agreed to strengthen its security measures to better protect customer information moving forward.

The AT&T 1 class is represented by W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm PC, Shauna Itri of Seeger Weiss LLP, James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, Jean Sutton Martin of Morgan & Morgan PA and Sean S. Modjarrad of Modjarrad Abusaad & Said.

The AT&T 2 class is represented by Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, John Heenan of Heenan & Cook, Raphael Graybill of Graybill Law Firm PC, J. Devlan Geddes of Goetz Geddes & Gardner PC and Jason S. Rathod of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP.

The case is In re: AT&T Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, case number 3:24-cv-00757, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Source: Law360

$51.4 Million AstraZeneca Antitrust Settlement

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Handa Pharmaceuticals LLC have agreed to pay a combined $51.4 million to settle claims that AstraZeneca paid off generic-drug makers, including Handa, to protect its antipsychotic drug Seroquel XR. This is according to a filing in Delaware federal court reporting the settlement.

The settlement, which follows nearly six years of litigation, applies to claims brought by a class of direct purchasers of the drug. AstraZeneca will pay $50.9 million, while Handa has already paid $494,000.

The purchasers stated that the proposed cash settlements are in the best interests of the class, as they assure substantial cash payments while avoiding the risks of trial and appeal.

Handa settled with the purchasers in late April, and on May 1, four days before trial, the purchasers and AstraZeneca reached an agreement in principle. During negotiations, Handa claimed it was financially incapable of paying more, but committed to providing substantial cooperation, including sworn statements and making its CEO available to testify at trial.

The court had previously certified a nationwide class of anyone who purchased 50-mg, 150-mg, 200-mg, or 300-mg strength of brand or generic Seroquel XR directly from the defendants between August 2015 and April 2017.

AstraZeneca has also reached a settlement with retailer plaintiffs, with the motion for preliminary approval expected to happen very soon.

It’s alleged in the litigation that AstraZeneca agreed to settlements with Handa and others to delay the launch of their generic versions of Seroquel XR for five years. In exchange, AstraZeneca agreed to delay the launch of its own generic for six months after the generics makers rolled out their products. The other generics makers include Par Pharmaceutical Inc., which filed for bankruptcy protection last year, and Accord Pharmaceuticals Inc., which was dismissed from the litigation in 2022.

The direct purchasers are represented by Bruce E. Gerstein, Jonathan Gerstein and David B. Rochelson of Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, Carmella P. Keener of Cooch & Taylor PA, David F. Sorensen, Caitlin G. Coslett, Andrew C. Curley and Julia R. McGrath of Berger Montague PC, Peter Kohn and Neill Clark of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Russell Chorush, Christopher M. First and Kyle S. Ruvolo of Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Susan Segura, David C. Raphael and Erin R. Leger of Smith Segura Raphael & Leger LLP, Stuart E. Des Roches, Dan Chiorean and Thomas Maas of Odom & Des Roches LLC, Dianne M. Nast, Joseph N. Roda and Michael D. Ford of NastLaw LLC and Michael L. Roberts, Karen S. Halbert, Stephanie E. Smith and Sarah E. DeLoach of Roberts Law Firm US PC.

The case is In re: Seroquel XR (Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate) Antitrust Litigation, case number 1:20-cv-01076, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Source: Law360

$167.5 Million Settlement After Exaggerated Benefits In Rice Energy Merger

EQT Corp. has agreed to pay $167.5 million to settle claims from investors who alleged the company exaggerated the benefits of its $6.7 billion merger with Rice Energy. This settlement, the largest stockholder suit deal ever in Western Pennsylvania federal court, was reached after six years of litigation and three mediation sessions, with the final session in May leading to the tentative agreement.

The class action, led by the Government of Guam Retirement Fund, Northeast Carpenters Annuity Fund, and Northeast Carpenters Pension Fund, claimed that EQT’s stock was inflated by false claims about the synergies between the holdings of the two companies in the Marcellus Shale oil and gas formation. Despite EQT’s arguments regarding loss causation and their assertion that plaintiffs’ damages were only a fraction of the settlement amount, the $167.5 million recovery is significant and notable as the largest securities class action recovery in the district’s history and the 14th largest in the Third Circuit.

Originally led by the Cambridge Retirement Fund, shareholders sued EQT in 2019, alleging that executives had oversold the benefits of the merger, claiming that combining the companies’ adjacent oil and gas leases would allow for longer, more productive horizontal wells. However, the promised synergies did not materialize, leading to a significant drop in the company’s stock value.

EQT had promised that the 2017 merger would bring $2.5 billion in synergies and save the company $100 million in 2018. Instead, the cost of drilling increased by $300 million in the third quarter of 2018, and a 13% stock drop erased nearly $700 million in shareholder value in a single day.

The court approved a class in 2022. Mediation sessions in 2021 and 2024 did not produce a settlement, and by August 2024, the parties had moved for summary judgment and filed competing motions to challenge each other’s expert witnesses. Lead counsel reviewed over 5 million pages of documents, participated in depositions of 33 fact witnesses and nine expert witnesses, and worked with experts on damages, loss causation, natural gas drilling, and corporate due diligence.

The proposed class is represented by Steven J. Toll, Daniel S. Sommers, S. Douglas Bunch, Christina D. Saler and Benjamin F. Jackson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Salvatore J. Graziano, Adam H. Wierzbowski, Jesse L. Jensen and Robert Kravetz of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, and Michael A. Comber of Comber Miller LLC.

The case is In Re: EQT Corp. Securities Litigation, case number 2:19-cv-00754, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Source: Law360

Supreme Court Rules Barring’s Act Does Not Apply To CRSC  

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Barring Act’s six-year statute of limitations for specific military-related claims does not apply to combat-related special compensation (CRSC). This ruling is a victory for around 9,000 veterans who filed their claims late but contend they are entitled to additional pay. 

The case involved Simon A. Soto, a medically retired Marine, who was diagnosed with combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Soto’s retroactive special compensation was limited to six years due to late filing. The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, reverses a previous Federal Circuit decision that upheld the Barring Act’s statute of limitations over the CRSC statute. 

Soto argued that his CRSC should have included an additional year of compensation, as the CRSC statute displaces the Barring Act’s generalized statute of limitations. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the CRSC confers settlement authority by prescribing who determines the validity of a claim and the amount due. Congress does not need to use specific words like “settle” to remove a statute from the Barring Act’s purview. 

The CRSC payments supplement Veterans Affairs disability compensation for retired servicemembers who cannot receive both retired pay and VA disability compensation. Initially reserved for those with at least 20 years of service, the law was amended in 2008 to include medically retired veterans with under 20 years of service. Soto claimed the amendment should have provided him another year of retroactive compensation, but the Barring Act limited the payments, and he failed to seek a waiver in time. 

Justice Thomas wrote that the CRSC statute establishes a comprehensive compensation scheme for a narrowly defined group of deserving claimants, displacing the Barring Act’s default settlement procedures, including its limitations period. 

Government lawyers argued that the CRSC statute lacks language authorizing the Secretary of Defense to settle claims beyond the Barring Act’s limits. They also contended that veterans like Soto are already eligible for waivers, and reversing the circuit court’s decision could affect other military compensation programs governed by the Barring Act. However, Soto’s lawyer, Tacy Flint, argued that such a decision might destabilize only one or two programs. 

Soto is represented by Tacy F. Flint, J. Simone Jones, Nathaniel C. Love, Emily M. Wexler, Ankur Shingal, Camille J. Sanches, Lakeisha F. Mays and Kimberly R. Quick of Sidley Austin LLP, as well as Barton F. Stichman, Rochelle Bobroff and Renee Burbank of the National Veterans Legal Services Program. 

The case is Simon A. Soto, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner v. United States, case number 24-320, in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Source: Law360 

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Depo-Provera MDL Issues Proposed Scheduling Order

On June 19, the parties in the Depo-Provera litigation proposed a scheduling order in the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Court that sets deadlines for important pre-trial proceedings.  The proposed schedule sets preemption discovery to conclude at the end of July, with preemption briefing to be completed by September 26.  Along with this preemption briefing will be a summary judgment motion due in late August, and an oral argument on September 29.  

The preemption issues center around whether claims that fall under the purview of Pfizer’s “authorized generics” are preempted under federal law.  Plaintiffs are confident that the law is on our side with this issue.  Assuming that plaintiffs will obtain a favorable ruling on preemption, general causation discovery will continue into 2026 with expert challenges due by February 10 of next year.  Depo-Provera lawsuits were consolidated in an MDL in February 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, with Judge M. Casey Rogers presiding.

Depo-Provera is an injectable birth control medication that was originally approved by the FDA in 1992. Depo-Provera became linked to meningioma tumors, which are tumors that develop on the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord. Although most often benign, meningiomas can create a myriad of neurological issues, such as seizures, strokes, and migraines.  Lawsuits against Depo-Provera increased after studies were published within the last year, solidifying this causal connection.

Hair Relaxer Update

  The Hair Relaxer litigation, focused on bringing justice to women who used dangerous chemical hair relaxer products for years without manufacturer’s warning of the risks of cancer and other reproductive diseases, is moving forward quickly in the MDL. 

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where all federal court cases are consolidated, has issued an order setting forth key dates leading to the first federal court trials in 2026. This process is commonly referred to as bellwether trials, allowing the parties to identify plaintiffs who have used products and suffered injuries representative of the larger groups of plaintiffs for the purpose of testing the merits of the plaintiff and defense evidence and allegations. 

The first pool of bellwether plaintiffs is being selected now. Lawyers representing these injured women have already begun deposing corporate representatives for the hair relaxer manufacturers and will continue this process for the next few months. In October 2025, plaintiffs will begin identifying their expert witnesses for trial, followed by the defense expert witnesses in December 2026. 

GLP1/Ozempic Litigation Update

The GLP1/Ozempic MDL (MDL 3094) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania continues to expand, now encompassing over 1,800 cases. Plaintiffs allege that GLP1 receptor agonists, including Ozempic and Wegovy, cause severe gastrointestinal injuries such as gastroparesis, DVT, and intestinal blockages.

Following the May 14 evidentiary hearing, the court is reviewing expert submissions on causation and diagnostic criteria. The hearing focused on the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the link between GLP1 drugs and gastroparesis. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter is expected to issue rulings on these foundational issues in the coming weeks.

Meanwhile, lawyers on both sides are actively preparing for the next phase of litigation. Plaintiffs remain optimistic, citing the growing number of consistent injury reports and the strength of their expert analyses. Defendants continue to challenge the scientific basis of the claims and are pursuing motions to dismiss portions of the Master Complaint.

Ultra-processed Food 

Ultra-processed foods are products that are significantly altered from their original form and pose a significant threat to consumers. These foods, which are crafted with artificial additives, preservatives, and sweeteners, are linked to serious health conditions and chronic diseases. 

On June 1, a bipartisan bill was sent to Texas Governor Greg Abbot that could substantially impact the packaging of ultra-processed food as we know it. The bill is aimed at enhancing consumer transparency in food labeling. If signed into law, it will require the following warning to be included on packaging of foods that contain one of 44 specific ingredients: “WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.”

The 44 named ingredients in Senate Bill 25 are commonly used in ultra-processed foods and have been either banned or otherwise similarly regulated by other countries due to the potential impacts they may pose to human health. If implemented, this change will likely have a larger-scale impact on the ultra-processed food industry, which often employs standardized practices to comply with state laws nationwide. Most importantly, it will allow consumers to make healthier decisions for themselves and their families. 

Beasley Allen lawyers are actively investigating cases involving minors who regularly consumed ultra-processed foods and were later diagnosed with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and/or Type 2 diabetes. 

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Leighton Johnson, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section, at 800-898-2034 or by email at [email protected].

Kratom – Consumer Protection And Safety Concerns

Kratom is a plant material from Southeast Asia that produces opioid- and stimulant-like effects. Kratom can be consumed in many ways, including pills, capsules, powders, crushed and smoked, brewed as tea, or by chewing the raw leaves. Spurred on by a national lobbying effort by the American Kratom Association, sales in the United States have increased dramatically in recent years, turning Kratom into a billion-dollar industry.  

The FDA, however, has expressed serious concerns about Kratom’s addictive effects and the rash of associated hospitalizations and deaths it has caused throughout the country. Kratom contains a chemical compound called mitragynine, which can stimulate the same brain receptors as opioids. Kratom affects these brain receptors in much the same way as morphine, which creates a tremendous risk of addiction, abuse, and dependence. 

According to the FDA’s recent public health advisories, there are no drug products containing Kratom that are legally on the market in the U.S., and the FDA has not approved any prescription or over-the-counter drug products containing Kratom or its two main chemical components, mitragynine or 7-OH-mitragynine.  

Additionally, the FDA is actively working to limit Kratom availability in the U.S. by warning consumers about its serious risks, including liver toxicity, seizures, substance use disorders, and in some cases, death. The FDA is also taking action against companies selling unapproved Kratom products and collaborating with other federal agencies to restrict its importation and distribution. However, the agency faces significant challenges in regulating Kratom due to its shadowy and fragmented supply chain, which often involves unregistered entities operating through various channels, including online sales and small retail shops. 

Although the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration calls Kratom a “drug of concern”, it is not currently regulated as a controlled substance. On the state level, Alabama and several other states have banned the sale and possession of Kratom outright, while others have introduced legislation to significantly restrict the marketing and distribution of Kratom products.  Sadly, though, many states still allow the sale of Kratom at vape shops and convenience stores – a fact that has led many people to refer to it as “Gas Station Heroin.”

Lawyers at Beasley Allen are working diligently to combat the spread of this highly dangerous product, which is typically sold without any warnings or information concerning health risks, dosing instructions, serving sizes, the concentration of mitragynine in each serving, or the other active ingredients that manufacturers add to their Kratom products. 

Texas Supreme Court Closes Legal Loophole 

The Texas Supreme Court has closed a significant loophole that allowed defendants to challenge jurisdiction in cases with multiple plaintiffs. The court ruled that the presence of multiple plaintiffs alone does not justify appellate review. 

In a decision written by Justice James P. Sullivan, the court addressed a narrow exception to the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies’ prohibition on interlocutory appeals of venue disputes. This exception had expanded into a loophole, allowing appeals in cases with multiple plaintiffs. 

The ruling came from a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of a 6-year-old girl killed by her school bus in April 2022. The suit was filed in Dallas, but the bus manufacturer and seller sought to transfer the venue to Parker or Comal County. The trial court denied the motion, and the companies’ interlocutory appeal was affirmed by the appellate court. That led to the high court’s review. 

The Texas Supreme Court determined that the lower appellate court should not have taken jurisdiction, and that was because the plaintiffs’ claims were identical. The court emphasized that the rule does not grant appellate jurisdiction simply because multiple plaintiffs are involved. The narrow exception is meant to prevent plaintiffs with no connection to a venue from joining those who can establish proper venue. 

The high court vacated the lower appellate court’s judgment and remanded the case to the trial court. There has been a great deal of interest in this development. Beasley Allen lawyers who handle Mass Torts Litigation are monitoring this case.  

The Sayres are represented by Muhammad S. Aziz and Karl P. Long of Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner, Jeffrey S. Levinger of Levinger PC and J. Carl Cecere of Cecere PC. 

The case is Rush Truck Centers of Texas LP et al. v. Sean Sayre et al., case number 24-0040, in the Supreme Court of Texas. 

Source: Law360 

New Jersey Supreme Court Grants Multicounty Litigation Status For Roundup Lawsuits

The New Jersey Supreme Court has approved a renewed application for lawsuits against Monsanto Co. and its parent company, Bayer AG, to be designated as “multicounty litigation.” These lawsuits allege injuries from exposure to the company’s weed killer, Roundup. This decision, announced on May 28, brings a wave of litigation to the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Gregg A. Padovano in Bergen County. Judge Padovano will oversee pretrial matters for all pending and future Roundup-related personal injury actions filed in New Jersey and may return individual cases to their original venues for trial.

The Supreme Court’s order also prohibits the appointment of any mediator or special master without approval from the chief justice. The lawsuits claim that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, caused serious health effects, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

This multicounty litigation status follows the plaintiffs’ second application earlier this year in 36 cases across eight counties. Their February 27 submission predicted that the number of cases would soon exceed 100. It was argued that centralization would promote judicial efficiency by avoiding inconsistent rulings and duplicative discovery.

In June 2024, the Supreme Court declined to designate the Roundup litigation as multicounty litigation, citing a limited number of cases. Monsanto opposed the renewed application, arguing in a March letter that the case volume still did not justify centralization.

The Roundup litigation is pending or on appeal nationwide. In Philadelphia, three recent bellwether trials resulted in multimillion-dollar verdicts against Monsanto, including a $2.25 billion jury award in January 2024, later reduced to $404 million by the trial judge. However, Monsanto prevailed in a fourth trial held in Philadelphia, where jurors found the company was not negligent.

Monsanto issued a statement saying that this decision regards venue and legal process and is not a decision on the merits of the claims at issue. The case will continue.

We will continue to monitor this case and report further in the August issue. 

Source: Law360

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

Billion Dollar Opioid Settlement Backed By 55 Attorneys General

The attorneys general of 55 U.S. states and territories have reached a $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sackler family, over the company’s role in exacerbating the nationwide opioid epidemic through the marketing and sale of their pain medication, OxyContin. The settlement will resolve ongoing litigation against Purdue and the Sacklers, and protect them from future civil liabilities. It’s believed this could help the company win court approval for bankruptcy reorganization. 

The Sacklers will be personally responsible for around $6.5 billion of the $7.4 billion settlement, with Purdue paying the remainder. Payouts would begin after Purdue wins “sufficient creditor support” for its Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, with money going to individuals, state and local governments, and Native American tribes. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Sacklers will also cede control of Purdue and be barred from selling opioids in the U.S. going forward.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall celebrated the terms of the settlement in an official statement. He stated:

Today is a testament to our steadfast commitment to providing justice and holding the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma accountable. Our commitment to the first-in-the-nation litigation strategy has positioned Alabama to bring over three quarters of a billion dollars back to our state—a state that the opioid crisis has disproportionally impacted.

It’s important for local communities to take swift action to sign on to the agreement to ensure they receive the opportunity to put that money to work for our Alabama citizens in need. Together with prudent decision making, we can make a difference for our communities and law enforcement who desperately need the support.

Alabama’s state and local governments will receive as much as $75 million from the settlement over the next 15 years, with most of those funds being distributed in the first three years. That money will go toward supporting addiction treatment, prevention and recovery in the state.

Like prior opioid settlements, the settlement with Purdue and the Sacklers will involve the resolution of legal claims by state and local governments. The local government sign-on and voting solicitation process for this settlement moving forward will be contingent on bankruptcy court approval.

Attorney General Marshall’s office also noted that, including the Purdue settlement, Alabama has now obtained settlements committing “nearly $730 million in funds from companies that helped fuel the opioid epidemic.”

Alabama is among the states that have been most heavily impacted by the opioid crisis, with one of the highest opioid prescription rates in the country. According to the Alabama Department of Mental Health, 6,307 Alabamians died from overdoses between 2015 and 2021, with the majority of overdoses attributed to opioids. In 2021 alone, opioids caused 981 overdose deaths in Alabama, accounting for 70 percent of all overdose deaths in the state.

Sources: CBS News, Alabama Political Reporter

Recent Developments In Paraquat Settlement Negotiations

While there have been no significant updates since our last communication, we will highlight some important points regarding current developments in the paraquat litigation.

Settlement Negotiations

The ongoing tentative settlement has led to an increase in cases added to the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). As of now, there has been an increase in the total number of filings by 127, bringing the total number of filed cases to approximately 6,100. The specifics of the global settlement framework remain undisclosed, generating considerable anticipation as interested parties awaited the expected status update to occur on June 11, 2025.

On June 20, 2025, the MDL court issued an order extending the 30-day stay on all case-specific discovery deadlines. This extension allows for additional time to facilitate productive discussions aimed at finalizing the settlement. The parties now have until July 31, 2025, enabling counsel to concentrate on finalizing the terms of the settlement agreement. Obligations imposed under prior case management orders remain in full effect. 

As filing numbers continue to rise, it is crucial to ensure that any qualifying clients are included in the settlement structure. We cannot stress enough the importance of reaching out to a lawyer at our firm to determine your eligibility for filing a Paraquat lawsuit. You may qualify if you or a loved one experienced long-term exposure to paraquat and have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. High-stakes litigations like these often see an increase in case filings, and the opportunity for participation may close sooner than anticipated once the settlement is finalized.

CONSUMER CORNER

FTC Chair Ferguson Reversed His Recusal, Moving PBM Lawsuit Forward

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair, Andrew Ferguson, has changed his decision to recuse himself from the agency’s legal fight with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). Initially, Ferguson stepped back from the lawsuit due to his prior involvement in advising Virginia’s Attorney General on whether to file an amicus brief in a class action case against PBMs during his tenure as the State’s Solicitor General. At that time, there were three commissioners eligible to pursue the case, and his recusal did not impede the proceedings. 

However, the situation changed after former Chair Lina Khan resigned and President Trump fired the two remaining Democratic commissioners, leaving no commissioners able to participate. Consequently, the FTC issued an order seeking a stay in the case due to the lack of available commissioners.   Ferguson’s recent decision to no longer recuse himself from the case now clears the way for the lawsuit to resume.  In his public FTC statement, Ferguson wrote:

After closely consulting with my agency’s ethics attorneys, I have decided to no longer recuse myself from the matter to ensure that the case can continue. Federal ethics guidelines are a bedrock of our justice system. I would like to thank the FTC’s Designated Agency Ethics Official for advising me on this matter, which is of utmost importance to the American people. 

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 three largest PBMs, allowing them to control almost 95% of all prescription drugs filled in the United States with very little transparency. The largest PBMs also integrate with the largest insurers and retail pharmacies, causing even more control issues within our healthcare system.  

The legal battle between the FTC and the three largest PBMs in the country, Optum Rx, Express Scripts and Caremark—all vertically integrated with UnitedHealth Group, Cigna and CVS Health, involves allegations that the PBMs committed anticompetitive practices and artificially raised the price of insulin drugs.  The FTC alleges that these companies push pharmaceutical manufacturers to compete for favorable formulary placement by raising prices, which in turn increases rebates paid to the PBM.

The PBMs responded with a countersuit, accusing the FTC of overstepping its efforts to reform the industry and pointing to Big Pharma as the culprit for rising drug prices. The lawsuit stems from many years of investigation by the FTC into PBMs, their pricing practices, the effect of vertical integration, and their relationship with group purchasing organizations.

With Ferguson’s return, the FTC has resumed its litigation. The stay initially imposed due to the lack of commissioners is expected to last 105 days, with an evidentiary hearing scheduled for 225 days after the stay lifts. This means the case is now back on track, though the timeline remains fluid depending on further legal maneuvers and appeals.

Fighting against the unlawful and abusive practices of PBMs is something Beasley Allen has committed to doing.  Our lawyers have represented states and municipalities regarding the various schemes committed by PBMs, and we will continue the fight.  

Sources: Fierce Healthcare, Federal Trade Commission

Supreme Court Ruled FCC Orders Can Be Assessed By District Courts

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that district courts can independently assess regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This decision, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, reverses the Ninth Circuit’s stance that lower courts must defer to the FCC’s orders under the federal Hobbs Act. The case involved McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates challenging the FCC’s 2019 declaration that online faxes are not covered by the TCPA.

Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that the Hobbs Act does not prevent district courts from independently evaluating an agency’s interpretation of a statute during enforcement proceedings. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that the Hobbs Act clearly prohibits litigants from contesting the validity of agency actions in later district court proceedings if they did not seek pre-enforcement judicial review.

This decision follows the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the Chevron doctrine that required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The ruling raises questions about the justices’ willingness to further limit regulatory powers while enhancing judicial authority.

McLaughlin Chiropractic argued that the Hobbs Act does not prevent courts from examining the validity of previous agency orders under the TCPA. McKesson contended that maintaining circuit courts’ exclusive jurisdiction over certain agency orders is crucial for regulatory consistency.

During oral arguments, several justices appeared open to allowing district courts more leeway to review FCC orders, although pivotal votes from Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts remained uncertain. This decision comes after the court’s 2019 consideration of PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, where the justices did not address whether the Hobbs Act requires district courts to defer to agency orders due to unresolved questions in the case.

The chiropractic group is represented by Matthew W.H. Wessler, Jonathan E. Taylor and Gregory A. Beck of Gupta Wessler LLP and Glenn L. Hara of Anderson & Wanca.

The case is McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates Inc. et al. v. McKesson Corp. et al., case number 23-1226, in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Source: Law360

Security Crisis Involving Smartphones After Chinese Hacks 

Cybersecurity investigators have discovered a sophisticated cyberattack targeting smartphones of individuals in government, politics, tech, and journalism. The crashes, which began late last year, continued into 2025, indicating that hackers could infiltrate phones without user interaction. The victims were linked to fields of interest to China’s government and had previously been targeted by Chinese hackers. 

Reportedly, foreign hackers, particularly those associated with China’s military and intelligence service, have increasingly targeted smartphones and mobile devices as weak points in U.S. cyber defenses. This vulnerability poses significant risks to sensitive information and American interests. Thus, a serious crisis is at hand, and it can involve national security.  

U.S. authorities warned of a Chinese hacking campaign aimed at accessing texts and phone conversations of Americans. Chinese hackers also targeted phones used by Donald Trump and JD Vance during the 2024 campaign. The Chinese government denies these allegations and accuses the U.S. of cyberoperations against China. 

Mobile devices, especially those of top government officials, are valuable targets due to the sensitive information they contain. Despite robust security on most smartphones, apps and connected devices often lack necessary protections, making them potential entry points for hackers. 

Federal officials have launched a “cyber trust mark” program for connected devices that meet security standards. However, experts emphasize the importance of users following basic security precautions to prevent lapses that could be exploited by foreign nations. 

All of us must take advantage of all available means of protecting our devices. That is especially true for public officials and individuals in key governmental positions. You can rest assured that the hackers are up to date on ways to obtain sensitive information.  

Source: Claims Journal 

Judge Blocks NIH Grant Cuts, Citing Discrimination

A Massachusetts federal judge has blocked the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from cutting hundreds of grant programs, citing “palpable” racial and LGBTQ discrimination. U.S. District Judge William G. Young criticized the NIH for failing to provide evidence supporting the cancellation of grants related to vaccines, transgender issues, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, COVID-19, and climate change. The judge described the government’s justification as “conclusory statements” and emphasized the discriminatory nature of the cuts.

A coalition of 16 states filed a lawsuit in April against the NIH’s grant cancellations, which was combined with another lawsuit by the American Public Health Association. The affected institutions, including the University of Massachusetts and the University of Washington, warned of significant economic consequences and disruptions to their research projects.

Judge Young’s ruling restores grants only for the plaintiffs, noting that 2,282 NIH grants totaling nearly $3.8 billion have been cut. The states argued that the targeted research areas had prior congressional authorization, and the cuts violated several federal laws.

The government claimed the court lacked jurisdiction over contractual disputes. But Judge Young asserted that the lawsuit was not contractual in nature. Massachusetts deputy state solicitor Gerard Cedrone highlighted the Public Health Service Act’s priority for advancing the health of underrepresented groups.

During the hearing, Judge Young challenged the government’s reasoning for canceling DEI research grants, which were deemed “nonscientific” and allegedly supported unlawful discrimination. The judge found no evidence to support this claim.

In a separate case, the NIH faced another lawsuit for capping funding for indirect research costs, which was blocked by a judge. The plaintiffs celebrated the latest decision, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based scientific research.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., says it is considering legal options, including appealing the order. The agency maintains that funding should support evidence-based practices rather than ideological agendas.

The case is Massachusetts et al. v. Kennedy et al., case number 1:25-cv-10814, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Source: Law360

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Works For Clients

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

For over 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, Ultra-Processed Foods, 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 and Paraquat. 

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, Civil & Human Rights, 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, Auto Products, Aviation Accidents, Defective Tires, Negligent Security, On-the-Job Injuries and Truck Accident cases. 

The Administrative Section

The Administrative Section consists of several departments: Accounting, Operations, Human Resources (HR), Information Technology (IT), and Marketing. Michelle Parks serves as the Director of Accounting, while Michelle Fulmer is the Director of Operations. Kimberly Youngblood holds the position of Executive Director, overseeing HR, IT, and Marketing.

Since we reorganized the firm’s structure in 1998, Beasley Allen’s record speaks for itself. The revised structure – without any doubt – 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 have been able to focus on cases within their Sections. This has allowed them to achieve favorable results. There are major differences in each Section, both as to the law and industry requirements. 

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 the website (BeasleyAllen.com/Practices/). The following are the current case activity listings for the Beasley Allen Litigation 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 
• Ultra-Processed Foods
• 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.
• Ultra-Processed Foods
  We are actively investigating cases where ultra-processed foods are linked to type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, especially in individuals diagnosed before age 18.
• 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

As we have made quite clear on numerous occasions, Beasley Allen is a civil litigation law firm solely handling cases for plaintiffs.  From the firm’s beginning in 1979, Beasley Allen lawyers have only represented victims of wrongdoing, and that will never change. 

The firm 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 Corporate America is when a company is the victim of wrongdoing and is a plaintiff 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 this litigation is complex, complicated and difficult. 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. Visit our website, BeasleyAllen.com and click the Articles link.

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Don’t Let Reality Fall Short: Managing Client Recovery Expectations Amid Health Plan Reimbursement Claim

Wesley Merillat, a lawyer in our firm’s Toxic Torts Section, has some recommendations that will assist lawyers in an area of trial law that many trial lawyers will face. Let’s see what Wesley has for our lawyer readers. 

Imagine this scenario: your client suffers serious, permanent injuries in an accident. You work hard and finally secure a $150,000 policy limit settlement. It’s far from making them whole—but it’s all there is. At last, you make that long-anticipated call: “There’s a policy limit settlement offer.” Years of stress and uncertainty seem to end. Cue client celebration (and maybe 5-star review).

The check arrives. You deposit it into your IOLTA account, calculate fees and expenses, and then disburse funds to your client. But soon after, you and your client are named defendants in a lawsuit brought by the client’s self-funded ERISA health plan. It turns out they paid $407,622.76 in medical bills related to the accident. Now they want 100% of the settlement—your client’s portion, the case expenses, and your contingency fees—turned over to them.

The U.S. District Court agrees, finding that federal law preempts the made-whole and common fund doctrines. It awards the health plan the full $150,000, plus an additional $28,000 in attorney fees. Cue client disappointment (and maybe a bar complaint).

This isn’t some hypothetical. It’s a real case: Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc. v. Jones (No. 2:2019cv01329, W.D. Wash. 2020). And it’s a sobering reminder of the destructive potential of health insurance liens and reimbursement rights if not properly managed from the start.

For attorneys who dabble in personal injury or mass torts, this minefield is often underestimated. The legal landscape—especially around ERISA, Medicare, Medicaid, preemption, and private plans—is complex and too dense to fully unpack here. But the core practice point is simple: communicate early, clearly, and often. Starting on day one, do the following:

1. Identify – Take inventory of every party who might assert a claim against the settlement. Put on your defense hat early. Identify what rights exist, what laws apply, and what defenses or relief might be available. Leverage is often strongest at the beginning.
2. Educate – Many lawyers stumble here. Clients don’t understand ERISA, subrogation, or the difference between a medical lien and a reimbursement claim. They have no idea that repayment demands can delay disbursement for months. Help them understand. Set expectations. Don’t avoid, delay, or “protect” them from this conversation.
3. Factor – Lien exposure is central to net recovery. Never negotiate or settle without accounting for it. Understand how the plan’s language, recovery rights, and the structure of a settlement—e.g., special needs trusts, wage loss allocations, wrongful death claims—may affect outcomes.

Health insurance claims can derail even the best settlement. A proactive, thoughtful approach—grounded in early diligence and clear communication—protects your client and protects you.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

 Amy Brown

Amy Brown, who has been with Beasley Allen for 24 years, is a paralegal in the firm’s Mass Torts Section. She assists the Talc lawyers, other paralegals, and staff assistants by reviewing incoming Talc cases, aiding with daily procedures, and acting as a liaison between the firm and referring lawyers. Under the direction of the section’s attorneys, Amy also assists with case investigations, updates, document management, and special projects or tasks as needed. The role of a paralegal at Beasley Allen is extremely important. 

Amy and her late husband, JJ, would have celebrated their 29th anniversary this past June. They have three children: Cadey, 26, who also works in the Mass Torts Section at Beasley Allen; and twin boys Zach and Tyler, both 21. Zach is a firefighter/EMT, while Tyler studies accounting, business, computer science, and astrology at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Amy is also a “YaYa” to five pets: Ryder (German Shepherd), and two Siamese cats, Loki and Saige, plus two Labs, Kate and Nelli Roux. Amy enjoys spending time with family and friends in her spare time, often at home or on the beach. Amy loves traveling whenever possible.

Amy says she appreciates Beasley Allen’s Christian values and family-friendly atmosphere, where caring and understanding among employees and clients are a priority. We are exceptionally grateful to have Amy, a hard-working and dedicated employee, with us!

Willie Fred Gamble 

Willie Fred Gamble, known appropriately at Beasley Allen as “Big Poppi,” celebrated two decades at Beasley Allen this past February!  As our go-to mail clerk, Willie Fred has been a familiar face in the office for years, always bringing smiles and spreading positivity wherever he goes. Making his rounds multiple times daily, Big Poppi delivers mail, paperwork, and packages while handling other requests to assist Beasley Allen lawyers and support staff. He always takes a minute to greet everyone, and if it’s your birthday, you might be treated to his fun rendition of “Happy Birthday.” 

Willie Fred is passionate about mission work and helping those in need. He helps the homeless, volunteers at the Salvation Army, and even runs seasonal Boston Butt sales to support the Forgotten Children Ministry, a charitable organization dedicated to supporting disadvantaged children and families in need. 

When he talks about his family, Big Poppi highlights his work and church families at Beasley Allen and St. James Methodist Church in many ways. He says he loves the connections he makes at work and often shares jokes or songs to brighten someone’s day. Willie Fred enjoys hunting, fishing, and watching movies when he is off the clock. 

Willie Fred played college football at Oklahoma State, where he was an outstanding offensive lineman. He is a big sports fan, pulling for teams like the New York Giants, Oklahoma State, and the Alabama Crimson Tide. Occasionally, he says he even “roots for Auburn to support Mr. Beasley!” 

We’re fortunate to have “Big Poppi” at Beasley Allen — he truly brings joy to our team. He is a definite asset and a proven “morale booster.”

Willie Fred says what he enjoys most about working at Beasley Allen is the opportunity to make others feel good. He is grateful for the support he receives from all at Beasley Allen, especially during tough times. We are incredibly thankful to have Big Poppi at Beasley Allen!

Warner Hornsby 

Warner Hornsby joined Beasley Allen in 2016 and is a principal in the firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability section. His practice is focused on serious injury and death cases stemming from automobile accidents and defective products. Driven by a passion for helping the disadvantaged, Warner is actively involved in pro bono work. 

Warner’s journey to becoming a lawyer began at 13 when he witnessed his dad, Clay Hornsby, try a wrongful death case at the Jefferson County courthouse. Warner reflects, “The emotional aftermath of that trial, especially the gratitude expressed by the victim’s daughter, left a lasting impression on me and solidified my desire to become a lawyer.” 

Warner’s grandfather, Sonny Hornsby, an outstanding trial lawyer, served as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Sonny has to be very proud and happy to see Warner carrying on the family tradition. 

Warner highlights his favorite aspect of practicing law, which centers on two main points, he explains:

First and foremost, my core motivation is helping people. To truly enjoy this profession, you must be passionate about assisting others. Lawyers are fundamentally problem solvers, and I feel incredibly fortunate to be part of a firm where I can make a meaningful difference in people’s lives every day.

Beyond his legal career, Warner is actively involved in the Alabama State Bar, serving on the Executive Committee and the Young Lawyers Section. He follows in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, who were tremendously successful lawyers. In his personal life, Warner enjoys soccer, deer hunting, and spending time with family at their cabin on Lake Martin. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the University of the South: Sewanee and a J.D. from the University of Alabama School of Law.

At Beasley Allen, Warner says he values colleagues’ collaborative spirit and support, believing that the firm’s dedication to their clients is a shared calling rather than just a profession. He takes pride in never being asked to step back from a challenging case, reinforcing the firm’s ethos of advocacy. Warner is an exceptionally talented lawyer devoted to championing his clients. He is truly a “trial lawyer” in every respect. We are grateful to have Warner with us!

James Lampkin 

James Lampkin has been with Beasley Allen since 2011. He is a principal in the firm’s Mass Torts Section, focusing on cases against major social media companies for those affected by their platforms. He is also dedicated to making a difference through pro bono work, which he values immensely. Before moving to the plaintiff’s side, James handled significant cases in civil defense. 

Inspired by his paternal grandmother, who raised him and his brother, James developed an interest in law from her stories about judges and lawyers who frequented the coffee shop in the Montgomery County Courthouse, where she occasionally worked when not working at the Montgomery County Youth Facility. 

James was the first in his family to earn a professional degree. James says the most rewarding part of practicing law is serving his clients, acting as a counselor and listener to understand their stories and needs.

James and his wife, Martha, are celebrating their 34th anniversary this August. They have two children who are in the medical field and three grandchildren. They live in a small town southwest of Montgomery and enjoy outdoor activities on their farm. In his spare time, James likes hunting, riding his tractor, and watching Alabama football.

At Beasley Allen, James values the firm’s commitment to supporting its staff and its strong client service philosophy, which profoundly influences his practice. James loves serving his clients, seeing his role as more than just providing legal advice; he aims to be a counselor and listener, ensuring he truly understands their needs. We are most fortunate to have James, a talented lawyer, who is committed to upholding the Rule of Law and seeking justice for his clients!

Michelle Shamblin 

Michelle Shamblin has been part of the Beasley Allen team for nearly ten years. As a paralegal working with LaBarron Boone in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, Michelle handles various tasks, including drafting pleadings, assisting with discovery, filing documents, and corresponding with clients to keep them informed about their cases. She also assists LaBarron in preparing clients for depositions and other necessary tasks.  

Michelle and her husband, Richard, have been married for 38 years. The couple spent much of their life in West Virginia before relocating to Alabama nearly a decade ago. They are proud parents to two sons: Jacob, currently deployed as a JAG officer in Guantanamo Bay, and Aaron, a military retiree. Their family has expanded to include two wonderful daughters-in-law, Mallorie and Jamie, along with six grandchildren: Tristan, Levi, Madison, Noah, Thea, and Phoebe. 

Michelle describes her grandchildren as the light of her life and the heart of everything she does. Michelle enjoys gardening, sewing, and raising chickens and quail in her spare time. However, her favorite activity is spending time with her grandchildren whenever possible. Michelle holds a Master of Social Work, a Master of Legal Studies, and a Juris Doctor degree.

Michelle says her favorite aspect of working at Beasley Allen is her work family. She appreciates how everyone at Beasley Allen is always willing to help each other out, creating a supportive environment.  Michelle is a talented, hard-working employee. We are blessed to have her with us!

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Several of our staff employees and one of our lawyers, all featured in this issue of the Report, share some of their favorite Bible verses with us.

Amy Brown

Amy’s favorite verse comes from Proverbs.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not trust in your own understanding. 6 Agree with Him in all your ways, and He will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5-6

Michelle Shamblin

Michelle shares several of her favorite verses. The first serves as a reminder that it is essential to advocate for and support those who cannot speak for themselves, especially the elderly, many of whom are confined to nursing homes and often overlooked.

Do the right thing for the weak and those without a father. Stand up for the rights of those who are suffering and in need. 4 Save the weak and those in need. Set them free from the hand of the sinful. Psalms 82:3-4

A man who is right with God cares for his animal, but the sinful man is hard and has no pity. Proverbs 12:10

James Lampkin

James offers one of his favorite verses below.

For I was hungry and you gave Me food to eat. I was thirsty and you gave Me water to drink. I was a stranger and you gave Me a room. 36 I had no clothes and you gave Me clothes to wear. I was sick and you cared for Me. I was in prison and you came to see Me.’

37 “Then those that are right with God will say, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You? When did we see You thirsty and give You a drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and give You a room? When did we see You had no clothes and we gave You clothes? 39 And when did we see You sick or in prison and we came to You?’ 40 Then the King will say, ‘For sure, I tell you, because you did it to one of the least of My brothers, you have done it to Me.’ Matthew 25:35-40

Closing Observations

The Rule Of Law

I have previously written on a subject that can’t be stressed enough in our country. The Rule of Law is a basic principle that helps keep society fair and functioning. We must remember that at its core, the Rule of Law means that everyone is subject to the law, no matter their status, position, or power. Whether a person is an ordinary citizen, a corporate officer, or a government official, the same Rule of Law applies to all. This concept helps protect our rights, maintain order, and ensure that justice is carried out fairly.

The Rule of Law plays a key role in our daily lives. It ensures that courts make decisions based on facts and legal principles, that law enforcement officers follow proper procedures, and that disputes are resolved through fair processes, not through threats, favoritism, or cruel force. The Rule of Law also serves as a check on power, making sure no person is above the law and that both citizens and those in authority are held accountable for their actions.

When the Rule of Law is respected, it builds trust in institutions and helps create a society where people feel safe and are treated equally. But it’s not just the job of judges and lawmakers – every single American citizen shares the responsibility of upholding the rule of law. By understanding and respecting the rules, we help protect not only our own freedoms but also the freedoms of others.

In the end, the Rule of Law turns power into responsibility and ensures that freedom is a right for all, not just a privilege for a few. It’s absolutely necessary for all citizens in our country, and that includes public officials, to respect the Rule of Law, the judicial system, and our judges. It’s absolutely necessary for all Americans to obey and follow the law!

MONTHLY REMINDERS

I have been asked why this section is included in every issue. My consistent response is that they are profoundly important. So, the following reminders from key individuals are for all of us at Beasley Allen. The reminders are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. In addition to all of us at Beasley Allen, we send these reminders to all who get the Report each month. 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 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

Sara Baker Beasley

I have been asked quite often what persons have had an influence on me in my life. There have been many, but one person tops the list. Without any doubt my wife Sara is that person. Sara and I have been married for a very long time. God blessed me with a perfect wife, and Sara has stuck with me through the good and the bad times. She has been a great wife, mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother.

Sara graduated from Ensley High School, Emory University, and Auburn University. She also got her master’s degree in Education from the University of Alabama. She had all A’s throughout with one exception. Her mother gave her a “B” in the fifth grade at Adamsville Elementary School. I asked Mrs. Baker if she was sorry that she had given her daughter the “B.” Her answer made a lasting impression on me. Mrs. Baker replied, “Yes, I am very sorry, but as her teacher, I knew that was what Sara deserved.”

I can say without reservation that I have never heard Sara say a bad word about anybody. She has compassion for everyone and has a talent for remembering names. Sara taught nursing at Troy University in Montgomery. I have been told by a large number of nurses over the years that Sara got them through school. 

Sara is now recovering from an illness, and she has the determination to deal with it. I am asking all of you to pray for Sara.